Herein my remarks on the first half of Part Two of GakuseiDon’s review of
Jesus: Neither God Nor Man which can be found
here. (Unless otherwise noted, all quotations within the Quote boxes are from Don’s review.)
In Part Two of his review, Don goes into considerable detail on two main subjects: the second century apologists (with effects, as he sees it, on the first century epistles), as well as non-apologist writings like the Ignatian epistles and Hermas; and the question of the evolution of a founder figure within the Q tradition. In this round, I will deal only with the apologists, leaving Q and the other writers for next time.
Don focuses on the second century apologists chiefly for one reason: he considers that if he can satisfactorily explain the apparent silence in them on an historical Jesus while still managing to maintain that they have such a figure in their background, he can carry over that argument and conclusion into the first century epistles which also contain an obvious silence on an HJ.
Don first appeals to a couple of points which only obscure the actual issue of the apologists’ silence on an HJ. He notes that the literature of the first and second centuries “contains little historical details about
anything,” making many of the epistles and other non-canonical works difficult to date. And he suggests that this “certainly isn’t what
we would expect.” The first observation carries virtually no weight. Historical data about the founder figure supposedly at the root of their faith, the faith they are giving a description of in what is often claimed to be minute detail, is altogether different from providing historical details on incidental matters of present and past. Besides, since writers like Athenagoras and Theophilus are describing heavenly divine figures (God and his Logos), incidental historical detail would hardly have much opportunity to come up.
His second declaration I don’t agree with. In the context of a non-historical figure and their faith’s evolution, there would be no historical detail
to expect. Even in regard to the progress of their faith movement, my presentation of what the second century apologists were all about—based on the texts themselves—does not fall into any notable historical sequence of events. At best we can say that the movement arose as a religious philosophy based on an interpretation of the Jewish God and scriptures along lines we can see in Philo, who represents an early phase of that evolution. It reflects the development of the intermediary Son concept and an imagining of the latter’s role in salvation as the revealer and redemptive agent of God. In other words, it was essentially a Logos religion, evolving over the previous two centuries. It had no anchors in any particularly noteworthy historical events, and thus none could be expected to be forthcoming in the writings of those apologists.
Don expects those things because he is bringing a Gospel-based mindset to them. He regards my whole presentation of the second century apologists not being believers in an historical Jesus as something “quite fantastic.” Despite my careful examination of the texts which at every turn suggests that very thing, he regards as unwarranted my opinion that their silence on an HJ would be “bizarre” in an orthodox context. As much as anything, this seems due to an inability to conceive of an early Christian movement which entailed this sort of diversity and complex evolution of ideas (I’m sure poor Occam is turning over in his grave). Not that I haven’t laid out such an overall picture. At the conclusion of my chapter on the apologists in JNGNM, building on many of the observations throughout the book concerning the great variety of thought in the early documentary record (including in the NT), I presented an almost five page (p.498-502) scenario which took all these factors and diverse witnesses into account, creating a comprehensive and coherent picture. Apparently it had no effect on alleviating Don’s sense of the fantastic and bizarre. He certainly never addressed that picture, and if he is dissenting from a case which he declares is not only fantastic but inconceivable on any sensible level, he ought to address and rebut a presentation which belies such a claim.
Quote:
|
Doherty's conclusion that second century apologists like Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and even Justin Martyr (whom Doherty claims subscribed to a non-historical Jesus early in his Christian life) were not believers in a historical Jesus is quite fantastic. Even scholars who lean towards mythicism do not hold this view. G.A. Wells notes that, for all their unexpected silences, they nevertheless betrayed an acquaintance with the Jesus of the New Testament. Richard Carrier notes that many of the Second Century apologists who were silent on the Gospel Jesus appear to be familiar with one or more of the books of the New Testament.
|
Don is being woolly here. What is Wells claiming—that the second century apologists as a whole (not just Justin) are acquainted with an historical figure who is a part of their faith? Wells would be reading such a thing into them, just as Don is. Yes, Minucius Felix seems to be acquainted with a crucified criminal, but rejects him as the basis of his faith; and Tatian suggests he knows of “stories” like the Greek myths which may include a Gospel-Jesus character, but he hardly gives them any perceivable credence. And Don knows full well that my discussion of such apologists envisions that at least some of them (not just Justin) knew of certain writings which may in part have corresponded to our Gospels, but that such a familiarity did not extend to regarding the character within them as an historical figure who was the founder of their faith. As for Carrier, Don is being ambiguous: are the NT books the apologists are familiar with epistles or Gospels? In any case, I am again willing to acknowledge that some of them know of some form of Gospel writing. Tatian, as I said, puts them on the level of certain Greek “stories.”
All this, as I painstakingly lay out, fits a scenario in which the Gospels, throughout the second century, are gradually intruding into a diverse faith movement, until by the end of the century their misinterpretation (carrying along with them the misinterpretation of so much else in the early documentary record) had taken over the self-image of that diverse movement and imposed an historical founding figure upon it (whether human, docetic or Christian Gnostic).
Don now embarks on his case for demonstrating that the silent apologists don’t have to be seen as apologists rejecting or ignorant of an HJ. That case is dependent on one Christian writer and one of his documents, and here I am in danger of tearing my hair out once again, for all of this is old hat. I have dealt with it more than once in past debates, and all my protestations are repeatedly ignored. Don declares, “I won’t cover the same material here,” but he proceeds to do just that.
His case is based on Tertullian, and specifically on his
Ad Nationes. I touched on this in my response to the first part of his review. The basics in my objection to Don’s approach are three:
(1) Tertullian writes in the 3rd century (a couple of his works fall a couple of years back in the 2nd century, but not
Ad Nationes). He is writing at a time when there is no question that everyone accepts the existence of an historical Gospel Jesus, quotes from the Gospels and regards them as history.
(2) Tertullian elsewhere makes it clear that he believes in an historical Jesus based on the Gospels, and shows no compunction about referring to him and championing him.
(3) Tertullian in
Ad Nationes is not presenting a comprehensive picture of his faith and its development—not even close—which is what all the 2nd century apologists are doing.
But I’ll post here an excerpt from the first instalment of the website debate between Don and myself back in 2005 (I think it was).
Now, Don seizes on this:
Don fails to take into account the differences here. Regardless of the term “occasional,” the only question that matters is: should we
expect to find such references? In
Ad Nationes the subject matter does not require it. In the apologies of Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, which claim to be comprehensive
descriptions of the Christian faith itself, we have every right to expect it and to require it. We can make similar arguments in Paul, not from the point of view that he is laying out his faith in its entirety (though he does deal with various aspects of it at many individual points), but that he deals with subject matter, disputes, recommendations, etc., to which we have every right to expect he would introduce the historical figure and historical data, at least some of the time. This is simply not the case with Tertullian’s
Ad Nationes.
This comment by Don is a transparent attempt to slant the situation: “Tertullian appears to be hiding an earthly existence of Jesus.” Hiding? Why would he hide such a thing here and yet not do so anywhere else in his writing, even in his contemporary
Apology? Why impose ‘concealment’ in one document, when it is not to be found in any other?
Let’s look at the key passage (though it’s given short shrift by Don in his review). Book I, ch. 4 opens: [Here I must insert an objection, that Don, when quoting several passages from
Ad Nationes, never gives us a book and chapter number. There are 37 chapters all told in the work, and not even I know the text by heart. Fortunately I have a CD of the ANF texts and can Search. Context is needed, to know whether Don is misquoting or misusing a passage.]
Tertullian here is speaking in principle about a category, about attitudes toward a “founder,” with no need to specify that founder’s name. To suggest that this is some kind of avoidance of that name is simply ludicrous. Nor do we have to find a parallel with Paul in this being an “occasional” writing (which it hardly is in the same sense), to explain why the founder’s name isn’t given. Don accuses me of not taking the context into account, but that is exactly what I have done. The context is a discussion of founders in general and what ought to be attitudes and approaches toward them. While Tertullian is applying his ‘moral’ to a particular founder, the actual name of that founder isn’t needed. Tertullian is certainly not “hiding an earthly existence of Jesus,” as Don suggests. After all, Tertullian has declared what the pagans ought to do:
This is hiding an earthly existence of that founder? And Don really reaches here:
First of all, Don’s comparison of terms is hardly exact. Paul’s “foundation” of our faith is a much looser and more abstract term than a “founder,” which must refer to a figure. Hebrews’ terminology fits the
spiritual “originator” and “perfecter” that is conveyed by the rest of the document, whereas in Tertullian, there is no doubt that what he means by “founder” is a human historical one. What stops us from thinking he believed his founder was a mythical being is (a) having other writings by Tertullian which present that founder as a human being on earth, as well as (b) a reading of the very passage itself, which would never suggest that the Christian founder was something categorically different from the other founders he refers to: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristarchus. He speaks of the founder’s “character,” the idea of a founder’s “school,” at which he mentions Socrates.
Don suggests other examples of Tertullian ‘concealing’ something about Jesus. In I, 3, in the context of lamenting that pagans judicially condemn Christians not for their actions but simply for bearing their name, Tertullian says:
This is hardly a case of Tertullian ‘concealing’ the name of the founder Christ. Rather, he is playing up the word’s root as a demonstration of how the name itself is harmless, an idea he supports by pointing to a similar harmless meaning—in fact, a pleasant one—entailed in the pagans’ faulty pronunciation of it. Giving the name of the founder would not have served Tertullian’s purpose here; he is not “hiding” it.
Elsewhere, Don thinks to make a comparison with Theophilus' similar remarks in
To Autolycus [I, 12]. In response to some disparagement by Autolycus (not quoted), Theophilus says, "Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." But here Theophilus is
defining the meaning of the term in regard to his faith, and it does not include any reference to "Christ"; nor is there anywhere else in that writer a counter-balancing reference to such a figure or to an alternate or additional meaning for the name. The situation in Tertullian has been shown to be quite different, in that he is not
defining it, but rather taking advantage, for his argument’s sake, of a more basic meaning in its semantic root. There is no question of misrepresentation or concealment here as there would have to be in Theophilus, who presents a
definition of his faith’s use of the name "Christian" solely in terms of anointing. Don’s comparison here fails miserably.
He calls attention to other passages in which Tertullian refers to the “name,” claiming further examples of concealment. In Bk. I, ch. 7:
Remember that Tertullian has been speaking of the Christians being persecuted solely on the basis of their name, not their alleged activities. The last sentence in the above quote shows that he using the term—“this name of ours”—to refer to the Christian
movement, the “life” of that faith. This is not an avoidance of the name of the man who supposedly gave rise to it, which is irrelevant to Tertullian’s discussion. Continuing that language is in keeping with the first introduction of the term “name” in ch. 4.
Why he says it took its rise at the time of Augustus we don’t know, but perhaps Tertullian perceived that certain roots lay prior to his supposed founder, in messianic agitation which he may have seen embodied in someone like Judas the Galilean. And the “name” itself could precede Christ because he saw the movement as rooted in that Messiah/“Anointed” expectation, which is the aspect of meaning he has been focusing on. Why not mention Jesus himself in the reference to the time of Tiberius, when the movement was taught publicly? Yes, he could have done so, but again, his focus is on the content of that “name”/movement, the latter illustrated by his subsequent terms of “institution,” with “this (institution) of ours” remaining in existence. The absence of a specific reference to Jesus here is hardly a slam-dunk case of concealing the man, or hiding the incarnation, much less a denial of them.
Don also sees it as an avoidance of Jesus in Bk. II, ch. 2:
Why not, Don asks, quote the “founder” himself? “Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to promote, or at least rehabilitate, Jesus in the eyes of the pagans by demonstrating the wisdom of Christianity's founder?” But this is to ignore the context. Tertullian has been criticizing the pagans for traditionally failing to discover God and his nature, for their inconsistent philosophy and incompatible portrayals of him. His counter is to quote Solomon, not because Solomon was preferable to Jesus or in order to conceal the latter, but because Solomon was attributed with the oracle that Tertullian wishes to put forward. The pagans unsuccessfully sought wisdom about God, but Solomon had cut to the real truth: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Solomon had the sound bite Tertullian wanted; avoiding Jesus had nothing to do with it. There are no parallels here to the second century apologists.
Don simply does not pay enough attention to context. Like the atomist I have labelled him, he seizes on some piece of the text and makes of it what he would like it to be, investing it with the significance he is looking for, usually with little or no justification.
Don searches for parallels between criticisms made by Tertullian concerning pagan mythology and those made by earlier apologists such as Minucius Felix, in both cases with no allowance made for allegedly similar situations in the Christian faith. But closer examination reveals that things are not so clear-cut. Take this line from II, 7:
The context is that pagans themselves state that the gods of the poets were originally men and only made into gods after their deaths. Tertullian rightly takes this as an admission that before their deaths they were simply humans. No Christian would have presented Jesus in this way, and thus there was no need for a qualification in regard to Christian faith; the parallel was not there. Tertullian’s jibe is hardly equivalent to the stark ridicule of Minucius Felix’s “Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die.” Or Theophilus’ ridiculing of pagans for believing that Hercules and Asclepius were raised from the dead.
Or this (II, 12):
This is in the context of a discussion of what amounts to euhemerism. In other words, a given admission that these divine figures are acknowledged to have been mortal before they were turned into gods. Again, no such assumption was made of Jesus as far as Christians were concerned.
Tertullian may indeed have been flirting with statements which to some might seem uncomfortably reminiscent of Christian parallels, but again, his context is not that of a declaration and defense of the faith and a need to protect every aspect of it from potential attack. In
Ad Nationes his primary concern is to defend the integrity of Christians themselves and the superiority of their way of life, and condemn their persecution. And it remains the case that we cannot doubt that Tertullian believed in an historical Jesus.
But the following is quite unconscionable:
Quote:
|
It is worth emphasizing that Ad nations is not an individual case. There are other Second Century writers who even Doherty acknowledges as historicists that also give no details about a historical Jesus. (See my website articles at the link above.) None of those particular writings are evaluated in JNGNM.
|
And just who are these writers (in the plural, even)? Don doesn’t even give us a “such as…”! I don’t know who would fall into such a category—second century writers I do not address who are acknowledged (by whom, incidentally?) as historicists who give no details about an HJ. And
Ad Nationes is not, as I repeatedly state, a second century writing.
If I pulled something like that, I’d never hear the end of it!
(continued below)
Earl Doherty
02-07-2011, 05:44 AM
