In my recent post on J. P. Holding's disregard for what the Bible actually says, I noted that, Holding's thesis is heavily dependent on a projection of modern rationalism back into the 1st century." I attacked his position from the Biblical record, but it's also worth noting that his assumptions are problematic in light of the history of Christian apologetics. Specifically, everything I've read on Christian apologetics as we know it did not exist before the Enlightenment. Of course, humans have always tried to defend their claims by argument after a fashion, and historians of early Christianity think of "apologists" mainly as writers like Justin Martyr, who first appeared in the second century. However, the goal of these second-century apologists was the reconciliation of Greek philosophy with Christianity. Modern apologetics, with its strong emphasis on historical scholarship, is almost entirely a product of the last few centuries.
What escapes Hallquist is that apologetics is driven by what opponents argue (it is, after all, a defense, so that this point is simply meaningless drivel. As further noted by my patristics consult, Matt Paulson -- who is attending Harvard Divinity School at this time -- Hallquist is "utterly wrong in spirit":
The 2nd century apologists didn't simply try to "harmonize/reconcile" the gospel with Greek philosophy; rather, they tried to show the relevance of the gospel vis-a-vis THAT CULTURAL FACTOR WHICH NEEDED TO BE PREACHED TO. More importantly, though, the apologists never acted as though the gospel "had to" prove itself in harmony with the Greeks; rather, they tried to emphasize points of concord, and to show WHY CHRISTIANITY WAS RIGHT at those points wherein Hellenism and the gospel obviously differed.
A few telling examples to disprove the sole factual claim of your opponent [that the 2nd c. apologists were concerned only to reconcile Christianity w/Greek philosophy]: in addition to the two apologies (an attempt to convince Greco-Roman intellectual culture), Justin Martyr also wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; in addition to his Against the Academics (skeptical philosophers), Augustine also wrote his Cty of God, which--at least formally--is to be placed alongside the greatest works of Christian historical theology.
Western intellectual culture was largely subject to Christian influence during the early to late middle ages; whence the surprise that it wouldn't have to emphasize certain aspects of apologetics till later, when Christianity itself was challenged? Suppose that, by the 22nd century, people took very seriously the claim--registered in full philosophical seriousness--that they didn't exist five seconds ago (after all, 'tis logically possible that they came into existence right now with a fraudulent, inbuilt memory); ought we then to blame the whole prior history of Christian apologetics for not having answered this question before it had been raised?
Rather than attempting to posit an unbridgeable chasm twixt early and contemporary Christian apologetics, would it not be much more sensible simply to ATTEMPT TO detect the consistent spirit of the apologetic aspect of the Christian proclomation which has been there from the start, viz., to be all things to all people, and "to run to the point of the battle-line which most needs defending"?
Since Hallquist is unable to grasp something even this simple -- and since he is now trying to "rebut" my use of the Context Group by re-repeating material by Carrier that I have already refuted, and whining about the way I do it without answering my claims or arguments and not dealing with the bulk of what I say -- I deem him for the present Too Stupid To Reply To.
![[ Go To Top Of This Page ]](top_of_page_16x21.gif){kind=small}