Reading the Church Fathers discussion

I really like the tone of this text. So clear and challenging the people that they are not using their common sense! How he uses the law to explain that they themselves do not keep it.

I wonder if it helped. Or if he got a reply that made sense.

Some quotes:

For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their stedfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were brought before him, they should be punished.

“I am a Christian,” the man cries out. He tells you what he is; you wish to hear from him what he is not. Occupying your place of authority to extort the truth, you do your utmost to get lies from us.

The wife, now chaste, the husband, now no longer jealous, casts out of his house; the son, now obedient, the father, who used to be so patient, disinherits; the servant, now faithful, the master, once so mild, commands away from his presence;

Ruth wrote: "For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their stedfastness, ..."

We discussed the Romans' treatment of Christians a little bit in the "Historical Background" thread, and you can read Pliny exchange with Trajan at this site.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libra...

I wonder if it helped

Depends what you mean by help. The Roman Empire was a big place and most were not literate nor had the free time to read a book like this. So there was a limited audience - i.e the man on the street who heard negative stereotypes of Christians probably was not going to the local Barnes and Noble to read the latest by Tertullian. And since much persecution came from the masses at this time, I doubt it stopped.

Along with that, the worst persecutions were to come. Emperor Decius (250 AD) launched the first Empire wide persecution; Diocletian did one a few decades later.

That said, Tertullian is about 120 years from Constantine legalizing Christianity. So maybe in the end, he won?

I love the Apology.

Ch. 1 - For what is there more unfair than to hate a thing of which you know nothing, even though it deserve to be hated? Hatred is only merited when it is known to be merited. But without that knowledge, whence is its justice to be vindicated?

Tertullian could be transplanted to our day with social media - we mostly only listen to those who disagree with us and assume the worst about those we disagree with! Seriously though, do people show skepticism towards Christianity today because they don't know what it is all about? How much of that is our fault for presenting it so poorly?

Ch 3 - Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ.

I'm skeptical Emperor Tiberius got a report of the crucifixion of one Jewish criminal. I'd be curious to learn more about what Tertullian is referring to here. I doubt the Romans noticed Christianity prior to maybe Nero. Perhaps Claudius, who expelled the Jews from Rome, as we read about in Acts.

Ch 3 - So far from that, we, on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him.

I've heard this story before too. Apparently there was a drought and the legions were in danger, then it rained. I'll look it up later, but I do recall both Christians and others took credit for this miracle.

ch 7 - Every one knows what sort of thing rumour is. It is one of your own sayings, that “among all evils, none flies so fast as rumour.” Why is rumour such an evil thing? Is it because it is fleet? Is it because it carries information?

Yes.

ch. 9 - In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.

Two things here. First, no abortion for Christians. It was one thing that set them apart. Second, Tertullian is the main writer in the pre-Nicene era who talks on war, murder, violence, etc. I think he does not believe Christians should kill, including fighting in the legions (fun side note, I wrote my masters thesis on Tertullian's ideas of war and killing). Here he alludes to the fact Christians do not murder, though does this include war? Of course, he does not go into that here.

ch. 18 - at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense.

I know we discussed what hell is in previous threads. It is clear Tertullian believed in what we today call the traditional view - hell lasts forever and people there feel the pain. The connection I would make later on is that while Tertullian called on Christians to die rather than kill, he was okay with God judging and sending people to hell.

ch. 18 -the Jews supplied to Ptolemy; for they gave him seventy-two interpreters

Tradition of how 72 translators came up with the same Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, which led to the Septuagint. Cool to see how this was a tradition in T's day.

ch. 21 - We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun— there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.

Tertullian was hugely influential in the development of the Trinity; maybe not so much in the Greek-speaking east but definitely in the West, on Augustine.

I also love how Tertullian talks about the Empire. He is sort of smug, arguing that it was not the gods of Rome that made Rome great. He goes even farther to say that it is the Christian God who made Rome great! And it is important that Rome remain to keep the barbarians at bay - so even though Rome persecutes and is clearly evil, in T's eyes, there is worse. At the same time, though Christians pray they do not offer sacrifices.

In essence, I think American Christians need to read Tertullian and learn how to balance both prayer for the nation with critique of the nation.

ch. 27 - When we are called therefore to sacrifice, we resolutely refuse,

ch. 30 - Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.

ch. 32 - we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth— in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes— is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire.

ch. 33 - on valid grounds I might say Caesar is more ours than yours, for our God has appointed him.

Tertullian also seems very critical of games; makes me wonder what he'd say about our entertainment today. I am not saying he is right, but it is somewhat disturbing how uncritical we are - we don't care about concussions and lives ruined by the NFL, for example, as long as we are entertained by these modern gladiators! His whole treatise The Shows is on this, I think.

ch 38 - We renounce all your spectacles, as strongly as we renounce the matters originating them, which we know were conceived of superstition, when we give up the very things which are the basis of their representations. Among us nothing is ever said, or seen, or heard, which has anything in common with the madness of the circus, the immodesty of the theatre, the atrocities of the arena, the useless exercises of the wrestling-ground. Why do you take offence at us because we differ from you in regard to your pleasures? If we will not partake of your enjoyments, the loss is ours, if there be loss in the case, not yours.

Also cool is that T emphasizes the resurrection. I meet many Christians who think the ultimate goal is leaving the body behind and floating off to heaven. The ultimate goal is resurrected bodies in the new creation (and T has a whole treatise on the Resurrection too, if I recall)

ch. 48 - then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged— the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire— that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility.

ch. 50 - It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued.

I find this inspiring. The Roman legions conquered by killing, the Christians conquer by dying (he says later the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church). Most of us...this is just foreign. We (at least I) live in an American culture where defending your rights is sacrosanct, so the idea of dying...just wow.

I'm convinced that if Tertullian had a TARDIS (time machine) and came to visit us, he'd think most of us (okay, at least me!) are pretty crappy Christians.

Ruth wrote: "I really like the tone of this text. So clear and challenging the people that they are not using their common sense! How he uses the law to explain that they themselves do not keep it.

I wonder i..."

This stuck out to me as well. It is interesting that this is the exact same reason Justin wrote his apology, because Christians were being persecuted simply because of the name they held. So I don't imagine T was any more successful than J?

Also, I am currently reading Tacitus, and he repeatedly mentions the Roman's propensity for flattery. If I am reading him correctly, some kind of sycophancy was deeply embedded in Roman culture. If that is correct, I can't imagine them dropping to their knees after the somewhat scathing approach of T (or J)??

This also made me wonder about Christians today. We seem broadly to fall into two camps: one camp wants to speak the Truth, to "stand up for truth", and they usually use an approach similar to Tertullian. The other camp talks more about love, and if I understand correctly, accept people "where they are" and trust Jesus to convict of sin, etc. For me, the confusing thing is I seem to see Jesus using both approaches at one time or another...

Anyway, I suppose that's a bit of a rabbit trail...

David wrote: "I'm skeptical Emperor Tiberius got a report of the crucifixion of one Jewish criminal. I'd be curious to learn more about what Tertullian is referring to here. I doubt the Romans noticed Christianity prior to maybe Nero. Perhaps Claudius, who expelled the Jews from Rome, as we read about in Acts.
"

I think Tiberius also expelled Jews from Rome? But only after he had forced a bunch of them to join the army, according to Wikipedia.

Christians were first identified at Antioch, right? I tried to see if the internet knew when that church was established, but all I could find was the Peter is traditionally considered the founder. If so, and Jesus died around 33AD, and the end of Tiberius's reign was 37AD, then it seems quick work if the church was not only established but also given the nickname Chrstians, which was then so widespread a name that Tiberius considered them a separate people...but, I don't know. I guess it's possible.

David wrote: "He is sort of smug, arguing that it was not the gods of Rome that made Rome great. "

He is definitely a little snarky:

"But if, on account of his being the discoverer of the vine, Bacchus is raised to godship, Lucullus, who first introduced the cherry from Pontus into Italy, has not been fairly dealt with; for as the discoverer of a new fruit, he has not, as though he were its creator, been awarded divine honours."

It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too. Nay, a law lies under strong suspicions which does not care to have itself tried and approved: it is a positively wicked law, if, unproved, it tyrannizes over men.

It says in the Introduction that Tertullian was probably a jurisconsult in Rome. His idea of just law sounds like an ideal to me: not all the people justly convicted by the law admit its justice.

The Delicious Sarcasm of Tertullian

it might be no slight solace to us in all our punishments, suffering as we do because of these same gods, that in their making they suffer as we do themselves. You put Christians on crosses and stakes: what image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross and stake? The body of your god is first consecrated on the gibbet. You tear the sides of Christians with your claws; but in the case of your own gods, axes, and planes, and rasps are put to work more vigorously on every member of the body. We lay our heads upon the block; before the lead, and the glue, and the nails are put in requisition, your deities are headless. We are cast to the wild beasts, while you attach them to Bacchus, and Cybele, and Cælestis. We are burned in the flames; so, too, are they in their original lump. We are condemned to the mines; from these your gods originate. We are banished to islands; in islands it is a common thing for your gods to have their birth or die. If it is in this way a deity is made, it will follow that as many as are punished are deified, and tortures will have to be declared divinities

Here we have what is probably Tertullian's most famous quote (Ch.50):

"The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed."

Sometimes also phrased: "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church."

And earlier, in Chapter 7 we have this gem:

"Truth and the hatred of truth come into our world together. As soon as truth appears, it is regarded as an enemy."

In ch. 45, Tertullian proclaims that knowledge of God is necessary for true virtue and piety, and pinpoints the problem with secular humanism:

Taught of God himself what goodness is, we have both a perfect knowledge of it as revealed to us by a perfect Master; and faithfully we do His will, as enjoined on us by a Judge we dare not despise. But your ideas of virtue you have got from mere human opinion; on human authority, too, its obligation rests: hence your system of practical morality is deficient, both in the fulness and authority requisite to produce a life of real virtue. Man’s wisdom to point out what is good, is no greater than his authority to exact the keeping of it; the one is as easily deceived as the other is despised....But what is the real authority of human laws, when it is in man’s power both to evade them, by generally managing to hide himself out of sight in his crimes, and to despise them sometimes, if inclination or necessity leads him to offend? Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment you can inflict—never to last longer than till death.