Hey everyone! I was studying about some of the non-canonical New Testament works and I got to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and I found the story of why it was discredited to be rather interesting. Now to preface, I know that the work isnβt considered historical, nor am I trying to argue that it should be. Rather, I just want to know why scholars trust Tertullianβs specific account of its origins. Basically, Tertullian declared in his treatise On Baptism that the work was a forgery:
βBut the impudence of that woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently not going to arrogate to her the right to baptize as well β unless perhaps some new serpent appears, like that original one, so that as that woman abolished baptism, some other should of her own authority confer it. But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named, claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paulβs reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position. How could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn by her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands at home.β
Now I imagine it may be obvious reading that quote why Iβm asking this question, but do scholars have a good reason to trust that Tertullian isnβt lying about that story? My reasons for thinking that may be a possibility are:
-
His explicit reasoning for writing that was to condemn the practice of women being able to preach and perform baptisms based on his personal theological ideas, and, to be frank, sexism. So heβs got a motive to discredit the work.
-
He doesnβt use the name of the presbyter that he says, rather conveniently, was caught before Tertullian wanted to discredit his theological opponents. If he was defrocked afterwards, one would assume it was public enough for anonymity to not make sense. And if he wasnβt purposefully trying to conceal his identity, then including the specific name would make the story more reliable, so one would think he would be encouraged to cite the name.
-
This paper on the Acts of Thecla as well as Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, say it had originated in some form on oral traditions that predate t
In Prescription against Heretics Chapter 32, Tertullian seemingly refers to churches that were considered apostolic but did not have succession from the apostles. βTo this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.β Anyone know what heβs referring to?
"How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church arranges, the Sacrifice strengthens, upon which the blessing sets a seal, at which angels are present as witnesses, and to which the Father gives His consent? For not even on earth do children marry properly and legally without their fathers' permission. How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit.
They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God's church and partake of God's Banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other's company; they never bring sorrow to each other's hearts.
Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the Sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the Sign of the Cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present; and where He is, there evil is not"
Might someone be able to translate this for me? It is a citation by Franz Delitzsch of an early church father; he doesn't say who. It has to do with the doctrine of "traducianism" - the belief that the parents of a child propagate not only the child's body, but also his soul. The Latin quote is as follows: "Cum flamma accendit flammam neque tota flamma accendens transit in accensam neque pars ejus in eam descendit: ita anima parentum generat animam filii ut ei nihil decedat."
Tertullian has some words of encouragement for those about to be fed to the lions.
I. Amongst the provisions for the body which not only our lady mother, the Church, from her own bosom, but also individual brethren from their own private resources supply to you in your prison, blessed martyrs designate, accept something from me too, which may serve to nourish your spirit also... First of all, then, blessed ones, grieve not the Holy Spirit Who hath entered with you into the prison. For if He had not entered in with you, you yourselves would not be there to-day. Therefore give heed that He may remain there with you, and so may He lead you thence to the Lord. The prison is also the devilβs house wherein he keepeth his own family. But ye have come into the prison to trample on him in his own house. For already have ye trampled on him, having engaged with him outside. Let him not then say, "They are in my house; I will tempt them with petty quarrels, failings, and mutual strifes."
Let him fly from your sight and skulk away into his own abyss, coiled up and torpid like a charmed or out-smoked snake. Nor let him so prosper in his own kingdom as to set you at variance, but let him find you fortified and armed with concord; because your peace is war to him. And this "peace" some in the Church having lost, have been wont to entreat from martyrs in prison. Wherefore also on this account you ought to have it in yourselves, and to cherish it and guard it, so that you may be able to give it, it may be, to others also.
Similarly other hindrances of the soul may have accompanied you to the prison doors, just as far as your relatives did. From that point you were separated from the world itself: how much more from the spirit of the age and its affairs! Nor will this dismay you, that you have been separated from the world. For if we regard the world itself as a prison, we shall deem you rather to have gone forth from prison than to have gone into prison. The world has the greater darkness which blindeth the hearts of men. The world puts on the heavier chains which bind the very souls of men. The world breathes the worse impurities, even the lusts of men. The world in the end contains the more criminals, namely, the whole race of men. It awaiteth accordingly the judgment, not of the proconsul, but of God. And from this prison, blessed ones, consider yourselves to have been translated, it may be, into a watch-house. It has its darkness, but ye yourselves are light; i
... keep reading on reddit β‘So a story here: I was inspired to look this up by a post on Facebook where someone was ranting that someone else used the word "sacrament" in a non-Christian context. The ranter stated that "sacrament" was a Christian word, and could never be used in any other way. So of course I had to look it up.
Sacrament, far from being Christian in origin, was a pagan Latin word for the oath that a man took when he became a Roman soldier, during his induction ceremony. This was the "sacramentum," signifying the moment his life changed, when he began his new life; and his total submission to the emperor and the Roman state. Even more, we have documentary proof of this because it was Tertullian, the great Christian church father, who decide this was a cool word and concept and co-opted it to refer to baptism and the Eucharist. HAHAHAHA.
The Latin evidently was a translation of the Greek term mysterium, with connections to the Elusinian mysteries and other cults.
Sofia Victoria
SEA OF FAITH IN AUSTRALIA (SoFiA) - Melbourne.
Zoom online lecture: Saturday 22 May 2021, 2.30pm to 4.30pm. AEST
Hegel and Tertullian's Paradox: "I believe because it is absurd".
Dr. Neville Buch will present the topic and lead the discussion.
ZOOM Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81523833503?pwd=cXVxblhZdTJCNW9EWG9uV09KbFhtQT09
Meeting ID: 815 2383 3503 - - - Passcode: 784429
~ Promoting the open exploration of religion, spirituality and the search for meaning ~
All viewpoints welcome. Enquiries: sofmelb@yahoo.com.au
Tertullian stated that Septimius Severus employed a christian as his personal physician and interevened to stop several christians from being executed yet later christian tradition says otherwise with septimius severus apparently being a persecutor and as well as possibly issuing an edict punishing conversion to Judaism and christianity . Now did Tertullian simply make it up or were there other roman records of septimius's sympathy towards christianity ? Did he actually issue the edict ?
I heard a sermon recently in which the pastor claimed that the terms βeternalβ, βredemptionβ, βjustificationβ, βpunishmentβ, βtortureβ, and βdamnationβ were coined by Tertullian and used in the Vulgate. I know that Tertullian coined the term "trinity" and I've seen some references that say he coined many theological terms, but I'm having trouble finding a list of other terms coined by Tertullian and any evidence that he did so. Can anyone here point me in the right direction?
For philosophy is the material of the worldβs wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophyβ¦ What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides. Tertullian, Heretics, 7 (Stevenson, 166-167)
I've seen multiple blogs and articles reference Tertullian taking issue with the regular gloss of "repentance." I can't find the original place where he writes this (if he does). Any help?
Hello. I've got a question to ask. From what I understand, marcion put forth the belief that paul got his theology right, and the 12 apostles got theirs wrong.
In 1 cor 15:5-10, there is a list of appearances of the risen jesus in chronological order. It starts from peter, then to the 12, then to 500 brethren, then to james, then to the apostles, then to paul. And after that, some comments about the inferiority of paul as apostle.
I would think that for a person who would want to refute marcion, these verses would be useful. There's a heirarchy of sorts that places paul at the bottom, and then there's paul's admission that he's inferior.
But neither tertullian nor epiphanius mentioned these verses in their writings against marcion. If marcion omitted the verses in his apostolikon, they didn't point it out, and if marcion did have it, they didn't use these verses against his position.
Seems strange to me. Is there any reason why this is so?
Thank you.
Hi everyone, Back in the day at Christian high school Church history class I learned about Tertullian. Mainly that he developed the first formal definition of the Trinity as "three persons with one substance." Does his concept make sense to you and do you agree this was a foundational moment in our history to flesh this doctrine out? Thanks.
There's this quote in Tertullian's piece against public spectacles: "Will God have any pleasure in the charioteer who disquiets so many souls, rouses up so many furious passions, and creates so many various moods, either crowned like a priest or wearing the colours of a pimp,decked out by the devil that he may be whirled away in his chariot, as though with the object of taking off Elijah? Will He be pleased with him who applies the razor to himself, and completely changes his features; who, with no respect for his face, is not content with making it as like as possible to Saturn and Isis and Bacchus, but gives it quietly over to contumelious blows, as if in mockery of our Lord?" The part where he talks about people applying the razor to their face, etc. Is this simply a facial hair grooming thing? It sounds like more than that - some kind of scarification, primitive plastic surgery or what? How were they making themselves look like Saturn exactly?
https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10959500_771590286242478_3351421640580419235_n.jpg?oh=29fc642ffc9ebde940206c1f70997703&oe=55927243
The bad religion here is obvious. Needless to say, John Calvin (1509-1564, noted Protestant Reformer) is not the same person as Tertullian (160-225, Church Father and founder of Western Theology).
On top of all of this, is there any evidence that Tertullian ever actually said that? I keep seeing it shared around anti-religious websites, but they always just attribute it to 'Tertullian'. No work names or titles are given. It makes me slightly suspicious, and so far I've been unable to find anything.
Image: ["Out of the lime kiln into the charcol furnace" β Ancient Roman Proverb]
http://thisnortheasternlife.blogspot.com/2016/04/quote-of-day-for-2016-04-14.html
Tertullian stated that Septimius Severus employed a christian as his personal physician and interevened to stop several christians from being executed yet later christian tradition says otherwise with septimius severus apparently being a persecutor and as well as possibly issuing an edict punishing conversion to Judaism and christianity . Now did Tertullian simply make it up or were there other roman records of septimius's sympathy towards christianity ? Did he actually issue the edict ?
