XOVER

As suggested by Philosopher Jay, I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, of the early Christians would not invite certain death by refusing to sacrifice to the pagan idols when brought before the Roman authorities.

Philosopher Jay, IMO, has a point when he suggests, in effect, that no one his or her right mind would knowingly endure the ultimate sacrifice, perhaps extending that sacrifice to his family and friends, if death could so easily be avoided. Hence, one should think carefully before accepting accounts appearing in the propaganda of early Christian apologists.

However, I also think that we should not overlook the zealousness of the core of the committed religious. Some Christians would have acted exactly as portrayed by, say, Polycarp. All people, from time-to-time, act irrationally.

And those who embrace the supernatural oftentimes internalize religious teachings, no matter how divorced from reality those teachings may be, if they remain immersed in the teachings through the years. Consider also the weight of superstition and non-science that was part of the milieu of the times in question. Once in a while people who were thought to have died, but who were actually in a coma, "came back to life."

Furthermore, would the early Christians write about those who saved themselves by sacrificing to the pagan gods? Or would they have written about, and memorialized, the sufferings of a few exceptionals -- guys like Polycarp and Martyr?

During the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish King ordered the Disputation. Jewish rabbis were ordered to appear and debate with Christian apologists on the issue of whether the Old Testament prophecy of the Messiah had been fulfilled by Jesus. The debates went on day after day, month after month, for some two years.

The rabbis debated eloquently even though they knew they, and their families, would surely face punishment, by being burned alive, at the end of the Disputations. And they were correct. Some rabbis fled after the debates, some converted (for what that was worth), and some entertained the King at the next auto-de-fé.

Do people sometimes sacrifice themselves and their families over "god," as irrational as that might seem to some?

Absolutely. It has happened throughout history. Especially where religion is involved.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

The main source of support for my contention that the Christian apologies are fictional, albeit an ambiguous one, are two articles by Lorraine P. Buck

and

In the Athenagoras article, Buck notes:
Thus we may say that the address was never delivered before the Emperor. It is also extremely unlikely that they were ever intended to be delivered in written form. She notes that it would have eliminated from the piles of numerous petitions the Emperor received on three grounds 1) incorrect address, 2) poorly written and 3) insults

As far as the address is concerned:

As far as the body of the letter, she gives numerous examples where Justin goes off on tangents which was unacceptalbe. She concludes:

The abuse of the emperor would also have certainly disqualified it. She notes:

Although, she see the work as a literary fiction, she supports the idea that Martyr wrote it between 150-154. One of her main arguments for this is the use of the name "verissimus" (truest) for Marcus Aurelius. In the text, Martyr makes a number of puns regarding this name. Marcus Aurelius was only called by this name as a youth. This does seem to me to be strong evidence for placing the date of composition around this time. However, it is not impossible that Aurelius was well known by this name at a later time after his death.

She places the apology in the literary genre known as "parrhesia" She says it is a model more suitable to a philosopher:

This is still problematic to me. I can understand Martyr endangering himself, but it is difficult for me to believe that he would so deliberately endanger all Christians. Note that Martyr is not only attacking the the present Empire, but he drags in the two adopted sons of the emperor into his attack. Thus he needlessly insults the next two future Roman emperors.

I think a case can still be made that these personal insults indicate that the addresses were written post Commodius (189 C.E.) when attacks on past emperors out of favor would have been considered less obnoxious.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Xover,

Good points. Thanks.

Yes, history is made up of stories of people acting heroically and defying death up to and beyond the point of doing irrational and seemingly insane actions. Some of these stories are true, but some are made up. The difficulty is distinguishing which from which.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

But, you have failed to show that Philo kisses Caligula's ass. You have failed to show that Justin Martyr could not have written to an Emperor of Rome.

Agrippa was concerned about his own survival and maintaining his power and control, it is expected that Agrippa would lick and kiss Caligula's ass all the time.

But, nowhere in "On Embassy to Gaius" did Philo kiss the ASS of Gaius.


Again, you have not shown that Justin Martyr could not have written to an Emperor of Rome.

Of course there are many supposed Church writings that are non-historical and chronologically in error including the NT Canon, but in order to show that Justin Martyr did not write to an Emperor of Rome in the middle of the 2nd century you need to provide some evidence from antiquity and not just your belief.

What you believe has virtually no value as evidence.

Please state what source of antiquity can demonstrate that Justin Martyr's writings were written about 50 years later or when the Emperor was already dead.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874

Imagine some Teabaggers being accused of treason and starting a riot. They go to President Obama and say, "Not only have we sacrificed burnt offerings to you, Lord Obama, but we didn't even eat the burnt offerings so these were superduper burnt offerings, and not only that, but we did it three times, when you became President, when you recovered from sickness and when you declared war."

Sounds like ass-kissing with a capital A to me.

Also, we should remember that Christian situation was different than the Jewish situation. From here Athenagoras's Embassy: A Literary Fiction by Lorraine Buck (Harvard Theological Review v89 p209-26 Jl '96):

Additionally, Buck notes that Athenagoras' work as well as al Christain
Apologies do not need the invention of a new special literary category when Non-Christian examples of a category is at hand:

It seems to me that since we have evidence of writers commonly writing embassies and petitions to the emperor as literary fiction, we would have to prove them different in some way to put them in a different category.

If they match other literary fictions of the period and do not match actual petitions we know about from the period, it is a categorical mistake to put them into the category of real petitions instead of literary fictions. On the basis of length (compare the size of Pliny's letters to the emperor), style (discoursing on narrow philosophical/religious ideological points, instead of precise political events) and content (rambling and abusive) they fully fall into the category of literary fictions.

The date of their composition, I think, is more problematical and debatable.

Warmly,

Doug Shaver

I don't think you and I actually disagree about what the evidence is -- although further discussion between us could cause me to reconsider. I think our disagreement is about what it is most reasonable to infer from that evidence.

But I also think that if either of us is going to challenge the judgment of qualified authorities, we should have a better argument on which to base our dissent than "authorities can be wrong."

Obviously, I think Blomberg is badly mistaken about a lot of things. Other than the line I quoted, I disagree with just about everything he said to Strobel. And, I'm quite prepared to explain exactly why I disagree with him. My point, though, was that practically every recognized expert in NT studies agrees with Blomberg about the original anonymity of the gospels. From that consensus, I infer that they have good reason to think that the identities of the original authors of the gospels could not, as a matter of fact, be discerned from reading the documents they produced, for the simple reason that those authors, whoever they were, did not put their names on those documents.

So, do you think that that consensus is mistaken, and if so, why? What relevant fact do you think those experts are ignoring, or disregarding, overlooking, or misinterpreting, or whatever?

avi

Thank you Roger, at the risk of appearing repetitious, here is a different authority, also quoted by the same guy Doug had cited earlier: Lee Strobel (ISBN 978-0-310-24210-9). His (newer) book (2007) follows the same format, Strobel interviews "experts", guys with a doctorate in some field, and faculty members at some bible college. This particular expert, from Canada, is Craig A. Evans. Here's what he says to Strobel on page 46, discussing the "gospel" of Mary:
avi

Roger Pearse

Did you not read what I wrote?

To hell with "authorities". We need to see evidence.

Doug Shaver

We have seen the evidence. What we need now is a theory that fits all of it. All of it, Roger. The question of who wrote any particular document cannot be considered independently of every other question about the origins of Christianity.

Anyhow, you are claiming in effect that the gospel authors must have put their names on the documents that they produced. What is your evidence for that assertion? And, if that is not your claim, then please tell us exactly what you mean when you deny that the canonical gospels were written anonymously.

show_no_mercy

What do you mean?!? Open up your Bible... it's right there!