Steefen said
Dr. Bart Ehrman,
I found this:
“Celsus argued in The True Word (Alēthēs Logos), preserved in Origen’s Against Celsus, that Jewish religion represented a departure from, and distortion of, an ancient religious tradition shared by other peoples, including the Greeks. He compared Jewish beliefs and practices with older traditions of worship and mystery cults, challenging the Jews’ claim to religious originality.” There is a comparison of Sukkot to the Thesmophoria of Ancient Greece.
Have you posted about anything in Origen’s Against Celsus. I’m interested in this. Administrators and members of the forum have reached their limits, so I thought with your background, and for reason, you are no longer a Christian, you would have a scholarly opinion on Celsus’ arguments.
Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Dr. Ehrman:
Years ago Joseph Hoffman published an editoin of The True Word taken from Origen’s refuttaion, in which he didn’t include the refutation, just the things Celsus said. In many instances, it struck me that Celsus’s argument was strong than (what I new was) Origen’s response.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen:
54 ratings averaging 4.4 stars
“[An] important contribution to the wealth of patristic texts scholars are making available to English readers….Published and arranged in such a way that readers can get a fairly clear and coherent picture of Celsus’ argument.”
–Review and Expositor
“An excellent synopsis of the intellectual attack on Christianity by Roman paganism….Should spark lively discussion.”
–Edward M. Anson, University of Arkansas, Little Rock
“A fresh attempt to solve an old scholarly problem: to present the ‘True Celsus,’ in this case in a contemporary English version with up-to-date introduction and notes….The resultant text is readable.”
–Anglican Theological Review
“A lucid translation of one of the most fascinating pieces of literature left to us from the second century.”
–Frank Thielman, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
“The first complete translation of Christianity’s most ardent second-century critic….Highly readable.”
–Free Inquiry
“A great contribution to scholarship in the study of early Christianity. The general introduction is worth the price of the book, and to have this new translation of the ancient work of Celsus is most useful and valuable.”
–J. William Angell, Wake Forest University
“Every serious student of early Christianity should give attention to Celsus….A first-rate publication with excellent, comprehensive introduction and notes.“
–Sterling M. McMurrin, University of Utah
“I am very pleased with the convenience of this edition and [with] Professor Hoffmann’s valuable general introduction, which so effectively summarizes and reviews key historical issues.”
–Harry Rosenberg, Colorado State University
“Not only a very useful and readable text but also a clear and informative introduction. This book is a first priority for theological libraries and for all working in this area of patristic studies.”
–Southwestern Journal of Theology
“Fills the gap of a long-needed and -desired English translation…. Establish[es] a solid base for the understanding of Celsus’ polemic….Even the most experienced will find ample food for thought in this work.”
–Favonius
“Does a distinct service for all of us in making Celsus’ Discourse readily available in excellent English…. We need to read Celsus in order to have a clearer understanding of our tradition and our identity.”
–Dr. Norman A. Beck, Texas Lutheran College
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.j-z4Urq-Ifj98PLgm8c2l0dAAq4cwzqaq_2_aJaeUqYxHCOWRTZOO5ig437wTXD8kmkuyqtO5gP-WP1CUc1EfRxZvP3iniZ7Rs9u8R9K9K3GqV7l0JES6as6Hz0jmy6MdS2J8fENrJVx-N70PSr2XR6q-f6qgvA-E3wg0V0NqEMVjoug_XpsIBHcDE524zcAP6wW5wkPyVrcv40Z7Yk03OUfb3DYImhhmyue1PXP7c4.7A3Ekyq4eQOTwTSWHBVn0t7xvnARiMGKLMUa4pBxid4&dib_tag=se&keywords=joseph+hoffman+the+true+world&qid=1792636967&sprefix=joseph+hoffman+the+true+wor%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1
Thank you Dr. Ehrman. Joseph Hoffman in 1987 did an excellent job given reviews like these two:
“A great contribution to scholarship in the study of early Christianity. The general introduction is worth the price of the book, and to have this new translation of the ancient work of Celsus is most useful and valuable.”
–J. William Angell, Wake Forest University
“Every serious student of early Christianity should give attention to Celsus….A first-rate publication with excellent, comprehensive introduction and notes.“
–Sterling M. McMurrin, University of Utah
Steve Campbell
Author of Historical Accuracy (2021)
Robert said
Stephen said
… Origen was too smart for everybody!He was indeed. Bart and many if not most Protestants consider Augustine to be the greatest of the early patristic thinkers and theologians, and while I will readily concede there are parts of Augustine’s work that are certainly worthwhile and he had the largest influence in the West, I gotta go with Irenaeus and Origen as more creative thinkers with more acceptable and attractive versions of Christian theology.
Origen’s Christian enemies painted him as a Hellenist corrupted by pagan thought but when you read him you find few thinkers more reverential to the Hebrew scriptures. Origen had some ideas common to his day that his later more ideologically pure antagonists deemed unworthy.
I’ve always had mixed emotions about Augustine. One can be moved by his self-awareness but appalled by his ideas. He did a lot of damage.
I’m actually in shock that Robert would class Irenaeus–an arch hereseyologist– with Origen on that score.
I tend to think of Origen as very much on the “reason sets the limits of faith” side (I think this was a mark of the entire Antiochean school), and Irenaeus as very much the, “this is the faith, so suck it up and believe” side. And on that scale, I’d put Augustine much closer to Ignatius than to Origen–though I’d readily admit Augustine’s genuine genius and his ability to see immediately the consequences of his faith.
And Origen was the one who ended up being deemed a heretic.
@Robert
Please consider moving Comments 67 – 71 off this thread because @Judith is at it again, failing to make on-topic contributions. She is a trouble-maker who trashes threads. One would think BJH1960 would stay on topic and earn points of respect, but he joins her.
Her comments are not about Yahweh being or not being a Canaanite God.
The thread gets somewhat back on track with the help of Dr. Bart Ehrman but @DavidFord is more interested in “socializing” with Judith and BJH1960.
She could care LESS about understanding the origins of Yahweh.
People would like to concentrate on Porphyry and your exchange and let it further the conversation about Yahweh not originally being of Canaanite origin.
= = = =
I am thinking about the importance of Ugarit in this thread.
Ugarit was not formally considered part of Canaan in ancient administrative terms, though it shared deep cultural, linguistic, and religious ties with the Canaanite world.
Cultural and Linguistic Connections
Shared Pantheon: Ugaritic religion featured a West-Semitic pantheon—including El, Baal, and Asherah—that closely mirrored Canaanite mythology.
Language: The local Ugaritic language was an archaic, conservative Northwest Semitic language
closely related to Canaanite and biblical Hebrew, though written in a unique 30-letter cuneiform alphabet.
Conclusion
Yahweh’s absence from Ugaritic texts suggests that he was not part of the traditional Canaanite pantheon as understood in Ugarit. This supports theories that Yahweh was either a southern deity who entered the Israelite religious framework later or a deity with distinct origins who became central to Israelite identity. This development reflects the dynamic and syncretic nature of ancient Near Eastern religions.
Steefen:
My position is that Yahweh, in my understanding, was not north in Syria in Ugarit, north of Lebanon or Phoenicia.
Yahweh, for me, was from the Levant culture that descended into Egypt’s Delta.
So, someone clarify how my using the Joseph story and his descent into Egypt speaks to Ugarit which was north of Egypt’s area of influence in the Levant. I wasn’t putting Canaan that far north.
People like me do not want to think about an Ehrman thread just to get distracted by Judith.
People do not have time for “socializing.”
I thought she would stick to her threads about movies or some junior/elementary topics, but no, she wants to disrupt contemplation with psychobabble and gossip.
= = = =
Yes, this is important to me because it can be reason for me editing my book.
With Erik Hornung being the source I used for descents into Egypt from the Levant, I do think it is major that Canaan is connected as for north as Ugarit.
But nooooo, Judith wants to turn an Ancient Hebrew class into her being some mayor of nonsense.
I have no book in my bibliography about Yahweh in Ugarit.
Probably, because as Neal said, Yahweh does not appear in Ugarit text.
So, what is the lesson here?
Well #1, Biblical Joseph, son of Jacob and Jospeh’s 11 brothers were not that far north in the Levant.
#2 Ancient Egypt had influence in the Levant. I did not know from the north Ugarit was also influencing the Levant.
Ugarit was north of much of Canaan, but it was not isolated from Canaan. Maritime trade, land routes, diplomacy, and shared cultural traditions linked these regions.
Some scholars distinguish Ugarit and northern Syria from Canaan proper. Ancient texts can even treat Ugarit and Canaan as separate entities. Yet Ugarit’s language, religious literature, and material culture have close parallels with those of the southern Levant.
Steefen said
Ugarit was north of much of Canaan, but it was not isolated from Canaan. Maritime trade, land routes, diplomacy, and shared cultural traditions linked these regions.
Some scholars distinguish Ugarit and northern Syria from Canaan proper. Ancient texts can even treat Ugarit and Canaan as separate entities. Yet Ugarit’s language, religious literature, and material culture have close parallels with those of the southern Levant.
Yes, your distinction is important. The biblical story of Joseph describes a family from Canaan moving south into Egypt; it does not identify that family as originating in Ugarit or as being specifically influenced by Ugaritic culture.
In Genesis, Jacob and his family leave Canaan during a famine and settle in Egypt, where Joseph has already risen to power (Genesis 42–47). That is a southward movement from the southern Levant into Egypt, not a migration from Ugarit in northern Syria.
Robert:
I don’t discussion of Origen will contribute to the geographic origins of Yahelweh. You brought up Origen only because he argued extensively against Celsius, who tried to relate the whole origins of Yahweh and Judaism to the Greeks, but Celsus also is not likely to shed any real light on this topic since he is merely engaging in interpretatio Graeca. Nonetheless I can keep your comment about Celsus here and move all of the discussion of Origen to one of the other threads dealing with his thought.
Steefen:
Origen is part of this discussion. Judith playing gossip and who’s popular with her isn’t.
If Neal wants to go beyond Yahweh being from southern Levant by saying Yahweh could be thought of as being connected to Urgarit as Canaan was part of Ugarit, people can follow his reasoning. That’s easy.
If he says Celsus says Yahweh can be connected to Pre-Hellenistic Greece, Neal’s responsibility is to make a strong case for that. If he uses Celsus and if Origen says no. That is pertinent.
Neal is lumping all of the Levant and Canaan with the upper Levant including Syria and Ugarit.
I don’t know what empire Neal is referencing in the north with Ugarit. Egypt had influence up to southern Syria.
He’s saying, Scholars are wrong to say Yahweh was a Canaanite God, he’s not even in northern Levant-Ugaritic texts.
After he grants scholars Yahweh is supposed to be Canaanite, he then says they are wrong and moves Yahweh to Median.
Okay, Moses goes through Median.
Moses brings Yahweh to his Median wife. But that still goes back to the bible with Jacob and Joseph bring Yahweh to the Exodus.
What was the connection before Jacob and Joseph?
Did Yahweh get to Median before Moses and his wife?
“’Issues’ such as… continually adding what has little value or interest to the thread”
Do you believe that you’ve added to this “Yahweh was not originally a Canaanite God”
thread material of much or moderate “value or interest to the thread”?
“quote mining”
Is what, exactly?
“flooding the thread with long AI excerpts”
Does this contain an instance of such?:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
With respect to the first inadequacy, I will simply ask Google AI Pro to do this due diligence for you:
The primary scientific and historical problems with the claims made in this video include:
1. Dismissal of Geological Realities
The “Perfect Right Angles” Claim: The speaker argues that nature rarely creates perfect right angles or highly organized patterns, meaning the subterranean scans must show a man-made structure (16:05). In reality, natural geological processes frequently produce symmetric patterns, parallel lines, and right angles, particularly in mineral crystals, volcanic formations, and tectonic fault lines.
The Petrified Wood Supposition: The claim that a core drill broke because it hit a floor of “petrified wood” that is “denser and harder than rock” is highly misleading (10:22). Petrified wood is formed when organic material is completely replaced by minerals (usually silica or quartz). It is structurally stone, and its hardness is identical to the minerals that replaced it—it is not a unique, super-hard material that would miraculously break modern geological drill bits designed for solid rock.
2. Distortion of the David Fasold and Lawrence Collins Study
Conspiracy Framing: The host mentions a definitive 1996 scientific paper co-authored by geologist Lawrence Collins and David Fasold (29:43). Fasold was an avid proponent who originally claimed the Durupınar site was the Ark. After conducting proper, rigorous scientific examinations of the site, Fasold realized his errors and published the paper concluding the site was a completely natural geological formation (31:15).
Unfounded Claims of Bribery: Rather than addressing the empirical geological evidence detailed in their peer-reviewed paper, the video attempts to discredit it by baselessly suggesting that Fasold was “pursued” by “evolutionists” when he was financially vulnerable, heavily implying a financial bribe or a malicious agenda forced him to turn on his original beliefs (30:37).
3. Over-Reliance on Volatile and Unverified Tech Interpretations
The “BAKTAR Radar” and Spaceship Comment: The team relies heavily on “BAKTAR radar” operated by a defense scientist who claims the tech filters out all natural rock, leaving only man-made objects visible (7:05). The video reveals a glaring lack of scientific rigor when the guest mentions that this scientist hypothesized the structure could be a buried alien spaceship or a “Star Destroyer” (8:00). Using data from an instrument whose operator jumps from a geological anomaly straight to an underground sci-fi spacecraft highlights a severe lack of baseline objective analysis.
Unverifiable Artifacts: The speaker mentions that they cannot legally excavate but asserts that “tourists” have found pieces of petrified wood and quartz casts on-site (13:23). Relying on unverified, loosely contextualized objects found by passing tourists is a fundamental violation of proper archaeological provenance.
4. Pseudoscience and Mythological Conflation
Towards the end of the video, the claims completely diverge from archaeology into extreme fringe theories:
Dinosaurs as “Nephilim Experiments”: The guest argues that dinosaurs were not prehistoric animals that lived millions of years ago, but rather the result of “black magic” and genetic “crossbreeding experiments” conducted by fallen angels (the Nephilim), which God sent the global flood to wipe out (45:24). This directly rejects mainstream biology, paleontology, and geology (18:45).
Smithsonian Giant Skeletons: The guest explicitly validates the thoroughly debunked internet myth that the Smithsonian Institution is hiding giant human skeletons in its basement to cover up the truth of biblical history (46:50).
DavidFord, let’s just cut to the chance, so to speak. I can simply skip over those who continuouly provide what seems to me “gobblegook” but Robert has to review it all to keep the forum viable. When we see him continuously finding certain bloggers’ contributions inappropriate for one reason or another and it goes on for many many years, how can we who care not feel concern for him? How can we not wish there were a solution to the problem? How can we not suggest ways to make the forum work better?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)