Earl
Doherty, the Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings
Follow up to Doherty's response
By: GakuseiDon
Last updated: 01-Oct-2005
Recently I posted an article examining Earl Doherty's comments on second century Christian writings and the Jesus Myth in his book "The Jesus Puzzle". I concluded that Doherty's analysis is flawed as he hadn't examined all the literature of the period, and that there is no reason to conclude that the second century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus.
My original critique can be found here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Doherty2ndC_Review.htm
Doherty's response to that critique can be found here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm
This article looks at Doherty's response. I find that, again, Doherty refuses to engage the literature as a whole. By focusing on the writings of those he believes didn't have a belief in a historical Christ (hereafter called "mythicists" or MJ writers), he doesn't take into consideration the broader writings of the Christians of this period. Doherty appears unaware that statements by his "mythicist" apologists that he deems problematic for historicists appear in the "historicist" apologists writings as well. I suggest Doherty's lack of inclusion of these statements in his analysis amounts to a one-sided presentation of the evidence.
1.1 Spot the mythicist! Christians attack the mortality of the Roman gods.
1.2 A Dispersed Flesh: Philosophical Problems with a Physical Resurrection
Doherty's Response to my critique is mostly a restating of his position as far as I can see, so I'll also be reusing some of the material from my original article. As in my first article, I will address general themes within the Second Century writings that are relevant to the questions raised by Doherty, before moving on to the individual apologists themselves. (I eventually plan to expand some of these themes into their own articles, though not for the purposes of rebutting the Christ Myth)
This article assumes that the reader has read both my original article and Doherty's response.
Doherty refers to me several times as an "apologist". Since I am a Christian writing in defense of a historical Jesus, I suppose that I am at least a "would-be" apologist, so the question of bias that Doherty is implying may exist; thus the readers need to keep this mind. For that reason, I try to use secular sources wherever possible, and I will continue to do so in this article, using works by Karen Armstrong [see also Note 1], Richard Carrier and Peter Kirby. For what it is worth, they are atheists [see Note 2] with an interest in early Christian writings and Christianity.
But I rely mainly on the voices of the Second Century apologists themselves. All quotes from Second Century writers below are taken from Kirby's excellent Early Christian Writings website.
1.1 Spot the mythicist! Christians attack the mortality of the Roman gods.
As I noted in my original article, from the second half of the second century Christian apologists began to present Christianity as though it was more like a school of philosophy than a "barbarous" sect. By doing this, they hoped to gain a sympathetic hearing from the Emperors and the public of the day and relief from the persecutions Christians were undergoing in that period.
This lead inevitably to conflicts with the pagan philosophers, from whose ranks some of those Christian philosophers had converted. In his Second Apology, addressed to the Roman Senate, Justin Martyr describes how he questioned the pagan philosopher Crescens, and "found most convincingly that he, in truth, knows nothing." Tatian, in his Address to the Greeks, states how Crescens "endeavoured to inflict on Justin, and indeed on [Tatian himself], the punishment of death", possibly in retaliation to Justin's earlier attack.
One of the topics of debate between Christian and pagan philosophers was on the origins of the gods. How, asked the Christians, could the Roman gods have a mortal nature? How could the pagans say that the gods could be born and suffer death like any mortal, and still regard them as gods?
In his book, Doherty has highlighted similar statements by his MJ (Mythic Jesus) writers and asks, how can these writers use that manner of presentation without indicating how the same criticism didn't apply to Christ? Wouldn't pagans accuse Christians of the same beliefs? Doherty suggests that this indicates that there may have been no equivalent belief within the Christianity being pushed by that writer.
This sounds convincing when Doherty's MJ writers are examined in isolation. However, Doherty is clearly unaware that the same statements can be found in the writings of the HJ (Historical Jesus) writers of the period, also without the same apparent qualification.
To demonstrate this, I've gathered together nine statements from Second Century writers. Eight of them are from two HJ writers, and one from an MJ writer. The statement from the MJ writer is one that Doherty and other Christ Mythers like to highlight to suggest that the writer couldn't have believed in a historical Christ.
Can you spot which statement below is from the MJ writer?
But when you say that they only make men into gods after their death, do you not admit that before death the said gods were merely human?
They, therefore who cannot deny the birth of men, must also admit their death; they who allow their mortality must not suppose them to be gods.
Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies
It is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise, he is indeed miserable
... you form a virgin from Diana ... What excuse can be found for that insolence which classes the dead of whatever sort as equal with the gods?
Besides, if they were able to make gods of themselves after their death, pray tell me why they chose to be in an inferior condition at first?
It is a settled point that a god is born of a god, and that what lacks divinity is born of what is not divine.
And they say that he [Tammuz] was killed by a wound from a wild boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible
And he [Osiris] was killed by Typhon and was unable to help himself. But it is well known that this cannot be asserted of divinity... And how, pray, is he a god who does not save himself?
The HJ statements are taken from Tertullian's Ad nationes and Aristides' Apology. The MJ statement is taken from M. Felix's Octavius.
The apologists above are all attacking the notion that gods could either be born or die. The problem being highlighted, though, wasn't just the birth or death of these gods, but the concept of a god coming into existence and its existence coming to an end. Divine beings were eternal. As Tertullian writes in Ad nationes:
"of course, nothing which some time or other had a beginning can rightly seem to be divine... It is a settled point that a god is born of a god, and that what lacks divinity is born of what is not divine."
M. Felix makes the same point:
"Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But that is divine which has neither rising nor setting."
Since Christ was a pre-existent being, the same criticisms didn't apply to Christianity. For the early Christians, Christ's earthly birth and death didn't mark a start or end to his existence. As I've pointed out in my original critique, Doherty clearly hasn't done his homework. Doherty highlights individual statements as being problematic for the case of a historical Christ, but doesn't take into consideration the broader writings of the period. I suggest this amounts to a one-sided presentation of the evidence.
1.2 A Dispersed Flesh: Philosophical Problems with a Physical Resurrection
Another 'hot' topic of the day was the philosophical implications behind a physical resurrection of the flesh. In his book, Doherty makes the point that Tatian does not appeal to Jesus' resurrection as support for his contention that resurrection of dead bodies is possible. In my critique, I presented a passage from Justin (First Apology, Chapter 19) showing that in similar circumstances Justin also does not appeal to Jesus' resurrection.
The topic of contention wasn't whether resurrection was possible or not, but whether a body that had been dispersed could truly be physically resurrected. The pagans argued that it couldn't be restored in the same body, since that had already been destroyed. And if it was raised in another body, then it is a new person entirely, so the former one wasn't restored.
Tatian's reply to the problem is as follows: "Of fleshly matter, but being born, after a former state of nothingness, I have obtained through my birth a certainty of my existence; in the same way, having been born, and through death existing no longer, and seen no longer, I shall exist again, just as before I was not, but was afterwards born. Even though fire destroy all traces of my flesh, the world receives the vaporized matter; and though dispersed through rivers and seas, or torn in pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up in the storehouses of a wealthy Lord".
Justin Martyr responds similarly: “In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again. But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption"
As I stated in my original article, Justin Martyr’s response shows that the pagans (not unexpectedly) had probably already rejected the notion of a resurrected dead man. Doherty admits that the comparison is valid to some extent. Justin is clearly trying to defend the idea of a physical resurrection without appealing to Christ's resurrection.
Doherty then quotes from Justin's work On the Resurrection to show that Justin does, in fact, refer to Christ's resurrection in relation to physical resurrection. This much is true. But Doherty clearly hasn't read the whole work, since Justin makes a telling statement in support of the 'philosophical' approach to the pagans that I highlighted in my original article.
While Justin's First Apology is addressed to a pagan audience, his On the Resurrection is addressed to both believers and pagans. In the following passage, Justin himself distinguishes between the appropriateness of a faith-based answer for the believer, and a philosophical answer to convince the pagan skeptic:
"But even in the case of the resurrection the Saviour has shown us accomplishments, of which we will in a little speak. But now we are demonstrating that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking pardon of the children of the Church if we adduce arguments which seem to be secular and physical: first, because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship; and secondly, because we are conducting our argument so as to meet unbelievers. For if we argued with believers, it were enough to say that we believe; but now we must proceed by demonstrations. The foregoing proofs are indeed quite sufficient to evince the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh; but since these men are exceedingly unbelieving, we will further adduce a more convincing argument still,--an argument drawn not from faith, for they are not within its scope, but from their own mother unbelief,--I mean, of course, from physical reasons. For if by such arguments we prove to them that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, they are certainly worthy of great contempt if they can be persuaded neither by the deliverances of faith nor by the arguments of the world."
Justin then goes on to examine the thoughts of Plato, Epicurus and other pagan philosophers, to show their relevance to his argument. But note that he himself has ruled out a "faith-based" answer as appropriate to give to pagans.
I stress here that Justin clearly states that he is using "secular arguments" so as to convince "unbelievers". It isn't surprising, then, that Christ's resurrection wasn't used by apologists writing to the pagans. In his book, Doherty points out that "the apologists were not fools". Indeed. As I stated in my original article, the apologists adopted different approaches to different audiences.
Justin's statements in On the Resurrection show that Christians were trying to engage pagans by using "secular" philosophical arguments when presenting a case to the pagans. These "secular arguments" avoided using points "drawn from faith" in order to "conduct arguments so as to meet unbelievers".
I think the implications here are significant, and need to be taken into consideration when evaluating apologetic writings to the pagans. We should also note modern parallels to this approach. There are clear similarities with how Creationists are now promoting the Intelligent Design 'theory', by "getting the Bible out of the discussion" and concentrating on secular arguments. (See Appendix 1).
1.3 "What did they know, and when did they know it?": Dating Pagans knowledge of Christians' origins.
In his book, Doherty makes what appears to be a throwaway line to explain Lucian's reference to a HJ (Historical Jesus) around 160 CE. He suggests that by that time, most pagans understood that Christians believed in a historical Christ. He doesn't attach much significance to this anywhere else in his book that I can see, but I think the implications are enormous, as I'll explain below. These implications need to be taken into consideration when looking at epistles addressed to the pagans from that date.
But first, let's look at what Doherty writes in response to my usage of his 'throwaway' line:
Here and later, GDon makes the claim that I regard the Gospels as "probably already circulating among the pagans" shortly after the year 150. I've never gone so far as to say they were "circulating," though I acknowledge that certain interested and knowledgeable pagan writers such as Celsus may well have read one or more such documents, in whatever state they may have existed at that time.
What I actually wrote was: "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".
I have been careful to try to represent Doherty accurately, so it is worth examining Doherty's original comment in his book:
The first of the satirists to pillory Christians is Lucian, who in the 160s wrote On the Death of Peregrinus in which he mocks them for their gullibility in accepting beliefs "without any sure proof". Here he refers to "him whom they still rever, the human fellow who was crucified in Palestine for introducing this novel cult to the world." By this time the Gospels were in circulation, and everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins. [my emphasis]
Doherty goes on to write in his response to my critique:
"My point, rather, was that some pagans, including among those being addressed by the apologists, were undoubtedly familiar with Gospel traditions about a human Jesus as the founder of the movement and certain teachings and events associated with him."
Whether or not the pagans had read the Gospels, I agree completely with Doherty that from around 160 CE "everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins". Keeping that in mind, it is worth reviewing the dates for when the MJ and some of the earlier HJ writers wrote (see also Section 1 of my original article where I list the dates given by Doherty).
There is no doubt that many of the earliest Second Century Christian writers referred to a historical Jesus. The earliest apologists writing to pagans also introduced a historical Jesus. Nearly all (if not all) of Doherty's MJ writers wrote after 160 CE, at a time when according to Doherty himself, "everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins".
Now, in his response to my critique, Doherty writes:
Indeed, all the traditional datings of the apologists, with the exception of Justin and Tatian, are dependent on later assumptions about their authors and who they wrote to, and we are not unfamiliar with interpretations and traditions coming from later Christian commentators which do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Thus, GDon's arguments relating to relative dating and which type of apologist are to be assigned to which part of the second century are in some cases resting on shaky ground.
I find that to be an outrageous statement. As I noted in Section 1 of my original article, I have used Doherty's dates wherever they were given, since they are not too far from the consensus of modern scholarship. Would Doherty like to explain which dates given in that section are now incorrect, and why?
Let's start with reviewing the dates assigned to the MJ writers:
Tatian's Address to the Greeks: this is dated solidly to around 160 CE
Theophilus: refers to the death of Marcus Aurelius, which occurred in 180 CE, so has to be dated at sometime after 180 CE.
Athenagoras: generally dated to around 177 CE, from internal evidence.
The Epistle to Diognetus: dated at either 130 CE or around 180 CE, but the evidence isn't clear. It is the only letter that possibly predates 160 CE, but it may well be post-180 CE.
M. Felix: dated anywhere between around 160 CE and 250 CE. Doherty leans towards the earlier end of the range (he suggests 155 CE), but again the evidence isn't clear. The literature seems to suggest a third century date, as Roger Pearse noted. But, for my purposes, I regard anything around 160 CE as significant.
For the HJ writers, Doherty himself gives these dates:
'Epistle of Barnabas': 90-125 CE
Ignatius: 107 CE (though I suggest a date of 140 CE is probably more accurate)
Tacitus: 115 CE
Aristides: 140s
The literature shows that references to a historical Christ existed from very early in the Second Century. But by what date should we have expected the pagans to have known what Christians believed about their own origins? Doherty gives a date of around 160 CE, but even that is probably late. Justin wrote in the 150s CE to the Emperor and Senate, discussing Christians who had even earlier appealed to the Emperor for clemency.
At any rate, we should note that nearly all (if not all) of Doherty's MJ writers wrote from 160 CE. Let's look at an example on how this would affect the way pagans would have viewed the MJ writers: Theophilus.
Writing after 180 CE, Theophilus writes in Book 2 of his To Autolycus:
For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him...
And the Gospel says: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans." And those that do good it teaches not to boast, lest they become men-pleasers. For it says: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth."
But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Both Ignatius (whom Doherty believes wrote around 110 CE though a dating of 140 CE is probably more accurate) and Justin Martyr had been equating the "Word" with the historical Christ for at least 30 years by the time that Theophilus wrote. Aristides's epistle to the pagans in 140s CE suggests that the pagans knew of the Gospels, even if they hadn't read the Gospels for themselves. As Doherty suggests, it is not unreasonable that the pagans generally knew what Christians thought of their own origins from around 160 CE.
So, if after 180 CE, the pagans encountered the writings of someone that identified himself as a Christian, and talked about the Word and "Gospels", wouldn't they assume that the writer was referring to the historical Christ, regardless of whether that writer was a mythicist or not?
It is certainly obvious that later Christians were also under that impression, since many of the "MJ" writers were praised by later Christians. And if the Christians of that period were 'fooled', then no doubt the pagans of that period were also fooled.
If Theophilus were concerned that the pagans might mistake his "Logos" religion with the HJ brand, he doesn't appear to show it. Nor do the other MJ writers (Doherty argues that M. Felix is the exception, which I discuss below). I suggest that the late date of Theophilus and his use of the Gospels show that Christians were presenting a philosophical view of Christianity to the pagans. This wasn't to hid a historical Christ - pagans already knew by that time what Christians believed about their origins - but to present Christianity in terms acceptable to his pagan audience.
Keep in mind that this is not a question of "could Christian apologists have written this way", but that some of the HJ writers definitely DID write that way. Beyond Justin Martyr's supporting comments in On the Resurrection, I have already pointed out a number of HJ authors in my original article who wrote letters that included no details about a HJ or gospels.
Doherty restates his view that Justin's Dialogue with Trypho suggests that Justin converted to a Christianity devoid of a historical Christ. He writes:
GDon appeals to the opening lines of Chapter 8: "When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mention at present..." Could not Christ's earthly mission, he asks, be the "many other things" referred to? Well, usually one mentions the most important factors and relegates the minor ones to non-specific tags like this.
I think this objection is ridiculous. Justin has the old man declare that the Hebrew prophets referred to "the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him", and then goes on to show Trypho why the old man was correct. In a sense, the old man HAS mentioned the most important point: that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture's description of the Christ. In the rest of the Dialogue, Justin presents his thoughts on how a Scriptural passage presents a Christian view of Christ, then allows Trypho to provide a counter-point before showing him why he is wrong.
My point is this: Justin is not writing diary entries here a la Bridget Jones (e.g. "met rather lovely old man... converted to Christianity... later had a chat about ancient prophets with Trypho"). The Dialogue forms a cohesive whole. It is not a declaration of faith or a recounting of creeds, but a dialogue showing Justin kicking Trypho's butt in a philosophical boxing match.
It is worth summarizing the first few chapters of the Dialogue to get their context:
Justin is walking along, and is accosted by Trypho and some of his friends. Justin is dressed like a philosopher, and Trypho addresses him as such, but there is a strong sense of mockery in how he hails Justin. [Possibly this is to contrast this with the respect that Trypho develops for Justin by the end] (Chapter 1)
Trypho asks Justin on his ideas of God and philosophy, and Justin gives Trypho his background as someone who studied many pagan philosophies in his younger days (Chapter 2)
Justin then goes on to describe his conversation to Christianity, after meeting an old man near a beach some years before. Justin reproduces his conversation with the old man for Trypho. The old man and Justin start by discussing general philosophical concepts (Chapters 3 - 5)
Justin tells Trypho that the old man discounts the opinions of even ancient pagan philosophers, wise men though they were. Justin asks, "Should any one, then, employ a teacher? Or whence may any one be helped, if not even in them there is truth?" (Chapter 6)
Justin tells Trypho that the old man declares that the ancient Hebrew prophets were "more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers", and "spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place". These prophets were without fear, without desire for glory, and prophesized according to the Holy Spirit. They did not need to use demonstration in their treatises like the pagan philosophers, since "they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief". The old man gives them a glowing report, and says that the prophets "were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed". They were wonderful people, according to the old man! (Chapter 7)
Justin, hearing the old man's glowing description, as well as the many other things that the old man described "which there is no time for mentioning at present", straightaway felt "a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ". The old man disappears, never to be seen again.
Justin ends his initial monologue to Trypho and his friends, saying that they should they become acquainted with the Christ of God, they can live a happy life.
Trypho's friends laugh at this! Trypho smiles, and says that Christians had accepted a groundless report, and invented a Christ for themselves. (Chapter 8)
Justin says that Trypho doesn't know what he is saying, having been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures. Justin states that he is able to prove all his claims if Trypho and his friends were willing to listen. Trypho's friends scoff and "shout in an unseemly manner". Justin, in a huff, gets up to leave. But Trypho, taking hold of Justin's garment, asks that Justin not leave until he had performed what he'd promised. Justin agrees, as long as they retired to another place, away from Trypho's boorish friends. (Chapter 9)
From Chapter 9, Trypho and Justin begin discussing the writings of the prophets and the Scriptures in earnest, trading points on whether they agreed with Christian interpretation or not. Justin, doing what he'd promised - that he would prove to Trypho that his claims about the prophets and Scriptures are true - forms the rest of the dialogue. While initially Trypho is slightly mocking towards Justin's beliefs and self-declared status of philosopher, he finally leaves Justin with a now respectful view of Justin and his beliefs.
Doherty writes:
If, as GDon claims, Justin and the old man are speaking of an historical Christ on earth, why is a specific reference to this divine "teacher" notably missing in their discussion of teachers? Justin has asked about the necessity and value of teachers of philosophy, about who should be consulted to provide insight into the great questions they are addressing. What is the old man's answer? He points to the Hebrew prophets. "These alone both saw and announced the truth to men" [my emphasis]. Where is the earthly Jesus in this category? How could the old man, or Justin, have left him out?
Doherty is ignoring the context here. In the Dialogue, "these [prophets] alone both saw and announced the truth to men" is contrasted against the wisdom of the famous pagan philosophers. His purpose is to contrast the pagan philosophers with the Hebrew prophets. Wise men though those pagan philosophers were, only the ancient Hebrew prophets, "fearless" and "filled with the Holy Spirit", announced the truth. Justin has spent nearly a paragraph building up the prophets, and by declaring his "love for those prophets" is claiming them for himself. Those prophets made better philosophy teachers than the famous pagan philosophers themselves. I urge readers to read Chapter 7 to examine this contrast for themselves, as it is plainly shown.
Doherty continues:
GDon also makes reference to a "later" statement by Justin, that "Of these and such like words written by the prophets...some have reference to the first advent of Christ..." But this statement comes in Chapter 14, much later than the conversion account. To try to have it cast light on the darkness in the earlier chapter is a stretch, especially since there is no connection implied.
As I've said, my point is that the whole Dialogue forms a cohesive whole. Justin's purpose is to show him debating Trypho, with Justin's arguments being victorious. I think Doherty has badly misread Justin's intentions. But I suggest that people read Justin's Dialogue with Trypho for themselves, and make up their own minds.
On a separate note: Doherty takes exception to my claim that he has "badly misread" the well-known statement by Trypho at the end of Chapter 8:
But Christ—if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has not power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.
Doherty makes a fairly rambling defense of the statement which I frankly don't understand. I urge readers to read my original article, Doherty's response and Peter Kirby's analysis to make up their own minds.
On Tatian, Doherty writes:
GDon is not the only one who appeals to the fact that Tatian was, by tradition, Justin's "pupil." They all use it to draw the conclusion that Tatian must therefore have followed Justin in all things and adopted all of his views. But our meager knowledge of their relationship does not justify such a conclusion. We only have the tradition voiced by Irenaeus and Tertullian that Tatian was a disciple/hearer of Justin.
"The tradition voiced by Irenaeus"? Tatian wrote around 160 CE, and Irenaeus wrote from around 175 CE. They both spent time in Rome, and were contemporaries or near contemporaries, in both time and space. As Richard Carrier notes, "We know he [Tatian] wrote books prolifically on a number of other topics", so we can assume that Tatian's beliefs were widely known. So when Irenaeus notes that Tatian was a pupil of Justin and didn't express any heretical views until after he had left Justin, that is a "tradition" that needs to be taken seriously. Irenaeus lists Tatian's heretical views, but there is nothing that suggests a belief in a non-historical Christ.
Doherty agrees that the similarities I brought forward between Justin's description of the Logos and Tatian's description are valid, but then writes:
GDon admits that "it is possible that Tatian adopted Justin's terminology and still rejected Justin's view of a historical Jesus," but he adds: "there is no evidence that this occurred" (which I assume refers only to the latter phrase). Surely this has things backwards. Evidence is required that Tatian adopted Justin's view of an historical Jesus, and this is in fact precisely what is missing, since Tatian has nothing to say about such a figure, and puts forward in his Address to the Greeks none of the views of Justin regarding the human Jesus.
I think there is reasonable evidence to support my view, which I gave in my original article: Irenaeus's comments on Tatian's relationship with Justin and when he became a heretic; Tatian's reference to "God has been born in the form of man"; Carrier's comments on Tatian being a prolific author so that his views were probably widely known; Tatian's referral to the "admirable Justin"; similarities of the descriptions of the Logos between Tatian and Justin; the lack of any overt statement of non-historicity; the acclaim that Tatian's Address was given by later Christians: all these provide strong circumstantial evidence, in my view. Though I appreciate that this doesn't convince Doherty.
Doherty continues:
And if we were to search for "evidence" that Tatian rejected Justin's view, what form would it take? It's not likely we would get a statement from him to that effect.
Well, why not? Why not say "Justin was wrong" or "the Logos didn't incarnate"? What is stopping Tatian from expressing that his notions of the Logos were different to Justin's? And that Justin's belief in a HJ was misguided? I don't understand this. Even if we assume that any heretical letters would have been destroyed, why then wouldn't Irenaeus have mentioned these views in his condemnation of Tatian? The fact is that Irenaeus states that "Tatian didn't express any heretical views until after he left Justin Martyr".
Doherty continues:
Surely such evidence would take the form of precisely what we find in the Address: the deliberate failure to include any of the direct identification of Jesus with the Logos, any appeal to the events of Jesus' ministry, to the Gospels themselves to illustrate aspects of his life and nature—in short, all the things which Justin openly and enthusiastically includes in his own picture of the Logos-Christ.
Again: since Tatian was writing around 160 CE, and after Justin and Ignatius (and probably other Christian writers) had already associated Christ with the Logos, what would the pagan audience have made of Tatian's work? Tatian refers to "the admirable Justin" in his letter. Both Justin and Tatian were threatened with death by Crescens, a famous Rome philosopher. Wouldn't the pagans have assumed that Tatian was referring to the same "Logos" as Justin? Didn't later Christian writers assume that Tatian was referring to Christ? Wasn't Tatian's Address praised as "the most useful of his works"?
If the pagans of that period knew what the Christians of that period believed about their own origin, what does Doherty think the pagans made of Tatian's Address to the Greeks? Who did they think that Tatian, a Christian, was talking about when he referred to the Logos as the "first-begotten" of God?
On the question of Tatian's remarks about pagan 'foolishness', Doherty writes:
He [Tatian] goes into some detail in itemizing the legends of the Greeks, which he accuses of being ridiculous if taken seriously, and he asks how they can mock those of the Christians. This may be the most telling remark of all, for how, on the question of whether legends are to be taken seriously or simply as 'stories,' can Tatian not address the question of how the Gospel accounts are to be taken? And do it by more than just "We are not foolish"? It is probably true that Tatian thinks the Greek legends have the greater degree of foolishness, but he has hardly advanced any perceivable case for regarding the Gospel tales as being in a different category—which would certainly be his opinion and his impulse to do if he were a believer in the historicity of Jesus and the reality of the account of his life.
"It is probably true that Tatian thinks the Greek legends have the greater degree of foolishness"? Surely Doherty can't mean what that sentence implies - that Tatian regarded his own legends as being foolish, but that the pagan ones had a greater degree of foolishness. Perhaps Doherty has expressed this badly.
At any rate, Tatian claims that Christians "do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man". He follows this up again later with "Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales". Whether this advances Tatian's case, I'll leave it to the reader to decide. I think the late date - 160 CE - needs to be taken into consideration here, as well as similarities to both Justin's writings and the wider Christian literature of the period.
Doherty writes:
There is more dubious reasoning when GDon claims that, even though Theophilus presents ethical teachings from "the gospels" as the inspired word of God (meaning the evangelists have them through inspiration), even though such teachings are said to be of the gospels and not of Jesus, pagans would know they were from Jesus because, like Celsus, they were familiar with such teachings in the Gospels. Theophilus' readers would know what he was talking about (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Yes, that is indeed my view. Given that Theophilus wrote after 180 CE, what does Doherty think that pagans would have understood from Theophilus's writings?
Doherty continues:
This plainly creates a contradiction. On the one hand, Theophilus, along with his companion apologists, were supposedly deliberately silent on the historical Jesus because the subject was anathema to the pagans, but on the other hand, they knew that pagans were familiar with Jesus already and would simply interpret what they wrote in terms of him.
This is covered above. It is no more a contradiction than Justin giving a faith-based answer for believers and a philosophical "secular" answer to the pagans, or Creationists using the Intelligent Design theory to advance their cause, while not discussing creationism. As discussed above, Christians responded to continuing Second Century persecution by presenting Christianity as a philosophy school and by emphasizing philosophical concepts, such as the role of the Logos and the nature of the gods.
Doherty continues:
Apparently this is some form of ancient Da Vinci Code. GDon goes on to make this outrageous statement: "I suggest that the primary question isn't 'why doesn't Theophilus refer directly to Christ,' but 'what do we understand from what he is saying'?" His position seems to be that it is no longer incumbent on modern scholars to offer an explanation for the silence; rather it becomes a case of what can we read into the words in keeping with our own assumptions. This, of course, is the methodology of traditional New Testament scholarship in regard to all the documents, not just the second century apologists.
My position is that we can't examine isolated sentences within one writer and then ask "why did the author write that?", without an understanding of how that fits within the literature of the day. How can we understand what the author is saying without that context? Part of the methodology in constructing any thesis is a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. By not doing this, Doherty is giving a one-sided presentation of the evidence.
Doherty continues:
On the thorny question of why (quoting me) "Theophilus has not a thing to say about this Word's incarnation into flesh, or any deed performed by him on earth," the strategy all along regarding such silences is to force the desired meaning onto whatever passages one can, no matter how obscure the possibility or how strained the process. GDon suggests that Theophilus does claim that the Logos acted on earth and points to Chapter 22:
"The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place."
This obscurely worded verse is elucidated by what leads up to it. Theophilus is explaining that, while God Himself cannot contain himself in a specific 'place' (which is why philosophers felt he needed an aspect of himself, namely the Logos, to do so and communicate with the world), the Word could so contain itself. An example of this was the Word's visitation to Eden to converse with Adam; the voice Adam heard was that of the Word, God's Son. But Theophilus is hardly saying that this visitation to Eden was an incarnation; it was simply the voice of a spiritual entity who could "contain himself" in Eden. GDon has no justification for regarding the above quote, which concludes this whole passage, as anything but a statement of the same thing.
I disagree. Given that Theophilus wrote after 180 CE and is quoting from the Prologue of the Gospel of John, I suggest that any pagan or Christian reading that passage would have believed that this IS an inference to the incarnation. The full passage is this:
But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Theophilus starts that passage by discussing how the Word talked to the early prophets. He then suddenly quotes the opening lines from the Prologue in the Gospel of John, before declaring that the Word "is both heard and seen and is found in a place". I suggest that the reason for this is to associate the Word with the events in the Prologue of John, which includes "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". Since no-one questions that the reference to John has to be a marginal gloss (I address Doherty's concern below), I believe that it is a reasonable inference. But I won't insist on it. Still, at that late date, who would the pagans have thought that Theophilus was talking about?
Doherty writes:
Not only has GDon simply forced the meaning he wants on a passage that will not bear it, he ignores other aspects of it. Following on the verse saying that the Word is God's Son, Theophilus remarks:
"Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [the translator adds: with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God."Here is a perfect example of the the type of 'denial' of an historical Jesus that can be seen within so much of what the apologists write. How can Theophilus state that this Word and Son is not to be thought of in the manner of gods that are born on earth, when in fact this was precisely the case with the historical Jesus?
As noted throughout this article, Doherty clearly hasn't examined the literature of the period, otherwise he would know the answer to this question: For Christians, Christ was a pre-existing being "that always exists, residing within the heart of God". On the other hand, the Roman gods were NOT pre-existing, and had their origins with their births. The Christians of the day attacked this as philosophically unsound. Theophilus's view is consistent with the other Christians.
Doherty continues:
[Theophilus] tells Autolycus that the Christian doctrine is not recent, that it is "not modern or fabulous but ancient and true"
Again, Doherty clearly hasn't examined the literature of the period, nor read my original article closely, otherwise he would know the answer to this, as well. As I wrote earlier, Romans were suspicious of new religions, so Christians wanted to stress Christianity's ancient roots. Ignatius writes: "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." Justin Martyr writes: "For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God... unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man."
Doherty continues:
[A]nother good example of the outright exclusion of an historical Jesus is this astounding statement [2.33]: "And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold all things."
This is a continuation of the themes of Christ as a pre-existent being who spoke to the ancient prophets, as well as Christianity's 'antiquity' via its Jewish roots. Justin Martyr writes similarly in his Dialogue with Trypho:
"I shall give you another testimony... from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos".
Theophilus, like Justin Martyr, wrote using concepts that he hoped pagans would have found familiar and convincing. Karen Armstrong writes (Chapter 3):
"[Justin Martyr] argued that Christians were simply following Plato, who had also maintained that there was only one God. Both the Greek philosophers and the Jewish prophets had foretold the coming of Christ - an argument that would have impressed the pagans of his day, since there was a fresh enthusiasm for oracles."
Doherty continues with a claim that the reference to "John" may be a marginal gloss. He writes:
Theophilus declares that "everyone who keeps God's law and commandments can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption." This is salvation by knowledge of God and his laws, which is a hallmark of the Logos religion. The 'orthodox' Atonement doctrine is completely missing here. Theophilus can hardly be aware of, or subscribe to, Jesus' declaration in the Gospel of John that "I am the Resurrection and the Life"—meaning that he himself is the only avenue to salvation. Again, these are the sorts of things throughout the apologists that GDon and others simply ride roughshod over.
Doherty is reversing the burden of proof here. No apologist in the following centuries had a problem with Theophilus's views as far as I am aware. In fact, his apologetic was praised by later writers. More importantly, the official orthodox view on salvation along the lines that Doherty claims that Theophilus should have expressed didn't exist at that time. As Karen Armstrong writes (Chapter 3):
"[Origen] did not believe that we had been 'saved' by the death of Christ but that we ascended to God under our own steam. The point is that when Origen and Clement [of Alexandria] were writing and teaching their Christian Platonism there was no official doctrine [of salvation]"
Armstrong goes on to write that the official doctrine wasn't decided until the Fourth Century CE. So Doherty's view of salvation in the second century is anachronistic. He clearly hasn't reviewed the literature of the period. (I know I've repeated that last sentence many times already, but it is worth pointing out, since I believe that this is a major flaw in his thesis).
Doherty finishes with:
Finally, GDon claims that, since Theophilus is reported to have written a work against the heresy of Marcion, he finds it improbable that he could have composed such a thing without betraying his lack of belief in an historical Jesus. And where does that report come from? Eusebius, a century and half later. I've already commented on the reliability of traditions proceeding from later Christian times, and from Eusebius in particular. In any case, we can only judge the content of a work by having access to it, and there are no extant fragments.
Do any historians disbelieve Eusebius on this particular point? Certainly any historical claims need to be treated cautiously, but this is hardly an extraordinary claim. That Theophilus wrote anti-heresy works against the gnostics needs to be considered in any evaluation of his beliefs.
As I stated in my original article, Minicius Felix appears to have been modeled on Cicero's De Natura Deorum and De Divinations, as well as on Seneca's De Providentia and De Superstitions. Like Justin Martyr, the author appears to want to offer to educated pagans a defense of Christianity that would be acceptable to them and written in a literary form that they would appreciate. It was highly regarded by later Christian writers for this reason.
Doherty writes that I made no attempt to deal with four passages in Minucius Felix, all of them relating to the ridicule by the Christian Octavius of pagan beliefs in their gods. Doherty believes that these supposedly have direct parallels in the Christian faith. How, he asks, could the author place such statements in the mouth of his Christian debater and give himself no luxury of offering any qualification where Jesus was concerned?
Doherty reverses the burden of proof here. He doesn't tell us WHY these are problems, there is just the assumption that they are. But he doesn't show that these statements contradict the views of HJ writers of the period. As I've shown above, in many cases these 'problem' statements can be found in the writings of the HJ apologists as well.
So let's look at those passages now. As has been the focus of my rebuttal all along, I'll point out equivalent views in HJ writers where possible.
Example 1: "Is it not ridiculous either to grieve for what you worship, or to worship that over which you grieve?"
Christians do not grieve for what they worship, nor worship over which they grieve. Can Doherty show that the Church celebrated a grieving period at Easter, where Christians grieved for Christ's death (e.g. the rites where women wept over Tammuz)?
Example 2: "Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies....For why, if they [i.e., gods] were born, are they not born in the present day also?" [23, ANF translation]
As examined above, Doherty appears unaware that HJers also expressed these views.
Example 3: "Why should I refer to those old wives' fables, of men being changed into birds and beasts, into trees and flowers? If such things had ever happened, they would happen now; but since they cannot happen now, they have never happened." [20, J.H. Freese translation]
This refers to the ongoing activities of the Roman gods. M. Felix asks: if the gods were still active, why don't these things still happen? But how would this apply to a HJ no longer on earth? We don't know M. Felix's opinions of on-going miracles within the Christian church, but obviously these wouldn't have included men changing into birds and beasts. Since M. Felix explicitly refers to gods changing men into flora and fauna, we don't know how he feels about miracles in general, e.g. healing miracles performed by faith healers. It wouldn't be unusual for the times if M. Felix believed that such healing miracles (for example) were still happening.
Example 4: "And yet, although so much time has elapsed and countless ages have passed, is there a single trustworthy instance of a man having returned from the dead like Protesilaus, if only for a few hours? All these figments of a disordered brain, these senseless consolations invented by lying poets to lend a charm to their verse, to your shame you have hashed up in your excessive credulity in honor of your god." [11, J.H. Freese translation]
This is the weakest of the lot. This is what pagans were saying about Christian beliefs. M. Felix wasn't presenting this as a Christian belief. Would the pagans have considered Christ's resurrection as "a trustworthy instance of a man returning from the dead"? Justin Martyr also notes a similar view amongst the pagans: "In the same way, then, you [the pagans] are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again". M. Felix answers in the same way as Justin does when addressing "secular" issues - by examining the pagan philosophers opinion on the subject, and addressing them in a "secular" context.
Doherty continues:
GDon focuses his whole attention on the key double-passage relating to the crucified man. Let's note a few general observations about it. The first part is the accusation itself by Caecilius, in Chapter 9. The charge that:
"the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross"
is part of a litany of calumnies about the Christians which include that they are a religion of lust and fornication, that they reverence the head of an ass and the genitals of their priests, that they dismember infants and drink their blood. The crucified man is inserted into the midst of these. I suggest that presenting the central tenet of the faith in this way should have been unthinkable for an orthodox Christian writer.
When he gets to the second part in Chapter 28-30, Octavius' response to this litany, the crucified man is dealt with in the same fashion, as one part of the answer to all these calumnies. No special treatment is accorded it. The time spent on it is cursory. No devotional tone is present. Octavius simply addresses it in its order on the list. Again, why would the author do this? If nothing else, what impression would this create with his readers? If such an accusation needed to be addressed, there would have been no reason not to give it a special place of its own within his debate, and every reason to do so. GDon does not address this glaring anomaly.
I still don't see it as a "glaring anomaly", I'm afraid. Since M. Felix does address this calumny, it hardly represents a "glaring anomaly". In Doherty's opinion, M. Felix should have made a rebuttal to this attack as a centre piece. Perhaps. But I suggest that M. Felix was more concerned with addressing the criticisms against the Christians of the day. And again: he DOES address them, as I'll look at now.
I'll highlight the passages in question in shocking colors (I apologize in advance to the readers!) to break them down into individual blocks. (Note that these passages come from different sections of M. Felix's work). The blue blocks relate to "the criminal" charge. The yellow block relates to the "pagans are the same" defense. The green blocks relate to "adore the cross" charge.
"... he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve..."
"Lo, for you there are threats, punishments, tortures, and crosses; and that no longer as objects of adoration, but as tortures to be undergone..."
"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man. The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship; him alone they propitiate; him they consult about all things; to him they slaughter victims; and he who to others is a god, to himself is certainly a man whether he will or no, for he does not deceive his own consciousness, if he deceives that of others. "Moreover, a false flattery disgracefully caresses princes and kings, not as great and chosen men, as is just, but as gods; whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man. Thus they invoke their deity, they supplicate their images, they implore their Genius, that is, their demon; and it is safer to swear falsely by the genius of Jupiter than by that of a king. Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it."
From the yellow statement: We can see that M. Felix believes that the criticisms against Christian behavior have their parallels to the pagans. (Note that other apologists of the period made similar claims in their defense of Christianity).
From the blue statements: M. Felix declares that the pagans were wrong to think of the person concerned as a "criminal". He wasn't even an earthly man (this matches Tertullian's statement in Ad nationes: "mortal beings (come) from mortals, earthly ones from earthly"). The Egyptians choose a man to worship, but that man is deceiving others by making himself out as a god. Love is given to a good man.
What is the parallel that M. Felix is making to pagan beliefs? Isn't it that Christians themselves also choose a man (who actually isn't earthly, but truly a god), and that he couldn't have been a wicked person, since "love is only given to a good man"?
Given the late date (to confirm Doherty on this point: yes, I am referring to the 160 CE date here, not a post-Tertullian date), what would any pagan who read Octavius have made of these statements? What would the Christians reading this have thought?
From the green statements: In the first green statement, M. Felix refers to "crosses; and that no longer as objects of adoration, but as tortures to be undergone...". This matches the charge being brought against Christians: that they adored actual crosses.
M. Felix then continues with "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for." He then goes on to talk about the significance of the sign of the cross, and notes that the shape is formed "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched".
Again, remember that M. Felix is pointing out parallels. Doherty says that "it is not a defense of the sign of the cross", but given that M. Felix has implied "you pagans do it too" and given it positive connotations, I suggest that it is in fact a defense of the sign of the cross.
Doherty doesn't offer anything new on Athenagoras or the Epistle to Diognetus that I can see, so I won't cover anything here. I'll simply note Richard Carrier's notes on Athenagoras, and I'll note that he wrote around 177 CE, at a time when pagans knew what Christians thought of their origins:
"In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of