youngalexander

What disturbs me about this whole debate are the leaps of faith/logic which occur. Science is great because if we lack evidence then it is (for the most part) simply a matter of going out and getting more. With history & ancient history in particular we are stuck with a finite and for the most part limited set.
It is therefore imperative that we stick to the facts. The major fact here is that MF does not mention a HJ. The remainder is speculation. Do we know that MF was familiar with Lucian or Celsus or claims about a HJ? No, we do not. Is this possible? Yes, of course, but we do not know. Communications were not so flash in those days. We need to assign a probability. You say "most unlikely that Minucius Felix had never heard of such narratives." Based upon what evidence?

OK, I may have misunderstood the precise point. However, what I was objecting to, and do so again, is the "almost certainly knew". The fact is that all we have is MFs writings. We can only judge what he did or did not know from them. The remainder is speculation, and in my judgement highly dubious.

Amaleq13

I'm in no hurry. I would be happy to have them addressed in your response to Doherty.

Sorry, I have enough trouble making time for my mod duties and school will be starting soon so my time will be even more limited. Besides, I would rather someone more solidly in the Doherty camp like Ted Hoffman take it up.

Is the respondent supposed to pretend that he didn't write anything else?

I think Doherty does a sufficient job dismissing your attempt to use Ad nationes as an argument against him.

1. Tertullian makes no comments on a HJ or Gospels. Surely this suggests that he doesn't know of any?

I agree with Doherty that his references to the "founder" is sufficient to suggest a human on earth especially given the comparisons to other earthbound human founders.

2. Tertullian discusses resurrection of the dead without referring, or even hinting, that the resurrection of the founder was a central part of his beliefs. Remember, Tertullian has stated that the pagans know nothing about the founder!

As Doherty points out, "Ad Nationes is in no way a defense of the Christian faith" but Tertullian also states that "we take for granted a resurrection of the dead" which suggests that the reason this is taken for granted is known. Do you really think creating a considerably weak argument from silence has any impact on the far more compelling examples Doherty offers?

3. Tertullian writes "Others.. suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? ... you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us" Far from setting pagans straight on the God of the Christians, Tertullian gives the appearance of agreeing! How can an orthodox Christian not at least even try to correct pagans on this, unless a HJ wasn't at the core of his beliefs?

This seems to me to be a misreading of Tertullian. He appears to be saying that different religions choose different days as being special and that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what is being worshipped.

4. He dismissively states that pagans "form a virgin from Diana" without any qualification that Christians haven't done the same.

Tertullian is talking about attributing such things to divine entitites. Mary wasn't a goddess to whom virginity was attributed so I don't understand why a mention of her would be relevant or expected.

5. He refers to crucifixion as a fitting punishment for "murderers" and "incestuous criminals", without any hint of embarrassment on how this reflects on the founder.

Tertullian is talking about taking the name of “Christian” being considered a crime like being called a “murderer” or “incestuous criminal” and he goes on to specify the ways such criminals might be punished. Your logic here is quite tortured and I see no reason to think that Tertullian or his opponents would share it. That murderers and incestuous criminals could be crucified (IUC, it is really only the former who qualified), that doesn’t require or even suggest that only murderers or incestuous criminal could be crucified.

6. Tertullian writes: "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? Now what is there strange in the fact, that they who were once men are subject to the dishonour of human casualties, or crimes, or fables?" How can an orthodox Christian refer to the folly of men being made into gods after their deaths, without even trying to point out that Christ was more than a mere man?

Since this discussion occurs in a general argument against all non-Christian notions of god, it seems obvious to me that Tertullian is implicitly contrasting everything he denounces with what is believed by Christians. The fact that he denigrates the worship of these mythic heroes when they were “merely human” while alive seems to imply that the living founder, if subsequently worshipped, was considered by Christians to have been something other than “merely human”.

As far as I’m concerned all six of these fail in terms of making an argument for Tertullian as a non-HJer. Instead, I would assume the opposite to be more likely since he believed Christianity had a human founder from whom the name was obtained and considered it foolish to worship a mere human after their death as a god.

IMO they also fail as an attempt to mimic Doherty’s actual examples.

Roger Pearse

These are sound points, and show the weakness of the method. Arguing disbelief in an argument only manufactured ca. 1700 from the silence of authors writing ca. 200 seems a very odd thing to do.

Any argument must base itself on positive evidence, and I have been unable to see any for Mr. Doherty's thesis. Rather the general approach -- to debunk any evidence that shows belief, and then argue that silence proves *his* theory -- is the same method used to 'prove' a hundred other crank theories.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

No offense intended but have you actually read Doherty's book or at least his website? Or are you only familiar with him through critiques? I ask because his thesis clearly is not just an argument from silence and the approach you describe is not his thesis. He offers plenty of positive evidence but that doesn't tend to attract as much attention from his opponents though, IMO, it is much more compelling.

youngalexander

I think that GDon was addressing a wider audience when he quoted my rebuke of andrewcriddle re MF. There have certainly been a series of responses, and I do not want to repeat the same points, but I shall stick my penny farthings worth in as well.

In the first place Doherty has already stated in his Response:
“and this makes all the difference in the world�, and so it does. You are arguing that if one christian writer T could produce works like this, then another (perhaps earlier) writer MF could/would have done so as well. Could I accept, would not at all. The question is, what is the probability of this proposition? That depends primarily upon the writings of MF. Does your argument concerning T increase that probability? Perhaps, but it requires an assessment of their relative dates, content and purpose of the writing, background, other contemporary apologists, etc.

That MF may have writen as per T in Ad Nationes is a possibility, but no more. That the aplogists referenced by Doherty all did, and that these are the only works of theirs to survive is rather less likely.

In the second place there is “all the difference in the world� between T and MF on this. We know that T is being coy, for “whatever reason�. We do not know that of MF. You are making a case that it may be so. So it may be. Again it is an assessment of probabilities. I assess them as rather low.

Steven Carr

What positive evidence do you have that Doherty never gives any positive evidence?

Of course Doherty does, even in his response to Gasukei Don, which is why you have to pretend otherwise.

As for your bizarre claim that Doherty only uses authors writing c. 200, this just shows why your posts are not to be taken as objective.

Toto

Mod advisory

Let's keep things civil and stick to the issues.

Steven Carr

What did Gakusei mean when he wrote 'Finally, from the evidence that we do have, it appears the MJ writers were praised for their contributions, to the point that the anti-heresy writer Tertullian was inspired by one of the MJ writers when constructing his own apology.'

What did Felix mean when he wrote 'Moreover, a false flattery disgracefully caresses princes and kings, not as great and chosen men, as is just, but as gods; whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man.'

Men should get honour and love, but calling them gods is false flattery. Is this a fair reading?

andrewcriddle

One problem with regarding Minucius Felix as a mythicist in Doherty's sense is his thorough-going stoicism. (I'll post detailed evidence of the centrality of Stoic ideas in Minucius Felix if anyone really wants but IMO it's pretty obvious).

There is no trace in his work of the Platonic idea of a spiritual realm of which our world is an image, his treatment of the Pagan Gods is thorough-going Euhemerism (The stories are either outright lies or based on the exploits of dead humans).

There is no trace of an attempt to explain things as having really happened in a spiritual realm in the way that some have understood Plutarch. Whatever Minucius Felix really believed about Jesus it is most unlikely to be "Yes this really happened but in a spiritual realm not here on Earth."

As to what Minucius Felix did believe I don't think the evidence is there to prove any answer, however, I think it is quite possible that he was in intention orthodox but theologically unsophisticated.

Since Minucius Felix appears to be carefully avoiding making explicit his positive beliefs about Christ it seems IMHO quite possible that although he indignantly and sincererely repudiates the idea that Christians worship a crucified human criminal, he would find it hard to spell out his real position in detail in a way that would make clear to a sceptical reader how it differs from this offensive allegation.

(From my own experience many Christians today who unhesitatingly believe in a Historical Jesus would a/ Find the claim that they worship a human put to death by crucifixion after conviction on major criminal charges deeply offensive and b/ Find it difficult to make clear to a hostile critic why this is wrong, without seeming to deny the real humanity of Jesus in which they also believe.)



Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

And this might result in his stating that no earthly being could ever be considered a god even though he actually believed that Jesus was god or at least the divine Son "made flesh" and, thus, technically an earthly being? I agree that it takes a great deal of theological sophistication to attempt to "explain" the, IMO, incoherent doctrine of incarnation.

I think your observations about his apparent Stoic views are interesting and I hope that Doherty finds time to address them.

I would think they would consider "a" to result from ignorance of the Gospel story and I think "b" would be quite easily addressed by explaining that Jesus was framed by the Jewish leaders. As I suggested above, I do find Christians to generally have a difficult time explaining the incarnation beyond asserting that Jesus was "somehow" both God and man. It is my experience that it is a concept that is usually placed in the category of "Not meant to be understood (ie explicable in human terms) but to be believed on faith".