Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 08-27-2005, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

What can we say about you?

Roger Pearse is a gentleman with a genuine interest in history and of admirable discipline in what he does. He also candidly admits to having no pretension on the rank of 'scholar'.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman · 08-27-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Roger Pearse is a gentleman with a genuine interest in history and of admirable discipline in what he does. He also candidly admits to having no pretension on the rank of 'scholar'.
kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

I would have thought someone with a "genuine interest" would have stuck to the subject and not distract us with whether we can stick the label "scholar" on Doherty. And whether we can stick that label on Doherty and not to himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

he [Doherty] isn't a scholar, and he certainly isn't a Tatian scholar, any more than I am

Instead of comparing his "ranking" with Doherty's I would have expected his "genuine interest" to find place in the arguments.
I hope to see his "genuine interest" find expression a disciplined focus on the arguments. If that happens, I am sure it will be unnecessary for you to put in a kind word for him

. Because his responses will obviate what you are stating.

Peter Kirby · 08-27-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I would have thought someone with a "genuine interest" would have stuck to the subject and not distract us with whether we can stick the label "scholar" on Doherty.

You were the one who said Doherty is 'legit', as proved from Price and Carrier. Robert Price is a scholar, but he can't bestow this distinction on others by approval.

Legitimate means "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards," and for better or worse, a scholar is so described when she has obtained a doctorate and publishes in the recognized periodicals.

Let me hasten to add that Doherty as learned as most scholars of the New Testament. But Doherty has explicitly chosen to take the route of the lay popularizer.

Now why is that M.C. Hammer tune in my head? "Too legit, too legit to quit..."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2005, 08:16 AM

Next, on Theophilus, Carrier writes:

Quote:

Near Tatian's Syrian church, but across the border in Roman territory (and amidst a decidedly Greek culture) flourished bishop Theophilus at Antioch, around 180 A.D. (M 117-9). Theophilus is important for a variety of reasons: he was the second, very shortly after Athenagoras (below), to explicitly mention the Trinity (Ad Autolycum 2.15); he may have composed his own harmony and commentary on the four Gospels chosen by Tatian; and he wrote books against Marcion and other heretics. He is also a window into the thinking of converts: he was converted by the predictions concerning Jesus in the OT (ibid. 1.14), perhaps the weakest grounds for conversion. But most of all, he routinely treats Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets (M 118). He also refers to John's Revelation as authoritative.

Theophilus was a bishop at Antioch, and so a successor of Ignatius. He refers to the Gospel of John, wrote books against Marcion and other heretics, routinely treated Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, and also refers to John's Revelation as authoritative.

Doherty, in his response to my critique, wrote:

GDon notes that "one of Doherty's MJ writers" (which he has earlier identified as Theophilus) wrote an anti-heresy work against Marcion, now lost. Given the general unreliability of such traditions—this one comes from Eusebius, who declared that a lot of things were known to him, including a letter from Jesus himself to King Abgar of Edessa, which Eusebius quoted from his own copy!—it is risky to formulate any arguments based on unconfirmed attributions of non-extant works.

"Risky"? Not 100% certain, perhaps. But why can't it be weighed as evidence? Unless a reason can be given as for why Eusebius made this up, I can't see any reason why we should disregard it as evidence, esp if Theophilus's works against the heretics were still extant in Eusebius's day.

Does anyone know of any evidence against the idea that Theophilus wrote anti-heresy tracts against the gnostics? Is it valid to rub it out, simply because Eusebius was the one who mentioned it?

Doherty also wrote:

I suggested that his one reference to an evangelist, "John" [2.22], may be a marginal gloss, since he gives no other authorial name and elsewhere always treats such sources collectively. GDon claims that "a reference to a named Gospel of John would appear to be conclusive evidence establishing Theophilus as an orthodox Christian," but this is ignoring a great deal of contrary evidence, including the fact that in a following chapter [2.27] Theophilus declares that "everyone who keeps God's law and commandments can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption." This is salvation by knowledge of God and his laws, which is a hallmark of the Logos religion. The 'orthodox' Atonement doctrine is completely missing here. Theophilus can hardly be aware of, or subscribe to, Jesus' declaration in the Gospel of John that "I am the Resurrection and the Life"—meaning that he himself is the only avenue to salvation. Again, these are the sorts of things throughout the apologists that GDon and others simply ride roughshod over.

On the question of atonment, Karen Armstrong in her "History of God" writes that Clement of Alexandria (180 CE) "believed that Jesus was God" and "if Christians imitated Christ, they too would become deified: divine, incorruptible and impassible". Also, Origen (220 CE) "did not believe that we had been 'saved' by the death of Christ but that we ascended to God under our own steam. The point is that when Origen and Clement were writings and teaching their Christian Platonism there was no official doctrine [on salvation]". (p. 119, Mandarin, 1993)

Doherty appears to be unaware of these beliefs. As I've pointed out in my critique, it appears that he simply hasn't looked into the literature in any depth.

Does anyone know whether Theophilus's referral to the Gospel of John is generally regarded as a marginal gloss? Certainly, if Doherty is correct on Theophilus contradicting GJohn, even historicists would question the reference as an interpolation. But is this the case?

Ted Hoffman · 08-27-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote: