Reading the Church Fathers discussion

This is a descriptive comment on chapter 1 of "Against the Jews" or "An Answer to the Jews." It will sound as though I am criticizing him. Please read it as a description, not an evaluation.

I have not read any Tertullian at all before this.

I am not claiming to factor in rhetorical practices and conventions of the time, etc., etc. I am reading it simply and directly, as it is translated here.

In general we can say that a speech (a persuasive piece, spoken or written) creates within itself the speaker, the audience, and the speech. We read the speech and only the speech. We don't fold in info from history, etc.

What kind of speaker does chapter 1 create? The first paragraph creates a reasonable fellow who intends to clarify in writing a recent informal, spirited debate on Judaism and Christianity. He aims "the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the questions handled." "Questions" is an open-ended term for the points of dispute, the topics.

The remainder of chapter 1 creates a no-holds-barred advocate for one of the sides in the debate. He displays no empathy for his opponent or his opponent's position. He expresses only his own side's position -- he does not state the opponent's position, much less indicate why it might be reasonable. From the complex and multifaceted set of works called the Bible he selects only information that fits his case, which he states categorically: "Whence is proved that [the Jews] have ever been depicted, out of the volume of the divine Scriptures, as guilty of the crime of idolatry ...."

Accordingly, I (as a listener or reader) conclude (for right now, from this one chapter) that I cannot trust this speaker to present a full picture of the topics under discussion, to report any evidence that does not support his position, or to summarize any position(s) opposed to his. Since I cannot trust him in these areas I must reserve judgment on his arguments and conclusions until I can independently do the work he omits -- to give a full picture of the background, to state opposing positions, and to consider evidence or arguments that may oppose or qualify his arguments and conclusions.

Clark wrote: "This is a descriptive comment on chapter 1 of "Against the Jews" or "An Answer to the Jews." It will sound as though I am criticizing him. Please read it as a description, not an evaluation..."

Welcome again to the group and to the discussion of Tertullian, Clark.

You wrote," In general we can say that a speech (a persuasive piece, spoken or written) creates within itself the speaker, the audience, and the speech. We read the speech and only the speech. We don't fold in info from history,

Good point. I tend to think that, when reading a speech, we need to consider the speaker, the audience, as well as the speech itself. But it is difficult to take into consideration the target audience without knowing his personal history. After all, the speaker is not talking to an abstract entity, but a human being.

Hey, I haven't gotten to Against the Jews yet, so this is just a response to you and a general point on reading history (as I understand it).

You use the term "reasonable fellow" and go on to criticize T. for advocating just one side and showing no empathy to the other side. I think you are approaching an ancient writing with contemporary, modern eyes. That is fine, we all do it (we're all living in 2017!) but I think it is unfair to hold any ancient writer to the mores of our culture. What I mean is that, your definition of "reason" would be far different from T's - after all, he did not have the benefit (or curse) of living through the Enlightenment and all the changes that brought. We value, perhaps attempt, to be "objective" and "fair"; we imagine there is a public space where we can leave our preconceived notions behind and just lay out the facts, then analyze them and then conclude. This might (might!) work for science since there can be repeated experiments in different times and places. I'm doubtful it works for debates on meaning, ethics, religion, morality and things you can't test in a lab. In reality none of us are able to leave behind all our preconceived notions (we always advocate for one side!).

Even your last paragraph bears the same thing - T is not trying to present all the evidence (again, he's not submitting a dissertation at a modern university) nor is he trying to summarize all positions. He's trying to win an argument. He is even using the common rules of ancient rhetoric, he is doing what Celsus would do when he attacked Christianity and what any other writer of his time would do to try to win the argument. To some degree, he's not trying to convince us postmodern folks, he's trying to convince his peers.

Maybe it would help to recall he was a lawyer. I'm not familiar with law (outside the occasional Law and Order show or Grisham book) but I am pretty sure an attorney does not seek to fairly set out both sides; she seeks to present her side as strongly as possible in an effort to win the case.

I explicitly said that my post was based purely on the translated text. So within the explicitly stated, self-proclaimed limits of the post's method and scope, I was intentionally *not* including culture, historical context, historical knowledge of the audience, etc.

Within those limits I said a the very beginning I was doing a description that might sound like criticism but was a description.

I did that.

Sorry. I've said before I'm keen to miss stuff. I'm a bit thick sometimes.

Take my post as an attempt to explain why your description is accurate.

If you can be so kind as to indulge my errors, you begin the last paragraph with "I", saying you cannot trust this speaker until further validation. Is this "I" you today in the year 2017 and you are saying you need further investigation into what T's opponents actually believed? Or is this "I" you if you lived then and is this what you'd say to Tertullian?

I will be very pleased to hear remarks about whether or not my *description* based on the *text* is accurate or not.

Again, I'm a little slow on the uptake. I'm uncertain what the goal of your exercise is.

Like you say, and I ignored (sorry again):
I am not claiming to factor in rhetorical practices and conventions of the time, etc., etc. I am reading it simply and directly, as it is translated here.

I'd question whether ignoring conventions of the time and such is a helpful practice when reading any historical work. If we do that, don't we just end up supplying meaning to words when those words might mean something much different then? Don't we end up expecting things from the writer his culture wouldn't have?

I will be very pleased to hear remarks about whether or not my *description* based on the *text* is accurate or not

I guess I'm unsure where your description ends. As you say, he does not state his opponents arguments or why they are reasonable. So there I think your description is accurate.

Your last paragraph did not seem to describe his text but your reaction to it. Your reaction makes sense for any of us who read it today. If we throw out history and expect an ancient writer to satisfy our conventions of argument, T fails. But the thing is, we'd need those historical conventions you get rid of to know if ancient readers or hearers would be bothered with his form of argument.

I think I'm trying to say that you can't help but bring in the conventions and rhetorical practices of some time. Your final paragraph is critiquing the validity of his argument based on something.

Very true, my last paragraph draws a conclusion and is not simple description. The pure description is that he shows in this one chapter he shows no sign of including any material that doesn't state or support his own argument.

I'm going to think out loud now.

1) If his behavior changes later on, that might be an important sign of something.

2) If I in the 21st century care about the truth in the matters he is arguing about, I know that (as in the case of a lawyer) I'm getting from him a very selective presentation. I would need to supplement and check his material.

3) It seems in a very simple sense (historical details aside) that his approach somehow suited his audience and was effective with it. It seemed to them appropriate and convincing. What kind(s) of audience(s) would this imply? People who already agree with his case?

Clark wrote: "my last paragraph draws a conclusion and is not simple description. The pure description is that he shows in this one chapter he shows no sign of including any material that doesn't state or support his own argument.."

It seems to me that your description is accurate, but your conclusion does not necessarily follow. In other words, just because he doesn't include opposing arguments in his treatise, it doesn't mean he is therefore not trustworthy.

If I'm not mistaken, the issue in question is not explicitly stated by Tertulllian, but implicitly, and it is this: whether Christians have a share in the grace of God without converting to Judaism.

The Jews, with whom Tertullian is engaging in a dialogue/debate, don't need him to remind them of their arguments. This is where knowledge of history would be valuable to us--if we are familiar with the historical context, we would know how the Jews in Tertullian's time viewed Christianity, and what he was "answering" to with his treatise. We would see the whole picture, not just one side of it.

Having said that, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Jews are not Tertullian's real target audience, and he is really writing for those Christians whose faith have been shaken by the claims of Judaizers. His audience is the same type of Christians the Apostle Paul addresses in his Epistles to the Galatians, and Paul doesn't state the opposing arguments either.

Thanks for bringing this subject up, and also for pointing out these cultural differences. I had just begun reading Tertullian's treatise on the soul (a bit ahead of scheme, but the subject interests me). Only I was so much put off by his derogatory attitude towards Socrates, that I didn't want to read any further.

But yesterday I listened again to an introductory course on Saint Augustine's confessions, and there was explained that there was around his time a controversy about how to deal with ancient greek wisdom. Some Christians were of the opinion that the greek philosophers were a kind of Christians without knowing it, whereas others thought that this would lead you away from the real truth.
Obviously Tertullian was of the latter opinion.

This topic of against Judaism is probably just such a controversial issue, where Tertullian has taken one side.

I think that in order to come to a balanced view (which is essential in my opinion otherwise we will really miss out on important things that we do need), we need to explore both sides thoroughly, and that that is what was done in history. It takes time to do this, and the church probably needed all of history to do this.

So we have the great benefit of being able to read both Tertullian and Augustine, who have opposite opinions on Greek wisdom, and perhaps this will enable us to hold the good points in both opinions in balance.
As a side note: I think there can never be one view that expresses everything in a simple way. Life is far too paradoxical for that.

Hey Nemo, do we know if Tertullian's audience is facing a challenge like Paul's? I mean, we know the story of Judaizers following Paul around and preaching a different gospel in the Galatian churches (and elsewhere). But that was the 60s, CE. Tertullian is writing in the 190-200s, so at least 130 years later.

I'm not familiar with Judaism in these years - I know after Akiba's revolt (135 CE) things really changed. I know this is when the Talmud really developed. But the Jews fighting Paul had a power base in Jerusalem on their side, which is much different then T's time.

David wrote: "Hey Nemo, do we know if Tertullian's audience is facing a challenge like Paul's? I mean, we know the story of Judaizers following Paul around and preaching a different gospel in the Galatian church..."

Good question. Paul implies (in Gal. 4:29) that the challenge faced by the Galatians is a perennial one. I think Paul is looking at this from the perspective of spiritual warfare, which has nothing to do with race in general, or the Jews as a people in particular.

(When I read Tertullian decrying the idolatry of the Jews, I can't help but think that he would have reproved idolatrous Christians --aren't we all-- with the same intensity if he had known them.)

Good thought. I think the question might be what you think first century Jews taught about grace and such. That is the whole New Perspective on Paul discussion. Most of us grew up learning that Jews in the Bible were all about salvation by works, but more recent scholars have noted how this stereotype grew in the Reformation as the Reformers cast the first-century Jews as akin to their Catholic enemies.

In essence, when Paul speaks of "works" do you think he means just any good work anyone does, or specific Jewish works of the Law (keeping Sabbath, dietary laws, etc.).

I think it is not necessarily an either/or. Paul was combating a very specific debate that wanted uncircumcised Christians to get circumcised if they truly wanted to be in the family of God. That is the historical root and that debate is not universal (whether circumcision was a debate in T's day I'm not sure). But there is a universal aspect to it of course - idolatry, setting up boundaries so we take comfort that we are in and others are out, etc.

David wrote: "Good thought. I think the question might be what you think first century Jews taught about grace and such..."

What the Jews believed historically about Christ and human destiny has always fascinated me. But I haven't read any ancient Jewish scholars except the first century historian Josephus.

"Grace" means different things to different people. So does "Love". The Jews and Muslims believe God loves the world, but they deny that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

I think when Paul speaks of "works", as opposed to grace, what he means is works done without Christ, and whoever pursue such works have necessarily fallen from grace, being without Christ. Conversely, whoever pursue good works in Christ are also under grace, and such are the saints of the Old Testament.

David wrote: "Good thought. I think the question might be what you think first century Jews taught about grace and such. That is the whole New Perspective on Paul discussion. Most of us grew up learning that Jew..."

interesting posts...
David, I had a question about your last statement "...setting up boundaries so we take comfort that we are in and others are out...";
your comment seems to connote disapproval...which made me think about boundaries...if there are (would be italicized if I knew how to do that!) boundaries...are there different kinds...who authored them...are we expected to stay within any boundaries...if so, does that always need to reflect the seeming hubris your quote seems to express, or are boundaries sometimes just an emotion neutral necessity (that can be distorted by individuals of course and needs to be guarded against)...does Jesus author boundaries for us, that without staying within, affects our salvation... seems to relate in some aspect to whether all people get to Heaven...
Just wondered If you could expound on it a little, thanks.

A brief note: In chapter 9 Tertullian silently conflates two children: the one prophesied in Isaiah 7:13-14 and the second, the new son of Isaiah, from 8:1-4. Tertullian at length discusses the power-of-Damascus prediction as though it pertains to the child prophesied in the earlier verse.

Nothing that anyone has said about historical context, etc., etc., seems to me to undermine my explicit statement:

"2) If I in the 21st century care about the truth in the matters he is arguing about, I know that (as in the case of a lawyer) I'm getting from him a very selective presentation. I would need to supplement and check his material."

It so happens that I in the 21st century *do* care about the truth in matters he is arguing about, because the topic of supersessionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superse... is a live topic for me. Tertullian appears to be a strong supersessionist. (I can give quotations if anyone cares.)

Now whether or not T is morally culpable or not for a one-sided, selective argument based on the conventions of his day, etc., etc., and no matter whether or not his contemporaries would have understood and ratified his method of argument, for *my* purposes his selective, one-side argument means I can't trust him. He has telegraphed his willingness to quote Scripture selectively to support his point, and he never gives citations that oppose his point. He does state his opponents' views but without mentioning his opponents' evidence for those views. Knocking down straw men is, at a minimum, an incomplete response to the opponents' case.

Tertullian makes truth claims and supports them with evidence available to both him and me. I am respecting him and taking him at his word.

I think when Paul speaks of "works", as opposed to grace, what he means is works done without Christ...

Yeah, but this kind of begs the question. A whole lot of fantastic scholars, who have read a lot more second-temple Jewish literature then just Josephus, have changed the landscape of New Testament scholarship Even those who don't accept all the conclusions of the New Perspective have admitted they make good points. My understanding of the nuances of that debate is weak (I'm no scholar after all!), but it does seem apparent that when Paul speaks of "works of the Law" he is talking about things Jews did that set them apart from Gentiles. Lots of Gentiles did "good works". But the Jews took pride in things like Sabbath, circumcision and diet.

At any rate, I'd agree there is a problem if we think our "good works" save us. Of course, I've long realized that Judaism never believed they worked hard to earn God's love, even in the OT grace came before works (God saved them from Egypt, then gave the Law; Deuteronomy clearly states [ch 4 maybe? I forget] that God saved them not because of any good works but simply out of his mercy).

Just wondered If you could expound on it a little, thanks.

If I take pride in my status as a Christian, over against those I see as "unsaved" (or whatever terminology you like) I am missing something. In other words, if I witness the sins of others that, in my eyes, set them outside God's grace (whatever those sins might be) and I feel smug or better, I better be careful.

Maybe if I pray more like the Pharisee then the tax collector (Luke 17), I'm missing it.

Or just, if the possible presence of people in the new creation who I don't think are loved by God bothers me, I'm making myself the judge. I think, sadly, some will miss out on God's grace. I also pray for God to explode the boundaries and to save more than my heart and mind think possible.

It seems that at least Justin Martyr and Augustine also treat the child in Isaiah 8:3-4 as being Christ. So Tertullian is probably expressing a conventional reading that was generally held and was not specific to him.

Clark wrote: "Knocking down straw men is, at a minimum, an incomplete response to the opponents' case.."

Could you please be more specific? Which straw man arguments did Tertullian make? I'd be more than happy to discuss them one by one.

I conclude that there are two separate prophecies there, which happen to come from two adjacent chapters of Isaiah. They are from texts related to two different children. No conflation. And both prophecies are part of the common set of prophecies cited by Christians. No problem.

I think I'm now almost properly prepared to start reading this piece. :-)

I originally took Tertullian's opening to indicate he would clarify the questions that were discussed in the contentious debate, and the arguments of both sides, so that truth wouldn't be "overcast by a sort of cloud." He said:

"By the opposing din, moreover, of some partisans of the individuals, truth began to be overcast by a sort of cloud. It was therefore our pleasure that that which, owing to the confused noise of disputation, could be less fully elucidated point by point, should be more carefully looked into, and that the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the questions handled."

I now would state his purpose as elucidating the Christian position point by point, mentioning and responding to the heads (topic sentences) of Jewish arguments but not giving any details of those arguments.

Hence I would now classify the work as a high-minded broadside or polemic. I say "high-minded" because he sticks to rational arguments and does not calumniate his opponents.

I'll add a few more words later. I have to run.

David wrote: "... when Paul speaks of "works of the Law" he is talking about things Jews did that set them apart from Gentiles. Lots of Gentiles did "good works". But the Jews took pride in things like Sabbath, circumcision and diet. ."

What set the Jews apart from the Gentiles is their God-given Law, which includes the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws. The Jews have good reasons to take pride in the Law, just as Christians have good reasons to take pride in the name of Christ, not because of works, but because of grace.

Nemo wrote: "David wrote: "... when Paul speaks of "works of the Law" he is talking about things Jews did that set them apart from Gentiles. Lots of Gentiles did "good works". But the Jews took pride in things ..."

Can you expound on the Jews and "grace"....what is your definition of grace? Thank you

Susan wrote: "Can you expound on the Jews and "grace"....what is your definition of grace? ."

In the context of this discussion, I'd define "grace" somewhat loosely as the goodness of God freely bestowed on, and freely received by, man.

With regard to the Jews, by grace God called Abraham out of the land of the Chaldeans and gave him the promised land, by grace He gave him the covenant and the promised seed in the person of Isaac; by grace He gave the Israelites the Law, and with it the knowledge of God, of righteousness and of sin. If I may say so, by the grace of God, the Jews are what they are as a people.

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Can you expound on the Jews and "grace"....what is your definition of grace? ."

In the context of this discussion, I'd define "grace" somewhat loosely as the goodness of God freely b..."

hmmmm..... I never really looked at that as grace.....I guess I just looked at is as love; the love that just can't contain itself (Trinity), that God included us in....thus -> Creation and the plan of salvation once it hit a roadblock with our sin.....
I guess I always learned that grace was God's life within us, and did not associate that word prior to Jesus.... something else to ponder, thanks.

Susan wrote: "I guess I always learned that grace was God's life within us, and did not associate that word prior to Jesus.."

God's life within us ("Immanuel") is foreshadowed, and manifested in very concrete forms, in the Old Testament. It is manifested in the life of the Jewish nation as a whole, for they were chosen as a priestly nation, among whom was the temple, the dwelling place of God.

One of the main purposes of the Law is to sanctify and instruct the Jews for priestly service, and it is also written for the edification of Christians, who are a dwelling place of God in the spirit.

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I guess I always learned that grace was God's life within us, and did not associate that word prior to Jesus.."

God's life within us ("Immanuel") is foreshadowed, and manifested in v..."

May pertain in some way to sanctifying vs actual grace...have to review all that. Interesting though, thanks. So many specific things that had not occurred to me show up in these discussions. I'm appreciative.

The fact that the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed subsequent to the first advent of Christ, and still hasn't been rebuilt till this day, does seem to support Tertullian's argument that the old Covenant has been superseded by the New, because the religious life of the Jews as prescribed by the Law is centred on the temple. The non-existence of the temple, means non-existence of priestly service, which necessarily constitutes the breaking of the Law, and the Covenant.

I wonder how devout Jews resolve this issue.