mountainman

If Tertullian is writing Ad Nationes before he "dies" c.220 CE
or at any period earlier (some suggest he wrote this c.190 CE)
how could he then have possibly written, in describing the
length of the succession -- in centuries -- of the "nation"
or "tribe" or "association" of "christians" ...

As we have remarked already,
three hundred years have not yet passed
in our existence.

Why does Tertullian not write that two hundred years
have not yet passed in our existence?

If you were writing in 190 CE or 220 CE about an event which had
happened in 33 CE, or later if you take the formation of the name
christians to have happened according to Acts in Antioch, why
would you not write that two hundred years have not yet passed
in the existence of the christians?

What could have been in the mind of Tertullian when he wrote this,
if not some sort of spooky Eusebian premonition?

Can anyone see a way out of this dilema for Tertullian?
And even if T assumes a priority date for the "nation of christians"
to somehow coincide with the birth of the Chrestos Christos at
the year dot, if he was in fact writing Ad Nationes c.190 CE
then the year 200 CE had not yet arrived!

Here is the source data:

sschlichter

Tertullian, On Mongamy

Tertullian is arguing for monogamy, he is using the example of the apostles, though married were called away from their wives.

He says...

since now more (than ever) “the time is become wound
up,”—about 160 years having elapsed since then?

he is quoting 2 corin 7, but more importantly, the 'since then' is referring to the time of the apostles. He says the time of the married apostles is 160 years from his time.

Tertullian attributes 1 Corinthians to Paul when he quotes it.

"shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the
apostles to have had wives"

Tertullian is aware of the book of Acts and cites from it multiple times making him fully aware that Paul had met the apostles, whom had been with Christ. He attributes Pauls writings to 160 years before his own and therefore has to be aware that it has NOT been 250 years or 300 years since the name of Christ and says so.

Why the estimation? Tertullian is referring to events in history that Christians are being blamed for. Perhaps the events in question can be tied to 300 years from his time. he is pointing out that you cannot blame the Christians because we have not been here for 300 years.

Vinnie

Is it possible he is starting from the birth of Jesus? The Gospels tell us that some people loved and followed Jesus during his ministry while others tried to kill him. The infancy narratives tell us the exact same thing about the infant Jesus! (Herod, wise men, magi, Luke's young boy stories) etc.

Vinnie

sschlichter

He specifically states that to be the case in the same chapter.

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.

spin

But how do you reconcile the fact that he indicates that it's been approaching 300 years?? Do you say he was just confused? He didn't mean the 300 years? We are reading in too much to the three hundred years and he could have said three thousand with the same effect?? You're not dealing with the issue.


spin

sschlichter

I already did. You are wrong in that he using the death of Christ. he states emphatically that he is using the birth of christ in the reign of Augustus.

he is addressing historical events (they are the subject) where the christians are being blamed. he is saying in this passage that the Christians were NOT here during those events, they came about during the reign of Augustus. It was written 200AD+ by most accounts. He does not want to say that we have been here over 200 years, he wishes to state it in the negative that you cannot blame us for the things that have occurred over the last 300 years. we have NOT been here for 300 years.

it is the only logical interpretation, he would not have been able to know that we rose in the time of Augustus but also think it was 300 years ago.

DCHindley

Mountainman and all others struggling over this passage,

Tertullian operated in a very Romanized area (northern Africa). He is referring to the Roman imperial state (not the republic, which goes back even further) and the fact that Christians have never been the reason for any of its calamities or disasters. It was said in the context that Christians are being called "un-Roman" because they refuse to worship the genius of the emperors. This statement is not a reference to the start of Christianity!

Tertullian Ad Nationes 1:9

As we have remarked already*, three hundred years have not yet passed in our existence [as a state ruled by Caesars]; 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?

*This remark is currently located in a later chapter of the book, a chapter which may have originally occurred before it in an earlier edition of the book. Tertullian Ad Nationes 1:17

Our first step in this contumacious conduct concerns that which is ranked by you immediately after the worship due to God, that is, the worship due to the majesty of the Caesars, in respect of which we are charged with being irreligious towards them, since we neither propititate their images nor swear by their genius. We are called enemies of the people. ... [Yet] we acknowledge the fealty of Romans to the emperors. No conspiracy has ever broken out from our body: no Caesar's blood has ever fixed a stain upon us, in the senate or even in the palace; no assumption of the purple has ever in any of the provinces been affected by us.

DCH

avi

In a brilliant paragraph, DCHindley cleared up, perhaps, the mystery surrounding Tertullian's bizarre definition of time, since the supposed origin of Christianity, as explained, in the original post, an excellent thread, by mountainman.
The only possible glitch in DCHindley's interpretation is how to then explain this text from Tertullian, chapter 7, in Pete's original post:
So, now it is 250, not 300 years, "since our life began", and I acknowledge, with gratitude, DCHindley's explanation that this "beginning of life" refers not to Christian origins, but to the political rule by the Roman emperors....
Umm, well, I guess DCHindley's observation could be applied as easily to 250 years, as to 300, right? But, on the other hand, what about a different explanation:
What about the possibility that the writer, using the nom de plume of "Tertullian", was living about 300 years after the reputed death of Jesus of Nazareth, (or Capernum, or wherever,) and then, perhaps distracted, or forgetful, wrote "250 years", without realizing the 50 year discrepancy? As a writer, is one not permitted to make casual mistakes, overlook some requirement to proof read, fail to pay the scribe to make the corrections, etc....

Was Tertullian blind, as were both Milton and Galileo? Did Tertullian dictate his work to someone who may have erred in the transcription? North Africans like Tertullian, as DCHindley has thus identified his domicile, may not suffer from onchocerciasis, but is it not within the realm of possibility that Terullian travelled to an area where the parasite was living?

spin

Sadly, you are still failing to understand the reference to 300 years and so are stretching it to fit your desires.


spin

sschlichter

That is a fascinating response. Are you saying that
Tertullian, in the span of 500 or so words is aware
That the name of christ arose under the reign
Of Augusts but did not know that Augusts reigned
Just over 200 years ago?