I was grateful for his arguments against locating Celsus in Rome. Nevertheless I didn't quite buy his arguments in favor of the Pergamum as Celsus's locale.
This post is not about where I locate Celsus. It will be obvious from what follows that I think he wrote from Alexandria. I am not alone in that regard of course but I think I something more important to say with this post than merely identifying where Celsus wrote his Alethes Logos.
I think my only strength as a scholar is that I am a good listener. I might not be such a great EXPLAINER. If I could be frank for a moment, I think most scholars just want to be heard. As such they tailor make their arguments for in terms of what can be easily explained.
I am really after the truth. I really make an effort to understand the motivation of ancient writers and to this end, I don't think that Goransen or many others before him have really done a good enough job understanding Origen's 'assignment' (given to him by his patron Ambrose) in having to lay out a response to Celsus's Alethes Logos.
I know that trying to identify what an ancient writers motivation was is seemingly impossible to prove. Many might find what follows as a painfully tedious exercise on my part. But I think the payoff is worth it.
You'll just have to stay all the way to the end.
Let's get to the bottom line here. Origen goes out of his way to say that developing an argument against the Alethes Logos is a tough assignment. I am sure many readers will argue that he is going out of his way to be dramatic but I don't think so.
There had to be a reason why Ambrose wanted Origen to respond to an old text like the Alethes Logos. While Origen never says what that motivation was, I think it is very easy to identify it. We just have to operate like the police and look for inconsistencies in Origen's 'story.'
Yes, I do think that Origen is not quite being honest with us in his description of the contents of the Alethes Logos. I think that he only let's us know enough about what was contained within Celsus's tome because it was - as a whole - damaging to the reputation of the Alexandrian Church.
Against Celsus was written at the end of Origen's career. I think that previous studies have been far too simplistic in their approach to understanding what is really going on. Origen isn't engaging in 'scholarly debate.' He isn't writing a 'review' of Celsus's work. I suspect that he was trying to solve a problem for the Alexandrian Church was had dogged it ever since Celsus wrote his treatise.
I always like to begin my posts with a seemingly unrelated observation. I have always found it strange that Celsus does not question the historicity of the Passion, the central event in all gospel narratives. Instead the early part of his work - the section where Celsus cites an earlier anti-Christian treatise which might even have had the same name (i.e. Alethes Logos) written by an Alexandrian Jew - has a prolonged attack against the 'additions' of the Gospel according to Matthew.
Almost no one ever mentions how strange this is but the earlier part of the Jewish anti-Christian polemic is dominated by a systematic assault against the authenticity of Matthew. We read:
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost [Against Celsus i.32]
And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy (i.e. Isa 7.14), is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all of this. [ibid i.34]
But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the miraculous circumstances attending it, viz., either that the angel gave the divine intimation, or that our Lord's quitting Judea and residing in Egypt was an event of any significance [ibid i.38]
After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. [ibid i.40]
After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel (of Matthew), says that "Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne." [ibid i.41]
I don't want to force MY INTERPRETATION of this phenomenon just yet. It is enough to note that 'the Jew' in the Jewish polemic against Christianity cited by Celsus seems to take particular aim at the gospel of Matthew or a parallel 'Jewish Christian gospel.'
Now all of this wouldn't be strange in itself if it were not for the fact that Origen seems TO GO OUT OF HIS WAY in the preface to his work to demonstrate that he accepts the authority of Matthew and compares it favorably with the Gospel of Mark. We read in the very opening words of Origen's response to Celsus that:
When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony, or than any formal defence against the accusations. And I know not, my pious Ambrose, why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity. Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow: "And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace." And that He returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement: "And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."[Against Celsus i.pref.]
Although no commentator before me has ever noticed anything strange about Origen's use of Matthew in the preface, I think it is key to unraveling one part of why he was asked by Ambrose to write the treatise.
Ambrose is explicitly identified as a heretic in every source which references his person. Eusebius says he was a Valentinian; Jerome that he was a Marcionite. I think Jerome's information was more accurate. The way to mediate between the two is to argue that Ambrose was a Marcosian and that as such Eusebius lumped him together with the Valentinians because of his familiarity with Irenaeus's narrative. But all of this represents arguments which are best developed at another time.
In any event, I always like to scrutinize the first words of an ancient text because I think they inevitably manifest the true context of the composition of the original work. In this particular case, Origen not only provides us with the information that he was effectively 'commissioned' by Ambrose but moreover that he had great difficulty with his assignment.
To this end, Origen would apparently have rather NOT answered Celsus's charges and so he continues with what he says is the common message of Matthew and Mark:
Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow: "And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace." And that He returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement: "And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
It would appear as if Origen has merely cited from two different parts of Matthew to prove that Jesus deliberately maintained his silence even though by merely offering a defense he would have secured his release. But what does this have to do with answering Celsus's Alethes Logos?
The answer might become a little clearer as we examine what immediately follows in Origen's preface:
It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers. That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him." Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His apologia in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.[ibid pref 2]
I really think that most commentators haven't spent the time to disentangle all the layers to the Origen's treatise against Celsus's Alethes Logos. I prefer to see the text unfold like a matryoshka doll where there are effectively texts within texts with in texts. This complex state of affairs makes analyzing the material all the more difficult as there is (a) an original Jewish narrative likely called Alethes Logos featuring a Jew confronting Jewish Christian believers within (b) a pagan narrative written by Celsus using that original debate between Jews and Christians to ridicule Judaism and Christianity and then (c) a further response to that secondary work written by Origen to his patron Ambrose, a wealthy but now 'fully repentant' Christian heretic who had Origen on his payroll.
As we have already noted at the most basic level, the Jewish Alethes Logos narrative unfolds at least initially as a polemic against the Gospel of Matthew. As this Jewish treatise appeared near the beginning of Celsus's pagan Alethes Logos, it is not surprising that - as the unfolding of Origen's response to this text mirrors Celsus's original composition that Books One and Two of Against Celsus deal with mostly with Celsus's employment of the Jewish text of the same name.
How do we know about the original structure of Celsus's work and the location of the Jewish treatise of the same name within it? Origen tells us a surprising amount of information about the text especially once he starts citing from the portion of Celsus's Alethes Logos which no longer references the Jewish original. It is here at the beginning of Book Three that Origen gives us the clearest description of the contents of the original work saying:
In the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us A True Discourse (Alethes Logos), we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful Ambrose, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went along, until we finished with the tirade of this Jew of his, feigned. to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective of the said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own person. [Against Celsus iii.1]
Origen then immediately goes on to note how Celsus employs the aforementioned Jewish Alethes Logos to further his own thesis writing:
He [Celsus] gives it as his opinion, that "the controversy between Jews and Christians is a most foolish one," and asserts that "the discussions which we have with each other regarding Christ differ in no respect from what is called in the proverb, 'a fight about the shadow of an ass' " and thinks that "there is nothing of importance in the investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe that it was predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour to the human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person predicted has actually come or not." [ibid]
To this end we should keep in mind that Celsus's original work was divided as follows (i) Celsus's original preface (ii) the complete text of the Jewish 'Alethes Logos' followed immediately by (iii) Celsus's argument that both the Jews and Christians are irrational where the author launches into a long discussion detailing the stupidities of Christianity.
Now I want to return to our original discussion of Origen's use of Matthew in his preface as a reaction to the arguments laid out in (a) the Jewish 'Alethes Logos.' But before I do that I should mention that Origen strangely goes out of his way to admit that he HAD to structure his response to Celsus's original treatise in a way that effectively obscures its original content. Immediately following the long section which develops from his citation of Matthew to prove that it says the same thing as Mark, Origen confesses that he had a change of heart as he was approaching the Jewish Alethes Logos section where the Jew attacks Matthew's gospel narrative.
Origen tells us that he felt compelled to completely abandon his original design and add the preface which as we note goes out of its way to develop the strange argument that Matthew and Mark - not 'Matthew, Mark and Luke', not 'synoptic gospel' or 'the all the gospels' - should be seen to argue the same thing.
Hmmmmm ....
I think it would be a good idea to take a careful look at how Origen wrestles with the 'dangers' that he sees in Celsus's citation of the original Jewish Alethes Logos material.
Origem starts by noting that he ventures to say:
that this apologia which you require me to compose will somewhat weaken that apologia which rests on facts and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any believer. [Against Celsus i. pref.3]
This is yet another curious statement, one in a series that we have seen now. Origen seems to be saying that by actually engaging Celsus's work he might in fact be playing right into his hands and help him effectively disprove Christianity.
Origen again goes on to say again in what immediately follows that:
I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a "True Discourse," as Celsus has entitled it. [ibid pref.4]
What is it about Celsus's work that has Origen so scared? As I noted before I will demonstrate that it isn't Celsus's writing which poses a problem for Origen but the original Jewish author's Alethes Logos. I also think it has something to do with his extended criticism of the Gospel of Matthew.
In other words, Ambrose's need to have Origen write 'Against Celsus' rested in the very Marcionite-sounding assault against the Jewish Christian gospel tradition. To this end, Origen goes on to note that:
after proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are "weak in the faith;" regarding whom he says, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." [ibid pref.6]
I think all of this is critical for us to digest while we wade through Origen's response to the 'Jewish' attack against the Gospel of Matthew which sat at the beginning of Celsus work of the same name.
The 'Jew' claims to have visited Jesus and his disciples and then proceeds to specifically refute the earliest portions of the Gospel of Matthew. Origen, foreseeing that 'difficulties' would arise from this material decided to write a preface to the whole work which stresses specifically that 'Mark and Matthew' (and not 'Matthew, Mark and Luke,' 'the synoptics' or 'all the gospels') agree that one should never engage those who spread false reports about the faith.
Of course the unsaid part of the original argument from Matthew (which Origen says is also acknowledged in Mark) was that Jesus went on to get himself nailed to a cross. Our difficulty is of course in piecing together what would be so dangerous about a hundred year old treatise that might get Origen and members of his Alexandrian tradition killed.
Maybe it would be a good idea for us right now to revisit that 'Matthew is the same as Mark' argument at the beginning of the preface that Origen only decided to add when confronting the contents of the Alethes Logos of Celsus's 'Jew.' The material reads as follows:
Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow ...[Against Celsus i.pref.1]
It is very important that we pay special attention to the place where Origen breaks off his first citation of Matthew, viz:
"And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace ...
Of course if Origen were saying that MATTHEW alone presents Jesus keeping silent before judges it wouldn't seem strange. For our existing copies of Mark have the following words added:
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." [Mark 14:61,62]
There is of course a way to make sense of Origen's argument. Nigel Turner in his Grammatical Insights into the New Testament has rightly noted that:
The early branch of manuscript tradition known as the 'Caesarean' reports the same answer in Mark as in Matthew and Luke. The Caesarean reading could well be correct for it is reasonable to suppose that the words 'you have said that' have been omitted accidentally or designedly before the words 'I am.' Thus Jesus said 'You have said that I am' (as in Matthew and Luke). A a very early date in Christian history, Origen quoted the longer phrase and that is how it appears in the Georgian and Armenian versions.
The point of course is that Origen isn't saying that Mark, Matthew and Luke have the same account but that Matthew and Mark have the same account of Jesus's silence in an refutation Origen is writing of Celsus's work which will soon feature a systematic attack on all 'additions' to Mark's original narrative found in Matthew.
Yet trying to explain Origen's argument that Matthew and Mark have the same understanding of Jesus keeping silent before the judges has yet another wrinkle. Cassiodorus (sixth century) claims to preserve in his writings certain quotations from Origen's predecessor Clement, one of which references this very same passage. Stählin preserves it as follows:
In evangelio vero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe sacerdotum, si ipse esset "Christus, filius dei benedicti", respondens dixit; "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis." "Virtutes" autem significat sanctos angelos. Proinde enim cum dicit "a dextris dei", eosdem ipsos dicit propter aequalitatem et similitudinem angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, quae uno nominantur nomine dei. Cum ergo "sedere in dextra" dicit, hoc est: in eminenti honore et ibi requiescere.
Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honor. In the other Gospels, however, he is said not to have replied to the high priest, on his asking if he was the Son of God. But what said he? "You say."
Wieland Wilker notes that one important manuscript of Cassiodorus reads:
"Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis dei."
"I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the power of God."
But according to Zahn, the Latin fragment, "Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas" (Codex Lindum, 96, sec. ix.), translated by Cassiodorus and purged of objectionable passages, represents in part the text of Clement. It is not clear if (all of) it is really from Clement.
I would argue that this is only one text in a greater pseudo-Clementine tradition. the Hypotyposeis represent another work falsely attributed to Clement. The point however is that Origen MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE that there were two different Markan accounts of the beginning of the Passion. In one Jesus is entirely silent as in Matthew and the other Jesus answers in the affirmative that he is indeed the awaited Christ when the Jews press him with questions.
Origen clearly thinks that the former tradition is the correct one. But this isn't what should concern us. Rather we should wonder what about the Jewish Alethes Logos text cited in Celsus's work of the same name should have prompted Origen to make the case that Mark and Matthew say the same thing.
Indeed another part of this answer is found in Origen putting forward the most ridiculous of arguments to dismiss this 'Jewish Alethes Logos' text - namely that Celsus made up the narrative out of his own imagine i.e. he himself 'inventing' the whole thing and putting his ideas in the mouth of the 'Jew.'
This suggestion is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response especially given Origen's acknowledgement that something about the Jewish material scares the living daylights out of him.
Origen confesses that his tactic throughout it is to prove that Celsus doesn't know what he is talking about, that the arguments made throughout the work are directed at the unlearned in the Church rather than those who have reached full maturity in their faith. But then at the same time he confesses near the end of that preface that was hastily added on to his developing work that:
this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. [ibid]
Now it must be said that Book One does indeed begin with a series of arguments which Celsus makes in his own voice and then only by chapter 28 of Book One (a little over a third of the way in). It is there that Origen announces that "and since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points." [Against Celsus i.28]
Yet if we look at Origen's exact words he specifically references that he changed his mind "where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus" rather than the place where the Jew is introduced. To this end, I am certain that chapter XIV actually marks the part where 'Celsus introduces the Jew' for it is the actually opening words of his Alethes Logos:
"There is," he says, "an authoritative account (alethes logos) from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men." And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians. [Against Celsus i.14]
Origen strangely omits to reference the section which follows which deals with Celsus's criticism of Alexandrian Judaism. For we read:
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse ...
This silence is decisive to the work as a whole for it is plainly evident that Origen is for the most part going line by line through Celsus's work BUT FOR SOME REASON DOESN'T WANT THE READER TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL CONTEXT for Celsus' original introduction of the original Jewish Alethes Logos.
Not only won't he allow for the publication of Celsus's words regarding the Jewish allegorical system in chapter 14, Origen exhibits similar 'silence' in the next reference (chapter 19):
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated.
And then as we see in chapter 20:
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians ... [a]nd if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!
Indeed only when Origen gets beyond Celsus's discussion of Jews who advance an allegorical interpretation of Moses does he allow us to read what appeared in Celsus's original treatise.
So it is again with that relative safety of a completely new context in the next lines of Celsus's work that Origen allows us to hear what the pagan is actually saying. So in chapter 21 Origen writes:
The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: "Moses having," he says, "learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity." Now, in answer to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that. Moses did indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable, and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people by means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation?
And then this is followed by the reference in chapter 22:
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians ... [but] the present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.
And this in turn is followed by what is cited from Celsus in chapter 23:
After this, Celsus next asserts that "Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God."
And again this is followed by the reference in chapter 24:
After this he continues: "These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that." And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that "It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians"
And finally we see in chapter 27:
But let us see the manner in which this Celsus, who professes to know everything, brings a false accusation against the Jews, when he alleges that "they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor" ... Moreover, he promises to show afterwards "how it was through ignorance that the Jews were deceived and led into error" ... And Celsus having promised to make us acquainted, in a subsequent part of his work, with the doctrines of Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak of our Saviour as having been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are Christians, and says that "a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the Son of God" ... And if any one, on a candid consideration of these things, shall admit that no improvement ever takes place among men without divine help, how much more confidently shall he make the same assertion regarding Jesus, when he compares the former lives of many converts to His doctrine with their after conduct, and reflects in what acts of licentiousness and injustice and covetousness they formerly indulged, until, as Celsus, and they who think with him, allege, "they were deceived," and accepted a doctrine which, as these individuals assert, is destructive of the life of men.
The reader should be aware that we have waded through the material which Origen earlier identifies as Celsus's 'preface' before introducing 'the Jew' whose work forms the basis to Origen's citations starting in chapter 28:
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points.
Again, the point here is that Origen is certainly NOT BEING candid about the curious shape of his work against Celsus - i.e. the way that he decided to begin with a series of points that Celsus brings up much later in his original treatise.
Indeed in the very last words of this preface which Origen claims to have written only struggling with how to deal with the 'Jewish Alethes Logos' we see the Church Father again confesses:
I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us.
Yet I do not think for a minute that this was some rhetorical trick on Origen's part. I suspect that he is trying to contain the damage from Celsus's exposure of the great secret at the heart of Celsus's original work - the Jew who wrote the Alethes Logos cited by Celsus at the beginning of his work was none other than Philo of Alexandria.
I think that it is for this reason that Ambrose asked Origen to refute Celsus's work in the first place and why Origen had until now resisted attempting to engage such a work. It is also why Origen avoids citing Celsus's attack against those Jews who promote the idea of the Logos within Judaism and why he deliberately avoids giving the name of the Jew whose name was attached to the original Alethes Logos which formed the basis to Celsus's whole work.
As such, I think we can assume against Goransen's conclusions that all roads point related to the Alethes Logos tradition point to an Alexandrian debate filtering down from the time of Philo (c. 50 CE) down to Celsus (c. 160 CE) to Origen (c. 248 CE) over the specific issue of whether the Jews and then the Christians borrowed the concept Logos from the pagans which they certainly did.
I have in fact LONG ARGUED that Philo can be demonstrated to have refuted Christian theological concepts associated with Mark. The problem has always been that no one has bothered to follow the trail from Irenaeus's statement about those of Mark who
express themselves in this manner: that the letter Eta along with the remarkable one constitutes all ogdoad, as it is situated in the eighth place from Alpha. Then, again, computing the number of these elements without the remarkable (letter), and adding them together up to Eta, they exhibit the number thirty. For any one beginning from the Alpha to the Eta will, after subtracting the remarkable (letter i.e. episemon) ... they subtract twelve, and reckon it at eleven. And in like manner, (they subtract) ten and make it nine. [Hippolytus AH 6:42]
To Clement of Alexandria who makes the same argument as in the name of the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark:
six is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written. In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta becomes six and Eta seven. And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six, and the eight seven.[Stromata 6:16]
All the way back to Philo, a member of a leading priestly family in the Jewish community of Alexandria:
some of those persons who have (in the past) fancied that the world is everlasting, inventing a variety of new arguments, employ also such a system of reasoning as this to establish their point: they affirm that there are four principal manners in which corruption is brought about, addition, taking away, transposition, and alteration; accordingly, the number two is by the addition of the unit corrupted so as to become the number three, and no longer remains the number two; and the number four by the taking away of the unit is corrupted so as to become the number three; again, by transposition the letter Zeta becomes the letter Eta when the parallel lines which were previously horizontal (3/43/4) are placed perpendicularly (1/2 1/2), and when the line which did before pass upwards, so as to connect the two is now made horizontal, and still extended between them so as to join them. And by alteration the word oinos, wine, becomes oxos, vinegar.
But of the manner of corruption thus mentioned there is not one which is in the least degree whatever applicable to the world, since otherwise what could we say? Could we affirm that anything is added to the world so as to cause its destruction? But there is nothing whatever outside of the world which is not a portion of it as the whole, for everything is surrounded, and contained, and mastered by it. Again, can we say that anything is taken from the world so as to have that effect? In the first place that which would be taken away would again be a world of smaller dimensions than the existing one, and in the second place it is impossible that any body could be separated from the composite fabric of the whole world so as to be completely dispersed. Again, are we to say that the constituent parts of the world are transposed? But at all events they remain in their original positions without any change of place, for never at any time shall the whole earth be raised up above the water, nor the water above the air, nor the air above the fire. But those things which are by nature heavy, namely the earth and the water, will have the middle place, the earth supporting everything like a solid foundation, and the water being above it; and the air and the fire, which are by nature light, will have the higher position, but not equally, for the air is the vehicle of the fire; and that which is carried by anything is of necessity above that which carries it. Once more: we must not imagine that the world is destroyed by alteration, for the change of any elements is equipollent, and that which is equipollent is the cause of unvarying steadiness, and of untroubled durability, inasmuch as it neither seeks any advantage itself, and is not subject to the inroads of other things which seek advantages at its expense; so that this retribution and compensation of these powers is equalized by the rules of proportion, being the produce of health and endless preservation, by all which considerations the world is demonstrated to be eternal." [On the Eternity of the World XXII]
What has totally escaped scholars until now is that not only is Philo able to demonstrate that the kabbalah of 'those of Mark' was INTRODUCED IN THE FIRST CENTURY but that Philo's comments necessarily mean that the tradition of Mark was initially opposed by the Jewish priesthood in Alexandria.
Indeed I would like to take matters one step further and say that once we understand that Philo was already producing literature attacking Christianity in the period, the idea that Celsus was specifically referencing a now lost work written against the first Christians would indeed be quite effective. We need only think of Clement's employment of Philo for the moment.
For the moment let's look back at yet another section of the opening words of Celsus's Alethes Logos (before he introduces the Alethes Logos of the 'Jew') to demonstrate how it is virtually certain that he has Philo in mind. Origen again DELIBERATELY AVOIDS citing Celsus's original material in chapters 19 and 20 but it is not at all difficult to now see how Philo could be the mysterious 'Jew' who is eventually introduced here.
The opening words of Celsus's Alethes Logos reads:
There is an authoritative account (alethes logos) from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men.
As Origen then notes Celsus
will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians. [Against Celsus i.14]
As we just noted just as Celsus makes the connection to explain how the Jews stole their 'Logos' from the Egyptians Origen immediately refuses to cite the section:
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a Alethes Logos ...
And then immediately after this there is even more silence with Origen merely noting that:
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.
We can demonstrate quite easily that each of these points was actually held by Philo of Alexandria. Most of these arguments appearing in his On the Eternity of the World as I will show in an upcoming post.
The more important thing for us to realize right now is that Origen is going out of his way to hide the fact that Philo was actually quite hostile to Christian doctrine. This is the secret to unravel all the mysteries of Christianity and I will continue this present post when I get up from another five hours of sleep tonight ...
