Celsus, on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians

Rating:
Summary: Must Read for Students of Early Christianity.........
Review: .................all of Celsus' work was destroyed by Christian emperors, but "On the True Doctrine" is "preserved" only because it was contained, in pieces, within polemic against the work that was written by Origen of Alexandria. This book is a reconstruction and translation of Celsus' writing found within the 13th century work, Contra Celsum. There is also a forty page or so introduction to Celsus' work, that sets the stage for better understanding the world in which Celsus wrote "On the True Doctrine".

My impression when reading this book was "Wow, the same arguments are still being made against Christianity (particularly Fundamentalism) today!", i.e., that Jesus was a charlatan that mislead the gullible and uneducated, that Christianity is, overall, not very original in its beliefs, that Jesus could not really have risen from the dead, that the beliefs about the Christian god don't make him seem very god-like, among others.

The book reads relatively easily and quickly. We can never know, of course, if we are really reading words that are close to the original "On the True Doctrine" as was written by Celsus some eighteen hundreds years ago. The manuscripts were destroyed so we must rely on Origen to have given us an accurate representation of Celsus' ideas. Additionally, we are relying on a reconstruction, which has its own added challenges. Luckily, it is easy to believe that Celsus' work is similar to what we read in Hoffman's translation and reconstruction. Why wouldn't a thinking man such as Celsus challenge the new religion of Christianity just as we are lead to believe he did? As I have said, many of the same challenges exist today.

In short, I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more about early Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Celsus On the True Doctrine
Review: Celsus was a man of reason in the Classical style of Hellenistic civilization. Sadly, much of what Celsus argues was forcefully expunged from our collective consciousness by Christian arrogance and disdain for reason and wisdom. Celsus, with that biting tongue that one loves from Roman writers, demonstrates the falsity of Christian doctrine, its philosophical weaknesses and inherent contradictions. It is only in the time of the Enlightenment that we again see the "Christ" debate appear again. This is a worthy translation and easy to read. It is well footnoted. The introduction by Hoffman is excellent and balanced. One can see why that old forgerer Eusebius attacked Celsus with spite and concern. Celsus asks questions that we are only finally asking in the last few years. Think about it: for over 1700 years of Western civilization, the challenges and questions raised by Celsus, et al, were condemned and only wispered behind locked doors. What wisdom and ideas have we lost from this imperious regime of faith and intolerance imposed on us with fire and sword? All that we learned from Plato we lost to faith! What if the Emperor Julian had lived? Imagine the difference in human reason and development. Good words to Hoffman for bringing this important philosopher back to life!

Rating:
Summary: Just a Thought
Review: I am not sure who came first - Celsus or rabbinical libels - to identify Jesus as the illegitimate son to a Roman solder, a Syrian Archer Pantera. Incidentally near BingerbrŸck we excavated the tombstone of the archer Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (now in the Museum of Kreuznach), whose cohort had been transferred from Syria to the Rhine in 9 AD. He was born in Sidon, Phoenicia. I myself had a good look at the thing. The fact is generally dismissed as a strange coincidence. But actually such ÒcoincidenceÓ is a rather long shot. There is this one grave that answers all the requirements, and nothing like it anywhere else. And it surfaces in the most logical place! (After the loss of 3 legions in 8 AD., Rome scraped together reinforcements from all over the empire.) Before his transfer this tribune had been stationed in CeasaresÕs barracks, a brisk 4 hours walk away from JesusÕ homestead, Nazareth. So he may very well have known the physical mother of a physical Jesus. It would shed additional light on the anti-Jewish sentiment and the Samaritan affiliations hinted at in the gospel of John. Besides: Notice the large time gap between the ÒlibelÓ and its "rebuttal!" If my memory serves me right Celsus wrote his attack in 178 AD. and died approximately 5 years before Origin (185-253) was born. Origin waited till 248 before he wrote his rebuttal. That's playing it rather safe, but not untypical for the way Christian apologists operated. ...Well, better than being on time and have the opposition burned alive.

Rating:
Summary: Great Criticism of Christianity for the 2'nd or 21'st centur
Review: I was delighted with this book. It is short, easily read, and
contains a very good summary of the major complaints against
Christianity that I have always had. And this book was
originally written 1800 and something years ago!

Also, because of the complaints Celsus makes about Christian
literature of his time, you can see that some potential
criticisms against Christianity are _not_ valid. Those who
claim that the gospels did not exist until the 4'th century
are proven wrong by Celsus quoting them in the 2n'd -- of course
this doesn't mean that the full extent of the gospels existed
in their current form. In fact Celsus claims that Christians
were constantly rewriting the gospels in order to counter
criticisms made against them.

Finally, and importantly, Celsus opens up the world of the
Platonic definition of God in a way I had heard of but could
not really imagine. Platonic theology (although I don't believe
it) certainly puts all Christian theology to shame -- in an
intellectual sort of way.

This book is really worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: Great Criticism of Christianity for the 2'nd or 21'st centur
Review: I was delighted with this book. It is short, easily read, and
contains a very good summary of the major complaints against
Christianity that I have always had. And this book was
originally written 1800 and something years ago!

Also, because of the complaints Celsus makes about Christian
literature of his time, you can see that some potential
criticisms against Christianity are _not_ valid. Those who
claim that the gospels did not exist until the 4'th century
are proven wrong by Celsus quoting them in the 2n'd -- of course
this doesn't mean that the full extent of the gospels existed
in their current form. In fact Celsus claims that Christians
were constantly rewriting the gospels in order to counter
criticisms made against them.

Finally, and importantly, Celsus opens up the world of the
Platonic definition of God in a way I had heard of but could
not really imagine. Platonic theology (although I don't believe
it) certainly puts all Christian theology to shame -- in an
intellectual sort of way.

This book is really worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: A speculative reconstruction
Review: This work by the second-century writer Celsus the Philosopher is lost, like so much of ancient literature, not because of 16th century style 'censorship' but because of the collapse of the society that gave it birth. Even in Origen's day, it was a scarce pamphlet - Origen had never seen or heard of it before he was asked to refute it. And since it explicitly insulted those who copied nearly all ancient literature, its chances were poor.

The work was preserved because Origen of Alexandria wrote a point by point refutation. Extant only in a late MS and some rather better quotations, Contra Celsum forms the raw material for this book. It is disappointing that Hoffmann glosses over the MS tradition.

The book consists of a preface telling a strange version of Christian origins much different to that given by anyone in antiquity. Unfortunately no evidence is given for this view, although incidental points of information are footnoted, which makes the preface of questionable value.

The text itself seems to have been created by taking the portions of Origen's text, which were highlighted as probably by Celsus in Chadwick's magisterial English translation, and running them together. I looked at one passage, and compared the two versions. Hoffmann has added a fair amount of bridging wording, as a comparison with Chadwick makes clear. I would have liked to see Hoffmann's additions labelled as such, and the reference to Contra Celsum given. The translation seems to follow Chadwick closely, although Hoffmann says he made his own, and is probably the better for this. The order of the fragments is that of Contra Celsum. Some footnotes are also made, although the value of these is variable. Another passage I examined showed that Hoffmann had taken two sentences and two fragments, and rewritten them fairly freely, losing the original sense in the process. To what extent this is typical I cannot say.

OUP's editors have ensured that the whole book is sharply edited and very well-presented.

The comments that Celsus makes, from a range of mutually contradictory positions, are answered thoroughly by Origen. It is unfortunate that Hoffmann has ensured that these replies will not be available to the reader at the same time, as in some cases Celsus' remarks are liable to be misunderstood in a sense foreign to the period.

Is this a useful volume? It is difficult to see that it adds anything to Chadwick, and to be fair Hoffmann in his preface seems to understand that some will feel this. The omission of Origen and addition (unmarked) of modern material makes the book essentially a speculative enterprise, based on no MS, but on the imagination of modern workers.

The obvious public for this book is that constituency which is interested in anything that is anti-Christian, and doesn't care whether it's true or not, as can be seen from the other reviews. Material from the book is already appearing in contemporary atheist broadsides. While it is always good to have copies of any text which has survived, a book which is not a faithful copy of an ancient text, and which can only give rise to anti-Christian rhetoric, is something I would hesitate to recommend.

Note 1: The book does appear in the academic bibliography l'Année Philologique, but was ignored by most journals. It was reviewed only by two minor journals; a brief notice by JUNOD, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 122 (1990) 136; and TRIGG, Church History 57 (1988) 353-4. Both raise questions about the authenticity and integrity of Hoffmann's book.

Junod welcomes the translation but asks why the author doesn't discuss the philological issues in reconstituting such a text; how it advances scholarship; and why Hoffmann refers to works in the bibliography he plainly has not read.

Trigg notes that Hoffmann has actually revised Celsus' words to take account of Origen's replies and edited out superstitious pagan content. He concludes, "... not a bona fide translation. It would almost appear that Hoffmann deliberately wishes unsuspecting readers to see Celsus as a detached and skeptical professor of religious studies rather than as a pious Hellenist".

Note 2: Hoffmann tells his reader that he made this book at 'Westminster College, Oxford'. Readers may not know that this is not part of the university, but a Methodist training establishment which in its final years published a number of anti-Christian books, and is now defunct.

Note 3: The reader should not confuse Celsus Philosophus with the first-century medical writer Celsus.

Rating:
Summary: Rescued from the historical dustbin!
Review: We don't need to ask who consigned Celsus to the dustbin of history; the Catholic Church burned this book whenever it found it.

Obviously, Celsus was on to something. Origen the Eunuch spent many many pages in "refuting Celsus," and, when he was finished with the "refutation," the order went out to burn all the copies, just in case.

This is, therefore, a very interesting early example of a totalitarian institution "rewriting history."

The really funny part comes next. After refuting this book and destroying it, guess who was keeping a copy for future historians to revive? The Church, of course! Origen's "refutation" of Celsus was so extensive that he cited virtually the entire work in the pages of his "refutation!" :-)

Celsus makes many interesting points, among them that Christian preachers preferentially recruited uneducated people.

Highly recommended!

Rating:
Summary: An interesting read...
Review: While I had read numerous books with references to Celsus in them, I have just gotten around to reading a translation of his book "On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians."

I was pleasantly surprised by how easy it was to read (due largely in part to the translator, R. Joseph Hoffmann). The text flows well from section to section, though it seems to be in no particular order.

Thankfully, the translator has included both a detailed introduction and 'notes' section. Both were extremely helpful in understanding certain passages contained within the main text, and the introduction (specifically) would be of interest to anyone who wants a better understanding of Celsus and/or the anti-Christian sentiment that existed during his time.

All in all, a good read, but not recommended for anyone who is staunchly Christian (i.e. cannot "willingly suspend disbelief) or does not have at least a general understanding of Christianity (obviously, there are numerous references both to Judaism and Christianity).