Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-13-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

But in fact we have examples where early writers were well aware of Gospel details but still didn't use them in their epistles (Tertullian as mentioned before), preferring instead to refer back to the OT. IMO the OT was used like we use science today -- if it could be found in the OT, then that somehow "proved" their case. We simply have to take those writing conventions into account.

Here is Ignatius:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved."

You can see how the OT, even in Ignatius's time, was being used as "the proof" for what was being preached. I think that there was a lot of contention in the early days about Christ's words and deeds that wasn't cleared up until the Second Century, where orthodoxy was slowly imposed, perhaps as a reaction to Marcion. And one of the ways to clear things up was by measuring their confirmance to the OT, as per my quote from Ignatius. IMVHO Paul simply didn't have a lot of material to work with when he came to try to prove that Jesus's death and resurrection had implications for the Gentiles.

From Lord's Supper thread.

What do we know the early church fathers had? Might them referring back to the Hebrew bible be because they did not have the gospels?

Gregg · 03-13-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

From Lord's Supper thread.

What do we know the early church fathers had? Might them referring back to the Hebrew bible be because they did not have the gospels?

I found this excellent site for referencing Tertullian's writings:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.html

There's no doubt Tertullian was quite familiar with Paul, the Gospels, and Acts.

I would like to thank GakuseiDon for referring me to Tertullian's writings, because they are quite fascinating reading. I've only begun to dig into the material on the above site.

However, G'Don, I have to disappoint you. Nothing I've read so far causes me to doubt the mythicist case or question Doherty's analysis of Paul and the rest of the early Christian correspondence.

On the contrary, Tertullian's writings seem to reflect the continuation of the practice, dating back to Paul and probably before, of proving the Christ through scripture. Only now we see belief in a historical Christ being incorporated into the picture as well, and the beginnings of the shift from seeing scripture as the revelation of the Christ and his salvific act to seeing it as a prophecy of Christ's earthly incarnation. Often in his writings Tertullian does indeed refer, unmistakably, to details of Jesus' "earthly" ministry as described in whatever gospel or gospels he was referring to (I would have to do a closer analysis to determine which one(s), perhaps somebody already knows?)

Now, it seems Tertullian was primarily addressing skeptics and heretics, while Paul was writing to Christian churches. While Tertullian relies heavily on the OT and does not quote Jesus or refer to specific gospel incidents with great regularity to make his points. he nevertheless does do so often enough, for example here in "The Prescription Against Heretics:"

CHAP. VIII.--CHRIST'S WORD, SEEK, AND YE SHALL FIND, NO WARRANT FOR HERETICAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE FAITH. ALL CHRIST'S WORDS TO THE JEWS ARE FOR US, NOT INDEED AS SPECIFIC COMMANDS, BUT AS PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED.

I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering on curious inquiries, and the heretics insist on it for importing the scrupulosity (of their unbelief). It is written, they say, "Seek, and ye shall find." Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him. With good reason, therefore, was it then said, "Seek, and ye shall find," when inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that the whole matter of this reproof pertains, seeing that they had (a revelation) where they might seek Christ.

"They have," says He, "Moses and Elias,"--in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, "Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;" which will be the meaning of "Seek, and ye shall find." For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews: "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you." The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be without God. The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as "a drop from a bucket," and "as dust from the threshing floor, and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection? Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner, "Ask, and ye shall receive," is suitably said to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,--by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Not yet had He "cast to the dogs the children's bread;" not yet did He charge them to "go into the way of the Gentiles." It is only at the last that He instructs them to "go and teach all nations, and baptize them," when they were so soon to receive "the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth." And this, too, makes towards the the same conclusion.

I can't see any sign that Tertullian consciously limits himself to certain "conventions" in his writings. He seems to have a preference for making points through the Jewish scriptures, but he also makes free use of the gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters.

Therefore, I see no reason why we should not expect Paul, living much closer in time to Jesus' life and crucifixion, and supposedly knowing personally people who knew Jesus, and furthermore writing to other Christians who, like Christians today, would surely draw comfort, inspiration, and strength from hearing again and again the words and deeds of their Lord (not to mention feel doubly ashamed to be rebuked and chastised by words originally from the Lord's own mouth) to make many more direct, unmistakable references to Jesus' life, teachings, and ministry.

GakuseiDon · 03-13-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote: