Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Attonitus · 04-17-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The problem is that Minucius does not write as if he is defending a HJ.

Good point. Octavius it is a rhetorical work. Minucius Felix (or maybe a common source with Tertullian) shows little or no knowledge of Jesus and Christianity in the work.

"In this debate the conception of Christianity is very limited, and is reduced almost solely to the unity of God, Providence, the resurrection, and reward after death. The name of Christ does not appear; among the apologists of the second century Aristides, St. Justin,and Tertullian are the only ones who pronounced it. But Minucius omits the characteristic points of Christianity in dogma and worship...To the accusation of adoring a criminal he contents himself with replying that the Crucified One was neither a man nor guilty (xxix, 2) and he is silent with regard to the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption which would have made clear his reply. He merely repels the accusation of incest and infanticide without describing the agape or the Eucharist (xxx and xxxi)..." [Catholic Encyclopedia].

In Octavius doesn't exist any reference to a man in the origin of the Christianity, such an accusation is considered as a slander.

"For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God [Octavius xxix, 2]

GakuseiDon · 04-17-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semblance

...then why should we expect the second document to mention the crucifixion?

For the same reason that later commentators felt very much obliged to mention it. One very real possibility is that the later commentators did not share the religious beliefs of the author of MF.

Then what are the beliefs of MF? You can see that he is defending the Christians of the day, and he is attacking pagan mythology, but why don't we see him clearly stating his beliefs? If there was no "shame of the cross", what is stopping him?

rlogan · 04-17-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

OK. Why does he not analyse Tertullian's Ad nationes then? It has a clear literary relationship with Minucius Felix, but Doherty ignores it. Yet Ad nationes also has no interest in directly defending a HJ, and doesn't even refer to "Jesus" and "Christ".

I would not try to characterize Doherty as someone who "cherry picks" the texts that support a preconceived view.

He seems to have followed the "argument of best explanation" in an ever-wider circle now encompassing 2nd century apologists.

Ad Nationes doesn't follow what you would expect out of a lengthy history stemming from an HJ.

i'm sure Doherty is just fine with that.

GakuseiDon · 04-17-2004, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I would not try to characterize Doherty as someone who "cherry picks" the texts that support a preconceived view.

He seems to have followed the "argument of best explanation" in an ever-wider circle now encompassing 2nd century apologists.

Ad Nationes doesn't follow what you would expect out of a lengthy history stemming from an HJ.

i'm sure Doherty is just fine with that.

Sorry, rlogan, I'm not sure of your point. What do you mean that Doherty would be find with Ad Nationes not following what you would expect out of a lengthy history stemming from an HJ, even though it was written by a HJer?

rlogan · 04-17-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

even though it was written by a HJer?

I understand that this is your point, GD. I have not established in my mind what Tertullian was. Just ignorance on my part, you understand.

So I am not buying into the thesis that here is an HJer that doesn't mention an HJ.

What I do see is yet more pieces consistent with the Doherty approach, given that I have no preconceptions on Tertullian.

If you are going to rely on this thesis of Tertullian being an HJer I think that needs to be established directly. Not lookin' so good yet.

forgive my ignorance again. What is the centerpiece in the Tertullian portfolio? The one that establishes his HJ credentials?

GakuseiDon · 04-17-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I understand that this is your point, GD. I have not established in my mind what Tertullian was. Just ignorance on my part, you understand.

So I am not buying into the thesis that here is an HJer that doesn't mention an HJ.

What I do see is yet more pieces consistent with the Doherty approach, given that I have no preconceptions on Tertullian.

Yes, exactly. Ad nationes fits Doherty's thesis perfectly. No reference to "Jesus", "Christ", etc. If we only had that one letter from Tertullian, there is no doubt that he would be part of Doherty's evidence.

Quote:

If you are going to rely on this thesis of Tertullian being an HJer I think that needs to be established directly. Not lookin' so good yet.

forgive my ignorance again. What is the centerpiece in the Tertullian portfolio? The one that establishes his HJ credentials?

I agree that Tertullian needs to have his HJ credentials established first.

This is from Tertullian's Apology (link in OP), written in the same year as his Ad nationes:

Quote:

The Jews, too, were well aware that Christ was coming, as those to whom the prophets spake. Nay, even now His advent is expected by them; nor is there any other contention between them and us, than that they believe the advent has not yet occurred. For two comings of Christ having been revealed to us: a first, which has been fulfilled in the lowliness of a human lot; a second, which impends over the world, now near its close, in all the majesty of Deity unveiled; and, by misunderstanding the first, they have concluded that the second--which, as matter of more manifest prediction, they set their hopes on--is the only one. It was the merited punishment of their sin not to understand the Lord's first advent: for if they had, they would have believed; and if they had believed, they would have obtained salvation. They themselves read how it is written of them that they are deprived of wisdom and understanding--of the use of eyes and ears. As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they should hold Him a magician from the powers which He displayed,--expelling devils from men by a word, restoring vision to the blind, cleansing the leprous, reinvigorating the paralytic, summoning the dead to life again, making the very elements of nature obey Him, stilling the storms and walking on the sea; proving that He was the Logos of God, that primordial first-begotten Word, accompanied by power and reason, and based on Spirit,--that He who was now doing all things by His word, and He who had done that of old, were one and the same. But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well. And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulchre, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both to spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, gave it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked should be delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach to others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven,--a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus. All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars. His disciples also, spreading over the world, did as their Divine Master bade them; and after suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews, and with no unwilling heart, as having faith undoubting in the truth, at last by Nero's cruel sword sowed the seed of Christian blood at Rome.

rlogan · 04-17-2004, 11:55 PM

OK GD, now that I've looked at this a bit I'll make one brief comment before further study.

This is a pretty lenghty piece demanding more than cursory review.

I scanned through it, and when i came upon the passage you referenced I found that it was preceded by this curious statement:

Quote:

Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble.

Fable. How interesting.

I have gone beyond the section you quoted for me to see if I could come to a better understanding about the last part of the citation above.

He references socrates, the various greek gods, and a bunch of other argumentative stuff to press his case that Christians should not be persecuted. Not that the jesus story is real.

The Jesus story is a fable just like the greek fables in the view of Tertullian. This is my provisional observation.

I find it most curious that you would leave this introduction off the plate when you served it to me GD. If the question is what position Tertullian takes towards the Jesus story then this is what we need - not the lengthy quote about Jesus.

Fable.

Al Kafirun · 04-18-2004, 12:28 AM

I have to admit that as a layperson Doherty's translation of that line was... well, not a deal breaker, but significant. Its a pain in the ass to have to double-check the apologists AND their modern critics.

GakuseiDon · 04-18-2004, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

OK GD, now that I've looked at this a bit I'll make one brief comment before further study.

This is a pretty lenghty piece demanding more than cursory review.

I scanned through it, and when i came upon the passage you referenced I found that it was preceded by this curious statement:

Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble.

Fable. How interesting.

I have gone beyond the section you quoted for me to see if I could come to a better understanding about the last part of the citation above.

He references socrates, the various greek gods, and a bunch of other argumentative stuff to press his case that Christians should not be persecuted. Not that the jesus story is real.

The Jesus story is a fable just like the greek fables in the view of Tertullian. This is my provisional observation.

I find it most curious that you would leave this introduction off the plate when you served it to me GD. If the question is what position Tertullian takes towards the Jesus story then this is what we need - not the lengthy quote about Jesus.

D'oh! How did I miss that??? Doherty makes much of similar sentiments in Tatian, I didn't think to look at the writings of the HJers of the time for something similar. Thanks for that, rlogan.

It all comes down to whether Tertullian believed in a HJ or not. AFAIK, everyone, including Doherty, accepts this. We have lots of his writings available, which you can find at earlychristianwritings. I look forward to your findings.

Amaleq13 · 04-18-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It all comes down to whether Tertullian believed in a HJ or not.

Doesn't it really come down to whether Tertullian (or anyone else under consideration) believed in a historical Jesus from faith or from reliable evidence?

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

04-18-2004, 12:28 AM	#28
Al Kafirun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: USA Posts: 323	I have to admit that as a layperson Doherty's translation of that line was... well, not a deal breaker, but significant. Its a pain in the ass to have to double-check the apologists AND their modern critics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.