Hi Brady,

Here is my most recent post.  

Since the major part of your entire argument seems to be built upon quoting what you refer to as primary sources, a must read web site can be found at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/fatherwitness.html. The web site is run by Paul Tobin, and he wrote all of the articles at the web site. The article that I will be quoting from is titled ‘Reliability of Patristic References to Jewish Christianity.’

Tobin’s attention to detail and accuracy, including offering a number of direct and sometimes contradictory quotes from some of the primary sources, do much more than just call into question many of the claims of some of your primary sources. Rather, his article undermines the credibility of many of the writings of the primary sources in such a way as to leave honest, open minded researchers with no choice but to beat a hasty retreat away from the primary sources so revered by many Christians.

Although I will offer selected quotes from Tobin’s article, it is fairly lengthy, so you and your readers should visit his web site and read the entire article, including its various links, in order to fully appreciate its value.

Following are selected excerpts from the article:

“Among the most important sources on Jewish Christian sects are the writings of the church fathers. We will be using their citations rather extensively in our historical reconstruction of what post-70 CE Jewish Christianity was like. However their works are not to taken naively as historically accurate. We must take into account the various factors that influenced the writings of the Church Fathers.”

“The Church Fathers’ sense of history was not like our modern critical, scientific one. We know that they often mistook legend for history and that later Church Fathers tended to uncritically rely on the written works of earlier ones which they expanded on and added their own spin to.”

“When it comes to patristic testimonies on Jewish Christian sects, there are several additional factors we have to keep in mind: In general, they were hostile witnesses. This fact has quite a few implications for their presentation of, and their access to, information on Jewish Christianity. Many of the Church Fathers had their own idiosyncrasies and prejudices which we must be cognizant of when evaluating the evidence they presented. All these show us that we must handle the evidence from the Church Fathers with care. For what they wrote may have been influenced by many of the factors above.”

“In general the church fathers' sense of history is not the same as modern critical historians. They would sometimes quote apocryphal works as though they were historical. One example is from Hippolytus' (c170-c236) Commentary on Daniel:

"If we believe that, when Paul was condemned to the beast, the lion that was set upon him laid down at his feet and licked him, how shall we not believe that which happened in the case of Daniel? (Commentary on Daniel, 3:9)”

“Paul's encounter with the lion is no way recorded in the authentic epistles of Paul nor is it found in the canonical (and semi-historical) Acts of the Apostles. It is to be found in the late second century theological fiction The Acts of Paul. Set in Ephesus (see I Corinthians 5:32!), Paul was thrown into prison where a fierce lion was set loose against him. However it turns out that the lion (a talking one!) was one that had previously been baptized by Paul. Paul was not harmed by the lion.”

“Even a fundamentalist Christian would have no problem seeing how absurd the whole story is: with a talking lion that was baptized by Paul. Furthermore we know from Tertullian (c160-c225) that the author was a presbyter from Asia who upon being convicted of this forgery, duly confessed and said that he composed the work ‘out of respect for Paul.’”

“Yet here we have a church father quoting this as though it was historical fact and using it to bolster his argument for the authenticity of a similar incident in Daniel! Obviously Hippolytus' sense of history lacks some skepticism.” 

“It is important to keep in mind Streeter's words, written almost a century ago:

“Thus when the church fathers referred to ‘tradition,’ it may not necessarily be a reliable one. ‘Tradition’ in their parlance could simply be a quote from some apocryphal works or a juicy and interesting gossip told, retold and embellished as it passed from person to person.”

“Another area of caution must be applied to cases when we seem to have multiple attestations to a single event or tradition. The presence of multiple attestations is a good thing, for, if independent, they indicate corroborating witnesses.”

“However, when it comes to the patristic writings, we have to remember the following facts. The church fathers read one another. This is obvious. For it was unlikely that an older work would have survived if later ‘orthodox’ fathers did not consider them worth preserving. Carried further, this means that if an earlier church father was held in high regard, his successors would accept the authority of what he wrote. However, the works of earlier writers were referred not normally through verbatim reproductions (although this did happen-Eusebius being one good example) but more often through paraphrased descriptions of the accounts; and often with amplifications and modifications added in by the copyist.” 

“As Streeter pointed out:

“Let us look at one example of how a simple bare tradition was embroidered by later church fathers. This involves the attribution of authorship of the second gospel to John Mark. The earliest strand is from Papias (c60-13) who was quoted verbatim by Eusebius:

“We notice how each of the later Church Fathers took Papias statement as the starting point and simply added their own embellishments to it:

Ireneaus (c130-200) added that Mark wrote his gospel "after the departure" (i.e. death) of Peter.

Clement of Alexandria (c150-215) (quoted in History of the Church 6:14:6-7) contradicted Ireneaus and added his own statement that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was alive and when he (Peter) heard of the gospel "he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.

Origen (c185-254) (quoted in History of the Church 6:25:8-9) said that Mark "composed it according to the instructions of Peter.

Eusebius (c260-c340) who faithfully recorded the witnesses above, followed Clement's account but then added that when Peter heard about the gospel he ‘was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.’ (History of the Church 2:15:2-6)

Jerome (c342-420) in his letter to Hedibia (Letter 120) mentioned that Peter narrated while Mark noted down what he said.”

“The important thing to note is how each later writer simply added their own details to the story. We know that these later fathers had no additional data apart from Papias. For instance Eusebius said his statement was given by Clement, yet Clement said Peter neither encourage nor forbade the use of the gospel whereas Eusebius, in direct contradiction, said Peter gave his sanction to the work! Jerome in his work On Illustrious Men (c302), chapter 8, gave the statement from Eusebius; following closely the Clementine details. Yet he contradicted his own account in Letter 120! So, in the words of Streeter, we catch Jerome in an act of ‘conscious exaggeration’ in his letter to Hedibia. The accounts of Ireneaus and Clement also contradicted one another; one said the work was written after the death of Peter, the other stated that Mark's gospel was composed during the lifetime of the apostle. Finally, Origen was merely paraphrasing the Papias account. 

“Thus in evaluating the writings of the church fathers we always have to ask ourselves what the likely source of their information was before concluding that we have corroborating evidence.”

That was just for openers, as you will see if you read Tobin’s entire article. Further, as our debate continues, I will conduct a complete and careful study of all of Tobin’s article and quote it extensively. This is getting fun.

You are looking at this entire situation solely from a modern perspective. For example, from 1000 A.D. – 1500 A.D., the vast majority of people who became Christians had never heard of your primary sources, such as Irenaeus and Tacitus, and as such did not read any of their writings. Rather, they primarily accepted Christianity based upon faith alone.

In Grant Jeffrey’s book titled ‘The Signature of God,’ he said “The blind faith of our forefathers is not enough.” Jeffrey was correct that for many centuries blind faith was the main reason that many people became Christians, not based upon any of your primary, hearsay sources.

Consider the following excerpts from my essay at www.askepticalapproach.com:

Tom Harpur reiterates Elaine Pagel’s statements. He is an author whose latest book is titled ‘The Pagan Christ – Recovering the Lost Light (Thomas Allen). In an Internet article that I read, Harpur stated that suffering savior-Gods were not at all unique to Christianity, and some even pre-dated Christianity. Following are some excerpts taken from the article:

“One of the big questions nobody has asked about Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is this: If the crucifixion was a historic event and so central to the Christian Gospel, why is it that there is no evidence whatever of a man on a cross in Christian art and monuments for almost seven centuries?”

“Not until 692 CE, in the reign of Emperor Justinian II, was it decreed that henceforth instead of a lamb (the zodiacal sign of Aries) fixed on the cross, the figure of Jesus be placed there instead. Another question: How is it that the earliest known figure of any man on a cross comes from about 300 BCE and that ‘person’ is not Jesus but Orpheus, a mythical Greek sun-god?”

“To make sure this story stuck, all Pagan opposition was quelled with an unequalled fury. Mystery schools and philosophical academies were closed down, libraries of books were burned, and anathemas were hurled at all who dared to raise objections. Those who risked everything by pointing out that the Christians had taken over all the old Pagan myths, rites, and ceremonies but transformed them by literalizing everything were either banished or killed.”

“That so-called ‘pious frauds,’ forgery and deceit of every kind were widely used in a cover-up is testified to by some of the early Christian apologists themselves. Even the major church historian, Eusebius – as shifty a writer as one could imagine, according to Edward Gibbon – gloated over the fact that he managed (in his account) to ‘make everything right’ for the Church.”

I found the following at the Secular Web: “I would ask whose historicity was questioned in antiquity, when both pagan historians and Christian Fathers accepted pagan saviour gods as historical personages? (Herodotus says Attis was the son of a king of Lydia and that Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, was a ruler of Egypt. Clement of Alexandria regarded pagan saviour gods as 'mere men' and Firmicus Maternus called Osiris and Typhon 'without doubt' kings of Egypt). Can one expect much in the way of critical skepticism when, even in modern times, Wilhelm Till long passed as a real person?" G.A. Wells, ‘The Jesus Legend.’ (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996), p. 47.

In a couple of your previous posts you were quite insistent that I produce the historical research criteria used by the Microsoft Encarta 2002 Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica and the sizeable consensus of modern historians who claim that during Nero’s reign, there were only a few Christians and that Nero did not persecute them. You asked me how many historians agree with my position and you asked me for their names as well. Thank you very much for opening that door. Following your same line of reasoning, I now ask you the following questions: 1) Did any of the primary sources conduct personal interviews with any of the supposed still living eyewitness? 2) Regarding second hand testimonies, did any of the primary sources conduct personal interviews with people who knew any of the still living eyewitnesses? 3) Regarding even third hand testimonies, did the primary sources conduct personal interviews with people who knew people who knew any of the still living eyewitnesses? 4) In approximately what year did a primary source (of course we will need his name) first make claims about the Resurrection and what did he say? 5) Since Christians claim that heaven and hell are at stake regarding their claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead, will you agree that the historical claim that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River pales by comparison to the unique claims that Jesus rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven, and as such Christians must do more than simply present a good case, but rather an exceptional case?

One of my essay topics is titled “Comfort.” Following are the contents of the entire topic:

“The real goal of Christians is not to find the truth that sets them free, but to find the comfort that will make them comfortable for all of eternity. Such a claim is easily proven. If it one day turns out that the Bible is false and that a comfortable eternal life is still available for everyone in varying degrees, courtesy of some powerful being, no Christian who has ever lived would turn down such an offer, especially if not accepting the offer would cause them to end up in an uncomfortable hell for all of eternity. Under such a scenario, Christians would simply consider their gullibility to be quite natural for humans and begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.”

“Although Christians are greatly influenced by coercive New Testament claims of reward and punishment, skeptics are not influenced by claims of reward and punishment, at least regarding their own world view. A skeptic believes that if he becomes a Christian and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a false religion, he will still end up in the same state that he would have been in had he not become a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian believes that if he becomes a skeptic and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a true religion, he will end up in hell. Coercive influences often cloud objective thinking. In addition, it is often not wise to ask an important question to a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. The followers of most or all religions perceive that they have a vested interest in their beliefs. As far as those people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort.”

“There is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are attempting to use their mythical God to satisfy their desires for comfort, both physical and emotional, and for nothing else, especially eternal comfort, in a manner no different than a dog or a trained seal attempts to do tricks in order to receive a reward of food, some kind words and a pat on the back.”

“If you are a Christian, can you think of even a single desire that you have that is not related to comfort, either present comfort or future comfort, for yourself of someone else? Will you be honest enough to admit that if you one day find out that your beliefs are false, and a comfortable heaven is available from a being other than the God of the Bible, your conclusion at that time would be that the God of the Bible is replaceable, but the desire for eternal comfort is not replaceable?”

Brady, the desires for present emotional comfort and future eternal comfort account for all religions. All animals, including humans, are genetically programmed to seek comfort. It is the means of their survival. For example, consider the desires that animals have, including humans, to eat food and have sex. Without such desires, they would die. Since humans are much more intelligent than other animals, they have the unique ability to consider what might happen after they die.

If skeptics thought that a comfortable eternal life were available, they would want it just as much as religious people do. Although many Christians claim otherwise, skeptics are most certainly not predisposed against miracles. What skeptic would not want miracles to be available for the benefit of mankind.

I temporarily digressed away from discussing apologetic issues in order to discuss my essay topic on comfort, which is a philosophical issue. I think that you will agree that apologetic issues cannot stand alone without also addressing philosophical issues as well. My essay is divided into three categories titled ‘Apologetic Issues,’ ‘Philosophical Issues’ and ‘Social Issues.’ All three categories are important, and I get e-mails from Christians where they discuss various topics in all three of those categories.

Well, this post has been fairly lengthy, but I believe that in this case, the length was necessary. I would not object if you offered a post of equal or greater length.

Johnny

Round 3 - From Brady

Hi Johnny,

You wrote:

Tobin’s attention to detail and accuracy, including offering a number of direct and sometimes contradictory quotes from some of the primary sources, do much more than just call into question many of the claims of some of your primary sources. Rather, his article undermines the credibility of many of the writings of the primary sources in such a way as to leave honest, open minded researchers with no choice but to beat a hasty retreat away from the primary sources so revered by many Christians.

When you call the fathers ‘primary sources,’ what are you referring to that they are primary sources for? If we are talking about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, they are surely not primary sources to that. They had no contact with Jesus or the events around his life.

The apostolic fathers (those who actually knew the apostles) can be primary sources to what the apostles taught and did. Those who knew the apostolic fathers can be primary sources to what those fathers said and did. But none of the sources cited in your quotes from Tobin’s article are primary source for the questions at hand. I don’t know why we are talking about them.

However, this does give me the opportunity to discuss bad methods of historical investigation. We find several of these from Tobin. Let’s start with contradictory statements. Tobin writes:

“The Church Fathers’ sense of history was not like our modern critical, scientific one. We know that they often mistook legend for history and that later Church Fathers tended to uncritically rely on the written works of earlier ones which they expanded on and added their own spin to.”

“In general the church fathers' sense of history is not the same as modern critical historians. They would sometimes quote apocryphal works as though they were historical. One example is from Hippolytus' (c170-c236) Commentary on Daniel:

"If we believe that, when Paul was condemned to the beast, the lion that was set upon him laid down at his feet and licked him, how shall we not believe that which happened in the case of Daniel? (Commentary on Daniel, 3:9)”

“Paul's encounter with the lion is no way recorded in the authentic epistles of Paul [a] nor is it found in the canonical (and semi-historical) Acts of the Apostles. It is to be found in the late second century theological fiction The Acts of Paul. Set in Ephesus (see I Corinthians 5:32!), Paul was thrown into prison where a fierce lion was set loose against him. However it turns out that the lion (a talking one!) was one that had previously been baptized by Paul. Paul was not harmed by the lion.”

“Even a fundamentalist Christian would have no problem seeing how absurd the whole story is: with a talking lion that was baptized by Paul. Furthermore we know from Tertullian (c160-c225) that the author was a presbyter from Asia who upon being convicted of this forgery, duly confessed and said that he composed the work ‘out of respect for Paul.’”

I say this is contradictory because the premise is that the church Fathers were uncritical. In order to show this, Tobin offers a quote from Hippolytus (a quote that I could not find, could you?). In an effort to show that Hippolytus was not using a credible source, Tobin quotes Tertullian. And there is the contradiction. What these two quotes give us is a view that individuals (like Hippolytus) make mistakes, but that the majority of the Church (note that the forger was convicted) was interested not in made-up stories, but the truth, what actually happened. Tertullian’s point contradicts Tobin’s premise.

But what else do we learn about Tobin’s methodology from these few paragraphs? Well, we can see that Tobin presents us with a fallacious criterion. Tobin expects us to reject an entire generation of authors because a few quote from bad sources on occasion. Let’s apply this criterion to our generation and see what happens! There are people today who believe that Elvis is still alive. There are many others who hold to what you called in a private note to me the irrational hypothesis that there are space aliens. Still others insist in this day and age that the moon landings were a hoax. Given such beliefs among our society, it is obvious that this generation “often mistook legend for history” and cannot determine the difference between fact and fiction. Given Tobin’s dismissal of the entire work of the fathers on that basis, it seems only fair that we should dismiss everything written by authors today, including things written by him and you.

In fact, I should say we must especially reject your writings! You see, I have pointed out several logical fallacies in your writings and given Tobin’s criterion that means everything you have written or will ever write must be deemed fallacious.  After all, as you so eloquently put it, “ What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

But why stop here? There are those in every generation that occasionally misstated some facts and had some big false beliefs and some little false beliefs. Given Tobin’s criterion, we must dismiss them all.

You see, Tobin does not give us criteria for doing historical investigation, but a criterion for negating things he doesn’t like. But as is obvious from the above, it does not only destroy the Fathers that he so hates, but all of history and even all modern day works, if it is applied equally and consistently across the board. I hope you can now see how silly Tobin’s criterion is.

Let’s stop for now. If you agree with me to this point, I will move on to the rest of your post.

Regards,