spamandham

Be careful now. Although the word 'crucify' certainly could refer to Roman style crucifixion, it was not used exclusively to mean that. More generally, it was also used simply to refer to persecution and humiliation.

Gal 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 3:10
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Gal 5:24
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Gal 6:14
But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

With this in mind, try reading Isaiah 53 and see where the word 'crucify' could legitimately be substituted.

Isaiah 53:3-5

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised {crucified}, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he [was] wounded {crucified} for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

EarlDoherty

I forgot to add a remark last night on Rick's business about 2 Peter:

This a pretty big "if". In fact it renders the whole of the above no argument at all, just an exercise in wishful thinking. I have had extensive debates before on 2 Peter (can't recall if it was Rick here), and they centered on the dissenting argument that the so-called Transfiguration scene in chapter 1 is dependent on the Gospels. That is by no means clearly demonstrable, and I demonstrated that, along with several features that would indicate that it was not based on the Gospel scene.

If anyone wants to review the case for my position on this document, please see my website Article No. 7: Transfigured on the Holy Mountain, beginning partway in at the heading "A Second Century Silence."

I think Kevin brought up 2 Peter as well? If so, this will serve as my response to him.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

In looking back over this thread, I encountered the following by Kevin:

Since Kevin has made me feel somewhat guilty about not answering every challenge he makes, I will answer this quite simply. First, this quote from my "Second Century Apologists Article":

Here Kevin has misunderstood me. My "such writers" must refer to a recent antecedent, not something somewhere in the background air. That antecedent is "evangelist" or "John". Besides, there was no reason for him to take it as OT writers, that would have made no sense of that last sentence. He has gone off on a wild goose chase asking for the missing text of an OT writer who referred to the Logos. (I really think that dissenters ought to make a better effort to understand what I say, and not by rushing to judgment that I've made some mistake they'd like to see.)

He has perhaps also misinterpreted my reference to "interpolation". It is only the name "John" that I suggested could have been an interpolation. Theophilus could still be referring to that gospel, but before any authorial attribution had been assigned to it.

My thought is the same as what I applied to Tatian, who dismissed what is clearly a reference to the gospels he knew as "stories" on the level of Greek myths. Even if the reference to John is to the entire Gospel, my point was that he was treating that Gospel the same way as Tatian, something not to be regarded as historical fact. The evangelists, in such a context, could have been "inspired men", just not witnesses to an HJ, the latter being very well demonstrated by his appeal to nothing in those Gospels to support such an idea.

In regard to that, I'll throw in the following paragraph of the article, just for fun.

Earl Doherty

Solo

I think you took the wrong meaning of "grasp". It was not meant in the sense of "comprehend".

My reading of this is that although JC was of the form and equal to God, he did not consider himself above any of God's creation, and to make that point (which still escapes many) he "emptied himself" of that form and took on one of a humble servant "in flesh" (who had the appearance of a sinner).

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Have you reached the bit where Veyne is somewhat disparaging about people who disbelieve in a historical Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to offer my response to your assessment of Paul's "gospel"--it could be as long as a week--but I wanted to draw the reader's attention to this post. I invite any reader diligent enough to take a look at what the content of my post was, and then to reflect upon your response, to see a truly monumental case of thoroughly missing the point.

Do you even read things you respond to? I'm asking in all sincerity, because it seems quite obvious here that you did not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

PS
As an aside, your article doesn't address the case I made, which means it doesn't address Michael's either (it's one of the rare moments we agree. Our position is that the transfiguration is identifiably Markan in origin--anyone who knows it knows Mark). But that's really an aside, and has nothing to do with the post you were addressing.

krosero

Just a quick note here: there is a certain advantage to keeping Paul in mid-first century. Vork, you said in another post that you doubt the heresiologists knew anything about the origins of their faith. But if Paul is pushed into the second century, it becomes that much more difficult to argue that they knew nothing about how Christ-belief began. Worse, it's not so much that we're expecting the heresiologists to have a good account of what had taken place at the beginning. Our question is, why do they know nothing of a theology (Doherty's) that may still be taking place in their own time?

Push Paul up to, let's say, Marcion's time. Then what about Doherty's remaining MJ epistles? Are they created at the same time? Or are they pushed even later? I'm not asking for details of what this theory might be: I'm just saying that the problem Doherty currently faces becomes worse the more you push up the date of Paul's epistles and all the other MJ documents. How long did this religion last, if it first appeared in the first half of the second century? There are only a few decades remaining before the first comprehensive works of the heresiologists -- a few decades for this religion to arise, spread, and die without leaving a memory.

So there's a certain logic, for Doherty's theory, in having the sublunar theology begin in the mid-first century and having it die as quickly as possible.

As far as I know, the apologists (aka, Doherty's Logos Christians) were not attacked for believing, heretically, that Jesus Christ was not a real figure to be worshipped. Doherty's evidence for what the apologists believed and didn't believe is entirely internal, and his theory presupposes that the external evidence says the opposite because these men were all misinterpreted as orthodox.

I've tried briefly to sum up the external evidence on the apologists, in the list below, but I'm sure there's more. Doherty's apologists are marked in bold.

The Epistle to Diognetus is not mentioned by anyone in antiquity.

Felix is said by Jerome to have been an advocate in Rome prior to his conversion (and he is mentioned by Lactantius). Doherty believes that Tertullian used Felix’s Octavius and regarded it as orthodox. Some borrowing, by wide agreement, seems to have occurred between Tertullian and Felix (who were probably contemporaries), though Doherty disagrees with those who argue that Felix borrowed from Tertullian (this possibility would have Felix, who scorned HJ Christianity in Doherty's model, borrowing from an unambiguously HJ Christian).

Athenagoras is mentioned in a sketch in the Christian History of Philip of Side (c. 430), who referred to him as a heathen who was converted by reading the Scriptures in order to controvert them. Donaldson says that the only other reference to Athenagoras or his writings is Methodius in his “On the Resurrection of the Body,” as preserved by Epiphanius (Hoer., 64) and Photius (Biblioth., 234). Donaldson finds it remarkable that Eusebius should have been silent about such an elegant and learned author. With regard to Athenagoras' defense of Christianity, Richard Carrier writes: "... the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it."

Tatian is mentioned by Irenaeus in Adversus Heraeses, Book 1, ch. 28. Tatian’s claim that Adam would not be saved is treated by Irenaeus in Book 3, ch. 23. Tatian is also mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hieron, and Archelaus; see these Fragments.

Theophilus is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. Eusebius tells us that Theophilus was bishop of Antioch and that he composed a work against the heresy of Hermogenes, another against Marcion, and a few other books of instruction and edification. Jerome mentions commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospel.

Kevin Rosero

krosero

Earl -- I can respect when someone says that they're short on time. You have no time for a big debate. That's one thing. But you had time enough to make specific statements here, and I found a specific problem with those statements. Yet you have no time even to acknowledge the specific problem, merely because you've debated the general topic before? When I say that I cannot find where you have addressed this specific problem, you do not even have time to show me where you've done so -- but you do take the time to link back to your general essays on the topic? Of course this doesn't wash.

I have read your article many times. I find nothing in it which addresses the apparent references by Athenagoras and the author of Diognetus to Paul and 1 Corinthians. (THAT is the specific problem I'm raising, not the general question of how much influence Paul's theology had on the second century; I can't believe there would be any confusion about this, but you never know). Nor do I find you addressing it in Part I or Part II of your debate with Don, who brought up the same problem here. You did not address it then, yet here you are again pointing to that debate as if it contains the answer.

And you've repeated once again that you won't debate the apologists, when, as I said, there was a lot more you could have addressed in my post; barely a chunk of my post to you was about the apologists.

Yet after all that, I see that in your last post you're now responding to what I said (in a post addressed to Rick) about Theophilus. So now you're debating the apologists, and telling us where you've addressed Theophilus before -- which is all I asked from you with regard to Paul and the apologists.

This is an important issue. This was Richard Carrier's opinion about Athenagoras: "The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul."

Now, while you've always acknowledged that the apologists show some awareness of the Gospels, look at what you've had to say about their awareness of Paul.

From the general essay on your website:

How does this cohere with two apologists quoting unique phrases found in 1 Corinthians, extolling the author as "the apostle" (a common orthodox phrase for Paul), and using him as support for their own arguments?

From your debate with Don:

Right, you've said before that Tatian and Felix are aware of HJ worship and even the Gospels. I think you have Tatian believing in the Gospels allegorically.

But what about Athenagoras and the author of Diognetus? AFAIK you've never put them down as allegorical interpreters of the Gospels, so I don't know how they would fit in your statement above.

What would they make of Paul? This is what you told Don in your debate:

So what's your answer here?

I did not bring it up.

Kevin Rosero

krosero

No, I was not thinking that you proposed an OT author for the Logos hymn. See above in this post: I clearly said it was "a non-biblical author" we were looking for. The idea that you were attributing the Logos hymn to an OT author never entered my mind. When I said it could not be in the OT, I was crossing off the possible locations as if on a list.

Yes, both in my post and in my essay I was very clear that you're suggesting a possible interpolation for the name of "John." I've presumed, to give the benefit of the doubt, that you were not arguing for a more extensive interpolation. I presume that, for you, Theophilus' reference to "spirit-bearing men" was genuinely written by him. Now you confirmed that you only argue for "John" as a gloss. So as I asked you above, who are the "spirit-bearing men" that Theophilus refers to?

To be clear, I'm not demanding a positive identification of who wrote the Logos hymn. If it was written by someone other than John, then the unknown author is an extra entity – in all models. What I’m trying to get at is that I have always understood that to create your non-HJ, Logos-religion for the apologists, all you have to do is take away the NT; then you’re left with the OT as the sacred texts of your apologists. But do you also believe that they held other texts as inspired (e.g., Logos-centered texts which defined what you called their “Logos religion”), and that these texts are now lost?

That would not be a wild opinion, since many texts from antiquity are lost. I just want to know what your opinion is.

Okay, I didn’t know you put Theophilus in with Tatian as regarding the Gospel Jesus as allegory. So at least we've got that cleared up.

Kevin Rosero

EarlDoherty

I’ve decided to respond at some length to Kevin (and by extension people like Don) on the 2nd century apologists because there is a major consideration being overlooked here and I think it’s worth laying it out.

The HJers are concerned (or ought to be) and need to explain the silence on an HJ in Theophilus and other apologists. They are also concerned (or ought to be) by the silence in Paul. So what do they do with those two perplexing silences? Somehow they are used in combination to eradicate both of them. 0 + 0 = 2. (I’ve called this procedure New Testament math.) I am reminded of more than one commentator who dismissed the silence on something like Jesus as a teacher in a certain epistle by saying, well, that’s what we find in all the epistles, so that was somehow the norm; so we don’t need to worry about it. Of course, they fail to take the rational next step and ask, but why was this the norm?

So how do you eliminate these two perplexities in someone like Theophilus and in Paul? You choose the later one and try to find secondary indications that he could have known of, and presumably accepted, an HJ (and very often you turn it into a must have). Note that this does not explain the perplexity. We are still left wondering how the apologist could have presented his writings with all those silences and a totally misleading description of the faith. But the claim that he could/must have known an HJ dismisses all that as irrelevant. And by extension, you draw the corollary that if someone like Theophilus could/must have known about an HJ yet wrote so perplexingly, then the same goes for Paul, and neither need to be worried about. 0 + 0 = 2.

Now, it would be one thing if those secondary indicators were conclusive, or if there were no other available, and sensible, and even externally corroborating explanation for them. But this is not the case, on either count. Those indicators (they could be called “straws”, in the sense of “grasping at”) are not conclusive, and there are other explanations. Instead of letting the texts speak for themselves, especially in conjunction with other texts, you latch onto those straws and think that they’ve broken the back of all those perplexing writings, including the 1st century epistles. The consistent content (i.e,. no Gospel background evident—if not excluded—in the minds of the writers) of an entire record of early Christianity is somehow to be discredited because you raise arguments about what a certain writer could or should have known, even if this is not borne out in his text. If anything should be set aside as irrelevant, or at least as of far less force in deciding this issue, it is those secondary indicators.

I hope you can get some inkling of the invalidity of your approach, a typically—OK, I won’t call it apologetic, let’s say traditional scholarly—approach. Having stated this overall principle, we can now go into the things which are regularly raised by you and others like Don about the second century apologists.

Let’s start with a couple of the simpler examples. The first relates to the dating of Minucius Felix. Scholars have long debated which came first, Felix or Tertullian’s Apology, since the two are obviously related. I have yet to see any knockdown argument for assuming Felix copied from Tertullian which trumps considerations in the texts themselves. Namely, that Felix would have cut out not only a huge amount of Tertullian, but every single one of Tertullian’s references to an historical Jesus and the Gospels. Why would he do this? What purpose would such an excision serve if Felix were writing in the early or mid 3rd century, later than Tertullian? By this time, no one else was suppressing the HJ as something not acceptable to pagan audiences (the usual rationalization by scholars on the HJ silence in 2nd century apologists, even assuming that such a motivation made any sense, which I have argued it would not have). Furthermore, why would he insert into the Tertullian base all those problematic passages we’ve long debated, mocking and rejecting the worship of a crucified man, the Christian’s condemnation of the pagan for “bewailing what you worship”, or the idea that “gods are born today, if such have ever been born,” or the idea of a god begetting a son. What about “Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born become gods.”

None of that makes sense in the mouth of a HJ Christian, especially without the slightest qualification on behalf of these very things in Felix’s own supposed faith. Such a picture defies logic, a logic based in the texts themselves. It justifies us in rejecting any secondary argument, none of which are conclusive, that Minucius Felix is derived from and later than Tertullian. No one on this board has offered any workable rebuttal to those problematic passages in Felix which render that text a smoking gun, and that includes Don.

The same goes for Tatian. In his Apology there is no mention of an HJ, an incarnation, an atonement through sacrificial crucifixion by any figure, mythical or historical. There is a clear implication of knowledge of but relegation of written pieces we can identify with some form of Gospel to the status of something equivalent to Greek mythological “stories.” Beside this clear reading of the text, of what it says and what it doesn’t say, someone like Don laments, But Tatian was a pupil of Justin! How could he not have believed everything that Jesus believed? Not only is that hardly any kind of reasonable argument t, the very statement is based on comment by Irenaeus perhaps 20 years after both Justin and Tatian departed the scene. And the fact that Tatian later wrote a harmony of the four Gospels after he had left Justin’s company and returned to the East (a work we don’t have, and which left out a lot of canonical passages—allegedly because they didn’t fit Tatian’s new ‘heretical’ philosophy) is hardly conclusive as to what he “had” to believe a decade or two earlier. In other words, such arguments are extremely weak when set against the evidence of the text itself.

The very situation in Justin, his being the only one of the major apologists to support in his text a direct mention (beyond the negative one in Felix), let alone a belief in, an HJ while others were silent and even exclusionary, should lead us to see him as the odd man out in this respect, that he was bucking some of the currents in the writing of the 2nd century. This means that it would not be outlandish to suggest that Tatian, even as a ‘pupil’ of Justin (and what would this have entailed, anyway?—we don’t know), could disagree with or ignore his ‘teacher’s’ stance on the so-called “memoirs of the apostles.” All appeals to such secondary arguments in regard to Tatian are to be rejected in the face of the text itself.

You bring up Diognetus. First let me make clear that I did not say that some scholars have observed that there is no sign of a second century knowledge of Paul per se, or even of allusions to his letters or passages in them. This is obviously not the case, beginning as early as 1 Clement and Ignatius, assuming that they are authentic or authentically dated. That scholarly observation relates to Paul’s theology, and especially his “baptized into Christ” thinking. But I’m not sure what, in principle, is to be proved by the fact that a writer shows a knowledge of Paul or even alludes to his content. After all, there is no sign in Paul that he knew of or believed in the Jesus presented in the Gospels, or (I would maintain) even any HJ, so there are no grounds for claiming that a reputed reference to a Pauline passage is somehow evidence that such a writer believed in an HJ! That 0 + 0 = 2 type of math I mentioned earlier becomes a doubly circular exercise.

Note that I said “reputed.” There is not a single reference to “Paul” in the entire catalogue of the apologists we are speaking of. Kevin mentions two quotes from 1 Corinthians, attributed to “the apostle” which is a reference to Paul. I know of one, in Athenagoras’ Resurrection of the Dead 18. Unfortunately, the other is in the 12th chapter of Diognetus, which is generally acknowledged to be a later homily tacked on to the apology, of uncertain date and unknown authorship. (By the way, I made the general statement that the apologists show no sign of being “dependent upon” Paul. I hardly think one quote in Athenagoras disproves that statement, especially since it was surely clear that I meant in their presentation of their faith about the Son/Logos, with no atonement or sacrificial element present, they were not dependent on Paul.)

Now, this does not prevent scholars from seeing a great many other allusions to Paul in certain documents, specifically Diognetus and Theophilus. There may be legitimate echoes of Paul in Diognetus 5. Of those in Theophilus, which seem restricted to one passage in I, 14, only one is at all suggestive. Another is a quote from scripture, which is the way Paul presents it in 1 Cor., so Theophilus could be doing the same. The other bears only a most superficial comparison to Romans 2:8-9, with hardly a common word. The main one is close to Romans 2:7, but is this really Paul? Price says this about the very disjointed epistle that is Romans:

“The text from this point [1:18] through the end of chapter 2 must originally have formed an anonymous sermon preached in some Hellenistic synagogue and circulated among Jews of the Diaspora, as J. C. O’Neill suggests.” [Pre-Nicene NT, p.395, n.g]

Note that in Theophilus III,14, the two quotes are introduced as “the divine word gives us instructions”. Is Paul for Theophilus “the divine word”. The one allegedly an echo of Romans is extremely general, the other is from 1 Timothy 2:2, a pseudonymous work which could well have drawn on the same ‘divine’ source that Theophilus did.

In any case, this is all moot. I went into detail here to demonstrate just how sparse and inconsequential this sort of thing is as any kind of argument against the mythicist interpretation of the apologists, and in any event has absolutely nothing to do with whether those apologists believed in an HJ despite their texts, since Paul himself shows no sign of such a figure in his own pantheon.

Kevin’s second claim about Theophilus is that he knows at least the Gospel of John and, presumably, this would indicate a knowledge of the Gospels generally. First, since John is the only Gospel he comes anywhere near to showing a knowledge of, this is anything but justified. Second, Theophilus’ sole quote is not from the body of the Gospel but from the Logos Prologue, and solely confined to the nature of the Logos, not in that quote linked in any way with an HJ. In fact, it is conspicuous by its absence. Theophilus makes this quote as part of his definition and discussion of the Logos. One would think that here, if anywhere, he would be drawn into referring to the historical man who had been the incarnation of the Logos. Yet he remains silent. In fact, he is more than silent. Read through this chapter. He explains why God could be said to be in some specific place (a philosophical no-no). How? Because his “Word” assumed his person and it was the Word that walked in Eden and conversed with Adam. Why not then anywhere say that this Word assumed flesh and lived on earth? Further, this Word of God “is also His Son…Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God.” This is virtually a denial of any incarnation. And to reject it as having anything to do with “begotten” in an earthly sense and not think that this would require a qualification to explain the very earthly “begetting” from Mary, has to rule out any belief on Theophilus’ part of an incarnation to an HJ, if we let even a chink of common sense enter into the discussion.

On the matter of the name “John” being attached to the “spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom…says,” the insertion of the name John is certainly feasible as the product of a later copyist who, reading this passage took the very natural and common step to offer the name of John, since to him it was obvious who Theophilus was referring to.

Since John is the Gospel most acknowledged to hve been put together in stages before reaching its canonical version, and is the most weakly attested to before the late 2nd century (with no MSS before the 3rd), this makes it all the more feasible that Theophilus is not working from the canonical John. In fact, we can’t clearly say that he is working from any stage of the Gospel but simply from a Logos hymn that ended up in some form (with the “dwelt among us” element) in the final Gospel. (That may already have happened, but Theophilus could still be working only from that separate component.) This is all the more likely, since he draws on no HJ element of the Prologue. But even if he knew of some form of Gospel, he could be treating it, as I said previously, not as history, but only a “story” as Tatian did. Here is a case of a reading of the implications in a text being corroborated by a reading of another.

Speaking of Tatian, and this Logos quote in Theophilus, Tatian in fact makes his own quote seemingly from the John Prologue: “All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made.” [Address, 19]. Yet how does he introduce it? Who is the “Him” here? In John, as he has adapted this Logos hymn, it is the Word, and the Word who became flesh as Jesus. Tatian says no such thing. “Do not abhor us who have made this attainment, but, repudiating the demons, follow the one God. All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made.” The Him clearly refers to God. So here we have clear evidence that some earlier form of this Logos-type passage was used by Tatian to refer not even to the Word as a “Son”, let alone a Jesus of Nazareth. At the very most, the “Word” for Tatian was so inextricably linked with the Father than he didn’t need to differentiate between the two. Does this speak of a man who believed in an HJ?

All of this demonstrates just how anemic are the contentions that we can override the texts of the apologists and impose other considerations on them. Isn’t it funny that in all these secondary arguments, there is nothing remotely conclusive, nothing unambiguous, to do the job. They are insignificant beside the force of the texts themselves, which offer their readers the “full story” of the Christian faith, never link (outside Justin) this Logos with its incarnation, never offer an Atonement, a sacrifice, a cross or resurrection as part of the faith, mocking central elements of the Christian scenario, telling bare-faced lies to the pagans and the emperor himself, all the while that other Christians (like Justin and Polycarp) are being martyred rather than deny that faith. To put it another way, you have no smoking guns to discredit the plain text of the 2nd century apologists.

Please don’t dig up Aristides and a couple of minor pieces (the former actually comes from Syria). You know I am talking about our major 5: Felix, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus. Even Justin gives evidence that at the time of his own conversion he had no concept of an HJ but a Logos faith similar to the rest (Trypho, ch.3 to the first part of ch.8). And as for Diognetus, this document does not speak of the Gospel Jesus, but only of a vague Logos/Son sent to earth, with no time, place or identity, and he includes an Atonement idea. But no death or resurrection are mentioned, despite the writer’s statement that this is in response to “close and careful inquiries” about the Christian religion.

Finally, I am going to float another point which I know is going to produce some screams of protest. Dissenters like Don try to make much of the late dating of Theophilus and Athenagoras. Pushing 180 is awfully late, they say, to assume that major writers like these still have no HJ. First of all, what witness do we have on the question prior to that date? Virtually nothing apart from Justin (maybe Tatian’s Diatessaron around 170?, if we can judge anything by a non-extant document) which witnesses to a widespread belief in an HJ, and virtually nothing in the way of extant MSS, canonical or otherwise. It’s hardly insignificant that it is only with Irenaeus after 180 that we first encounter references to the 4 Gospels, any named authors, a Catholic canon (not even encompassing what it did later) and an almost universal thereafter acknowledgement of the Gospel story and an historical account of Christian origins.

It is hardly infeasible, therefore, that Theophilus and Athenagoras could be a reflection of the last traces of the no-HJ crowd, or at least of those that rejected any HJ, fictional or otherwise, as an actual genesis and necessarily part of their faith. Athenagoras is “of Athens”, Theophilus “of Antioch”. Even if Ignatius several decades earlier promoted an HJ, and it was against considerable opposition, is no guarantee that Antioch soon heeded him and converted to such an outlook. The latter can be identified only from the mid 2nd century in Rome. (The Gospels themselves cannot be appealed to as witnesses, because we can't date them confidently, and we can't say how the evangelists regarded their work, as history or allegory? The wholesale midrash and refashioning of earlier sources even suggests the latter.)

However, there is another possibility. Are the datings of Athenagoras and Theophilus reliable? At this late hour, I can’t recall on what the dating of Theophilus is based; it doesn’t seem to be on the text itself (if I’m wrong, I know someone will correct me). Athenagoras has an opening salutation to certain emperors. But I don’t need to tell you that many are the scholarly doubts in regard to a slew of Christian writings that such openings or indicators in various epistles and other works are suspect. I’m not claiming that there is any specific evidence in that direction for A and T, just that reorienting anonymous treatises to place them in the mouths of known figures was quite common, and that attributions and traditions, including of dating, are notorious unreliable in the early Christian record. Like almost everything else in that record, the 180 dates of both those writers cannot be written in stone. Can we be sure that, even if they are by those figures, that they were not written earlier in their careers? Theophilus is thought to have died around 181. And when are they or their documents attested to afterwards? According to your own posting, Kevin, neither one of them is mentioned for almost 2 centuries! I don’t think we need to be reminded just how unreliable is the information provided by such as Eusebius about the earlier centuries, let alone of the state of documents written centuries before those who comment on them, or before the extant versions we have. As for later writers regarding certain earlier ones as “orthodox” (another common appeal), if scholars today can find ways to rationalize Felix, Athenagoras and Theophilus as “orthodox” even in the face of their texts, it should be no surprise, let alone any compelling argument, that ancient commentators could do the same.

In summary, against the content of the texts themselves, the dissenting ‘case’ against my reading of the 2nd century apologists has failed to make a dent. It has failed to grapple with the texts themselves beyond trying to discredit (very ineffectively) the plain reading of certain passages in Minucius Felix and Tatian’s “we too tell stories” passage. I have already engaged in lengthy argument on these in past threads. What I will not do is go over the same ground again. If you choose to raise the same arguments again, then I expect you also to quote what I said in response to them from those past threads.

And if Don once more raises his completely misguided comparisons with Tertullian, a later writer who definitely acknowledged an HJ throughout his writing, even if not in every sentence, I'm going to do my own screaming.

And I see that this has brought us fully round and back to the actual title of this thread, A Smoking Gun for Mythicism, even though it’s a different firearm, because I regard the 2nd century apologist situation as just that.

Earl Doherty