andrewcriddle

This claim of Irenaeus is about developments in Tatian's views after the death of Justin.

Even if accurate it may not be relevant to the 'Oration to the Greeks' which was probably written around the time of Justin's death before Tatian returned to Syria.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Where does Tatian say that he regarded the Greek gods as non-historical? That sounds like a false dilemma to me: 'either Tatian believed that pagan beliefs were all real or that he believed they were all false'. As I pointed out, Tatian believed that the Greek gods WERE real. But like other HJ writers, he said that they were demons. The opinion of HJ writers of the time was that the myths were inspired by demons.

So where does Tatian say that he regarded the Greek gods themselves as non-historical?

Where does Tertullian have problems admitting that there were similarities?

Well, Ted, I'd say that my arguments on this aren't foolish, but your arguments are idle talk. But I'm afraid that if I did that, you would say that I must regard my arguments to be at the same level as yours.

Um. I actually used this passage in my article as evidence that Tatian was probably a HJer when he wrote his Address. As Andrew pointed out, Irenaeus is talking about Tatian's beliefs AFTER Justin. Since Irenaeus wrote within 20 years of Tatian, this makes him a fairly good source.

Why is that passage evidence for your argument rather than mine?

To be honest, I think the case that Tatian had the same general beliefs as Justin when he wrote his Address is so strong, I think you would need to point out where Tatian differed from Justin to show otherwise. (Doherty just doesn't do this comparison in any depth, which I regard as a virtual one-sided presentation of the evidence).

Do you have anything else on Tatian?

Ted Hoffman

It is relevant to the claim that Tatian followed Justin's footsteps. While Justin was alive, Tatian never expressed these views. After Justin's death Tatian became explicit.
It is clear that Tatian was Justin's student and that Tatian respected Justin. It is also clear that Tatian was capricious in his belief system and "converted" more than once in his lifetime - from paganism, to Christianity to being an Encratite. To attempt to find a footing for a historical Jesus in such a sandy mind is like stepping on a slippery floor for stability.
Earlychurch.org references Jack P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. To argue that Unlike Justin, Tatian did not link the Greek hero Deucalion with Noah. "Though Tatian does not specifically mention Noah's flood, his chronology would make it impossible for him to identify Deucalion with Noah (Address to the Greeks 39.2)."

And demons were "historical" to Tatian? No. They dwelt in another plane - probably a sublunar realm above the earth.
In Address 20, he says: "not of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things..." means Tatian believed that the demons did not dwell on earth. "Yet not out of this earth" is an attempt to locate the referenced region close to the earth and out of heaven. What I refer to as the sublunar realm. A plane lower than the heavens and close to the earth. The Greek gods could come down from that place, take the form of humans and mess with our women, after whom they lusted.
To be sure, he writes in Address 15 that "none of the demons posess flesh: their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen..."

I have just realized that Tatian's belief system may have been quite similar to that of Paul: some events, details not specified, took place in another plane different from the earth. In Address 21, he believes in the incarnation of God [not of the Logos or of Christ], alludes to the overcoming death by submitting to death in Address 15 and believes in bodily resurrection [Address 13] though he does not directly link these beliefs to a HJ or even to Christ.
The Logos, per Tatian, is an abstract "light of God", a "power", a "framer of the angels", it is "a spirit emanating from the father". He does not state that the logos was a man, that the logos incarnated and so on.
From this, we can see that, To Tatian, the logos was a creative force as believed by the middle Platonists, contrary to the stoics who believed that it was a form of wisdom that could be present in the minds of men.
I am now of the firm belief that Tatian never knew or believed in a HJ at the time that he wrote Address to the Greeks.
"Inspired"? I wouldnt exactly put it that way but oh well...
Yes I would if you explicitly stated that our arguments are similar. It would render your insults of "foolish" and "idle talk" entirely vacuous.
Tatian explicity states the following:
1. That the Greek gods were demons [Address 8].
2. That the demons were separated from this earth and "none of the demons posess flesh: their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen..." in Address 20 and Address 15.
3. That God's incarnation [as portrayed in the "Christian narratives"] was "similar" to that of the incarnation of the Greek gods in Address 21

From 1, 2 and 3: we can conclude that Tatian did not believe in a historical Jesus because he did not believe that God incarnated on earth.

It was evidence that Tatian did not necessarily follow Justin's footsteps. He learnt from Justin. That much we know, just like many of us learn from creationists. It doesnt mean we hold the same views.
What is your evidence that Tatian believed in a HJ?
I think you are honest. But list three points that support this assertion. Please.
I think my 1,2,3 argument above closes the matter. I would like to see you challenge those.

GakuseiDon

Irenaeus's comment, and Tatian's references to Justin in his Address, plus the other pieces I present below, provide prima facie evidence at the least. Not 100%, I'll grant you; but if there is no other examples of unorthodox views in his "Address", I would say that any fair evaluation of Irenaeus's comment by itself would have Tatian sharing Justin's general beliefs.

Ted, haven't you misread that passage??? "not of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things..." refers to the humans, not the demons.

Heh? How could he refer to Justin in his "Address", and not be aware of a HJ??? I can't see the logic in it, I'm afraid.

As given above: (1) Irenaeus's comments on Tatian, (2) Tatian's comments on Justin, (3) concepts in Tatian's Address that can be found in Justin Martyr and Tertullian. I won't claim it is 100%, but I think the evidence available is more than sufficient, overwhelming in fact, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Sure. Let's go through them, one by one. Your words in blue:

1. That the Greek gods were demons

Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian say the same things:

Justin Martyr First Apology (lots of comments on this):
"not knowing that these were demons, they called them gods, and gave to each the name which each of the demons chose for himself"

Tertullian Apology:
"Let your search, then, now be after gods; for those whom you had imagined to be so you find to be spirits of evil".

2. That the demons were separated from this earth and "none of the demons posess flesh: their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen..." in Address 20 and Address 15

I'm not sure what the relevance is here. Were HJers saying anything different? And doesn't Doherty believe that they existed in the "sphere of the flesh", anyway?

Tertullian writes in his Apology, "Every spirit is possessed of wings. This is a common property of both angels and demons. So they are everywhere in a single moment; the whole world is as one place to them... From dwelling in the air, and their nearness to the stars, and their commerce with the clouds, they have means of knowing the preparatory processes going on in these upper regions, and thus can give promise of the rains which they already feel."

3. That God's incarnation [as portrayed in the "Christian narratives"] was "similar" to that of the incarnation of the Greek gods in Address 21

Justin Martyr First Apology:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter".

Tertullian Apology:

"The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ. Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble".

Ted Hoffman

Comments regarding Justin or [ideological] reference? If the "reference" was not wrt Justin's ideology, I am sorry it is not of much value in arguing that Tatian believed in a HJ.
Evidence that he knew him and held him in high regard.
You bet.
And you would be guilty of argument from ignorance once again.
Since humans could not have been driven to "a more excellent order of things than exists here now", it is obviously the demons he is referring to.
Tatian and the audience "exist here now" so humans could not possibly have at the same time been expelled to "a more excellent order of things than exists here now".
He mentioned Justin. He did not mention any earthly references to a HJ. So his mention of Justin has no probative value. This is like claiming that any student of Plato who mentioned Plato was ipso facto a Platonist.
You see the folly in this. For sure.

(1),(2) and (3) are isolated factoids that, when sewn together do not tell us whether Tatian believed in a HJ.
I have provided evidence to the contrary already. Unlike you, I am not arguing from ignorance. I am stating that:

(1) Tatian believed that the Greek gods were of a spiritual nature like the Christian God.
(2) Tatian believed that these Gods/demons could not be perceived by all except the spiritually enlightened people. Based on this, these demons were not historical people like Tatian and his audience.
(3) The Logos, according to Tatian, was not a flesh and blood man.
(4) All Christian texts that have both Logos concept and an incarnated god have the logos as an antecedent of Jesus/Christ. For example, Justin and John have the logos become flesh in order to do his thing. Those that have Jesus of Nazareth alone do not have a Logos. Like ALuke.

Based on this, we can conclude that the logos was mutually exclusive with its incarnated alter ego. Like a caterpillar and a butterfly. IOW, the incarnated god came progressively later after the Logos.

Tatian speaks of the Logos as a force and doesnt mention the logos becoming flesh. Therefore Tatian did not believe in a HJ.

QED.

You have simply restated what I stated. Does that mean you agree with me on the three points?

Yes, the HJers said something completely different. The HJers had Jesus live on earth, eat, shit and get killed. The "sphere of the flesh" refers to another realm than the earth depending on the author in question and the context. Try to avoid oversimplifying things.

You simply had a question? Is that it?

GakuseiDon

It's "from a most excellent order of things", not "to". Amazingly, you have somehow twisted that passage around to mean virtually the opposite to what is actually stated. That passage again:

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 the earth, yet not out of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now. (my emphasis)

In short: demons cast from heaven, humans expelled from (presumably) Eden. How you get what you are saying is beyond me. Can you explain a little more, please?

Ted, your original comments again: It is clear that Tatian was Justin's student and that Tatian respected Justin.... I am now of the firm belief that Tatian never knew or believed in a HJ at the time that he wrote Address to the Greeks.

I'll grant that Tatian being a student of Justin doesn't necessarily mean that Tatian believed in a HJ (though I think that would be a reasonable conclusion).

But can you explain how a student of Justin Martyr never knew of Justin's belief in a HJ???

If you are saying that Tatian knew of Justin's belief but didn't believe in a HJ, then his silence on a HJ becomes interesting.

Apparently so. It's good that we are so close!

Yep. That's it for Tatian, anyway. We seem to be looking at the same pieces of evidence and drawing different conclusions. It could be that we are both now locked into our respective views. I'm happy to present the evidence I have in my rebuttal article and leave it up to others to decide for themselves.

Wouldn't it be great if Doherty tried to publish his views on Tatian in a peer-reviewed journal?

Ted Hoffman

We know the humans were cast from the place they were before[Eden, heaven take your pick], to the earth.

• According to the passage, where were the demons cast to?

• Who was driven from the earth?

Answer these questions and clear the consfusion.
As you do this, remember that this is trivial given that Tatian stated that the demons are not flesh and blood but like fire and air and cannot be seen by everybody except those that are spiritually enlightened.
Amen.
Nobody is saying Tatian never knew of Justin's beliefs. I assume he was quite well acquainted with Justin's beliefs.
But that does not entail that Tatian embraced them, or integrated Justin's HJ beliefs into his[Tatian's] belief system.
As Tatian makes it clear, he regards the Christian narratives as he regards the Pagan ones. And Tatian's ass is chapped that the Pagans nevertheless lend greater credence to their own myths than to the Christian narratives.
The point is that Tatian expresses his belief system without leaving any role for a HJ. Maybe his belief system was complete without a HJ and he saw no need to revise it in deference to Justin's beliefs. Maybe he thought a HJ concept was boring or mundane or irrelevant. In any case, he never challenges Roman myths on grounds of historicity.
The most important thing is that we know Tatian wrote what he believed. And we know that Tatian did not write about a HJ.

That is why the only thing you are left to hold on to is an argument from ignorance.
Speak for yourself, Gakusei.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just ignore the stengths of the arguments and instead pant after what conservatives endorsed?

Wouldn't it be great if GDon tried to publish his views on Tatian in a peer-reviewed journal? Doherty's work is legitimized by Price, Carrier, Doughty, Journal of Higher Criticism and even by amateurs like you who try to tear it down.
You didn't bother with Archaya's work but you took an immense amount of time and effort on Doherty's work. That does not legitimize it enough for you?
The thing with spiteful logic is that it often acts like a boomerang.

The thing is GDon, if you wanted to shut down your mind and go after what fundies and conservative scholars regurgitated, you wouldn't be here.
I can understand if you've run out of arguments but its a bit late in the day to employ that kind of sarcasm without having it rebound on you.
Why didn't you sit on your hands and wait for Doherty's work to be published first if it is so important to you? You are a subscriber to how many peer-reviewed NT Journals?
I daresay none. Correct me if I am wrong.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that your arguments didn't convince me, and don't seem to convince Don either. Why are you so certain of this?

This lengthy ad hominem does you no service.

I'm not sure in what sense you think Doherty is 'legitimized' (by whom? as what? -- he isn't a scholar, and he certainly isn't a Tatian scholar, any more than I am). There isn't an appeal to authority here -- merely to reason. But the reasons offered for inverting what the historical record says about Tatian are profoundly unconvincing. Arguments from what people don't say usually are. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I can't find another way to say it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

I have no interest in your being convinced or persuaded. I am satisfied with your incapacity to rebut my arguments. I am acutely aware of the ideas GDon has abandoned since I joined the discussion.
For example, he posted earlier:

• I have since demonstrated that Tatian did not regard the Greco-Roman gods as historical.
• I have also demonstrated that Tatian's conceptualization of the demons is not that they were historical beings.
• I have also demonstrated that Tatian regarded the Greco-Roman myths in the same way as he regarded the Christian myths.

The above three points combined blow away any illusions that Tatian believed in a HJ.
GDon has also conceded:Remember that Justin and by extension Tatian's studentship to him was the linchpin of this argument. The above concession means that, at best, you have a shaky starting point. You cannot hope to get a strong foothold if the wall itself is collapsing.
Because I have relied on what Tatian wrote. Not what he did not write.
The Jesus Puzzle has been endorsed as a serious scholarly publication by Robert Price, who, unlike you, is a New Testament Professor with several publications under his belt. Because of this, Doherty has earned his standing among scholars even without an ineffectual publication of an insignificant article on Tatian in a peer-reviewed Journal.
I know you as an internet apologist. In your site, you describe your work as "the product of amateur interest ". I found your analysis of Eusebius galactically apologetic. But that is just my opinion. How many books have you published on NT subjects? Published in how many Journals? What refreshing ideas have you brought in the field of study?
Doherty has been published in Journal Of Higher Criticism alongside other scholars. He has also published books on the subject and earned the respect of many. His writings have also inspired many to re-examine the subject.
What can we say about you? That you have successfully presented what you call "the product of amateur interest" on a website?
This allegation is made at too reclining a position. Why not sit up and explain what is unconvincing in my presentation.
There is nothing not to like. You have found a way to say it. That is good enough for me. Even a two-year old child can state they are not convinced. Being convinced is a state of mind and has no probative value on the strength of the case at hand. It requires some intellectual effort to demonstrate why an argument is not convincing. Sit up and try that. It may move the discussion forward.

GakuseiDon

OK. According to the passage, the demons were cast from heaven. It doesn't say where they were cast to. What is your view on this?

According to the passage, humans were driven from the earth, "yet not out of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now." What is your view on this?

Remember, you said, "Tatian and the audience "exist here now" so humans could not possibly have at the same time been expelled to "a more excellent order of things than exists here now"." Do you still maintain that?

Why is that important? I can't see the relevance of it. Does that contradict what the HJ writers were saying somehow?

Well, YOU said that. Here are your words: "I am now of the firm belief that Tatian never knew or believed in a HJ at the time that he wrote Address to the Greeks"

Perhaps you just meant, "Tatian never believed in a HJ at the time"?

Are Doherty's comments on second century writings in fact endorsed by anyone, even Carrier or Price? On Tatian, Carrier writes:
Justin's choice of Gospels could have been influenced by his location (Rome) or some other preferences unknown to us, but it is a crucial consideration because the first "orthodox" canon is devised by Justin's pupil, Tatian, who would thus have favored the choices of the man who had converted and instructed him... Curiously, the first "orthodox" Christian move toward canonization begins outside the Roman Empire, in the Syrian church. Moreover, this canon was ultimately not in Greek, but was a Syrian translation (M 114-7). The single man responsible is Tatian, who was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 A.D.

Now, if we asked Carrier, "is there a 100% certainty that Tatian held the same beliefs as Justin when he was converted to Christianity in 150 CE?", I'm sure he would say "no". But if we asked Carrier, "what should we conclude from the evidence available", I believe that Carrier would agree that the evidence is overwhelming for Tatian to have had the same views on the historicity of Christ as Justin Martyr.

I've never read Price's view of the second century apologists. Do you know if he endorses Doherty on this? Does the Journal of Higher Criticism endore Doherty on this? Somehow I doubt it.

Well, you are right there. But I'm not the one complaining that my work isn't being taken seriously by the mainstream. I think Doherty would be cut to pieces if he tried to publish his thoughts on the second century apologists in any peer-reviewed publication.