Hi Chrissy and Vulteius,
I'll take your comments in order:
Chrissy, I would just want to clarify - I'm not sure Celsus' source is fiction. It might be, it might not be. My point is that Celsus' work itself is fiction, thus granting him considerable freedom in his representation of characters.
Vulteius: the point is that we shouldn't assume that a text which claims to properly interpret a person or idea centuries later (Hypostasis>Paul's phrasing, Toledot>Yeshu ben Panthera) actually does so! This is the basic premise of historical criticism.
Regards,
Chris
Hi Chrissy and Vulteius,
I'll take your comments in order:
Chrissy, I would just want to clarify - I'm not sure Celsus' source is fiction. It might be, it might not be. My point is that Celsus' work itself is fiction, thus granting him considerable freedom in his representation of characters.
Vulteius: the point is that we shouldn't assume that a text which claims to properly interpret a person or idea centuries later (Hypostasis>Paul's phrasing, Toledot>Yeshu ben Panthera) actually does so! This is the basic premise of historical criticism.
Regards,
Chris