Jesus Puzzle: Chapter 13

Chapter 13 Critiqued:

Doherty wrote: “Add to this the wider record of contrasting and often incompatible views about the cultic Jesus, the different concepts of a divine figure in Paul, Hebrews and other epistles, in secondary documents like the Odes of Solomon, none of which are associated with an historical Jesus of Nazareth, and we have a compelling picture of diversity which begs to be seen as having begun as diversity, not from some common starting point which immediately splintered in all directions” (TJP:127).
Doherty also wrote the following later in Chapter 13: “Almost a century ago, a lost document came to light that reveals yet another community which had a divine Son very unlike that of Paul and the Synoptics. This is the fascinating set of 42 little hymns, very like the Old Testament Psalms in character, through brighter, more lyrical and optimistic in tone, known as the Odes of Solomon. They were written, probably in the latter part of the first century, in the language of Syriac, which places them somewhere in Syria, perhaps in the region of Edessa. Their quiet ecstasy is the voice of the mystic, though it is impossible to say if the same person wrote them all” (TJP:133).

It is peculiar that Doherty places so much emphasis on the contents on the Odes of Solomon, considering Doherty’s criteria for establishing when a document came into existence.
For example, Doherty wrote the following in Chapter 24 regarding when the Gospels came into existence based on the silence of the Apostolic Fathers prior to Justin Martyr: “In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers prior to Justin Martyr, we have no clear witness to any use of written Gospels. Those who have studied this matter have concluded that the echoes of Gospel material occasionally found in the Fathers are derived from floating oral traditions or perhaps small collections of sayings; these elements would have found their own way into the written Gospels” (TJP:260).

As has been clarified elsewhere in this critique, there is indeed prior clear witness to the use of a written Gospel. For example, the Gospel of Luke was utilized and mutilated by Marcion around 144 C.E.
Also, as has been noted elsewhere, the silence of the Apostolic Fathers on the Gospels prior to Justin Martyr is a mute point, considering that scholars are aware of the John Rylands Fragment, which is a fragment of the Gospel of John that predates Justin Martyr.

Back on track, on the one hand Doherty argues the Gospels did not exist until the mid or late second century C.E. since no clear, identifiable quotation of the Gospels by the Apostolic Fathers can be found.
However, the documentary evidence for the existence of the Odes of Solomon “in the latter part of the first century,” is much sparser in comparison to the evidence for the early existence of the Gospels, as will be evident below.
Consider the following manuscript/historically-documentation for the Odes of Solomon discussed below:

Scholarly Dating Consensus:

“Discerning the date of the Odes has provoked considerable interest. H.J. Drijvers contends that they are as late as the third century” (CROTOOS:V1:22).
“L. Abramowski places them in the later half of the second century” (CROTOOS:V1:22).
“B. McNeil argued that they are contemporaneous with 4 Ezra, the Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, and Valentinus (c. 100 CE)” (CROTOOS:V1:22).
“Most scholars date them some time around the middle of the second century; but, if they are heavily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and especially the idea of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a date long after 100 CE is unlikely” (CROTOOS:V1:22).

The Odes of Solomon is Not Quoted Until After the First Two Centuries:

“Dating is difficult because the Odist is not quoted by authors during the first two centuries” (CROTOOS:V1:23).
“Also in the fourth centuryOde 19 was quoted by Lactantius (Div. Inst. 4.12.3)” (CROTOOS:V1:21).

The Manuscripts of the Odes of Solomon are rather late:

“The 11 th Ode was found among the Bodmer Papyri in a third-century Greek manuscript (no.11)” (CROTOOS:V1:21).
“Five (Odes) were translated into Coptic in the fourth century and used to illustrate the Pistis Sophia (Odes 1, 5, 6, 22 and 25)” (CROTOOS:V1:21).
“In the tenth century a scribe copied the Odes in Syriac, but only Odes 17.7-42.20 are preserved (British Museum MS Add. 14538)” (CROTOOS:V1:21).
“In the fifteenth century another scribe copied them into Syriac, but again the beginning is lost (John Rylands Library Cod. Syr. 9 contains only Odes 3.1b-42.20)” (CROTOOS:V1:21).

Thus, the manuscript evidence in terms of dates of the first Gospel manuscripts (mid-second century) as well as the first quotes of the Gospels (mid-second century to late-second century) is better than the case of the Odes of Solomon manuscripts (the first manuscript dates to the third century CE) as well as the first quotes of the Odes of Solomon (only begin to be quoted after the first two centuries).
Doherty wrote: “Another mystical Son is found in the longest and probably least known surviving Christian document before Justin, the Shepherd of Hermas. Though identified with the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome around 148 CE, this document was likely written before that time, probably in the late first century, which would fit its primitive theology and predominantly Jewish character” (TJP:135).

Doherty stated that the Shepherd of Hermas is identified with a bishop around the year 148 C.E., but then made an unsupported assertion that the Shepherd of Hermas was probably compiled in the late first century.

Doherty wrote: “We might go further afield, into the obscure byways of the later first and second century religious movement known as Gnosticism” (TJP:136).

Scholars heavily debate when Gnosticism first developed.
Many scholars believe that the type of Jesus that Gnostics portray was developed in the second century, which was after the historical data about Jesus recorded by Ignatius of Antioch.

Doherty wrote: “ Reading between the lines of the picture Acts presents concerning the spread of the faith, as well as Paul’s own letters, one perceives that Damascus in Syria already possessed a Christian community before Paul was even converted, and that both Antioch and Rome had congregations long before Paul got there” (TJP:139).

It is odd that Doherty is drawing on some details from “the picture Acts presents” considering Doherty does not deem Acts to be historically reliable as well as being mostly sheer fabrication, as well be shown later in this critique.

Doherty wrote: “In the orthodox picture of Christian beginnings, how could such a community have formed so soon? Who brought the kerygma there? The true answer may be indicated by the later churchman known as ‘Ambrosiaster,’ who remarked in his commentary on the epistle to the Romans that ‘One ought not condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any of the apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ, although according to a Jewish rite.’ Such a tradition points to something very revealing, and will bring us full circle to the conclusions arrived at in the first division of The Jesus Puzzle” (TJP:139).

Doherty supplied an unintentional rebuttal to the assertion that he makes above.
Doherty wrote the following in the “Notes” section of The Jesus Puzzle:

“Quotation taken from Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, p. 93. Ambrosiaster is a name given to the unknown author of a commentary on the Pauline epistles, written at Rome in the latter 4 th century. The work was laterascribed to Ambrose” (TJP:346).

It is interesting that Doherty gives no credence to the historical data about Jesus in the second century C.E., but gives credence to data dating to the fourth century C.E., to support his assertion.

Using Doherty's standards: Why should one trust such a late, anonymously written document, especially someone who holds such a critical standard for reliable historical data as Doherty holds?