Freethought Nation

Thank you. That's a useful quote that illustrates my point and may be part of what Allen is summarizing above.

"I am not certain what you are seeking"

Perhaps you would need to have read my book Christ Con to follow my post, although I thought it was pretty obvious what I am seeking, since I provided the quote and citations, as well as a link to what is supposed to be the original text in Greek and Latin. The title of my post "Was Origin One of the First Mythicists?" indicates what I am after here.

I am aware of Celsus's overall skepticism (CC, 70ff), but, as I say, in Christ Con I also quoted scholars specifically stating that the pagan philosopher had questioned the very existence of the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament. That perspective would make of Celsus one of the earliest doubters and, indeed, mythicists.

For example, I cited Gnostic scholar Jean Doresse, who likewise recites part of what Allen says above, concerning Celsus's critique:


Although he does not cite the relevant commentary in Celsus, Doresse is obviously referring to one of the same passages as Allen.

As I also cited in Christ Con, in Fiction as History, Bowersock concludes:


It should be noted that Celsus book was apparently published around 177, fairly shortly after the canonical gospels as we have them emerge clearly into the historical record. That would make him possibly the first serious mythicist.

Naturally, this contention has been refuted, and apologists have repeatedly and fallaciously asserted that no one before the 19th century doubted the existence of Jesus. Of course, I would like to remind here that the debate is better framed not as whether or not a Jesus existed but whether or not the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a mythical figure.

In this latter regard, what Dr. Allen says of Celsus above would make of him a mythicist, claiming that Jesus is a composite figure of characters, real and mythical, as I stated above.

What I am interested in finding is the original Greek/Latin of Celsus that Allen cites above that essentially proves Celsus was a Jesus mythicist, contending that the godman of the Christians was a fictional composite. As has been the case in the past, in which Migne deliberately removed the Epiphanius passage in which the Church father describes the bringing out of a divine baby born of a virgin mother in Egypt, it would not surprise me if some of these relevant passages in Celsus were a) never translated into English; and b) omitted from Migne, which is the edition I linked to above.

Since this issue serves as a lynchpin in the mythicist case, it is necessary to track down Allen's sources and post them for the world to see. I will continue to do so.

In searching for Celsus's original words, it should be kept in mind that his book was lost/destroyed, such that we are relying on Origen's recounting of what he said. Thus, we don't necessarily have direct quotes from Celsus. Here is part of Celsus's analysis of the Persian/Mithraic mysteries, with which he compared to Christianity:




Here is the original Greek/Latin of this chapter (if Migne be trustworthy in this instance):




(Migne, Patrologia cursus completus, v. 11, cols. 1323-1326)

In book 6, chapter 23, Origen remarks of Celsus:


Here Origen is taking the perspective, of course, that all these figures were "real people," and the impression is given that Celsus is accusing such "real people" not of being myths but of rehashing myths. Obviously, we know that Origen's claim here rings hollow, since there is clearly much in the New Testament from the Persian and mysteries religions. (It should also be noted that, contra Origen, the Jews were very much engaged in delineating "seven heavens.")

I can see that Allen's summary encompasses much of what Origen claimed was in Celsus, spread across many pages. I had read and excerpted the English translation provided by Hoffmann - surprising that he would be so intimate with Celsus's skepticism and then irrationally lash out at others who share in such rational and scientific insights. It's great to see Allen's conclusions are the same as I provided in Christ Con, and it would still be good to highlight all the relevant parts in the original Greek/Latin.

Here's the original text for Contra Celsum 6.23, as quoted in English above:

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Acharya

I cannot help in finding the original Greek/Latin version of Origen on Celsus, but the following site has all three books of Origen's Against Celsus:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/ANF4-17.TXT

Some Christians claim that Celsus affirmed the existence of a historical Jesus, but the passages they use are just passages from a hypothetical Jew talking to the alleged Christian Jesus in a fictional conversation.

Celsus thought the Jewish scriptures were late compositions, and he labelled Christianity “blockheaded wisdom” to accept the Jewish scriptures yet reinterpret them allegorically. To give the Jewish viewpoint, Celsus introduces a hypothetical Jew, who says to the Son of God:

"You were born in a small Jewish village. Your mother was a poor woman who earned her bread by spinning. Her husband divorced her for adultery. You were born in secret and were afterwards carried to Egypt, and were brought up among the Egyptian conjurers. The arts which you there learnt, you practised when you returned to your own people, and you then persuaded them you were God. It was given out that you were born of a virgin. Your real father was a soldier named Panther. The story of your divine parentage is like the story of Danaë.

You say that, when you were baptized in Jordan, a dove descended upon you, and a voice was heard from heaven declaring that you were the Son of God. Who saw the dove? Who heard the voice, except you and another who suffered as you suffered? The prophets have foretold that a Son of God is to come. Granted. But how are we to know that they referred to you? They spoke of a glorious king who was to reign over the world. You, we know only as wandering about with publicans and boatmen of abandoned character.

You tell us that the wise men of the east came at your birth to adore you, that they gave notice to Herod and that Herod killed all the children in Bethlehem to prevent you from becoming king. You yourself escaped by going to Egypt. Is this story true? And, if it be, could not the angels who had been busy about your birth have protected you at home? When you grew up, what did you accomplish remarkable? What did you say? We challenged you in the temple to give us a sign as your credential. You had none to give.

You cured diseases, it is said. You restored dead bodies to life. You fed multitudes with a few loaves. These are the common tricks of the Egyptian wizards, which you may see performed every day in our markets for a few halfpence. They too drive out devils, heal sicknesses, call up the souls of the dead, provide suppers and tables covered with dishes, and make things seem what they are not. We do not call these wizards sons of God. We call them rogues and vagabonds."

Another second century skeptic, Lucian of Samosata, made some criticisms, although his comments could have either referred to Christians or Chrestians as he never used the name Jesus or Chrestos in his writings.

In about 150 CE, Marcion in his Antithesis made critical comparisons between the "good" god in his gospel and the evil demiurge Jewish god of the old testament. Interestingly Marcion did not make any comparisons between his Isu Chrestos, son of the good god, and the biblical Jesus version in the Christian gospels. This would be one indication that the Christian gospels were written after Marcion's New Testament and had not yet become available when Marcion wrote his Antithesis.

Rik

The video below reminds me of the chapter in Christ Conspiracy entitled: The Myth of Hebrew Monotheism

Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Here's a video by Graham Hancock, in which he discusses the Egyptian civilization and the appearance of the zodiac there. The relevant part is linked here:

Quest for Civilization, 9:18

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Prometheus Crucified

Here's another modern book with information confirming research in Christ Con:

Crucifixion in the Ancient World by Dr. Martin Hengel (1926-2009), a renowned German New Testament scholar and professor of religious history.

Hengel has a chapter titled, "Prometheus and Dionysus: the 'Crucified' and the 'Crucifying' God," in which he says:


Hengel appears to be saying that the Prometheus myth is the "only possibility" of an ancient crucified god, besides Jesus. As we can see, even this one example is enough to show that the Christian passion is unoriginal and unhistorical. However, if we include in the definition of "crucify" its various other meanings, such as "affixed to a cross" or in cruciform, as well as "to treat with gross injustice; persecute; torment; torture," then we can include many other gods such as Osiris and Dionysus, who suffer passions.

In Prometheus (1), Lucian states:


(Hengel's translation, 11).

One relevant part of Lucian's Greek is:


This is the passage Hengel renders, "We must not crucify him low and close to the ground." As we can see, the word here for "crucify" is ἐσταυρῶσθαι or estaurosthai, from the Greek verb σταυρόω or stauroo, meaning to "fence with pales," but also "to stake, impale or crucify." The Germanic term "stave" derives from this term. In this passage and elsewhere, therefore, Lucian employs the same Greek term used in the New Testament to describe Christ's cross, σταυρός stauros. Again, "to crucify" can also be used to describe someone staked to the ground, using a stauros.

Lucian (125-180 AD/CE) wrote at the middle to end of the second century, just before the canonical gospels as we have them clearly emerged in the historical record. He is recounting a much older account, however, in which Prometheus is depicted as crucified, an image we possess in artifacts preceding the Christian era by centuries. There is no question that in the pre-Christian myths Prometheus suffers a horrible fate that includes him be hung in the shape of a cross, as on this piece of pottery:


Prometheus crucified using chains on a Greek vase, c. 350. BCE

Hengel also gives the models for Lucian's depiction:


It is clear that in his description of Prometheus's crucifixion, Lucian is following not the gospel accounts but the texts of Hesiod and Aeschylus, dating to many centuries before the common era. (The word apotympanismos refers to the Athenian punishment of being beaten to death with "sticks, cudgels and clubs.")

The image of Prometheus staked or on a stauros, again the same term used to describe Christ's "cross" is also found on pre-Christian pottery:


Prometheus bound to a wooden stake or stauros, i.e., a cross, on a Greek vase, c. late sixth to early seventh cents. BCE.

Turning to Hesiod's Theogony, written in the 8th century BCE, at 521-525 we read of Zeus:


Hesiod's original Greek is:


In his play Prometheus Bound, written in the fifth century BCE, Aeschylus opens by referring to the god Hephaistos's role in crucifying Prometheus:


Like Jesus, ordained by God the Father to be crucified for the sake of mankind, who has sinned against the Father, Prometheus is likewise crucified because of his "offense" against Zeus by giving the divine gift of fire to humanity. Says Aeschylus of the ill-fated Prometheus:


Here's the Greek:


Writing c. 180 BCE, demonstrating an ongoing popularity of the Prometheus myth, mythographer Apollodorus (Library 1.7.1) states:


(Frazer translation)

The Greek:


As we can see, it's much the same story as told by Hesiod and others centuries before. It would thus appear that Lucian's account reflects an ancient tradition, centuries older than the Christian tale.

In my mind it is unquestionable that Christ's crucifixion was based significantly on that of Prometheus, as well as the hanging on a tree of Attis and the deaths of Osiris and Dionysus, among others, including the Norse god Odin, who is hung on a tree and suffers a wounding with a spear. (See the subsection "The Sacred Spear and the Side-Wounding" in my book Who Was Jesus?, 246fn.)

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Here's a PDF bibliography of books related to iconography, especially that of the Middle Ages. Note that the article about the priapus gallineceus artifact is included in this list and that the author has also written an article about the use of the cock as a symbol of Christ:

Baird, Lorrayne Y. "Christus gallinaceus: A Chaucerian enigma; or the Cock as Symbol for Christ in the Middle Ages," Studies in Iconography 9 (1983): 19-30.

Notice also that there is a section about astrology. I'm sure that I could find a number of the contentions in Christ Con in these various publications.

Iconography: A Checklist of Some Useful Sources for Scholars and Students of Medieval Art and Drama

Also note that - quelle horreur! - some of these books date to - gasp! - the 19th century!!

Someone had better tell the compiler, Dr. Clifford Davidson, a professor emeritus at Western Michigan University that he is obviously incompetent, since he included "outdated" scholarship. [/sarc]

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Quetzalcoatl/Kukulkan and Christ

As we know, I included in The Christ Conspiracy a limited discussion of the Mexican god Quetzalcoatl, also known to the Maya as Kukulkan, both names meaning "Feathered Serpent." In Christ Con (121), for example, I included a quote from Barbara Walker:


With this pithy paragraph, I could do a lengthy analysis of where each of its components comes from, a sizable study that does not end with the above parallels. Indeed, I already have a significant draft of material for a possible future book. Unfortunately, the apparent lack of interest in real Mesoamerican mythology (as opposed to the "2012" myths) does not make the endeavor worthwhile at this time.

Whence Come the Mesoamerican Religious and Mythological Structure, Ritual and Tradition?

In Christ Con, I averred that Phoenicians may have brought the story from the Americas back to the Mediterranean, where it could have been found in the library at Alexandria. I think that explanation may be too simplistic, and, although there are images of bearded males in Central America that appear to be "Semitic," we don't have any direct proof of contact or cultural exchange.

These cultural commonalities between the Old and New Worlds were so striking that the conquistadors, priests and other early travelers and chroniclers continually posited that one or more "Lost Tribe of Israel" had landed in the Americas and taught the "savages" there the "true faith." Thus were the commonalities between Judaism and Mesoamerican religion explained, while those between Mexican mythology and Christianity were explained by the purported arrival on American shores of either the proselytizing St. Thomas, flying on the back of an eagle, or Jesus Christ himself.

No Direct Evidence of Israelites

To my knowledge, there is no credible evidence of the Hebrew script in Central America, for example, nor do we find iron, both of which things one would think Israelite travelers would introduce to their apparent subjects, as the newcomers completely dominated the natives with their religion, which is what this theory indicates. All that conversion and imposition of religious rituals and myths without contributing any clear Hebrew words to the Mesoamerican vocabulary? It should be noted, however, that some native languages do appear to have similar root-words with Semitic dialects, as they do with other languages. This fact does not prove the biblical Israelites were ever in Central America, but it does increase the mystery of whence came the Mesoamerican peoples. (The DNA studies are another discussion.)

Moreover, would not someone among these "Lost Tribes" have thought of introducing the wheel? Again, to my knowledge, there is no evidence for the use by the Mesoamericans of the wheel - it is quite astonishing to consider that they could have built their incredible edifices without it. Or any metal, for that matter. Incredible!

The Mormon Connection

The parallels between Judeo-Christian and Mesoamerican traditions were so profound and well known that Mormon founder Joseph Smith attempted to explain them while creating a cult of his own. Now his Mormon descendants continue to try to prove the Book of Mormon by raising up these striking similarities. And that fact brings me to a paper by a Mormon scholar named Diane Wirth that one can easily read online:

Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God, and Jesus Christ

In this article, Wirth - who attended Harvard in addition to her Brigham Young background and thus knows how to write in a scholarly fashion - is attempting to prove true the Book of Mormon, in its assertion that the "Lost Tribes of Israel" settled in the Americas. She is also attempting to equate Jesus Christ (as in "He walked the Americas") with Quetzalcoatl/Kukulkan, thus demonstrating the obvious parallels between these two figures.

Wirth also has a book called Parallels: Mesoamerican and Ancient Middle Eastern Traditions, which I have not read yet but will be shortly. Here, obviously, she delves into the commonalities between Mesoamerican and Semitic religion and tradition.

What is of interest to the mythicist student/scholar are the many parallels, of course, between the New and Old World traditions, including the Judeo-Christian/biblical one. Wirth's work is valuable in that, in attempting to prove the connection between the Mesoamerican and biblical cultures, she has done a thorough study of the literary record, including primary sources as far back as we have them (minus discoveries since she wrote these publications). Thus, we have a clear path already cut that, when trimmed of the cultic viewpoints attempting to prove Mormonism to be true, leads us to the scientific core of this comparative-religion study.

In this regard, below I excerpt some relevant parts of Wirth's paper. Keep in mind that she is a true believer in the historicity of Jesus Christ and his divine mission, which, Mormons believe, extended to the Americas both before and after his purported advent on Earth. In this regard, it does not behoove her to skew the data favorably towards mythicism, although she most assuredly has presented us with numerous elements on which to follow up.


Wirth next proceeds to go through the proposed links, both plausible and questionable. The criteria for "questionable" parallels includes absence in the extant pre-Columbian record, along with specifics that seem too "Catholic." As Wirth says:


Wirth next asserts:


While it appears that Wirth is calling into question the Mesoamerican "Babel" or language-confusion account, as well as the parting of the waters, there is little reason to suppose that these common mythical motifs came from the Bible. Obviously, if there is a passage with the word "Babylonia" or other specific like that, we can designate it as post-Columbian biblical influence.

Biblical Influence or Common Mythical Motifs?

When such extraneous matter is trimmed, which includes removing Spanish-Mexican hybrids such as "Our Lady of Guadalupe," there is a core mythological and cosmological Mesoamerican tradition that is clearly not influenced by either Christianity or Judaism yet is startlingly similar, enough to drive these comparative-religion studies for the past 500 years.

Moreover, because we know that these various motifs can be found in other, "Old World" religions and mythologies apart from and frequently preceding Judaism, Christianity and the Bible, we are not as surprised as our forebears in this scholarship, who believed the Bible was the inerrant Word of God full of unique, historical figures and events. Discovering a basic framework of many of these motifs and characters was so stunning that the Europeans could only guess that far-wandering Jews, Christ, Thomas or other Christians had taught the natives long prior to Columbus. Or, these true believers fell back on the "devil got there first" retort, which allowed them to push it all out of their minds. In any event, the parallels are real, and we who have been studying comparative religion and mythology can discern them without denial based on piety and belief.


Wirth goes on to show through ancient texts, which include pre-Columbian codices, murals, pottery, wall inscriptions and other artifacts, that Quetzalcoatl and the Maize God were often syncretized, both sharing a story of descent into the underworld, death and resurrection, among other attributes. This story can be found in the Popol Vuh and is confirmed as pre-Columbian by its presence on the San Bartolo mural as well as other inscriptions.

Here's a video about the Heart of Sky/Quetzalcoatl/Maize God myth (go to 0:59 to start):



The Mesoamerican Virgin Birth

For the rest, see Wirth's article. She hastily dismisses the Mesoamerican virgin birth motif as having little significance because it is attached only (in the extant record) to the supposed historical king Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. There is reason, however, to suggest that this motif was likewise attached to the god(s) Quetzalcoatl as well, which is how it ended up as a motif for the king, not because the story suffers from Christianization. As we know, virgin births (parthenogenesis) were common in many places in the world.

When analyzing what may or may not have been original to the Mesoamerican religion, it should be kept in mind that, in a crime against humanity, thousands of codices were burned, destroying possibly a huge body of knowledge, only fragments of which we can reconstruct now. The presence of the virgin birth as a mythical motif elsewhere means we are not surprised at all to find it attached to any number of individuals, including in the Americas. The question is, how far back does it go? Did the concept come "out of Africa" with the early migrations, such that it ended up in the Americas? Or was there much later contact(s)?

Wirth goes into the creation accounts, including the comment by another scholar who concluded, "Comparative analysis also suggests that the often suspected Christian influence is minor..." Indeed, it is so minor that I keep wondering where it is, other than the few things I've addressed here, such as the use of the word "Babylonia" or the Virgin of Guadalupe and all such hybrid artifacts. Where else in the texts do we find the encroachment of any peculiarly Christian ideas or terminology? As I say, almost everything in the mythology that we know about can be compared to other religious and mythological systems, most if not all of which predate the creation of Christianity. Hence, none of it need be the result of Christian influence.

Resurrection

Wirth concurs with the above assessment for the most part, as she discuss also the blatant resurrection theme in Mesoamerican mythology, represented abundantly in the stories of Quetzalcoatl and the Maize God, as well as the Hero Twins. Lord Papan too is said to have died and resurrected. The Mesoamericans were much like the Egyptians in their afterlife beliefs and much else.

In this regard, professional Maya scholars, archaeologists and linguists, or "Mayanists," often use the term "resurrection" to describe the revivification of Quetzalcoatl and the Maize God. They are not shy to use it or to step on Christian feet, as we have seen elsewhere. The people of Central America most assuredly perceived resurrection from death to life in the same way we do, per our Christian conditioning regarding that concept. No hair splitting or nitpicking will suffice to change that fact.

Wirth also explores the theme of Quetzalcoatl representing the "Bread of Life" and being sacrificed for mankind, ideas found concerning the Christian savior:


Next follows a discussion of the World Tree or Tree of Life and the motif of resurrection:


(Note that Pakal is not an "ancient astronaut," as erroneously portrayed in a number of places.)

As we can see, a Harvard-educated scholar publishing in a peer-reviewed journal has stated definitively that the idea of the king resurrecting from death (as the Tree of Life) predates the pre-Columbian contact by many hundreds of years. Wirth would like to take this idea and remove it from nature, apparently, in order to use it to demonstrate the "truth" of Mormonism and claims that Quetzalcoatl is based on Jesus. However, as we can see so blatantly, here is a nature myth, representing the return to life via foliage. No biblical interpretation is necessary; nor did this idea come from Christianity to Paganism. On the contrary, this nature-worshipping concept was adopted into Christianity, as a central theme. The idea of a the resurrection via the World Tree or other plant is reminiscent of the Native American practice of burying the dead in fallow fields in order to nourish the later crops and other plants. Life from death, it's that simple. No Bible or Jesus is necessary.

The Sun

No discussion of Quetzalcoatl (or Jesus) would be complete without bringing in the sun. Wirth emphasizes the fact that Quetzalcoatl is significantly solar in nature:


As we can see, Mesoamerican mythology includes the sun god resurrecting out of the underworld to ascend to heaven, as "lord of the dawn," a motif found around the world, including in the solar cult of Christianity. We are also reminded of the discussion of the biblical "shoot of Jesse" that is often applied to Jesus. (Isaiah 11:1)

There is much more to Wirth's studies, in which she has done mythicists a great favor by summarizing the primary sources applicable to the parallels between the Mesoamerican and Judeo-Christian religions. When reading her work, of course, one must keep in mind that she is a Mormon attempting to prove the Book of Mormon to be true, assuming a priori that Christ is a historical figure, so some of her conclusions can be ignored.


Quetzalcoatl on the cross of the four directions

Further Reading

Maya watchtowers discovered to align with solstices and equinoxes
December 21, 2012 is coming - are we all going to die?
A critical history of 2012 mythology
Our Lord and Savior Quetzalcoatl

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Re the Celsus post above, John Felix got the book and reports the following:


I haven't analyzed what he is saying vis-a-vis what I wrote above, and I don't have time right now to touch up the Greek, but I wanted to get his FB comments into the forum before they disappear down a rabbit hole.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

More on Celsus's True Discourse: Early Critic Contends Christianity an Eclectic Mishmash of Earlier Philosophies and Religions

Okay, I'm finally get back to unraveling this mess!


To recap, the above sentence is on p. 11 of Dr. Don Allen's book, Mysteriously Meant, for which he provides the citation "Origen, Contra Celsum, PG XI, 1287-1503." As it turns out, Allen's short summary pertains to Books 6 and 7 of Origen's work, specifically the section from 6.1 to 7.59, these latter designations being chapters in the books. This section constitutes a lengthy and tedious discussion by Origen mainly of philosophy, but some of the pertinent quotes are as follows. As one can see, Allen's summary is accurate - and very important, as Celsus was a Pagan critic of Christianity writing about 177, just a few years after the canonical gospels as we have them suddenly burst onto the scene. Celsus, therefore, is one of the earliest witnesses to their existence and first Pagans to read them.

Greeks Borrowing from Jews or Vice Versa?

Throughout his book True Doctrine, Origen asserts, Celsus argues for the superiority of Greek philosophy over Jewish/Christian scriptures. He also evidently contended for the precedence of what became Greek thought over biblical ideas. Dating the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible to Moses's time, Origen naturally objects and claims the Jews had these ideas first. Here is a theme we see repeated throughout Christianity's early centuries: Wherever parallels are raised, it is always that the Pagans stole them from the Jews or that the devil anticipated Christianity and planted the ideas in Pagan heads. In any event, Pagans are the bad guys, according to Judeo-Christianity. Like many early Christian fanatics, Origen, supposedly a former Pagan but a serious water-carrier for the Jewish scriptures, seems to revel in abusing Pagans.

In chapter 1 of book 6, Origen states that Celsus has "quoted a considerable number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of these such declarations of holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion that these things are stated much better among the Greeks (than in the Scriptures)..."

In chapter 2 of book 6, Origen complains that Celsus unfavorably compares the "simplicity of the language of the Scripture, which appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour of polished discourse." In other words, the Jewish writings are cruder than Greek philosophical treatises.

Chief Good and Logos

Chapter 3 and 4 refer to the abstract notion of the "chief good," which is τὁ πρῶτον ἀγαθόν to proton agathon in the Greek and summum bonum in the Latin.



Many important ancient Latin writers discussed the "chief good" or summum bonum, including Marcus Tullius ("Tully") Cicero and Seneca, the latter of whose works appear to have influenced the composer(s) of certain "Pauline" epistles.

In attempting to establish priority, in book 4 Origen refers to "Our wise men, however--Moses, the most ancient of them all, and the prophets who followed him--knowing that the chief good could by no means be described in words, were the first who wrote that, as God manifests Himself to the deserving, and to those who are qualified to behold Him, He appeared to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob."

Chapter 5 contains a discussion of the Logos or "Word," another word used abundantly in pre-Christian literature. In Chapter 7, Origen again asserts the antiquity of Moses and the prophets, as predecessors of Plato and older "even than Homer and the invention of letters among the Greeks..."

Heraclitus and Plato

In chapter 12, Origen complains that Celsus "is not even acquainted with the words (of our sacred books)" but misunderstands them, concerning the wisdom-is-foolish statement by Paul, for example. Origen asserts that Celsus "wished to show that this statement was an invention of ours, and borrowed from the Grecian sages." So, here we see again that Celsus is attributing scripture to the Greeks, reiterated in chapter 13 as referring to Heraclitus and Plato, whom Origen is quick to point out post-date the alleged time of Moses and other prophets.

Egyptian Wisdom

Oddly enough, Origen hoists himself on his own petard in chapter 14, in which he admits that Moses and other prophets were not dealing strictly with knowledge bestowed supernaturally upon them by God:


Of course, in this admission, Origen boasts that these prophets were better educated and superior in intellect than their teachers. Nevertheless, the church father essentially is admitting Pagan influence on biblical prophets and writers.

In chapter 15, regarding a discussion of humility, Origen says that Celsus "imagines it is borrowed from some words of Plato imperfectly understood..." We read in chap. 16 that the scripture concerning the rich man and camel is traced by Celsus also to Plato and that "Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher." Origen specifically states that Celsus has "perused the Gospels," which would mean, again, he is one of the earliest non-Christians to lay eyes on them directly, since he wrote True Doctrine around 177, when the canonical gospels as we have them had just shortly before burst onto the scene. Celsus's testimony, therefore, is invaluable.

Chapter 17 complains that Celsus has either ignored or is unacquainted with scriptures regarding the "kingdom of God," as he has quoted none of them. So, we find a sketchy commentary on whether or not Celsus had all of the scriptures in front of him. Origen, it should be recalled, wrote decades later than Celsus (fl. 177), around 248.

More discussion of Plato follows, with Origen once again asserting priority to the biblical writers - a claim we know is also sketchy, since some of the texts were written after Plato's time, and Moses most assuredly did not write the Pentateuch. In chapter 19, Origen remarks:


Origen also states here:


This contention is important, as it does not deny that there are germane correspondences between biblical and Greek philosophy. However, there is no solid evidence that the OT scriptures were circulated among Greeks during Plato's era. In reality, it was considered blasphemous to allow nonbelievers access to the Jewish writings. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that philosophers at higher levels of learning co-mingled more freely in various circumstances, such as the University of Alexandria or within various mystery schools and brotherhoods that ringed the Mediterranean and beyond.

Mithraic Mysteries

Chapters 21 and 22 discuss the concept of "seven heavens," which Celsus is evidently tracing to Paganism, especially the Mithraic mysteries, so here is where Allen's claim that Celsus traces Christianity back to the mysteries of Mithra may be found.


See also my post above, in which I've included a snapshot of the relevant Greek in Origen concerning Mithra.

The Cabiri

In chapter 23, Origen reiterates that Celsus had claimed borrowing from the "Persian mysteries," but he tosses in the Cabiri, which is where Allen evidently gets that part of his summary:


Gnostics

Next follows a lengthy discussion of the Gnostics, whose works Celsus apparently also had read. Origen delineates that these writings are not "really Christian." Again, Celsus's testimony is of vital importance, because he was smack dab in the middle of when Christianity truly was organized, during the latter half of the second century. As we know, the "Christian" movement prior to that time was influenced largely by Gnosticism, so Celsus's perception of the Gnostic writings as "Christian" appears to have been mainstream at the time, confirming that organized Gnosticism preceded "Orthodox" Christianity, a fact explainable most satisfactorily if Jesus is a mythical/spiritual figurehead who was later falsely placed into history.

Eclecticism

In chapter 34, Origen quotes Celsus as saying that Christianity is the result of a process in which "they continue to heap together one thing after another":


Old Testament Midrash

In chapter 35, apparently in response to observations by Celsus that the New Testament writers had used the Old Testament in their creation, Origen remarks:


This process as part of what is called "midrash" is what I call the utilization of "messianic blueprints." Here we see whence comes Allen's contention that Celsus asserted Christians had borrowed "the Jewish tradition." So, Celsus had it right: Christianity is a combination of Paganism and Judaism, a fact that should be as obvious to us today as it was to him in the second century. Note that I have a chapter in my book Who Was Jesus? entitled "Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy?", an excerpt of which can be found at the link.

Jesus Not a Carpenter?

In refuting Celsus's comments in chapter 34, Origen makes a strange claim in ch. 36:




Note that Origen uses the very word τεκτων tekton, which most assuredly is in our canonical gospels as we have them. Therefore, as late as the middle of the third century (c. 248), the gospels being used in the churches did not claim Jesus was a tekton, commonly translated as "carpenter" but also used to describe other craftsmen, including masons. Indeed, the word tekton in modern Greek means "Freemason." It is quite astonishing to read a fervent Christian fanatic and early Church father argue against Jesus being a tekton/carpenter and admitting that whatever gospels Celsus was reading, they weren't those used authoritatively in churches of Origen's time.

Could there be any clearer admission that Christianity was not based solidly on some set-in-stone biography of a real person but was compiled and changed according to needs? No doubt Origen would find all the modern "biographies" about the great carpenter Jesus to be distressful and erroneous. (See my article "Was the historical Jesus a carpenter?")

Typhon, Horus and Osiris

In chapter 42, Origen relates Celsus's argument against the biblical battle between Satan and God/Jesus, and here he raises comparisons with the story of Typhon and Horus:


Since Celsus's time, many people have noted the comparison between the battles of Jesus/Satan and Horus/Typhon/Set. This is the last part of the quote from Allen, which, as we can see, is accurate. There is much more in these books and chapters of Origen against Celsus, including a specific reference to the Stoics in chapter 71 of book 6.

Marcion

Note that Celsus also discusses Marcion (ch. 74), who compiled the first New Testament in the middle of the second century. Analyzing Celsus's words about Marcion would be a whole other post.

Chaldeans, Persians, et al.

Chapter 80 also contains some interesting contentions:


That's basically the end of book 6, but Allen's citation proceeds into book 7, all the way to chapter 59. That book in itself would require another lengthy study.

Early Mythicism

Although at times it appears that Celsus believes there was a "historical Jesus" somewhere under all the layers of myth and midrash, his consistent tendency to trace different parts of Christian doctrine to other religions and mysteries is the same as that of the much later mythicist school. In fact, it is obvious that many of these older scholars are following closely in Celsus's considerable footprints in not a few of their contentions. In consideration of this fact, laid out so neatly in Allen's summary, it's a head scratcher that there exist even among mythicists those completely ignorant or in denial of these obvious influences on Christianity, including not only the Greek philosophers but also the mysteries and myths of the Cabiri, Mithraists and Egyptians. As an educated person of his vitally important era, we can see how Celsus would connect the dots in the same way as the better educated mythicists of the past (and present).

Next, I will analyze the second and bolded/enlarged sentence in Allen's quote, as below.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

This information on Celsus is very interesting. I have never heard of him, but the writing you quote here agrees with what I think actually happened; Christianity began in Persia modified by Greek Neo-Platonic philosophy and logical inquiry. This would have been the very best beginning of a new religion - a religion based on seeking truth of what we can know 'for sure' about the cosmos around us. A branch of this religion made its way down into Palestine, possible being taught by Jesus and John, upon whose deaths (by however means) the religion was seized upon by Pharisees and into it was combined 'Teacher of Righteousness' texts found at Qumran, their secret "University of Sacred Forgeries".

This religion was meant for 'export only' and was sent back out to turn non-Jews into 'second class Jews' to be ruled from the Temple in Jerusalem. It was initially meant as a means of political subversion against Roman rule in Palestine. Paul and/or his disciples figured out they could take this religion for themselves, use the Jewish Septuagint connection for a ready made 'ancient well' of 'prophecy' and voila'! A new religion was born.

This Judeo-Christian religion competed with other and earlier versions of Christianity (now lumped together as 'Gnosticism') and eventually won out because it was rabidly organized, while the other sects were not. Thereafter, the victors wrote the 'history' of Early Christianity as if they were the only ones that ever existed. Lies upon lies upon lies.

I am going to have to see if I can dig up an English copy of this writer.

I believe it is most important that Christians understand their religion was NOT originally based on Judaism and that by researching back into history and their own natures, they can 'resurrect' the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY as a stand alone religion have absolutely no connection with either Jesus or Judaism. This is important, particularly given it is absolutely clear now, that Judaism was a faked religion from its very inception, not in the Bronze Age of the Middle East as it claims, but in the minds of some low political hacks returning from Babylonian exile to try and re-establish their rule over Judean and Samaritan peasants after the year 536 B.C.

Thanks for the interest and sharing.

You may want to read some of my books, which build upon the same basic ideas found in the summary of Celsus's work here. Christianity is a combination of Judaism and Paganism, drawing on mythical motifs from around the known world of the time, including into Persia and India. In fabricating this new religion, its framers drew heavily upon the Jewish scriptures as well, of course. One can delineate many biblical verses, particularly from the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint.

Added into this mix is a hefty dose of Greek philosophy, as well as Persian religion and mythology, which had already been incorporated significantly into Judaism during the "Babylonian Exile" and earlier. India also plays a huge role in this syncretic effort, as did Syria. I discuss the role of all these nations/ethnicities.

I have also written a nearly 600-page book showing the Egyptian roots of much "Christian" doctrine, myth and tradition, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. In this regard, the crucible of the Christian effort is Alexandria, Egypt, where this multifaceted stew was concocted largely. Thrown into this mix are Buddhist scriptures and religious ideas as well.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Celsus: Christ Story a Collection of Myths and Legends, Bible Imitates Greek Myths

Continuing with the analysis of Celsus, we read in Dr. Don Allen's book Mysteriously Meant (11):


This summary follows the sentence previously analyzed contending that Celsus had asserted Christianity as an eclectic mishmash of myths and traditions from various cultures, including the Stoics, Jews, Mithraists and followers of the Egyptian religion and Cabiri mysteries. Hence, we can see that the first part of the sentence here has been covered that the story of Christ is a concatenation or compilation of myths. The last part of Allen's contention is cited as coming from columns 951-954 in Contra Celsum, PG XI, a section that corresponds roughly to book 3, chapters 26-27.

In these two chapters, we discover some interesting assertions, including that in "adducing from history marvellous occurrences," as Origen claims he does, Celsus raises up the story of a figure called Aristeas of Proconnesus. Previously, in book 3, chapter 3, Origen had remarked:


Asclepius and Jesus

The comparison with the Greek god Aesclulapius or Asklepios/Asclepius is appropriate, since the Christ myth apparently drew significantly upon this mythical figure, including his dark, long-haired and bearded appearance.


Bust of Asclepius

See also "Asclepius and Jesus":


In this regard, Asclepius was called "Soter," meaning "Savior," the same term used for the later Christ, as at John 4:42, in which the evangelist deems Jesus ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου or "savior of the world."


The first line is a broken "Asklepios," while the second line reads SOTERI.

A form of the word soter meaning "savior" or "to save" is also used repeatedly in the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint to describe the Jewish tribal god Yahweh. Luke 1:47 also calls God soter.

As comparison between Asclepius and Jesus, including Celsus's commentary, would be the subject of another monograph. It may be that the Therapeuts at Alexandria, Egypt, were worshippers of Asclepius, at least in the form of the Greco-Egyptian Serapis, who resembles both the Greek god and the Judeo-Christian godman. It should be recalled that the church historian Eusebius contended that the short allegorical works of the Therapeuts served as the basis of the gospels.

Note also that these Therapeuts were highly Buddhistic and appear to have been part of the lineage of Buddhist medical missionaries purportedly sent to Egypt by Ashoka.

In any event, we can see where Allen's summary is accurate regarding Celsus bringing in "various old myths" in discussing the Christ story. To our knowledge, Celssus did not used the Greek equivalent of "concatenation" or state explicitly that Jesus was a combination of these various entities.

Aristeas the Wonder-worker

The subsequent part of Allen's summary concerning the "wandering Greek and barbarian wonder-workers who plagued antiquity" represents a reference to a discussion of Aristeas, a "semi-legendary Greek poet and miracle-worker" who supposedly lived during the seventh century BCE. Aristeas may be an euphemerized/evemerized or apotheosized individual of that era, if he is not entirely mythical.

Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE) relates that Aristeas, alleged author of poetic verses called "Arimaspian," purportedly had the ability to resurrect and supernaturally transport himself after he supposedly dropped dead onto the floor of a fuller's shop in Proconnesus. The fuller went to tell others of the sudden death, when it was learned that another man had just arrived who had purportedly met and spoken to the Greek wonder-worker on the road to Cyzicus. Aristeas is recorded as disappearing and reappearing other times after that. Some 240 years later, it was related, Aristeas reappeared in southern Italy "to command that a statue of himself be set up and a new altar dedicated to Apollo, saying that since his death he had been travelling with Apollo in the form of a sacred raven."

Tales of manifestation or bilocation and disappearance also were told centuries later about the Greek sage and wonder-worker Apollonius of Tyana. In any event, we can see whence comes Allen's summary of wonderworkers raised in comparison to Christ.

After this discussionof Aristeas in Contra Celsum 3.26-27, Origen remarks in chapter 27:


Here we learn that Celsus undeniably considered the supernatural stories about Jesus to be "wholly fictious," and his criticisms sound much like the enduring thread of doubt in the biblical miracles that has come down to us through the centuries. While many people who consider themselves to be rational do not believe in such supernatural aspects of the gospel story, they do believe that there was a "historical" sage, rabblerouser or political rebel underneath all the fictions, a viewpoint called "euhemerism" or, for pronunciation's sake, "evemerism." At the very least, Celsus is to be viewed as an evemerist, if not a mythicist.

Although Origen makes Celsus out to be a believer in the Aristeas miracles, we do not know if that was the intent of Celsus's comments - highly unlikely in consideration of his disbelief in the Jesus miracles - because we do not possess the original of Celsus, only Origen's refutation. It should be recalled that Origen is writing his critique over 70 years after the publication of Celsus's book, and the Greek philosopher was long dead at the time. Since Origen felt the need to address Celsus's book, especially so thoroughly, it is apparent that the Greek critic was continuing to make an impact and was being cited by intellectuals of Origen's day, seven decades later.

Allen's summary of Celsus's views thus appears sound and accurate enough. In this regard, this modern scholar has confirmed that even in antiquity there was doubt about the historicity of the gospel account and that the story was viewed a concatenation/mishmash of religious and mythological doctrines, traditions, rituals and ideas from ancient times and a variety of cultures. This perspective is the same I expressed in The Christ Conspiracy, as on the back cover:


Biblical Tales as Greek Myths

Moving on in Allen's book, we find on pp. 11-12 the following:


As we can see, Celsus possessed a rational view of biblical myths much like what we share today. The contention of "allegory" has been used numerous times since antiquity, including abundantly by Origen himself, all the while the same apologists will claim that the Bible represents "literal history."

This latter contention Allen cites as appearing in Migne/PG in cols. 1098-1106, which corresponds roughly to book 4, chapters 41-48, of Contra Celsum. Chapter 41 addresses Celsus's comparison of the biblical flood myth with the Greek myth of Deucalion, claiming that the latter was the original. This particular argument has been used by countless individuals over the centuries since Celsus, including within the discipline of Jesus mythicism. In response to this conclusion, Origen feels the need again possibly to misrepresent Celsus's views by asserting that the latter himself believed in the Greek myth, a claim for which we possess no independent evidence but which likely is calumny, based on Celsus's overall skepticism of supernatural myths and motifs.

According to Origen, Celsus wrote:


Origen complains about Celsus's "hostile" tone and says that the latter was incredulous that Noah's ark could hold all the animals of the world - again, a scientific perspective held by rationalists today as well. It is amusing to note the use of faux outrage here about Celsus's tone, since Origen himself relishes in lambasting and possibly misrepresenting a long deceased man in order to ridicule him.

In chapter 42, we discover that Celsus has revealed he read the biblical book of Genesis closely in dissecting the story of the dove released from the ark. Says Origen:


Again, if he did indeed believe as Origen suggests, Celsus shows his good sense in averring that the "Books of Moses" or Pentateuch were written not by the Israelite lawgiver but by several hands.

Origen then complains again about the Greek myths, wondering how critics can impart to them an "air of dignity, by investing them with an allegorical signification; but when they wish to throw contempt our biblical narratives, they assert they are fables, clumsily invented for infant children!" This latter part again sounds about right, but Origen is using here an old tactic of conflation and misdirection, as he lumps Celsus in with all other critics and summarily dismisses through distraction fallacies the critic's logical and rational observations.

Again, we do not know if Celsus himself believed in the Greek myths as historical fact or supernatural "reality." Rather, it is likely that he always understood them as allegory, as educated people are wont to do. It is likely Celsus would have held the Greek myths in contempt as well, if he had been confronted with those who believed them to be historical fact, having taken place in the third dimension on planet Earth.

In any case, here we see that Allen's summary is correct once more, as concerns Celsus's views of the Bible containing imitations of Greek myths.

Christ's Biography Conflated from Myths of Hercules, Bacchus and Orpheus?

In a similar vein as previously discussed in the "concatenation" section above, on p. 12 Allen again asserts:


For this contention, Allen cites columns 1047, 1498, representing sections 4.16-17 and 7.53-54, respectively.

In chapter 17 of book 4, Origen raises the story of Dionysus, "deceived by the Titans, and expelled from the throne of Jupiter, and torn in pieces by them, and his remains being afterwards put together again, he returned as it were once more to life, and ascended to heaven..." Presumably, Origen is saying that Celsus brought up this tale in like manner as did early Church father Justin Martyr decades before Celsus, around 150 AD/CE.

In his First Apology, Justin remarked:


In this regard, it appears that Celsus was engaging in a similar exercise in bringing up various myths and comparing them to the story about Christ. Hence, Allen's conclusion that Celsus opined the Christ myth likewise to be a mishmash of such myths, although I do not see any such direct statement by Celsus. I have not scrutinized the Greek, however, to see what Allen, a sober scholar from Johns Hopkins, may have been looking at. It is important, nevertheless, that this professional scholar himself was aware of this viewpoint - how many other academics also have been aware of this mythicist perspective?

Chapters 53 and 54 of book 7 are of little help as well, as they do not state outright what Allen has summarized. However, 53 recounts Celsus's words wondering why, if they reject Hercules and Asclepius, the Christians did not light upon other respectable figures such as Orpheus, "who was confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death."

In chapter 53 also, Origen quotes Celsus as accusing Christians of mutilating various Sibylline oracles, in order to include a supposed prophecy of their godman, Jesus, and his ignoble crucifixion:


Naturally, Origen objects to all of these characterizations.

In the end, Allen's summaries are largely accurate as generalizations of the direction in which Celsus appeared to have taken his polemic, according to Origen. The last quote from Allen here may be challenged in its precision, as we do not see readily a direct quote from Celsus indicating as much. However, we may infer from other sections that he had concluded Christ to be an apotheosized/evemerized/deified figure at the very least and perhaps wholly fictional. In any event, this concatenation or mishmash of mythical motifs, Jewish scriptures and adventures of multiple wonder-workers cannot be considered a "real person" but is a myth. This fact was obvious to some rational and educated critics from the date of the clear emergence of the canonical gospels into the historical record.

In consideration of the quotes from Justin Martyr, as well as Ambrose, who "urges Christians 'to seek in the fables the shadows and counterfeits of Jesus" - the "sons of Jove" - we would not be remiss in doing likewise. Yet, since these ancient gods and goddesses preceded Jesus, it is quite obviously the latter who is a counterfeit of the former. Interestingly, Ambrose labeled Jesus sol novus noster or "our new sun."

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

I've not had a chance to read this book yet but, in it's description Thomas Brodie makes precisely the same case as what Acharya S has been saying for 20 years; that the writers of the New Testament simply used the Old Testament as a blueprint.

Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery by Thomas L. Brodie




As one commenter says:


Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus–Review of Thomas Brodie’s New Book

Another reviewer says:


Rene Salm has added this book to his mythicist timeline saying:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Neil's been running a blog on Brodie's book over @ the Vridar blog too. It seems that the fall out from this book has now taken it's toll and the local clergy have taken issue with Brodie for expressing his opinions.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Oh, he has several blogs discussing Thomas Brodie's books HERE but, I really enjoyed Brodie's review of Bart Ehrmans' DJE?:


It's too bad Neil Godfrey is so caustic with us here; even though his very own blogs demonstrate that other scholars in are total agreement with what Acharya S has been saying for many years - Neil just can't handle it.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube