GakuseiDon

Yep. I think the evidence for Tatian being a HJer at the time he wrote the Address is overwhelming, and you don't, which is fair enough. I've run out of evidence, so unless you have any more evidence on your side, there's not much else we can do than move on. If you do have any new evidence, by all means present it. I'm still willing to discuss it, I just don't want to recover stuff already discussed.

Theophilus. I just want to see if Doherty's points in his rebuttal to my critique are reasonable. I don't think they are. His claim that the reference to GJohn is a marginal gloss seems adhoc to me, and not one supported by anyone else. Similarly, his denial that Theophilus wrote anti-heresy tracts appears adhoc, and unsupported.

Ted Hoffman

It is not people who support arguments; arguments should stand on their own merit.
If you feel they are ad hoc, why not proceed to present us with your counter arguments.

Just to be clear, since according to you both humans and demons were sent away from the earth, when did we start occupying the earth - per your understanding of Tatian?
What passage in Tatian's Address indicates to us that he regarded Jesus to be made up of something different from the fire and air he said the demons were made of.
Could you list three points that indicate to us "overwhelmingly" that Tatian believed in a HJ.

GakuseiDon

OK.

1. Theophilus, writing around 180 CE, refers to the Gospel of John. Carrier notes that Theophilus is almost certainly aware of Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels, as well as the Revelation of John. It is by no means unreasonable that Theophilus was also aware of the Gospel of John.
2. Theophilus wrote anti-heresy tracts
3. He quotes from Gospel material (though he doesn't mention Jesus by name). For example: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans." And those that do good it teaches not to boast, lest they become men-pleasers. For it says: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth."

All this is prima facie evidence that he was a HJer.

After expulsion from Eden, which I assume Tatian is referring to by "a more excellent order of things than exists here now".

Tatian doesn't refer to what Jesus is made up of.

Listed here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...m#2.2%20Tatian
Doherty's rebuttal here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

I'm not interested in rehashing Tatian now, I'm afraid. If you have any more evidence to support the view that Tatian was not a HJer, by all means present it. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree on Tatian. I'll be responding to Doherty's points (which are uniformally pretty awful) in my rebuttal.

andrewcriddle

It may be that Tatian considered 'Eden' not as a place in the world we know but as a higher spiritual realm from which fallen humans were exiled to our earth.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

It's possible. Looking through the Address, though, Tatian never clearly states where humans came from, though it would appear to have been in an 'Eden' on earth. He seems to place demons on earth. Out of interest, I've extracted some interesting quotes from the Address, with my interpretation of what Tatian is saying:

Such are the demons; these are they who laid down the doctrine of Fate. Their fundamental principle was the placing of animals in the heavens. For the creeping things on the earth, and those that swim in the waters, and the quadrupeds on the mountains, with which they lived when expelled from heaven...

"Demons currently dwell on earth".

The case stands thus: we can see that the whole structure of the world, and the whole creation, has been produced from matter, and the matter itself brought into existence by God... Therefore in that separation the heavens were made of matter, and the stars that are in them; and the earth and all that is upon it has a similar constitution: so that there is a common origin of all things. But, while such is the case, there yet are certain differences in the things made of matter, so that one is more beautiful, and another is beautiful but surpassed by something better.

"The heavens and earth are made of matter, but some matter is better than other matter".

Therefore the demons, as you call them, having received their structure from matter and obtained the spirit which inheres in it, became intemperate and greedy; some few, indeed, turning to what was purer, but others choosing what was inferior in matter, and conforming their manner of life to it. These beings, produced from matter, but very remote from right conduct, you, O Greeks, worship.

"Demons made from some form of matter".

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. And now it behoves us, yearning after that pristine state, to put aside everything that proves a hindrance.

Tatian seems to be placing 'Eden' on earth to me. He says that it is "not out of this earth", but out of a "pristine state".

I could laugh at those also who in the present day adhere to his [Aristotle] tenets,--people who say that sublunary things are not under the care of Providence; and so, being nearer the earth than the moon, and below its orbit, they themselves look after what is thus left uncared for...

Here, Tatian seems to be placing "sublunary things" as being on earth. Aristotle appears to believe that Providence didn't extend to earth, so we have to look after things here ourselves.

How can it be otherwise than foolish to credit the books of Herodotus relating to the history of Hercules, which tell of an upper earth from which the lion came down that was killed by Hercules?

Tatian is discrediting an account of a lion appearing from an "upper earth", though he doesn't say why such a thing is foolish.

I don't know whether these support historicity or not, just think that these views of ancient cosmology are interesting.

Amaleq13

Are you sure about that reading? It seems to me that Tatian is making fun of the those who believe that sublunary things are not under the care of Providence so they take care of them but he seems to accept that they are nearer the earth than the moon. IOW, Aristotle appears to believe that Providence didn't extend up to these things from earth but Tatian seems to think it is obvious that it does.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure I see what Providence extending up would mean in this context. "Sublunary" in Aristotlean terms meant literally that - those things under the orbit of the moon, which were those earthly things around us subject to change. It sounds like it meant "our world". "Supralunary" related to those things beyond the moon's orbit, and applied to things that never changed, like the stars, etc.

It would take someone with more knowledge of Aristotle's philosophy than me, but it looks like Aristotle thought that leaves falling and nature events weren't covered by Divine Providence, that is, the gods didn't will these events, they just occured. This appears to be what Tatian is objecting to.

(Ed. to add) I found a link here which summarises Aristotle's view:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=567&letter=P
"...Aristotle's theory, which assigns providence to the lunar sphere and almost excludes it from the sublunar sphere. Providence has no care for individuals, only for the species".

Amaleq13

I was taking that from the "nearer the earth than the moon" part and assuming Providence was on earth. That sounds like the sublunary stuff is above the earth but below the moon.

andrewcriddle

I've looked up the passage in 'Christianity in the Second Century the case of Tatian' by Emily Hunt.

Apparently the original Greek is ambiguous and the online translation somewhat of a paraphrase. A literal rendering might be (There are other possible renderings differing from both the above and problems with the original text don't help.)

It is possible that the 'first created' are not the first created humans but some group of angels, however from the general context of our yearning to return, IMO the interpretation of 'first created' as 'first created humans' is correct.

If so then on a literal translation it would appear that the original fallen humans may have been expelled from a spiritual realm into our world.

If so this would agree closely with Valentinian ideas found in Irenaeus and in Clement of Alexandria's 'Excerpts from Theodotus'.

These Valentinian ideas are to some extent docetic in that they deny that Christ's body was fully human, however Christ is unambiguously born and dies in this world not in some spiritual realm.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Is it possible that the "first created" refers to both the first created angels/demons and the first created humans? Both lost their original homes but one group was cast down from heaven while the other didn't leave earth but just a more perfect order than is currently available.

"The demons were driven forth to another abode; both the first created humans and angels were expelled from their place: the angels/demons, indeed, were cast down from heaven; but the humans were driven not from this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now. And now it behoves us, yearning after that pristine state, to put aside everything that proves a hindrance."