The works of many early critics of the Christian church were burned by ruling emperors or otherwise destroyed in the second and third centuries, but the writings of the Greek pagan philosopher, Celsus, have survived indirectly through his eloquent opponent Origen of Alexandria. In his apologetical treatise, Contra Celsum, Origen argues against the ideas set forth by Celsus and quotes from Celsus' The True Doctrine at length. Through this treatise, Celsus has come to represent the detached (...) pagan voice of the ages. In this translation, Professor Hoffmann has, for the first time, painstakingly reconstructed the main order of the philosopher's argument. Celsus' discourse shows him to be an eclectic philosopher--a dabbler in various schools of thought, including Platonism and Stoicism, and a student of the history and religious customs of many nations. Hoffman supplements this definitive translation with an informative introduction, summarizing Celsus' premises and placing the identity of Celsus in its historical context. (shrink)

Celsus penned the earliest known detailed attack upon Christianity. While his identity is disputed and his anti-Christian treatise, entitled the True Word, has been exclusively transmitted through the hands of the great Christian scholar Origen, he remains an intriguing figure. In this interdisciplinary volume, which brings together ancient philosophers, specialists in Greek literature, and historians of early Christianity and of ancient Judaism, Celsus is situated within the cultural, philosophical, religious and political world from which he emerged. While his (...) work is ostensibly an attack upon Christianity, it is also the defence of a world in which Celsus passionately believed. It is the unique contribution of this volume to give voice to the many dimensions of that world in a way that will engage a variety of scholars interested in late antiquity and the histories of Christianity, Judaism and Greek thought. (shrink)

This book is about what Celsus wrote about Jesus in the Second Century, what Celsus's image of God was like, and especially where Celsus found the ammunition to criticize Jesus so fiercely. Why did Christianity's growth bother a pagan philosopher, who was committed to Roman religion? Why did it bother a Platonic philosopher, although Christianity was never meant to be a philosophy? -- Egge Tijsseling explores the idea that Christians finished the Roman Empire, because they did not (...) want to join the army - Jesus preached nonviolence, and if they did join the army, they only recruited more Christians, and finally because Christianity was 'soft', and therefore attractive for many in the strict and hierarchic Roman world. -- This book investigates Celsus' reasons to write such a versatile book against Jesus, that Origen almost a century later needed eight books to refute him. (shrink)

Mental Illness in Ancient Medicine: From Celsus to Paul of Aeginatraces the history of conceptions of mental disorder in Graeco-Roman medical writings, from the 1st century BCE to the 7th CE, with detailed studies of all significant authors.

Consequently, as shown above, Celsus, the Roman lawyer, defined law as the art of equity, and the classical Roman lawyers displayed the spirit of the right ...

The works of many early critics of the Christian church were burned by ruling emperors or otherwise destroyed in the second and third centuries, but the writings of the Greek pagan philosopher, Celsus, have survived indirectly through his eloquent opponent Origen of Alexandria. In his apologetical treatise, Contra Celsum, Origen argues against the ideas set forth by Celsus and quotes from Celsus' The True Doctrine at length. Through this treatise, Celsus has come to represent the detached (...) pagan voice of the ages. In this translation, Professor Hoffmann has, for the first time, painstakingly reconstructed the main order of the philosopher's argument. Celsus' discourse shows him to be an eclectic philosopher--a dabbler in various schools of thought, including Platonism and Stoicism, and a student of the history and religious customs of many nations. Hoffman supplements this definitive translation with an informative introduction, summarizing Celsus' premises and placing the identity of Celsus in its historical context. (shrink)

The present study, for the first time, provides a comparative analysis of the objections raised against Christianity by late antique pagan philosophers (esp. Celsus in Alethes logos, Porphyry in Contra Christianos, and Julian the Apostate in Contra Gali-laeos) and Enlightenment philosophers and freethinkers and examines the impact of pagan thinking on the critique of Christianity in the 16th to 18th centuries - in particular, on discussions concerning the authority of the Bible, biblical exegesis, the Christian concept of faith, religious (...) coercion and the uniformity of faith, the belief in miracles, and the Christ-ian understanding of morality. (shrink)

Pliny's Natural History is often referred to as one of the first western encyclopedias and its encyclopedism is central to how it is used and understood. This article argues for a reassessment of the grounds on which we call the Natural History an encyclopedia by reexamining its relationship to the works of Cato, Varro, and Celsus and to the ancient educational concept of enkuklios paideia. If Pliny's Natural History is an encyclopedia, it is not because it belonged to an (...) ancient genre of encyclopedias that ancient readers and writers recognized as such; its encyclopedism needs to be understood instead as a product of the text's reception history. (shrink)

This article presents a detailed exposition of Celsus’ criticism for Christianity, for the first time in Spanish. Celsus was the first known philosopher in Antiquity, who lashed against the dawning Christianity from the point of view of the Greek tradition, the Alethes Logos. The paper shows, first, the metaphysical and philosophical perspective of Celsus’ criticism. Secondly, it brings us inside the ethical and political stirs of Christianity, from Celsus’ own point of view and how this has (...) affected his civil world. This criticism marks the starting point of a philosophical vindication of European paganism, with Giordiano Bruno and Friedrich Nietzsche as its greatest advocates. (shrink)

This study examines some of the moral and theological convictions that created tensions for early Christians who affirmed that the government's sword is ordained by God for a fallen world but also that Christians should not exercise it at least in warfare. Three important moral pressures toward Christian participation in war were the recognition of prevention or removal of harm as a requirement of neighbor-love, the related sense of responsibility, fault, and guilt for omissions, and the generalization test proposed by (...) Celsus, who asked Christians to consider what would happen if everyone did what they were doing, i.e., refrained from military service. Along with many other factors, these ideas contributed to the legitimation of Christian participation in war. But this legitimation itself created additional tensions, particularly because of the requirements to "turn the other cheek," to "go the second mile," etc. In order to lessen these tensions, the Church and its theologians developed several interrelated distinctions that could reduce the scope or strength of the radical demands: higher/lower; for oneself/ for others; inner/outer; and private/public. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

The 2-c debate between the Greek Apologists and the pagan Graeco-Roman tradition is multifaceted and complex. Common ground can be found in the mutual commitment to reason as a reflection of the Logos: Reason, or the rationality embedded in things. Logos, in this picture, is participated in through a performance of reasoning whose reliability is presupposed in the discourses of both debating parties—contextualized here as the presupposition that the deliverances and activity of reason are reliable for uncovering reality. Presuppositions are (...) starting points and driving principles of inquiry, here designated as first principles. One presuppositional conflict between 2-c Greek Apologists, taking the apologetic works of Justin, Theophilus, Athenagoras, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus as a sample, and the pagan tradition, taking Celsus as its 2-c culmination, is over how to justify the commitment to reason’s reliability in the above sense. My claim in this paper is twofold: first, that the pagan position is unable in principle to demonstrate the reliability of its own reasoning and that all such inquiry is circular: it is always a further question for the pagan why reasoning reveals reality. I propose that what would count as an answer to this challenge is a metaphysical ‘fit’ between human embodiment and reality. And second, that the Apologists avoid this unhappy conclusion by committing themselves to the embodiment of Reason in Jesus—that the embodied act of human reasoning reveals reality because Reason itself is embodied in the same way. The upshot is that unless the pagan abandons his position, he is trapped in a circular epistemology and cannot encounter the Christian witness on its own terms. (shrink)

Johannes Lydos quotes a passage from a lost military work on warfare against the Parthers in De magistratibus 3, 34. The author of this work, which dates from 63 AD, is said to be Κέλσος ὁ Ῥωμαῖος τακτικός, who has repeatedly been identified as Marius Celsus in several research studies. This article, however, depicts the encyclopedist and medical practitioner Aulus Cornelius Celsus as the author of this military writing. It first provides a retrospective of the research done. Secondly (...) it shows that two military writings are likely to exist in the works of Celsus and in a third step it puts forward a decisive argument against Marius Celsus. Finally, some further reflections on his interests and lifetime hint at Aulus Cornelius Celsus being the author. (shrink)

Using pull and push factors inspired by the migration theory, this study explains Matthew's Sondergut concerning Jesus' flight to Egypt from the perspective of possible pull-push factors associated with Egypt and Palestine during the first century. Within early Christianity, two perception strands concerning Egypt existed: on the one hand, Jews such as Celsus depicted Egypt negatively as a place of magic and oppression. Yet another perspective portrays Egypt as a place of refuge, recuperation and recovery - a view reflected (...) in Luke-Acts, Matthew and some parts of Mark. Not disregarding views that read the story as Midrash or allegory, this study focuses on Matthew's Sondergut concerning Jesus' flight to Egypt as narrative explainable from a positive migration perspective, and argues that the prosperity of Egypt and possible political turmoil in Palestine during the first century give plausible reconstruct for Matthew's Sondergut regarding Jesus' flight to Egypt as a place of refuge and sustenance. (shrink)

The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have desired to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, because it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke, which came to be called the Synoptic Gospels. The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on the point that there is a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another but at (...) the same time includes different aspects. This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of discussion is based on the reading of the Synoptic Gospels from a birds-eye-view, as seen together, and as comparatively in relation to each other. The aim of the discussion is to reach accurate historical information about Jesus and the birth of Christianity by analyzing the possible relationship between the Synoptic Gospels through their sources. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the solution of the Synoptic Problem. However, all the modern studies in the context of the problem are carried out by Western scholars. In other words, Synoptic Problem is a relatively unknown subject in the Turkish academic circles. So in this paper the aim is to draw the attention of the Turkish academy to the substance and framework of the Synoptic Problem through an introductory survey. In addition, some results that can be reached in this context will be exemplified by getting help from the redaction criticism. Summary: The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have been trying to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, for it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church (namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called the Synoptic Gospels). The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another one, but at the same time including different aspects. This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels, and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of this discussion is based on the broad reading of the Synoptic Gospels as well as a comparison in relation to each other. The aim of the discussion is to reach accurate historical information about Jesus and the birth of Christianity by analyzing the possible relationship between the Synoptic Gospels through their sources.The traditional four Gospels have been debated since ancient times. There have been many dimensions of these discussions. However, whether the Gospels contain contradictory information or not has always been at the forefront. Pagan writers, such as Celsus or Porphyry, criticized the Gospels in this respect. Christian writers, such as Marcion or Tatian who lived in the second century when the Gospels were not seen as canon yet, raised some suggestions based on the doubts that the Gospels were incompatible with the Jewish scriptures and contained contradictions among themselves. Marcion included a single Gospel that was close to the Gospel of Luke in his New Testament canon. Tatian made a mixed version of the four Gospels. In the next stage, the contradictions in the Gospels were explained by the Christian writers, such as Origenes or Augustine. However, the four Gospels were more prominent in this new era and they were regarded as canons by the Church. Therefore, the Christian writers’ approach to the Gospels also began to change. Origen emphasized allegorical interpretation which had been known since the Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 50) in Alexandria. Thus, he wanted to protect the contradictory texts from being seen as the source of the problem. He argued that the problem was the human mind that could not grasp the allegorical mystery of the text or the narrative in the text. Augustine had a similar approach with the suggestion that the Gospels should be read by a faithful heart. According to Augustine, it is natural that the Gospels reflect different characters because the Gospel writers describe Christ differently. In order to be able to comprehend the divine meaning in these texts, the Gospels must be read in a spiritual mood. After all, all these Christian writers aimed to respond to the criticism by the pagan writers regarding the Gospels, as well as the current suspicions in the minds of Christians.Origen was the first Christian thinker to devote an effort to solve the debates on the Gospels in a logical and systematic way. As for Augustine, he was the starting point of the Synoptic Problem since Augustine was the first to mention the links between the Gospels texts, namely the idea that the authors of the Gospels may have used each other as sources. However, in the modern sense, the Synoptic Problem has been transformed into an academic discipline by the intellectuals who followed the path of Enlightenment thinkers, such as Reimarus (1684-1768), Lessing (1729-1781), Griesbach (1745-1812), and Eichhorn (1752-1827). Because modern researchers differ from old writers based on Church ideologies, they began to demolish traditional beliefs about the Gospels. Thus, the effort to harmonize incompatible narratives in the Gospels is left aside. Indeed, the ancient writers put a lot of effort into it. Now, in the places where indirect relations can be established between the Gospels, the idea of finding the common hypothetical sources of these Gospels is prominent. The claim that the Gospels were directly connected to Jesus as a historical figure has been gradually faded away. The basis of the Synoptic Problem is the comparative reading of the Synoptic Gospels. In the modern sense, this comparison and its interpretation was made by J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812) for the first time. Griesbach was the first scholar to compare Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a way to create a synopsis. His comparison is based on a reading done by placing several passages or narratives from the Gospels side by side.Many hypotheses have been put forward for the solution of the Synoptic Problem. Two-Source Hypotheses, Four-Source Hypotheses, and Farrer Theory are the most popular ones among researchers. These views are based on Marcan Priority. In this context, independently from each other, Matthew and Luke used Mark’s text as their sources. Also, according to the Two-Sources and Four-Source Hypotheses, the authors of Matthew and Luke used another written document as their sources. This document is named the “Q” which derives from the German word “Quellen.” In this way, it is assumed that the Q-document and the Gospel of Mark are the sources of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.The writers of the Gospels wrote their own texts by using written and oral sources. One of the scholarly methods is the redaction criticism that explores how the Gospel writers shaped the old literary documents by arranging, re-shaping, and revising them. This theory looks at whether the source used by an author is known and available today in order to understand whether how the author used his sources would provide important clues about his tendencies or ideologies. In this regard, the theory of the Marcan priority can be rendered functional along with the redaction criticism. In doing so, it is possible to reach important conclusions about Jesus and the birth of Christianity, as well as the theological and ideological ideas of the unknown authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. First of all, the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark’s text as their sources. Secondly, we have these three Gospels today. And finally, the ways in which the writers of Matthew and Luke shaped the text, phrases, or expressions of Mark reveal important results about their thoughts. The analysis shows that the authors of Matthew and Luke sometimes made additons that could be called interpolation to Mark’s text; sometimes they wanted to censor some statements in Mark; sometimes they tried to explain or clarify some statements in the Mark, or sometimes they tried to blur clear expressions and expositions in Mark's text. These authors did not do such things without a reason. They wanted to reshape Mark’s text in accordance with their theological understanding of Jesus as Christ. In this context, according to some expressions in Mark, Jesus' power had a limit. The authors of Matthew and Luke did not find these statements appropriate, because they changed Mark’s some statements to create an impression that Jesus’ power was not limited. This proves that the authors of Matthew and Luke re-arranged their resources to present Jesus as a superhuman being. Similarly, in Mark, there are lines in which Jesus declares his loyalty and servitude to the God of Israel. In such passages, he presented his personality in a low Christology context against God. However, the authors of Matthew and Luke were disturbed by such statements, because they intervened in these statements in Mark. They wanted to change some of the meanings and contexts in Mark’s text through such interventions and presented Jesus as Christ in a high Christological context to their readers. In the end, all these researches also responded to the question of to what extent the Gospels provide reliable information on a historical basis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 89 To fill the gap between the two worlds seems to have been one of the most important of their problems. Philo filled it with angels and powers, the Gnostics, whatever their individual differences, filled it with other supernatural creatures begotten by their chief god. Origen filled it with Intelligences, created and corporeal spirits who rose or fell according to their sinfulness (p. 437). The discrepancy between (...) the two worlds remains to be bridged by the later Greek philosophers not by reason but by the appeal to myth, imagination and authority. Only in Plotinus, among the late Greek philosophers, does Boas find a significant remainder of rationalism. Plotinus's problem is similar, to be sure, to that of the other late thinkers: to bridge the metaphysical gap. Appeals to myth and to the authority of earlier Greek thinkers are quite as irrational here as in the earlier thinkers. And the resort to powerful metaphors is as pronounced in Plotinus as in any other philosopher one can name. All this is brought out very well. Yet Boas finds it important to try to expound Plotinus's philosophy as "... a sample of rationalism with axioms and inferences, with dialectical distinctions, with the Law of Contradiction utilized to produce consistency" (p. 455). He doesn't claim to have succeeded in doing this; on the contrary, his account gives little ground on which to justify the attempt, and one wonders why it was undertaken. This is not to deny that Plotinus uses rational arguments and logical inferences, but rather to say that the semblance of a "rational structure" depends instead on poetical and metaphorical elements. Nevertheless, the discussion of Plotinus's thought as a "sample of rationalism" is of interest because it serve to bring out an element in the conception of rationalism which emerges only too rarely in the book? Boas pays special attention to Plotinus's "full fledged hierarchy of being," and his attempt to derive (or "deduce"?) the degrees of being from the One. This rests on the "principle of plenitude," or on the notion that all possible being must be exemplified in existence. This in turn is suggested by one or more powerful metaphors. Plotinus's speculative imagination, in other words, was still unfettered to a considerable degree by authority, revelation, or other restrictions. Kegardless of how adequate one might judge Plotinus's system to be in terms of axioms, definitions and consistency (and surely it is very inadequate), Boas's interest in him as a "sample of rationalism" derives from this freedom in speculation and in choice of "assumptions." This does not mean that logical criteria are not the proper tools of the critic nor that they can be disregarded by the speculative philosopher. It means only that Greek rationalism rested on considerably more; a magnificently free and speculative strain of mind. This is one matter that Boas's discussion makes amply clear. JOHN D. GOHEEN Stanford University Origbne et la Philosophie. By Henri Crouzel. (l~tudes Publi6es sous la Direction de la Facult6 de Th6ologie SJ de Lyon-Fourvi~re; Aubier, 1962. Pp. 238.) This is a painstaking and important essay set between fairly narrow limits. It deliberately stays short of becoming a study of Origenism rather than Origen, and thus avoids the mistake made by so many books about Origen. The field is quite difficult of course. We are still a long way from proper evaluation of the Christian-Hellenist synthesis in 4 However, explicitly stated on pp. 355-356. 90 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY the thinking of many Christian figures from the second century to the fourth. Could not the same be said perhaps, rnutatis mutandis, of some Hellenist writers, Celsus, Porphyry, Plotinus? Origen, as well as being more important, is considerably more complicated than most. Is he the first great Christian sumrnator, ~ la Aquinas? Is he a Platonist masquerading as a Christian? Or a Christian masquerading as a Hellenist? In the rough phrase that used to be applied in the schools of theology, auctores scinduntur, sometimes with extreme acrimony. He has been receiving a good deal of attention over the past fifty years, from Bohringer, De Faye, Koch--the list is awfully long-right... (shrink)

Albrecht Dihle is professor of classics at Heidelberg. This book is a development of the Sather Classical Lectures given at Berkeley in 1974. It is an important and informative work, rich in detail, clear in argument, and filled with erudition. Dihle begins by contrasting the Hellenistic philosophical understanding of nature with the Jewish religious understanding of the cosmos. The pagan philosophers saw nature and the world as an ordered whole and sought to conform their minds and their lives to this (...) rational pattern. Galen and other writers after him, however, note that the Jewish scriptures consider the world and nature not as something ultimate but as issuing, in their being and structure, from the arbitrary intention of the creator. After Galen, Celsus wrote to refute the Jewish and also the Christian cosmology. The pagans considered reason as ultimate in the cosmos, while the biblical tradition, it is said, considered will or choice as the origin of the cosmos. According to the pagan understanding, man could become conformed to nature through an intellectual activity, while according to the biblical tradition he could be saved by responding to a divine promise and command, by an act of obedience. In both the pagan and the biblical traditions, cosmology, anthropology and ethics were interrelated. The initial form of the concept of the will arose in the biblical tradition. (shrink)

Following a recent trend in the field of the history of philosophy and medicine, this paper stresses the necessity of recognizing empiricism’s patent indebtedness to the sciences of the body. While the tribute paid to the Hippocratic method of observation in the work of Thomas Sydenham is well known, it seems necessary to take into account a trend more critical of ancient medicine developed by followers of chemical medicine who considered the doctrine of elements and humours to be a typical (...) example of the idols that hinder the improvement of medical knowledge and defend the necessity of experimentation. In light of the fact that modern discoveries resulted in a “new frame of human nature,” they developed a critical reading of ancient empiricism. As a consequence, we can distinguish between two distinct anti-speculative traditions in the genesis of philosophical empiricism. The first recommends an active investigation into nature and refers to the figure of Democritus, the ancient philosopher who devoted himself to the dissection of beasts. Defenders of this first tradition refuse point-blank to be called ‘empiricists’, a label which had a very negative meaning during the seventeenth century, when it was used to dismiss charlatans and quacks. The other tradition, stressing as it does the role of description and observation, is more sceptical of the ability of dissection or anatomy to give us access to causes of diseases. This later tradition comes closer to the definition of ancient empiricism and to the figure of Hippocrates. (shrink)

Riassunto Attraverso le pagine di Celso e di Origene vediamo delinearsi due Weltanschauungen contrapposte. La prima esclude un intervento attivo di Dio nel mondo, ipostatizza l’ordine di cose esistente, privilegia rigorosamente la cura dell’anima, nega che l’uomo possa far affidamento sul corpo per raggiungere la meta cui deve tendere, irride come irragionevoli e blasfeme sia la credenza nell’incarnazione sia quella nella resurrezione. La seconda è decisamente più sfaccettata. Il corpo per un verso sembra costituire un gravame, se è vero che (...) le creature razionali cadono in un soma a seguito della trasgressione originaria cui le conduce l’esercizio del libero arbitrio; per l’altro è anch’esso un portato della creazione divina e dall’inizio il Figlio pervade il mondo nella sua consistenza materiale, sino a che si produce il decisivo evento dell’incarnazione; alla fine dei tempi avrà luogo senza dubbio la resurrezione che chiama in causa una volta di più il corpo, in quanto l’esistere creaturale sembra inseparabile da una dotazione corporea. A partire da questo quadro complesso e almeno in parte aporetico si profila – all’interno della seconda Weltanschauung qui considerata attraverso la lente di Origene – una linea di tendenza, che cerca di sciogliere i nodi problematici persistenti negando essere la materia causa del male e rivendicando al corpo nato dalla vergine la capacità di salvare l’umanità. (shrink)