Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-03-2004, 04:47 PM

This thread has been split from "Jesus Mythers: Earl Doherty vs N.T. Wright", in order to concentrate on Tatian's Address to the Greeks (AttG) and its implications for Doherty's comments on 2nd C apologists.

Doherty says:

Quote:

Another important consideration is that the apologists are touting the superiority of Christian ethics and its monotheistic view of God. If Jesus had been the source of these teachings, their stature would have been raised by being presented as the product of a great teacher; while at the same time, the attribution to Jesus of this estimable body of ethics and theology would have gone a long way toward redeeming him in pagan eyes for whatever else Christians might have been claiming about him. The fact that no one but Justin has incorporated the teaching, human Jesus into his appeals to the pagan is too bizarre a situation. No, some other explanation for the silence of the bulk of the apologetic movement must be sought.

A clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Tatian's Apology. In chapter 21 he says, "We are not fools, men of Greece, when we declare that God has been born in the form of man (his only allusion to the incarnation) . . . Compare your own stories with our narratives." He goes on to describe some of the Greek myths about gods come to earth, undergoing suffering and even death for the benefaction of mankind. "Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories."

This may well be a reference to the Christian Gospels. But if he can allude to the incarnation in this way, why does he not deal with it openly and at length? His comment is hardly a ringing endorsement, or a declaration that such stories are to be accepted as history. The way Tatian compares them to the Greek myths implies that he regards them as being on the same level. Certainly, he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true. Nor can we get around the fact that Tatian pointedly ignores those Gospel stories in the rest of his Apology. (He was to change his mind by the time he composed the Diatessaron.) Furthermore, he ignores them even though his language clearly implies that the pagans were familiar with them.

There seems to be only one way to interpret all this. We can assume that the philosopher-apologists were familiar with the Gospel story and its figure of Jesus of Nazareth. But, with the exception of Justin, they have chosen not to integrate these elements into their own faith, not to identify this reputed historical founder-teacher with their divine Logos and Son of God, not to regard him as the source of Christian teachings.

If it could be shown that Tatian was a HJer when he wrote the AttG, then Doherty's interpretation is baseless, as it shows that a HJer could indeed write an apology without giving details of a "Jesus Christ". I think there is enough evidence to show that Tatian was, indeed, a HJer when he wrote the AttG.

First, some details of Tatian's life:

He probably was converted to Christianity around 150 CE, and was a pupil of Justin Martyr, the famous HJer, in Rome. He was the author of many works, though the only ones we have today in full are the AttG and the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels. Tatian composed the AttG c. 155-165 CE. He refers to Justin in the AttG as the "admirable Justin", and relates how both Justin and he (Tatian) were threatened with death by Crescens, a pagan philosopher in Rome.

In his later years, after the death of Justin Martyr c. 163 CE, Tatian is reported to have become an Encratite. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tatian.html

Encratites, from what is known, seemed to have been a Marcion-like sect that believed that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, but wasn't composed of earthly flesh, only taking on the appearance of flesh. They accepted most of the Gospels, but rejected Paul's epistles. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05412c.htm

This is how Irenaeus describes Tatian, both before and after Justin:

Quote:

Chapter XXVIII.-Doctrines of Tatian, the Encratites, and Others.

1. Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them-indeed, we may say all-desire themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy in which they have been involved. Forming one set of doctrines out of a totally different system of opinions, and then again others from others, they insist upon teaching something new, declaring themselves the inventors of any sort of opinion which they may have been able to call into existence. To give an example: Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites (self-controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race. Some of those reckoned among them have also introduced abstinence from animal food, thus proving themselves ungrateful to God, who formed all things. They deny, too, the salvation of him who was first created. It is but lately, however, that this opinion has been invented among them. 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.308 But his denial of Adam's salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself.

Irenaeus wrote this wrote this around 180. Tatian wrote around 170 CE, so Irenaeus was virtually a contemporary to Tatian, and probably had access to many of the works by Tatian that no longer exist. He actually visited Rome (where Tatian had lived) itself around 178. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

You'll note that Irenaeus doesn't say that Tatian rejected the existence of a HJ - his points of heresy, beyond Marcion, are related to doctrinal points.

It is interesting how Tatian's AttG was received by the HJers of the period. In a period where heretical works were named and attacked, the AttG was in fact well regarded. Eusebius, writing in the 4th C CE, wrote:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

Quote:

He (Tatian) has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works.

So, to sum up:
1. Tatian was a pupil of the famous HJer Justin Martyr.
2. According to Irenaeus in his "Against Heresies", Tatian was a member of "The Church" while Justin was alive, and became an Encratite at some point afterwards. There is no evidence that he ever rejected a historical Jesus, though he seems to have adopted the docetic view that Jesus was not composed of ordinary flesh (Marcion's example was that of the angel that appeared to Abraham in the OT). Encratites accepted most of the Gospel but rejected Paul's epistles.
3. Irenaeus was a virtual contemporary of Tatian, and visited Rome (where Tatian had lived) a handful of years after Tatian was there.
3. The AttG was well received by the HJers of the period, and was in use for hundreds of years afterwards.

It seems after all that a HJer could indeed write an apology without referring to details of a HJ.

Layman · 04-03-2004, 05:43 PM

Great post.

This highlights very specifically one of the glaring errors in Doherty's treatment of the second century Church. How can we believe there was a schism between HJ Christians and MJ Christians in light of the absence of any in-fighting between the factions? The answer is that the lack of such evidence precludes any belief that the MJ existed in any significant degree in the second century.

The early Church condemned often and harshly the heresy of Marcion, even though he accepted the HJ. Indeed, there are entire treatises devoted to attacking his teachings. But there is nothing equivalent from HJ Christian against those who denied Jesus existed all together? That makes no sense.

Tatian is no exception, as is shown by GD. He was part of the HJ Church at one time. He started teaching heresy. His heresy was well-known by HJ Christians. Iraneaus, obviously an HJ Christian, condemns Tatian's heresy specifically and forcefully. But Iraneaus spares not a word to accuse Tatian of denying the very existence of Jesus, certainly a greater offense than adopting erroneous attitudes about marriage. Obviously, Tatian started off believing in a HJ and continued to do so as a heretic.

So where are the HJ attacks on the MJ? They are not here. And Tatian obviously was not a MJ Christian.

Attonitus · 04-03-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Encratites, from what is known, seemed to have been a Marcion-like sect that believed that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, but wasn't composed of earthly flesh, only taking on the appearance of flesh. They accepted most of the Gospels, but rejected Paul's epistles.

2. According to Irenaeus in his "Against Heresies", Tatian was a member of "The Church" while Justin was alive, and became an Encratite at some point afterwards. There is no evidence that he ever rejected a historical Jesus, though he seems to have adopted the docetic view that Jesus was not composed of ordinary flesh

Irenaeus emphasises that the genealogy safeguards the humanity of Jesus (Adv. Haer. III.22.2f) but in the Diatessaron Tatian it omits the genealogy, and according to Jerome (Gal. 6:8) Tatian had maintained that Christ’s flesh was imaginary.

Do you know some historical man without flesh?

Attonitus · 04-03-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

So where are the HJ attacks on the MJ? They are not here. And Tatian obviously was not a MJ Christian.

What was him then? To state that Jesus is a being without flesh, is it to state a HJ?

Vorkosigan · 04-03-2004, 06:30 PM

Nice post Don. It has already been demolished in the thread. So far, we have no seen no evidence to support your claims. The evidence of the Address to the Greeks, and Tatian's post MJ position, suggest that Tatian was an adherent of a Logos religion. Iraneus claims are not as powerful as Tatian's own words, and Justin Martyr's position is not relevant to Tatian's (when will it penetrate that students do not necessarily adopt their teacher's position). You will note that Iraneus' claims are more circumspect than your own, he simply notes -- as I do -- that Tatian "expressed no such views." Unlike you, Iraneus refrains from reading Tatian's mind, and focuses on the evidence.

Also, your post ONCE AGAIN (why am I not surprised) fails to deal with the positive evidence of Tatian's own words. I made an extensive list in the thread of Tatian's claims that make it difficult to believe he knew the gospel fictions, or believed them, when he wrote that piece. Are you ever going to address them, or are you just going to post new thread after new thread in an attempt to wear others down and generate happy comments from Layman?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 04-03-2004, 06:40 PM

I haven't been following here so my ignorance may be obtuse here but we are talking about Tatian, the person behind the Diatessaron right? Somebody clue me in. How does a guy who writes a harmony of the Gospels not believe in an HJ?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 04-03-2004, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I haven't been following here so my ignorance may be obtuse here but we are talking about Tatian, the person behind the Diatessaron right? Somebody clue me in. How does a guy who writes a harmony of the Gospels not believe in an HJ?

Vinnie

Quote:

and Justin Martyr's position is not relevant to Tatian's

JM an HJer, made extensive use of Gospel harmonies. His pupul Tatian writes a Gospel harmony himself known as the diatessaron.

Is the argument that Tatian became an HJer after his address to the Greeks?

GakuseiDon · 04-03-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Nice post Don. It has already been demolished in the thread. So far, we have no seen no evidence to support your claims. The evidence of the Address to the Greeks, and Tatian's post MJ position, suggest that Tatian was an adherent of a Logos religion. Iraneus claims are not as powerful as Tatian's own words, and Justin Martyr's position is not relevant to Tatian's (when will it penetrate that students do not necessarily adopt their teacher's position). You will note that Iraneus' claims are more circumspect than your own, he simply notes -- as I do -- that Tatian "expressed no such views." Unlike you, Iraneus refrains from reading Tatian's mind, and focuses on the evidence.

Well, let's focus on the evidence then. He said that Tatian was a member of "The Church". What does that suggest?

More evidence. Tatian was a student of Justin. Justin himself associates the "Word" with "Christ" in his Apologies. Tatian calls Justin the "admirable Justin" in AttG. Tatian refers to "narrations" in the AttG, and seems to expect that the Greeks knew them. What are those "narrations", Vork? If Tatian was a Logos nut, then it must be about the Logos, correct? Then why is Tatian comparing Greek myths to the Logos? How is the Logos similar to the Greek myths that Tatian is comparing them to?

Quote:

Also, your post ONCE AGAIN (why am I not surprised) fails to deal with the positive evidence of Tatian's own words. I made an extensive list in the thread of Tatian's claims that make it difficult to believe he knew the gospel fictions, or believed them, when he wrote that piece. Are you ever going to address them, or are you just going to post new thread after new thread in an attempt to wear others down and generate happy comments from Layman?

You made a list of what YOU thought were problems, from a 21 century perspective. But read my quote from Eusebius. Not only wasn't it a problem for HJers, he actually extended praise to it!

So, please give me a list of problems that HJers of the period had with AttG.

GakuseiDon · 04-03-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

JM an HJer, made extensive use of Gospel harmonies. His pupul Tatian writes a Gospel harmony himself known as the diatessaron.

Is the argument that Tatian became an HJer after his address to the Greeks?

Vork is saying that Tatian doesn't refer to "Jesus" or "Christ" in a philosophical treatise to the Greeks, because he was a Logos nut. He has absolutely no evidence to support this outside of the treatise in question.

I'm saying that there is evidence that Tatian was a HJer before Justin Martyr died, and a Marcion-like HJer after Justin died.

Vinnie · 04-03-2004, 07:07 PM

I did a quick check:

Tatian seems to have known the Gospel of John, or at least a stream of its tradition in AGreeks:

"God is spirit" which is found in John 4.24. [8]

"The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." John 1:5 [41]

"All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made." John 1:3 [59]

Also, apparanetly, a possible reference to Jesus' parable of the kingdom of God being like a hidden treasure:

""The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. " Matt 13:44 [79]

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf0...m#P1114_299739

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2004, 05:43 PM	#2
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Great post. This highlights very specifically one of the glaring errors in Doherty's treatment of the second century Church. How can we believe there was a schism between HJ Christians and MJ Christians in light of the absence of any in-fighting between the factions? The answer is that the lack of such evidence precludes any belief that the MJ existed in any significant degree in the second century. The early Church condemned often and harshly the heresy of Marcion, even though he accepted the HJ. Indeed, there are entire treatises devoted to attacking his teachings. But there is nothing equivalent from HJ Christian against those who denied Jesus existed all together? That makes no sense. Tatian is no exception, as is shown by GD. He was part of the HJ Church at one time. He started teaching heresy. His heresy was well-known by HJ Christians. Iraneaus, obviously an HJ Christian, condemns Tatian's heresy specifically and forcefully. But Iraneaus spares not a word to accuse Tatian of denying the very existence of Jesus, certainly a greater offense than adopting erroneous attitudes about marriage. Obviously, Tatian started off believing in a HJ and continued to do so as a heretic. So where are the HJ attacks on the MJ? They are not here. And Tatian obviously was not a MJ Christian.

04-03-2004, 06:30 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Nice post Don. It has already been demolished in the thread. So far, we have no seen no evidence to support your claims. The evidence of the Address to the Greeks, and Tatian's post MJ position, suggest that Tatian was an adherent of a Logos religion. Iraneus claims are not as powerful as Tatian's own words, and Justin Martyr's position is not relevant to Tatian's (when will it penetrate that students do not necessarily adopt their teacher's position). You will note that Iraneus' claims are more circumspect than your own, he simply notes -- as I do -- that Tatian "expressed no such views." Unlike you, Iraneus refrains from reading Tatian's mind, and focuses on the evidence. Also, your post ONCE AGAIN (why am I not surprised) fails to deal with the positive evidence of Tatian's own words. I made an extensive list in the thread of Tatian's claims that make it difficult to believe he knew the gospel fictions, or believed them, when he wrote that piece. Are you ever going to address them, or are you just going to post new thread after new thread in an attempt to wear others down and generate happy comments from Layman? Vorkosigan

04-03-2004, 06:40 PM	#6
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I haven't been following here so my ignorance may be obtuse here but we are talking about Tatian, the person behind the Diatessaron right? Somebody clue me in. How does a guy who writes a harmony of the Gospels not believe in an HJ? Vinnie

04-03-2004, 07:07 PM	#10
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I did a quick check: Tatian seems to have known the Gospel of John, or at least a stream of its tradition in AGreeks: "God is spirit" which is found in John 4.24. [8] "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." John 1:5 [41] "All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made." John 1:3 [59] Also, apparanetly, a possible reference to Jesus' parable of the kingdom of God being like a hidden treasure: ""The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. " Matt 13:44 [79] http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf0...m#P1114_299739 Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.