GakuseiDon

I've added a new page to my look at Doherty's comments on the Second Century apologists. This time I've included comments on his response to my first article, as well as some new material. I've added one section from my article below. Any comments welcomed.

My original article can be found here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...ndC_Review.htm

My new article can be found here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view_Part2.htm
__________________________________________________ _______________

1.1 Spot the mythicist! Christians' attack on the mortality of the Roman gods.

As the Second Century progressed, Christians began to push Christianity as a philosophy, and started to debate with pagan philosophers. In his Second Apology, Justin Martyr describes how he questioned the pagan philosopher Crescens, and "found most convincingly that he, in truth, knows nothing." Tatian, in his Address, describes how Crescens "endeavoured to inflict on Justin, and indeed on [Tatian himself], the punishment of death", probably in retaliation to Justin's attack.

As I noted in my original article, in the face of continuing persecution the apologists began presenting Christianity as a philosophical school, hoping to gain a sympathetic hearing from the Emperors and the public of the day.

One of the topics of debate was on the origins of the gods. More than one Christian apologist attacked how the pagans presented the nature of the gods' origins. How, asked the Christians, could the Roman gods have a mortal nature? How could the pagans say that the gods could be born and suffer death like any mortal, and still regard them as gods?

Doherty has highlighted similar statements in his MJ (Mythic Jesus) writers, and asks, how can these writers use that manner of presentation without indicating how that parallel doesn't apply to Christ? Wouldn't pagans accuse Christians of the same beliefs, unless there was no historical Christ behind those beliefs?

This sounds convincing while Doherty's MJ writers are examined in isolation. However, Doherty is clearly unaware that the same statements can be found in the writings of the HJ (Historical Jesus) writers of the period, also without the same apparent qualification.

To demonstrate this, I've gathered together nine statements from Second Century writers. Eight of them are from two HJ writers, and one from an MJ writer. The statement from the MJ writer is one that Doherty and other Christ Mythers like to highlight to suggest that the writer couldn't have believed in a historical Christ.

Can you spot which statement below is from the MJ writer?

• 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?

• They, therefore who cannot deny the birth of men, must also admit their death; they who allow their mortality must not suppose them to be gods.

• 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

• It is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise, he is indeed miserable

• ... you form a virgin from Diana ... What excuse can be found for that insolence which classes the dead of whatever sort as equal with the gods?

• Besides, if they were able to make gods of themselves after their death, pray tell me why they chose to be in an inferior condition at first?

• 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.

• And they say that he [Tammuz] was killed by a wound from a wild boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible

• And he [Osiris] was killed by Typhon and was unable to help himself. But it is well known that this cannot be asserted of divinity... And how, pray, is he a god who does not save himself?

The HJ statements are taken from Tertullian's Ad nationes and Aristides' Apology. The MJ statement is taken from M. Felix's Octavius.

The apologists above are all attacking the notion that gods could either be born or die. The problem being highlighted, though, wasn't the birth or death of these gods, but the concept of a god coming into existence and its existence coming to an end. As Tertullian writes in Ad nationes:

"of course, nothing which some time or other had a beginning can rightly seem to be divine... 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"

M. Felix makes the same point:

"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."

Since Christ was a pre-existent being, the same criticisms didn't apply to Christianity. For the early Christians, Christ's earthly birth and death didn't mark a start or end to his existence. As I've pointed out in my original critique on other topics, Doherty clearly hasn't done his homework. Doherty highlights individual statements as being problematic for the case of a historical Christ, but doesn't take into consideration the broader writings of the period. I suggest this amounts to a virtual one-sided presentation of the evidence.

jakejonesiv

Hi.

I know you are making a broader point, but maybe there is something I don't understand.

If Tammuz wasn't a god what was he? And if he didn't die, why were those women morning for him? Ezekiel 8:14. And didn't Tammuz allegedly arise annually at Easter/Ishtar?

Thanks,
Jake Jones

Zeichman

Love the response! I look forward to seeing what Doherty has to say about it. It looks to be a good debate.

GakuseiDon

Yes, Tammuz was a god, and he died. The full passage from Aristides is:

Again they say of Aphrodite that she indeed is a goddess. And at times she dwells with their gods, but at other times she is a neighbour to men. And once she had Ares as a lover, and again Adonis who is Tammuz. Once also, Aphrodite was wailing and weeping for the death of Tammuz, and they my that she went down to Sheol that she might redeem Adonis from Persephone, who is the daughter of Sheol (Hades). If then Aphrodite is a goddess and was unable to help her lover at his death, how will she find it possible to help others? And this cannot be listened to, that a divine nature should come to weeping and wailing and adultery.

And again they say of Tammuz that he is a god. And he is, forsooth! a hunter and an adulterer. And they say that he was killed by a wound from a wild boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Easter/Ishtar". Can you explain that?

Aristides, at least, seems to believe that Aprodite "was unable to help her lover (Adonis/Tammuz) at his death".

guy_683930

GDon,

Have you done a rebuttal of the first century epistles? I would like to see it.

GakuseiDon

No, I haven't. I'm looking at doing a comparison between Paul and Ignatius on the use of "in Christ" and similar expressions, but I don't expect it to be a rebuttal as such.

Unfortunately, I can't use the method I used for the Second Century writers - finding themes between the different Christian writers - because the material just isn't there. A linguistic analysis between Paul's use of terminology and other non-Christian writings of the period might work, but I simply don't have those skills.

jakejonesiv

GakuseiDon,

Thanks for the reply.
Aristedes was given to special pleading.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

First, he declares that Jesus is divine. "The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh...".

Aristedes then attempts to differentiate Jesus from the gods of the "Barbarians" by special pleading but when the same measure is taken to Christianity, we can make the same observations.

But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible. :down:

The same logic applies to Jesus the Son of God because, according to the gospels, his Father abandoned him to death on the cross. Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46.

And this cannot be listened to, that a divine nature should come to weeping and wailing... :huh:

In the passage quoted above, it is considered that a divine being could be reduced to weeping and wailing, but Jesus did the same thing according to Hebrews 5:7.

On the larger question, I think Earl Doherty is much too concerned that mythical Jesus was never conceived to have had flesh (it was of an illusory docetic nature) or that Jesus never descended as far as the surface of the earth, which Ephesians 4:9 states that he did. None of that disqualifies Jesus as myth.

The goddess in the Tammuz myth had several different names one of which was Ishtar, from which the word Easter is derived.

The earliest extant verison of this myth is Inanna. Inanna divested herself of divine attributes (as Jesus is said to do in Phillipians 2:6-8), was executed and hung on a hook.

Subsequently in the myth, Inanna was resurrected.

Jake Jones

GakuseiDon

But for the Christians, Christ DIDN'T die. He went to heaven and continues to exist. It isn't special pleading at all, but a philosophical distinction, at least for the Second Century apologists. Doherty is unaware of this, so highlights these kinds of statements in his mythicist writings as problems for historicists. In fact, the same ideas can be found in the historicist writings as well.

Yep, you are correct here. It shows either Aristides didn't know 'Paul's' epistle to the Hebrews or it's special pleading, as you say.

I know of Easter, Ishtar and Inanna, but not "Easter/Ishtar". Sounds like Fakelore to me! According to the Wikipedia entry on Fakelore:

Easter has its detractors within Christianity. The majority of the Christian fakelore regarding Easter erroneously associates the holiday with the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, based on a superficial similiarity between her name and the holiday's. This fakelore claims that Easter was chosen in spring to coincide with a pagan fertility celebration and attributes all Easter customs to that celebration.

Amaleq13

For Christians, Christ didn't STAY dead but he certainly DID die. You can't be sacrificed without being killed and you can't be resurrected without first dying. Paul declares the death of Christ numerous times including the alleged pre-Pauline reference in 1 Cor:

"for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings"(15:3, YLT)

I agree that at least some made some sort of "philosphical distinction" between the death of Christ and these disparaged divine deaths but I think Jake is correct that the "distinction" is really just special pleading.

jakejonesiv

"We believe that Jesus died and rose again" 1 Thess. 4:14.
You know, Tammuz and Inanna were said to rise again too, so there is not even a philosophical distinction.

In some variant of all these myths, the god descends and ascends from the underworld, often ascending in the spring (no suprise there).

This includes Jesus.
These passages (see also Romans 4:9; Rev. 1:18) may or may not have intended to convey that Jesus descended to the underworld. But they quickly grew into this belief in the second century, ultimately into the "Descensus ad Inferos".

Second century apologists who believed that Jesus descended to the underworld (based on the Jeremiah-logion) include Justin Martyr and apparently Irenaeus.

Jake Jones