andrewcriddle

Although the Essenes were in reality relatively new their pagan admirers regarded them as being of great antiquity.

Pliny the Elder praising Essene celibacy says Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I just realized I forgot to link to the split out discussion. It has been moved here: Imagining a historical Jesus[

GakuseiDon

Yes. Moreover, I believe that the evidence is there to show that Tatian and Theophilus arguably fall into this group as well. So there is more than just the one example.

I agree. But Doherty doesn't compare his MJ writers with the HJ ones of the period for points of comparison. That to me lends his analysis a certain lack of credibility.

Do you think that Doherty should have pointed out that Tertullian wrote an apology to the pagans that lacked all reference to a HJ, including the names "Jesus" and "Christ"?

Read the comments I included by Carrier and others. These works were widely praised, and survived because of their contents, not despite them. According to Doherty, Tertullian even used the MF to compose his own Apology.

Of the others:

Tatian wrote a large number of works, with only his "Address" extant, though fragments of "Diatessaron", his harmony of the four Gospels, survived.

Theophilus wrote a number of works, including several tracts against gnostic heretics, but only his 3 volume "To Autolycus" survived.

MF wrote only one work that we know of. Athenagoras wrote only 2 works that we know of. Both were praised for their contents.

Fair enough. I think there is enough evidence to show that Tatian and Theophilus (who refers directly to the Gospel of John) were also "coy HJers", which increases the odds IMO.

The fact that nearly all of Doherty's MJ writers wrote around the same period - from 160 CE to around 180 CE - and at a time when Christianity was trying to re-image itself as a 'philosophical school', also increases the odds quite a bit.

From 100 CE to 160 CE, Christians writing to others overwhelmingly present a HJ. From 160 CE onwards, we see a more philosophical defence of Christianity. That this coincides with the rule of that most philosophical of emperors, Marcus Aurelius, is no coincidence, IMHO.

GakuseiDon

Amaleq, I'll go through your points separately if I may. If you feel I leave any out that need to be covered, please let me know. I'll start from the bottom: Doherty refers to the two letters by John and the ones by Ignatius here. His Supp2 article on the John is fairly long and rambling, so I'll start on his comments on Ignatius. Doherty gives the following quote from Ignatius in Appendix 3 of his book:
Doherty believes that this wasn't a reaction against docetism but against an MJ, since "the net is cast too broadly". But is that the case?

The full quote is from here:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds?

Ignatius is arguing against those who thought that Christ only appeared to suffer, amongst other things. Note that the "truly"s relate to (1) issues of his mortality: "truly born" and "truly died", and (2) issues involving suffering: "truly persecuted" and "truly crucified".

Was there a docetist version of the MJ, where Christ only appeared to suffer crucifixion by demons in a sublunar realm?

Ignatius appears to be arguing against docetists who had a problem with the idea of Christ suffering. AFAIK, this is standard docetism. Is there any reason to suppose that this is not the case?

Doherty reverses the burden of proof here. He doesn't tell us WHY these are problems, there is just the assumption that they are. But can he show how those statements contradict the views of HJ writers of the period? Did anyone have any problems with them?

I'll go through them and point out equivalent views in HJ writers where possible (which has been the overall focus of my rebuttal to Doherty all along). For the others: until Doherty can show that HJ writers actually expressed views in disagreement of those statements, then it comes down to his opinion.

"Is it not ridiculous either to grieve for what you worship, or to worship that over which you grieve?"

Amaleq, do Christians grieve for what they worship, or worship that over which they grieve?

"Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies....For why, if they [i.e., gods] were born, are they not born in the present day also?" [23, ANF translation]

Tertullian makes a similar reference to "gods" and "death" in "Ad nationes": "It is a settled point that a god is born of a god, and that what lacks divinity is born of what is not divine... But when you say that they only make men into gods after their death, do you not admit that before death the said gods were merely human?"

Compare with MF [23]: "Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But that is divine which has neither rising nor setting."

IOW, gods cannot spring from humans, since a god is born of a god. But Christ was a pre-existing being from the beginning, and didn't begin to exist with his birth from Mary. Check MF's views with Tertullian's, and you'll see the same ideas expressed in both.

"Why should I refer to those old wives' fables, of men being changed into birds and beasts, into trees and flowers? If such things had ever happened, they would happen now; but since they cannot happen now, they have never happened." [20, J.H. Freese translation]

This refers to the ongoing activities of the Roman gods, which wouldn't apply to a HJ, on earth at least. If the gods were still active, why don't these things still happen? It might be evidence against a belief in ongoing miracles in the church, but then again, we don't know whether MF actually believed that those kinds of miracles weren't continuing in the church of the day. Since MF explicitly refers to men changing into flora and fauna, we don't know how he feels about miracles in general.

"And yet, although so much time has elapsed and countless ages have passed, is there a single trustworthy instance of a man having returned from the dead like Protesilaus, if only for a few hours? All these figments of a disordered brain, these senseless consolations invented by lying poets to lend a charm to their verse, to your shame you have hashed up in your excessive credulity in honor of your god." [11, J.H. Freese translation]

This is the weakest of the lot, and reminicent of Doherty's point on the pagan's criticism that Christians "worshipped a criminal and his cross". Why on earth is there a problem with this kind of criticism by the pagans??? If that is what they charged Christians with, then why not include these charges?

Justin Martyr also notes a similar view amongst the pagans: "In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again". Doherty may argue that MF should argue more strongly against them, but his quote doesn't constitute unorthodox in itself, simply that pagans had a problem with the notion of physical resurrection. What exactly is Doherty's evidence that this last one constitutes unorthodoxy? Can you find it?

Amaleq13

I have no idea but it might be relevant that suffering is not included in either of the two alleged examples of pre-Pauline beliefs found in his letters. Even if Paul did not add the specific method of death by crucifixion, these scraps are consistent with the notion that he was the first to emphasize it and the suffering that was associated with it. That said, I can see your point that Ignatius could be arguing against nothing but docetist views. However, I'm only familiar with an emphasis on denying that Christ could or would truly suffer. Did docetists also deny the other things Ignatius mentions?

I've seen numerous Christians weep as they speak of the suffering of Christ and that was before Mel Gibson's movie.

And the same absence of any explanation. I think this is a good point.

I considered this one to be the most difficult to understand. I assumed it was some sort of appeal for an explanation why Christ didn't incarnate again.

I don't think he is saying the statement constitute unorthodoxy but that no defense is offered against it: "How could the author place such statements in the mouth of his Christian debater and give himself no luxury of offering any qualification where Jesus was concerned?"

GakuseiDon

Yes, I believe so. Various groups believed that Christ appeared fully formed, and wasn't crucified, but stood by laughing while Simon was crucified in his stead.

Anyway, shouldn't Doherty be the one to provide evidence, one way or the other, if he is claiming that docetists didn't carry those beliefs?

Yes, but people cry at their weddings, it doesn't mean that they are grieving. (The grieving occurs later on )

Yes, Doherty does that a lot. That's why I say he is reversing the burden of proof.

GakuseiDon

On Tatian's comments:
This is what Tatian says:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

Doherty maintains that the text indicates Tatian regards the Christian narrations as being on the same level as the Greek myths (whatever Doherty means by that), I maintain otherwise.

Like Tertullian and Justin Martyr, Tatian presents Christian narratives as being similar to pagan ones. Doherty says that Tatian doesn't rush to point out that the Christian stories are "factually true", and that this is a devastating silence.

But, what else can we make out of what Tatian is saying? Am I crazy, or is Tatian pretty clear in saying "Christian stories true, pagan stories idle tales"?

Peter Kirby

Well, you're not crazy.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Those were not tears of joy I saw on the faces of Christians leaving Gibson's movie or on the faces of some of the more melodramatic preachers.

Toto

Tatian is clearly saying that Christian stories are not foolish. I don't think it is all that clear whether he is claiming that they are factually true, or just that they are metaphysically true or enlightening or salvific.