GakuseiDon

Certainly Tatian doesn't use the name "Jesus", but who argues that Tatian does not talk about Jesus? Can you name any scholar who does not believe that Tatian's reference to the Logos ("begotten of God") and his comment "God was born in the form of a man" do NOT refer to Jesus?

Because I'm not aware of any. If Doherty is right, and Tatian is not talking about the historical Jesus there, then Doherty has made a fantastic discovery.

And if he is wrong, then his "method" needs to be re-evaluated.

Yeah, well, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Tatian refers to Justin as the "admirable Justin". He argues that the Logos was able to interact with the world using the same argument as Justin. And he says "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". Since he associates himself with Justin, I think it is reasonable to say that -- on the question of God being born in the form of a man -- Tatian was including Justin in that "we".

But even if not: Who else can Tatian be talking about? He talks about the pagans laughing at himself for taking on a "barbarian" philosophy. Any other possible candidates for Gods being born in the form of a man?

avi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_Dyscolus
2nd century CE. Too late. need someone from 100 BCE or latest, ~10CE.
Still, promising, if I can't find anything else, I will return to his textbook of syntax.

POxy, the Oxyrhyncus online states "no documents matched the query" when entering 126.

The Greek Epigrams I have requested from interlibrary loan, should arrive in a month or so....

I am guessing that Jos. Ant. corresponds to Josephus Antiquities. Too late, too Jewish....
Eqnikoi is a Greek word. Think about it Jeffrey: Your suggestion that it is acceptable for the Greeks to regard themselves as eqnikoi makes no sense at all. The jews regarded all non-jews as Gentiles. That means, in jewish ideology, that the Greeks were Gentiles. Now, how can the Greeks themselves be regarded as eqnikoi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS-1_(satellite)
This doesn't look like what you have in mind for elucidating the Greek notion of what eqnikoi represents.

http://www.ecmarsh.com/crl/philo/index.htm
Again, Philo is too late, and too Jewish....

http://papyri.info/idp_static/curren...gu.8.1764.html

This reference above, mentions Isac Herakleopolite
http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf
It looks like some guy living in Egypt, writing in the christian era..... I am seeking use of the word by Greeks, living in Greece, writing about eqnikoi, BEFORE the Christian myth began....

Polyb. 30,13 Polybius History. Yes, this would seem to be useful....Thank you for these references.....
http://artflx.uchicago.edu/perseus-c...=1&query=Polyb.

avi

Jeffrey Gibson

:banghead:
What suggestion? All along I've been speaking of what the term means on the lips of the Matthean Jesus. And you still haven't answered my question about whether the term means "resident alien" in the texts I noted above. On this matter, their date is irrelevant.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jeffrey

aa5874

But this is found in a writing under the name of Tatian.

"Address to the Greeks" 15

Now, the God of Genesis was considered in the form, image or the likeness of MAN.

Examine Genesis 1.26-27.

Genesis 1:26-28 - It would appear that the writer using the name Tatian in Address to the Greeks was not aware of Jesus or did not believe in Jesus of Nazareth since this writer did not mention the forgiveness of sin through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

This writer using the name Tatian wrote about God and the heavenly Logos, not Jesus of Nazareth.

"Address to the Greeks" 7 See http://www.newadvent.org

spin

:eating_popcorn:

And should one walk into Shelob's lair armed only with an empty waterpistol?




spin

Toto

I quoted this in post 120"

How does this differ from Doherty?

Clivedurdle

Tatian looks like clear evidence of a believer in annointing and logos who had never heard of Jesus!


I understand that most of the early "xian" writings do not actually mention Jesus!


And this is the crux of the matter! Any connection between logos and Jesus must not be assumed but must be evidenced. Where is it, especially as this is a later theological position?

GakuseiDon

How does that document help Doherty or explain passages in Tatian's Address that refer to the "admirable" Justin and God being "born in the form of a man"?

Their conclusions are polar opposites. Doherty concludes that Tatian didn't have a HJ at the core of his Christianity. Prof Koltun-Fromm concludes that Tatian may not have been as heretical (and encratic) as is currently thought.

GakuseiDon

That would be an amazing discovery, Clive, since AFAIK we have no record of such a belief. Not even Tatian's near contemporaries ever accused him of that, despite that fact that Tatian wrote many letters. In fact, later orthodox writers praised Tatian's "Address to the Greeks".

It's there. You just need to compare what Tatian wrote with what the others were writing at the time. Like other Christian apologists of the time, Tatian stressed the antiquity of Moses, and how the writings of Moses predated that of Homer:

"But now it seems proper for me to demonstrate that our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks. Moses and Homer shall be our limits, each of them being of great antiquity; the one being the oldest of poets and historians, and the other the founder of all barbarian wisdom."

Note that Moses is the founder of "our philosophy" and "all barbarian wisdom". Which possible religions can Tatian be talking about?

Next, Tatian writes about "the prophets":

"We, however, have learned things which were unknown to us, through the teaching of the prophets, who, being fully persuaded that the heavenly spirit along with the soul will acquire a clothing of mortality, foretold things which other minds were unacquainted with."

What did the Hebrew prophets teach? They taught that "the heavenly spirit will acquire a clothing of mortality". Which possible religions can Tatian be talking about?

Tatian writes:

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...

Crescens, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all men in unnatural love (paiderastia), and was strongly addicted to the love of money. Yet this man, who professed to despise death, was so afraid of death, that he endeavoured to inflict on Justin, and indeed on me, the punishment of death

Justin Martyr also referred to Jesus Christ as being the "Logos". And Tatian's Justin is Justin Martyr there is little doubt, since Tatian was supposed to be a student of Justin Martyr, and Tatian writes how a certain Crescens persecuted both Justin and Tatian -- and Justin also mentions a Crescens who persecuted him in one of his letters.

And finally, Tatian writes:

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... 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.

It is strange coincidence indeed that Tatian says that "God was born in the form of a man" is not "idle tales", and then asks the pagans to compare their myths with "our" narrations... and he goes on to discuss gods who have died violently or suffered. Which religion could he be talking about?

This is why I think Tatian is such a problem for Doherty. Given the significance he lays on First Century writers not including details about Jesus, he can't then ignore the Second Century writers' similar lack of details without concluding the same. But has anyone looked at Tatian to see if he is wrong? And if he is wrong there, how does that impact where he uses the same method elsewhere? That's the question that needs to be asked.

aa5874

Are you implying that no amazing discoveries can be made? It has been discovered, quite amazingly, that those Church writers who mentioned a writer called Tatian gave erroneous information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles and may have even interpolated and redacted other writings.

Now, please say which orthodox writer praised the author of "Address to the Greeks" for writing about Jesus of Nazareth ?[/b]

And note that the author did not mention Jesus at all even though he mentioned God, Moses and Homer.

The heavenly LOGOS is based on the God of Moses or the priniciple of one God.

The heavenly LOGOS is the product of God.

This is Athenagoras defining the LOGOS.

"A Plea to the Christians" 10 See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com


And this is the author of "Discourse to the Greeks" 5 clearly describing the LOGOS.

See http://www.newadvent.org

It is very clear that "Discourse to the Greeks" is NOT at all about Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, it now appears that the Gospel according to John may be a later mutilation of the doctrine of the LOGOS, since it would seem that the LOGOS originally was begotten of God, not of flesh.

The LOGOS appears to have been HEAVENLY before he was made flesh as INADVERTENTLY admitted by the author of gJohn.

We have a documented chronology of the INVENTION for the FLESH of the LOGOS.

This is the author of John 1.


The author of John is extremely clear the LOGOS was LATER made FLESH, that is, JESUS of NAZARETH.