Kelsos

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fragment of the True Doctrine of Kelsos as a quotation in the counter- scripture Against Kelsos : Cairo, Egyptian Museum , Papyrus JE 88747, page 29, lines 7 and 8 (oldest text tradition, late 6th or early 7th century)

Kelsos ( ancient Greek Κέλσος Kélsos , Latin Celsus ) was an ancient philosopher . He lived in the second half of the 2nd century.

From the perspective of the Platonic tradition to which he belonged, Kelsos wrote the True Doctrine , the oldest known pamphlet against Christianity. This work in ancient Greek has only survived in fragments. The main features of the content can be reconstructed thanks to the numerous quotations in the counter-writing Against Kelsos by the church writer Origen .

Kelsos had considerable detailed knowledge of the Bible. He knew his way around the Christian doctrines and the differences of opinion between the various Christian schools of thought. He viewed Christianity as a phenomenon of decay that had arisen from the falsification of the Jewish religion , and attacked it with a wealth of arguments. In particular, he accused the Christians of being separated from the social fabric of the Roman Empire . From his point of view, they were a movement hostile to culture and education, which wrongly made a claim to superiority, arrogantly excluded itself from society as a fringe group and formed a harmful foreign body in the state. He therefore appealed to the educated and thoughtful among them to understand their errors, to give up their exclusivity and to integrate themselves into the state community.

In modern times, the ancient controversy between Kelsus and Origen has been renewed. Opponents of Christianity took up the criticism of the Kelsos, while Christian authors claimed that his arguments had been refuted by Origen. Modern research values true teaching as a source of cultural history of great value. The extent to which it can be considered an independent philosophical achievement is controversial.

Life

There are no reports about the origin and life of the philosopher, about his homeland and residence there are only guesses. Attempts to identify him with someone else they know have not produced convincing results. At least one detail is certain: the remarks of Celsus that he could use prophecies in Phenicia and Palestine to communicate what he “heard and got to know exactly”, and that he heard the alleged prophets himself, prove that he was at least temporarily in them Region has stayed.

All information available today about Kelsos comes from Origen, who wrote his extensive, eight-book reply in the 240s. Apparently Origen knew nothing more about Kelsus and his views than what he could infer from the True Doctrine . He mistakenly identified the Platonist Kelsos, against whom he turned, with an Epicurean of the same name , but admitted his uncertainty in this regard. The term Epicurean was then often used as a swear word to discredit a philosophical opponent.

The true teaching

Origin and text transmission

The pamphlet against Christianity with the title Ἀληθὴς λόγος Alēthḗs lógos (True Teaching) , according to the prevailing research opinion, was probably created in Alexandria . In addition, Rome, Caesarea Maritima and Pergamon were suggested as possible places of origin. Kelsos probably wrote under Emperor Mark Aurel (161-180).

Often, based on the author's suggestion of the current situation, the drafting is set in the period between 176 and 180; occasionally, a late dating around 200 has been advocated. The original text is only partially preserved; At the latest after the elevation of Christianity to the state religion and the prohibition of all other cults in the late 4th century, all possibly still existing copies were destroyed, since criticism of Christianity was no longer tolerated from now on.

The passages that have survived are available in the form of the quotations that Origen inserted into his counter-script. Origen's work, also written in Greek, bears the title Against the text of Kelsos entitled 'True Doctrine' (for short against Kelsos , Latin Contra Celsum ). Since the Christian opponent quoted one section after the other and tried to refute it, the structure and content of the True Doctrine can largely be deduced from his presentation . However, as he himself admitted, Origen proceeded at his own discretion when quoting. Research results confirm this arbitrariness: Contrary to his assertion, the church writer did not consistently follow the order of the arguments of the kelsos; he ignored statements that he considered worthless, left out some questions and made cuts in the passages quoted, which created gaps and ambiguities that make understanding considerably more difficult.

Origen claimed to have gone into all of the opponent's arguments, but the researchers' opinions differ widely as to how large the part of the original text he reproduced is. Some deny that the fragments allow a reconstruction. According to the opposing position, thanks to the indirect tradition, the text is largely or almost completely saved; according to a particularly optimistic assessment, only about a tenth is lost.

Background and purpose

With the title Alethes logos , which Kelsos gave to his writing, he announced a true “ logos ”. The ambiguous word logos in ancient Greek denotes, among other things, a statement, an assertion, an explanation or instruction or even an entire treatise, often with the connotation of the reasonable. In the present context, a philosophical teaching is meant. In the title of the work, the author not only self-confidently asserted his claim to proclaim the truth, but also countered the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as Logos in person - the incarnate Word of God - with his own Logos concept. Under the "true doctrine", to which the title refers, Kelsos understood an initial religious-philosophical knowledge that was originally shared by the oldest peoples and especially their wisdom teachers, which was laid down in the writings of the wise and shaped the customs of the individual peoples. He named several peoples as bearers of such traditions, including the Egyptians , Assyrians , Indians and Persians . He also counted the Celtic druids among the owners of time-honored wisdom. Among the individual personalities who, in his opinion, possessed the true doctrine, he led Orpheus , Pherecytes of Syros , Pythagoras and Zarathustra ("Zoroastres"). From Kelsos' point of view, Plato was by no means the creator of a new philosophy, but only an excellent explainer and herald of ancient wisdom. This picture of the history of philosophy was not a peculiarity of the Kelsos; it was also represented by the Middle Platonist Numenios , who lived around the middle of the 2nd century.

In the 2nd century, the Greek-speaking educated people valued the ancient wisdom of the “ barbarians ” - the non-Greek peoples. Kelsos admitted to this point of view, but was also convinced of the intellectual superiority of Greece. He found that the barbarians were capable of inventing valuable doctrines, but that the Greeks were better at assessing and justifying the insights they gained and in their “application with regard to virtue ”, that is, in ethical practice.

The Jewish religion did not count Kelsos among the admirable ancient wisdom traditions, because he said that although it is based on ancient Egyptian knowledge, this original truth was in part falsified by Moses . Nevertheless, he saw in Judaism a legitimate tradition which, like other ethnic traditions and customs, should be respected. On the other hand, Christianity, which he considered to be a mere perversion of Judaism, did not accord such a rank.

At the core of the Kelsos criticism of the Christians was the accusation that they had mixed up traditional truth with their own inventions, which were unfounded and absurd assertions. This judgment was underpinned in the True Doctrine with a wealth of arguments from the perspective of a Platonic view of the world and of man.

The intention that Kelsos pursued with his work was not limited to the mere refutation of Christian doctrine for the purpose of curbing its spread. Rather, the True Doctrine was both a combat pamphlet that provided ammunition for intellectual disputes, as well as a textbook that was supposed to teach truthfully about God and the world, and a promotional pamphlet for the author's philosophy. Kelsos not only wanted to attack, but also had a protreptic goal: He presented the "true doctrine", that is, his Platonism, as a superior alternative to induce the educated minority among Christians to turn away from their beliefs and to move them to his own worldview to convert. At the same time, he wanted to make a contribution to strengthening civic loyalty, because he considered the influence of Christian thought to be state-disruptive. In view of the current threat to the Roman Empire from hostile peoples - the drafting fell in the time of the Marcomannic Wars - this was an important concern, the weight of which Kelsos made clear with the reference to a possible future takeover of power by savage barbarians. In view of the military danger, he concluded his remarks in a conciliatory way with an appeal to Christians to reintegrate into society, to fulfill their civic duties and to stand by the emperor who struggled for justice.

Sources and level of knowledge

Kelsos was well informed about both Judaism and Christianity of his time, relying on oral and written sources. He knew at least part of the Septuagint , the Greek translation of the Old Testament . His references to the creation story, the Flood, and the history of the biblical patriarchs, as well as the concept of prophethood, and specifically Jonah and Daniel, demonstrate his expertise. To what extent he had access to the original biblical texts and what part of his knowledge he obtained from other sources is largely unclear; direct use is only guaranteed for the book of Genesis . In any case, he was familiar with the teachings of the Gospels and of the Apostle Paul . He was also familiar with the numerous Christian special communities, whose followers were fought as heretics by the church , and their different teachings. He knew about their conflict-ridden relationship with the Church, which he called the “Great Church”, and about their disputes among themselves, as well as about the polemics between Jews and Christians. He made use of these opposites for his argumentation; In the first main part of his pamphlet, for example, he had a fictional Jew appear who polemics first against Jesus, then against the Jewish Christians and unmasked both as ignorant.

It is difficult to determine more precisely the sources that were available to Kelsos. Apparently, in addition to having access to Christian literature, he also had first-hand information about the life and teaching of contemporary Christians. His lifelike descriptions of the environment indicate personal impressions and encounters that arose through contact with the Christian school.

Kelsos' knowledge of the Platonic dialogues and the letters ascribed to Plato did not come exclusively from the school tradition conveyed in handbooks. Rather, it was based at least in part on reading the original texts myself. He was also familiar with the systematized Platonism of Middle Platonic literature. In addition, he also resorted to stoic ideas. He also appealed to pre-Socratics ; three Heraclitus fragments are known only thanks to his quotations. Possibly he also made use of the ideas of the Epicureans, as Origen already suggested, but there is no clear evidence for this.

Arguments

Kelsos fought Christianity and individual Christian doctrines with a number of arguments. He tried to uncover contradictions and questions. With cosmological and religious-philosophical considerations, he wanted to expose biblical statements as irrational. His historical and historical-philosophical statements were directed against the biblical view of history and should show Christianity as the result of a cultural dissolution process. Other focal points of the criticism were the allegations that Christians are hostile to education and intolerant, refused to fulfill civic duties and endangered the continued existence of the state through their isolation. Their claim to sole possession of the truth and their abrupt rejection of other religions undermine the cohesion of society.

Historical reasoning

  • The Jews and the Christians have deviated from the common primal wisdom of the peoples out of a desire for innovation and recognition. First the Jews partially falsified the old knowledge, then the Christians introduced completely absurd teachings. However, these are nothing really new, just absurdities that have arisen from misunderstandings and deliberate misleading. The founders of Judaism still had real knowledge. They owe this to the time-honored common treasure trove of humanity, which peoples like the Egyptians and the Persians have preserved. More recently, the Christians then fabricated a completely distorted version of the Jewish tradition and also adopted Plato's ideas, which they misunderstood. The result were opposing positions of the two religions and discord. So Jews and Christians disagree about the supposed savior of mankind, the Messiah , in whom they believe.
  • Theological disputes are a central feature of Christianity. The division of Christianity into an abundance of sectarian special communities is the last phase of a centuries-long process of decay. This began with the separation of the Jews from the Egyptians and then continued with the separation of Christianity from Judaism. Ultimately, the impulse to split gripped the new faith community itself. It was inevitable that it would lead to a fragmentation of Christianity. There is bound to be disagreement among Christians, for the turmoil is characteristic of them.
  • The information about the origin of Jesus is contradictory. On the one hand, he is referred to as the son of a carpenter's wife, a poor manual worker, on the other hand, it is claimed that he descends from the Jewish kings and that his family tree can be traced back to Adam . Its alleged noble origin is a bold invention.
  • Kelsos adopts the legend according to which the alleged birth of Jesus from a virgin can be explained by the fact that his mother was convicted of adultery and rejected by her husband and then secretly gave birth to a child out of wedlock. His father was a Roman soldier named Panthera . The story of the virgin birth was invented to cover up this. The legends are also passed on in a different form in rabbinical literature , in the Talmud without any express reference to Jesus. The version of the Kelsos is the oldest evidence of its use in anti-Christian literature. How the portrayal of the pagan philosopher is related to the reception of the subject in rabbinical texts is unclear; the assumption of a common Jewish source for both strands is considered plausible. In any case, the legend communicated by Kelsos probably stems from Jewish polemics against Christianity; the assumed origin from the lowest and shameful circumstances is intended to discredit the claim to divinity.
  • The miracles attributed to Jesus can not substantiate the Christian claim that he is God's Son . Rather, they show that he appeared as a magician . Whether one believes in the miracles or not, in any case they are basically nothing more than the juggling of the publicly performing magicians, who no one takes to be sons of God. Magic is by no means a proof of special dignity. Jesus himself admitted this when he prophesied that in the future seducers would appear and perform miracles.
  • The Christian appeal to prophecies that would have foretold the appearance and fate of Jesus is implausible, for the same Christians dispute the divine origin of the prophecies from the oracles . It is not understandable that only Jewish prophecies should deserve unconditional faith and prophecies from other cultures not.

Cosmological and religious-philosophical reasoning

  • There is no reason to assume that the world was created for man. Rather, if you wanted to, you could justify the claim that it was there for the sake of the animals. The animals are hunted and eaten by humans, but the reverse also occurs and was even the norm in the past - before humans introduced weapons, nets and hunting dogs. From this it could be concluded that God prefers the predators because he equipped them with weapons from the start and not humans. The formation of states, social organization and provision for the future are also not a special service of humans, since ants and bees achieve something comparable. In reality, no species is inherently privileged and destined to rule the world. Any idea that raises a certain part of creation for its purpose is fundamentally wrong, because the cosmos forms a totality in which each component has its role and its own right to exist. It is not true that one of the parts is there for another's sake, or that a species of living thing was created for another. Rather, every part of the cosmos exists directly in relation to the whole into which it is classified, and the perfection of the whole rests on the completeness of its constituent parts.
  • The belief that God cares more about Jews and Christians than about the rest of the world and only reveals his messages to them is an expression of an arbitrary subjectivity. Likewise, worms or frogs could imagine that the universe exists because of them and that God prefers them over all other beings.
  • It is absurd to believe that the supreme deity should put himself in a mortal human body, moreover a normal one like the body of Jesus, which does not stand out in beauty and where the divine cannot be seen, and that God deals with evil and ugliness and that To suffer. In addition, it cannot be seen why God should have done this late at a certain historical point in time and not earlier.
  • It is nonsensical to assume that God was unable to convince his own creature Adam , and that the devil, in the form of a serpent, was superior to God's commandments.
  • It is ridiculous to attribute human affects to God, such as anger, and to claim that He makes threats. God does not threaten anyone, otherwise he would turn against the order that he himself established.
  • According to the Pentateuch , God ordered the Jews through Moses to destroy all their opponents in war and to exterminate their offspring; Jesus, on the other hand, calls for peacefulness in the Sermon on the Mount . To this end, Kelsos ironically asks whether God has forgotten his previous command or changed his mind.
  • The doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh assumes God to behave contrary to nature and senseless. Worms hope that decayed meat will reappear from the earth. The flesh is by its nature exposed to decay; its persistence in eternity is neither possible nor desirable.
  • Christians believe that after the six-day work of creation , God needed a day of rest , as if he were tired like a craftsman after work and needed rest. This is a silly idea based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine.
  • Belief in the devil - the idea that God has an evil and powerful adversary - is a human invention and a sign of the greatest ignorance. If the devil existed and he had betrayed people, they would be his victims, and then there would be no reason for God to threaten those who have been betrayed with punishment.
  • God is common to all, good, needless and free from envy. Hence the Christian condemnation of all other religious traditions is unjustified. It does no harm to the cult of the highest deity if the deities and demons subordinate to it receive their due veneration. - The demons (daimones) mentioned here are, according to Kelsos' conviction, benevolent and helpful beings, not malevolent as in the Christian worldview.

State political and ethical argumentation

  • If all people isolate themselves like the Christians of that time and refuse to participate in the state community, the kingdom would perish. Then the most lawless and savage barbarians would take power and destroy all civilization and wisdom. Ultimately, nothing would remain of Christianity either.
  • Christians want to convert the whole world to their faith and submit to their law. That shows their unworldliness. Nations have different religious customs, each preferring its own to all others, and there is nothing wrong with that, for diversity is part of the world order. The world cannot be religiously unified.
  • Jesus threatens and scolds because he is unable to convince. No god and no reasonable person behave like that.
  • Acting as an eyewitness, Kelsos describes the Christian missionary activity . According to his account, the missionaries advertise their faith in open spaces and in private homes. They only turn to ignorant people. In particular, they secretly incite children against their fathers and teachers and thus bring strife into the families.

Criticism of the disregard for reason and education

  • A true doctrine must be based on reason. But Christian theology cannot make it clear why one should believe its assertions. Rather, faith is simply required because without it there is supposedly no salvation .
  • Christians are uneducated and do not see this as a defect, but as if it is a privilege. You think, absurdly, that an uneducated person has better access to the truth than an educated person. Accordingly, the ignorant, who are easily deceived, are their target audience.

Philosophical position

As his knowledgeable explanations show, Kelsos had an excellent education, which he also expected from his readers. He knew his way around mythology and drama as well as rhetoric and philosophy. His religious and philosophical ideas were based on the worldview of Middle Platonism , the development phase of Platonism at that time. He assumed a transcendent , unchangeable and formless supreme God, in whom he saw the cause of the nous - world and human reason - and the ousia - the being and essence of the intelligible entities . Kelsos did not consider this God, the first principle, to be absolutely incomprehensible, but he did believe that one could not recognize him through an ordinary act of reason. Rather, you need a special force for this. According to the teaching of Celsus, thought can turn to God in three ways: first, by holding him together with everything else and thereby grasping his character as the highest and ultimate ground; second, by radically separating it from everything below it, thereby working out its transcendence; thirdly, by extending the cosmic hierarchy up to him and thus thinking of him as the sun in the realm of ideas, according to the Platonic allegory of the sun . Kelsos emphasized that the supreme god has neither a name nor a share in a certain way of being; therefore no properties should be ascribed to it. Accordingly, God can only be determined negatively .

According to the Platonic theology of Kelsos, change and thus any activity is completely alien to the immutable supreme God. He does not take any action. Thus this god, far from the human world, created nothing. It is indeed the cause of the being of the eternal, unchangeable givens of the purely spiritual world, but it has nothing to do with the realm of becoming, arising and passing away of transitory things. In this he differs fundamentally from the God of Christians. Accordingly, in the model of Kelsos, as with other Middle Platonists and with Plato himself, the role of world creator must fall to a subordinate deity, the demiurge . However, no further details have been handed down.

The gods of Greek mythology and helpful demons also have their place in the hierarchical worldview of Kelsos . They are subordinate to the absolutely transcendent supreme God and cannot be compared with him. In contrast to the immutable supreme deity, they are active beings who, as overseers, ensure order and harmony in the cosmos. People rightly show these higher beings the appropriate cultic veneration, and the gods and demons turn benevolently to pious people, for example by sending them oracles or granting them healing from suffering. Individual gods are assigned certain ethnic and geographical responsibilities within the framework of the world order; they are folk gods or local deities. This gives rise to the meaning and justification of the diverse religious cults and customs. However, Kelsos warns against an exaggerated cult of demons, since, according to his portrayal, many earthly demons have a limited horizon and are busy with inferior magical activities. Those who mess with them too much neglect more important things.

reception

Ancient and Middle Ages

The beginning of Contra Celsum in the Paris manuscript, Bibliothèque nationale de France , Gr. 945, fol. 48r (late 14th or 15th century)

In the period from 244 to 249 Origen wrote his defense against Kelsos in response to the challenge of the philosophical critic. As he suggested in the preface, he was addressing Christians who were unsettled by the opposing pamphlet. Origen led the argument not only on the level of content, but also included the person and approach of the Kelsos in his sharp criticism in order to discredit him. He described him as an unphilosophical person who did not seek the truth without prejudice, but only wanted to polemicize. Kelsos argued imprecisely, brought up a lot of confused things and did not understand the meaning of his quotations from Plato. He disregards the exact wording and context of the biblical passages cited by him, does not endeavor to grasp their meaning and misunderstand the content or deliberately falsify it. Origen also accused the pagan author of insincerity: he was an Epicurean, but concealed from the readers his affiliation with this religion-critical , the divine providence denying direction.

Whether and, if so, to what extent other ancient authors besides Origen knew and used the work of Celsus is disputed; clear evidence is missing. At the latest after the final victory of Christianity over the rival cults in the second half of the 4th century, the original text was no longer known. After all, Origen's counter-script, which was valued in the Greek-speaking part of the empire and later also in the Byzantine Empire , preserved part of the content. The topic gained new topicality when Orthodox Byzantine theology in the late Middle Ages had to deal with Islam's criticism of the doctrine of the Incarnation of God , drawing on Origen's argument against Kelsus.

Since there was no Latin translation of the justification against Kelsos in the Middle Ages , the arguments of the Platonist were unknown to the Latin-speaking scholarly world of Western and Central Europe. This only changed in the 15th century. At the suggestion of Thedoros Gazes, Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) had a Greek manuscript bought in Constantinople and brought to Rome. Their text forms the basis of the oldest translation into Latin, often criticized for its inadequacy, which comes from the humanist Cristoforo Persona and was printed in Rome in 1481. The Latin version gave a broader, educated public access to the ancient controversy.

Early modern age

The humanistic French writer Bonaventure des Périers published his satirical work Cymbalum mundi in 1538 , in which he targeted the theological disputes of his time. In doing so, he possibly took up arguments from the kelsos. The extent of its reception of the ancient martial arts is, however, controversial in research, sometimes a connection is completely denied.

It was not until the late 16th century that modern apologetics turned to the polemics of Kelsos. In 1577 Domenico Mellini published his work Against Certain Ancient Authors, Malicious Blasphemers of the Christian Name , in which he stated that the refutation had already been done by Origen, so there was no need for a closer discussion.

The original Greek text of the Kelsos fragments was only presented to the public in 1605 in the first edition published by David Höschel in Augsburg in response to Origen's reply.

In the Age of Enlightenment , critics of religion made use of the polemics of the Kelsos, while defenders of the faith relied on Origen. The author of the Traité des trois imposteurs , first published anonymously under a different title in 1719 , explicitly referred to the True Doctrine when he claimed that Jesus was the son of an adulteress and that he had borrowed his ideas from Platonism. The German enlightener Johann Christian Edelmann , who intervened in the debate in the 1740s, agreed with the thesis of the Kelsos that Jews and Christians could not refer to exclusive divine revelations, because alleged peculiarities of these religions also exist in other cultures and their traditions reach back, are to be found. In 1766, the text Examen critique des apologistes de la religion chrétienne , written as early as 1733 , was published under the name of Nicolas Fréret , one of the most widespread works of criticism of religion in the 18th century, although he was not the real author. This pamphlet examines the arguments of the early Christian apologists and contains a number of mentions of the Celsus. An anonymous atheist appeared as the new Kelsos in his book Le Celse moderne ou objections contre le christianisme, printed in Lunéville in 1752 . In the 1760s, another unknown atheist wrote the collection of letters Lettres à Sophie contenant un examen des fondemens de la religion chrétienne et various objections contre l'immortalité de l'ame , a critique of the foundations of Christianity; in the fourteenth letter he compiled quotations from Kelsos, among other things.

One factor that increased the reputation of the kelsus in the eyes of those who were critical of religion was Origen's assumption that he was an Epicurean. This inaccurate assertion by the ancient church writer, which was originally intended as a devastating criticism, now turned out to be a recommendation, since Epicurus was in high regard, while Origen was considered a religious fanatic and therefore met with contempt.

The literature critical of religion provoked an abundance of responses from Christian authors. The Lutheran church historian Johann Lorenz von Mosheim translated Origen's Gegen Kelsos into German. Its translation, published in 1745, was intended to provide readers with material for a defense of the faith. However, Mosheim did not hide the fact that, in his opinion, the ancient church writer had not succeeded in convincingly refuting all the arguments of the kelsos. Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier found in 1784 that the objections of modern unbelief against Christian doctrine had already been anticipated by Kelsos and convincingly refuted by Origen.

Modern

19th century

In the 19th century, the dispute over the quality of the arguments of the ancient anti-Christian was taken up again. Kelsos has been compared to Voltaire . Eugène Joly wrote in his Etude sur Origène in 1860 that the True Doctrine of Kelsos showed considerable agreement with Voltaire's criticism of the church. Origen's reply is "the best refutation of the Encyclopédie ". In Joly's view, Voltaire would not have achieved such great success if he had encountered an opponent of the stature of Origen. The Catholic church historian Charles-Émile Freppel also compared Kelsos with Voltaire. In 1868, Freppel judged that Origen had treated the issues involved in the controversy between the religion of revelation and rationalism with impressive intellectual superiority.

Ernest Renan expressed the opinion in 1882 that Kelsos had recognized the falseness of the Christian faith thanks to his outstanding expertise and had unmasked the erroneousness and absurdity of the biblical stories and the Judeo-Christian worldview as convincingly as Voltaire. However, due to a lack of scientific training, he was unable to proceed to a more consistent criticism of questionable religious assumptions.

The church historian Ferdinand Christian Baur dealt in detail with Kelsos. In the first volume of his History of the Christian Church , the third edition of which appeared in 1863, he stated that the ancient philosopher was indisputably one of the most educated, enlightened, knowledgeable and capable men of his time. He has already very aptly emphasized "the same general and decisive moments" "to which all subsequent opponents of Christianity [...] have repeatedly come back". His denial of the thesis that the world was created for man is, in Baur's words, “mainly the same view that has remained the main opponent of revelation belief since then until recently” and became all the more dangerous for it, “the more it ended the still raw form that it has in Celsus, has developed into a philosophically founded theory ”.

Modern Kelsos research received a groundbreaking impetus from the study Celsus' Trues Wort by Karl Theodor Keim , published in 1873 , which gave a well-rounded picture of the author and his work and became a point of reference for the subsequent period. Keim tried to reconstruct the text of the True Doctrine from the fragments and made a new German translation.

20th century

In the twentieth century, the ancient scholarship and the religious-historical approach of the kelsos were widely recognized. However, the assessments of his philosophical potency were very different. Some researchers denied him intellectual coherence and philosophical qualifications, while others judged much more positively and granted him an innovative achievement. The thesis that he had a theory of history met with opposition.

Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1905) found that Kelsos had written his polemics “in a simple and conciliatory sense”. The true doctrine is superior to the attacks of the Christian apologists on Hellenism "in every respect, most of all in genuine piety".

According to the judgment of the philologist Johannes Geffcken (1920), the argument of the Kelsos can be described as "decidedly scientific". He had worked according to a method "which has been followed time and again by the opponents of Christianity" and proceeded more carefully than Origen, who had briefly written his reply.

The church historian Adolf von Harnack (1924) said that Kelsos apparently did not want to see that Christianity “permits reasonable treatment”, but that this fact could not be avoided. Between the lines one can read that the True Doctrine is "ultimately a political scripture and a hardly hidden peace proposal" to the Christians, to whom he appealed not to evade the general order of the Roman Empire.

In the church history of Karl Bihlmeyer, which experienced numerous editions as a standard manual, it is stated that the writing of the Kelsos is a work of scientific character. His objections to the doctrine of God's incarnation and redemption are "at least noteworthy as the later opponents of Christianity up to the free thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries did not know how to propose anything essentially new". The historical part of the True Doctrine, however, is much weaker.

Philip Merlan (1954) made an unfavorable judgment . He said that the kelsos' understanding of what was independent of the religious was limited, so that he could not do justice to Christianity. His 'philosophical' religion means a volatilization of the religious. He was only a scholar, not a philosopher.

Carl Andresen , who in 1955 examined the intellectual and historical position of the Kelsos in his habilitation thesis Logos und Nomos , was of a different opinion . He opposed the view that the True Doctrine was nothing more than a compilation . For Andresen, the author of this pamphlet was a philosopher of history whose thinking is to be understood as a unit in which very different elements are combined. According to Andresen's analysis, Kelsos tried to secure this unity by means of a moment outside the field of vision of the school philosophy, the historical tradition. He added a theory of history to the metaphysics of being of his predecessors , which he opposed to the theology of history of Christian apologetics. However, he did not consider the historical to be metaphysical; his religious worldview was without history.

According to Olof Gigon's characterization (1966), Kelsos was a skilled writer who knew how to nuance and who skillfully built his work. He “represented ancient spirituality in its noblest, platonic form”, showed himself to be well informed and touched on several of the most delicate problems of the opposing worldview. It therefore took a tremendous effort on the part of Christians to meet him on an equal footing and to repel the attack without giving up their own substance.

According to the results of a study by Heinrich Dörrie (1967), in contrast to the earlier Platonists, Kelsos was in full possession of a self-contained Platonic theology that had already been developed into a system. He proceeded from the axiom that everything accessible to experience and thought comes together to form a harmonious, unbroken unity. In addition, he was - according to Dörrie - the first philosopher to know today who came to not only nurture a well-thought-out cultural and educational awareness, but also to present it. He defended the entire Greek educational heritage against those who did not share the traditional requirements. It was important to him that "all elements of this education - the view of nature and the myths, the poetry and the philosophy - converge on a certain point, on a basic truth": on the highest ground, which according to Dörries interpretation of Kelsos' Doctrine is to be understood as an overarching ground of being.

In 1976, Marcel Borret took a critical position on Andresen's theses in the introduction to his critical edition of Origen's work Gegen Kelsos . He denied the originality and coherence postulated by Andresen in the philosophical thinking of the Platonist. According to Borret's judgment, the latter relied on traditional views without showing their validity.

Cornelia de Vogel objected to Andresen's and Dörrie's interpretations in 1983 in the Festschrift for Dörrie. She said that Kelsos was not a philosopher “of any importance” and also not a Platonic theologian, rather an educated man of letters with an interest in the history of religion. He had often fought against Christianity in a hurtful tone and in the most hateful manner possible. John M. Rist gave a similar judgment in the same commemorative publication.

Willem den Boer came to a different assessment . In 1976, he stressed the depth of the gap between pagan and Christian thought that was illustrated by the True Doctrine . Kelsos understood that there was a fundamental opposition between reason and revelation and drew the conclusions from this instead of striving for a deceptive harmonization.

As in earlier epochs, the Kelsos reception in the 20th century provided material for ideological debates. Distinguished critics of Christianity took up the True Doctrine . The philosopher Louis Rougier published a study and French translation of the fragments of the ancient work in 1925, making the view of the Kelsos his own. Rougier described the anti-Christian Platonist as a Roman patriot who clearly foresaw that a triumph of Christianity would lead to a fatal weakening of the Roman state and the inevitable consequence of a barbarian invasion, as it happened during the Great Migration , and the shipwreck of civilization. With the True Doctrine the reason of ancient thought reached its end point; those born later would only have had the choice between the Christian wrong track and pagan superstition. Karlheinz Deschner (1986) found that Kelsos had astutely recognized the most precarious points of Christian theology. He was a master of religious-historical comparison, had denied the uniqueness of Christ with every religious-historical right and, with his fundamental criticism, was essentially right to this day.

21st century

In 2005 Horacio E. Lona published a new German translation of the Fragments of the True Doctrine with very detailed commentary. Lona thought Andresen's interpretation was partially justified and pleaded for the path that Dörrie had chosen. Borret ignored Dörrie's results and, like older research, viewed Kelso as a mere eclectic . This interpretation means a clear step backwards compared to Andresen's and Dörries level of knowledge. Lona found that the celestial position on the Christian faith contained elements "which are to be viewed as a constant challenge and therefore go far beyond a certain epoch". His conclusion on the key points of the ancient controversy is: "As little as Kelsos could understand the Christian message, Origen could not understand and adequately appreciate the criticism of Kelsos on these crucial points."

In his habilitation thesis published in 2016, Johannes Arnold set himself the task of exploring the original structure of the work. He came to the conclusion that Origen "intervened far more strongly in the text of his opponent than was previously assumed". He has repeatedly changed statements of the Kelsos in favor of his own argumentation or for reasons of economy. The analysis of this approach enables a hypothetical reconstruction of the original arrangement in the True Doctrine , but with different degrees of probability for the individual fragments. Arnold concluded that he had succeeded for the first time in determining a systematically laid out overall framework for the text.

Editions and translations (some with commentary)

  • Marcel Borret (Ed.): Origène: Contre Celse . 5 volumes, Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1967–1976 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origen: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus (= Fontes Christiani , volumes 50 / 1-50 / 5). 5 volumes, Herder, Freiburg et al. 2011–2012 (Greek text based on the edition by Marcel Borret, next to it the translation by Barthold)
  • Horacio E. Lona (translator): The "True Doctrine" of Kelsos (= commentary on early Christian apologists , supplementary volume 1). Herder, Freiburg et al. 2005, ISBN 3-451-28599-1 (German translation with detailed commentary)
  • Miroslav Marcovich (Ed.): Origen: Contra Celsum libri VIII . Brill, Leiden 2001, ISBN 90-04-11976-0 (critical edition, but has been criticized because of controversial conjectures )

literature

Overview representations

Investigations

  • Carl Andresen : Logos and Nomos. The polemic of Kelsos against Christianity . De Gruyter, Berlin 1955
  • Johannes Arnold : The True Logos of the Kelsos. A structural analysis (= yearbook for antiquity and Christianity , supplementary volume 39). Aschendorff, Münster 2016, ISBN 978-3-402-10807-9
  • John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000, ISBN 3-16-147195-4 , pp. 17-102
  • John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004, ISBN 3-16-148474-6 , pp. 55-149
  • Karl Pichler: Controversy about Christianity. The attack of Celsus and the answer of Origen . Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-8204-6126-4

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 28–31.
  2. ↑ Kelsos fragments in Origen, Contra Celsum 7.9; 7.11. The fragments of the True Doctrine do not have their own numbering, they are given here as in the specialist literature according to the respective place of discovery (book and chapter) in Contra Celsum .
  3. ↑ Stefan Heid : Chiliasmus and Antichrist-Mythos , Bonn 1993, p. 68.
  4. ↑ See also Jacobus CM van Winden: Notes on Origen, Contra Celsum. In: Vigiliae Christianae 20, 1966, pp. 201-213, here: 204-207; Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 13–15; Johannes Arnold: The True Logos of the Kelsos. A structure analysis , Münster 2016, p. 2 note 7; Robert Bader (ed.): The Ἀληθὴς Λόγος des Kelsos , Stuttgart / Berlin 1940, p. 3 f.
  5. ↑ Aldo Magris: Enlightenment Platonism: Kelsos and Origenes . In: Chartulae. Festschrift for Wolfgang Speyer , Münster 1998, p. 230 note 6; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Hrsg.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 666.
  6. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 666 f .; Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 35; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 56 f. John Whittaker, however, is of the opposite view: Celsus. In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 2, Paris 1994, pp. 255 f.
  7. ↑ Stephen Goranson: Celsus of Pergamum: Locating a Critic of Early Christianity. In: Douglas R. Edwards, Thomas McCollough (Eds.): The Archeology of Difference , Boston 2007, pp. 363-369.
  8. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 54 f.
  9. ↑ Jeffrey W. Hargis: Against the Christians , New York 1999, pp. 20-24.
  10. ^ Karl Johannes Neumann : Celsus. In: Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Antiquity Science (RE). Volume III, 2, Stuttgart 1899, Sp. 1884 f.
  11. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 16-19 offers an overview of the different views. See Johannes Arnold: The True Logos of the Kelsos. A structural analysis , Münster 2016, pp. 10, 12–15.
  12. ↑ Johannes Arnold: The True Logos of Kelsos. A structural analysis , Münster 2016, p. 1 note 4.
  13. ↑ For the interpretation of the work title see Albert Wifstrand : The true teaching of the Kelsos . In: Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund , 1941/42, pp. 391–431, here: 396–401; Robert Bader (Ed.): The Ἀληθὴς Λόγος des Kelsos , Stuttgart / Berlin 1940, p. 2 f .; Horacio E. Lona: True Logos - Logos of Truth. In: Ferdinand R. Prostmeier , Horacio E. Lona (ed.): Logos der Vernunft - Logos des Glaubens , Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 25–52, here: 25 f.
  14. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.14; 1.16; 6.80. On the peoples as bearers of the teachings of wisdom, Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 200–208; Katrin Pietzner: Education, Elite and Competition , Tübingen 2013, p. 213 f.
  15. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.16. Cf. Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 119–125.
  16. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 6.10. Cf. Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 126-131.
  17. ↑ Michael Frede: Numenius . In: Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II.36.2, Berlin 1987, pp. 1034-1075, here: 1047-1049.
  18. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1,2. See Michel Fédou: Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origène , Paris 1988, pp. 213–215; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 74 f.
  19. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.14; 1.21; 1.26; 5.41; 6.49 f. See Peter Pilhofer : Presbyteron kreitton , Tübingen 1990, pp. 287–289.
  20. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica minora , Munich 1976, pp. 232–235; Michael Frede: Celsus philosophus Platonicus. In: Rise and Downfall of the Roman World , Volume II.36.7, Berlin 1994, pp. 5183–5213, here: 5184. Stephen Benko provides an overview of the arguments: Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries AD In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Roman Welt , Volume II.23.2, Berlin / New York 1980, pp. 1055–1118, here: 1101–1107.
  21. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 29, 31–34; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 22, 50–54, 473 f .; Pierre de Labriolle: La Réaction païenne , Paris 1948, p. 122 f. See Johannes Arnold: The True Logos of the Kelsos. A structure analysis , Münster 2016, pp. 518 f., 528.
  22. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.43 f .; 4.46 f.
  23. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 7.3; 7.9.
  24. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 7.53.
  25. ↑ For the philosopher's general knowledge of the Bible, see Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 35–37, especially on the Old Testament Gary T. Burke: Celsus and the Old Testament. In: Vetus Testamentum 36, 1986, pp. 241-245; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2004, p. 57 f.
  26. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 5.59.
  27. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 3.10; 3.12; 5.61-64. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 38–40; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, pp. 23-27; Olof Gigon: The ancient culture and Christianity , Darmstadt 1966, p. 109 f .; Philip Merlan: Celsus. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 2, Stuttgart 1954, Sp. 954–965, here: 958 f.
  28. ^ Claudia J. Setzer: Jewish Responses to Early Christians , Minneapolis 1994, pp. 147–151. See Jeffrey W. Hargis: Against the Christians , New York 1999, pp. 36-40; Lincoln Blumell: A Jew in Celsus' True Doctrine? In: Studies in Religion 36, 2007, pp. 297–315.
  29. ↑ On the role of the fictional Jew see Johannes Arnold: Der Wahre Logos des Kelsos. A structure analysis , Münster 2016, pp. 205–231, 334–364; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 172–177; Lucio Troiani: Il giudeo di Celso. In: Lorenzo Perrone (ed.): Discorsi di verità , Rome 1998, pp. 115–128.
  30. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 16–19; Karl Pichler: Controversy about Christianity , Frankfurt am Main 1980, pp. 43–59; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 33, 38–40.
  31. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 20 f. Cf. Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 72–77, 81–85, 92 f.
  32. ↑ Gilles Dorival: L'apport d'Origène pour la connaissance de la Philosophie grecque. In: Robert J. Daly (Ed.): Origeniana Quinta , Leuven 1992, pp. 189–216, here: 190 f.
  33. ↑ John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2000, pp. 18-22.
  34. ↑ A delimitation and more detailed definition of the individual units of thought is offered by Karl Pichler: Streit um das Christianentum , Frankfurt am Main 1980, pp. 117–179.
  35. ↑ See also Horacio E. Lona: Die »Wahreehre« des Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 89 f., 92–95, 106–108, 121–129, 178–180, 183–185, 224, 226 f. , 231-233, 300-304, 320, 327-338, 355-362, 402 f .; Robert S. Wilken: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them , New Haven / London 1984, pp. 112-117; Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 146–166.
  36. ↑ See also Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 178-183, 304 f., 310-314, 326; Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 210–224.
  37. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28; 2.32. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 145 f .; Marc Lods: Étude sur les sources juives de la polémique de Celse contre les chrétiens. In: Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses 21, 1941, pp. 1–33, here: 8 f.
  38. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28; 1.32; 1.39. See Peter Schäfer : Jesus im Talmud , 3rd, revised edition, Tübingen 2017, pp. 29–46, 115; Johann Maier : Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmudic tradition , 2nd edition, Darmstadt 1992, pp. 251–267; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 98-102, 105; Eugene V. Gallagher: Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus , Chico 1982, p. 53 f .; Marc Lods: Étude sur les sources juives de la polémique de Celse contre les chrétiens. In: Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses 21, 1941, pp. 1–33, here: 5–9; Enrico Norelli : La tradizione sulla nascita di Gesù nell 'Ἀληθὴς λόγος di Celso. In: Lorenzo Perrone (ed.): Discorsi di verità , Rome 1998, pp. 133–166.
  39. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68; 1.71; 2.49 (with reference to Mt 24.24  LUT ). Francesco Mosetto offers a compilation of the relevant material: I miracoli evangelici nel dibattito tra Celso e Origine , Rome 1986, pp. 27–71. See Georg Schöllgen : Magicians, jugglers, charlatans. In: Heike Grieser , Andreas Merkt (eds.): Volksglaube im antiken Christianentum , Darmstadt 2009, pp. 28–37, here: 29–34; Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 178–182; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 116–119, 157 f .; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, pp. 36–39, 54; Robert J. Hauck: The More Divine Proof , Atlanta (Georgia) 1989, pp. 81-84.
  40. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 7.2 f. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 388–390; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2004, p. 138 f .; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2000, pp. 72-82.
  41. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.74-81; 4.83-86; 4.88; 4.98 f. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 262–277; Giuliana Lanata: Thèmes animaliers dans le platonisme moyen. Le cas de Celse. In: Barbara Cassin , Jean-Louis Labarrière (ed.): L'animal dans l'antiquité , Paris 1997, pp. 299-324, here: 302-304, 310-313; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2004, pp. 82-91.
  42. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.23; 6.78; 6.80. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 234–238, 385–388; Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 226–228.
  43. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.2 f .; 4.5 f .; 4.14; 4.18; 6.75; 7.13-15. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: Die " Wahreehre " des Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 220–223, 228–230, 385–387, 394–397; Jeffrey W. Hargis: Against the Christians , New York 1999, pp. 48-50; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, p. 52.
  44. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.7. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 223–225; Olof Gigon: The ancient culture and Christianity , Darmstadt 1966, p. 110.
  45. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.36. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 242–245.
  46. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.71-73; 4.99. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 260–262, 276 f .; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, p. 48; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2004, pp. 143-145.
  47. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 7.18. See Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 397–399.
  48. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 4.52; 4.57; 4.60 f .; 5.14. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 252-255, 282-287; Jeffrey W. Hargis: Against the Christians , New York 1999, p. 50 f .; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, pp. 73–75.
  49. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 6.60-62. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 375–377; John Granger Cook: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism , Tübingen 2004, p. 69 f.
  50. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 6.42; 8.11. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 355–362, 431–433.
  51. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 7.68; 8.2; 8.9; 8.17; 8.21; 8.24; 8.28; 8.33. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 427–431, 436–440.
  52. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 8,68 f .; 8.71; see. 8.2. See Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 467–471.
  53. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 8.72; see. 5.25 and 5.34. See Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 471 f .; Louis Rougier: Celse contre les chrétiens , Paris 1977, pp. 82-88.
  54. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 2.76. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 169.
  55. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 3.50; 3.55. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The “True Teaching” of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 200–204; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, pp. 31–36.
  56. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.9; 6.7-11. Cf. Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 79–82, 315–326; Winfried Schröder : Athens and Jerusalem , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2011, pp. 88–93; Eric Robertson Dodds : Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety , Cambridge 1965, pp. 120 f .; Lorenzo Perrone: Proposta per un commento: un'esemplificazione su Contro Celso I, 9-13. In: Lorenzo Perrone (ed.): Discorsi di verità , Rome 1998, pp. 225–256, here: 235–249; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, p. 30 f.
  57. ↑ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.27; 3.44; 3.49; 3.72-77; 6.12-14. Cf. Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 167–178; Horacio E. Lona: The »True Teaching« of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 96, 197–204, 214–218, 327–329; Walther Völker: The image of non-Gnostic Christianity in Celsus , Halle (Saale) 1928, p. 30 f.
  58. ↑ Heinrich Dörrie: The Platonic theology of Kelsos in its examination of Christian theology based on Origen c. Celsum 7, 42 ff. In: Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica minora , Munich 1976, pp. 229–262, here: 243–248; Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes : Platonism in antiquity , Volume 4, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996, pp. 82–85, 329–332; Salvatore Lilla: Introduzione al Medio platonismo , Rome 1992, pp. 80-83; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 411 f.
  59. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 667–670; Michael Frede: Celsus philosophus Platonicus. In: Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II.36.7, Berlin 1994, pp. 5183–5213, here: 5203–5208; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, p. 32 f., 44–49.
  60. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 669 f .; Michael Frede: Celsus philosophus Platonicus. In: Rise and decline of the Roman world , Volume II.36.7, Berlin 1994, pp. 5183–5213, here: 5206–5208; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 44–49.
  61. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Age and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 670 f .; Michael Frede: Celsus philosophus Platonicus. In: Rise and decline of the Roman world , Volume II.36.7, Berlin 1994, pp. 5183–5213, here: 5208–5210; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 295–300, 427–431.
  62. ^ Robert J. Hauck: The More Divine Proof , Atlanta (Georgia) 1989, pp. 91-99.
  63. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Kelsus (from Alexandria?). In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 665–672, here: 665.
  64. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 38–40, 44–47; Karl Pichler: Controversy about Christianity , Frankfurt am Main 1980, pp. 196-219.
  65. ↑ For the background to this accusation, see Silke-Petra Bergjan : Celsus the Epicurean? The Interpretation of an Argument in Origen, Contra Celsum. In: Harvard Theological Review 94, 2001, pp. 179-204.
  66. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 36; Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 67–69; Robert J. Hauck: Omnes Contra Celsum? In: The Second Century 5, 1985/86, pp. 211-225.
  67. ↑ Michael Fiedrowicz: Introduction. In: Michael Fiedrowicz (commentator), Claudia Barthold (translator): Origenes: Contra Celsum. Against Celsus , Teilband 1, Freiburg 2011, pp. 9–122, here: 114–116, 118.
  68. ↑ Max Schär: The afterlife of Origen in the age of humanism , Basel / Stuttgart 1979, pp. 113–126.
  69. ↑ Lucien Febvre : Origène et Des Périers ou L'énigme du "Cymbalum Mundi" , Paris 1942, pp. 80-91, 98; Max Schär: The afterlife of Origen in the age of humanism , Basel / Stuttgart 1979, p. 229 f .; Michel Fédou: Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origène , Paris 1988, p. 607 f .; Wolfram Kinzig : Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, 2009, pp. 316-350, here: 321 f .; Winfried Schröder: Athens and Jerusalem , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2011, p. 14 f.
  70. ↑ Domenico Mellini: In Veteres Quosdam Scriptores, Malevolos Christiani Nominis Obtrectatores , Florence 1577, p. 85.
  71. ↑ David Höschel (Ed.): Origenis contra Celsum libri VIII , Augsburg 1605.
  72. ↑ Wolfram Kinzig: Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christianentum 13, 2009, pp. 316–350, here: 323.
  73. ↑ Wolfram Kinzig: Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, 2009, pp. 316–350, here: 339 f.
  74. ↑ Wolfram Kinzig: Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, 2009, pp. 316–350, here: 323 f.
  75. ↑ Wolfram Kinzig: Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christianentum 13, 2009, pp. 316–350, here: 324.
  76. ↑ Winfried Schröder: Athens and Jerusalem , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2011, pp. 63–65.
  77. ↑ Wolfram Kinzig: Polemics reheated? The reception of ancient anti-Christian writings in the Enlightenment. In: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, 2009, pp. 316–350, here: 337 f.
  78. ↑ Michel Fédou: Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origène , Paris 1988, p. 604 f. and note 7.
  79. ^ Eugène Joly: Étude sur Origène , Dijon 1860, pp. 42, 49.
  80. ^ Charles-Émile Freppel: Origène , Volume 2, Paris 1868, pp. 279, 424.
  81. ^ Ernest Renan: Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde antique , Paris 1882, pp. 346–371.
  82. ^ Ferdinand Christian Baur: History of the Christian Church , Volume 1, 3rd Edition, Tübingen 1863, pp. 384, 394, 408.
  83. ^ Theodor Keim: Celsus' True Word , Zurich 1873.
  84. ↑ See the research overview by Horacio E. Lona: Die "Wahreehre" des Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 61–67.
  85. ↑ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff et al: The Greek and Latin literature and language , Berlin / Leipzig 1905, p. 190.
  86. ↑ Johannes Geffcken: Christianity in the struggle and balance with the Greco-Roman world , 3rd, completely revised edition, Leipzig / Berlin 1920, pp. 80–83.
  87. ^ Adolf von Harnack: The mission and expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries , 4th, improved edition, Leipzig 1924, p. 520.
  88. ^ Karl Bihlmeyer: Church history , newly acquired by Hermann Tüchle , Part 1, 18th edition, Paderborn 1966, p. 101 f.
  89. ↑ Philip Merlan: Celsus. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 2, Stuttgart 1954, Sp. 954–965, here: 963 f.
  90. ^ Carl Andresen: Logos and Nomos , Berlin 1955, pp. 4 f., 105 f., 237 f., 290, 306, 394-400. Cf. the review by Heinrich Dörrie in Gnomon 29, 1957, pp. 185–196 and Michael Frede: Celsus philosophus Platonicus. In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Volume II.36.7, Berlin 1994, pp. 5183–5213, here: 5199–5201.
  91. ↑ Olof Gigon: The ancient culture and Christianity , Darmstadt 1966, pp. 105, 118.
  92. ↑ Heinrich Dörrie: The Platonic theology of Kelsos in its examination of Christian theology based on Origen c. Celsum 7, 42 ff. In: Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica minora , Munich 1976, pp. 229-262, here: 255, 259-262 (first published in 1967).
  93. ↑ Marcel Borret (Ed.): Origène: Contre Celse , Volume 5 (= Sources Chrétiennes , No. 227), Paris 1976, pp. 153-182.
  94. ↑ Cornelia J. de Vogel: The so-called Middle Platonism, predominantly a philosophy of this-sidedness? In: Horst-Dieter Blume , Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity. Festschrift for Heinrich Dörrie , Münster 1983, pp. 277–302, here: 290 f.
  95. ↑ John M. Rist: Beyond Stoic and Platonist: A Sample of Origen's Treatment of Philosophy (Contra Celsum: 4.62-70). In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity. Festschrift for Heinrich Dörrie , Münster 1983, pp. 228–238, here: 238.
  96. ^ Willem den Boer: La polémique anti-chrétienne du II e siècle: "La doctrine de vérité" de Celse. In: Athenaeum (Pavia) 54, 1976, pp. 300-318, here: 317 f.
  97. ^ Louis Rougier: Celse ou Le conflit de la civilization antique et du Christianisme primitif , Paris 1925, pp. 53 f., 324.
  98. ^ Karlheinz Deschner: Kriminalgeschichte des Christianentums , Volume 1, Reinbek 1986, pp. 58, 208 f.
  99. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg et al. 2005, pp. 63–66.
  100. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg et al. 2005, p. 5.
  101. ↑ Horacio E. Lona: The "True Teaching" of the Kelsos , Freiburg et al. 2005, p. 476.
  102. ↑ Johannes Arnold: The True Logos of Kelsos. A structural analysis , Münster 2016, p. 520.
  103. ↑ See the review by Johannes Arnold in Theologie und Philosophie 79, 2004, pp. 575-578 and Horacio E. Lona: Die " Wahreehre " des Kelsos , Freiburg 2005, pp. 14-16.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles in this version on February 15, 2019 .
personal data
SURNAME Kelsos
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Celsus
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Greek philosopher (Platonist)
DATE OF BIRTH 2nd century
DATE OF DEATH 2nd century or 3rd century