Celsus, Sexism, and the Empty Tomb

I have previously posted about how the prominence given by the Gospels to women witnesses to the empty tomb and resurrection appearances of Jesus counts towards their credibility. More recently, I noted evidence that this was not a mere academic concern, because Origen defends the resurrection against just such charges brought by the pagan philosopher Celsus.

In his response to J.P. Holdings’ article, “The Impossible Faith," Richard Carrier argues that Celsus made no such charge (you can read Holding's preliminary reply to Carrier, here):

For example, the oft-cited passage from Origen, Contra Celsum 2.59-60, does not show Celsus objecting to Mary's testimony because she was a woman, but because she was not of sound mind, hence Celsus dismisses the testimony of Thomas and Peter on exactly the same grounds.

So Carrier says that gender was irrelevant to Celsus’ attack on the resurrection accounts. This contention is absurd. Here is the charge:

While he was alive he did not help himself, but after 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....

If Celsus thought that it was irrelevant, why does he mention her gender? He does not refer to the gender of the “some other one” – presumably Peter and/or the other male disciples. And why only refer to the “female” as “hysterical”? While all of Jesus’ disciples were “deluded by sorcery,” only the female is referred to as “hysterical.” That is just the kind of sexism we might expect from a patriarchal society that devalued the judgment of women.

Carrier is completely unpersuasive on this point. Celsus clearly is using the gender of one of the witnesses as a basis for attacking the Christian resurrection narrative. Has Carrier been consumed by his bias on this point?


Anonymous said…
Celcus also said 'And if he did wish to send down a spirit from himself, why did he have to breathe it into the womb of a woman? He already knew how to make men.'

More sexism. Clearly he was upset that God had chosen a woman to give the birth to, as he did not regard women as reliable and he could have created a man straight off.
Layman said…
Is this supposed to be some sort of refutation?

Because, if so, it's pretty pathetic.
biblemike said…
Isn't it marvelous how God always does things in exactly the opposite wat that man would have done them. If the ressurection were a fraud, the perpetrators would have had a man be the first witness and that man would have been someone of high standing and reputation who would be easily believed. Instead the first witness is a woman who could not legally testify to what she had seen and heard before the Sanhedrin or the Roman court. God gives man every reason to disbelieve is he wants a reason to do so, but He also lays a trail of reason that points to the truth for those who will seek it.

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

The Meaning of the Manger

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam