GakuseiDon

Tatian is against the Romans treating their own myths as allegorical: "Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory".

"Narrations" about God who was "born in the form of a man" seems to be a clear reference to the Gospels. I think we can eliminate that he meant them to be regarded as allegorical.

Doherty says that Tatian never says that the narrations are "factually true". However, if Tatian believed that there was a "fleshy" sublunar realm, wouldn't events taking place there still be regarded as "factually true"? And if he didn't believe in such a realm, why would he need to make the distinction?

When not dismissing an allegorical approach, Tatian writes as if the events were taking place on earth:

Orpheus, again, taught you poetry and song; from him, too, you learned the mysteries... And Orpheus lived at the same time as Hercules; moreover, it is said that all the works attributed to him were composed by Onomacritus the Athenian, who lived during the reign of the Pisistratids, about the fiftieth Olympiad. Musaeus was a disciple of Orpheus.

Is there any reason to assume that Tatian didn't believe that God was born in the form of a man on earth?

Roger Pearse

Considering that he composed the Diatessaron, it would be a strange thing to assert that he didn't mean it when he talks about Mary becoming pregnant.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I'm not at all sure how this issue is coming up. Is it really being asserted that Tatian thought Christian beliefs much the same, and of the same kind, as pagan ones? On the basis of his violent polemic against paganism?

And of what sort are your teachings? Who must not treat with contempt your solemn festivals, which, being held in honour of wicked demons, cover men with infamy? (ch.22) [etc etc etc]

Isn't Tatian addressing the Greeks on behalf of an illegal group? All the apologists, including Tertullian, make the point that the pagans condemn (and torture and execute) the Christians on the pretext of believing things which are "a degraded superstition"; yet when pagans believe them, the same general ideas are considered quite innocent. So two points are routinely made in the apologists (as here):

1. Don't kill us. If our beliefs are so wrong, what about those of yours which look much the same? We're not asserting anything which isn't at least sketched out in your own beliefs. We're innocent, I tell you.

2. But in fact the beliefs which you talk about, are simply fairy-tales, as we all know. Indeed some of them are quite disgusting, unlike ours. The stories we tell, on the other hand, actually happened, and are moral and worthwhile.

It seems to me that Mr. Doherty is citing passages from #1 in order to contradict some fairly plain statements about #2. If he thinks that Christians really held the view that paganism was the same as Christianity, then of course we need not discuss the lesser suggestion that they also didn't believe Jesus existed. Context would make this clearer.

Wouldn't the best thing be to work from the longer works, writers for whom we have more than a single work, and work out how it works, and then ripple it back? Arguing from the silence of writers who only have a dozen extant words seems unlikely to produce valid results.

Incidentally, is Tatian detailing Christian belief in this text? --

These things, O Greeks, I Tatian, a disciple of the barbarian philosophy, have composed for you. I was born in the land of the Assyrians, having been first instructed in your doctrines, and afterwards in those which I now undertake to proclaim. Henceforward, knowing who God is and what is His work, I present myself to you prepared for an examination concerning my doctrines, while I adhere immoveably to that mode of life which is according to God. (last ch.)

If not, can anything be argued from what he has stated he is only now about to discuss -- "my doctrines."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

Not crazy but wrong.
I have been busier than I had anticipated but my I am working on a response plus some methodological suggestions.
He regards the story as he regards the Greek myths. To Tatian, in this instance, it appears that the demarcation between historical truth and mythology was blurred, or unimportant.
Tatian's address is basically a tu-quoque response. Vork clarified this years ago. You cannot get what you are trying to get from it.
Why waste time on this?

To Pearse:
The statement "We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales." can have several meanings:
Our legends have philosophical justification.
Our legends are theologically rich.
Our legends make sense/are not foolish.
Our legends are not morally repulsive.
Our legends are based on scripture, not idle talk or foolish imagination.
Our legends are based on historical truth.
etc.

The point? They are legends, but they are better legends than yours. For some unstated reasons.

Roger Pearse

You don't say why you suppose this, and it seems a very odd position to adopt.

I'm not sure I see any of this here. The text contains (a) "We aren't fools" (b) "Your legends are nonsense".

What does he mean by "We aren't fools"? Well, must this not be (a) that Christians don't share pagan beliefs? The rest will have to be looked for elsewhere than this sentence. For where, see my comment in the last post.

I do not find this statement in Tatian. Tatian certainly recommends Christianity as superior to other beliefs, however.

Pardon me, but I have great difficulty seeing how a violent diatribe against paganism, including philosophy, can be interpreted as "We hold the same views as you."

I think I said that in my last post, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't repeat it again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

Tatian appears to have had the same views as Justin Martyr (also Tertullian), on the nature of the Greek gods - the gods were demons who deceived the Greeks:

Tatian, Address to the Greeks:

And are not the demons themselves, with Zeus at their head, subjected to Fate, being overpowered by the same passions as men?...

Yield to the power of the Logos! The demons do not cure, but by their art make men their captives. And the most admirable Justin has rightly denounced them as robbers. For, as it is the practice of some to capture persons and then to restore them to their friends for a ransom, so those who are esteemed gods, invading the bodies of certain persons, and producing a sense of their presence by dreams

Compare this with the words of 'the most admirable Justin' himself, in Justin Martyr's First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue.

Tatian writes against the allegorical approach to the nature of the gods (where the gods are metaphors for elements in nature, e.g. the sun, moon, etc):

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves...

Tatian on the truth behind ancient writings, and 'misrepresenting the truth as if it were a fable':

Therefore, from what has been said it is evident that Moses was older than the ancient heroes, wars, and demons. And we ought rather to believe him, who stands before them in point of age, than the Greeks, who, without being aware of it, drew his doctrines from a fountain... and secondly, that covering up by a certain rhetorical artifice whatever things they did not understand, they might misrepresent the truth as if it were a fable...

Thus, concerning the age of the aforesaid poet, I mean Homer, and the discrepancies of those who have spoken of him, we have said enough in a summary manner for those who are able to investigate with accuracy. For it is possible to show that the opinions held about the facts themselves also are false. For, where the assigned dates do not agree together, it is impossible that the history should be true. For what is the cause of error in writing, but the narrating of things that are not true?

Now, even Doherty believes that Tatian is referring to Gospel material when he talks about "our narrations". If the cause of error in writing is the narrating of things that are not true, and Tatian is against an allegorical account, and both Justin Martyr and Tertullian make the same points on Moses and the nature of Roman myths, then the more likely conclusion is that Tatian had the same views on "our narrations" as Justin Martyr and Tertullian did. It isn't 100% proof, but given what we know about Tatian, I think it is the more likely option.

Ted Hoffman

Tatian as cited by GDon:
[Emphasis mine]
1. He asks the pagans to compare their mythical accounts with Christian narratives.
2. He complains that they reject Christian legends yet Christian legends are just like the Pagan ones.
3. He says that Christians do not "deal" in folly, but that the pagan legends are only idle tales.

Point 2 above is secured by the word "similar" in the translation you provided.
He does not claim any comparative historical or factual strengths "Christian "narratives" have over pagan legends.
I use this critical omission to conclude that "To Tatian, in this instance, it appears that the demarcation between historical truth and mythology was blurred, or unimportant."
Historical or factual criteria would have been the most reasonable approach for Tatian to employ in attempting to place Christian "narratives" as more respectable over pagan legends. But he does not do this. Why? My answer to this is as above.

Being odd tells us nothing about the strength of an argument. Instead, it tells us more about our own preconceptions.
You forgot one thing.
(a) "We aren't fools" (b) "Our narratives are similar to your legends" (c) [but] "Your legends are nonsense".
Of course Christians do not share pagan beliefs but he admits that pagan Christians also have myths like pagans.
"We arent fools" is a statement that he fails to justify. It is just an empty retort.
Of course he does. But he doesnt state why he does so, other than, "we arent fools".
I am sorry to hear that. However, I do not share your difficulty.
You are readily forgiven.
This is what Tatian says once more.

In fact, the last statement is simply an empty insult and does nothing to tell the audience about the quality or nature of Christian "narratives".

He is urging them to avoid allegorizing their myths lest they lose the divine nature that they believe their gods hold. Tells us something totally different about Tatian.
This has no value. It is like a Politician claiming: "Why be in politics if not for the truth?".
Apologists made these kinds of claims all the time. They never believed them themselves necessarily.

I think this is desperate. There is no link between the the passage under examination and the cited ones.
This is picking two passages out of context and trying to merge them. Which, of course, is incorrect.

GakuseiDon

On the point of using the word "similar", Tertullian makes a similar point to Tatian:

Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble.

Tertullian also had no problems with saying pagan myths resembled Christian ones. Justin Martyr is refers to this type of 'demonic mimicry'. No doubt you will say "but at least he says Christ's claims are proved!", but it shows that there is nothing unusual about at least saying 'they were similar'.

One reason might have been because he believed that at least some of the pagan myths were also historical:

Now, Linus was the teacher of Hercules, but Hercules preceded the Trojan war by one generation; and this is manifest from his son Tlepolemus, who served in the army against Troy. And Orpheus lived at the same time as Hercules

So how could he have played the 'historical criteria' card, without it rebounding on him?

But I think the main reason was that it just didn't occur to Tatian to do this. By 160s CE, pagans knew what Christians believed about their origins around that time, and had rejected it. Saying that "Christianity was true because it was historical" would have been no more convincing then as now.

Well, no. It is a cumulative case. I am saying that we have lots of reasons to suppose that Tatian was Justin Martyr's student, and that there is no evidence to show that Tatian didn't share Justin's beliefs.

At the end of the day, we have Tatian refering to "narrations" that appear to be the gospels, to Justin a few times, and to beliefs that are similar to Justin. We also find lots of commonalities to other HJ writers.

Against this, what do we have? Besides Tatian referring to pagan myths as "idle tales" while Christian ones are not "foolish", what else is there?

Ted Hoffman

You agree that Tatian said that their myths were similar? That was Doherty's entire point! Because Tatian regarded the pagan myths as similar to Christian myths, Doherty argues the possibility that Tatian regarded Jesus as he regarded the Greek gods: non-historical.

Diabolical mimmicry was Tertullian's argument. He of course had problems admitting that there were similarities but was forced to admit. However, he held Christianity and pagan religions as fundamentally dissimilar thus he attributed the apparent similarities to the devil's machinations.
The two concessions, Tertullians and Tatian's' are therefore entirely different and cannot be treated as the same: one concedes and uses that concession to elevate Christianity in the eyes of the pagans. The other concedes but explains the similarities as the work of the devil. In essence, Tertullian regards the similarities as bogus and not genuine. Tatian makes no such distinction. He just insults the pagans as foolish for believing their own myths whilst rejecting CHristian ones.

This was Doherty's point exactly: Tatian regarded the Christian myths to be at the same level as the pagan ones. I am glad you have finally grasped the argument.

You are arguing that it "occurred" to Tatian to make a historical argument but that Tatian did not do so because the pagans would not have bought it.
For this argument to have a leg to stand on, you need to demonstrate the following:
1. By 1960's Christianity could be distinctly identified as a set of specific beliefs (i.e. no schisms, marcionite controversy, problem of docetism, gnostic cults etc) - that is, a monolithic sect/religion with a central set of doctrines.
2. That the above set of doctrines was distinctly identified by pagans as Christian.
3. That the pagans rejected these doctrines on historical grounds and Tatian knew this.
4. Therefore Tatian made no historical appeal to Christian narratives whilst comparing them with the pagan ones.

This is argument from ignorance. I think you know this argument cannot fly. You make a positive assertion, you better be prepared to present the evidence.
In any case, Tatian was an Encratite. Was Justin? This shows you the former did not follow Justin's beliefs in a lock-step fashion. Thus making your groundless argument even the more unlikely.
Since Tatian doesnt appeal to historical claims when it is pertinent, we can argue that they weren't important to him and that, at least to him, other things were more important. Like the logos, rituals of worship, dualism,

Ah, thats easy. Irenaeus tells us in Against Heresies 1.28.1.
"A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin's, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication. But his denial of Adam's salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself. "

Sounds like Justin - right?

Roger Pearse

Indeed. It's all about context. If the pagans accused the Christians of believing 'degraded superstitions', then they point out that various important aspects of Christian belief are not seemingly different than pagans find quite acceptable elsewhere. Once that is established, move on to the differences, which are all in Christianity's favour.

It all seems simple enough to me. Don't get bogged down in the details; such discussions weary, but hardly convince.

All the best,

Roger Pearse