Toto

That's not the question here.

The conclusions are different, but both start with the recognition that Tatian does not refer to Jesus Christ, only to an unspecified Logos.

Clivedurdle

Might John "the Word was made flesh" be correct? The myth was historicised?

aa5874

But, isn't it written in John 1.14? The philosophical Logos, begotten of God, was made flesh and dwelt among us.

It must be noted that the LOGOS was begotten in the form of a man when, as found in Genesis, God through his LOGOS made man in their own image, and it was only in the 2nd century or later, long after creation, that the LOGOS was invented with FLESH or as Jesus of Nazareth.

Jeffrey Gibson

Is the Logos that Tatian speaks of really "unspecified"?

More importantly, is it really the case, and not an example of gross birfurcation, that the only conclusion that may be derived from this "fact", is that he did not believe in an HJ? As Peter Head has noted, (“Tatian’s Christology and its Influence on the Composition of the Diatessaron,” Tyndale Bulletin 43.1 (1992): 121-137), there is at least one other reason that accounts for this "silence", a reason of which you seem to be unaware, namely, Tatian's world negating propensities.

And, if I may ask, what does your claim have to do with the OP?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

But it is you who have joined up the dots!

What is amazing about asking if we are sure they connect?

Your response is equivalent to everyone saying of course the emperor has beautiful clothes!

It is you who are asserting the logos and jesus are the same! Please evidence it! All you have done is say "amazing".

And you might find you are the one with the unsupported beliefs, or is doctrine - the nicene creed - evidence?

Toto

Tatian's Logos is not clearly identified with the putatively historical Jesus of Nazareth, in any case.

If you disagree, please explain why.

Who ever said that this is the only conclusion? Is there any item on these boards where only one conclusion is possible?

That essay is available at several places including here in pdf format.

I do not see any mention there of the curious phrase "word negating propensities." I do not see an mention of the Oration to the Greeks. I do see an argument that borders on personal incredulity: "Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Tatian intended to produce a form of the gospels which denied the humanity of Jesus" (followed by some less than definitive reasons.)

No, you may not ask that here. If you think this digression onto Tatian has wandered too far from the OP, you could suggest that it be split.

GakuseiDon

Yes, and my point is that the evidence strongly suggests that Tatian, while only speaking about Jesus in the most oblique terms, has a historical Jesus figure in mind.

If Doherty is correct, then he has made an amazing discovery. It would make an excellent article for peer-review, since it doesn't affect the question of historicity, assuming Doherty is correct that Tatian is following some Jesus-less Logos religion. And if Tatian didn't believe in Jesus, how could that impact on the historicity question?

If I am correct, then that would raise questions about the applicability of Doherty's method on other early Christian writings.

I think I am correct. I've given passages in my response to Clive above. I'll ask you the same question that I asked him: What other religion that we know about could Tatian be referring to? It would need to contain the following elements:

* A belief that God was born in the form of a man
* The implications from "our narrations" that the story included a suffering God
* Moses was the founder of "our philosophy"
* It taught that the "heavenly Logos, a spirit emanating from the Father" was the first begotten of God
* It had prophets that taught that "the heavenly spirit along with the soul will acquire a clothing of mortality"
* It was connected with the "admirable" Justin Martyr

What else do we know about Tatian? He wrote books prolifically on a number of topics. He composed one of the first Gospel harmonies, the Diatessaron. Irenaeus, a contemporary of Tatian, noted that Tatian didn't express any heretical views until after Justin's martyrdom (the heretical views were nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus, btw). They both spent time in Rome, and were contemporaries or near contemporaries, in both time and space.

aa5874

The doctrine of the LOGOS.

Again, the LOGOS was begotten of God, not at the beginning of the 1st century, but before anything was made.

And the form of the LOGOS can be found in the creation story when the God and his LOGOS made man in their image when they declared "Let US make man in our own image."

There isNO reference whatsoever to King Herod, Cyrenius, Mary,the temptation, the transfiguration, the crucifixion, resurrection or ascension of any character called Jesus of Nazareth in "Discourse to the Greeks".

"Discourse to the Jews" is about God and his LOGOS.


"Discourse to the Greeks"

There is not one single thing about Jesus of Nazareth in "Discourse to the Greeks."

See http://www.newadvent.org

Clivedurdle

The reality of the huge variety of proto xianities is evidenced in against heresies and related groupings are shown in the varieties of judaisms, logosisms, pythagoreanisms, and many more.

The reality was every village had their own gods, probably each individual, much like modern hinduism.

For various reasons one of these varieties became dominant - but the reality is that it never had complete dominance - there have always been significant differences in this really ad hoc collection of beliefs that we pull together with the label xianity.

As there are arguments that the Renaissance did not happen, maybe xianity is also a fiction, a ragbag.

Groupings that emphasised a godman became dominant. The idea of a historical man called Jesus is really an eighteenth century idea.

Toto

I think strongly is an overstatement.

If you think that Tatian must have had a historical Jesus in mind because you are sure that Christianity started with a historical Jesus, you can find bits and pieces here and there to confirm your belief.

How can you call this a discovery? It is not a discovery of new evidence. It is a reinterpretation of the evidence. And Doherty's interpretation on this narrow point will not make much sense to people outside of his entire thesis.

How about -- Christianity before it decided that there had to have been a historical Jesus? or some sect of what is referred to as Gnostic Christianity?