GakuseiDon

Thank you.

That makes no sense at all. Tatian brings up that part of Greek mythology to ridicule it, not to perform a comparative religious study. That would be a reason to avoid too-close analogies.

Tatian is saying "we both have legends, but yours are folly", and goes on to demonstrate this. Both you and Doherty seem to assume that by "legends", Tatian means "Gospels", so that he is comparing the Gospels to Greek mythology. But as Tatian mostly concentrates on OT events, there is no reason to assume this necessarily.

It is a legitimate question! What did Christians believe at the time? We can know that from Justin, Tatian's teacher, or from Irenaeus, who was a contemporary of Tatian's. What did Justin believe that "God was born in the form of a man" to mean? What did Irenaeus believe it meant?

How does that help you then? Yes, Justin says that Jesus appeared before He was incarnated, and as you say, we don't assume He was born of a virgin in those days. But Tatian doesn't say that "God appeared in the form of a man", but God was "born in the form of a man".

How is that consistent with Logos-religion?

NOGO, please check your foot for holes. Justin believed that Jesus pre-existed as Logos AND was born as a man in ancient Israel. GJohn has Jesus pre-existing as Logos AND being born as a man in ancient Israel. I agree that they differentiate between Jesus as Logos and Jesus as Man. Tatian, as I said, is only concentrating on the Logos side, except for such hints as "God was born in the form of a man", which you haven't addressed.

Remember, I'm not trying to prove that Tatian was a HJer, only that his AttG was consistent with what a HJer might have produced at the time. Showing me that Tatian was consistent with Logos ideas of the time doesn't help you, since I'm assuming this in the first place.

The rest of your post were quotes from GJohn, and so aren't relevent to the topic at hand.

All this is consistent with Tatian's ideas of the Logos to be consistent with what the HJers of the time thought. For not only don't they express surprise, his AttG is praised a long time after the HJer stream is well established.

NOGO

You are very welcome.
I'll take this as a total agreement.

Tatian
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

NOGO
This, according to you, means Jesus who was born of a virgin. But do notice the word "form".

Tatian
I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.

NOGO:
Tatian asks the reader to compare.

Tatian
Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector,

NOGO:
Tatian gives an example of a Goddess who takes human form.
Note again the word "form".
Sorry if I put two and two together and come up with four.
Tatian compares the Greek Gods who took human form to his God who took human form.
He did not chose Heracles who was born of a human mother as Jesus was in the Gospels. That is the evidence.


Illogical!
You assume that every Christian believes the same thing.
We know this to be false. It is false today, it was false in Paul's days, the author of GJohn thought otherwise, it was always false.

Yes, so all your argument stand on a single word, "born".
Tatian also says that God is a spirit which does not pervade matter.
You cannot pit one statement against another and arbitrarily chose the one you like.

If I did the same we would end up just throwing our favourite statements at one another and the debate would end right there.

The Logos was BORN when Yahweh first spoke to create the world.
He was BORN in human form when the first man spoke the word of God.

According to GJohn that first man to speak the word of God was Jesus.
But that is just John trying to harmonize the Logos with the synoptic Gospels.

To Paul the Logos came forth from the descendants of David and that was all that matter to him. This fulfilled the requirement that the Christ was to be a descendant of David. Sure the OT meant it as a human descendant but there is coming forth and coming forth.

Right and where did the synoptic gospels come from?
They do not mention the Logos at all.
Correct me if I am wrong but most scholars believe the Jesus in the John to be a fictional character. The reason for this is exactly the Logos aspect.

BTW there is a BIG difference between God being born as a human and the Logos speaking through a man. Yes they both pre-existed.

There is no reason to believe that John thought of Jesus as being the Logos born as a human. Everything John says contradicts this view.
Even in Matthew Jesus received the Holy Spirit and is hencefort guided by the spirit. Why would God need to be guided by the spirit which descended upon him at his baptism. The implication is that Jesus was a man which received the spirit of God and the Logos then spoke through him.

Actually you are saying much more than that.
You are saying that a Tatian believed that a human Jesus started Christianity and yet he says almost nothing about him just like Paul.

What I have shown is that since the Synoptic Gospels do not talk about the Logos and have a human Jesus fulfilling prophecies in the OT and we have Paul and others who speak about a heavenly deity and we also have John who tries to harmonize the two THEN

It explains why
Tatian can speak as he does without being called an heretic.
Tatian can say that God does not pervade matter without being noticed.

After all if GJohn passed the test why should Tatian be a problem.
Both of these are incompatible with the virgin birth and the idea that Jesus was both God and man.

Yes and the Gospel of John made it into the canon and none of this is a problem to Doherty's theories.

GakuseiDon

NOGO, as far as I'm concerned, the debate hasn't even started.

My only concern is whether Tatian's AttG is consistent with what a HJer of the time would write. This is in response to Vork's claim that the AttG contradicted the central tenets of the Christianity of the time. As I said to both you and him, show me the central tenet, then show me the statement from Tatian. At that point, the debate begins.

I can't see how you bringing in the Synoptics and Paul is really going to help you, UNLESS you can relate it to the central tenets of Christianity of the time being contradicted. I can show where Tatian follows (in fact, virtually quotes) on Justin Martyr's ideas on the Logos, so I can show that he does conform to the beliefs of a prominent HJer of that period. I also have other positive evidence from Irenaeus.

So, thank you for your comments.

Bernard Muller

NOGO:

About "forms":
Philo of Alexandria (a Jew) and later Christians used expressions "in the form, shape, likeness of" when writing about incarnations, either the instant kind, or through a woman. Let's note that for Philo, angels and God, when in heaven, are totally immaterial/spiritual as souls:

a) See Jewish author Philo of Alexandria, (died 45-50), 'On dreams', I, (238) "God at times assumes the likeness of the angels, as he sometimes assumes even that of men"
In his works, Philo mentioned God wrestling Jacob on earth (and loosing!), as in Genesis.
b) See Philo 'Questions and answers on Genesis', I, (92) "for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape [and then fathered children (giants) with mortal women!]"
c) See Acts14:11-12 NKJV "Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
d) See 4:2-3 of 'the Ascension of Isaiah' where Beliar (Satan), from the firmament, comes down to earth as Nero (through an earthly mother!) "in the likeness of a man".
e) See Melito of Sardis (160-177):
"On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion ... being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant ..."
"This is He who took a bodily form in the Virgin, and was hanged upon the tree, and was buried within the earth ..."

So Tatian fits very well into this pattern, as also Paul's epistles:
Php2:6-11 "... Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, ..."
Ro8:3 "God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin,"

Actually Heracles would have been a very bad example, because he was not a pre-existent god. Second, it was not the intention of Tatian to make a parallel between Athene' s incarnation and the Logos' one because Athene's story is one of a few he used to illustrate the "mythical accounts"/"legends" of the Greeks, as I have shown in bold letters:

"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales."

So essentially, you have no evidence.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

NOGO:
That's why incarnation through a woman is necessary!
Furthermore, that did not disturb Melito of Sardis (160-177):
"On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion ... being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant ..."

I thought "John" was very specific:
Jn1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us ..."
And Jesus, even as the incarnated Son of God, looks very human in the gospel. Furthermore Jesus has a human father and mother:
Jn1:45 "Philip finds Nathanael, and says to him, We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth."
Jn6:42 "And they said, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we have known? how then does *he* say, I am come down out of heaven?"
"John" did not have any problem to harmonize the pre-existing Word being incarnated from a man and a woman (no virgin birth here, apparently).

I think you are making a lot on some theological/Christological subtilities. That may bother a Christian who would defend a monolithic Christianity from the start; but what does that have to do with Tatian not being a HJer?
Anyway, Tatian is very conformed with GJohn and Paul's epistles and 'Hebrews', that is the incarnation of the Logos/Word/Son_of_God through human means (without virgin birth, which concept came later).

Best regards, Bernard

NOGO

Both you and GakuseiDon can read Tatian's mind; I must admit that all I have is the text he left behind.

Maybe you see things differently because you think that Athene is myth while the Jesus is historical. To me they are both myths.

Tatian is comparing his God taking human form and Greek Gods taking human form; how can you possibly miss that?

NOGO

This makes no sense. The fact that it was done through a woman makes it compatible with the stament that God does not prevade matter.
How so?

"The word became flesh"
This is very specific but contrary to your beliefs.
The rest of GJohn makes it quite clear that the Word of God speaks through a human but it is NOT THAT HUMAN.

"how does he say, I have come down out of heaven"
You obviously missed part of my post.
When Jesus spoke in public in GJohn 6 he says "I am the bread from heaven."
BUT when he explains what that meant to his disciples 6:63 he makes it clear that the "I" is the Word of God and not him.

I have com down from heaven ..."
"Unless you eat my flesh ... there is no life in you."
The intention of the author is that the Logos speaks through the man.
"my flesh" is the flesh of the Word of God who came down from heaven.

The bread in the last Supper is a symbol od the word of God.
When Jesus says "eat for this is my body" it is the Logos speaking though the man's mouth. So the body is the body of the Logos ie the word of God.

The human Jesus keeps saying that all this is not his initiative.
Please re-read my post

No, is it not a subtilty.
The Gospel of John is an attempt to harmonize the Logos faith with the story in the synoptic Gospels. It is the key to understanding Doherty's theory.
If you do not understand GJohn you are missing an essential element of early Christianity.

NOGO

I fully understand and I hope that you also understand that in my view the nature of Jesus in GJohn, Hebrews and Paul are indications of what Tatian is all about.

If GJohn is not an attempt at merging two distinct faiths then what is it?
How do you account for GJohn?

Bernard Muller

NOGO:
I just said the text he left behind does not make him a mythicist. And that's not even considering his association with Justin and the Diatessaron.

Actually, I think that Jesus, from before the creation to the conception is all myth. From his death to his everlasting life in heaven is also all myth. And Jesus as described in the gospels, between conception and death is 90% myth (I prefer "fiction" rather than myth). What we do not agree is the remaining 10%, that is the poor lower class Jew who by a series of flukes got crucified as King of the Jew, triggering the start of Christianity, which very soon afterwards, had little to do with what that flash_in_the_pan Galilean was, did, said or even believed.

I do not know about "comparing". The story of Athene in one among several in order to show the fallacy of the mythical accounts of the Greek. And I disagree with GakuseiDon: Tatian is defending the gospels stories, but has to admit they look as tales/legends also:
""We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. ... [Greek myths described here] ... But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? ... [more Greek myths described here] ... Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales."

I think that many Christian writers were not too hot about the many gospels existing then (canonical and uncanonical) with their many conflicts, differences, flaws, unhistorical elements, myths and various descriptions of the earthly Jesus. That was a weakness in the new religion and they were avoiding them, except Justin and Irenaeus. And worshiping a crucified one, a punishment reserved by Romans for criminal, was even worse. But the Platonic/Philoic approach to Christianity (developped by Paul and 'Hebrews') was philosophically pure and attractive for the educated Pagans. From that basis, they could go on the offensive and ridicule the Greek mythology (which they did so many times!).

About God taking human form, in a Greek or Christian context, I agree with you, it's all myth. Jesus was no God (pre-existent or otherwise) and therefore there was no incarnation. He was conceived and came to life like you and me.

Best regards, Bernard

joedad

Just sounds too Hollywood. Any actual examples come to mind that might give support to such a theory?