Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2004, 05:35 AM

This post looks at Doherty's comments about the 2nd C CE apologists.

I've taken from Doherty what I regard as his key comments on the subject (if I'm misrepresenting him, please let me know):

Quote:

What do we find as Christianity enters its second 100 years? In fact, we find more of the same. Those who have studied the apologists have tended to make some surprising observations. They note how little continuity these writers show with earlier traditions. Their ideas often have nothing in common with those of the New Testament epistles and even the Gospels. There is no dependence on Paul. Moreover, such writers seem not to move in ecclesiastical circles. Even Justin, though he worked in Rome, has nothing to say about bishops and church organizations. And almost all of them before the year 180 (Justin being the major exception) are silent on the Gospels and the figure of Jesus contained in them. In fact, one could say that they pointedly ignore any historical figure at all...

Justin, and whoever recast the Gospel of John to include the Prologue, with its hymn equating the Logos with Jesus, came to believe that the intermediary Word, the spiritual Son of God, had been incarnated in a human figure as recounted in the Gospels. But is this true of the apologists as a whole? The amazing fact is, that of the five or six major apologists up to the year 180 (after that, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are all firmly anchored in Gospel tradition), none, with the exception of Justin, introduces an historical Jesus into their defences of Christianity to the pagans...

Something extremely odd is going on here. If one leaves aside Justin, there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers...

In passing, I will mention that perhaps the earliest surviving apology, that of Aristides to the emperor Antoninus Pius, a short and minor work written in Syriac around 140, is clearly dependent on some Gospel account. It speaks of God born of a virgin, having twelve disciples, pierced died and buried, then rising after three days.

Who were the 2nd C CE apologists, and what did they believe?

When looking at Doherty's claims about Tertullian, I came across this webpage on www.tertullian.org. The author has compiled a list of quotes from 2nd C apologists in an attempt to determine what they believed about Jesus Christ. From his summary:

Quote:

Leaving Tertullian aside, we have 10 writers, plus one who should possibly be included. Of these;

* 6 writers - Ignatius, Polycarp, Aristides, Justin, Melito, and Irenaeus - testify explicitly to Jesus as both God and man.
* Tatian describes the logos as first-born of the father but does not refer to Jesus, Christ or even the Christians; but did make a harmony of all the gospels.
* The Letter about Polycarp calls Jesus Son of God and only-begotten, but does not (quite) refer to the incarnation.
* Athenagoras refers to the Son, the logos, and to the Trinity, but does not tie this explicitly to Jesus
* Theophilus does not discuss Jesus at all, although he does refer to the Trinity - but on the other hand does witness to the inspiration of Paul's letters and calls John's gospel (hardly short of incarnational statements) scripture.

So we see that 60% of the writers make explicit incarnational statements. This includes most of the writers - Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus - for whom we have substantial remains. Of the other 4, Tatian is a witness to the New Testament and Theophilus uses John as scripture, and so could be included on that ground, the Letter on Polycarp does not make an explicit statement, while Athenagoras does not refer to Jesus at all (but does mention the Trinity). Silence, of course, is not evidence of anything; not even of silence.

Thus we have either 6 in favour and 4 silent; or 8 in favour and 2 silent, on the proposition that Jesus was both God and man.

There are no evidence of statements for the contrary proposition - that Jesus was not man, or that Jesus was not God, except for the curious statement in Minucius Felix, whose date and testimony is questionable (see below, Appendix 1).

In conclusion I think we must conclude that the testimony of the second century writers to the incarnation is consistent with the theory that this was standard church teaching in that era.

The opposite proposition: that no-one cared, or that docetist ideas were equally part of standard church teaching, finds no support in the data we have reviewed; and docetist groups are the object of repeated attacks (all unfortunately lost, apart from Irenaeus, but lists of titles written are preserved) by the Fathers.

There is one final point mentioned in passing which perhaps should be highlighted. These writers also tell us that they are not isolated from each other, but form part of a continuum of personal contact that stretches from the apostles at one end to Tertullian at the other. Irenaeus claims to have known Polycarp, and tells us he heard him claim personal contact with the apostles. He also tells us quite clearly, in the letter to Florinus, how he - and Polycarp - viewed any change of doctrine. Tatian tells us he knew Justin. Polycarp exchanged letters with Ignatius, and visited Rome in 165AD. The lost works of the period were of course extant well into late Antiquity, and perhaps later, and were available to the church historians of the era of Eusebius to praise or condemn. These links among a group of people who tell us that they are tenacious of their doctrine should form a backdrop to any query asked about these writers and their teachings.

Adding Papias (who wrote at the start of the 2nd C), Tertullian (who wrote at the end of the 2nd C), and the pagan philosopher Celsus (who attacked Christianity in a letter around 170 CE and claimed that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera), we have 9 out of the 13 references to historicity (plus a probable two more).

We have quite a few letters from two of the authors, Tertullian and Ignatius. It is interesting that both wrote at least one apologetic with no details of a historical Christ.

It would be interesting to actually go through earlychristianwritings to see what percentage of the 2nd C authors there referred to historical details. Much of the material that remains for those authors are just fragments, but opening the first 3 alone, Quadratus of Athens, Basilides, and the Naassene Fragment, reveal at least one detail of historicity.

I think there is enough evidence there to show that the silence in the 2nd C isn't as great as Doherty suggests.

--------------------

1. Earl Doherty, The Second Century Apologists
2. Did Christian Writers of the Second Century believe in the Incarnation?
3. Early Christian Writings

Roland · 04-20-2004, 08:19 AM

The question still remains why it takes almost a hundred years after Jesus' alleged life for any writers outside the gospel writers to mention Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Calvary, Mary, Joseph, Judas, John the Baptist etc. in relation to Jesus.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quenti...nity/Table.html

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

The question still remains why it takes almost a hundred years after Jesus' alleged life for any writers outside the gospel writers to mention Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Calvary, Mary, Joseph, Judas, John the Baptist etc. in relation to Jesus.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quenti...nity/Table.html

True, but I'm only looking at the 2nd C here in line with Doherty's article on the silence of the 2nd C apologists. I should have put that disclaimer in there.

Vinnie · 04-20-2004, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

The question still remains why it takes almost a hundred years after Jesus' alleged life for any writers outside the gospel writers to mention Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Calvary, Mary, Joseph, Judas, John the Baptist etc. in relation to Jesus.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quenti...nity/Table.html

Wait a minute. This breaks down into: "how come no sources outside the sources which mention these things" do not mention these things?

JBap and Jesus are tied together by Q sayings, possibly a Thomas saying (#78 I think), the baptism Mark narrates of which Matthew, Luke, GHebrews GNazoreans and GEbionites all include. Ignatius mentions two separate apologies for baptism ca 110. The Lukan infanct narrative, the Gospel of John. Josephus at least mentions the baptist though he certainly has NO REASON WHATSOEVER to connect him to Jesus whom he only mentions in a section about Pilate anyway.

Also this tradition is deemed embarassing. Those that have the detail all seem to engloss it in heavy apologetics. Furthermore, the silence of the Pauline corpus or the epistle James or any other epistle to explicitly state "Jesus was baptized by JBap" is absolutely meaningless. These are entirely different media and this insignificant silence in no way negates all the positive evidence we do have.

I quoted a bunch of sources all mentioning what you say doesn't exist all from within your incorrect hunded years statement.

""""""Bethlehem"""""""""

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee not Bethlehem. But re nazareth, can anything good come from there?

""""""""Jerusalem""""""""

What about Jerusalem?

""""""Calvary"""""""

Everyone knows the cross of Christ. It quickly became the focal point of Christianity rathy than shorty pithy sayings and aphorisms--the groups of which died out.

"""""""Mary, Joseph"""""""

The virgin brth is not historical. There are a few references to these individuals. These constitute incidental details as well. All humans have family members. There is no reason to doubt these names. Why should we expect more references?

"""""""Judas""""""""

Judas' betrayal is secured by the double apologetics which stem from the embarassment of the situation and the converging lines of argumentation about the twelve.

Vinnie

Roland · 04-20-2004, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE=Vinnie]Wait a minute. This breaks down into: "how come no sources outside the sources which mention these things" do not mention these things?

I guess what my confusion here is why do late 2nd Century writers mention all these details in abundance while writers up till 150 seem curiously silent on most of them? The gospels do, I believe, need to be pulled out of the equation mainly because, if they are all dependent on Mark, they can basically be considered a single source, not four independent sources. Certainly writers from Justin on had no problem droning on ad nauseum about each of the elements I mentioned, just as preachers do today, despite the fact that the life of Jesus has been common knowldege for at least 18 centuries. Why so little comment about these details before, when the story would have been new and fresh? Just the "wow" factor alone would, I imagine, have prompted these early Christian writers to get it down on paper.

Vinnie · 04-20-2004, 07:13 PM

""""""Just the "wow" factor alone would, I imagine, have prompted these early Christian writers to get it down on paper.""""""

Wow factor of what? We have what we expect. Evidence of collections of Jesus teachings and some evidence or wonder working collections.

The collections evident behind Mark, the sources behund Thomas, Q et al.

Vinnie

Roland · 04-20-2004, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

This post looks at Doherty's comments about the 2nd C CE apologists.

I've taken from Doherty what I regard as his key comments on the subject (if I'm misrepresenting him, please let me know):

Who were the 2nd C CE apologists, and what did they believe?

When looking at Doherty's claims about Tertullian, I came across this webpage on www.tertullian.org. The author has compiled a list of quotes from 2nd C apologists in an attempt to determine what they believed about Jesus Christ. From his summary:

Adding Papias (who wrote at the start of the 2nd C), Tertullian (who wrote at the end of the 2nd C), and the pagan philosopher Celsus (who attacked Christianity in a letter around 170 CE and claimed that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera), we have 9 out of the 13 references to historicity (plus a probable two more).

We have quite a few letters from two of the authors, Tertullian and Ignatius. It is interesting that both wrote at least one apologetic with no details of a historical Christ.

It would be interesting to actually go through earlychristianwritings to see what percentage of the 2nd C authors there referred to historical details. Much of the material that remains for those authors are just fragments, but opening the first 3 alone, Quadratus of Athens, Basilides, and the Naassene Fragment, reveal at least one detail of historicity.

I think there is enough evidence there to show that the silence in the 2nd C isn't as great as Doherty suggests.

--------------------

1. Earl Doherty, The Second Century Apologists
2. Did Christian Writers of the Second Century believe in the Incarnation?
3. Early Christian Writings

In all fairness to Doherty, he admits that Ignatius early on believed Jesus was born of Mary and crucified under Pilate.

He also states that Justin and Ireneaus spoke much and often about the biography of Jesus we are familiar with from the gospels. But those two were writing in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, a time when even Doherty readily admits the belief in a flesh-and-blood Jesus had taken hold.

spin · 04-20-2004, 08:05 PM

One of the most damning indications for the lateness of the gospels regards the titular use of "son of man" (SoM), which appears 81 times in the gospels and once in Acts with titular intent. Despite such a high frequency in the gospels we find no church father talking about this titular use until Justin Martyr.

The simple term "son of man", ben enosh, is found frequently in the Hebrew bible, indicating someone born of the flesh, a mere human being. This was also the case in Dan 7:13 which talks of "one like a son of man", ie a being with the likeness of a human, in contrast to the beings earlier in the chapter with beastly likenesses. (Of course, the writer of Mark totally misunderstands Dan 7:13, reading the SoM for "one like a son of man".)

If the gospels had been in circulation long before the time of Justin, we would have expected a term used so often in them to appear relatively frequently in the early fathers. Yet we don't. We have a silence until Justin. The nearest we come to is a reference in the letter of Barnabus which is so blithely unaware of the titular SoM that the writer tells us "Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the son of man, but the Son of God", negating Jesus human nature, as he is not the son of man (in the ordinary Hebrew usage of the term). Barnabus functionally tells us that the notion of SoM did not exist in the writer's world.

If the notion of SoM didn't exist for Barnabus, then the gospels as we know them with their frequent use of SoM did not exist either. Justin is our yardstick here. He knew the term both from Daniel with its original significance and it's titular usage as found in the gospels. Sometime between the earliest church fathers and Justin the gospels with their SoM were produced.

spin

(If anyone wants to mention the spurious longer versions of the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians (20) and to the Trallians (9), I'll leave them with the problem of dating and extracting a titular usage of "son of man".)

Oh, and Vinnie, no Jesus didn't come from Nazareth, a literary association with nazarhnos/nazwraios, but from Capernaum. Even Marcion knew that.

Bernard Muller · 04-20-2004, 08:44 PM

Roland:

Quote:

Certainly writers from Justin on had no problem droning on ad nauseum about each of the elements I mentioned.

Not all of them after Justin, as Doherty remarked. Many later apologists were avoiding the gospel Jesus with the tales associated with him and also a Crucified one ('Jesus' or 'Christ'). So I do not think Justin was from when the flood gates opened.
And before Justin, we have very few apologists writing in their own name. So the opportunities for external evidence is very limited. I know only Papias, Aristides and Quadratus (120-130). And all of them mentioned either material appearing in a gospel, GJohn (as "the Lord said") (Papias), writings incorporating deeds and sayings (as in a gospel)(Papias) or paraphrasing/extrapolating on gospels stories (Aristides and Quadratus). Papias also mentioned Judas the traitor several times.
Written even earlier, the Didache (95) has a lot of gospel material drawn from GMatthew and use the term gospel for writings. Actually there is one gospel-like item in the Didache which shows the direction GMatthew --> Didache. The same for one Ignatian letter (135) (to the Smyrneans) which alludes to gospel as writings and quote material appearing in GLuke & Acts.
Gnostic Basilides (120-140) also wrote a gospel. In it is the crucifixion and Simon of Cyrene. There are tidbits of gospels material appearing in 1st century writings, as in 1Clement (81) and Revelation (95) and 'Barnabas' (98).
See Gospels, the external evidence

Quote:

just as preachers do today, despite the fact that the life of Jesus has been common knowldege for at least 18 centuries.

I listened to sermons on TV, and many never mentioned an earthly Jesus. A lot of them were about comments on OT passages.
Knowing the so-called facts on the life of Jesus does not mean you have to write about it. Christianity was a lot more attractive as a Platonic/Philoic faith, with emphasis on the heavenly Savior Logos/Son, God's wrath to come and salvation for Christians. Furthermore, apologists spent most of their writings making fun of the tales of Greek mythology. Therefore they were avoiding gospels stories, which also look like tales (as stated in Tatian & Tertulian apologies). And a Christ as a crucified by the Romans, as a criminal would, was not, for some, something to linger on (as for Minucius Felix).

Quote:

Why so little comment about these details before, when the story would have been new and fresh? Just the "wow" factor alone would, I imagine, have prompted these early Christian writers to get it down on paper.

You are assuming the gospels, with their flaws, differences, contradictions, unhistorical elements, extraordinary tales had to be immediately accepted as trustworthy & earth-shattering by people writing in their own name. If these gospels were not, if their acceptance was progressive & slow & spotty, then we would see what we observe now. And why would the details be so important?
Would that make a difference if Jesus was crucified in Cesarea instead of Jerusalem? Or his mother was named Gertrud instead of Mary? Or grew up in another-hole-in-Galilee rather than Nazareth? Furthermore, with many gospels from the start of the 2nd century, these details would be available anyway for anybody interested with them.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie · 04-20-2004, 09:11 PM

"""""""""Oh, and Vinnie, no Jesus didn't come from Nazareth, a literary association with nazarhnos/nazwraios, but from Capernaum. Even Marcion knew that.""""""""

See Raymond Brown 207-213 Birth of the Messiah.

Vinnie

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

04-20-2004, 08:19 AM	#2
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	The question still remains why it takes almost a hundred years after Jesus' alleged life for any writers outside the gospel writers to mention Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Calvary, Mary, Joseph, Judas, John the Baptist etc. in relation to Jesus. http://members.iinet.net.au/~quenti...nity/Table.html

04-20-2004, 04:50 PM	#5
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	[QUOTE=Vinnie]Wait a minute. This breaks down into: "how come no sources outside the sources which mention these things" do not mention these things? I guess what my confusion here is why do late 2nd Century writers mention all these details in abundance while writers up till 150 seem curiously silent on most of them? The gospels do, I believe, need to be pulled out of the equation mainly because, if they are all dependent on Mark, they can basically be considered a single source, not four independent sources. Certainly writers from Justin on had no problem droning on ad nauseum about each of the elements I mentioned, just as preachers do today, despite the fact that the life of Jesus has been common knowldege for at least 18 centuries. Why so little comment about these details before, when the story would have been new and fresh? Just the "wow" factor alone would, I imagine, have prompted these early Christian writers to get it down on paper.

04-20-2004, 07:13 PM	#6
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""Just the "wow" factor alone would, I imagine, have prompted these early Christian writers to get it down on paper."""""" Wow factor of what? We have what we expect. Evidence of collections of Jesus teachings and some evidence or wonder working collections. The collections evident behind Mark, the sources behund Thomas, Q et al. Vinnie

04-20-2004, 08:05 PM	#8
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	One of the most *damning* indications for the lateness of the gospels regards the titular use of "son of man" (SoM), which appears 81 times in the gospels and once in Acts with titular intent. Despite such a high frequency in the gospels we find no church father talking about this titular use until Justin Martyr. The simple term "son of man", ben enosh, is found frequently in the Hebrew bible, indicating someone born of the flesh, a mere human being. This was also the case in Dan 7:13 which talks of "one like a son of man", ie a being with the likeness of a human, in contrast to the beings earlier in the chapter with beastly likenesses. (Of course, the writer of Mark totally misunderstands Dan 7:13, reading the SoM for "one like a son of man".) If the gospels had been in circulation long before the time of Justin, we would have expected a term used so often in them to appear relatively frequently in the early fathers. Yet we don't. We have a silence until Justin. The nearest we come to is a reference in the letter of Barnabus which is so blithely unaware of the titular SoM that the writer tells us "Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the son of man, but the Son of God", negating Jesus human nature, as he is not the son of man (in the ordinary Hebrew usage of the term). Barnabus functionally tells us that the notion of SoM did not exist in the writer's world. If the notion of SoM didn't exist for Barnabus, then the gospels as we know them with their frequent use of SoM did not exist either. Justin is our yardstick here. He knew the term both from Daniel with its original significance and it's titular usage as found in the gospels. Sometime between the earliest church fathers and Justin the gospels with their SoM were produced. spin (If anyone wants to mention the spurious longer versions of the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians (20) and to the Trallians (9), I'll leave them with the problem of dating and extracting a titular usage of "son of man".) Oh, and Vinnie, no Jesus didn't come from Nazareth, a literary association with nazarhnos/nazwraios, but from Capernaum. Even Marcion knew that.

04-20-2004, 09:11 PM	#10
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""""Oh, and Vinnie, no Jesus didn't come from Nazareth, a literary association with nazarhnos/nazwraios, but from Capernaum. Even Marcion knew that."""""""" See Raymond Brown 207-213 Birth of the Messiah. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.