Earl Doherty, the Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings

 

By: GakuseiDon

Last update: 01-Oct-2005

---

This article looks at Earl Doherty's comments on second century Christian writings and the Jesus Myth in his book "The Jesus Puzzle". Doherty puts forward the thesis that some second apologists subscribed to a Christianity that was devoid of a historical Jesus. I conclude that Doherty's analysis is flawed, and that there is no reason to conclude that those apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus. 

 

Update:

Earl Doherty has responded to this article here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

I examine his response and add new material here:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Doherty2ndC_Review_Part2.htm

---

Introduction

 

Section 1: Themes within Second Century Writings

1.1 HJ references in the Second Century Writers

1.2 Apologists writing to Pagans in the Second Century

1.3 Lack of historical details in the writings of second century apologists

1.4 Reasons for Apologists' silence on the historical details of Christ

1.5 References to Gospel and Hebrew writings

1.6 The LOGOS

1.7 Pagan accusations against Christians in the Second Century

1.8 How the 'MJ' writers were received

Section 2: Doherty's 'MJ' Apologists

2.1 Justin Martyr

2.2 Tatian

2.3 Theophilus

2.4 Athenagoras of Athens

2.5 Epistle of Diognetus

2.6 Minucius Felix

Conclusion

Footnotes

---

 

Introduction

 

In his book “The Jesus Puzzle” [1], Earl Doherty asks “Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?”. He examines literature from the first two centuries to support his thesis that that there was no historical Jesus at the core of the Christianity that originated in the first century CE.

 

His book is divided into three sections. Section 1 looks at the “Son of God” movement that Doherty believes lies behind the New Testament epistles and other early Christian letters. Section 2 looks at the Gospels to identify those traditions that Doherty believes ended up in the Gospels as part of the ministry of a fictional Jesus. [2] Finally, Section 3 examines how the Gospels were constructed, and how they influenced the writings of second century apologists. [3]

 

This article looks at Doherty’s comments on the second century apologists.

 

Doherty sees in the second century a continuation of the first century in terms of diversity, a lack of common doctrine, no centralized authority and a weak concept of apostolic tradition, as well as a range of silence on the reputed founder of Christianity [4]. According to Doherty, the Gospels were late first century and early second century documents, with the Gospel of Mark written about 85-90 CE, and the Gospels of Matthew & Luke around 100-120 CE. [5] Though not necessarily in the form that we know today, Doherty believes that it is likely Justin Martyr worked with 2 or 3 Gospels that had just emerged into Christian consciousness, though they existed as anonymous documents in Justin's time (150s CE). Doherty believes that the Gospels were in general circulation among the pagans by the 160s, and so pagans knew what Christians believed about their own origins by that time. [6]

 

While scholars specializing in the second century have characterized the Christianity of the apologists as essentially a philosophical movement, Doherty believes that some apologists gave the appearance of ignoring, and even denying, any historical figure at all. Though the 'Christian philosophy' presented by the apologists as a group had roots in Judaism, Doherty sees some of them deriving their ideas from Platonism, especially the concept of a Son of God, a 'second God' or Logos (Word), a force active in the world and serving as an intermediary between God and humanity. This idea of the Logos could be found in most Greek philosophies as well as Hellenistic Judaism in the second century. [7]

 

Doherty believes that these apologists subscribed to a "Logos" religion that, especially at the time of their conversions, was lacking the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. [8] But is there any evidence that any apologist in the second century believed in a Christianity that lacked a historical Jesus, as claimed by Doherty?

 

This article investigates those claims. It is divided into two sections:

·      Section 1 examines general themes that can be found in second century writers, and how HJ and Doherty’s MJ writers fit within those themes.

·      Section 2 examines Doherty's comments on specific writers in the second century CE whom Doherty believes probably didn’t believe in a historical Christ.

 

Background issues

 

1. Dating. In many cases there are difficulties in determining precisely when the writings under consideration were published. Clues as to the date of authorship can be found in the content or by citations by subsequent writers for whom we can be more confident in dating. Doherty is generally conservative in this respect, accepting the consensus of critical scholarship.  I have used his dates except when otherwise specified.

 

2. Questions on the authenticity of the materials. It cannot be simply assumed that the texts that have been passed on to the present day are the same as the original autographs.  During the transmission of the texts, marginal glosses, redactions, interpolations and outright forgeries are all possibilities. Here, Doherty sometimes takes more liberty than the consensus of critical scholarship.  As I will point out, at times he claims the possibility of textual corruption for no other apparent reason than that he finds the text at issue damaging to his theory.  Otherwise, however, I don't differ from Doherty here except when otherwise specified.

 

3. Terminology. I’ve used "HJ" to refer to a "historical Jesus". A "HJer" is a writer who makes explicit statements on Christ's historicity, i.e. they believe that Christ lived on this earth and interacted with his disciples as a man. A "HJer" does not necessarily mean an orthodox Christian, but covers any writer who makes statements indicating a belief in a historical Christ. This includes pagan writers like Celsus and Lucian, as well as gnostics who believed that Christ lived on earth as a man, though he wasn't composed of corruptible flesh. "MJ" is used to refer to a "mythical Jesus". An "MJer" is one of the writers identified by Doherty as believing in a Christianity that didn't include a "historical Jesus" at its core. I use “MJ” only to note that these authors are purported by Doherty to disbelieve in a historical Jesus.  I will critically evaluate the basis for his belief below.

 

4. Materials. Most of the primary sources that are referenced in this paper are available in English translation on Peter Kirby's excellent "Early Christian Writings" website [9]. Richard Carrier, one of the founders of Infidels.org and a PhD candidate in ancient history, provides a good summary of early Christian writings that I use to provide background information on some of the apologists that Doherty discusses in Section 2. [10].

 

 

---

 

Section 1: Themes within Second Century Writings  

 

 

1.1 HJ references in the Second Century Writers

 

Doherty believes that there is a “telling silence on the reputed founder” of Christianity in the second century. [4] He refers to a number of second century writers to build his case in Part 9 of his part, entitled “The Second Century”. But how great is this silence?

 

I’ve listed those authors that Doherty draws upon in this part of his book. There are other authors writing in the second century that he doesn’t refer to, some of whom I believe are relevant to the question of “a telling silence”. I will briefly discuss them below.

 

Authors referred to by Doherty in “The Second Century” section of his book are:

 

Author	Material	Extant?	Date	HJer according to Doherty?
'Barnabas'	"Epistle of Barnabas"	Yes	95 - 125	Yes
Clement of Rome	"To the Corinthians"	Yes	96	Ambiguous
Ignatius of Antioch	Various letters	Yes	108 i, v	Yes
Polycarp of Smyrna	"Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians	Yes	110 - 140 ii	Yes
Papias	Fragments in Irenaeus and Eusebius	No	110 - 130	Yes
Tacitus	"Annals"	Yes	115	Yes
Marcion	Fragments	No	130 140 ii	Yes
Aristides	"Apology"	Yes	140	Yes
Justin Martyr	Various letters	Yes	150s	Yes
Lucian	"On the death of Peregrinus"	Yes	160s	Yes
Tatian	"Apology to the Greeks"	Yes	160s v	No
Irenaeus of Lyons	Various	Yes	175 - 185 ii	Yes
Theophilus of Antioch	"To Autolycus"	Yes	180	No
Athenagoras of Athens	3 letters	Yes	180s	No
Unknown	"The Epistle to Diognetus"	Yes	130 0r 200 iii	No
Minucius Felix	"Octavius"	Yes	160 - 250 iv	No
Celsus	Fragments in Origen	No	178 ii	Yes
Clement of Alexandria	Various	Yes	182 - 202 ii, v	Yes
Tertullian	Various	Yes	197 ii, v	Yes

 

(i)         I have used Doherty's date, but many believe that Ignatius could be dated later, around 140 CE

(ii)         I can't find any clear date provided by Doherty, so I have used the date from the earlychristianwritings website

(iii)        There is no clear evidence for either date, but Doherty leans towards 130

(iv)        There is no clear evidence to narrow the date range, but Doherty leans towards an earlier date

(v)                 These authors wrote one or more letters with historical details about Christ, as well as one or more without historical details about Christ.

 

It's immediately obvious that, according to even Doherty himself, the earliest writers do in fact make references to a HJ. Though they provide few details – as discussed in Section 1.5 they are more intent on justifying Christ through the Hebrew scriptures – they undoubtedly refer to a historical Jesus, and from early on in the second century.

 

Of those five writers identified by Doherty as believing in a MJ, we can see that four of them arguably wrote between 160 and 180 CE, though “Octavius” could be third century. The fifth writer ("The Epistle to Diognetus") is either 130 CE or after 180 CE.

 

There are also a number of other authors who make HJ statements, to whom Doherty doesn’t refer to in his book. Some of their works are extant, while others exist only in fragments in later writings:

 

Basilides (120-140) was a Gnostic Christian with unorthodox views of the Logos, and believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the true God:

 

"He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles" [11]

 

Heracleon (150-180) was a respected teacher of the Valentinian school in Rome who wrote a commentary of the Gospel of John:

 

"The words “salvation is of the Jews” are said because he [Christ] was born in Judea, but not among them and because from that race salvation and the Word came forth into the world." [12]

 

Hegesippus (165-175) was an early Christian historian. Only fragments remain from His Five Books of "Commentaries on the Acts of the Church", including references to a HJ, and the fate of the descendents of Jesus's family. [13]

 

Claudius Apollinaris (160-180) was the Bishop of Hierapolis, and an early apologist:

 

"[O]n the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view". [14]

 

Melito of Sardis (165-175) was known as an early Christian philosopher:

 

On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion… being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven… He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things. [15]

 

We probably only have a fraction of the materials produced in those times available for study today. The writings that survived, either in relatively complete form or as fragments, survived because they were considered useful, or worth preserving by future generations, or hidden away. The writings that Doherty identifies as expressing an MJ view were nearly all written after 160 CE, and in some cases were praised for their content by later HJer apologists (discussed further below).

 

It is possible that more explicit MJ writings existed but were destroyed as heretical, but I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect. Nor does Doherty provide any. Contemporaries like Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote about many of the heresies of that century, and they don't appear to have come across MJ views, or noted any controversy on such topics in their denouncements of heretics, whom ranged from those who regarded Christ as just a man (e.g. some Ebionites), or regarded Christ as someone who acted on earth but in a body not composed of flesh (e.g. various gnostic groups).

 

In conclusion:

 

We only have a fraction of the materials produced in the second century, but from those that we do have, we can see that there are many references to a historical Jesus in the early part of the century, though these writers don’t appear concerned to introduce many details (as discussed further below). There is certainly no “telling range of silence on the reputed founder” of Christianity, as even the evidence by Doherty himself shows. Furthermore, Doherty appears unaware of, or has deliberately left out, other authors who make reference to a historical Jesus.

 

The writers that Doherty identifies as MJers nearly all wrote after 160 CE, at a time when Doherty believes that the Gospels were in general circulation among the pagans.

 

 

1.2 Apologists writing to Pagans in the Second Century

 

Doherty notes the "astonishing fact [that] of the five or six major apologists up to the year 180 - after that, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are all firmly anchored in Gospel tradition - none, with the exception of Justin, introduces an historical Jesus into their defenses of Christianity to the pagan" [16]. Those apologists were: Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, the author of "The Epistle to Diognetus", Tatian and Minucius Felix.

 

I'm not sure what Doherty means here by 'major apologists', other than perhaps 'apologists whose works are still extant'. Certainly there were more than 6 apologists of the second century that we know about, either from extant works, or fragments preserved in the writings of later authors.

 

Concentrating only on the second century apologists writing to pagans, we can see that 7 of 12 refer to a historical Jesus:

 

Author	Wrote to:	Extant?	Date	HJ statements?
Quadratus of Athens	Emperor of the day (Fragments)	No	120 - 130	Yes
Aristides	Emperor of the day	Yes	130	Yes
Justin Martyr	Emperor of the day	Yes	150s	Yes
Claudius Apollinaris	Emperor of the day (Fragments)	No	160 - 180	Yes
Melito of Sardis	Emperor of the day (Large fragments)	No	160 - 177	Yes
Tatian	To "the Greeks"	Yes	160s	No
Theophilus of Antioch	Various ("To Autolycus" only extant)	Yes	180	No
Athenagoras of Athens	Emperor of the day	Yes	180s	No
"The Epistle to  Diognetus"	Diognetus, "tutor to emperor Marcus Aurelius"	Yes	130 or 200	No
Minucius Felix	"To Octavius"	Yes	160 - 250	No
Clement of Alexandria	Various	Yes	182 - 202	Yes
Tertullian	Various	Yes	200	Yes

 

The earliest apologist on record is probably Quadratus, writing to the Emperor Hadrian around 120-130. Jerome (late fourth century) wrote that Quadratus presented to Hadrian an apologetic work "composed in behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching". [17]

 

The earliest extant writers are Aristides and Justin Martyr. Only the author of “The Epistle to Diognetus” may be earlier than the extant Aristides, though the evidence isn’t clear on the date of this work.

 

In conclusion:

 

The earliest second century apologists writing to the pagans did indeed introduce a historical Jesus in defense of Christianity. The apologists identified by Doherty as being MJ writers nearly all wrote in the second half of the second century, at a time when the Gospels were probably already circulating among the pagans. (I examine Doherty's purported MJ writers in Section 2).

 

 

1.3 Lack of historical details in the writings of second century apologists

 

Doherty notes the lack of historical details in some of the apologists and concludes that “this blatant suppression of Jesus, the misrepresentation of everything from the name ‘Christian’ to the source of Christian ethics, amounts to nothing less than a denial of Christ.” [18]

 

However, a lack of historical details is by no means restricted to those writers that Doherty identifies as MJers. There are examples of other writers in the second century and later, who make firm HJ statements in some letters, while not referring to historical details in their other writings. 

 

Examples from the second century and the period immediately following include:

·      Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE): "Exhortation to the Heathen" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)

·      Ignatius (108 CE): "Philadelphians", "Polycarp" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)

·      Tertullian (200 CE): "Ad nationes" (No reference to the names 'Jesus' or 'Christ' at all)

·      Tertullian (200 CE): "Against Hermogenes" (No historical details, 3 mentions of 'Christ', none for Jesus)

·      Attributed to 'Justin Martyr' (late 2nd C or 3rd C): Horatory to the Greeks (No historical details, uses 'Logos' and 'Word' throughout, with a final association to a 'Jesus Christ' in the concluding paragraph)

·      Commodianus (240 CE): “Instructions of Commodianus” (No historical details) [19]

From the large fragments of Melito's "Apology" (160-177) that remain, the "Apology" possibly falls into this category as well.

 

Undoubtedly, the most interesting example is Tertullian’s “Ad nationes” [20]. Around 197 CE, Tertullian wrote two works: "Apology" and "Ad nationes". There is definitely a literary relationship between these two works (as well as to Minucius Felix, whom Doherty regards as an MJ writer), with both works covering many of the same points.

 

However, while Tertullian uses the names "Jesus" and "Christ" many times and makes many references to a historical Jesus in his “Apology”, Tertullian pointedly ignores using those names, and makes only indirect references to a HJ in “Ad nationes”.

 

Doherty refers to Tertullian several times, and even notes that Tertullian’s “Apology” is full of “vivid references” to Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection. In fact, Doherty goes so far as to say that Tertullian “indulges in no such cryptic concealment” of a historical Christ [21]. He is clearly unaware of Tertullian’s "Ad nationes".

 

That an apologist can write two letters in the same year, one containing vivid references to historicity, and the other containing no such references (not even the names ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’) suggests that Doherty places too much weight on the supposed silence of certain second century apologists when it comes to using historical details of a HJ in their defense of Christianity.

 

In conclusion:

 

It is clear that early HJ writers were capable of producing letters and apologies that lacked historical details of Christ, even to the point of not referring to the names ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’. While this in itself doesn’t prove that the purported MJ writers believed in a HJ, the existence of those letters shows that this criteria alone cannot be used to distinguish between a HJer and an MJer. It certainly casts doubt that they “represent a denial of Christ”, as stated by Doherty.

 

Doherty appears to have no awareness of these letters. It is clear that Doherty hasn't examined all the literature of the period, or has restricted his analysis to just those letters that support his case. In either case his analysis is based on incomplete data.

 

 

1.4 Reasons for Apologists’ silence on the historical details of Christ

 

In his book, Doherty stresses that “nowhere in the literature of the time is there support for the standard scholarly rationalization about the apologists' silence on the figure of Jesus”. He believes that “nowhere... is it even intimated that these writers have deliberately left out essential elements of Christian faith, for reasons of political correctness or anything else” [22]

 

However, a thorough examination of the literature does provide evidence for such reasons, which can be grouped into at least four categories:

 

1. The apologists were more concerned with stopping the persecutions against the Christians of the day than converting their audience: Many of the authors wrote to the Emperor of the day or the pagan public, as a plea for justice against the persecutions taking place, rather than as a vehicle for conversion. We can see this in the writings of HJers like Justin and Tertullian, as well as in Doherty's MJ writers like Minucius Felix. In Doherty's opinion they should have tried to rehabilitate the figure of Christ, but even the HJ writers appeared more concerned with addressing the injustices against the Christians of the day than discussing historical details of Christ (for example Tertullian's “Ad nationes”).

 

2. The names 'Christian' and 'Christ' were hated: Tacitus, at the start of the 2nd C, refers to Christianity as 'a pernicious superstition', charged with the hatred of all mankind. Pliny the Younger punished those who continued to call themselves 'Christians'. Not a few of the apologists addressed letters to the Emperors of the day, decrying this injustice of persecution for ‘the sake of a name’. Tertullian in "Ad nationes" notes that Christians were being punished 'in the name of the founder' [23] and wondered what harm there was in a name, all the while refusing to give the name of the founder. Other apologists make similar points, including the MJ writers (see Section 1.7 below).

 

3. Christianity was viewed as a barbarous new religion: Another charge by pagans against Christianity was that it was a new barbarous religion [24]. New sects were regarded suspiciously by the Romans, and nearly all the apologists to stressed Christianity's 'antiquity' via its Jewish roots, over its more recent origin. As Karen Armstrong points out in her book "The History of God", the Roman ethos was strictly conservative, and Christians were regarded with contempt as a sect of fanatics who had committed the cardinal sin of breaking with the parent faith [25]. The apologists often referred to the ancient Hebrew prophets to try to show a continuation from ancient times.

 

4. The writer adopted different approaches to different audiences. From the writers with multiple letters still extant we can see that they varied their approach to different audiences. It is noted that Justin Martyr, for example, insists strongly on the theology of the Logos in his "Apology" to the pagans, but much less so in his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon" [26]. Tertullian’s “Apology” and “Ad nationes” were probably written in the same year, yet the “Apology” contains many direct references to a HJ, while “Ad nationes” has none. There is a danger in trying to extrapolate a writer's beliefs based on one letter to one audience, especially to a pagan one. Had we been left with just the one 'non-HJ' letter by Ignatius, for example, how would Doherty have determined that he was not an 'MJ' writer?

 

Not only are these reasons intimated in the HJ writers that Doherty ignores, it is not difficult to find them in his purported MJ writers, as noted above. I provide further points of similarities below. It should be noted that these examples of HJ writers sharing these similarities to Doherty's MJ writers is not explored anywhere in Doherty's book.

 

 

In conclusion:

 

Though Doherty has rejected it out-of-hand, there are in fact good reasons to explain the apologists’ reluctance to introduce historical details in their defense of the Christians of the day, especially given the persecutions that were then taking place.

 

It must be stressed that most of the apologists were appealing to the Emperor of the day and the pagan public in an attempt to receive justice in the face of that continuing persecution. Though they tried to put Christianity in the best possible light, their primary aim was not to convert their audience, but to appeal to them to consider Christianity as a valid religion.

 

A thorough review of the relevant literature is an important part in developing any thesis. It is clear that Doherty hasn't examined all the literature of the period. It is also clear that Doherty hasn’t analyzed his MJ writers for points of similarities to the HJ writers of the day (more examples given below). It cannot be overstated enough that these are serious flaws in his approach to the evidence being presented in this section of his book. I suggest that it amounts to a one-sided presentation of the evidence.

 

 

1.5 References to Gospel and Hebrew writings

 

In Chapter 24: The Remaking of Christian History, Doherty discusses references by early Christian writers to Gospel-like writings. Doherty writes

 

"In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers prior to Justin Martyr we have no clear witness to any use of written Gospels. Those who have studied this matter have concluded that the echoes of Gospel material occasionally found in the Fathers are derived from floating oral traditions or perhaps small collections of sayings; these elements would have found their own way in the written Gospels" [27]

 

Doherty makes much of the fact that the earliest HJ writers didn’t appear to be aware of the Gospels as we know them today, and tended to describe Christ’s life by using quotes from the Hebrew Bible. [28] He concludes from this that historical details were being pulled from Hebrew scriptures. This is by no means unreasonable. Whether historical details were recast using parallels found in the Old Testament, or OT passages were used to create historical details is not a new problem. Interestingly, Sanders notes that this process of ‘historicizing’ from scriptural writings can be observed as late as the 8th C [29], long after Christ had been established as a historical character.

 

While this tends to cast doubt on how much history was accurately reflected by this ‘historicizing’, this alone shouldn’t be used to suppose that the authors didn’t regard Jesus as a historical personage. Even if those authors appeared unaware of the Gospels, if they made explicit HJ statements, then how can this do anything but harm Doherty’s case? As G.A. Wells (himself a ‘Christ Myth’ proponent) notes:

 

“It is of course true that the source of statements such as 'descended from David' is scripture, not historical tradition. But this does not mean, as Doherty supposes, that the life and the death were not believed to have occurred on Earth. The evangelists inferred much of what they took for Jesus life-history from scripture, but nevertheless set this life in a quite specific historical situation.”  [30]

 

To prove that the Gospel message was valid, and that Jesus was the expected Messiah, the early Christian writers had no choice but to draw upon the Hebrew Bible and ‘find Christ’ in there. This idea is reflected in the writings of early Christians like Ignatius and Justin Martyr. Ignatius writes on the pressure to find the Gospel message in the Hebrew scriptures:

 

And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. [31]

 

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, speaks similarly:

 

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man [32]

 

There would have been several advantages to the apologists writing to the pagans to have stressed Christianity’s roots springing from the Hebrew Bible:

 

1. The Hebrew Bible and its central characters appear to have been known to the general pagan audience quite early. Even before Josephus published his landmark histories in 90 CE, Romans appeared to have been familiar with Hebrew history and scriptures. The Roman author Strabo, writing around 20 CE, describes Moses positively as someone who 'persuaded a large body of right-minded persons to accompany him to the place where Jerusalem now stands' and 'established no ordinary kind of government', though the Jewish leaders who followed Moses became corrupted. [33]

 

2. Judaism (and its writings) had a certain amount of legal standing within the Roman Empire. An edict by the Emperor Augustus around 1 BCE declared that anyone found stealing the Jews' sacred books would have his property confiscated by the state. [34]. Judaism itself was generally (though not always) tolerated throughout the Roman Empire.

 

The early apologists' letters to the Emperors of their day freely made references to Moses and the prophets in the Hebrew Bible, indicating their expectation that this would carry weight with the Emperors. Even later apologists like Tertullian continued to use the prophets and passages from the Hebrew Bible, well after the Gospels had been established.

 

While early apologists made few references to Christian Gospels when writing to pagans, it is clear that there were writings (or at least oral traditions being passed down) that were available to Christians from early in the second century. The most famous are the references by Papias (110-130 CE), who refers to Gospels by 'Mark' and 'Matthew' [35], though it is unknown how closely they matched the ones that we know today.

 

Other early references to Christian ‘Gospels’ include:

 

Epistle of Barnabas (90-125 CE)

 

But when He chose His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.

 

The ‘Gospel’ (or ‘good news’) referred to by ‘Barnabas’ was probably oral rather than written. However, ‘Barnabas’ goes on to say that there were teachings attributed to Christ at the time he was writing, even though ‘Barnabas’ was more concerned with using the Hebrew scriptures:

 

[B]y preparing a new people for Himself, [he] might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him". [36]

 

 Ignatius (108 CE) also writes that this ‘good news’ is not to announce something new, but the fulfillment of something announced long before:

 

All these have for their object the attaining to the unity of God. But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. [37]

 

Apology of Aristides (140 CE), writing to the Emperor of the day:

 

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; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. [38]

 

Aristides’ comment to the Emperor regarding “if you will read therein [the gospel]” suggests that Aristides believed that a written source was available for the Emperor to consult. Significantly, Aristides is more interested in tying Christ back to the Hebrew bible, despite the obvious existence of a Christian gospel that is available. It suggests that Aristides regarded the quotes from the Hebrew scriptures to be more influential with his pagan audience.

 

It also seems clear that second century apologists were quoting from Gospel material, though they don’t make allusions to specific Gospels. Ignatius almost certainly makes prolific use of the Gospel of Matthew or a common source. [39]. Richard Carrier notes that the ‘MJer’ Athenagoras of Athens writing around 180 CE quotes or paraphrases from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash, suggesting a harmonic gospel source like the Diatessaron. However, Athenagoras doesn’t feel it necessary to cite the source of his references. Similarly, Carrier notes that the ‘MJer’ Theophilus appears to be aware of Tatian’s Gospel harmonization. [10]

 

In conclusion:

 

Even though these early writers appeared to be aware of ‘Gospels’, they were more concerned in presenting their case quoting from Hebrew writings. This extended beyond the second century, long after the Gospels as we know them today were available for use.

 

The free references to Moses and ancient Hebrew prophets to the Emperor and pagan public suggest that the early apologists considered them to carry more influence with the pagan audience of the day.

 

Finally, even though there are not explicit references to Gospels by some apologists, there is still good reason to believe that those apologists were using Gospel-like materials, if not the Gospels themselves, in the construction of their apologies. The lack of explicit references can’t be taken to mean an unawareness of the Gospels or proto-gospels.

 

1.6 The LOGOS

 

Doherty believes that the apologists’ branch of Christianity that became prominent throughout the empire in the second century was a mix of Platonism and Hellenistic Judaism. In Doherty’s view, this ‘Platonic Christianity’ defined itself in ways which had nothing to do with an historical Jesus, and probably was not an outgrowth of Pauline Christianity, as they had almost nothing in common. [40]

 

Was there a "Logos" based Christianity separate from a historical stream? There simply is no evidence for it. There are references to the Logos and the Word in the writings of HJ authors as early as Ignatius [41] Justin Martyr and his student Tatian were among the earliest extant apologists to make the Logos central to their writings.

 

The concept was adopted by orthodox Christianity as well as by streams that were later declared heretical. For example, the gnostics had created their own ideas of how the Logos related to a historical Jesus. One point of controversy was whether the Word had become corruptible flesh, or remained in 'a higher state'. Irenaeus, writing 175-185 CE, says that some believed that the Word was not made flesh, but "