Talk:Celsus

This article needs some work. Sentences such as "Over against the state and the worship of the Caesar stood as usual the Christian ideal of a rule and a citizenship not of this world, to which a thousand years were but as a day," need to be rewritten. I don't even know what this means. Also, the Section heading "Nature of Celsus' attack" might be POV. I am not sure... Accordingly, I will assess this as Start Class Argos'Dad 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article is clearly written from a POV of Christina apologetics, possibly catholic. It needs to be made more neutral.--CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.143.168 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section on the political atmosphere in which Origen wrote seems a little off-topic in this article on Celsus... maybe put it somewhere else, or shrink it down and not have a whole section devoted to it? It's a little jarring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.203.138 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

agreed it is from another website I think and it does not sit well in the context of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.36.95 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have moved here a short account of Celsus's views, which Artbulla had inserted into the article on Aulus Cornelius Celsus: an understandable error, since the Victorian author was under the impression that the 1st century medical writer and the 2nd century polemicist were the same person.

"[1]What does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Again, he says, "Having many thing to write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again--"The children of thy elect sister greet thee." This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives." Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.345 - Pg.346, Jedediah M. Grant, August 7, 1853 [2]

At the bottom of the page is a link to something described as the "full text of The Arguments of Celsus Against the Christians in Google Books ". It's not the full text of Celsus' book. It's not even a link to Origen's book. It's Fragments of Julian, Porphyry, etc. Against the Christians. There is no full text of Celsus' work in existence. 4.249.3.154 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's hardly a suitable link, I agree; a very old bunch of extracts of dubious provenance. A link to Contra Celsum would be better. Roger Pearse (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear me. Don't mean to tag and drive, but I rarely see an article play so fast and loose with claims that need to be attributed. If anyone would like to discuss this, I'll come back when I have more time. But I hope someone familiar with the list of works can add some footnotes. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree, there was a lot of unsourced (and incorrect) material. But not any more, I cleaned it up now. History2007 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the link (text="Jewish logos-theology") because the destination page (Hellenistic Judaism) is not really about (and doesn't expand on) "Jewish logos-theology" - it merely mentions logos once in passing. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Since accuracy was essential to his refutation of The True Word,[22] most scholars agree that Origen is a reliable source for what Celsus said."

The reference provided for this is not sufficient and appears to be a general public source. Quick perusal led me to think it was not especially reliable and that the author may not have any peer-reviewed credentials, slipping in hasty assumptions. I think a more cautious sentence is required here for the wikipedia article, especially given the difficulty to reconstruct ancient sources through a hostile witness (even non-hostile leads to corruption, St. Augustine John 17:3 citation), e.g. :

Accuracy may have been important for Origen against Celsus, and certainly he was a prolific scholar reputed today for his general reliability. [maybe remove citation?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbjbjbjbjb (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Karma1998, would you be able to add bibliographic information for the sources that you cite in this edit? If you know what sources your edit was based on I think that's better than for another editor to try to piece them together after the fact. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article had what seemed to me to be an extremely overconfident statement of the date, restricting it to a two-year period. Chadwick has a lengthy summary of the evidence and of scholarly interpretation, and the range of possibilities seems a lot wider than that. I've made an appropriate edit.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:F894:D79F:AE05:DC1E (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This should probably be merged with the article 'The True Word', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Word . It's not as though we know a lot about the author as opposed to his work -- actually we don't even know much about his work. There is a lot of duplication, e.g., each article had a different description of the dating (which I've now harmonized).--2603:8000:8900:6E00:F894:D79F:AE05:DC1E (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply