21.2.niehoff

A Jewish Critique of Christianity from Second-Century Alexandria:Revisiting the Jew Mentioned in Contra CelsumMaren R. Niehoff

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 21, Number 2, Summer2013, pp. 151-175 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.2013.0015

For additional information about this article

Access provided by username 'treederwright' (2 Nov 2013 01:46 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v021/21.2.niehoff.html

Journal of Early Christian Studies 21:2, 151175 2013 The Johns Hopkins University Press

I wish to thank the Israel Science Foundation (435/08) for supporting the research on which this article is based and Al Baumgarten, Yonathan Moss, and an anonymous reader for offering very constructive comments on a draft of this article.

1. For different approaches to the issue of the parting of the ways, see especially Adam D. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted, TSAJ 95 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

2. See especially the two seminal studies by Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: SCM Press, 1973) and Ed P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985).

A Jewish Critique of Christianity from Second-Century Alexandria: Revisiting the Jew Mentioned in Contra Celsum

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

This article proposes to read all the fragments that Origen identified as belong-ing to the section of Celsuss Jew in The True Doctrine as deriving from a written document composed by an Alexandrian Jew in the mid-second century. The author of these fragments emerges as an educated and highly scholarly writer with an Alexandrian background, who was alarmed by the situation of the Jewish community following a significant spread of Christianity, which was accompanied by separatist theology. The anonymous Jewish author thus produced the first literary critique of the Gospels, which is of significant value for our understanding of the parting of the ways. Moreover, I suggest that these fragments should be interpreted in light of both earlier forms of Alexan-drian Judaism as well as the Letter of Barnabas.

Jewish responses to Jesus and the emerging Christian movement are singu-larly important for the discussion of the parting of the ways.1 It is widely recognized today that the Jesus movement originated in a thoroughly Jew-ish context from which it emerged to become a separate religion.2 While scholars have not agreed on the dates of the separation, there is a growing

152 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

3. See especially Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Charles Freeman, A New History of Early Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).

4. The Jew in Contra Celsum uses the term in Or., Cels. 2.27 (ed. Miro-slav Marcovich, Contra Celsum: Libri VIII [Leiden, Boston, Kln: Brill, 2001], 105). Celsuss treatise is usually dated to ca. 17080; see Horacio E. Lona, Die Wahre Lehre des Kelsos, KfA Ergnzungsband 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 2005); John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tbin-gen: Mohr, 2000), 2324; Robert Wilcken, The Christians as the Romans saw them (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 9495.

5. The literature on this topic is vast and cannot possibly be quoted here; see espe-cially David Brakke, Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity. Towards a New His-tory of the New Testament Canon, in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, ed. Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and Jrg Ulrich, Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011), 26380; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 22946; Freeman, A New History, 72110; G. G. Stroumsa, Early ChristianityA Religion of the Book? in Homer, the Bible and Beyond, ed. M. Finkelberg and G. G. Stroumsa, Jerusalem Studies in Culture and Religion 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 15374.

consensus that Christian identity gradually developed, not as a uniform phenomenon, but rather as an amalgam of diverse constructs taking shape in a variety of historical places and social circumstances.3 This polyphone process is naturally difficult to grasp. Crucial aspects of it can be illumi-nated by examining Jewish authors, who perceived Christians as Others. By studying when and where Jewish writers began to distance themselves from Christians or saw Christians as distancing themselves from the Jews, we are able to understand the emergence of early Christianity as a phenomenon distinct from Judaism. Vice versa, Jewish engagements with writings about Jesus and Jesus followers, who increasingly saw themselves as Christians, indicate that the new religion did not go unnoticed and had a considerable impact on constructions of Jewish identity.

In the present article I shall study the fragments of a Jewish document, which I believe are preserved in Celsuss The True Doctrine, and argue that they throw important new light on Alexandrian Judaism in the mid-second century c.e. These fragments contain a scholarly critique of the as well as a discussion of Jewish reactions to Christianity, dating from ca. 150 c.e., i.e. some time before the pagan writer Celsus wrote his own trea-tise in the 170s c.e.4 The Jewish author quoted by Celsus thus belongs to a time when the status of the different Gospels was still debated among Christians, who had just begun canonizing their foundational works.5

Moreover, I would like to suggest that the anonymous Jewish author can be placed in an Alexandrian context in the aftermath of the Jewish

NIEHOFF / JEWISH CRITIQUE 153

6. Following the seminal work of Collin Roberts, Manuscripts, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), scholars today trace the origins of Alexandrian Christianity to the Jewish community and identify the Jewish Diaspora Revolts of 11517 as a significant point of rupture. See espe-cially Birger A. Pearson, Cracking a Conundrum: Christian Origins in Egypt, Studia Theologica 57 (2003): 6175; cf. Joseph Mlze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (Philadelphia, PA and Jerusalem: Princeton University Press, 1995; English transla-tion of French original), 21422, who considers the disaster to have been so great that recuperation was impossible.

7. On the scholarly activities of Philo and his colleagues, see Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011); on Philos broader intellectual and cultural world, see also Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tbingen: Mohr, 2001). On Philos influence, through his students, among Egyptian Jews, see Gregory E. Sterling, The School of Sacred Laws: The Social Setting of Philos Treatises, VC 53 (1999): 14864; Sterling, The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins, in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-gen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tbingen, 2004), 2152.

8. On the theology and exegetical techniques of the Letter of Barnabas, see espe-cially Ferdinand Prostmeier, Antijudaismus im Rahmen christlicher Hermeneutik. Zum Streit ber christliche Identitt in der Alten Kirche. Notizen zum Barnabasbrief, Zeitschrift fr Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 6:1 (2002): 3858; Janni Loman, The Letter of Barnabas in Early Second Century Egypt, in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 59 (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2005), 24765.

9. Eus., H.E. 6.14.1., reports that Clement included the Letter of Barnabas in his explanations of , while he himself identified it as among the disputed writings.

Diaspora Revolts (11517 c.e.), which prompted a rather dramatic break between Jews and Christians in Egypt.6 Our author seems to have been a well educated Jew, who continued the intellectual as well as the schol-arly tradition of Philo and his colleagues from the first century c.e.7 He apparently responded to the increasing popularity of the Christian faith among his fellow Jews, being concerned especially about the Letter of Barnabas, which advocated a novel theology of supersession and used the Jewish Scriptures to support exclusive Christian claims.8 Barnabas quickly achieved high status among Alexandrian Christians and was still regarded as part of the Covenantal Scripture by Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century c.e.9 Barnabass appeal to leave Jewish customs behind and free the Christian community from the tradition of literal Jewish exegesis seems to have had a considerable impact among Alexandrian Jews. Some of them apparently had been deeply sympathetic


10. On the revolt and its disastrous effects on the Jewish community in Egypt, see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996), 7881; Manfred Clauss, Alexandria. Eine Antike Weltstadt (Stuttgart: Klett, 2004), 16064.

11. See also Lona, Kelsos, 1619.12. Celsuss basic philosophical outlook, especially his transcendental Platonism,

best fits an Alexandrian context and seems to have developed there (for details, see

to Jesus, thinking that they could combine their Judaism with adherence to him. As new boundaries were drawn, the Jewish author mentioned by Celsus saw fit to respond publically and point to the dangers that he anticipated for his own community.

Finally, the Jewish voice preserved in the fragments of Celsuss The True Doctrine may illuminate an important period of the Jewish community in Alexandria, which is otherwise undocumented.10 If these fragments indeed derive from an Alexandrian Jewish author in the mid-second century, they indicate that the Jewish community recuperated after the disaster of the Diaspora Revolts. Moreover, the fragments suggest that there seem to have been lively debates among Alexandrian Jews concerning the proper path to take vis--vis the challenge of Christianity. While the author quoted by Celsus fiercely opposed the new movement, others apparently considered joining it. It was this adamant position of our Jewish author, which sub-sequently drew the sympathetic attention of Celsus, who faced a similar crisis in his Greek community.

A WRITTEN JEWISH SOURCE IN CELSUSS THE TRUE DOCTRINE

Undoubtedly, I have set myself a difficult task, because the fragments I am referring to are filtered through two other authors. All we have is Origens treatise Contra Celsum, composed towards the end of his career, after he had already spent more than a decade in Caesarea (23150 c.e.). Fortu-nately, Origen quotes at length from Celsuss book The True Doctrine. The contours of the original treatise emerge so clearly that scholars are in broad agreement about the number of lines belonging to it. While Origen did not respond to every single argument of Celsus, as initially promised (Or., Cels. 1.41), he nevertheless seems to have reproduced the large major-ity of the text, generally following its structure and design.11

Celsus is the first known Greek intellectual who seriously studied the phenomenon of early Christianity and offered a detailed critique of the new religion. His intellectual and historical context was primarily Alexan-drian, but at a later stage he must also have travelled to Rome.12 Moreover,


below). Moreover, Celsus was familiar with Jewish allegorizations, which Origen already identified as reflecting a firsthand familiarity with the works of the Alexan-drian Jews, especially those of Philo (Or., Cels. 4.5051). On the other hand, Celsuss acute awareness of Marcions teaching (e.g. Or., Cels. 6.5153, 6.74) suggests that he also travelled to and perhaps stayed for some time in Rome, where Marcion was active and had founded his own church, on which see Sebastion Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion (Tbingen: Mohr, 2010) 4345. Celsuss trajectory thus follows a rather typical pattern of intellectuals from the Greek East travelling to Rome; for details, see Glen Bowersock, Foreign Elites, in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 5362; Daniela Dueck, Strabo of Amasia. A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 13044; Simon Goldhill, ed., Being Greek under Rome (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001). For alternative reconstructions of Celsuss cultural context, see Lona, Kelsos, 5657; David Rokeah, Judaism and Christianity in the Mirror of Pagan Polemics (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1991), 4448 (in Hebrew).

13. See also Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1955), 79107, 292307; Michael Frede, Celsuss Attack on the Christians, in Philoso-phia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, ed. Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 23240; Wilcken, The Christians, 1018; Freeman, A New History, 17175; G. G. Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy (Tbingen: Mohr, 1999), 4556. On the edition of Platos texts in Alexandria, see Francesca Schironi, Plato at Alexandria: Aristophanes, Aristarchus and the Philological Tradition of a Philosopher, CQ 55 (2005): 42334.

14. Or., Cels. 1.9, 1.12, 1.27. 15. Or., Cels. 1.16.16. Or., Cels. 2.28 (trans. Henry Chadwick [Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, 1953], 91); see also Or., Cels. 1.28, 2.1, and 2.54.

Celsus identified as a Platonist and developed his arguments on the basis of the Platonic texts that had been edited and studied in Alexandria.13 He consequently accused the Christians of falsifying Platos intentions, turn-ing with silly stories to the illiterate rather than engaging in serious philo-sophical arguments with the educated elite.14 Celsus also insisted that the notion of absolute divine transcendence must not be compromised by a belief in Jesus incarnation and charged Christians with illegal social as well as political practices. As far as he was concerned, the Christians were guilty of gathering in secret clubs, invoking daemons, practicing magic, and, most dangerously, staying aloof from civic involvement.15

How does the Jew mentioned by Celsus fit into this picture? Was he a real figure, originally independent of Celsus, or was he rather a literary invention, serving as a mere mouthpiece for Celsuss own ideas? Origen already defended the latter view and accused Celsus of presenting a ficti-tious Jew, who did not fit the image of real Jews as he himself knew them. Origen thus stressed that Celsus put into the mouth of the Jew what no Jew would have said.16 On this view, which is still accepted by many


17. Or., Cels. 1.28 (ed. Marcovich, 2930); for modern scholars holding this opin-ion, see especially Lona, Kelsos, 17273; Cook, Interpretation, 2728.

18. Ernst Bammel, Der Jude des Celsus, in Bammel, Judaica. Gesammelte Schrif-ten (Tbingen; Mohr, 1992), 26583; Lucio Troiani, Il Giudeo di Celso, in Discorsi di Verita, ed. Lorenzo Perrone (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinuanum, 1998), 11528; Albert Baumgarten, Jews, Pagans and Christians on the Empty Grave of Jesus, Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990) vol. 2, division B, 3744; Baumgarten, The Rule of the Martian: In The Ancient World, This Time (forthcoming); Lionell Blumell, A Jew in Celsuss True Doctrine? An examination of Jewish Anti-Christian polemic in the second century c.e., Studies in Religion 36 (2007): 299310.

19. Baumgarten, Jews, Pagans, 42.20. Bammel, Der Jude, 282, already suggested an Alexandrian background to

Celsuss Jew, but considered the fragments from book 1 of Origens Contra Celsum to belong to a different source than those preserved in book 2.

21. Or., Cels. 1.28, 2.79 (ed. Marcovich, 29, 150; trans. Chadwick, 27, 12728).

scholars today, Celsus had engaged rather incompetently in the literary genre of .17

Why, however, would Celsus have invented a Jewish mouthpiece for his own ideas or admitted to engaging in ? Explanations for such behavior on the part of Celsus do not suggest themselves. Not surpris-ingly, several modern scholars have argued for the authenticity of the Jew mentioned by Celsus. Most prominently, Ernst Bammel, Lucio Troiani, Albert Baumgarten, and, more recently, Lionell Blumell have pointed to significant discrepancies between the views attributed to the Jew and those expressed by Celsus himself.18 Such differences of perspective, theological concern, and style of writing were explained by the suggestion that the Jew mentioned in Contra Celsum reflects an authentic Jewish milieu, regardless of whether his voice was taken to be based on an oral or a written tradi-tion or whether it was said to derive from one or several authors. Pars pro toto, Baumgarten concludes that Celsus has contributed little to the sections preserved in bk. I and II of Origens response.19

Developing this approach further, I would like to argue that the frag-ments attributed to the Jew in Contra Celsum derive from one written Jewish source, composed in mid-second century Alexandria.20 Origen provides crucial glimpses into the structure of this Jewish source when he says that Celsus now introduces () a Jew and later that the Jew now concludes all this ( ).21 Celsuss original treatise, which Origen used for his own response, thus allowed him to identify rather clear boundaries of a Jewish text. Origen indeed admits that it is only in book three of his own treatise that he will deal with Cel-sus himself, as distinct from the Jew mentioned by him (Or., Cels. 2.79).


22. . . . (Or., Cels. 1.71; ed. Marcovich, 74).23. Or., Cels. 2.1 (trans. Chadwick, 66).24. Such differences encouraged Bammel, Der Jude 27882, to assume that the

material from book 2 derived from a sermon delivered in an Alexandrian milieu. 25. Or., Cels. 2.1 (ed. Marcovich, 77).26. Tessa Rajak, Talking at Trypho, in her The Jewish Dialogue with Greece

and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2002, orig. published in 1999), 51133.

Origen arranges the first two books of his own work according to the subjects discussed by the anonymous Jewish author. At the end of book one, Origen says that he will conclude here, because the Jew in Celsuss treatise stopped at this point his speech against Jesus.22 At the beginning of book two, Origen resumes the discussion, explaining that he has thus far replied to the Jews criticism directed against Jesus, while in the present book he will respond to the Jews charges against those of the Jewish people, who have believed in Jesus.23 A clear division of Celsuss Jewish source thus emerges: the first part was formulated as a direct response to Jesus and analyzed the Gospels, while the second part addressed fellow Jews who had embraced the new doctrine and left their fathers customs.24

More importantly, the Jew quoted by Celsus also refers to such a twofold division. When accusing his fellow Jews of adhering to the Jesus move-ment, he says that they have been deluded by that man with whom we have just now argued ( ).25 The two parts of the original Jewish treatise thus complement each other. They are written in the same emphatic style and each section uses arguments that belong the-matically also to the other part, obfuscating the strict division between them and creating an overall consistency.

The sheer amount of material quoted from the mouth of the Jew and especially its consistency make the assumption of a written source manda-tory. It is unwise to imagine that Celsus either received such an extended and coherent tradition in oral form or that he himself made it up or that he created an amalgam of different Jewish voices. Moreover, Celsuss Jew emerges as a lively and outspoken person, who has no qualms about attack-ing Christianity. He radically differs from the polite and somewhat pale Jew in Justins Dialogue with Trypho, who often promotes the arguments of his Christian counterpart and has rightly been suspected of stemming to no small degree from Justins own pen.26

Furthermore, Origen indicates that Celsus followed a text. He often refers to the continuity of the Jews argument, using formulations such as after these remarks the Jew of Celsus next says to Jesus or the Jew next


27. Or., Cels. 1.66, 2.19 (trans. Chadwick, 60, 84); see also. 2.55 after this (trans. Chadwick, 109).

28. See details and discussion in Carl H. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 198396), 4 vols.

29. Celsus uses the following terms to refer to this controversy: and - (Or., Cels. 4.52; ed. Marcovich, 269).

30. M. Freimann, Die Wortfhrer des Judentums in den ltesten Kontroversen zwischen Juden und Christen, MGWJ 56 (1912): 5254, 17071; Blumell, A Jew, 299301.

brings his argument to a conclusion.27 Such expressions are standard formulas in antiquity employed in the context of quoting texts. Eusebius, for example, expressed himself in a very similar manner when introducing quotations, regularly filtered through Alexander Polyhistor, from the texts of Demetrius, Aristobulus, Ezekiel, and other Jewish writers.28

We can thus safely conclude that Celsus used a written source composed by a Jew, whose identity he may not have known or perhaps did not con-sider worth transmitting. This conclusion is all the more likely as Celsus refers to a written controversy between Papiscus and Jason, which indi-cates the more wide-spread need of Christian and non-Christian authors to come to terms with each other.29 Celsuss Jewish source must have been written in Greek as the pagan philosopher would otherwise hardly have been able to read it. As we shall see in the following sections, the author of these fragments not only wrote in Greek, but also was thoroughly immersed in the type of Greek culture and learning which was typical of Alexandrian intellectuals.

If indeed the Jew mentioned by Celsus left behind a written treatise pre-served intact by the pagan philosopher, what role did Origen play in the history of transmission? Moreover, was his critique of Celsus as inventing a fictitious Jew entirely innocent? Origens position has been explained by reference to the known discrepancy between the different forms of Juda-ism in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. 30 On this view, Origen was so occupied with Palestinian Jews when writing his Contra Celsum that the Diaspora Jew quoted by Celsus appeared strange to him and was con-sequently construed as a mere fabrication. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that Origen had been trained in Alexandria. He was thoroughly familiar with the type of Greek-speaking Judaism flourishing there and even admired its most famous exponent, namely Philo, whose works he took with him to Caesarea.

Origens position is better appreciated as a piece of rhetoric serving in the competition between Greeks and Christians. Each side was eager to show that the Jews supported their point of view. While the Greeks


31. See e.g. Or., Cels. 2.24, 2.3637, 2.4953, 2.6768 (trans. Chadwick, 8889, 9697, 1038, 11718).

32. See e.g. Or., Hom. in Gen., where he says in view of a lay audience that Paul introduced the allegorical interpretation of circumcision, while he admits in Comm. in Rom. 2.13:19 and 22 to have relied in this respect on several predecessors, includ-ing probably Philo.

33. For details on Alexandrian scholarship, see Francesca Schironi, Aristarchus, Alexandrian Scholarship, Obelos, in Homer Encyclopedia, ed. Margalit Finkel-berg (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 1:3032, 1:8889, 2:580; Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 1:44779; Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 912.

argued that the Jews were likewise appalled by the Christian doctrine, the Christians insisted that they faithfully continued Jewish traditions. Evidence of an earlier Jewish polemic against Christianity was thus prob-lematic for Origen. In his own treatise he often reduced the presence of the Jew by speaking of his arguments, which he just had quoted as deriv-ing from Celsuss Jew, as if they had been offered by Celsus himself.31 Origen thus emerges as someone ambivalent about the Jewish voice that he encountered in Celsuss text. While not entirely suppressing it, he was eager to transfer it to the pagan philosopher, himself engaging in some kind of . In this context it is not surprising that he presented Celsus not as quoting from a Jewish source, but as inventing a fictitious Jew. On other occasions, too, Origen offered tendentious references to his sources, depending on the audience that he addressed.32 The Jewish voice in Celsuss treatise was probably too known to be entirely edited out, but Origen did what he could in order to reduce its effect on his own readers.

THE GOSPELS FROM A SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE

In comparison to Celsus, who tended to focus on the social misbehavior of the early Christians, the Jewish author quoted by him approached early Christianity from a more scholarly perspective, analyzing both Christian texts and Christian readings of Jewish texts. In this section we shall focus on his study of the Gospels, which he treated with an impressive arsenal of scholarly methods, thus anticipating the work of Porphyry. Following the tradition of Homeric scholarship at the Museum in Alexandria, which had been embraced by many Jewish intellectuals, our Jewish author inves-tigated questions of authorship and authorial intention as well as prob-lems of implausibility and contradictions in the text.33 Offering a detailed analysis of the Gospels, which increasingly gained canonical status among Christians, he hoped to expose their inferior value and discourage others from accepting their authority.


34. On Plutarchs indebtedness to Alexandrian scholarship, see M. R. Niehoff, Philo and Plutarch on Homer, in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Niehoff, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 12754. Plutarch dedicated two treatises to polemics against the Stoics, especially Chrysippus, namely De Stoic. Repug. (see especially Mor. 1038C, 1039C) and De Comm. Not. (see especially Mor. 1075EF, 1077EF).

35. Plut., De Stoic. Repug. par. 13 (Mor. 1039A); Or., Cels. 2.74.36. Or., Cels. 1.28 (ed. Marcovich, 2930; trans. Chadwick, 28).37. Note also the subsequent remark of our author in Or., Cels. 2.13: I could

say much about what happened to Jesus which is true and nowhere near the account which has been written by the disciples of Jesus ( ) (ed. Marcovich, 90; trans. Chadwick, 78); see also Or., Cels. 2.26.

38. , Or., Cels. 1.1315, 2.1519 (ed. Marcovich, 1618, 9397). Note that Paul already referred to the difficulty of Jesus crucifixion, which was a stumbling-block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1.23).

Greek scholars, such as Zenodotus and Aristarchus, as well as Jewish scholars, such as Philo and his colleagues, had previously discussed schol-arly problems of their respective foundational texts for the benefit of insid-ers, who relied on these Scriptures. The Jew mentioned by Celsus followed in their path, but applied scholarly techniques to an overtly other text claimed by a rival group. This use of scholarship in the service of polem-ics was anticipated by Plutarch, who was also familiar with Alexandrian scholarship and applied its methods to a fierce critique of the rival Stoic school.34 Indeed, both Plutarch and Celsuss Jew stated with a sense of satisfaction that they have carefully studied the texts of their opponents, because they provide their own refutations.35

It is initially remarkable that the Jewish author quoted by Celsus has an overall conception of how the different gospels emerged. He distinguishes between a primitive layer created by Jesus himself and a subsequent layer added by his disciples. Jesus is said to have fabricated ( ) the story of his mothers virgin conception in order to cover his shameful origins from an adulterous woman.36 Jesus disciples subsequently embellished the Jesus traditions with fanciful stories. While true reports about Jesus were available to them, they chose to fabricate stories that they hoped would present their master in a more favorable light.37 The disciples thus invented the motif of Jesus foreknowledge of his own death in order to excuse the events of his life, especially the public embarrass-ment of his crucifixion.38

Celsuss Jew moreover reconstructs the development of the gospel lit-erature, offering the following critical perspective:


39. Or., Cels. 2.27 (ed. Marcovich, 105; trans. Chadwick, 90).40. Cf. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 90 n. 2; Lona, Kelsos, 13940, who

both suggested that the reference is likely to the synoptic and apocryphal Gospels. While the latter had especially Marcions work in mind, I think that a Gospel popular in Egypt rather than in Rome is more likely.

41. See especially the discussion of the following contradictions, which gave rise to the claim of different authors: Schol. Il. 2.356 (ed. Hartmut Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem [Scholia Vetera], 7 vols. [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 196974], 3:262), where the author of the Iliad is said to have depicted Helen as forcibly following Paris, while the author of the Odyssey suggested that she came along willingly; 11:692 where those who separate dwell on the contradictory numbers of Neloss sons; 13:365 (ed. Erbse, 3:47273), where the crux is discussed that different daughters of Priam are identified as the fairest; 16:747 (ed. Erbse, 4:29596), where those who separate suggest that the author of the Iliad did not present its heroes as using fish, while the author of the Odyssey did.

Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and change the original text of the gospel ( ) three or four or several times over and they remodel it () in order to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.39

Our anonymous Jewish author analyzes here the redaction of the gos-pels, pointing to theological controversy as the impetus for subsequent rewritings. On this view, there was one Urtext, which is not identified in the available fragments with any particular Gospel. This text echoes more closely the historical Jesus, while later versions are more apologetic and ideologically biased. Our author is well aware of the fact that the gospels cover the same material about Jesus, but present different and even con-flicting perspectives. The status of the different gospels is clearly debated at the time when he wrote, his references to three, four or several Gospels probably implying also a hint at the Gospel of Thomas, which enjoyed particular popularity in Egypt.40

This critique of the overall authorship of the Gospels and the revisions of the original version by ideologically minded writers must be appreciated in the context of Alexandrian scholarship. The authorship of foundational texts had been discussed here with special attention to subsequent text manipulations. In the second century b.c.e., Aristarchus, the foremost of the Alexandrian Homer scholars, participated in a lively debate about the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey. He rejected the view of those who identified two different authors of the epics, and insisted on their common origin from Homers pen.41 Moreover, Aristarchuss work was characterized by a sustained effort to reconstruct the authentic text written by Homer and to distinguish it from later accretions by incompetent editors. He thus


42. On the history of the critical signs, see Francesca Schironi, Critical from Zenodotus to Origen, in Homer and the Bible, ed. Niehoff, 87112.

43. Somn. 2.245, Conf. 39, Plant. 39; discussed by Adam Kamesar, Philo and the Literary Quality of the Bible: A Theoretical Aspect of the Problem, JJS 46 (1995): 60.

44. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 11229.45. (Or., Cels. 1.38 [ed. Marcovich, 40]). Celsuss

Jew was also familiar with the other Gospels, including John, to which he alludes in Or., Cels. 2.32.

46. Or., Cels 1.37 (trans. Chadwick, 37).47. See especially Arist., Poet. 1460a11b19 (ed. S. Butcher [New York: The

Mcmillan Company, 1898], 9496); N. Richardson, Aristotles Reading of Homer and its Background, in Homers Ancient Readers, ed. Robert Lamberton and John J. Keaney (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 3040.

marked manipulations of the text by critical signs, especially the obelus, in the margins of the manuscript. These signs were explained in an accom-panying commentary and were known to many later authors, including Origen.42 Philo, the best known and most influential of the Alexandrian Jews, also inquired into the literary dimension of the Jewish Scriptures. He distinguished between Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, and his friends or students, who were in his view responsible for composing the book of Psalms.43 While Philo himself insisted on the overall authen-ticity of the Torah, some of his colleagues suspected that certain biblical passages were later additions to the original text.44 Given this background, it is not surprising that the Jewish author quoted by Celsus attacked the Gospels by suggesting that they are the result of ideological revision and text manipulation. The parallels of the Jesus traditions, which are preserved in the different Gospels, virtually invited such a text-critical approach, as modern scholarship has made abundantly clear.

In addition to providing an overall perspective on the redaction of the gospels, our anonymous Jewish author examines particular passages and highlights two types of textual problems, namely cases of implausibil-ity and contradictions. Origen already remarked that Celsuss Jew took material from the gospel according to Matthew, [but] did not believe the paradoxical aspects of it.45 The anonymous Jew indeed found much material in the Gospels that he regarded as utterly implausible. His prime targets were the stories about the virgin birth, Jesus resurrection, and his performance of miracles. While Origen summarily dismissed his criticism as appropriate to a vulgar buffoon and not to a man, who takes his pro-fessed task seriously,46 I shall argue that Celsuss Jew applied the standard scholarly methods of his time.

Following Aristotles inquiries into impossible things (), Alex-andrian scholars had been preoccupied with problems of implausibility.47


48. Francesca Schironi, Theory into Practice: Aristotelian Principles in Aristarchan Philology, CP 104 (2009): 28488; for examples, see Schol. Il. 1:100A, 19:4167A, 1:129A, 2:55A, 2:76A, 2:319A, 2:667A, 3:74A, 16:666 (ed. Erbse, 1:37, 4:648, 1:4748, 1:189, 1:19192, 1:254, 1:320, 1:373, 4:28788).

49. Eus., P.E. 9.21.145, ed. Carl Holladay (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 198396), 1:70; for a detailed discussion, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 4651.

50. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 14551.51. Our Jewish author uses the term (Or., Cels. 1.28; ed. Marcovich, 29).52. Or., Cels. 1.28 (ed. Marcovich, 2930; trans. Chadwick, 28 with emenda-

tions); see also the parallel in 1.32 (ed. Marcovich, 33), which identifies Jesus father as the soldier Panthera (on which see Lona, Kelsos, 100102). Regarding con-nections between the Panthera tradition in Contra Celsum and subsequent rabbinic traditions, see also David Rokeah, Ben Satra is Ben Pantira [Hebrew], Tarbiz 39 (1960): 918; Peter Schfer, Jesus im Talmud (Tbingen: Mohr, 2007), 3746; Cook, Interpretation, 3233.

In the mid-second century b.c.e., Aristarchus identified as inauthentic such Homeric lines as he considered to contain something implausible () or laughable ().48 The Jewish exegete Demetrius, prob-ably also writing in the mid-second century b.c.e., moreover addressed problems of implausibility in the Jewish Scriptures. He asked, for example, why at all did Joseph at the meal give a five-fold portion to Benjamin even though he was incapable ( )of taking in such quantities of meat?49 Philo continued this tradition of textual inquiry and identi-fied numerous implausible motifs in the Scriptures, which he, however, explained by recourse to allegorical interpretation.50

If such small details as Josephs portion to Benjamin had already been submitted to critical analysis in Alexandria, it is hardly surprising that the Jewish author quoted by Celsus considered the story of Marys virgin con-ception as a major problem. In his view, it was a pure fabrication made up by Jesus himself, who was ashamed of his low background.51

He [the Jew] reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. . . . She was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery. After she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus. . . . Because he was poor, he hired himself out as a workman in Egypt and there tried his hand at certain magical powers, on which the Egyptians pride themselves, and he returned full of conceit ( ) because of these powers and on account of them proclaimed himself as god ( ).52

Our anonymous Jewish author presents here a subversive reading of the Gospel according to Matthew. Ignoring the general outline of Lukes


53. Note also that our Jewish author uses the term betrothed in Or., Cels. 1.32 (trans. Chadwick, 31).

54. On Egyptian magic, see Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: a History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 70142; on Jewish constructs of the Egyp-tians, see Maren R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tbingen: Mohr, 2001), 4574; Sarah J. K. Pearce, The Land of the Body (Tbingen: Mohr, 2007); on the similarity between Celsuss Jew and Philo regarding their negative attitude towards Egypt, see also Troiani, Il Guideo, 117.

55. Matt 12:2428, Mark. 3:22, Luke 11:1420. Note that, according to Celsuss Jew, Jesus shared to some extent the view of the Pharisees and was aware of the wicked nature of his miracles (Or., Cels. 2.49, 2.53).

version (Luke 1.2638), he relies on Matthews story with its emphasis on Joseph suspecting his fiance of adultery.53 The report that Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to expose her, resolved to send her away secretly (Matt 1.19) is taken as the historical basis of Jesus biography. The appearance of the angel, by contrast, who reassures Joseph about Marys conception by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1.20), is assumed to be a fab-rication serving Jesus narcissistic needs. The anonymous Jewish author may also have taken seriously Lukes note about Mary rising immediately after the angels announcement and going with haste into the hill coun-try (Luke 1.39). The motif of the pregnant woman wandering about alone may have been interpreted as a proof of her adultery, which led to her rejection by her husband.

Moreover, the Jewish author quoted by Celsus relies on Matthews ref-erence to Jesus as the son of a carpenter in order to stress his low social status (Matt 13.55). He completes the picture by adding that his mother earned money by spinning. The motif of Jesus journey to Egypt is more-over interpreted in terms of seeking menial work there. According to the anonymous Jew, Jesus encountered the practice of magic in Egypt, a trade that later enabled him to perform cheap tricks in the land of Israel. These condescending references to Egyptian magic reflect a wider topos and suit the profile of Alexandrian Jews, who were eager to distance themselves from the local Egyptians.54

It is striking that the anonymous Jew assumes as self-evident the notion of Jesus claim to divinity. He merely explains the cause of this mistake, arguing that Jesus was misled by his magical powers to become megalo-maniac and consider himself as god (). In the Synoptic Gospels, by contrast, Jesus miracles are regularly reported to have provoked a debate about whether he was the son of man or had instead been directed by Belzebul, as the Pharisees suspected.55 Similarly, Justin Martyr mentions a criticism of Jesus that he, on account of his magic, seemed to many like


56. Just., 1 Apol. 30 (ed. Gustav Kruger, Die Apologieen Justins des Mrtyrers [Freiburg: Mohr, 1896; Internet Archive], 23; http://archive.org/details/dieapologieen ju00krgoog.)

57. Barn. 9.8, 5.1, 5.3, 12.7 (ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake [London: W. Heine-mann, 1965], 37273, 35455, 38485); see also Roberts, Manuscript, 2648; Reidar Hvalvik, Barnabas 9.79 and the Authors Supposed Use of Gematria, NTS 33 (1987): 27682; L. W. Hurtado, The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Porposal, JBL 117 (1998): 65573.

58. Barn. 12.1011 (ed. and trans. Lake, 38687); on the theology of the Letter of Barnabas, see also: Hans Windisch, Der Barnabasbrief (Tbingen: Mohr, 1920), 37475; Loman, Letter, 253.

59. Or., Cels. 1.66 (ed. Markovich, 68; trans. Chadwick, 60 with emendations); similarly also in 1.34.

60. Or., Cels. 1.39 (ed. Marcovich, 40; trans. Chadwick, 3738).

the son of God ( ).56 In comparison to these Jewish perspectives on Jesus, our author seems to have been familiar with a form of Christi-anity that was already more advanced on the way to Jesus full divinity.

While higher forms of Christology are already visible in the Gospel of John and Pauls Letters, the Letter of Barnabas advocates an especially relevant theology, which may well have prompted a reaction on the part of Celsuss Jew. Barnabas mentions for the first time the nomen sacrum of Jesus, speaks of him as the Lord () and presents him in Divine terms, stressing that all things are in him and for him.57 Barnabas more-over insists that David had already spoken of Jesus as Lord (), thus proving wrong other Christians, who conceived of him as the son of man with a human descent from the Davidic line.58 The Jewish author quoted by Celsus was apparently familiar with such radical Christian claims in Alexandria. His reply was the following:

Why also when you [Jesus] were still an infant did you have to be taken to Egypt lest you should be murdered? It is not plausible ( ) that a god should be afraid of death.59

The Jewish author quoted by Celsus attacks the notion of Marys vir-gin conception by two further arguments, which point to an Alexandrian background. The first has to do with philosophical notions of God, who is seen as utterly transcendental, and thus by nature incapable of contact with the material realm:

Then was the mother of Jesus beautiful? And because she was beautiful did God have sexual intercourse with her, although by nature he cannot love a corruptible body ( )? It is not likely ( ) that God would have fallen in love with her since she was neither wealthy nor of royal birth.60


61. Or., Cels. 1.6970.62. On Alexandrian tendencies towards transcendental theology, see especially

Mauro Bonazzi, Towards Transcendence: Philo and the Revival of Platonism in the Early Imperial Age, in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. Francesca Allesse (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 23351; Francesca Calabi, Gods Acting. Mans Acting. Tradition and Philosophy in Philo of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 138; Lona, Kelsos, 4245. Maren R. Niehoff, Philos Role as a Platonist in Alex-andria, Etudes Platoniciennes 7 (2010): 3562, pointed to a significant difference in this respect between Alexandria, where Platonism and Aristotelianism were prominent, and Rome, where Stoicism increasingly flourished.

63. Or., Cels. 1.65 (ed. Chadwick, 60), see also 1.6164 for additional examples.64. On the lack of commentary culture and tight school boundaries among the

Stoics, see Gretchen Reydams-Schils, Authority and Agency in Stoicism, GRBS 51 (2010): 296322; on the Christian rejection of Jewish notions of canon, see Stroumsa, Early Christianity, 15961.

Poking once more fun at Jesus low social status, the anonymous Jewish author dismisses the idea of Marys conception by the Holy Spirit as utterly incongruent with Gods nature. He ignores the notion of the Spirit as an intermediary figure and ridicules the image of Gods direct intercourse with a human woman. Our Jewish author emerges as a writer who assumes a fundamental gap between the divine and the human realm, insisting on the absolute transcendence of God. Further on in his treatise he explains that a god can neither be born nor eat food nor use a human voice as Jesus is reported to have done.61 Platonic rather than Homeric or biblical traditions led our author to stress the unbridgeable gap between god and the corruptible world. Such insistence on divine transcendence is typical of Alexandrian Platonism and distinguishes writers like Eudorus, Philo, and Celsus from their Stoic counterparts in Rome.62

It is moreover conspicuous in the above-quoted passage that our author speaks from the point of view of the upper classes, ruling out the possibil-ity that any respectable person would be attracted to a woman neither wealthy nor of royal birth. On several other occasions in his treatise he comments on the low social milieu of the Gospels, stressing that Jesus and his disciples made their livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way.63 Our author emerges as someone of the same social background as Philo, Celsus, and Plutarch. The philosophers, who actively opposed Christianity in the imperial age, were upper class Platonists, motivated at least partially by social concerns. They were deeply astonished by the idea that Christianity would want to appeal to the broad masses. Stoic philosophers, by contrast, who relied on the common notions of ordinary men and had not defined their school allegiance in terms of belonging to a tight textual community, could hardly be puzzled by this aspect of the Christian movement.64


65. Or., Cels. 1.67 (ed. Marcovich, 70; trans. Chadwick, 62).66. For details on each of these figures, see Lona, Kelsos, 11516.67. Homer, Od. 11.260 (ed. and trans. A. T. Murray).68. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 7794.69. Schol. Il. 14.315A, 14.317A.70. Schol. Il. 14:315T (ed. Erbse, 3:639); on the nature of the so-called exegetical

or bT scholia, see N. J. Richardson, Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch, CQ 30 (1980): 26587; Niehoff, Philo and Plutarch, who placed them into the context of Imperial Platonism.

The final argument of our author against the notion of Marys virgin conception is supported by a typically Alexandrian comparison of myths:

The old myths that attributed a divine birth to Perseus and Amphion and Aeacus and Minoswe do not believe themare nevertheless evidence of their great and truly wonderful works for mankind so that they do not appear lacking in plausibility ( ). But as for you: what have you done in word or deed that is fine or wonderful? You showed nothing to us, although they challenged you in the temple to produce some obvious token that you were the son of God.65

The Jewish author mentioned by Celsus was evidently familiar with the Greek heroes, who had been mentioned by Homer and were interpreted throughout Greek literature.66 His broad education prompted him to com-pare Jesus with Amphion, whose mother, according to Homer, boasted that she slept in the arms of Zeus himself and she bore two sons.67 Cel-suss Jew moreover associates the story of Jesus conception with the list of human women whom Zeus recalls in the Iliad as the objects of his sex-ual desire and mothers of some of his outstanding sons, such as Perseus (Homer, Il. 14.31424). Such familiarity with Homer on the part of an Alexandrian Jew is not at all surprising. Jewish intellectuals of that city had already for a long time engaged in comparisons of myths, analyzing the story of the Tower of Babel, for example, in light of the sons of Aloei-dae mentioned in Od. 11. 31516.68

The list of Zeuss human lovers had provoked a lively discussion among Greek readers. The foremost Alexandrian scholars, Aristophanes and Aristarchus had athetized, i.e. marked as spurious, eleven Homeric lines specifying the names of Zeuss human lovers, on the grounds that a gen-eral remark about the gods affairs was sufficient.69 A subsequent scholar of the later bT tradition, which was eminently concerned with pedagogy, wondered why the poet had presented Zeus as lacking self-control to such an extent that he could not master himself.70 The problem was solved by arguing that Homer wished to instruct the youth about the importance of self-restraint, using Zeus as a warning. Other interpreters in the bT


71. Schol. Il. 14:317bT (Erbse, 3:64041).72. Or., Cels. 1.67 (trans. Chadwick, 62).73. Philo, Legat. 88 (ed. and trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library [London:

W. Heinemann, 192968], 45); see also Troiani, Il Guideo, 11720.

tradition were puzzled by the Homeric note that Zeus made love to Ixions wife. They stress that Zeus has sexual intercourse with virginsonly with virginsand that the woman was wedded only after having been seduced [by Zeus].71

These lively Greek discussions throw light on the comparison between Marys virgin birth and Greek myth. It initially becomes clear that our anonymous Jewish author shares the same cultural background as the Greek scholars, who were concerned with the acceptability of Zeuss sexual adventures. While the Jewish scholar does not accept the Greek myths as true, he regards them as plausible in comparison to the Gospel story, because they explain the extraordinary benefits that the offspring of Zeuss relationships brought to mankind. Comparing Jesus to such Greek heroes, our Jewish author asks: But as for you [Jesus], what have you done in word or deed that is fine or wonderful?72 It is striking that one century earlier Philo had addressed virtually the same question to the Emperor Gaius, who also made claims to divinity. Having introduced the demigods as well as Apollo, Hermes, and Ares as true benefactors to mankind, Philo asks Gaius: Did you imitate Dionysus? Have you become an inventor of new bounties as he was? Did you fill the inhabited world with joyfulness?73

The Jewish author quoted by Celsus thus shares Alexandrian-Jewish traditions, which were characterized by a broad intellectual outlook as well as a distinctly scholarly orientation. Even though Celsus had most probably grown up in the same city, he was less scholarly. He attacked the motif of the virgin birth by insisting that God was more likely to send down His delegate directly, without using a human womb, and thus avoid the suspicion of Marys adultery (Or., Cels. 6.73).

The traits of a broad Alexandrian education are also visible in our Jew-ish authors criticism of Jesus resurrection. His method here is the same as regarding the story of Marys virgin conception: he isolates the historical kernel of the account and then identifies later accretions on the basis of a detailed text analysis. The notion of implausibility is once more central as well as comparisons to Greek literature.

According to the Jew mentioned by Celsus, the shameful death of Jesus on the cross caused his disciples many problems, which they tried to hide


74. Or., Cels. 2.13 and 2.15.75. Or., Cels. 2.55 (ed. Marcovich, 12728; trans. Chadwick, 109).76. Matt 28.114; cf. Mark 16.18. While Mark briefly spoke of Jesus resurrection,

Matthew stressed that he was raised from the dead, his feet being kissed after the resurrection (Matt 28.9), and reports the miracles in nature, which the Jewish author criticizes; see also Baumgarten, Jews, Pagans, 4143, on the differences between the criticism of Celsuss Jew and that already found in Matt 28.15.

77. See also Or., Cels. 1.41 for similar remarks on Mark 1.1011.

and suppress.74 Despite their partial and tendentious presentation of the facts, our author identifies what appears to him as the original story: Jesus was crucified as a mean criminal and his body was stolen from the tomb. The story of his resurrection and foreknowledge of his own death were subsequently invented by his disciples. This story, however, is found utterly implausible for the following reasons:

Come now, let us believe your view that he actually said this [predicted his own death and resurrection]. How many others produce wonders like this to convince simple hearers whom they exploit by deceit? They say that Zamolxis, the slave of Pythagoras, also did this among the Scythians and Pythagoras himself in Italy, and Rhampsinitus in Egypt. The last-named played dice with Demeter in Hades and returned bearing a gift from her, a golden napkin. Moreover, they say that Orpheus did this among the Odrysians . . . But we must examine this question whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body. Or do you think that the stories of these others really are the myths which they appear to be, while the ending of your tragedy is to be regarded as noble and convincing ( )his cry from the cross when he expired, and the earthquake and the darkness? While he was alive, he did not help himself, but after his death he rose again and showed the marks of his punishment and how his hands had been pierced. But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind or through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion . . . or, which is more likely, wanted to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale.75

In this passage the Jewish author quoted by Celsus analyzes the story of Jesus resurrection as reported in the Gospel of Matthew, who elaborates on this motif in comparison to Mark.76 Attacking the notion of resurrec-tion in the same body, our author dismisses Mary Magdalenes witness as a hallucination of a hysterical female.77 On the whole, our author is not very pleased with the dramatic scene in Matthew, where Jesus cries on the cross and earthquakes announce the significance of the event. He


78. This impression is confirmed by his remarks in Or., Cels. 2.24 and 2.37. 79. Lona, Kelsos, 15961.80. For details on Alexandrian inquiries into contradictions, see Niehoff, Jewish

Exegesis, 3946 and 13945.81. Or., Cels. 2.32 (ed. Marcovich, 108; trans. Chadwick, 93).

may well have been familiar with Platos Apology, preferring Socratess noble death to Jesus emotional outburst, which probably seemed to him like a weakness of character.78

In order to support his argument for the utter implausibility of the Gospel story, our author draws attention to several literary parallels, which have been traced mostly to Herodotus.79 These examples show the popularity and silliness of mans search for life after death, implicitly dismissing any Christian claim to the special or exclusive nature of Jesus story. These lit-erary parallels moreover reflect our authors broad education, rationalistic approach, and his Alexandrian milieu, where his reference to the otherwise hardly known Egyptian king Rhampsinitus would have resonated well.

Finally, one additional aspect of our authors scholarly approach to the Gospels must be discussed: like many Alexandrians before him, including Philo and Demetrius, he is sensitive to contradictions within the text.80 This emerges from his discussion of Jesus different genealogies as well as his foreknowledge of his own death. In both cases our author points to a dissonance between these particular motifs and the overall narrative. The Jewish author quoted by Celsus thus offers the following analysis of the genealogies preserved in Matt 1.610 and Luke 3.38:

But he [Celsuss Jew] says that the men who compiled the genealogies boldly said that Jesus was descended from the first man and from the kings of the Jews. He thinks that he makes a fine point in saying that the carpenters wife would not have been ignorant of it ( . . . ) had she had such a distinguished ancestry.81

Our author clearly assumes the later fabrication of the genealogies, pre-sumably in light of the Gospel of Mark where they are lacking altogether. His argument against their authenticity is based on an internal contradic-tion. In his view, the character portrayal of Jesus mother does not fit the assumed genealogy introduced by Matthew and Luke. Had such illustri-ous ancestors indeed existed, Mary would not have behaved as a woman of low social status. Her portrayal in the Gospels thus does not suit the genealogies, which were subsequently added by an amateurish writer to the opening chapters of two of them.

According to our author, the same kind of contradiction was caused by the addition of Jesus supposed foreknowledge of his own death. His


82. Or., Cels. 2.16 (trans. Chadwick, 81).83. Or., Cels. 2.16 (trans. Chadwick, 81).84. Or., Cels. 2.17 (trans. Chadwick, 83).85. Or., Cels. 2.1 (ed. Marcovich, 77).86. See especially Philo, Migr. 8993; for details, see Niehoff, Philo on Jewish

Identity, 94110 and 24766.87. Or., Cels. 2.1 (ed. Marcovich, 77).88. Contra Lona, Kelsos, 123.

disciples had made up this story in order to excuse the events of his life, which were too widely known to be altogether denied.82 Yet the repressed material is lurking everywhere in the Gospels, causing contradictions within the text. In the words of our author, it is as if someone, while saying that a certain man is righteous, shows him to be doing wrong.83 The motif of Jesus foreknowledge is thus out of character with his own person:

Who, whether god or daemon, or sensible man, if he foreknew that such things would happen to him, would not avoid them if at least he could do so, instead of meeting with just the events which he had foreseen?84

Our author suggests here once more that there is a dissonance between the editorial layer of the Gospels, according to which Jesus knew about his imminent execution, and the earlier layer of the Gospels, which report his crucifixion under shameful circumstances. On this view, the historical Jesus would have behaved differently, if he had indeed had access to such knowledge. While Celsus later also criticized the story of Jesus death and his foreknowledge, it is conspicuous that the Jewish author quoted by him based his views on a closer reading of the Christian texts.

JEWISH REACTIONS TO JESUS

In the second part of his treatise the Jewish author quoted by Celsus addresses fellow citizens ( ), asking what happened to you that you left the law of our fathers ( )?85 It is this deep concern for the welfare of the observant Jewish politeia that animates this whole section. Our anonymous author once more shares his basic outlook with Philo, who had also insisted on law observance as the basis of the Jewish community, which he, too, described in terms of a politeia.86 While Philo had praised Tamar for deserting paganism in favor of the Jewish constitu-tion, Celsuss Jew bemoans the desertion of contemporary Jews in favor of another name ( ).87 This reference to the name has been interpreted as implying those called Christians.88 Such a reconstruction, however, does not seem to fit the notion mentioned


89. Or., Cels. 2.8 (ed. Chadwick, 72).90. While Gen 17.23 and 17.27 speak only in general terms about the circumcision

of Abrahams household, Barnabas relies on Gen 14.14 for the exact number of men. 91. Roberts, Manuscript, 2648.92. Or., Cels. 2.8 (ed. Marcovich, 83, trans. Chadwick, 7273). 93. Or., Cels. 2.6, 2.3839, 2.43 (trans. Chadwick, 71, 97, 99).94. Or., Cels. 2.6, 2.4 (trans. Chadwick, 71, 69).

here of a desertion towards another name. Furthermore, the designa-tion Christian is not central for our author, who is also happy to refer to his opponents as believers in Christ.89

I would instead like to suggest that our author may well have responded to the idea of Jesus nomen sacrum postulated for the first time in the Letter of Barnabas. Barnabas interprets the biblical motif of Abraham circumcising 318 men of his household by gematria as a reference to the name of Jesus and the cross.90 The Greek letters I (ten), H (8), and T (three hundred) are taken to be the first two letters of Jesus name as well as a pictorial presentation of the cross (Barn. 9.8). Barnabas argued that the Jewish Scriptures in reality convey a deeply Christian message. He moreover identified this particular teaching of a gematria revealing Jesus on the cross as a most excellent lesson, to be shared only among insiders (Barn. 9.8). Collin Roberts has drawn attention to this passage, stressing its importance as our first evidence of a sacred name being abbreviated and written in a special way.91 If our Jewish author had encountered this theological tradition in Alexandria, it would no doubt have struck him as a replacement of the Tetragrammaton to which special rules of silence and verbal substitution applied in the Jewish tradition. Deserting to another name would thus have meant for him to worship another deity than the God of Israel. This conclusion is confirmed by the repeated references of our author to pressure exercised by Christians on Jews in order that the latter may accept Jesus as god ( ).92

Celsuss Jew identifies a dramatic and highly paradoxical development in the history of the Jesus movement. Initially, Jesus observed all the customs of the Jews and took part in their sacrifices, but was rejected by his fellow Jews and even sentenced to death as a criminal.93 In his own days, on the other hand, many Jews have become adherents of Jesus and as a result of it abandoned the law of our fathers.94 This movement away from Judaism, which is ironically implied in the increasing popularity of the Christian faith among Jews, is highly alarming to our author. He asks with bitter disappointment:


95. Or., Cels. 2.4 (ed. Marcovich, 79; trans. Chadwick, 69).96. Barn. 4.6 (ed. Lake, 351); see also Prostmeier, Antijudaismus, 5354.97. Barn. 4.7 (ed. Lake, 350).98. Barn. 4.8 (ed. Lake, 351).99. See also Loman, Letter of Barnabas, 25458.100. Barn. 1.7 (ed. Lake, 343).101. Barn. 2.4 (ed. Lake 345).102. Barn. 2.6 (ed. and trans. Lake 34445).103. Barn. 2.9, (ed. Lake, 345).

Why do you take your origin from our religion, and then, as if making progress despise these things ( ), even though you have no other origin for your doctrine than our law?95

Our author writes these lines with a clear sense that an ineffaceable borderline has been drawn between Christians and Jews. He moreover perceives a Christian self-definition that relies on the notion of progress by dismissing its Jewish roots. Such an approach is expressed in the Letter of Barnabas, who explicitly rejects other Christians who believe that the covenant is both theirs and ours.96 There can be no doubt that Barnabas refers by to the Jews97 because he subsequently shows how they lost the covenant immediately after receiving it. On this view, Moses grasped the full impact of the Israelites turning to idolatry while he was on Mt. Sinai receiving the tablets of the law:

And Moses understood and cast the two tablets out of his hands. Their covenant was broken in order that the covenant of Jesus the Beloved should be sealed in our hearts in hope of his faith.98

The theological significance of the broken tablets is enormous. Barnabas no longer accords the Jews any historical role as other Christian writ-ers had done, who supposed that Jewish law observance was intended by God until the coming of Jesus.99 Barnabas seeks to prove his notion of a complete supersession at the earliest stages of the Jewish religion by stressing the underlying prophetic message of Scripture. In his view, the Lord made known to us through the prophets things past and things pres-ent and has given us the first-fruits of the taste of things to come.100 He knows through all the prophets that God needs neither sacrifices nor burnt-offerings nor oblations.101 The prophets moreover conveyed the message that the new law ( ) of our Lord Jesus had been intended.102 Against this background, Jewish law observance emerges as an error.103 Barnabas provides several examples of such Jewish errors, juxtaposing Jewish and Christian understandings of fasting, circumcision,


104. Barn. 3.15, 9.115.19; see also Barn. 5.2, 12.15; see also Prostmeier, Antijudaismus, 4651.

105. Barn. 5.6, 5.13, 6.2, 6.7, 12.11 (ed. Lake, 355, 357, 359, 387). 106. Barn. 5.4 (ed. Lake, 355).107. Or., Cels. 1.50, 1.57 (trans. Chadwick, 47, 52).108. Or., Cels. 2.28 (ed. Marcovich, 105; trans. Chadwick, 91).109. Or., Cels. 2.29 (trans. Chadwick, 91).

and the Sabbath.104 While the literal meaning of Scripture has thus never been intended, its prophetic significance is Christian and authentic. Barn-abas argues that the prophets prophesied of him, namely Jesus, and draws particular attention to Isaiah, whose reference to the Messiah is identified as a plain testimony to Jesus role in history.105

The fierceness of the controversy becomes clear in Barnabass state-ment that a man deserves to perish, who has the knowledge of the way of righteousness, but turns aside to darkness.106 For Barnabas, defending the Christian truth, as he understood it, implies a fight of life and death. Not surprisingly, a catchword of his polemics is , to render null and void, namely to annul Jewish customs and traditions.

Given the intensity of Barnabass polemics, it is difficult to imagine that his voice would not have come to the attention of the Jews living in Alex-andria. The anonymous author mentioned by Celsus indeed seems to be aware not only of its existence, but also of its implications for the Jewish community. He directly addresses fellow Jews, who have adopted such a separatist position, dismissing now the Jewish law and holding Jewish customs in low esteem. He moreover makes a special effort to show that his fellow Jews have been deceived, when they were made to believe that the biblical prophecies apply to Jesus. Already in the first part of his trea-tise our anonymous author clarified in a scholarly way that the prophe-cies that are applied to this man can be referred to other events as well and that the prophecies which were applied to him were spoken of them [the Jews].107

In the second part of his treatise our anonymous author accuses Chris-tians of using prophets who proclaimed beforehand the facts of Jesus life, while in reality the prophecies could be applied to thousands of others far more plausibly ( ) than to Jesus.108 Celsuss Jew summarizes his position by outlining the contours of the authentic Messiah:

The prophets say that the one who will come will be a great prince, lord of the whole earth and of all nations and armies.109

This vision of the Messiah is highly political, assuming a figure with a real historical impact. Concrete armies and countries will be conquered. Jesus


110. Or., Cels. 2.63, 2.67.111. Or., Cels. 2.35, 2.2122.112. Or., Cels. 2.12 (trans. Chadwick, 72).

does not fit this image, as Celsuss Jew stresses, because he showed himself weak in the face of those despising him.110 Jesus neither took revenge on those insulting him nor exercised control over his own disciples.111 The following conclusion must in his view be drawn:

No good general who led many thousands was ever betrayed, nor was any wicked robber-chieftain, who was captain of very bad men, while he appeared to bring some advantage to his associates. But he who was betrayed by those under his authority neither ruled like a good general nor, when he had been deceived by his disciples, did he even inspire in the men that goodwill, if I may call it that, which robbers feel towards their chieftain.112

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Reading all the fragments, which Origen identified as belonging to the sec-tion of Celsuss Jew in The True Doctrine, one gets the impression of a coherent treatise against early Christianity. The author of these fragments emerges as an educated and highly scholarly writer with an Alexandrian background, who was alarmed by the situation of the Jewish community following a significant spread of Christianity, which was accompanied by separatist theology. The anonymous Jewish author thus produced the first literary critique of the Gospels, which is of significant value for our understanding of the parting of the ways. We have suggested both ear-lier forms of Alexandrian Judaism as well as the Letter of Barnabas as a meaningful background for our anonymous Jewish author. While he continued scholarly Jewish traditions, such as those preserved by Philo, he seems to have reacted against forms of Christianity such as those for-mulated in the Letter of Barnabas.

The treatise by the anonymous Jewish author in Celsuss The True Doc-trine moreover indicates that at least some part of the Jewish community had recuperated after the Diaspora Revolt and reached a high level of material as well as intellectual wealth. Our study suggested that Christi-anity was perceived by such educated Jews in the mid-second century as a different religion, which prompted responses and new self-definitions on the part of the Jewish community in Alexandria.

Maren R. Niehoff is Associate Professor of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Documents

21.2.niehoff