Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-29-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

By let's say 170, I have no doubt that some pagans knew the Gospels, or at least the 'traditions' contained in them. Celsus was one, probably Lucian another, though to what extent Lucian knew them is debatable.

I don't think there's any reason to suspect that Lucian knew the gospels. He acknowledges christians in two works, Alexander and Peregrinus. The former because Alexander used the term merely in conjunction with atheists (and thus no source of gospel knowledge can been induced from here) and the latter because Peregrinus is seen to have flirted with christianity, taking advantage of christian hospitality (again no sign of gospel knowledge).

spin

GakuseiDon · 08-30-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

By let's say 170, I have no doubt that some pagans knew the Gospels, or at least the 'traditions' contained in them. Celsus was one, probably Lucian another, though to what extent Lucian knew them is debatable. However, I have used the "since according to even Doherty the pagans already knew what Christians believed" argument in an only if context. If there were an historical Jesus and Christianity had been around for a century based on such a figure, then pagans everywhere who had ever heard of Christianity would presumably have known about Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore the apologists who "described minutely" all the details of their faith wouldn't have been accomplishing anything, and would in fact be discrediting themselves by leaving out and denying something every pagan already knew.

Actually, it's a minor point, but for the record, you didn't put it into an "only if" statement. It was your explanation for why Lucian referred to a HJ. This is your comment (my emphasis):

The first of the satirists to pillory Christians is Lucian, who in the 160s wrote On the Death of Peregrinus in which he mocks them for their gullibility in accepting beliefs "without any sure proof". Here he refers to "him whom they still rever, the human fellow who was crucified in Palestine for introducing this novel cult to the world." By this time the Gospels were in circulation, and everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins.

No "only if" about it. I discuss your comment here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus..._Part2.htm#1.3

In response, you wrote:

"My point, rather, was that some pagans, including among those being addressed by the apologists, were undoubtedly familiar with Gospel traditions about a human Jesus as the founder of the movement and certain teachings and events associated with him."

I'm not sure how that ties into your "only if" explanation, but as I said, it is a minor point. A far greater issue is how this all relates to the framework. And so:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And once again, Don just doesn't seem to be able to follow, or even pay attention, to what I say. Yes, Tatian was a mythicist (he was not yet following in his 'teacher's footsteps when he wrote his Apology), but he was familiar with the "stories that we, too, tell"--those like the pagan myths which he compares them to. Only he didn't accept them as historical accounts. Theophilus and Athenagoras may also have been familiar with some sort of "gospels" but they do not seem to treat them as history either. The evidence for that we went over very thoroughly quite recently, and I'm not going to go down that road again at this time.

I'm hoping that some other mythicist goes over this, with the intention of validating your framework.

Vork lists that the mythicist reason for some Second Century apologists silence about a HJ is "unaware of a historical Jesus or early Church history". Yet, this would seem almost certainly impossible for Tatian, regardless of whether he believed in a HJ or not. There are many reasons for this, with the main one being that he knew Justin. Even if he disagreed with Justin on this score, it would be most unlikely that he didn't know that Justin believed in a HJ. Similar reasons can be found for Theophilus and others.

So, were mythicists still around at the time Tatian and others wrote? This is where the idea of "framework" becomes useful. Another part of the framework is heresiologists apparent lack of knowledge of the Logos and MJ Christians. One possible solution (not necessarily Doherty's) is that the MJ sects had died out by the time they wrote. But does that fit into the framework, if Tatian and others were writing so late? There is a tension between these two points that needs to be resolved. Perhaps they can be, but "unaware of a HJ" doesn't fit into the MJ framework for Second Century apologists, as laid out by Vork.

Kevin Rosero has identified a number of framework "tension" areas in his well-researched thread called "Earl Doherty's Christianities", which I highly recommend:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200349

What is needed is a mythicist to sit down and map out what they think is happening in the Second Century, so that it accounts for the evidence available.

youngalexander · 08-30-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

What is needed is a mythicist to sit down and map out what they think is happening in the Second Century, so that it accounts for the evidence available.

Yes, and also to include the 3rd & 4th C archaeological evidence?

Ben C Smith · 08-30-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

By let's say 170, I have no doubt that some pagans knew the Gospels, or at least the 'traditions' contained in them. Celsus was one, probably Lucian another, though to what extent Lucian knew them is debatable.

I don't think there's any reason to suspect that Lucian knew the gospels. He acknowledges christians in two works, Alexander and Peregrinus. The former because Alexander used the term merely in conjunction with atheists (and thus no source of gospel knowledge can been induced from here) and the latter because Peregrinus is seen to have flirted with christianity, taking advantage of christian hospitality (again no sign of gospel knowledge).

For convenience, the Lucian passages are laid out on my site.

(There are, as you imply, not very many explicit points of contact with gospel traditions.)

Ben.

spin · 08-30-2007, 08:08 AM

This thread seems determined to give a wrong-headed picture of Lucian of Samosata's work on the "Passing of Peregrinus". GakDon cites an earlier comment by Earl Doherty:

Quote:

The first of the satirists to pillory Christians is Lucian, who in the 160s wrote On the Death of Peregrinus in which he mocks them for their gullibility in accepting beliefs "without any sure proof". Here he refers to "him whom they still rever, the human fellow who was crucified in Palestine for introducing this novel cult to the world." By this time the Gospels were in circulation, and everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins.

Lucian does nothing of the sort described as pillorying christians. His target is from go to woe Peregrinus. At worst the christians come out as having been manipulated and abused by Peregrinus. It is only egocentricity that turns Lucian's work around to focus on christians. Peregrinus, the expert in all things religious was a know-all even about christianity, making the christians "all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself." It should be clear where Lucian's focus is... on Peregrinus. The worst that can be claimed in his writing on the christians can be seen at the end of paragraph 13 below) and that is that they can be taken advantage of by charlatans and tricksters.

As to Lucian's supposed knowledge of the gospels, using the relevant paragraphs from Peregrinus, can anyone show any gospel knowledge whatsoever -- rather than the vague hearsay that even Pliny the Younger knew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucian of Samosata

11. It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And -- how else could it be? -- in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

12. Then at length Proteus was apprehended for this and thrown into prison, which itself gave him no little reputation as an asset for his future career and the charlatanism and notoriety-seeking that he was enamoured of. Well, when he had been imprisoned, the Christians, regarding the incident as a calamity, left nothing undone in the effort to rescue him Then, as this was impossible, every other form of attention was shown him, not in any casual way but with assiduity, and from the very break of day aged widows and orphan children could be seen waiting near the prison, while their officials even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud, and excellent Peregrinus -- for he still went by that name -- was called by them 'the new Socrates.'

13. Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.

I see neither literary gospel content nor pillorying of christians. Lucian's main attack in passing is that they deny the Greek gods. The rest is about Peregrinus and his questionable acts.

spin

Ben C Smith · 08-30-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Lucian does nothing of the sort described as pillorying christians. His target is from go to woe Peregrinus. At worst the christians come out as having been manipulated and abused by Peregrinus. It is only egocentricity that turns Lucian's work around to focus on christians.

While I agree that the focus is on Peregrinus, I think one ought not play down the negative portrait of the Christians. You mention only one basic thing and call it at worst:

1. The Christians come out as manipulated and abused.

But we also have:

2. They are wretches (κακοδαιμονες).
3. They worship that crucified sophist [ανεσκολοπισμενον εκεινον σοφιστην].
4. Their faith is inaccurate [ανευ τινος ακριβους πιστεως].
5. They are untrained or ungifted [ιδιωταις ανθρωποις].

Now, most of these descriptions go toward telling the reader how it was that Proteus was able to take such advantage of the Christians, and I have already agreed that Proteus is the focus here, but I would not want somebody to walk away from this thread with the impression that the only bad thing about Christians, for Lucian, is that they got manipulated and abused.

Ben.

spin · 08-30-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Lucian does nothing of the sort described as pillorying christians. His target is from go to woe Peregrinus. At worst the christians come out as having been manipulated and abused by Peregrinus. It is only egocentricity that turns Lucian's work around to focus on christians.

While I agree that the focus is on Peregrinus, I think one ought not play down the negative portrait of the Christians. You mention only one basic thing and call it at worst:

1. The Christians come out as manipulated and abused.

But we also have:

2. They are wretches (κακοδαιμονες).

Harsh, Ben C, harsh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

3. They worship that crucified sophist [ανεσκολοπισμενον εκεινον σοφιστην].

Again, harsh, Ben C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

4. Their faith is inaccurate [ανευ τινος ακριβους πιστεως].

Well, obviously they denied the Greek gods. Point? Lucian wasn't a christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

5. They are untrained or ungifted [ιδιωταις ανθρωποις].

Not much of a criticism, is it Ben C? They were common people. How else could they get manipulated and abused??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Now, most of these descriptions go toward telling the reader how it was that Proteus was able to take such advantage of the Christians, and I have already agreed that Proteus is the focus here, but I would not want somebody to walk away from this thread with the impression that the only bad thing about Christians, for Lucian, is that they got manipulated and abused.

Despite the hard work Ben C, you've come up with no damningly harsh criticism of these poor christians of Lucian's era. Lucian was clearly not a christian and didn't have too much respect for them -- after all they denied the Greek gods --, but beyond that there seems to be nothing, no spite, no antagonism, no malice. What would you want from this pagan?

spin

GakuseiDon · 08-30-2007, 04:37 PM

Would I be correct that Lucian was a fairly well-known writer even in his own lifetime? I was wondering who his audience would have been, and who would have read his comments about the "crucified sophist" who "was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world".

(ETA) I found this about Lucian on Roger Pearse's website:

"The exact duration of his life is unknown, but it is probable that he was born not long before 125 A.D. and died not long after 180...

Theoretically the vocation of a rhetorician was to plead in court, to compose pleas for others and to teach the art of pleading; but in practice his vocation was far less important in his own eyes and those of the public than his avocation, which consisted in going about from place to place and often from country to country displaying his ability as a speaker before the educated classes. In this way Lucian travelled through Ionia and Greece, to Italy and even to Gaul, and won much wealth and fame."

This suggests that the well-educated were aware of a HJ around the time that Lucian wrote. Tatian, Theophilus and the other apologists appeared to have been well-educated. I think this should be added to the framework also.

spin · 08-30-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Would I be correct that Lucian was a fairly well-known writer even in his own lifetime? I was wondering who his audience would have been, and who would have read his comments about the "crucified sophist" who "was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world".

I really can't say how well known Lucian was in his own time. He was foremost a rhetorician, ie someone who made his living through public speaking. A lot of his writings were meant to be spoken and understood as they were heard, which suggests that if he talks about things in passing, his audiences probably knew something about them -- you don't want to confuse your audience.

At the same time his audiences must have tended to be well educated urban dwellers (in cities such as Smyrna and Athens), for his works featured quite a good knowledge of all the philosophies of his time considering for example his "Philosophies on Auction". He wrote tracts on philosophers, false prophets or demagogues, how to write history, etc., so his range of interests was quite wide.

I don't know how his audience would have taken the line about the crucified sophist, but the line about the christian founder being "crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" would probably have reflected the common understanding of knowledgeable outsiders looking at christianity. Yet Lucian, in explaining as his does some information about these christians -- including crucifixion in Palestine --, may be supplying sufficient background information to get his audience up to scratch with the material, so that he can proceed with his criticism of Peregrinus.

spin

GakuseiDon · 08-31-2007, 02:54 PM

Thanks, spin & Ben.

08-30-2007, 04:37 PM	#28
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Would I be correct that Lucian was a fairly well-known writer even in his own lifetime? I was wondering who his audience would have been, and who would have read his comments about the "crucified sophist" who "was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world". (ETA) I found this about Lucian on Roger Pearse's website: "The exact duration of his life is unknown, but it is probable that he was born not long before 125 A.D. and died not long after 180... Theoretically the vocation of a rhetorician was to plead in court, to compose pleas for others and to teach the art of pleading; but in practice his vocation was far less important in his own eyes and those of the public than his avocation, which consisted in going about from place to place and often from country to country displaying his ability as a speaker before the educated classes. In this way Lucian travelled through Ionia and Greece, to Italy and even to Gaul, and won much wealth and fame." This suggests that the well-educated were aware of a HJ around the time that Lucian wrote. Tatian, Theophilus and the other apologists appeared to have been well-educated. I think this should be added to the framework also.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-31-2007, 02:54 PM	#30
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Thanks, spin & Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.