Ted Hoffman

Doherty on the Apostolic Fathers Part I

This article covers Doherty’s examination of the writings of the apostolic fathers at the turn of the second century and how they wrote about Christ/ the son. This is as appears in Doherty’s Supplementary Articles number 12: Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers at the Turn of the Second Century.

1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas

The Apostolic fathers are Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are considered to have had personal relations with the apostles to such an extent that their writings were influenced enough to be considered as reliable sources of apostolic teaching. They include the writer of Didache, (St.) Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, the writer of the epistle of Barnabas and some extra-canonical literature, like Shepherd of Hermas of the sub-Apostolic age.

The article focuses in 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas (and in the next article, epistle of Barnabas and Letters of Ignatius). Doherty is content to exclude The Odes of Solomon and the Didache about which he has argued for the absence of a Historical Jesus in Supplementary Article no. 4 and in his review of J.D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity respectively.

Doherty’s main argument is that these early writers believed in a son of God, NOT in anyone who was the son of God. He argues that these writers speak of a divine being very similar to the Jewish personified wisdom (in Proverbs, Sirach 24 and Odes of Solomon) and Logos in Greek philosophy (as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2-3).

As a prelude, Doherty first dispenses with the three passages in the epistles that mention Jesus in a manner that might be taken to mean Jesus was an earthly being: 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 (which speaks of "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"), 1 Timothy 6:13 (which mentions Pilate) and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (which is evocative of the Lords supper). Doherty, like other critical scholars, treats the first reference as an interpolation because the passage makes a clear allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem - an event which occurred after Paul's death. The pastorals are regarded as products of the second century so the second reference marks an early development in the historical Jesus tradition. About the last reference, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that he has received this information directly "from the Lord". Doherty notes that the last-supper is a sacred meal similar to those of the mystery cults and might therefore be relegated to the realms of myth since Paul got it via revelation.

Also mentioned is the ambiguous Galatians 1:19 reference and Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 1:14 which he also received "from the Lord" no doubt through personal revelation. Doherty adds that any other human-sounding references like sacrifice of blood, reference to Jesus as man (1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:15), do not make any link to a recent historical person or mention any place or event on earth.

He explains further that those features can be understood in light of the Platonic manner in which heavenly beings had material counterparts and a dualistic worldview that regarded the world as made of two parts: the flesh and the spirit. And that savior figures could descend to fleshly layers to die and resurrect thereby guaranteeing salvation to believers. Doherty draws a comparison between Paul’s Christ and Hellenistic savior figures such as Adonis, Attis and Mithras who are also "earthly sounding" yet they were placed in the Platonic upper realm of myth. Paul attributes the source of his knowledge to prophets including "Born of woman" in Galatians 4:4 and "of David’s stock" in Romans 1:3 and this is consistent to the general view that knowledge about Jesus was to be found in sacred writings. This idea that scripture is the source of knowledge concerning Christ is manifest in Hebrews and 1 Clement. Essentially, these preliminary arguments mark the first steps in sealing any cracks that might provide a foothold for historical Jesus tradition in the early first century. What remains is seeing how smooth Doherty can make this facade and whether the historical Jesus concept will slide down the hitherto rugged wall to fall with a thud far below. We can see its grip slipping...

Doherty, being well aware of the questions regarding authenticity and dating of the writings states that their dating, authorship and authenticity are not crucial to his argument.

The epistle 1 Clement

Before we examine Doherty’s treatment, lets get a little background information.

Clemens Romanus, is a celebrated name of Christian antiquity yet its a figure that has been shrouded in myth that gleaning clear historical facts about him is almost as difficult as getting historical facts about Jesus.

Irenaeus places him third from Peter (Petrus, Linus, Anencletus, Clemens) Haer.,III,3,3. Eusebius does the same in Chronicle and Church History, III. 13,15. Jerome and Epiphanius, in De Vir. Ill., 10 and Haer., XXVII. 6 respectively except they place Cletus as the second bishop after as Cletus, not Anencletus. Other different succession sequences are found in Chronicle of Hippolyte where we have: Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus; in the Felician Catalogue, which is a combination of the Leonian and Liberian Catalogues use Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anencletus. Carmen adv, Marcione, the pseudo-Tertullian places both Cletus and Anencletus before Clement. And the list goes on. This and more information is available at www.earlychurch.org.uk.

Who was Clement?

Epiphanius, Eusebius and Jerome identify him as Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. 4:3 in Haer., XXVII. 6, Hist. Eccl., III. 15 and De Vir. III. respectively. Origen in Joann. 1. 29 identifies him in the same way too. Irenaeus (l.c.) makes him a pupil of an apostle. Clementine literature make him Peter's most intimate pupil which is consistent with his Judeo-Christian character. The Clement mentioned by Paul is believed to have been a Phillipian. Clementine literature indicate that Clement was related to an imperial family, most likely the Flavian family. Assuming Flavius Clemens, who was sentenced to death by Domitian for Atheism (the then pagan designation of Christianity) then we have two christians by the same name, one a presbyter or bishop, the other a consul/martyr. So who exactly was Clement? It's evident that Flavius Clemens Christianity and martyrdom are assumed. Eusebius and Jerome wrote that Clement died a natural death in Trajan's third year of rule. Irenaeus mentions Telesphorus as the first martyr among the Roman bishops. [1]

Thus, Clement's real identity is unclear.

1 Clement is an official letter from the Roman Congregation to the Corinthian, arising from some disagreements which had arisen in Corinth. It bears no authors name and is written in the name of the whole congregation. Ancient witnesses, notably, Dionysus, Bishop of Corinth, wrote in a letter to Bishop Soter of Rome, circa 170, about the epistle Clement wrote that was read loud to Dionysus' congregation (Eusebius: Hist. Eccl., IV 23).
Clemens Alexandrinus quotes from it and designates its author as an apostle.
So, very little is known about Clement and therefore questions arise about its authenticity and dating.

As as aside, the Dutch Radicals, specifically Loman, doubt its authenticity because among them: (1) its massive size contradicts the idea that its a real letter. (2) The author does not tackle the actual reason for writing the letter before chapter 44 - designating it as a letter appears to be a pious tract on the subject. (3) The conflict described is bare of any inner probability because its unlikely that an ancient and firmly settled community could oppose its Presbyters because of a few ringleaders. (4) Paul and Peter's peaceful side by side indicates later times. (5) Parts that presuppose antagonism between laymen and priests indicate later period.

Doherty starts by mentioning that traditional mainstream scholarship date Clement to 90s of the first century and sometimes to the year after Domitian's death in 96. This dating is based on the enigmatic "the sudden and repeated calamities which have befallen us" which is assumed to refer to the persecution of Christians under Domitian in the late years of his reign. Nevertheless, evidence for this persecution is scant. Doherty uses a tentative date of 90 to 110 for the epistle.

What was the nature of the Christian community in Rome which Clement belonged to? Was the author steeped in knowledge of a historical Jesus? Doherty addresses these questions as he scratches the surface of the epistle. The tone of the writer, as R. M. Grant points out in The Apostolic Fathers, is Greek and stoic and as Doherty adds, of Hellenistic Judaism. Doherty admits that elements of the letter may show the author embraced a historical Jesus but such an idea is completely overrun by the main focus of Clement on God the father, his mercy, wishes, commandments and his goodness.

Doherty writes:
"Clements emotions, his love and respect, are almost entirely given to God, not to the figure of Christ. The name 'Jesus' is never used by itself, but only in conjunction with 'Christ' or 'Lord' and usually as part of the phrase 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' or a variant. When a single name is used, it is always 'Christ'. When Clement focuses on Christ, he says things like (7:4), 'Let us fix our gaze on the blood of Christ, and let us know that it is precious to his father, because it was poured out for our salvation and brought the grace of repentance to all the world...’ The largely abstract, even formal way that the writer deals with the figure of Jesus, taken together with the vast silence on almost every aspect of an earthly career, does not speak to the memory of a vital historical figure in their recent past to whom believers feel a close personal and human bond"

In a speech evocative of Hebrews, Clement says (36): "...even Jesus Christ, the High Priest by whom our gifts are offered, and the protector by whom our feebleness is aided...through him we can look up to the highest and see, as in a glass, the peerless perfection of the face of God". Thus Clement sees Christ as a spiritual being who is an intermediary between mankind and God - one who is a revealer and an agent of redemption.

Doherty proceeds to provide a catena of Clementine quotations including 46:6-7, 58:2 which affirm the idea that Clements community believed that all inhabit the same celestial and spiritual sphere, and share the same nature. Christ is not a past personality, but a present power, whose presence and influence is pervasive among those that have the same calling in Christ. The community of believers represents the body of Christ.
Clement asks the dissenters:
"Have we not all the same God, and the same Christ? Is not the same Spirit of grace shed upon us all? Have we not all the same calling in Christ? Then why are we rending and tearing asunder the limbs of Christ, and fomenting discord against our won body?"

The promises in the scripture, their meaning and fulfillment, are spoken to the community when they believe in Christ. Clement regards scriptural words as personal summons from Christ himself:
"All these promises [by God] find their confirmation when we believe in Christ, for it is he himself [i.e. Christ] who summons us through the Holy Spirit..."

Doherty writes:
"Christ is a spiritual entity who communicates with the world through scripture, and one of his roles is to reveal God. This is in the same vein as the somewhat more abstract Logos in thought like that of Philo of Alexandria, a force which serves as the medium to present to the mind of humanity an otherwise unknowable deity who dwell in the highest, purely spiritual realm of heaven. It is similar to the Son and Word in the Odes of Solomon, a revealer entity with no sacrificial dimension, also not linked to an historical figure on earth"

He references R.M. Grant (The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1) in tracing the source of some of the Clementine maxims attributed to Christ. Some of the quotations evocative of the sentiments in Sermon on the Mount like "Forgive that you may be forgiven. What you do yourself, will be done unto you" have been attributed to an oral, rather than a written source by Scholars like Grant who appeals to Helmut Koester (Ancient Gospels, p.14-20.)

We encounter an interesting sentiment about the dating of the synoptics:
"That Clement knew any of the Gospels has never been satisfactorily demonstrated. This is in itself an indicator that the Gospel of Mark was not likely written as early as 65-70, or intended as an historical account. For how could one explain why the prominent Christian community in the capital of the empire not have received a copy of it or that one of its leaders would not be familiar with key parts of its text, even after the passage of three decades? If Matthew and Luke were both written before 90, this should indicate that interest and knowledge of the Gospels was spreading throughout Christian communities. And yet Rome, apparently has yet to hear of them"

In persuading the readers to have faith that Gods purpose of establishing the Kingdom, Clement uses the old testament prophecies about the day of the lord and does not, even once, mention Jesus' Gospel pronouncements concerning the parousia (arrival at the end time) e.g. in 23:5. Doherty asks very important questions regarding Clements ignorance of Jesus' predicted coming and makes a strong argument from silence that indicates beyond a shadow of doubt that Clement had no knowledge of a historical Jesus.

In a persuasive manner, replete with examples, counterexamples and clear exegesis, Doherty demonstrates that all references to Jesus that Clement made, including his sayings and suffering, were derived from the old testament scriptures. The manner in which Clement uses "according to flesh" (32:2) refers to the "flesh" as the setting in which a deity took human form and underwent human-like activities and suffer to provide salvation to the adherents. This was in line with the dualistic worldview embraced by mystical philosophies where the universe was thought to be made of spirit and flesh in layers.

The Shepherd of Hermas

Hermas is the name of the putative author of this document whose author received visions from angels and other celestial figures, one of who was "the shepherd", an angel of repentance. The author is largely regarded as having been the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome circa 148 CE. Doherty mentions F. L. Cross (The Early Church Fathers, p.24), who dates the Shepherd to late first century due to its crude theology, underdeveloped church organization and the overall primitiveness of the work. Also mentioned is R. M Grant (The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction) who regards the Shepherd as a composite work, with earlier parts coming soon after Trajan’s accession (97 CE) one more author who dates the shepherd to late first century is Simon Tugwell (The Apostolic Fathers) who, like the other two above, accept a Roman provenance.

The three sections, which this apocalyptic document is divided, are: 5 visions, 12 commandments and 10 parables. Hermas writes about sin after baptism and believes forgiveness after repentance is possible but only once.

The name of Jesus and Christ are not used in this document and Doherty writes that the sole appearance of the word "Christ", in the second vision 2:8, is regarded as a later emendation of "Lord", which means God in other manuscripts of the passage. The writer refers to the "Son of God" who is not treated as a central figure in this theocentric document.

"Lord", in this document, always means "God" and the author believes that only the ordinances of God need to be kept. Like the author of 1 Clement, Hermas treats the "Church", the body of believers, as a mystical entity which has been created by God himself (Vision 1,1:6).

Doherty explains that the name of Jesus is not mentioned even as the author speaks of a number of moral rules - some similar to the teaching in the gospels, he (Hermas) even talks of "apostles" but does not associate them with any historical figure (Parable 9,16:5).

To Hermas, "the son" is a foundation rock and the gate, a channel of entry into the Kingdom of God, the fathers Counselor and a creation older than all creation. The son is a means of accessing and knowing God, an intermediary.

So, when and where was "the son" seen?

Doherty writes:
"This son, Parable 9 goes on to tell, 'was made manifest' in the last days of the world: 'phaneros egneto', he became known. Once again we meet the universal language of the earliest Christian writers: not a coming to earth to live as a human being in recent history, but a revelation".

In a manner reflective of traditional Jewish theology manifest in Proverbs, Hermas equates the son with trhe Holy Spirit (Parable 9, 1:1 and in Parable 5). In Parable 8,3:2 the Jewish law is Gods son. The writer shows no knowledge of Gods son as a specific human personality, Doherty expounds: he has no "biography or role separate from longstanding ways of thinking about Gods dealings with the world. He is part of the paraphernalia of heaven, the way Wisdom is in other circles of Jewish expression.

Methodically, Doherty exposes the meaning of the convoluted writing of Hermas, who F. L. Cross (op.cit) described as "a man of no great intelligence", and like a gifted sculptor using a soft brush, he cleans off the apparent confusion in the fifth Parable. What comes out epiphanically, is a clear interpretation and understanding of the passage, whose author evidently had no thought of incarnation and no thought of a human Christ.

Doherty argues that confusion scholars find in Hermas is due to their (mistaken) expectation of elements of Christian orthodoxy in the document and links this misplaced anticipation to their failure to make the obvious connection between the verses (in chapter 7) and those preceding them. He explains:

"The 'confusion' the scholars speak of in Hermas is not that of the author but rather is a product of the attempt to impose the Gospel background on him. This writer was rooted in Hellenistic-Jewish mythology with its picture of a heaven in which different forces form part of the workings of divinity. The son is one figure in the class photo which includes the Holy Spirit and angels of several ranks, and these occasionally merge into one another".

Thus from the religious diversity that we countenance when we place the shepherd and 1 Clement (docetism, gnosticism and others) in the backdrop of Jewish culture and Greek and Roman presence, we see a Judaism that has ventured beyond its traditional boundaries to embrace Hellenistic Philosophy. This embrace resulted in the syncretism of the Sheperd's world of angels, heavenly churches and celestial figures and the Hellenistic (Greek and scientific) mindset that required matter and things observable in the tangible universe, to result in the pregnancy that brought forth a historical Jesus.

The conception that took place in the minds of religious leaders and the faithfuls was subtle, and at the same time powerful in ways that were not immediately clear even to those who lived then. Their minds were opened up to a new way of spirituality and worldview.

The anathema towards meaningless a fate in the minds of "spiritual" leaders like Ignatius might have led them to crave for a violent death in the arena, seeing their own suffering and death as a parallel to the real suffering that a human Christ underwent under Pontius Pilate. Doherty writes that this mindset, in the space of a few decades around the turn of the first century, might have been the catapult that led to the crystallization of a human Jesus from his spiritual predecessor.

Doherty concludes that this hybrid western religion had come to birth by the times of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian and in the centuries that followed, the new-fangled church (now embodied by physical buildings and structured institutions) was to preserve the "memory" of the son who has lived and worked among us.

In the next article, I will examine Doherty's take on the epistle of Barnabas and letters of Ignatius from which we will experience the new-born “church” which held that a physical son had lived and died among us. We will see how this infant church took its first steps and how it came to expel the spiritual Jesus to let in the pleroma of a physical christ in its core.

1. www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.html

Geoff Hudson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
[B]Doherty on the Apostolic Fathers Part I

This article covers Doherty’s examination of the writings of the apostolic fathers at the turn of the second century and how they wrote about Christ/ the son. This is as appears in Doherty’s Supplementary Articles number 12: Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers at the Turn of the Second Century.


The Apostolic fathers are Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are considered to have had personal relations with the apostles to such an extent that their writings were influenced enough to be considered as reliable sources of apostolic teaching. They include the writer of Didache, (St.) Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, the writer of the epistle of Barnabas and some extra-canonical literature, like Shepherd of Hermas of the sub-Apostolic age.

******

This logic is faulty. I refer to the sentence "their writings were influenced enough to be considered as reliable sources of apostolic teaching". If we don't know what the apostolic teaching was in the first place, how can one say to what is and what is not apostolic teaching in these later writings.
We have another cart before the horse. We are working backwards in time, not forwards. Yes, you have the documents, but you don't know all the influences which their authors brought to bear on their sources in producing them. Mr Doherty is doomed to being yet another mythicist. He starts with an almighty assumption.

And who were the apostles any way?

Geoff

Ted Hoffman

It does not matter whether or not they were actually apostolic teachings - the term is used to refer to that group of people. They are historically believed to have been close to the apostles. Unless you want to prove otherwise.
(if you have read the post, you will note that Clements identity for example, is unclear - indeed, I can say all of them lack clear identities)

He is indeed, a mythicist. And there there are no assumptions made - on the very contrary.

The word apostle is derived from the Greek word "apostello" which means "to send forth" or "to dispatch". An apostle is one who has been sent forth. It can also mean a messenger or a delegate.
Principally, apostles refer to the twelve disciples of Jesus (James the son of Zebedee, Thomas, Simon Peter, Paul, Andrew, Simon the Zealot, Matthew, Philip, James, [Judas?]). But it can have a wider meaning. In Hebrews for example, Christ himself is referred to as an apostle. The meaning can be expanded to include other "inferior" disciples like Barnabas, Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25), Junias (Rom., xvi, 7), Timothy, Titus and others who (the early church fathers/historians considered to) merit being referred to by that title.

Its quite possible that the writers of the gospels fabricated the story of Jesus choosing his disciples in order to later use that apostleship to assign themselves a special status in the scheme of things: that their apostleship was a "special vocation, a formal appointment of the Lord". But that is another story.

Whats important to remember is that whether or not one believes that the primary apostles actually existed, is entirely secondary, indeed unrelated to ones usage of the term "apostolic fathers".

Geoff Hudson

Jacob,

Your first post was a bit too much for me to take in.

Is there a version of 1 Clement on-line and in plain text? You know how I like to mess about with text.

I now assume that by apostolic teaching you mean that in the early church writings such as the Didache.

I can accept Mr Doherty's view that the literal Jesus never existed, and that reference to Jesus dying as a sacrifice for sin could be based on myth. All this is later develoment. The next layer down is the introduction of the spiritual Christ and the Son of God, as in Tertullian's Apology. But even Tertullian's apology is made to look later than it originally was. Then there is the primary layer of the Spirit which is well supported from the OT, without resort to mythical literature, but is not very explicit in the NT becuse the text has been edited, again to look later. I think the problems arise because the developments occurred quickly.

As you know, some of the events said to apply to Jesus I regard as applicable to John the Prophet. The writings of Paul, I regard as those James the disciple of John. Put those two together, and one of Mr Doherty's initial reservations disappear. John could have passed on the ritual of the "pure meal" to James.

Geoff

Ted Hoffman

here
and Kirbys site