GakuseiDon

This post looks at Doherty's use of Tertullian in his "Second Century Apologists" webpage (all links are listed at the bottom of this post). I came across this while preparing my post on his use of Octavius, aka Minucius Felix, which I will discuss in another post. Below are a few quotes, mostly about Minucius Felix. The interesting thing is what Doherty doesn't mention. I've bolded the relevent sentences.

Doherty writes:

As Doherty says, Minucius Felix shares a relationship with Tertullian's Apology. The general consensus seems to be that Minucius Felix wrote after Tertullian, though Doherty, citing his "general rule", believes he wrote before.

What Doherty doesn't note, however, is that the literary relationship is usually expressed as existing not only with Tertullian's Apology, but also with his Ad nationes. Tertullian wrote both these works in 197. The material in Ad nationes was reworked later in the year to produce his Apology.

Tertullian's Apology seems to be an expansion on his Ad nationes. They also share similarities with Tatian's Address to the Greeks - for example, their attacks on Greek myths.

However, there is one major difference between Tertullian's Apology and his Ad nationes. While the Apology contains many references to a historical Jesus, like crucifixion under Pilate, his Ad nationes has none of these things. While Ad nationes often refers to Christians, there is no mention of "Jesus", "Christ", the resurrection, nor does he refer to the crucifixion or even Jerusalem in any Christian setting.

Remember, both these works were written by the same author, and within the same year. They have a clear relationship with each other, yet Doherty doesn't mention Ad nationes at all. It is a very curious omission, given that Ad nationes is an apologetic that fits Doherty's criteria for being a Christ myth tract - except for one thing: Tertullian obviously believed in a historical Jesus.

Doherty makes much of the fact that in the Minucius Felix "the names of Christ and Jesus are never used, though the word "Christian" appears throughout. Nor is there any allusion to the Son or Logos". But this is exactly true of Ad nationes as well.

I'm not sure how Doherty could explain this, without that explanation applying to the other letters. Tertullian (and I would argue, Tatian) puts a question mark over the other 2nd C CE apologists that Doherty uses to advance his case.

--------------------

1. Earl Doherty, The Second Century Apologists
2. Tertullian, Apology
3. Tertullian, Ad nationes
4. Online Resources for Tertullian
5. Minucius Felix, Octavius by Minucius Felix

Dominus Paradoxum

How would you explain that the apologist who denies worshipping a man crucified as a criminal?

GakuseiDon

That will be in my next thread, on Doherty's use of Octavius. This one is on Doherty's use of Tertullian. I agree that those comments in Octavius need to be handled separately.

However, in this thread, I want to establish the precedent: that a HJer could write an apologetic without referring to "Jesus", "Christ", nor any of the historical details from the Gospels.

Bernard Muller

Dominus Paradoxum:
I do not know of any Christian saying he/she is worshipping a man crucified as a criminal. Do you?

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

I think Justin in he dialogue with Trypho had to defend against such things:

CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

I believe several skeptics used the shame of the cross in the 2d century to attack Christian belief. Stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles

Vinnei

Vinnie

GakuseiDon,

Good OP.

Let's see how it develops.

Llyricist

Well isn't it in the Gospels that he was crucified "as a criminal"? Whether or not they believed he was a criminal is irrelevant to whether they think he was crucified as one.

Seems to me the only way to crucify someone back then was "as a criminal". I think even your reconstruction has it that way.

Vinnie

Much of the Gospel of Mark, in Robert Gundry's eyes, is an apology for the cross.

"Mark starts with a superscription that identifies Jesus as Christ and Son of God (1:1). Immediately this identification transforms the coming crucifixion from the shameful death of a common criminal into th awe-inspiring death of a divine being who is God's appointed agent. The episode concerning the centurion at the foot of the cross will confirm this transformation (15:39). Meanwhile, a prophetic quotation sets the career of Jesus in the framework of a divine plan (1:2-3): nothing is going to happen by accident, not even his death, as the passion predictions will further show. " p. 4 Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross.

The baptist attests to Jesus as the stronger one he is preparing the way for and as Gundry notes, The heavenly voice, "You ar my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased," confirms this significance in the Spirit's descent, confirms Mark's initial identification of Jesus as God's son, and rules out ahead of time any misinterpretation of the Crucifixion as a sign of God's displeasure."

THis is presumably why Crossan suggests that anything potentially embarrassing which occurs according to the scriptures in Mark and is also predicted in advance by Jesus in Mark should be seen as having a hsitorical core. Judas betrayed Jesus. Not only is this cast as "according to the scriptures", Jesus also is cast as having known about it in advance. So also the crucifixion itself. The "double apologetic" underlines the embarrassment and shock of the event.

The shame of the cross makes it historically certain that Jesus was in fact crucified. There is no denying this. Would be skeptics have nothing to stand upon here.

Vinnie

Toto

Please take this as a serious question, not as rhetoric, and read to the end before responding (i.e., I do not want this to be a hostile question and I do not want a hostile response - I really hope to move the dialogue along):

How can you show that Tertullian believed in a HJ, as opposed to Tertullian asserting as dogma that there was a HJ for some other reason?

Tertullian may in fact have had no inkling that there was a HJ. But he needed a HJ for theological purposes, so he asserted that there was a HJ. But in his heart, the basis for his belief was something other than a HJ, whether it was a spiritual experience or the sense of community in the church.

I think that the question may be more complicated than that, but let's start there.

What would be Tertullian's basis for believing in a HJ? Did he have evidence that we do not have?

I know that your point is that a person who believes (or says that he believes) in a HJ is capable of writing letters such as Paul's, which do not mention a HJ. But what if Tertullian did not in fact know that there was a HJ, and considered a belief in a HJ to be something extra, not the center of his faith? Such a person might well have written documents without mentioning the HJ.

I put the question this way because I do not think that the Christian Church ever separated the Human Jesus from the Spiritual Christ until the Deists went back to the gospels and extracted a Historic Jesus - or tried to.

The early church was just not based on the worship of a HJ, whether he existed or was a myth.

It appears that the early church did not really care that much about a HJ, but some 2nd-3rd century Christians did care about the implications of a Jesus who was a mere illusion, and felt called on to argue against that. All of their writings must be read with that in mind.

I don't know which way this cuts, actually, as to the question of whether or not there was a HJ. Since the HJ was not worshipped, of course there is little mention of him. You are left with trying to find the best explanation of some fragmentary evidence.

GakuseiDon

It may that, by 200 CE, the existence of a HJ was just assumed, much like today. But certainly there were a lot of documents discussed by the early writers that no longer exist - perhaps something showing an unbroken chain of apostolic succession (whether true or not) that was convincing. But this is just speculation, of course. We can't really know what was in his mind when he wrote his letters.

Still, why Tertullian believed in a HJ doesn't concern me at this stage (though it is an interesting question in its own right). I think, from what we know about him, it is almost certainly the case. And this has implications for Doherty's comments about the 2nd C CE apologists.

It's an interesting point about the 2nd C apologists referring to a HJ mainly to argue against docetism. You're right - it's something that'll need to be kept in mind.