GakuseiDon

It's kind of interesting, but to keep this relevant to this discussion, for me the question is: does he think that Tertullian didn't believe in a HJ? He seems to, though I really only skimmed the link.

the_cave

I'm not doing any apologetics--I'm reading things as honestly as I can. Just because I come to different conclusions than you doesn't mean I'm engaging in apologetics.

But it does mean "I'm only calling it a fable if that's what you call it." The implication is the speaker doesn't in fact call it that himself.

I did agree it was ambiguous.

I'm not taking a position on what Tertullian thought they were, only what he didn't think they were. Perhaps he thought they were embellished in some way. Perhaps he thought they were fictionalized in some way. All I know is he appeared to think that they were not the same sorts of fables that the Greeks had. They were different in some way.

You're doing fine up until this point:

But he is saying that there is some sort of difference.

But no, that is exactly the distinction he makes. He says they are similar--"like"--but he does not say they are the same.

It's not very good evidence, no. But it's not much evidence for the other side, either. That's all I'm saying.

Only if he believed that the gospels more closely resembled Herodotus (who himself writes of some pretty dubious "facts") than the Greek myths. But if he thought they represented something else, something in between the two, perhaps, then the comparison-yet-distinction makes a certain amount of sense.

GakuseiDon

C.S.Lewis, Tolkien.

Rlogan, would you say that the stories in the Gospels are similar to Greek myths? Then why is this a problem when Tertullian also recognises this?

The fact that some one regards the Gospel stories, with its tales of miracles and incarnation of gods, as literally true does not necessarily mean that they don't see the similarities to Greek myths.

Even if the Gospels were completely literally true, they would still be like the myths. Certainly C. S. Lewis had no problems embracing both positions. Why not Tertullian?

On C.S. Lewis: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Foru.../LewisJoy.html

Toto

He thinks that Tertullian was a master propagandist/forger who created a Historical Jesus and historic apostles and a historical Christian chuch to bolster his own position in disputes with other Christians. He thinks that all we think we know about early Christian history was a myth created by this man, especially the apostolic succession.

If Tertullian did believe in a HJ it was because the holy spirit told him that there was a HJ, not because he had any evidence from Roman records or "oral tradition" to work with.

It is a rather breathtaking hypothesis, is it not? But other scholars have already hypothesized that the apostolic succession detailed in Luke-Acts was a second century invention. We will have to see how Raskin develops it, using the tools of literary analysis.

Edited to add: CS Lewis is a bad example. He started as an agnostic modern scholar of myth who talked himself into being a Christian because of social influences. But it was obviously a triumph of emotion over reason. He had no good reason to assume that the gospel story was literally true. (Read what he said - that the Greek of the gospels was too unsophisticated, therefore it must be true - except he didn't know enough about Koine Greek.) Other scholars of his generation looked at the gospels, and assumed that they were mythic stories, like the Greek and Roman myths.

rlogan

Right now what you have to do is explain the assertion that Tertullian is stating there is a difference between the greek God-stories and the Christian one. That term does not appear. You've created it where it does not exist. To the benefit of the apologist view. It is therefore apologetics.

I don't mean this in an adversarial way. Friendly debate. But firm.

I realize you advance the argument this is not much "tinkering". But in fact it is drastic. The speaker's entire point is the similarity between classes of things. Yet, what you take from it is how different the classes of things are. He says they are "like" the greek stories. You assert he is claiming a difference from the greek stories.
That is not what it says. He could have written that. He didn't.

When it says one thing and you claim it says another, that gives a manufactured "ambiguity".

He might have meant Jesus was an elephant. So there's some ambiguity there.

Show me where the word "different" appears in the passage we are referring to. The term that appears is "like". So how can we conclude anything whatsoever except what they are "like"?

Again, an assertion that contrasts drastically from what was said.

Please quote anything in this passage that asserts some difference, and what the nature of the difference is.

Again, wishing to manufacture an interpretation the opposite of what is written. We need to see the translation, I suppose, to see if there is a greek word for "like" that means "in contrast to" - but that is really silly.

You cannot say that the golden goose and rip van winkle are the same story. They are indeed different stories.

But I suppose if I told you a third story that I advise is like these two, you would be incapable of deciding that it was history or not? Particularly if it was of supernatural theme to begin with?

Tell you what, let's present this dilemma to a child and see what they say.


It is contingent upon inserting something in the text (difference) that is not there. Jesus might be a planet.

The word "distinction" does not appear.

The word "difference" does not appear.

He makes no other comparison with what it is "like".

The only thing the text says is about "likeness". Yet your conclusion is that there is a difference.

Bernard Muller

rlogan:
I reread the passage and still think 'They' means pagans critics, mostly on what follows:
"Mock as you like, but get the demons if you can to join you in your mocking;"
The writings of Tertullian are very wordy & rambling and because of that subject to interpretations. I just do not accept the "automatic" interpretation he wrote things which were self-incriminating against him or his religion.

It's all over Tertullian works, or more accuratly, one out of two works, approximately. I bothered to search on "Christ" the first two-third of his books to make sure. GK already provided examples. Tertullian featured many times a human earthly Christ.

There is no denying stories in the gospels, or christological items like the incarnation, the resurrection and whatever the Logos/Son/Christ in heaven was, is or will be doing, could be considered as fables by pagans. And they did. Apologists (Tatian, Justin & Tertullian) had to acknowledge that. Their line of defence was multiple:
a) Ridicule the many Greek "fables" to the point the Christian fable-like items would look good in comparison OR intimidate the Pagan critics to TAKE OFF criticizing the same so-called Christian fables.
b) Use Greek writers and the OT to "prove" the same Christian fables were either previously "approved" or predicted.
c) Satan, devil or demons planted "legends" in Greek myths, prior to similar ones appearing in the Christian faith, in order to discredit the Christian rendition.

Al Kafirun:
What you depict here is the cosmic Christ which I consider all mythical anyway. But 1John and GJohn also are about someone who was seen and touched by humans (for the former) and as a human being, with blood and a human father & mother (for the later).

I do not think "Ignatius" is specific about what kind of Docetists he was counteracting (however I think that was mostly against Basilides). He was after the ones who would not consider Jesus flesh and blood, born from humans. I do not think we can postulate beyond that from the epistles.
Actually, in the gospel of Peter, Jesus is very human. Except that the gospel does not have any suffering during the Passion. Because of that, the gospel was branded heretical and Docetist.
Irenaeus was very much defending the gospels Jesus. "Clement" (of Rome) wrote the Spirit prophesied a humble Jesus through the suffering servant of Isaiah, who looks very human to me.

Toto:
I read it and found some of the claims disturbing/confusing. My question: where does that come from? Still no primary evidence. As far as I know, Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion believed Jesus showed as a human on earth, except he was not flesh and blood (the later point is not so sure regarding Marcion). So I think "optical illusion" is forced. And as I said, in Peter's gospel, Jesus has a human life and a body. That did not prevent this gospel to be declared Docetist. Gnostics/Docetic had theological reasons to reject a flesh & blood Jesus but most of them (if not all regarding the second century) had to contend with a Christ on earth.
I still would like an answer to my initial question (from ancient sources). Of course, I would consider Docetists being Christians, as long as they refer to a Christ or even a Logos of some sort (with some Christian stuff attached to it).

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Always willing to consider new evidence. Can't comment upon what I've not studied yet, and readily admit ignorance once again.

I see your later post too.

I suppose I should have qualified what I asked for. Religious writers do pen the most fantastic claims, yes.

I want to consider this other evidence before responding further...

rlogan

"you" is the pagans. The problem is who is "they". So far, you have not submitted any evidence where the word "they" appears and it is in reference to pagans. What you are citing above distinguishes between "you" (to whom the letter is written) and "demons". Therefore the demons are "they".

How can "you" be "they"?

Didn't understand what you mean by automatic.
Very willing to consider more evidence. The one I was working on had a rather stark qualifier attached to it. That may or may not be the case with the rest.

But it is already clear to me that if you bring to the table a belief system then you can read "this is like a fable" to mean "this is different from a fable".

Yes, it was. But there is only one piece of historical evidence that I have seen so far: The reference to the census.

I would like to know more about this particular item, and I think it obvious as to why...

GakuseiDon

I think he did believe that he, at least, had good reason to think the Gospels true. Of course, others (even myself) may disagree with his reasons.

The example was just to show someone else who saw similarities between pagan myths and Christianity, and could even call them both "myths", without necessarily denying their truth. The analogy isn't exact, of course: Lewis firmly declares the myth as "true" (though he doesn't deny that the pagan myths are in some ways partly true), while Tertullian goes on to say that he will "prove the claims of Christ", which is a less certain declaration. But there are plenty of places in other writings where Tertullian discusses historical aspects of Christ without using the word "fable" or anything similar.

Al Kafirun

Yay, I was noticed. For a minute I thought I was an illusion.

Anyway, there are similar details in the lives of happily un-historical characters and there was never a sense of conflict among the believers. In the John texts especially, regardless of the various authors there's a sense of esoteric reign over the incredulous characters the Docetist Jesus encounters. They consider him flesh and bone and say things to atest to that, but then the Docetist Jesus will reply with an ultra-human action or statement.

There's a difference between that Docetist approach and a character presented as myth or sublimely considered mythological. Imagine if Mithras had been said to have actually killed a bull and there you go.