Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-09-2009, 06:18 PM

Thankyou for all the great responses.

In the spirit of textual criticism there may be another way to save Tertullian. Does anyone know if Tertullian believed in the prediction of Christianity by the Sybil? This may explain Tertullian's advanced thinking.

A number of sources state that Christianity was first heralded to the world by means of the prophecies of the Erythraean Sibyl

Lactantius, Divinae institutiones I.6.8, 14
Augustine, De civitate dei xviii.23
Isidore, Etymologiae viii.8.1, 3, 4

Quote:

In Christian iconography the Erythraean Sibyl sometimes appears as one who prophesied the Redemption. Examples were in mediaeval paintings in Salisbury cathedral [2], and others are shown in the illustrations on this page.

The word acrostic was first applied to the prophecies of the Erythraean Sibyl, which were written on leaves and arranged so that the initial letters of the leaves always formed a word.

Finally, according to Robin Lane-Fox, in his Oration at Antioch, Constantine mentions not only the Sybil, but another two separate sources of the Roman prediction of the coming of JC and Christianity in the epoch BCE, to which Tertullian may be alluding. Namely does anyone know if Tertullian was familiar with the works of the two very Roman poets Cicero and/or Virgil - both of whom apparently may have had advanced notice of the coming of Christianity in the epoch BCE?

"Pagans & Christians" (or via: amazon.co.uk) --- Robin Lane-Fox

From past Review Notes

(4) Lane-Fox writes ...

Constantine refers to an ancient Sibyl, a priestess from Erythrae
who had served Apollo at the 'serpents Tripod' at Delphi.
Constantine then quotes (in the Greek) thirty-four hexameters,
from the inspired truth of the Sibyl.
Most notably, the acrostic formed by the first Greek letter
of each line spelt "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross."

But Constantine was alive to the arguments of skeptics ...

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.

These skeptics were already known to Origen ... (Constantine continues)

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

[ ... the long and untrodden path ...]
(5) But wait, Robin Lane Fox has more to say:

His proof of this comparison was unexpected: Cicero (106-43 BCE)
Cicero chanced upon this poem and translated it to Latin.
The Sibyl, Constantine said, had prophecised christ
in an acrostic, known to Cicero.

Robin Lane Fox comments ... "the proof was a fraud twice over."

(6) Moving on through the Oration, Constantine informs us that
the advent of Christ had been predicted by Virgil (70-19 BCE)
in a Latin poem, written 40 BCE, to the poet's patron Pollio.
Fox says: "Constantine cites Latin's loveliest Eclogue
to a christian audience [ED: I dispute Lane-Fox on this point.]
for a meaning which it never had."

Constantine began with the seventh line, in a free Greek
translation which changed its meaning"

p.651: Fox writes:

"Has there ever been such a sequence of misplaced discoveries in a christian sermon,
let alone in a speech at the end of a Christian synod?

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

spin pointed out that on Roger Pearse's (excellent) web site, Tertullian's Ad Nationes was written in 197 CE.

parenthetically, how does one establish that date with certainty? I sure hope it is not with HCM or some other mumbo jumbo. end of parenthesis....

Steve then argued, referring to Tertullian:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

However, it may be related to the reason he feels the need to round up to 300. Perhaps Tertullian is trying to demonstrate the calamites in question are related to the worship of Ceasar, not the Christians whom have NOT been around for the same 300 years in question.

Steve, maybe I am nit picking here.
Sorry if so.

I don't understand the first, most elementary aspect of HCM.

To me, 197, in NO WAY, can be "rounded up" to 300. If I recall my minimal exposure to the New Testament, jesus was supposed to have been executed around 30 CE, and allowing for at least ten years before "Christians" appeared on the scene, (since, at the outset, Jesus' supposed followers all considered themselves loyal Jews, insisting on observing all Jewish laws and customs...) we have a date, for the arrival on planet Earth, of the FIRST Christians, about 40 CE.

When I subtract 40 from 197, I do not obtain a result that could possibly be "rounded up" to 300.
NO WAY.

Sorry. I am not buying it. We need some other explanation for why Tertullian suggested that 300 years (or 250) had not yet elapsed since creation of the Christian sect.

Tertullian is using the birth of Christ as the 'rising' of the name of Christ. he emphatically states this by saying the name rose in the time of Augustus - ~40BC - 14AD. This puts his writing right at 200 years (if Roger is correct) or just over if not.

Perhaps he is even using the reign of augustus as the marker which gives him another 40 years (I do not beleive this to be the case but since everyone is finding all sorts of random reasons to round down, I am going the other way)

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it may be related to the reason he feels the need to round up to 300. Perhaps Tertullian is trying to demonstrate the calamites in question are related to the worship of Ceasar, not the Christians whom have NOT been around for the same 300 years in question.

Tertullian is not one who beats around the bush, so what makes you think he may be doing what you muse above?

spin

I do not think he is beating around the bush. We do not see the bush that makes him use the estimations of 250 and 300 (perhaps the swearing to the genius of Ceasar, perhaps slave wars, perhaps something else.).

Since the birth of Christ is likely over 200, to say under 250 and 300 is correct. Whatever text you are butterflying in to come to the conclusion that he does not beat around the bush can also be used to determine that he is aware of the time of the writing of Corinthians, the life of Paul, his association with the apostles and their association with the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

andrewcriddle · 08-10-2009, 12:11 PM

I would tentatively suggest that Tertullian is a/ dating the origin of Christianity from the birth of Christ and b/ dating the birth of Christ sometime during the reign of Augustus without wanting to get into the issue of exactly when during the reign of Augustus Christ was born.

Hence he avoids saying "200 years have not yet passed..." because that might involve him in irrelevant disputes as to the precise date of Jesus' birth.

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I would tentatively suggest that Tertullian is a/ dating the origin of Christianity from the birth of Christ and b/ dating the birth of Christ sometime during the reign of Augustus without wanting to get into the issue of exactly when during the reign of Augustus Christ was born.

Hence he avoids saying "200 years have not yet passed..." because that might involve him in irrelevant disputes as to the precise date of Jesus' birth.

Andrew Criddle

that is actually a good point. he may be including the range of Augustus' reign intentionally.

DCHindley · 08-10-2009, 02:32 PM

I didn't look any closer than the old Roberts/Donaldson Ante Nicene Fathers edition, which dated it between 215 and 217, near the end of T's period of activity.

Dating T's works is notoriously difficult, exept for some clues that indicate the relative order of composition of several. Timothy David Barnes, in Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (1985)*, dates Ad Nationes and Adversus Judaeos to the summer of 197. This does presently seem to be the consensus, although these decisions seem to be driven mainly by what the critics think indicates pro or anti Montanist sympathies. I guess the old critics of 150+ years ago thought that the very stern position T takes in Ad Nationes toward the heathen, and even other Christians, as a sign that this was in his super snitty days when he supposedly quit the proto Orthodox but also the Montanists as too namby pamby and formed his own sect, which was near latter part of his life. For instance, in Ad Nationes 1.13 he accused fellow Christians of Sun worship because of their praying to the East and because of making Sunday a day of festivity.

As for who all the 'you's and 'we's refer to, that is tough to do through a translation, and I cannot read Latin. However, if in doubt, look about. All one has to do is read any of the undisputed letters of Paul to see long, complicated sentences in which the subjects and objects are not explicitly stated, but must be linked to a person or place or subject mentioned earlier. Often these are MUCH earlier, separated by loads of digressions, etc. Tertullian seems to be able to do that kind of thing too.

Getting back to dates, just lop off 20 years from my measurements. I firmly believe in making sense of what is there, rather than what we want to be there.

59 BCE to 197 CE is about 255 years.
49 BCE to 197 CE is about 245 years.
44 BCE to 197 CE is about 240 years.
29 BCE to 197 CE is about 225 years. etc.

BTW, nothing is "obvious" or we'd all be in agreement.

DCH

*Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Ad Nationes was written 217 CE.

According to the intro on Pearse's Tertullian site it was written in 197 soon after Septimius Severus defeated Albinus.

DCH, your attempt to shift the pronoun "our" from the christians to the Romans doesn't reflect the text (Ad Nationes II.9). Note the way the contrast between "you/your" and "us/our" is used. It should caution you against your position, for obviously "our" is christian.

But why should I be astonished at your vain imputations? Under the same natural form, malice and folly have always been associated in one body and growth, and have ever opposed us under the One instigator of error. Indeed, I feel no astonishment; and therefore, as it is necessary for my subject, I will enumerate some instances, that you may feel the astonishment by the enumeration of the folly into which you fall, when you insist on our being the causes of every public calamity or injury. If the Tiber has overflowed its banks, if the Nile has remained in its bed, if the sky has been still, or the earth been in commotion, if death has made its devastations, or famine its afflictions, your cry immediately is, "This is the fault of the Christians!" As if they who fear the true God could have to fear a light thing, or at least anything else (than an earthquake or famine, or such visitations). I suppose it is as despisers of your gods that we call down on us these strokes of theirs. As we have remarked already, three hundred years have not yet passed in our existence; but what vast scourges before that time fell on all the world, on its various cities and provinces! what terrible wars, both foreign and domestic! what pestilences, famines, conflagrations, yawnings, and quakings of the earth has history recorded! Where were the Christians, then, when the Roman state furnished so many chronicles of its disasters? Where were the Christians when the islands Hiera, Anaphe, and Delos, and Rhodes, and Cea were desolated with multitudes of men? or, again, when the land mentioned by Plato as larger than Asia or Africa was sunk in the Atlantic Sea? or when fire from heaven overwhelmed Volsinii, and flames from their own mountain consumed Pompeii? when the sea of Corinth was engulphed by an earthquake? when the whole world was destroyed by the deluge? Where then were (I will not say the Christians, who despise your gods, but) your gods themselves, who are proved to be of later origin than that great ruin by the very places and cities in which they were born, sojourned, and were buried, and even those which they founded?

And let's look at 1.7, where the "we" again is clearly christian.

See, now, what a witness you have suborned against us: it has not been able up to this time to prove the report it set in motion, although it has had so long a time to recommend it to our acceptance. This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained--righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution). Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality; so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles; so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians.

Would you really want to argue that the "our" refers to Rome???

spin

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I didn't look any closer than the old Roberts/Donaldson Ante Nicene Fathers edition, which dated it between 215 and 217, near the end of T's period of activity.

Dating T's works is notoriously difficult, exept for some clues that indicate the relative order of composition of several. Timothy David Barnes, in Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (1985)*, dates Ad Nationes and Adversus Judaeos to the summer of 197. This does presently seem to be the consensus, although these decisions seem to be driven mainly by what the critics think indicates pro or anti Montanist sympathies. I guess the old critics of 150+ years ago thought that the very stern position T takes in Ad Nationes toward the heathen, and even other Christians, as a sign that this was in his super snitty days when he supposedly quit the proto Orthodox but also the Montanists as too namby pamby and formed his own sect, which was near latter part of his life. For instance, in Ad Nationes 1.13 he accused fellow Christians of Sun worship because of their praying to the East and because of making Sunday a day of festivity.

As for who all the 'you's and 'we's refer to, that is tough to do through a translation, and I cannot read Latin. However, if in doubt, look about. All one has to do is read any of the undisputed letters of Paul to see long, complicated sentences in which the subjects and objects are not explicitly stated, but must be linked to a person or place or subject mentioned earlier. Often these are MUCH earlier, separated by loads of digressions, etc. Tertullian seems to be able to do that kind of thing too.

Getting back to dates, just lop off 20 years from my measurements. I firmly believe in making sense of what is there, rather than what we want to be there.

59 BCE to 197 CE is about 255 years.
49 BCE to 197 CE is about 245 years.
44 BCE to 197 CE is about 240 years.
29 BCE to 197 CE is about 225 years. etc.

BTW, nothing is "obvious" or we'd all be in agreement.

DCH

*Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

According to the intro on Pearse's Tertullian site it was written in 197 soon after Septimius Severus defeated Albinus.

DCH, your attempt to shift the pronoun "our" from the christians to the Romans doesn't reflect the text (Ad Nationes II.9). Note the way the contrast between "you/your" and "us/our" is used. It should caution you against your position, for obviously "our" is christian.

But why should I be astonished at your vain imputations? Under the same natural form, malice and folly have always been associated in one body and growth, and have ever opposed us under the One instigator of error. Indeed, I feel no astonishment; and therefore, as it is necessary for my subject, I will enumerate some instances, that you may feel the astonishment by the enumeration of the folly into which you fall, when you insist on our being the causes of every public calamity or injury. If the Tiber has overflowed its banks, if the Nile has remained in its bed, if the sky has been still, or the earth been in commotion, if death has made its devastations, or famine its afflictions, your cry immediately is, "This is the fault of the Christians!" As if they who fear the true God could have to fear a light thing, or at least anything else (than an earthquake or famine, or such visitations). I suppose it is as despisers of your gods that we call down on us these strokes of theirs. As we have remarked already, three hundred years have not yet passed in our existence; but what vast scourges before that time fell on all the world, on its various cities and provinces! what terrible wars, both foreign and domestic! what pestilences, famines, conflagrations, yawnings, and quakings of the earth has history recorded! Where were the Christians, then, when the Roman state furnished so many chronicles of its disasters? Where were the Christians when the islands Hiera, Anaphe, and Delos, and Rhodes, and Cea were desolated with multitudes of men? or, again, when the land mentioned by Plato as larger than Asia or Africa was sunk in the Atlantic Sea? or when fire from heaven overwhelmed Volsinii, and flames from their own mountain consumed Pompeii? when the sea of Corinth was engulphed by an earthquake? when the whole world was destroyed by the deluge? Where then were (I will not say the Christians, who despise your gods, but) your gods themselves, who are proved to be of later origin than that great ruin by the very places and cities in which they were born, sojourned, and were buried, and even those which they founded?

And let's look at 1.7, where the "we" again is clearly christian.

See, now, what a witness you have suborned against us: it has not been able up to this time to prove the report it set in motion, although it has had so long a time to recommend it to our acceptance. This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained--righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution). Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality; so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles; so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians.

Would you really want to argue that the "our" refers to Rome???

spin

I can only trip over the Latin but I have to beleive that if the translation is even mildly competent, then the first person plurals are referring to the Christians.

DCHindley · 08-10-2009, 09:05 PM

Translators, especially in the 19th & 20th century, imagined everything revolved around Christ and Christians. The wish makes the interpretation happen.

If a writer seems to quote a passage from the bible that represents a variant not approved by the prevailing translation, then the citation is made to conform to the AV (KJV). Translators jazz up translations all the time.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I can only trip over the Latin but I have to beleive that if the translation is even mildly competent, then the first person plurals are referring to the Christians.

sschlichter · 08-11-2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Translators, especially in the 19th & 20th century, imagined everything revolved around Christ and Christians. The wish makes the interpretation happen.

If a writer seems to quote a passage from the bible that represents a variant not approved by the prevailing translation, then the citation is made to conform to the AV (KJV). Translators jazz up translations all the time.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I can only trip over the Latin but I have to beleive that if the translation is even mildly competent, then the first person plurals are referring to the Christians.

well, he is translating a Christian leader in the middle of an apology, you can pretend it is about something else and ignore the translator but it will cause you to err.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2009, 12:11 PM	#24
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I would tentatively suggest that Tertullian is a/ dating the origin of Christianity from the birth of Christ and b/ dating the birth of Christ sometime during the reign of Augustus without wanting to get into the issue of exactly when during the reign of Augustus Christ was born. Hence he avoids saying "200 years have not yet passed..." because that might involve him in irrelevant disputes as to the precise date of Jesus' birth. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.