lpetrich

I recall someone or other commenting that some Xian apologist had implied that one can not properly reject Xianity without understanding the New Testament in the original Greek, while it is not necessary to do so to accept Xianity, and not necessary to know Arabic to reject Islam.

avi

Alhamdulilahi.

Well, I don't know the answer to your excellent riddle. The context is important: I challenged Jeffrey's assertion that one required expertise in Koine Greek to properly assess Earl's book. Peter, in his quote above, was, in my opinion, supporting Jeffrey's point of view.

I tried, and probably failed, to illustrate by means of a simple example, that one could challenge both the veracity of the English translations of the ancient Greek texts, as well as their proper interpretations, without possessing an overwhelming skill with Koine Greek, i.e. contrary to Peter and Jeffrey's insistence to the contrary.

Let me try once more. The word in consideration is eqnikos, translated variously in many different English texts, as "Gentile", "Pagan", "Heathen", "Ungodly", but which, in my opinion, ought to be translated as "different ethnic type". My opinion is that eqnikos, originally, had nothing to do with religion. It was certainly not a word, in my opinion, to juxtapose to the Hebrew speaking Jews. It was rather, a word to distinguish Greeks from non-Greeks. If I am correct, then, those many scholars, with walls full of diplomae, who have crafted the many, many faulty English translations of the Greek new testament, will need to offer an apology.....

Jeffrey properly challenged me to demonstrate the idea that eqnikos originally did not relate to "gentile", i.e. all the rest of the world, except the Jews, and I am trying to find some author from two or three centuries before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, who uses this word, eqnikoi, so that we can find out the answer to Jeffrey's other question, i.e. why do I insist that it is wrong to translate this word as "gentile". Jeffrey has a wall full of diplomae, sustaining his knowledge of Greek. I have none, nor should I, for I am utterly clueless about Greek. Nevertheless, I persist in arguing that Jeffrey errs on this point: Gentile is a word which dates, perhaps from the fifth or sixth century, I don't know exactly when, but, it represents the non-Jewish population of the world, i.e. including the Greeks. The Greek word for non-Greek peoples, including the Hebreic/Aramaic speaking Jews, is eqnikos. Gentile is a word that distinguishes Jews from non-Jews. It has nothing to do with Greek literature, including the new testament.

Either I am correct, or Jeffrey is correct, and there is no other alternative, to those two possibilities in my mind. All one requires, to prove me in error, is a sentence from any Greek author, not Jewish, written in the two or three centuries before the CE began....If the author writes eqnikos attempting to distinguish non-Jews (including Greeks) from Jews, then Jeffrey is right, and I am wrong.

Finally, to answer this riddle, as best I can: Yes, we need to know a bit of Arabic, though, in my opinion, the English translations of the Quran, are far less muddled than those of the Greek New Testament. Maybe I am wrong about that....My reading of the Quran has thus far focused on its oft-stated need to kill people like me, so, I haven't a lot of interest to continue with a study of its contents...

avi

GakuseiDon

Oh, for crying out loud. Have you been holding a mobile phone too close to your head again? I think that Tatian had a historical Jesus in mind because of all the reasons I just gave, not because I am "sure that Christianity started with a historical Jesus". What's the point of putting such stupid words into my mouth???

Great! And those are documented where?

Petergdi

I don't see what this has to do with my post. If by Islam you mean submission to God and that God is one, then I embrace it. If you mean one of the systems of doctrines by that name, then I accept only part. If I wanted to argue that the Koran really said something very different than any normal interpretation then I would have to know Arabic. I would be a fool to argue about what the Koran really means without the tools needed to do so.

Peter.

Toto

I put no words into your mouth. I did not quote you. I made a general point.

Do you know what confirmation bias is? If not, please look it up.

GakuseiDon

Well, I wasn't insulting you. I was just asking about your mobile phone.

Thanks, I have. I'm just assuming you are making a general point.

Any other little digs? No? Then shall we get back to my question? It was:

So:

* Do we have any evidence for a Christianity that didn't have a Jesus Christ at its core AND thought that God was born in the form of a man? That had "narrations" about a suffering God, etc?
* Do we have any evidence for any sect of Gnostic Christianity that had those characteristics?

Toto

Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk)

We have evidence that there were varieties of Christianity that we don't know much about, possibly that we know nothing about. All of these seem to have some version of Jesus Christ at the core, although there were debates over his substance. Some Christians seem to have interpreted the narratives about Jesus Christ allegorically.

We have evidence that documents were edited to conform to orthodoxy.

Do you think you can prove that Tatian must have believed in an orthodox version of Jesus because there is no surviving evidence of a Christian sect based on an alternative version of Christianity with a purely spiritual Jesus?

GakuseiDon

True enough.

Who did this and how is this relevant to Tatian's Address?

Yes, true.

I was wondering when the "P" word would appear. As I said above, I think the evidence strongly suggests that Tatian, while only speaking about Jesus in the most oblique terms, has a historical Jesus figure in mind. In fact, I'd go so far as to say "beyond reasonable doubt":

1. We have Tatian's Address, which is consistent with orthodoxy.
2. Tatian wrote many letters apparently, and Irenaeus -- a contemporary to Tatian, was clear that Tatian was not a heretic until after Justin Martyr died.
3. We have no evidence at all of any Christianity that lacked a "Jesus Christ" at its core.
4. We have at least one example of a historicist writing an apologetic to the pagans without referring to either "Jesus" or "Christ" (Tertullian's "Ad nationes")

Is there any reason to doubt Tatian's suffering God "born in the form of a man" is Jesus?

aa5874

Your statement appears to be completely false.

The word "Christian" was not even derived from Jesus.

The word "Christian" is derived from the Greek word for "anointing".

The word "Christ" predates the Jesus stories by hundreds of years.

Since the days of the Emperor Claudius almost all of Samaria were called Christians because they believed in a magician and Holy One Simon Magus and Meander.

Theophilus of Antioch claimed there were Christians because they were anointed.

Athenagoras of Athens called himself a Christian but did not mention Jesus. He believed in God and his LOGOS.

Octavius in the writing of Municius Felix converted Caecilius without ever telling him one thing about Jesus only God. And further Octavius claimed he abhorred the sacrifice of humans and the use of blood.

It is simply NOT true that "We have no evidence at all of any Christianity that lacked a "Jesus Christ" at its core.

neilgodfrey

Mea culpa. Thanks for this. I had only read the 1910 edition.


Neil