Ted Hoffman

If Bart Ehrman's work Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew is a window we can peek through, we can see for example, that the Ebionite Christians, Marcion Christians, and Gnostic Christians fought The Christianity Battles .

Christianity never sprung from a HJ - the HJ wing is just the one that came on top. In fact, several times, like in Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, Even Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Odes of Solomon and Epistle to Diognetus, we see Christianity without a human founder. Others like the Epistle to Diognetus specifically state that there was no human founder/ messenger of God behind Christianity.

It is all so damn clear and it explains why Josephus says nothing about any temple incident, any Jesus of Nazareth, any eschatological prophet behind the so-called Galileans.

Vorkosigan

I have removed the discussion of the nature and definition of certain philosophical terms to ~E~, it is off topic.

Vorkosigan

the_cave

But the problem with this way of putting things is that even if we were to grant you your argument, it's still obviously true that Christianity had human founders. Indeed, probably some of these founders--or even one of them specifically--were more important than the others. The story may not exactly be what's in the gospels--and I'm even willing to concede that it could for all we know have been quite different--but that of course doesn't mean there wasn't a story. Anyway, it's off-topic.

Amaleq13

There were two babies in that bathwater. Don't worry, I saved them.

The following is given under the heading ACCOUNT OF TATIAN'S CONVERSION:

"And, while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending east of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discern that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received but were prevented by error from retaining."

First, what does "the unpretending east of the language" mean? Or is that a typo (ie east = ease)?

Second, am I interpreting this correctly to indicate Tatian accepted the beliefs he held at the time he wrote this address solely on the basis of reading Hebrew Scripture?

Amaleq13

Jacob replied:

I think so. He read Hebrew scripture, Hebrew was barbaric compared to Greek (remember, he was educated and knew Greek) but he fell in love with the prophecy, the monotheism, kingship and divine quality of the Hebrew religion (proto-Christianity).

GDon Other Problems with Interpreting Archons as referring to Pilate:

1. Archons is plural, Pilate is singular.

2. Archons could not have been referring to the Jews either because the Jews were not leaders of the world but were under subjugation.

3. Paul could have known that not all the leaders of the world were responsible for Jesus' death therefore could not have blamed all of them.

4. Archons is not interchangeable with Pilate the way "US President" is interchangeable with "George W. Bush" therefore he could not have used archons to mean "Pilate".

Ted Hoffman

*Yawn* What happened to GDon? I know Vinnie and Sumner found reasons to avoid writing a review...

GakuseiDon

I emailed Peter about it, but my interest is more in the 2nd C CE apologists, whom I believe Doherty misrepresents shamelessly. (I have had an essay in the works about this for a while - one day I hope to complete it!)

I'm not confident that I have the knowledge to address Doherty's comments on Paul, which is probably more central to his ideas, so had to pass.

Vorkosigan

Narkinsky? What happened to his?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Narkinsky said he was halfway through writing a review. But I have emailed him four times in the last nine months without response.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Peter. I guess all we have is Bernard Muller and Layman then.