Did Napoleon Ever Exist?
At best history gives us only scant evidence for some of our most firmly held conclusions. Scant evidence then is at best what we can hope to find. But scant evidence is also easy to deny. "In the interest of conservative theology, to reduce to an absurdity the purely negative tendencies of the rationalistic criticism of the Scriptures then in vogue" Jean-Baptiste Pérès (1752 - 1840) wrote a book called Did Napoleon Ever Exist?.
It generated a lot of discussion. That's because there is only scant evidence for historical claims. But come on, do we really want to deny that Napoleon existed? We are then FORCED to accept scant evidence for historical claims or else we may end up denying such things like Napoleon's existence. What Pérès failed to realize is that if he can deny Napoleon ever existed then how much more so can I deny the extraordinary historical claims of the Bible.
Given the scant nature of historical evidence I think that when it comes to ORDINARY claims, disregarding for the moment EXTRAORDINARY ones, the burden of proof is on the person who denies what any ancient document says. I must grant that the textual evidence is prima facie reliable until shown otherwise. You see, that's what we MUST do with scant historical evidence. And I do not think the mythicists have met that burden of proof with regard to Jesus. [When it comes to EXTRAORDINARY claims the burden of proof is reversed].
It generated a lot of discussion. That's because there is only scant evidence for historical claims. But come on, do we really want to deny that Napoleon existed? We are then FORCED to accept scant evidence for historical claims or else we may end up denying such things like Napoleon's existence. What Pérès failed to realize is that if he can deny Napoleon ever existed then how much more so can I deny the extraordinary historical claims of the Bible.
Given the scant nature of historical evidence I think that when it comes to ORDINARY claims, disregarding for the moment EXTRAORDINARY ones, the burden of proof is on the person who denies what any ancient document says. I must grant that the textual evidence is prima facie reliable until shown otherwise. You see, that's what we MUST do with scant historical evidence. And I do not think the mythicists have met that burden of proof with regard to Jesus. [When it comes to EXTRAORDINARY claims the burden of proof is reversed].
39 comments:
This is a good point John, but if christians point out and say that if we believe that Napoleon existed, then there is as much of a reason to believe Jesus existed it misses the point!
I think the real issue is, did Jesus rise from the dead?, did he do anything attributed to him in the gospels? instead of whether he existed as a real person or not.
Such things were never claimed about Napoleon as were claimed of Jesus.
Ditto, Shane.
I'm somewhat confused by what your saying in the last paragraph John. Yes we all should provide a reason why a text is/is not historical but we shouldn't automatically grant reliability to all historical text. That doesn't seem to be reasonable.
I think the problem with the jesus myth is that jesus is such a huge name, force and thing that exists in peoples minds these days yet the evidence is in reality minimal. The question is why is it so minimal compared to other historical figures yet people don't even remotely question it.
The burden of proof is met if you consider the historical method and archaeology.
2 very important criteria, zero archaeology and zero contemporary documents. What reliability do u attach to jesus existing without those? I'd say 10% the guy actually existed.
x,
The only reason that I can see, that one would be interested in whether a text and historical evidence coalesce is because one wants to bring resolution to the Eastern and Western claims to Christian understanding of Jesus, which was the basis of the split of the Church. Trinitarian or Monotheism...
And what good would that do, except to bring resolution to what was the political project of the Western Church over the Eastern Church.
Even if the political goals of the Western Church were resolved, what then? Politics is still the domain of power and control of the world. Isn't it more applicable to understand who has the power now and what is their agenda?
Why do you run to an 18th century religious apologist when you're trying to back up a historical claim?
Heck, why as someone who wants to debunk Christianity would you rely on religious apologists at all.
Why don't you actually check out the work being done by folks like Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and others before you mock it? You might disagree with it, but until you've actually read it and see how they're interpreting the evidence you're arguing against a straw man (hint - the idea of a mythic origin for "Jesus Christ" has come a long way since the 18th century). You can actually start for free with Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's book on the Secular Web and get a glimpse of what someone who is actually trained in ancient history thought of Doherty's argument. Especially since when Carrier read Doherty's book he was initially skeptical of the whole "mythic" idea in the first place.
You look ridiculous when you try to argue about this, John. While Jesus may have been based on a historical figure, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is not nearly as clear cut as for the existence of Napoleon. We have written documents signed by him, contemporary biographies written of him, a work that at least is attributed to his own hand, military orders with his name on them, treaties .. there's a lot of documentation for the existence of Napoleon that just doesn't exist for Jesus. An 18th century document composed to mock 18th century mythicists really isn't all that relevant to the discussion.
Unless you're just trying to be a jerk and not add anything to the discussion beyond namecalling, I suppose. That doesn't strike me as a very good debating tactic, though.
x, let's say we find an ancient document that reads: "Today I, Abraham, planted a garden." We would want to date it, so let's say the document is best dated between the years 300-400 BCE. So why shouldn't we believe there was a guy in that time period named Abraham who planted a garden?
Dating of these things are important and we know how to do that.
But what if instead, the document reads: "Today I, Abraham, saw a unicorn." Questions would arise. We would doubt anyone saw a unicorn. But then what about this guy named Abraham? Did he exist as well? Someone wrote it. Why not accept that his name was Abraham. We have no alternative suggestion. Sure it might be a prank, but what else can we do?
Do you really believe that the evidence for the existence of Napoleon is roughly equivalent to that of Jesus?
It seems beyond belief that you would uncritically accept the conclusions of 18th century apologetics in any other circumstance yet here you present the case without any attempt to examine what Peres says or why.
Ugh, this sort of smear attack leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. It appears underhanded and disingenuous.
John,
Whatever happened to taking time off?!
I guess when you said "It may be for a day or a week or a month, I don't know. " you really did mean just a day! :)
I love your posts, I love regular updates. I just want to make sure you're taking the time off you need. It's unhealthy to stress out a lot and not sleep.
I sound like a mom, huh?
Thanks for posting this. I think that we can even be genuinely skeptical of scant historical sources, and still conclude that Jesus and Napoleon existed. If the evidence is made sense of in a much more straightforward way if one takes the view that the person written about in the text existed, and if one has to come up with convoluted, implausible scenarios in order to formulate a scenario in which the individual was invented from scratch, then clearly it is more likely that the individual existed than that he didn't.
That's what annoys me most about mythicists. They seem to have a hard time grasping that (1) historical study is about probabilities, not proof in an absolute sense, and (2) it is not enough to show that someone could have invented something, but it is necessary to show that that scenario is more probable than alternatives.
Thanks James. Much appreciated.
Tyro. Please, I think you're becoming emotional here. Why? You are such a rational thinker who dispassionately evaluates the evidence in every other case. I did not say or claim the things you said I do. Don't read into what I wrote anything that is not there. I never said I was certain of anything. This is clue you have an emotional attachment to this issue and one reason why I think you ought to ask yourself why.
Cheers.
James,
They seem to have a hard time grasping that (1) historical study is about probabilities, not proof in an absolute sense, and (2) it is not enough to show that someone could have invented something, but it is necessary to show that that scenario is more probable than alternatives.
Oh wow, project much?
This from the guy that favourably compared the evidence for Jesus to that of George Washington. It would be laughable if you hadn't also mixed in so many insults.
James,
Since we don't have people rising from the dead, nor are humans "gods" except within the context of ancients understanding of leadership, when we can assume that Jesus was a human that was divinized; first by the early fellowhips, and then the developing Tradition of the Church.
Since Luther, the Church has ceased to have political power over the individual in the West, except in fundamentalism, as the individual's progress was determined by his education, or knowledge of the world.
And with the Enlightenment project, based upon the understanding of science, the earth was not the center of the universe, nor was man, nor was God.
Theocratic understandings of government were challenged in the Enlightenment by philosophers and poltical activists. And our country was the result.
Civil liberty now guards the indivduals conscience, in regards to faith and "life".
Unfortunately, according to some, such as disconnect of faith from Church and its "moral teachings" has led society to its demise. That is a matter of opinion, because men do develop irregardles or apart from religous traditions. But, I think to maintain liberty, true liberty, for individuals, then there must be liberty of conscience in regards to faith.
John,
I stand by my points and I think this comparison is absurd and unworthy of you and hope that you'll do the right thing and either disavow this argument or explain why you chose such a comparison.
You are right that I got a little emotional, I felt belittled and dismissed when I feel I've got a serious argument with real evidence that is being ignored. I will step off till I can talk more respectfully.
(BTW: I use "my argument" liberally when I'm not a mythicist but a real fence-sitter, barely leaning to the mythicist side. I feel the style of the discussion is polarizing which I don't like and I'll try to fix it for myself.)
For the record I am NOT claiming the evidence against the existence of Napoleon is the same as the evidence against the existence of a Jesus. I think there is far greater evidence for Napoleon, ya see. The point is that apparently even the evidence for Napoleon can be found not to be enough, and if that's the case how much more so does it apply to the existence of Jesus.
I don't have the time to tell of all the claims we accept in history quite readily that have about the same evidence for them as we do for the existence of Jesus, but this is the case. In some cases all we have in one coin in a whole century of time to help us understand that era. Scant evidence is all we have for many historical conclusions.
Historical conclusions are weak as evidence. But something happened in history. Unless we want to be compete skeptics about most of our historical conclusions we must allow weak evidence to count. Sure, we might be wrong. That's why we cannot claim with any degree of certainty about anything in the past. The conspiracy theorists might be all right after all.
John, really.
You spend your time engaging believers to think critically about the content of the texts that they believe.
You specifically ask them to engage ideas as if they are seeing them for the first time.
Yet you regurgitate ridiculous similes like this.
The historical evidence for Napoleon is 1000 orders of magnitude greater than that for Jesus.
We have the Napoleonic code, named after him. We have a tomb of him, painting, statues, multiple firsthand accounts of meeting him, military histories written about him at the time he was alive and COINS with his image on them minted while he was alive.
If you think this case is comparable, you're just out in left field. The fact that you bring it up suggests you aren't even trying to understand what the debate is about.
The debate is about whether a character who appears in the literary record as a god-man, the first literary notice of which is that he pre-existed the earth and created all the things in it, was the son of God, had a dove come down from heaven while God spoke to him and proclaim him the son of God, walked on water, raised the dead, cast out demons into pigs etc is a real historical character.
A comparable figure would be Romulus, Odysseus, Lycurgus or Appolonius of Tyana.
A non-comparable figure would be Teddy Roosevelt, Napoleon, Richard Couer de Lion or even Constantine.
I really respect you John, but you seem to have a huge blindspot here, especially when your outsider test seems directly applicable here.
Do you think there was a historical Buddha, Rama, King Arthur, Paul Bunyan, Popeye, Peter Pan, Bambi etc?
If you accept all those characters are historical because we have texts that tell stories about them then well ... you're as gullible and brainwashed as some people you complain about. I assume you don't.
Therefore, you are required to exercise your critical thinking skills and actually deal with real arguments against your position.
Evan I respect you too, but I have engaged the arguments in other places.
John, I've kept close tabs on your engagement with the arguments. You claim to have read Doherty. What is your response to his argument about Minucius Felix?
If you have engaged those arguments and you see that this argument is prima facie fallacious, why post? Do you believe there was a historical Rama? If not, why not?
Evan did you see this?
Yes, I did. You finished with:
It's possible that Doherty is correct though. When it comes to historical investigations like this one perhaps the best we should claim is agnosticism. To claim more than this in the face of contrary historical evidence and arguments may demand more of historical evidence than we can reasonably allow.
So are you agnostic about Napoleon? I'm not.
What is your response to Doherty's citation of the Minucius Felix quotation, "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."
How do you square this with your belief that Jesus was historical?
So are you agnostic about Napoleon? I'm not.
Evan, just like Tyro mischaracterizes me here.
It's as if all of their prior reasoning skills won't allow them to in this case. And they should see what they're doing because they're both really really smart people.
For that reason I won't bother anymore. On this issue they are not being reasonable. Just like the theists whom I argue here everyday they exhibit the same exact tendencies. Sorry. But that's what I think. And it should be a clue that they are NOT being reasonable on this issue. I will not be browbeaten into discussing anything else about what Dohtery said because this is evidence enough for me that you're just not listening. It's a complete waste of my time.
Sheesh.
Evan,
Interesting quote and certainly supports Doherty but like all isolated quotes, it could be plausibly explained by historicists. There is no single nail in the coffin and John is probably reacting the same way you would if he cited James the brother of the Lord.
It's the aggregate of these quotes which must be weighed, something very difficult to do in a blog post and even harder to do in comments.
Evan, just like Tyro mischaracterizes me here.
It's good to know that you don't think the two issues are comparable but it was you who made the comparison. If it was a mischaracterisation, I can only say it was an innocent mistake based on your presentation of this absurd analogy.
To defend yourself, you sat "apparently even the evidence for Napoleon can be found not to be enough" which again characterises mythicists as denying evidence, even when overwhelming. You might as well compare mythicists to Creationists as James McGrath did.
I will not be browbeaten into discussing anything else about what Dohtery said because this is evidence enough for me that you're just not listening.
I don't understand. To what are we not listening? I've seen a lot of slurs and personal attacks but little attempt to deal with opposing arguments fairly.
Is there evidence for an historical Jesus? Yes, but that's not enough. There's evidence for YEC and an earth-centric universe. The issue isn't whether there are individual observations which confirm your views but whether there are observations which disconfirm and what we do about them. I don't say you are like a YEC or Flat Earther, in fact I've say the exact same thing about mythicists. Both sides must deal with _all_ observations and evidence, not just the ones that appear to support their case.
So how can one support an historical Jesus? Step one is, as you have done, build support. But step two which you have NOT done is to examine counter-arguments or apparently disconfirming evidence and refute or embrace them somehow.
Doherty is a good example for this as he devotes considerable time and effort to looking at all of the places which seem to support an historical Jesus. In the evolution debate we see the same thing as there are entire books which talk about the illusion of design, "missing links", the Cambrian "explosion", and other arguments against it.
This is pretty basic stuff and I'm sure you'd say the exact same thing in any other circumstance, so why do you refuse to do so in this case?
If I'm "not listening", what is it I'm not listening to? Are you listening to us in turn? It doesn't feel like it which might be the source of frustration (perhaps on both of our sides).
I think both sides are guilty of overplayed analogies.
I don't think that historicists help themselves with comparisons to George Washington and Napoleon. On the other hand, I don't think mythicists help themselves with comparisons to Romulus, Odysseus, or Lycurgus. The gap between the time they were supposed to have lived and the time they appear in the records is awfully long. Appolonius of Tyana may be a more useful analogy.
John I don't think I am mischaracterizing you and if I am I would like to know how.
You said on your Doherty post that the best someone could claim about Jesus was agnosticism. Yet you are clearly NOT agnostic about Napoleon. Which means that you are not putting up a reasonable example for comparison. I think that's shoddy thinking that you would, in other contexts, rightfully point out was shoddy.
You claim to have read Doherty's book. You claim it didn't convince you. This means you need to address how his understanding is wrong in some specific ways that I have never seen you do.
Asking you about the Minucius Felix quote is perfectly legitimate. If a Christian apologist of the 2nd century could say such a thing, is it not evidence against a historical Jesus? I've never seen a historicist explain it any effective way that I can see.
I know you've signed off again, since discussing evidence seems to be a waste of your time, but here's another piece of evidence. How come Theophilus of Antioch gives an entire chronology of the world from creation to his time, yet doesn't mention Jesus of Nazareth, even when he talks about the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius?
Can you imagine a modern Christian apologist giving a history of the world that didn't mention Jesus of Nazareth at all?
What do you make of this, anyone, since John is signing off?
Can anyone point me to any scholarly work that investigates whether Napoleon was a historical person? If there isn't any, then the historical Napoleon is an unproven assumption. As far as I know, all books about Napoleon simply assumes that he exists. Is the existence of Napoleon an unwarranted assumption, or a warranted one (at least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary)
And for those who respond by saying that the evidence for Napoleon is much stronger than for Jesus: (1) if the assumption for the existence of Napoleon hasn't been investigated, how do you know? (2) Where do you draw the line?
@Evans
What is your response to Doherty's citation of the Minucius Felix quotation, "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."
Here is a paraphrase of that quote:
Pagan: "You worship a man, a wicked man who was a criminal!"
Octavius: "A criminal??? You think we worship a criminal? You are far from the truth, my friend. No criminal deserves worship. He wasn't a criminal, in fact he wasn't even a mortal man. What's the point of worshipping a mortal man? Once he is dead, he is gone."
I'd recommend reading M. Felix in to get the actual charge that Octavius is responding to (my caps):
"... 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."
Ask yourself: how would an orthodox Christian of the time respond to the charge that Jesus was (just) a man who was punished for his wickedness?
@Evan
I know you've signed off again, since discussing evidence seems to be a waste of your time, but here's another piece of evidence. How come Theophilus of Antioch gives an entire chronology of the world from creation to his time, yet doesn't mention Jesus of Nazareth, even when he talks about the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius?
Evan, here is what Richard Carrier writes about Theophilus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
"Near Tatian's Syrian church, but across the border in Roman territory (and amidst a decidedly Greek culture) flourished bishop Theophilus at Antioch, around 180 A.D. (M 117-9). Theophilus is important for a variety of reasons: he was the second, very shortly after Athenagoras (below), to explicitly mention the Trinity (Ad Autolycum 2.15); he may have composed his own harmony and commentary on the four Gospels chosen by Tatian; and he wrote books against Marcion and other heretics. He is also a window into the thinking of converts: he was converted by the predictions concerning Jesus in the OT (ibid. 1.14), perhaps the weakest grounds for conversion. But most of all, he routinely treats Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets (M 118). He also refers to John's Revelation as authoritative."
Evan, I don't know if you have heard of Richard Carrier, but I quote him here for a reason. Seriously: you need to look into Doherty's claims for yourself, and not rely on the analysis in his book.
Don, you simply have failed to answer any of the substantive points, and have danced around by giving me doctored translations.
I gave links to both works so people could read them entirely in context.
Minucius Felix is quite clear that no man could ever be a God. Yet the historicist position is that he absolutely believed that a man was God. How is that possible?
Theophilus spends lots of time discussing the whole of human history. He mentions exactly the time that Jesus was supposedly alive during this history of humanity, yet makes no mention of him. How is that possible?
These are people living in the 2nd century. They may very well have been aware of the gospels, but they CLEARLY did not consider them historical documents that showed that God had come to earth in the form of a man.
How much more research do I need to do besides reading the texts?
Theophilus writes a whole apology discussing the merits of the Christian faith. Yet nowhere does he mention Jesus of Nazareth. He does mention Jesus -- Jesus the son of Nun, who conquered Palestine after Moses brought the Hebrews to the promised land.
Isn't that an odd fact, one that must be dealt with?
Evan,
I'm reminded of Carrier's remark in his review of Doherty's work. He said that he decided to check several passages that Doherty didn't cover and found that they actually strengthened Doherty's claims. Here, I was not aware of either of these two works so I look at it as a sort of test of the two general competing theories and like Carrier, I find that they appear to strengthen the mythicist position.
No doubt there are some ad hoc justifications for this silence and an interpretation which could fit the historicist theory but it does weaken one side while strengthening the other. Thanks.
Evan, M Felix is denying that Christians worship a "mortal man", since "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". I don't know what you mean by "doctored translations", as that's coming from the quote YOU gave.
As for Theophilus of Antioch, here are some quotes from his three books:
* "Trinity... God, and His Word, and His wisdom".
* "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,"
* "And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her."
* "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."
* "... 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."
True, Theophilus doesn't use the words "Jesus" or even "Christ". He doesn't refer to any details of Christ's ministry. So we have a dilemma here:
EITHER:
Doherty is correct, and Theophilus belongs to some strange sect existing in 180 CE that calls itself "Christian", talks about the Trinity, refers to the Word and quotes from the Gospels -- but that nevertheless had no idea about Jesus or Christ. Even Paul had that much knowledge!
OR:
There is something fundamentally wrong with Doherty's analysis, of his reading about how people wrote in those days.
Would you agree with this much: Theophilus of Antioch, who is writing a "Christian" apology to pagan Autolycus, appears to be completely unaware that any other kind of Christianity exists?
Don, I've just read all your quotes. Where is Theophilus talking about Jesus of Nazareth? Please show me. He's talking about a holy trinity composed of philosophical ideas. Reason, wisdom and God.
Where is Jesus of Nazareth in that?
How many modern apologists would discuss the trinity and not mention Jesus?
So ... yes, I think it very likely that Christians at the time Theophilus was writing did NOT view the gospels as history, but as you generously inform us, they thought they were "... taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things."
In other words -- the gospels were using a story to show the principles of the Hebrew Scriptures for the uninitiated. Could a Christian with a post-Nicene creed view of history state such a thing?
Don, as to my claim of doctored translations, I am not an expert in Greek, but I have quoted the standard translation for the passage above:
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.
However you have a "paraphrase" which I would call a "doctored translation" of the exact same passage rendered as:
A criminal??? You think we worship a criminal? You are far from the truth, my friend. No criminal deserves worship. He wasn't a criminal, in fact he wasn't even a mortal man. What's the point of worshipping a mortal man? Once he is dead, he is gone.
Now a paraphrase is a way to say that you've found the current translation wanting, have no way of actually translating the text into the meaning you wish to have, and therefore take the translated passage and turn it into idiomatic speech in the language translated into.
Perhaps I'm not an expert in Greek, but I am fluent in several languages and I can tell you that meaning from the original language is invariably lost and meaning from the secondary language is invariably gained in such efforts.
I've given links to both texts for anyone who wishes to read the whole subject matter. However, even your reading kills your position.
The historian can't judge anything other than "earthly beings". If your argument is that Jesus is historical, than your position is just as devastated by your reading as it is by mine, from the point of view of a historian. For if Autolycus believed Jesus not to have been an "earthly being" his historicity is just as unlikely as if he believed him to be metaphorical, allegorical or fictional.
@Evan
Don, I've just read all your quotes. Where is Theophilus talking about Jesus of Nazareth? Please show me. He's talking about a holy trinity composed of philosophical ideas. Reason, wisdom and God.
Where is Jesus of Nazareth in that?
Nowhere, and that is the important thing. If you are right, Theophilus is completely unaware of Jesus Christ, Cosmic version, much less Jesus of Nazareth.
Given the late date (180 CE) and Theophilus' knowledge of the Gospels, it is almost inconceivable that Theophilus was unaware of Christians who thought that Jesus Christ was the centre of Christianity. But he doesn't mention them.
Either he is not an orthodox Christian who deliberately doesn't refer to Jesus Christ, or he is an orthodox Christian who deliberately doesn't refer to Jesus Christ. We have no evidence of the former. We do have evidence of the latter (Tertullian's "Ad nationes")
Remember, Theophilus doesn't mention "Jesus" or "Christ". Are you saying, then, that in 180 CE, Theophilus is unaware of Christians who believed in a Jesus Christ?
Of course, there are well-provenanced contemporary newspaper reports of Napoleon.
What we don't have are people claiming that Napoleon gave revelations about how his body and blood could be conjured up in a ritual cultic meal.
Historicists seem to think that sceptics only have denial of plain facts in their arguments.
Hence their analogies of sceptics with Napoleon-deniers.
MCGRATH
They seem to have a hard time grasping that (1) historical study is about probabilities, not proof in an absolute sense...
CARR
Hypocrite.
McGrath will not even *entertain* the possibility that the brothers of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9 are not blood relatives of Jesus, and yet proclaims himself as dealing in 'probabilities'.
James McGrath claims to deal in probabilities and yet he claims there is NO POSSIBILITY that Jesus did not exist - just look at Galatians 1:19.
Hypocrite!
Don, you say:
Given the late date (180 CE) and Theophilus' knowledge of the Gospels, it is almost inconceivable that Theophilus was unaware of Christians who thought that Jesus Christ was the centre of Christianity. But he doesn't mention them.
Theophilus is an apologist. He is writing to convince people to become Christians. You're correct, he is aware of the gospels. Yet -- he nowhere quotes them for anything but moral instruction. Can you imagine what someone who was convinced by his arguments would think when they showed up at the first meeting and everyone was talking about Jesus of Nazareth? Wouldn't it freak him out?
It is obvious, yes, that Theophilus is familiar with the gospels as you point out, but he clearly does not view them as histories or biographies of God. Additionally, he does not view them as authoritative, and he doesn't give them any role in his conversion.
Theophilus is quite clear what Christianity is about and why he has the name "Christian":
And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.
Then he talks about resurrection, without mentioning Jesus at all, and subsequently explains what converted him -- the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Autolycus asks Theophilus to show him his God, and Theophilus shows him the Hebrew Scriptures.
What is Autolycus going to think when he gets to the local church and finds everyone telling stories about Jesus that aren't in the Hebrew Scriptures? What is he going to think when he finds out that Christian really means followers of Jesus of Nazareth? How would you respond?
Evan:
What is Autolycus going to think when he gets to the local church and finds everyone telling stories about Jesus that aren't in the Hebrew Scriptures? What is he going to think when he finds out that Christian really means followers of Jesus of Nazareth? How would you respond?
Well, exactly. That's my point. We know THOSE Christians existed in 180 CE. Justin Martyr had talked about "Gospels" 30 years earlier in his First Apology, and Theophilus refers quite a few times to "Gospels" without explanation, as though assuming that Autolycus knows what they are. But Theophilus gives no indication that there was another group of Christians using "Gospels" and teaching from them. It is all "we Christians this" and "we Christians that". Either Theophilus doesn't know about those other Christians -- which at 180 CE appears highly unlikely -- or he is taking a big risk in assuming that Autolycus doesn't know anything about them and won't run into them. Which option do you prefer?
If Doherty is right, then Theophilus' behaviour is strange. If Doherty is wrong -- and when you include the similar example of Tertullian's "Ad nationes" (in which there is no mention of the names "Jesus" or "Christ" either) this seems to be overwhelmingly the case -- then we need to ask what this does for his analysis of similar texts.
On the meaning of the name "Christian", Tertullian says much the same thing in "Ad nationes":
The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing.
I'll make this my last post on this topic, but I recommend digging a little deeper than what Doherty presents in his book and seeing how Theophilus fits into the context of his time.
Don, I'm glad you see it as an anomaly that needs explanation.
I would go back to the concept of the reliance of these apologists on the Hebrew Scriptures and their veneration of those scriptures, as Paul does, as the primary Logos of God.
If this is the case, how can Jesus of Nazareth be shoe-horned into that role as the Logos -- especially in the synoptic gospels?
If you assume there was a historical Jesus, by what process is he made to become the creator before the earth was made within 20 years of his death? If you can explain this to me, it would be helpful -- people keep signing off this thread :(
Evan, the evolution of belief in Jesus is a fascinating topic. The short answer is: he probably wasn't thought as that within 20 years! Scholars like Bart Ehrman think that Paul was an adoptionist, who believed that Jesus was "adopted" as God's Son at the resurrection. Ehrman cites the following text:
[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)"
So, Jesus only became "Son of God" at his resurrection. Some other texts which are commonly used to point to a pre-existent spirit equal to God (e.g. Phil 2) have other interpretations. A great site that goes through this is the "Oh My God Man" series here: http://thomstark.net/
The chronology as I see it is:
* Jesus' body goes missing, and some believed that Jesus was resurrected. This was regarded as the start of a general resurrection that was believed to signify the end of the era, and the start of God's reign on earth.
* Paul starts to persecute them, but has a vision (or revelation) that Jesus was in fact resurrected and wants Paul to preach to the gentiles.
* Now, the interesting thing here is that this doesn't mean that Paul thought that Jesus was God. Other people had been called "Son of God", like Cyrus, David, even Israel itself. The term meant that the person (or country) had a special relationship with God. Jesus earned his appointment as Son of God -- and resurrection -- for being "obedient unto death". But at some time after Paul, the gentiles start to believe that Jesus was not just the Son of God because he had a special relationship with God, but because he was actually divine.
* The gospel writers create their stories about Jesus. The Synoptics' Jesus is not divine, but the last gospel to be written -- John's -- is different. John associates Jesus Christ with the Logos. Up until then, the Logos was an impersonal force, but philosophers had used the idea of the Logos to show how the unchanging and perfect God could create the changing world: via the Logos, which was God's word and reason.
* In the 2nd half of the 2nd C, Christian apologists were using the Logos as a philosophical tool to promote Christianity. Some pagans at the time (like Celsus) were saying that Jesus was just a sorcerer; others that Jesus was a necromancer who used the cross for black magic. But thoughts about the Logos was in the zeitgeist of the time -- the emperor Marcus Aurelius referred to it in his writings -- and it made a good fit for Christians wanting to establish Christianity as a "philosophical school".
* Christians from Justin Martyr onwards also start declaring that Christianity had been predicted by the prophets for a thousand years (read through Theophilus to see how many times he talks about the "prophets"). According to them, Christianity -- via its Jewish roots -- was so ancient that in fact the Greek poets copied from the Hebrew Scriptures! (Christians had been quote mining the Hebrew Scriptures for more than a hundred years by that time, so it would have been a no-brainer for them to use Hebrew Scriptures this way).
It's interesting, but Doherty has the same agenda as modern Christian apologists: the need for Paul to express a high Christology. Anyway, outside of its mythical connotations, if you are interested in this topic I recommend sitting down with a pot of coffee and read through the 2nd C apologists from Justin Martyr onwards, esp the first part of M. Felix, where "Caecilius" blasts the Christians. It's wonderful! Here is part of that:
"Behold, a portion of you--and, as you declare, the larger and better portion--are in want, are cold, are labouring in hard work and hunger; and God suffers it, He feigns; He either is not willing or not able to assist His people; and thus He is either weak or inequitable."
With all claims, the burden of proof is on the affirmative side, both commonplace and supernatural claims.
Post a Comment