Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 07-06-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

So, I'm asking, why do early writers seem so disinterested in the details of Jesus' life and later writers so intrigued by them? If not JM, what is the best explanation for that phenomenon?

It's not just in Jesus's life, but in the life of everyone and everything. Paul doesn't give any description of the resurrected Jesus that he supposedly saw. Beyond that, we have few details of anyone associated with earliest Christianity, including Paul, James, Peter, etc. Why?

It seems that people just weren't interested in including such details. Have a look at the Earlychristianwritings website. Why is it so hard to date most of those writings? It is because few historical details are given. We can see this pattern in writings extending beyond the first few centuries, even when Gospel details were well established.

So, to concentrate on Jesus would be a strawman. Why do we have few historical details about ANYTHING in early Christian writings? It is because that is simply how they wrote in that time. For example, the same question was asked about Plutarch's writings:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-04-32.html

"Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world... his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel"

I think that how they wrote in those times is simply not taken into consideration. From our own perspective, writing details about Jesus Christ should have been the most important thing in their lives. But our thinking is two thousand years on. It is fairly clear that they didn't worry about such things.

The difference is that Jesus is the very focus of what the authors are writing about, not Paul or Peter or Caesar. If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus led probably the single most amazing life of any human being in the history of the planet. Yet, the earliest authors writing about him didn't feel compelled to reference any but the most basic details of that life - especially when Jesus' ministry, as portrayed in the gospels, is clearly intended to be a teaching ministry? I just find that implausible, especially when the post-Justin writers felt no compunction against relating those details ad nauseum. What caused the interest in Jesus' life to suddenly bloom at that point?

GakuseiDon · 07-06-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I just find that implausible, especially when the post-Justin writers felt no compunction against relating those details ad nauseum. What caused the interest in Jesus' life to suddenly bloom at that point?

But that isn't the case! Why didn't Tertullian talk about Christ in "Ad nationes" AT ALL, in your opinion?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html

spamandham · 07-06-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But that isn't the case! Why didn't Tertullian talk about Christ in "Ad nationes" AT ALL, in your opinion?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html

It seems like he does, at least indirectly, here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tert, ad nationes book I

CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH HATED IN THE CHRISTIANS; SO IN MEASURE WAS IT, OF OLD, IN SOCRATES. THE VIRTUES OF THE CHRISTIANS.

But the sect, you say, is punished in the name of its founder. Now in the first place it is, no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their masters; in the same way physicians are called after Erasistratus, and grammarians after Aristarchus. If, therefore, a sect has a bad character because its founder was bad, it is punished as the traditional bearer of a bad name. But this would be indulging in a rash assumption.

It seems he's saying that Christians are called as such after the founder - presumably then 'Christ'.

GakuseiDon · 07-06-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

The difference is that Jesus is the very focus of what the authors are writing about, not Paul or Peter or Caesar.

Really? Which letters had Jesus as the very focus of them? Paul for example wrote "occasional" letters, dealing with themes relating to the early Church. He was more interested in the death of Jesus rather than his life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus led probably the single most amazing life of any human being in the history of the planet. Yet, the earliest authors writing about him didn't feel compelled to reference any but the most basic details of that life - especially when Jesus' ministry, as portrayed in the gospels, is clearly intended to be a teaching ministry? I just find that implausible, especially when the post-Justin writers felt no compunction against relating those details ad nauseum.

What about writers such as Tatian, Tertullian, Ignatius, etc, who also included few if any details in one or more of their letters? Why don't we even find Jesus's name in Tertullian's Ad Nationes, for example?

GakuseiDon · 07-06-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But that isn't the case! Why didn't Tertullian talk about Christ in "Ad nationes" AT ALL, in your opinion?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html

It seems like he does, at least indirectly, here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tert, ad nationes book I

CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH HATED IN THE CHRISTIANS; SO IN MEASURE WAS IT, OF OLD, IN SOCRATES. THE VIRTUES OF THE CHRISTIANS.

But the sect, you say, is punished in the name of its founder. Now in the first place it is, no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their masters; in the same way physicians are called after Erasistratus, and grammarians after Aristarchus. If, therefore, a sect has a bad character because its founder was bad, it is punished as the traditional bearer of a bad name. But this would be indulging in a rash assumption.

It seems he's saying that Christians are called as such after the founder - presumably then 'Christ'.

Sure, but WHY does he write so indirectly? Why not even mention the names "Jesus" and "Christ"? Even Paul wrote more in each of his letters about Jesus than Tertullian did in "Ad Nationes".

Toto · 07-07-2008, 12:09 AM

Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

GakuseiDon · 07-07-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

How can we decide that, without examining the reasons why Tertullian's "Ad Nationes" lacks details about Christ? Why does the period of time matter?

aa5874 · 07-07-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

The authors of the Epistles were NOT contemporaries of Jesus of the NT, that is one explanation why these writers could not have written any physically details about him.

And in fact, the Jesus of the NT was described in detail as a God, I do not think there were really any contemporaries of such a figure.

The Church writers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius all claimed Jesus was exactly as described by the unknown authors of the NT.

I do not think anyone in antiquity ever phisically saw this figure called Jesus of the NT.

And further, Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him after Jesus was supposed to be dead.

1 Corinthians 15.4-8

Quote:

...He was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures,

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve;.......And last of all he was seen of me also........

I don't think anyone saw any character alive after the entity had been dead for three days.

Paul was not a contemporary of the Jesus of the NT before or after his supposed death.

Toto · 07-07-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

How can we decide that, without examining the reasons why Tertullian's "Ad Nationes" lacks details about Christ? Why does the period of time matter?

Go back to the OP. The question here is to explain the: "silences" JMers find in the earliest writings regarding Jesus' life and ministry, I was wondering what explanations the non-JMers offer for why the details of Jesus' life seem to become common knowledge only with Justin at around 150 AD.

A typical historicist model of the development of Christianity says that Jesus was a charismatic individual who attracted followers and disciples while he who alive, and these disciples carried on his message and established the church. But this charismatic individual seems to have disappeared from the record.

By Tertullian's time, there was an established church immersed in Hellenistic culture. Tertullian might have had his own philosophical reasons for not mentioning the details of Jesus' life in everything that he wrote, but this does nothing to rectify the much earlier complete silences about the founder.

aa5874 · 07-07-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

How can we decide that, without examining the reasons why Tertullian's "Ad Nationes" lacks details about Christ? Why does the period of time matter?

But, you have failed to give the reasons why you think Tertullian did not mention Christ. You are the one who introduced "Ad nationes" to the thread.

Please give us your reasons so they can be examined.

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

07-07-2008, 12:09 AM	#66
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Tertullian had no contact with Jesus or anyone who could have known him, and only knew about his life through the gospels. His situation is somewhat different from people who are supposed to have been near contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. I don't see his writing as relevant to this question at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.