Contra Celsum has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This book by Origenes is called "Contra Celsum" (in Latin, classical as well as medieval) or "Kata Kelsou" in original Greek. Please delete this lemma, spreading nonsense all over the world. Thanks from Germany, Rabanus Flavus, 6 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.227.248 ( talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Kato, long time no see. I will be doing this review.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
After Friday, I will be travelling, so there may be some delay in my responses.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
was the first treatise in which a Christian philosopher was able to hold his own against an educated paganis the first treatise?
his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonizing traditionPlatonizing or Platonist?
Most modern commentators see him rather as holding to mainly Platonizing opinions and having, accordingly, a Platonist's dislike for common Christianity." Plato was all the rage among philosophers in the third century AD and everyone wanted to emulate him, including Celsus. I am guessing that what Thomas means by "Platonizing" is probably that he was adopting Platonic attitudes and ideas, but was not a Platonist in the strict sense of adhering to everything Plato had written. – Katolophyromai ( talk) 23:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Stephen Thomas states that Celsus may not have necessarily been a Platonist per senecessarily and per se mean the same thing, choose one.
Thomas remarks that Celsus "is no genius as a philosopher".[7] Nonetheless, Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched.
Nonetheless, most scholars, including Thomas, agree that Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched." I personally see no reason to add an attribution here, since no one appears to be disputing the fact that Celsus had done his research and the level of research that went into the work is more-or-less an objective fact. Nonetheless, I have changed it to satisfy you. – Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the church historian EusebiusPlease add dates of birth and death for helpful context.
but rather for outsiders who were interested in the faith that had not yet made the decision to convert.Confusing, especially the part in italic.
that had" with "
but who had"? — Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
John Anthony McGuckin ... answering any objections they might have to it.Too long, split.
and argues for a rational basis of Christian faith
In two cases, Origen points out problems in the literal interpretationsJust so I understand this correctly: Origen gives two examples of how the Bible can't be literally true, which are better examples than Celcius has given to prove the same point? So basically, Origen is saying that Celcius's criticism is correct, but that he is raising the wrong examples? Or what am I missing here?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
He also notes with suspicion that the "Jewish" source quotes the Greek tragedian EuripidesWhy is this suspicious to him?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
that it argues against the miracles described in the New Testament as irrational, even though the same argument could be equally applied to the miracles in the Hebrew Bible.I am not sure how this argument could work in favor of Origen, since Celcius is pagan, not Jewish. Please explain.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
in preparation for the mysteries of the faith.You might want to wikilink this to Sacred_mysteries#Christian_mysteries.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
a phrase borrowed from the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:3Normally, we don't link to external links in the body of the article, per MOS. Try wikisource instead.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
the truly philosophical writings on the subjectwhich subject? The Bible?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Or do you mean allegorical interpretation? -- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Origen lauds these thingThese things refers to Christian worship, right? Please clarify this a little more. Perhaps this is better than these things.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
but apparently decided once he had already started this method to instead take a more systematic approach of refuting the general principles of the argumentPlease simplify.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending your response to the remaining suggestions above, i found some content that might have to be added to the article to meet the broadness criterion:
By tomorrow, the review will have lasted for 14 days. Katolophyromai, do you still want to pursue this? If not, I'll close the review and we can move on.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Among a variety of other charges, Celsus had denounced many Christian doctrines as irrational and criticized Christians themselves as uneducated, deluded, unpatriotic, close-minded towards reason, and too accepting of sinners. He had accused Jesus of performing his miracles using black magic rather than actual divine powers and of plagiarizing his teachings from Plato. Celsus had warned that Christianity itself was drawing people away from traditional religion and claimed that its growth would lead to a collapse of traditional, conservative values... In the treatise itself... Origen responds to Celsus's arguments point-by-point from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher. Modern scholars note that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points of doctrine, with both authors emphatically rejecting conventional notions of anthropomorphic deities, idolatry, and religious literalism.
Do you agree with the subsection headers in the Summary section?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I expanded the lead, based on the headings of the subsections. You expressed agreement with these headings, so I hope you will agree with my expansion of the lead.
Passing for GA.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Contra Celsum has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This book by Origenes is called "Contra Celsum" (in Latin, classical as well as medieval) or "Kata Kelsou" in original Greek. Please delete this lemma, spreading nonsense all over the world. Thanks from Germany, Rabanus Flavus, 6 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.227.248 ( talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Kato, long time no see. I will be doing this review.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
After Friday, I will be travelling, so there may be some delay in my responses.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
was the first treatise in which a Christian philosopher was able to hold his own against an educated paganis the first treatise?
his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonizing traditionPlatonizing or Platonist?
Most modern commentators see him rather as holding to mainly Platonizing opinions and having, accordingly, a Platonist's dislike for common Christianity." Plato was all the rage among philosophers in the third century AD and everyone wanted to emulate him, including Celsus. I am guessing that what Thomas means by "Platonizing" is probably that he was adopting Platonic attitudes and ideas, but was not a Platonist in the strict sense of adhering to everything Plato had written. – Katolophyromai ( talk) 23:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Stephen Thomas states that Celsus may not have necessarily been a Platonist per senecessarily and per se mean the same thing, choose one.
Thomas remarks that Celsus "is no genius as a philosopher".[7] Nonetheless, Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched.
Nonetheless, most scholars, including Thomas, agree that Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched." I personally see no reason to add an attribution here, since no one appears to be disputing the fact that Celsus had done his research and the level of research that went into the work is more-or-less an objective fact. Nonetheless, I have changed it to satisfy you. – Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the church historian EusebiusPlease add dates of birth and death for helpful context.
but rather for outsiders who were interested in the faith that had not yet made the decision to convert.Confusing, especially the part in italic.
that had" with "
but who had"? — Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
John Anthony McGuckin ... answering any objections they might have to it.Too long, split.
and argues for a rational basis of Christian faith
In two cases, Origen points out problems in the literal interpretationsJust so I understand this correctly: Origen gives two examples of how the Bible can't be literally true, which are better examples than Celcius has given to prove the same point? So basically, Origen is saying that Celcius's criticism is correct, but that he is raising the wrong examples? Or what am I missing here?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
He also notes with suspicion that the "Jewish" source quotes the Greek tragedian EuripidesWhy is this suspicious to him?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
that it argues against the miracles described in the New Testament as irrational, even though the same argument could be equally applied to the miracles in the Hebrew Bible.I am not sure how this argument could work in favor of Origen, since Celcius is pagan, not Jewish. Please explain.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
in preparation for the mysteries of the faith.You might want to wikilink this to Sacred_mysteries#Christian_mysteries.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
a phrase borrowed from the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:3Normally, we don't link to external links in the body of the article, per MOS. Try wikisource instead.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
the truly philosophical writings on the subjectwhich subject? The Bible?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Or do you mean allegorical interpretation? -- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Origen lauds these thingThese things refers to Christian worship, right? Please clarify this a little more. Perhaps this is better than these things.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
but apparently decided once he had already started this method to instead take a more systematic approach of refuting the general principles of the argumentPlease simplify.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending your response to the remaining suggestions above, i found some content that might have to be added to the article to meet the broadness criterion:
By tomorrow, the review will have lasted for 14 days. Katolophyromai, do you still want to pursue this? If not, I'll close the review and we can move on.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Among a variety of other charges, Celsus had denounced many Christian doctrines as irrational and criticized Christians themselves as uneducated, deluded, unpatriotic, close-minded towards reason, and too accepting of sinners. He had accused Jesus of performing his miracles using black magic rather than actual divine powers and of plagiarizing his teachings from Plato. Celsus had warned that Christianity itself was drawing people away from traditional religion and claimed that its growth would lead to a collapse of traditional, conservative values... In the treatise itself... Origen responds to Celsus's arguments point-by-point from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher. Modern scholars note that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points of doctrine, with both authors emphatically rejecting conventional notions of anthropomorphic deities, idolatry, and religious literalism.
Do you agree with the subsection headers in the Summary section?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I expanded the lead, based on the headings of the subsections. You expressed agreement with these headings, so I hope you will agree with my expansion of the lead.
Passing for GA.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|