Ted Hoffman

One year later, the mythicists are still waiting.

Vinnie

I refunded Kirby a while back for the book. I have no further interest in discussing Doherty. I'm slowly composing my own book.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Why do you reject marcan priority?

Ted Hoffman

So, what happened?

Please share with us the interesting insights you gathered and what, IYO, are the weak points in the mythicist case?

Are you now in a position to explain to us why Tatian, in Apology to the Greeks c.160 had as his main focus, the Logos. Why when he expounds on The Doctrine of the Christians, he focuses on the creative power of the Logos in bringing about the universe, its being the first-begotten of the Father through whom the world was made. Why Tatian never mentions that there was an incarnation of the Logos. Why Tatian uses expressions like 'God taught', never 'Jesus said', or 'Christ taught'. Why the names 'Jesus', 'Christ' and 'Christian' don't appear in Apology. Why, when Tatian talks about Christians belief in the resurrection, he never mentions Jesus or christ, or that Jesus resurrected.

And why the same author, a decade or so later, in Diatessaron c.175, references the gospels and a historical Jesus emerges in his theology?

Why does The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus state that "God did not, send to men any servant, or angel to the Christians"? Didn't the author know that Christianity was founded by a man called Jesus who was sent by God? Why does the author, who is a Christian, write lengthily about The Manifestation of Christ and never once mentions the name Jesus or Mary or Nazareth? Isn't it odd?

Why do your own methodologies focus only on Jesus' sayings and not on his personality - was Jesus a radio? If we set out a methodology to determine the historicity of say Nebuchadnezzar, would we focus only on his speech?

Why is it that a clear identity of a HJ is missing in the first strata (Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans - where the words "son of God", Pilate, Joseph and Mary,[terms which appear in the latter strata] are markedly absent)? Is it just a coincidence?

These are just some of the questions mythicists ask and offer answers to them. Could you explain why Paul believed archons killed Jesus and not Pilate?
Or have you, like Rick, already made up your mind on the matter and dont want to discuss it?

Offa,
Where can we read your arguments against Markan priority in favour of another one?

Kirby,
If its not too late, give the book to Gakusei Don.

GakuseiDon

Well, I'm not Vinnie, but I'll have a go.

Because that was the style of the time when writing philosophical treatises to "the Greeks".

Because that was common dogma of the time. HJers said similar things, e.g. Justin Martyr.

He writes "God was born in the form of a man". He just doesn't name the man. But, coming from what we know about him, can he be referring to anyone else, MJ or not? That was not a rhetorical question, by the way.

Does he quote Christ at all? If not, why SHOULD he say "Jesus said" or "Christ taught"?

Did Tatian believe in a mythical Christ or not? If so, why didn't he use the names? If not, why assume that his epistle has anything to do with Christianity? Seems this is a problem for both HJers and MJers, JA. I have my answer, what is yours?

Tatian only spends a few lines on resurrection, and then only about the resurrection of believers at the end of time. The onus is on you to explain why he should have mentioned Jesus being resurrected, JA.

Because that was not a philosophical treatise addressed to "the Greeks".

Pilate WAS an archon.

My questions:

Ireneaus wrote that Tatian didn't show any heretical inclinations after Justin Martyr died. After that, Tatian became a gnostic, who believed that the HJ was formed like an angel, rather than born. Why didn't anyone notice that Tatian didn't believe in a HJ?

Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" was well received and used widely by Christians over the next few centuries. Why didn't anyone notice that it wasn't about their HJ? Why was it so well received by HJers?

In "Address to the Greeks", Tatian refers to Justin Martyr (of whom he was a student) as "the most admirable Justin", and, in fact, says that Crescens (a rival philosopher) tried to have both Tatian and Justin killed. How could Tatian have known Justin, but not have known the names "Jesus" or "Christ"? Why was Tatian regarded as a student of Justin, if he didn't believe in a HJ at the time?

Why does Tatian refer to Justin denouncing demons as "robbers" (just after saying "Yield to the power of the Logos")? Why does Tatian's Address echo so many of the topics from (the HJer) Justin's writings?

Justin himself also refer to Jesus as the Logos that took shape and became a man in his First Apology. How could his student Tatian get it so wrong?

Given the internal and external evidence, what other conclusion can be reached but that Tatian was a HJer, who for some reason decided not to use the words "Jesus" or "Christ" in his apology to the Greeks? (Remember, we have examples of Tertullian and Ignatius doing the exact same thing).

Ted Hoffman

What do you mean by "the Greeks" is this an ethnic argument? what about philosophical treatsies to Romans? and Greek-speaking Romans?

Your argument is challenged by Justin Martyr's First and second Apologies where a HJ is mentioned.

He is not a MJ since he is not (named/called) Jesus.

So you have asked a wrong question. Its like asking whether "the son" in Shepherd is a MJ: he is simply an intermediary heavenly figure.

He also says God never sent anyone to Christians. We can say that the man was a heavenly man like Philos, or Shepherd's "the son" who are not placed on earth.

But what is important is that the incarnation never took place on earth. He was trying to distinguish christian deities from those of the greeks like Hercules and the rest.
Because the gospels say he taught and said things and had followers who were to promulgate his teachings.

We find the following topics in Tatian's work (Address to the Greeks):

THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP GOD ALONE
CHRISTIANS' BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION.

So, yes, he is talking about Christians.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

I don't know whether he believed in a mythical christ. The important thing is that he conceived christianity without an earthly saviour figure and presented it as such to the Greeks.

To speak about christianity (at least as presented in the NT) without mentioning Jesus is like speaking about the whitehouse without mentioning the word "president". The ransom soteriology, the salvific death etc etc and hallmarks of christianity. Yet here we find whole documents of numerous pages without even the name "Jesus" appearing once.

Because it is important. Because it was evidence that Jesus was sent by the true God. It was evidence that Jesus overcame death and christians would resurrect too.

Jesus was a central founding figure and he simply has to feature in christian talk. Its like speaking about Platonism without mentioning Plato.

Then you will have to rebut the arguments offered by other scholars:

Doherty explains: "In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66) puts it this way:

"Earth is full of demons. Humanity is plagued by them. Almost all misfortunes are because of demons: sickness, drought, death and especially humanity's weaknesses about remaining faithful to the covenant (with God). The region between heaven and earth seems to be almost cluttered by demons and angels; humanity is often seen as a pawn, helpless in the face of such cosmic forces."

Doherty continues:"Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion.

Modern scholars like C. K. Barrett (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72), Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ, p.56), and Jean Hering (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17, a brief but penetrating analysis), have felt constrained to agree. Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation." They operated in the spiritual realm, which S. Salmond (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Ephesians, p.284) describes as "supra-terrestrial but sub-celestial regions." Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here."

S. G. F. Brandon (History, Time and Deity, p.167) unflinchingly declares that although Paul's statement "may seem on cursory reading to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression 'rulers of this age' does not mean the Roman and Jewish authorities. Instead, it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were believed to inhabit the planets (the celestial spheres) and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attributes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders, but to these planetary powers."
This is a separate question. I could hazard a guess: maybe christians werent so polarized over the issue?

They assumed a picture-perfect christianity with a HJ and where none was mentioned, they assumed him to be there somewhere.

You know that its argued that Diatessaron may have been composed from Justin's Harmony.
I think that at the time he wrote Address to the Greeks, they may have just been acquainted and Tatian was yet to soak in Justinian theology.

'Echo' is not a substantive response. Please be specific. As to why demons were denounced as robbers, maybe you could just get to the point you intend to make?

He may do so, but what kind of man? Jesus of nazareth or a man like Philo's heavenly man?
We have no reason to believe he was a HJ. In fact, IIRC, he talks about why the son has delayed in coming.

Ignatius and Tertullian were HJers.

You cannot have the subtitles I have put above and fail to merely use the name Jesus or Christ when talking about Christians.

You cannot talk about the Christian concept of resurrection without mentioning Jesus. From the gospels, its a concept that Jesus taught and exemplified. I think this is very basic and in no need of an argument.

GakuseiDon

That's why I put "Greeks" in quotes. IIRC, these apologetics were philosophical treatises, not addressed to people living in Greece, but with a Greek-philosophical bent.

Well, if it has nothing to do with Jesus, then what does it have to do with Christianity, then? Why can't it be something related to, say, Mithra? Show me the relationship to Christianity - don't just assume it outright - then you may have something.

How do you know it wasn't on earth? Where does Tatian say it was done?


:banghead: :banghead: JA, most topic headers were put in much later by editors.

So, you have no evidence that Tatian's Apology has anything to do with Christianity. Is that correct?

So you keep saying. But, SO WHAT??? Don't just keep repeating it, as if it means something. TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.

So, Tatian's Apology has nothing to do with Christianity, then? He only became a Christian later?

Read your question and my answer. Pilate WAS an archon. Peter Kirby here shows that the idea that Paul was referring to spiritual forces is controversial among scholars, and concludes that Doherty's argument is far from sound.

You talked about a skeptical approach on Ebla, JA. How would a skeptic approach this topic?

So, the HJ Christians like Justin were so into being HJers that they would undoubtedly make mention of historical aspects of Christ, but they weren't concerned if other Christians who DIDN'T believe in a HJ didn't mention historical aspects.

Even if you were right, as a working hypothesis it is unfalsifiable, and useless. It is also ridiculous, given the trouble the HJers of the time took to combat Marcionism and list heresies.

So, Tatian WASN'T a Christian when he wrote his Address, then? So why bring it up?

The point is that Tatian referred to Justin's writings, so he must have know about a HJ. That is undeniable.

Since Tatian almost certainly never put the subtitles in himself, you will need to rethink that.

Ergo, Tatian wasn't a Christian, MJ or HJ.

JA, you've buried yourself into this hole really deep. Give my regards to China.

Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller wrote a substantial rebuttal to Doherty's book and web site. I apologize to Bernard that I have not yet returned the favor by reviewing his web site. Muller's review is posted here:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/doherty-muller.html

Patrick Narkinsky (nope, he doesn't post here AFAIK) also volunteered to review the book. I think he's working on it, and I should probably e-mail him when my computer is working again.

I would be very happy if Gakusei Don wrote a review of Doherty's work to be published on my web site! Gakusei Don, please send an email to kirby@earthlink.net with your mailing address so that I can give you the book to review.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

You have yet to prove that it is the case that philosophical treatises with with a Greek-philosophical bent must, ipso facto, exclude any earthly references of Jesus, including the name Jesus itself.

This is the leg your argument needs to stand on. Yet you cannot construct it in the face of Justin Marty's Apology among others. Thus, you have no premise to proceed from.

I can however examine your argument mutatis mutandis.

It has to do with Christianity because, under the title THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIANS AS TO THE CREATION OF THE WORLD (and we have no reason to assume that the contents are not about Christians - irrespective of the identity of the redactor that inserted the titles), he talks of the Logos (a christian and Jewish concept with roots in the OT in the form of Jewish personified wisdom) which we also fond in John. He talks of a monotheistic God without a name - pagan gods had names (Zeus, Hercules). Plus, the historical context informs us that Tatian was talking about Christianity. Under THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIANS AS TO THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, he compares Greek Gods with the God of the Christians.
Tatian was Justins 'disciple' thus necessarily a Christian. He openly reveres Moses above Homer.
He also refers to himself as a Christian in the Address to the Greeks when he used "us".

Thus Address to the Greeks, is, without a shadow of doubt, about Christians/Christianity and expounding and juxtaposing Christian beliefs alongside those of the Greeks.

The Logos is preexistent and was the beginning of the universe.
He ridicules the heathen Gods (Zeus, Rhea, Persephone etc) "metamorphosis of men" - contrawise, he denies that the Logos ever metamorphosized into a man.
He also states:
Clearly, this man never believed in a HJ. In Tatian's understanding, the Logos, God's first begotten, became matter to create our world. His purpose is creation. Not salvation. Not ransom. He is not born of Virgin Mary or suffered under pontius pilate.

We are hereby confronted by a Christian apologist in the 2nd century who had not yet come in contact with the gospel tradition that Justin later bequathed him and culminated in the Diatessaron.

Your argument being that they were wrong ? (since you mentioned Mithra).
You be the judge of this.
It means he conceived of a Christianity without a Historical Jesus. Therefore, Christianity existed without a HJ and a HJ was fabricated later. It means a HJ is dispensable and was a later addition.
No.

1. An argument needs to be made as to why Paul chooses the ambiguous label archons over than "Pilate" or, "the Jews". Is archons more befitting? Who else referred to Pilate as archons?

2. Paul was fairly familiar with world politics, to use the term "the rulers of this age" he would have meant all the rulers in the world conspired to Kill Jesus, which would have been nonsensical.

3. Archons in Paul must be read in the context of other passages like the Phillipians passage where Jesus was a god who came down to earth. Its also clear that Paul got references from Isaiah (Isaiah's ascenscion) regarding the dying and rising of Christ) and the sublunar realm where demons killed Jesus. To read it otherwise, is to read it out of context.

4. Paul's claim that he died and ressurected with Christ supports the idea that he believed that Christ's death was a spiritual one.

5. Paul clearly states that a physical body cannot resurrect/go to heaven. This argues against the (death and) resurrection of a Physical, flesh and blood man.

As Kirby notes, Ellingworth states that "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 46
Kirby,
Against Doherty, Kirby seems to exclude Thackeray, Paul Ellingworth and Schmiedel. That's 10 in favour of Doherty and 9 contra (or at least a tie).

Lack of cogent responses to my five points above leaves the issue in favour of a Dohertian interpretation.

Skeptically.

You had earlier asked: "Why didn't anyone notice that Tatian didn't believe in a HJ?"
My response: Why and whether anyone noticed is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Maybe they were busy farming. It also follows that the fact that nobody noticed is irrelevant to the question about whether or not we should notice. So, at best, its a red herring.

He was a christian who had not yet been acquainted with the concept of a HJ. If you claim he was not a christian, tell us what faith he subscribed to at the time of writing and what religion is being referred to when the word Christian is used in the document.

He referred to Justin's writings later. That is undeniable.
Almost certainly? Drop the hints. Make an argument.

Kirby,
Vork already debunked Muller's rebuttal. Muller employed plenty of rhetoric and left the main pillars of Doherty's thesis intact.
1. As Vork obderved, Muller uses 'heaps of rhetoric, using words like "drifts" and "obsessively" to evoke emotional rather than rational responses in the reader'
Vork notes that Muller uses 'conclusory rhetoric like: "Does that make sense?" Of course not!" as if this were an argument'. Unfortunately, 'Muller does not tell us why the ideas do not make sense'

2. "Bernard's arguments contain misunderstandings and misinterpretations."

etc etc.

Check it out in the link below:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...herty+rhetoric

Ted Hoffman

Sorry for the confusion. Its The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus that states that "God did not, send to men any servant, or angel to the Christians".