Johann_Kaspar

Resurrection is crap. Resurrection is superstition. Resurrection is useful for people afraid by death.
Now more crap by xians quoted from the provided link:
Once again, it seems Papias was addressing concerns when he wrote:
"Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could [explaining why the "logias" came in different versions!]."
I did not know that the English for Ebraidi dialektw was Aramaic language.
xians commited so many lies that it is now impossible to re-build any sustainable truth about a lot of issues of that time. Even Eusebius does not understand Papias... It shows that the ideology had time to go way away from the original path/fight. Upside down would be a correct description. Once a revolt, then a submission.

Gregg

Arrrgghh...I replied to this then LOST it because the forum was taken down for updating. I hate it when that happens...In my view, Tatian DOES argue that they're allegorical. But that aside, I think it's possible that the historicization process happened so gradually that by the time it became the dominant expression of the faith, those who might have objected to it just weren't around anymore.Yes, of course it's more complicated than that. But the basic fact is, you have a major shift of the faith from East to West. The East now took its cues from the West, not vice versa.Origen was writing in the third century, and from a position of faith, not skepticism.Au contraire, I think they provide very good evidence that a historical Jesus simply was not important to the faith of many Christian thinkers well into the second century.But in the case of Christianity, we KNOW that Christians engaged in wholesale suppression of heretical doctrines, destruction of heretical texts, redaction of other texts to adhere to official doctrine, etc. Anyway, if the historicizaton process was very slow and gradual, there really doesn't have to be that much "conspiracy" involved. There may have been very few, if any, writings in the first place that explicitly claimed the gospels were allegories. And since if a writing was not copied, it usually didn't survive, well, all that had to happen was for an abbot at some point during the Middle Ages to decide not to have this or that document copied. Of course, that's assuming that any even survived events like the sackings of Rome or the destruction of the Library at Alexandria.Perhaps providing evidence, a justification for why the Christian incarnation story should be taken as historically true, while the Greek myths and allegories shouldn't?I don't understand how. You're overlooking the fact that at this point, the Greeks regarded their OWN stories as myths and allegories. Tatian puts the Christian incarnation story on the same level. It seems to me his point is quite clear--the Greeks should not call Christians fools for having mythical stories, when the Greeks have them too. You're saying he "implies" that the Christian incarnation story is actually different. So why doesn't he go ahead and elaborate on this, if that's really his point?You're overlooking the fact that Christianity was still a minority faith. Not all Greeks would have been neo-Platonists or otherwise familiar with the bases of Christian philosophy and theology. Besides, there were other things the Greeks could have been puzzled about, such as the idea that a man crucified as a criminal could become God. While they had myths about incarnations and gods sacrificing themselves for humanity, they didn't really have any story quite like that.I don't think he's "implying" anything. He's made his point quite openly and explicitly--despite their differences, the Christian story and the Greek stories are cut from the same cloth.Well, yeah. I think you miss Doherty's point. If Tatian wanted to argue that the Christian incarnation story should be regarded as historical, while the Greek myths should not, then he has a lot more explaining and justifying to do.Obviously Tatian had either heard of or even read a gospel or two at the time he wrote his apology.No, because being familiar with the basics of the Christian incarnation story obviously wasn't enough. We don't know if the Greeks had read a gospel or if they had just heard bits or a general outline of the story, or what. But if Tatian was trying to convince them that they should regard the Christian story as factual, while their own myths and allegories should continue to be regarded as just that, then he would have needed to at least briefly recap the story in the course of defending its historicity.

GakuseiDon

Gregg, I suggest you check the source on this. Leaving out the parts of the quotes from Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" that are inconvenient to an argument is worse than dishonest. I can't see how it could have been done accidentally. (I'm assuming Doherty has done this, and not you).

This is what you quoted from Doherty:
This is what Tatian actually says in that section: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html
It's quite different to what Doherty implies, isn't it? This is what Doherty concluded: "The way Tatian compares them to the Greek myths implies that he regards them as being on the same level. Certainly, he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true. "

Keep in mind that Tatian composed a harmony of the 4 Gospels, and was a student of Justin Martyr, a confirmed HJer. Given that, and given also that Tatian is contrasting "mythical accounts" and "idle tales" with "narrations" suggests he doesn't regard them as being "on the same level" at all.

Gregg

Thanks for this information. I've e-mailed Doherty about this to ask for his explanation. I don't think it effects the overall mythicist case, but I will need to look at Doherty's arguments much more carefully and critically from here on out.

Thanks again,

Gregg

Vinnie

Paula Fredriksen described it best:

Wright's argument is dense, lengthy (well over twelve hundred pages . . .) and learned. His Jesus, who enjoys a detailed command over so many scriptural and extrascriptural verses and allusions that he must have been the envy of the scribes and Pharisees he tangled with, essentially creates Christianity, which in turn is faithfully preserved in the canonical texts of the New Testament. I find this picture impossible in whole and in part." (JofN, p. 292)

GakuseiDon

No problem. Let us know what Doherty's response is.

IMHO Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" exposes a major flaw in Doherty's case, given what is known about the life of Tatian. Remember, a large part of Doherty's case is the apparent lack of details from the Gospels in the writings of early Christians. Yet here we have Tatian, knowledgeable about the Gospels (he actually wrote a harmonisation of the 4 Gospels called the Diatessaron) who writes an apology that has no references to Gospel details at all. Even if Tatian regarded the Gospel accounts as allegorical, what is the reason that he doesn't refer to them as he does to the other Greek gods in his apology?

Doherty says "Nor can we get around the fact that Tatian pointedly ignores those Gospel stories in the rest of his Apology. (He was to change his mind by the time he composed the Diatessaron.)"

I believe that we have only the equivalent of about 2 webpages worth of quotes by or about Tatian outside the Diatessaron. You can check them out on the Kirby's earlychristianwritings website. Where is there anything written about a "change of mind" with respect to the Gospels? In short: there isn't. Doherty has made it up to fit with his thesis. For Doherty to admit that someone could know about the gospels and still not refer to them potentially weakens his argument about the so-called silence of Paul. Thus his "change of mind" comment.

Vorkosigan

That is not Doherty's point in the passage in question and to focus on it the way you have is to come close to misrepresenting Doherty the way you claim he is misrepresenting Tatian (I don't think you are being malicious). Rather, he is asking why Tatian does not make any serious reference to all the events in the Gospels. He cites the chapter as evidence.

Further, you have misunderstood Doherty's words, not really difficult because Doherty has not expressed himself well. When Doherty says "he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior" he does not mean that Tatian does not regard them as superior in some sense. Rather, when you read the whole paragraph, what Doherty is focusing on is the fact that while Tatian lists a number of thumbnail summaries of Greek myths, he does nothing comparable for the Christian side. There is no summary at all anywhere in this writing of the Gospel stories, no clear reference to the gospel legends, no concrete tale of the suffering and death of Jesus.

Further, when you read the whole apology, you will find that while it is rich in references to Greek history and mythology, it is completely impoverished when it comes to Christianity. For example, he has a whole passage on the vindication of women full of references to Greek history and mythology, but there is not a single reference to any woman from the NT legends. No Mary, Elizabeth, Salome, Magdalene, Dorcas, woman who annoints Jesus with oil, etc. Tatian even notes that Xtian women are all chaste, but somehow fails to connect that to Mary;s Virginity! Hello, strange silence #45,201! That is the real point of Doherty's argument. Hell, Tatian doesn't even talk of his co-religionists as "Christians."

Further, true to pattern, whom does he compare the Greeks to? The OT heroes! No NT heroes at all!!!! Tatian spends lots of ink discussing not Jesus, but Moses in an attempt to prove that their philosophy is older than the Greek philosophy -- older than writing, he says. Does that describe Christianity?

I think you should go back and re-read Tatian and really think about what Doherty means here. Also, read the paragraph prior to this section and you can grasp what he means when he says that Tatian thinks the two are "on the same level." What he really means is that Tatian treats them like competing conventional philosophies, and seeks to justify them on purely conventional grounds of antiquity and ethics. He doesn't simply whip out the trump card: our ideas came from the son of god, so a stiff middle finger to you! which would mean, the way Doherty is looking at it, that the two were on different levels. By attempting to justify Christianity in the same terms that its competing philosophies were justified in, Tatian has, as Doherty noted, put them on the same level.

The third option of this false dichotomy being, of course, that Don has missed Doherty's point.

Don't be fooled by Doherty's inability to express himself clearly sometimes. And don't rush to assume that he is misrepresenting texts when it is clear that you do not understand what he is talking about.

Don, Tatian wrote his Diatesseron AFTER this. No weakness of Doherty is exposed here. Please demonstrate that at this point in time Tatian knew anything at all about the narrative hisstory in the gospels. Doherty's comment implies what is obvious from the text: Tatian seems to have had a change of mind about how he presented the stories -- assuming he knew them.

Which it is now in your court to prove.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

But why should there be? He is attacking Greek philosophy, not providing an education - thus the description of Greek myths as "idle tales". When he refers the Greeks to "our narrations" ("I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations"), we can see that the Greeks are already familiar with Christianity. So why should he give a summary? Why haven't I given you a summary of the Gospel stories in this thread? Would you use it as evidence that I didn't know them?

For Tatian's purpose, which is to show the antiquity of Christianity: yes, of course. If the Greeks already knew the story of Christianity and weren't already impressed, why repeat it? He is going for credibility through antiquity.

Except that Tatian doesn't. You missed out a part of Doherty's claim: "Certainly, he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true. ".

Read again those bits that Doherty left out of his quote: "We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales" and "We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales".

Tatian IS pointing out they the Christian narrations are superior, and not on the same level. This is not Doherty failing to express himself well - he has left out bits in the middle of a quote that he gave, and those bits go against the conclusions he draws.

No problem. Tatian converted around 150 CE. He was a student of the HJer Justin Martyr (martyred around 165 CE). He wrote "Address to the Greeks" around 160 CE to 170 CE. He write the Diatessaron around 170 CE to 175 CE (dates from Peter's website).

It is not 100% proof, but I would say that it is extremely likely that Tatian had to have known about the Gospels when he wrote the "Address to the Greeks". Can we agree on that much before continuing?

Vorkosigan

Gosh Don, the Greeks are already familiar with their own myths. They are FAR MORE familiar with them than with Xtian stories. So why does Tatian dwell on that at length and in numbing detail???? Why, in a missive meant to compare the two and show the superiority of his philosophy, does he not mention any specific details about the originator of that philosophy? And if he believes in Christianity beginning with the HJ, how can he possibly claim it is older than writing!? The fact is that because Tatian discussed "our narrations" does not mean he is referring to gospels. We don't know what he means. You cannot backread your hoped-for conclusions into Tatian's phrase.

You're completely missing the boat. Doherty is specifically saying THE WAY TATIAN COMPARES THE TWO. He is talking about HOW Tatian makes the comparison shows that Tatian puts them on the same "level." Of course he thinks Christianity is the better philosophy! That is not the point. He compares them in the same way -- by comparing the ethical behavior, antiquity, and other things.

Yes, putting his philosophy on the same level as theirs. He doesn't go through credibility by saying Xtianity comes from the son of god. And further, if the Greeks are already familiar with the tale, why is it necessary for him to make this demonstration that his philosophy is older? They already know that! Your own questions undermine you.

Don, where in this quote from my post...

• Doherty says "he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior" he does not mean that Tatian does not regard them as superior in some sense.

...did I miss that. It seems you did not even read my post. A pity.

Again, you have totally missed out what Doherty is saying. Doherty does not mean that they have "same level" of validity nor does he mean that Tatian does not prefer his philosophy. Rather, he says specifically "THE WAY HE COMPARES THEM" -- his mode of argument -- puts the two on the same level. That's what he means. Had Tatian simply reached for the "son of god told us" argument, that would be a completely different type of comparison. For example, if Tatian had said that "you guys get your stuff from Homer, but we get our from the Son of God," then it would be a whole 'nother ball game. But Tatian instead places the two on the same level and then attempts to prove that according to Greek notions of ssuperiority, his belief (which he never names) kicks butt.

No, Don, it is not proof at all. All the evidence we now have shows that Tatian was not aware of the gospel narrative history when he wrote the Address to the Greeks. Simply saying that he converted and was a student of an HJer does not tell us anything. The only evidence we have for Tatian's ideas is his own writings. And they do not show that at this point, he knew the gospel stories. Not until a decade after this do we get the Diatesseron and the gospel fictions. If Tatian even wrote that...or this....

...and that is Doherty's point. If you give up your presuppositions and take a careful and conservative view of the evidence, it cannot support the contention that Tatian knew the narrative history outlined in the gospels.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

You seem to base all your argument on the attitude shown in the text which goes something like this.

"your stories are myth and can't be compared to our stories"

You wrongly conclude that this implies that Christians considered their stories to be historically true.

Let's look at another similar case.

In the OT there a recurring theme
"Our God is real while you worship statues"

You can conclude that the authors believed their beliefs superior to others.
You cannot conclude that Yahweh is any more real than any other God.

This attitude is certainly carried over to Christians who regard their faith as the only true faith. But apart from that you do not have an argument.

All the words which you highlighted do not imply nor prove that the author was comparing history to myth. He was comparing what he believed to be true to what he believed to be false.