Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by ABuddhist »

Inspired in part by my recent reading about why Justin Martyr may have not mentioned Judas, I recently readed again portions from Earl Doherty discussing other second century CE Christian apologists.

Doherty claims that several of these men, such as Athenagoras of Athens, wrote lengthy treatises defending Christianity in which they never used the words "Jesus", or "Christ" and never discussed a sacrificial death by Jesus Christ (whether upon the Earth, within the Heavens, or in an unstated place); rather, they described themselves as followers of the Jewish god and his son.

So, I have the following questions.

1. Is Doherty accurately representing his sources?

2. Has any person, of any religious affiliation, provided a refutation of Doherty's claims about these men's teachings supporting mythicism?

For what it is worth, I say that even if Doherty be accurately representing his sources, such a thing is not proof that mythicism is true. I know that intellectually inclined converts to "foreign" religions who isolate themselves from broader religious communities to varying extents (as Doherty claims that these men were) can develop very strange ideas that are antithetical to what the religion's average believers or orthodoxy teach. For example, several white anglophone converts to Buddhism were guided more by Theosophy than by genuine Buddhist doctrines, and I lose track of the number of people who allegedly converted to Buddhism who accept that souls and uncreated creator gods exist.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by Giuseppe »

Possibly a source of influence on Doherty about the Apologists was a Catholic cardinal, Jean Danielou, who insisted on the crucifixion being for the early Christian Apologists not at all a source of embarrassment, but a bright event, an epiphany of glory, a real Transfiguration. Hence the entire talk about the "crucifixion of the Logos" (the Logos being too much perfect to suffer during a cosmic crucifixion).

(Note that Georges Ory and Andrè Wautier have argued that the original crucifixion in the earliest gospel was precisely the Transfiguration: Jesus was 'crucified' when he was "transfigured"/pierced by cosmic glory).
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by GakuseiDon »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 am Inspired in part by my recent reading about why Justin Martyr may have not mentioned Judas, I recently readed again portions from Earl Doherty discussing other second century CE Christian apologists.

Doherty claims that several of these men, such as Athenagoras of Athens, wrote lengthy treatises defending Christianity in which they never used the words "Jesus", or "Christ" and never discussed a sacrificial death by Jesus Christ (whether upon the Earth, within the Heavens, or in an unstated place); rather, they described themselves as followers of the Jewish god and his son.

So, I have the following questions.

1. Is Doherty accurately representing his sources?
As someone who spent a LOT of time over quite a few years debating Doherty on the Second Century apologists and his theories generally, then I'd say "yes", if you mean the primary sources. I'd argue that he misused some of his secondary sources, but in the main he was usually reliable there. He 'misquoted' me dreadfully though, especially in the last few years! Though we'd become like an old married couple by that time, so knew how to push each others' buttons.
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 am2. Has any person, of any religious affiliation, provided a refutation of Doherty's claims about these men's teachings supporting mythicism?
I'll humbly claim that, yes, I did. There were years of discussion on the older version of this forum, and I had a few pages on my old website devoted to Doherty and the Second Century apologists. I let the website lapse when I decided to move onto other topics though.

Doherty has kept some of our correspondence on his website. You can find links of some of the arguments between us here: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/responses.html
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 amFor what it is worth, I say that even if Doherty be accurately representing his sources, such a thing is not proof that mythicism is true.
To be clear, Doherty wasn't really using the Second Century apologists to show that his own brand of mythicism was true. He was proposing that there was an early brand of Christianity that had a belief in a Logos that lacked any type of human Jesus Christ or mythical Jesus Christ at its core.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by MrMacSon »

I think a case can be made that Justin Martyr's Apologies and even his Dialogue with Trypho preceded orthodox Christianity.

What Justin knew and how he knew it is not clear. He spends an awful lot of words philosophising about non-Christian gods and even about nebulous ideas about what Christianity might be (or would become).
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by ABuddhist »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:58 pm I think a case can be made that Justin Martyr's Apologies and even his Dialogue with Trypho preceded orthodox Christianity.

What Justin knew and how he knew it is not clear.
Indeed, but Justin Martyr is different from the second century apologists whom I mentioned in my OP because he talks about "Jesus", "Christ", and elements that were (or would be?) incorporated within gospels.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by DCHindley »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 am Inspired in part by my recent reading about why Justin Martyr may have not mentioned Judas, I recently readed again portions from Earl Doherty discussing other second century CE Christian apologists.

Doherty claims that several of these men, such as Athenagoras of Athens, wrote lengthy treatises defending Christianity in which they never used the words "Jesus", or "Christ" and never discussed a sacrificial death by Jesus Christ (whether upon the Earth, within the Heavens, or in an unstated place); rather, they described themselves as followers of the Jewish god and his son.

So, I have the following questions.

1. Is Doherty accurately representing his sources?

2. Has any person, of any religious affiliation, provided a refutation of Doherty's claims about these men's teachings supporting mythicism?

For what it is worth, I say that even if Doherty be accurately representing his sources, such a thing is not proof that mythicism is true. I know that intellectually inclined converts to "foreign" religions who isolate themselves from broader religious communities to varying extents (as Doherty claims that these men were) can develop very strange ideas that are antithetical to what the religion's average believers or orthodoxy teach. For example, several white anglophone converts to Buddhism were guided more by Theosophy than by genuine Buddhist doctrines, and I lose track of the number of people who allegedly converted to Buddhism who accept that souls and uncreated creator gods exist.
While it has been a long while since I had any contact with Earl D., I was once mailed a copy of one of his books (by "avi") and reading it came to the conclusion that he had invested a significant amount of time and reviewed a wide arrangement of sources to produce his work. He kept much better notes than I ever could.

I felt, though, that despite his thoroughness, he was too quick to jump to conclusions. That's just my opinion.

Earl told me via e-mail that he had decided to retire from the public arena as he found the atmosphere of debates between mythicist & human Jesus adherents, to be distasteful. I think there may be a stray post to a blog since, but he has left the room to let the others to slug it out.

DCH
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 am Inspired in part by my recent reading about why Justin Martyr may have not mentioned Judas, I recently readed again portions from Earl Doherty discussing other second century CE Christian apologists.

Doherty claims that several of these men, such as Athenagoras of Athens, wrote lengthy treatises defending Christianity in which they never used the words "Jesus", or "Christ" and never discussed a sacrificial death by Jesus Christ (whether upon the Earth, within the Heavens, or in an unstated place); rather, they described themselves as followers of the Jewish god and his son.

So, I have the following questions.

1. Is Doherty accurately representing his sources?
All reading of any source involves interpretation so there will always be some room for disagreement or debate on Earl's interpretation and presentation of the sources. The important point is that Earl Doherty did set out his argument or grounds for interpreting them the way he did, in particular sections of Minucius Felix. I have been revisiting these sources recently in order to try to get a better handle on what we mean by "the origin of Christianity". What is clear is that some of those earliest "fathers" would be very much at home with a Christianity that extols celibacy, that shuns any association with idols, including eating meat sacrificed to them, that embraces the Jewish God who rejected his own people, and that embraces a key focus figure (presumably a Christ or son of God) who was not human in the sense that we are but was certainly divine, and whose entire focus was on inner-righteousness as epitomizing all that is required to worship and be like God.

I am reminded of the earliest Christian artwork we find in sarcophagi: tranquil scenes and scenes of hope and nourishment and salvation, but no scenes of bloodletting as in gory crucifixions.
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:40 am 2. Has any person, of any religious affiliation, provided a refutation of Doherty's claims about these men's teachings supporting mythicism?
I do not believe so. Again, everything is interpretation and that is my interpretation of the responses to Doherty's work that I have read.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by Giuseppe »

For the chronicle, Doherty has been not the first to advance that the Early Apologists didn't know a historical Jesus. The thesis has been derived from past French mythicists.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:16 am For the chronicle, Doherty has been not the first to advance that the Early Apologists didn't know a historical Jesus. The thesis has been derived from past French mythicists.
Doherty was not aware of Couchoud's work until some time after he wrote his first book, The Jesus Puzzle. He came to some of the same conclusions independently. (I can vouch for this on the basis of extensive personal discussions we had over quite some time.)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Question about Earl Doherty's arguments about Christian apologists

Post by Giuseppe »

The idea of outer space crucifixion was advanced by G. J. P. J. Bolland, before, and then by Couchoud. It was already in the air in mythicist circles hence I don't think that it was born in an absolutely independent way in Doherty's mind. He was probably influenced via an indirect way by Couchoud.

Even in the American William B. Smith's Ecce Deus there is a clue supporting the idea. I can quote it, if you like.

The influence is surely there about the Early Apologists, even if it didn't come from Couchoud. Some titles in some past French mythicist articles talked already about Minucius Felix's witness of ignorance about a historical Jesus.
Post Reply