krosero

Ted, your last post still does not clear up your argument. I’ll tell you what I see going on here. It starts with your post to Jeffrey:

So Tatian’s God is named Jesus. He incarnated in flesh, as you say, since Tatian refers to God being “born in the form of a man” (ch. 21). And Tatian refers to the “minister of the suffering God” and to the disobedient who reject him (ch. 13).

So combining Tatian’s statements and yours, we have a Jesus who suffered, on earth, in a real and not an allegorical sense. This already contradicts Doherty’s theory about Tatian and, though I care principally about his views, I’m curious about yours. I so rarely see you taking a different stance from him. I’m glad to see it.

But now, are you using Tatian as evidence of a Christian tradition in which Jesus suffered but was not crucified?

If Tatian is quoting John 1.5 in ch. 13, “the darkness comprehendeth not the light”, and John 1.3 in ch. 19, “All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made”, then does he get the idea of a non-crucified Jesus from the Gospel of John? Obviously, he can’t.

So do you suggest that these quotes – as Doherty suggested once about similar quotes in Theophilus (who actually names John) – must have come from an independent Logos-religion separate from the Fourth Gospel? Are you suggesting that this tradition once had works where these quotes appeared but the works are now lost, and that the quotes made their way into the Gospel of John, which is why it appears to us that Tatian is quoting the Gospel of John?

What is simpler about this solution than linking Tatian with the extant text that he appears to be quoting, a text in which Jesus was crucified?

Is it the mere fact that “Christ” and “Jesus” are not mentioned in the Oration? Well, that would not be enough by itself, IMO, since every author and every apology focuses on particular things; you can’t go by one text to conclude negatively what an author DID NOT know. If you look at what this text of Tatian is focused on, you find that it is not intended to teach the particulars of the faith so much as to denounce paganism aggressively. He is not teaching his faith to potential converts. His readers seem informed enough about certain things. He refers to both the suffering God and to the birth in the form of a man as if his readers will understand what he’s talking about, and not as if he’s preaching these things for the first time; he actually seems defensive about the doctrine of his God's birth, as if his readers know it already and are likely to reject it or have already rejected it.

And by the way, if you base your argument on the lack of the word "Jesus" in the work, then what were you saying in this thread up until now, in that argument with Jeffrey about whether "Jesus" was a god? You gave evidence that "Jesus" was a god by quoting Tatian. How do you know that Tatian's God was named Jesus in one post, and then in another post make a lot of the fact that the name of Jesus does not even appear?

Now, as you multiplied entities needlessly by placing Tatian in a new tradition about Jesus, you are doing the same with your argument that Tatian held to a cosmology exactly the opposite of what we find in Genesis. Your reading on this, as far as I know, is also independent of Doherty’s. I asked you to clarify whether your reading had anything to do with your claim about Jesus not being crucified, but you did not answer, so I’m going to presume that it does, since you gave it to Jeffrey as part of a 3-step argument supporting your non-crucifixion argument.

Tatian speaks of two groups, angels and men, in ch. 7, where he says that the rebelling angels became the demons, and Man, through a similar transgression, became mortal. In ch. 20, Tatian gives us more detail: “The demons were driven forth to another abode; the first created human beings were expelled from their place: the one, indeed, were cast down from heaven; but the other were driven from earth, yet not out of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now.” This is a simple AB-AB structure, and there is no need to read Tatian as referring to A and B, then B again before getting back to A.

And Tatian’s words fit the picture in Genesis. The “more excellent order of things” refers to Eden, before the fallen state that exists here now. Eden is located on earth; man was formed from the dust of the earth, in Eden; man was driven eastward to another place on earth; Genesis gives multiple indications of all of this. Man was not, as your reading would have it, cast down from heaven.

Tatian says explicitly that it was the demons who were cast down from heaven:

Your reading is wrong, but it’s worth noting what it would have required. It would have required a Judeo-Christian tradition in which Man was created in the heavens; his fall was a literal fall from heaven; his becoming mortal occurred there, not as a transgression that took place after he had already been formed from the dust of the earth and settled in the garden of Eden.

What is easier about postulating such a tradition, now lost, than in linking Tatian to the texts and traditions that he seems to be drawing from? Tatian refers to Moses, Solomon, and the departure of the Jews from Egypt. He seems to be working with Biblical tradition. Could he be working with some narrative other than the one we find in Genesis?

Malachi151

Actually, there is someone else who quotes from John early on, who does not attest to any Jesus, Theophilus.


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#13

I think that there was some version of John, either before having the Gospel details added, or a later extract, which contained no mention of a Jesus person.

Magdlyn

John 1:14
"The logos became flesh." Carne is meat or flesh.

John calls him "he."


Can you clarify your questions here, please?

jgibson000

But the Greek word translated here as "flesh" is not "carne", now is it, especially since "carne" is Spanish!

Actually he doesn't. The use of the masculine form of the third person pronoun in Jn 1:1-18 is determined by the grammatical gender of LOGOS, not some view of the LOGOS as personal, let alone a particular person.

You don't know Greek, do you?

There is no word -- to my knolwedge -- in Greek for "incarnation". And what we think of as the meaning of that term is a theological concept that was, I believe, not developed and employed until well into the 4th and 5th centuries, under the influence of the Christological controversies that arose in that period.

JG

Mathetes

Caro, carnis is Latin for flesh. Incarnatio means "the act of becoming flesh".

John says "kai o logos sarx egeneto" - "and the word became flesh". In the Vulgate, "et verbum caro factum est". Same thing.

jgibson000

To my knowledge, there is no Latin word "incarnatio". There is a verb, incarno, āvi, ātum = to make flesh; which in its passive form, in-carnārī, ātus, means to be made flesh". But note:

1. this is not the verb that Jerome or the OL uses in rendering the Greek of Jn. 1:14 into Latin, and

2. incarno appears primarily in Ecclesiastical Latin as a technical term and therefore was not likely to be common currency among Latin speakers.

The Latin is a good rendering of the Greek. But neither phrase asserts "incarnation" in terms of the way the concept was understood by the Church fathers. SARX in John is not the equivalent of ANTHRWPOS. And the background of the assertion Jn 1:14 is, especially in the light of the assertion that attends it, i.e., KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, is the affirmation about Wisdom found in Wisdom of Sol. 24:8 and Enoch 42:1 and Bar. 3:38.

So it is not the same thing as "incarnation".

JG

Mathetes

Not sure what your point is exactly. Just wanted to highlight that "incarnation" does indeed come from the Latin for "flesh".

jgibson000

Fine. But the fact that the word "incarnation" has a Latin derivation is relevant to the questions of what John means in Jn 1:14 and whether Jn 1:1 (or Jn 1:1-18) asserts the pre-existence of Jesus how?

JG

Ted Hoffman

Born in the form of man means incarnated.
I am sure you see it better now.
Its a tradition of a theocentric Christianity. God had not become Jesus yet.
I havent studied this so I cannot comment.
Yes
Apology to the Greeks is not lost
If that "link" can be supported by evidence, I am all for it.
What is your evidence?
Read my latest post about the resurrection and redemption.
You have a point here. The fact is, Tatian never calls him Jesus. The rest are irrelevant.
I share Doherty's reading.
No need to waste time arguing on this. I have made my point and you have made yours. End of story.
Evidence please.
I dont want to squander time debating on Tatian. If you dont agree with my argument, no problem but I think its a waste of time arguing over this. I have read and redead Tatian and argued with you and GDon on it. I cant afford to keep dwelling on it.
Cheers

krosero

If you don't have time for a debate I wouldn't press you for one. And I, too, do not want to dwell on it. Thanks for your answers here.