GakuseiDon

So why didn't Tertullian do that in his Ad nationes?

the_cave

Slam dunk of what?

Ted Hoffman

Dohery says that Justin, like Ignatius, was voicing some oral narratives that may have been floating around.

The manner in which these narratives syncretized to a HJ from a "son of God"/Logos as seen in Didache, Shepherd and 1 Clement may have been influenced by Greek materialism which may have appealed for a HJ at the core of the new-fangled ('new-fangling' is better) christianity. When one examines Aristides, for example, there is mention of a God born of a virgin, 12 disciples, pierced and buried and rising after 3 days, its notable that it says nothing about a Logos or other Greek philosophical concepts. Doherty argues that because of this, the apology may have been written from a different milieu (Syria?) than Basilides, and Epistle of Diognetus etc.

The earliest clear of one drawing from the gospel tradition is found in Irenaeus. Justin doesnt mention the gospels even though he is clearly embracing a HJ. I think this is vital ans speaks a lot of the gradual developmental process that bore a HJ.

spin, I didn't get your reasons for believing Polycarp lived until at least 161. Could you please enlighten me?

GakuseiDon,
There is this post you made a while ago I may be able to make a few points and I will talk about whats in Doherty's book. I don't think we can gain a lot by limiting ourselves to a website article.

Doherty dates Aristides to c.135. It does not depend on the Gospels as we know them and was probably based on some oral tradition. It also seems to have been written from a different milieu as I have mentioned above.
I don't know if you can argue that the author is speaking of a historical Jesus as we know him.

Justin, as I have stated above, may also have been basing his knowledge on available oral traditions which by definition, undergo change and embellishment as they move from mouth to mouth and the manner in which they change is influenced by surrounding cultural and philosophical environments. I don't believe we have a strong reason for believing he derived his knowledge from any Gospel tradition.

Doherty dates Tertullian to 160-225. Apology to 200.

Doherty mentions Irenaeus, Papias, Polycarp and Ignatius. So you are wrong on those four counts.
Papias is unreliable as a source of anything. Doherty deals with Irenaeus (who writes post 180 hence irrelevant to the argument) and Ignatius (who doesn't draw from any Gospel tradition). Polycarp doesn't draw on any Gospel tradition either and instead uses the OT (Isaiah 53) for some of his writings.

Now, provide evidence that shows that Quadratus of Athens, Melito of Sardis and Basilides mentioned historical details about Jesus as you have stated. When you do that, then your argument that his analysis is incomplete may have some merit.

Note that Doherty's argument isn't that NOT one person mentions a HJ in the 2nd C, but that at the beginning (late first century and early 2nd C) we see:
Son of God/Logos then -->vague references of a HJ--> then a HJ - -> then a HJ based on the Gospels (post 180).

To break it down further (my dates are not that accurate and they overlap and I am less than an amateur but this is the idea):

Son of God/Logos (90-150)
Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Didache, Tatian (Diatessaron), Athenagoras, Epistle to Diognetus

Vague references of a HJ (110 - 170)
Aristides, Theophilus, Ignatius

A HJ (110 - 170)
Justin Martyr, Marcion (ignore the Docetic flavour), Minucius Felix?

A HJ drawn from the Gospels (post 180)
Irenaeus, Tertullian...Eusebius etc etc up to Dominic Crossan and J.P. Meier.

Notice that whereas Doherty's admission about Justin's references to a HJ are clear, he still makes his argument - its because Justin, and Ignatian epistles are consistent with his developmental argument of a HJ from an MJ.

the_cave

Actually, looking some things over online last night, it seems to me that the reason the Phillippians asked Polycarp for Ignatius' letters may have been because because Ignatius wasn't around to offer them. Polycarp doesn't make unambiguous reference to his being alive. The business of "kings" can be explained in another way, as I demonstrated. And again, why couldn't they be interpolations?

It sure sounds like the gospels--with details from the beginning, middle and end. In fact, it sounds like all three gospels, since he mentions the census of Quirinus. I suppose it's possible he's working from a collection of writings...but why should we assume that?

Furthermore, Justin clearly has a rather elaborate theology of a historical Jesus. This must have taken some time to develop, which means it is significantly older (on the order of some decades, I mean) than him.

No we don't.

Actually we don't even know that.

Alright, but he was also a Docetist.

You asked:
To which I answered in the affirmative. And I'm right. Your question has nothing to do with the question of whether their beliefs reflected actual history.

the_cave

You are using a narrow definition of "history". If Ignatius and/or Papias can be dated with any accuracy, then it is useful in knowing the history of belief. Which itself can be useful in other ways.

the_cave

Yes he does--he speaks of the "recollections" of the apostles. He quotes from them extensively, and they sound identical to our gospel passages.

But he must at least be reliable as the source of what some believed to be history. Whether or not it was the history, it's evidence of what some believed to be history. That is still evidence of something.

Maybe, maybe not--he is aware of nativity traditions. He specifically mentions Mary. What he says sounds a lot like what you find in the Ascension of Isaiah (which Doherty treats with some importance.)


Which Justin also uses quite extensively, in spite of being a clear HJer who quotes gospel passages extensively as well.

Mmm, not exactly...I'm really not a part of this particular discussion, but Doherty dates Mark to the late 1st c. He claims it is Midrash that was subsequently misunderstood. That's pretty much the grounds of the debate.

spin

Polycarp, Phil 13:

Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled.

As Ignatius also wrote to Polycarp asking him to do it, it should tell you that Ignatius was alive at the time of both writings (his and Polycarp's ). There is no doubt here.

So did these stories exist before the gospel writers wrote them down or not? Just show me a nice example of Justin actually quoting something clearly from a specific written gospel, will you? instead of pussyfooting around.

Let's look at three key words from Polycarp Phil 12.3. These are in Latin because that is how they are preserved.

Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus
Pray also for kings, potentates and princes

1) regibus - (plural dative) rex: king, absolute monarch
2) potestatibus - (plural dative) potestas: power, often regional power
3) principibus - (plural dative) principes: first person, most eminent

Here the scale should be evident: the top of the pile is the king, rex. Look at the Latin for Dan 3:3,

tunc congregati sunt satrapae magistratus et iudices duces et tyranni et optimates qui erant in potestatibus constituti et universi principes regionum ut convenirent ad dedicationem statuae quam erexerat Nabuchodonosor rex stabant autem in conspectu statuae quam posuerat Nabuchodonosor

Here's a translation of the LXX, which is relatively similar:

So the heads of provinces, the governors, the captains, the chiefs, the great princes, those who were in authority, and all the rulers of districts, were gathered to the dedication of the image which king Nabuchodonosor had set up; and they stood before the image.

What you should be able to notice about the Latin is that all three of our words are present, but you will note that once again, it is the king, rex, who is the top of the pile. We find potestas used by Suetonius specifically in relation to provinces in Div. Clau. 23, "prouincias potestatibus", and Roman provinces were at a level of local kingdoms.

It should be clear that Polycarp's kings are not local rulers (either appointed or homegrown), but the rulers of the empire. This is the conclusion based on the particular vocabulary used by the writer.

Ignatius was around at the time of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians which refers to the (two) rulers of the empire, hence post 161 CE.

The distinction that certain mythical-jesusers make is that though Jesus may not have existed in the world as a human being (or actually in the world), he was at one time a spiritual entity which performed salvific activities at least at a cosmic level according to the theology of the religion of the time. So Marcion specifies a year in which Jesus came. This would seem to spell a new phase. There was nothing really to anchor Zeus's foray down to earth.

?


spin

GakuseiDon

What does Doherty say about Tertullian's "Ad nationes"? That would be interesting.

Then does that mean that Justin Martyr is the first major apologist who can be confidently dated? That seems to be what Doherty and spin are saying.


Actually, if he doesn't include "Ad nationes", then I would say that his analysis is incomplete.

For what it's worth: from earlychristiawritings: Quadratus:

"But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."


Melito of Sardis:

"Born as a son, led forth as a lamb, sacrificed as a sheep, buried as a man, he rose from the dead as a God, for he was by nature God and man. He is all things: he judges, and so he is Law; he teaches, and so he is Wisdom; he saves, and so he is Grace; he begets, and so he is Father; he is begotten, and so he is Son; he suffers, and so he is Sacrifice; he is buried, and so he is man; he rises again, and so he is God. This is Jesus Christ, to whom belongs glory for all ages. (8-10)

"This is he who was made flesh in a virgin, whose (bones) were not broken upon the tree, who in burial was not resolved into earth, who arose from the dead and raised man from the grave below to the heights of the heavens. This is the lamb that was slain, this is the lamb that was dumb, this is he that was born of Mary, the fair ewe (70-71 18)


If I had given such dates, spin would have been all over me like a rash...!

I've given my argument in an earlier post, JA. I look forward to your response. In particular, I would be interested if Doherty accounts for Tertullian's "Ad nationes" in his book.

Vorkosigan

He doesn't need to. You have misunderstood Doherty's position yet again. Doherty's position is not that the HJ legends go unmentioned -- that is a caricature of his position. Doherty's position is that the HJ legends go unmentioned where we might expect them. Ad Nationes is a discussion of specific charges against Christians, and then goes on to become a general discussion of the silliness of the Greco-Roman religion. There does not appear to be any place in Ad Nations where Tertullian might be called upon to mention any specific beliefs of his religion (the attacks focus on Christian practices such as facing the east when they pray). Tertullian's pattern of defense is to defend Christians by pointing out that the Romans do the same thing, not by calling on scripture. For example, he defends Christians from the calumny of infanticide by pointing out that the Romans do the same thing. He defends Christians from the charge of worshipping a cross by pointing out that Roman idols are crosses as well. He defends Christians from being obstinantly unafraid of death by pointing to the same thing in Roman history. This pattern is firmly established, from the beginning. Your point has merit only if you ignore how the document is actually written.

Tatian, by contrast, in his Apology to the Greeks consistently ignores the HJ legends where we might expect them to appear. For example, Tatian has a whole chapter on Christian women, and mentions that they are chaste, but somehow forgets about the BVM, whereas Tertullian, in On the Veiling of Virgins, discusses Mary's application to his case. Further, while Tatian often contradicts what we believe to be Christian doctrine in his Apology to the Greeks, nowhere in Ad Nationes is there anything that contradicts the Orthodox position.

In short, Ad Nationes is worthless as a problem for Doherty. Its sole use lies in neatly illustrating how you do not understand Doherty's position at all.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

And I would agree! It shows that it is possible for a HJer apologist to write his apology without referring to details of a historical Jesus. Each apologetic needs to be studied on its merits. We can't just assume from the lack of historical details that the writer didn't know anything about a HJ.

Now tell me why Tertullian doesn't even refer to the names "Jesus" or "Christ" in "Ad Nationes". Would we expect a HJer to at least include those details?