Tertullian, Rule of Faith and Truth

[Zhukov]

Hello everyone,

At the moment I'm working on a thesis about Tertullian and his relation with philosophy. I must say, I'm really impressed with him and the way he adresses the subject. But I'm confused. I've been mainly reading translations of his apology, prescription of heretics and his treatise on the soul. I've also been reading Eric Osborn's work on him.

If I understand him correctly he says something along the line of, the christian appeal to the truth is the right appeal, and thus we need faith to grasp the truth, or only when we search within the Rule of Faith can we really know what truth is.
Philosophers also build on what the scriptures (who have authority because of their proved antiquity) have told them. Only they corrupted it, they do not have faith, they kept searching beyond the rule of faith, driven by their passion for glory, etc. But, where does Tertullians trust i faith come from? I know that he praises the faith that comes before reason.

But it doesn't seem convincing for an outsider, that probably doesn't bother him (because it doesn't seem like convincing 'pagans' is his main concern). But it bothers me, he says "We are in communion with the apostolic churches. That is not true of any other doctrine. This is evidence of truth". Another proof he gives is this "is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith". But again, it doesn't seem convincing.
The only thing I can say here, and this is also in regards to his supposed 'credo quia absurdum', is that he proposes a sort of 'leap of faith' in terms of Kierkegaard (who I believe saw Tertullian as a great example of a true christian). I want to argue in favor to Tertullian, or at least try my best to give an honest account of his thought. So who can help me out? What proof does Tertullian have in regards to christianity as the better philosophy? What am I missing? I'm currently stuck, but maybe I'm just not getting him right?

king regards,

Zhukov

[Secret Alias]

Any question about Tertullian's use of something that begins with "rule" starts with Irenaeus. There is clear borrowing - even outright plagiarism between Tertullian and Irenaeus.

So as someone who has written academic papers, I get what you 'want.' You want to make it seem as if Tertullian - a Patristic author - has 'thoughts' and a 'point of view' which is uniquely his own. Just as if he was an ancient or modern 'thinker.' But unfortunately this isn't what is going on in early Christianity. If you are interested in Christian antiquity I will attempt to convey to you what conclusions I have come to studying this ridiculous texts for over a generation.

1. the texts aren't 'by' a particular author in the manner that a modern author 'publishes' a thesis. For instance many of us at the forum have come to the conclusion that Tertullian's classic work Against Marcion isn't really 'by' Tertullian. It goes back to an original text that might have been published by Justin or someone in his circle in the second century. At most Tertullian appropriated a pre-existing 'POV' - a literary manuscript - which he loosely translated into Latin along with his own personal flourishes. The closest analogy I can offer is Luke being a reworking of Mark with 'Luke's' own literary additions.
2. the texts aren't by even one or two authors. For example, in our last citation Against Marcion might go back to Justin but Tertullian didn't even inherit this MS directly from Justin - it is very likely that Irenaeus was the intermediary between Justin and Tertullian. That's why Tertullian's Against Marcion has Luke as its focus now rather than a gospel harmony an argument which still stands at the core of the text. So Justin wrote a commentary based on a 'gospel harmony' Irenaeus came along and re-oriented the argument to line it up with his newly introduced 'Gospel according to Luke' and then Tertullian inherited this odd text by Justin with many, many changes made by Irenaeus. It is at this level (the re-orientation of the original text to align with Luke by Irenaeus) that accounts for Tertullian sharing Irenaeus's interest in 'the rule' of this or that.

[John T]

What am I missing? I'm currently stuck, but maybe I'm just not getting him [Tertullian] right?

For Tertullian, seeking the truth behind the Christian faith is the first step in obtaining real wisdom. That is, the Christian "Logos" and not the logos of Greek philosophy i.e. Socrates is the source of wisdom.

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Socrates, he [Tertullian] asserted, was not a forerunner of Christianity: For by whom has truth ever been discovered without God? By whom has God ever been found without Christ? By whom has Christ ever been explored without the Holy Spirit? By whom has the Holy Spirit ever been attained without the mysterious gift of faith? Socrates, as none can doubt, was actuated by a different spirit." . ..Diane Severance, on Tertullian

http://www.christianity.com/church/chur ... 29598.html

In other words, the Greek logos/spirit and the Christian "Logos/Holy Spirit" are two different things.

Sincerely,

John T

[Secret Alias]

Yes but I think Z's point is that making a 'belief' in an outcome the starting point in your investigation ... is fucking stupid or at least counter-intuitive. It's like investigating why objects fall to the earth with the 'faith' that 'that's where they belong' as your starting point and then like Aristotle you arrive at 'that's where they belong.' The emphasis on faith in Paul is different. Various Patriarchs like Abraham are admired for staying steadfast to god while - for instance - their wives are being raped by other people. Abraham never swayed from his belief in God while he was told to sacrifice his son. These are all great examples of something ... but they really don't extend to what Tertullian and Irenaeus want them to extend to i.e. belief in a dogma about God.

The point here is that when Abraham 'believes' in God he sees God. God and his posse come for dinner. He insults Abraham's wife (or at least behaves badly as a dinner guest). It's not like what Tertullian is suggesting to his readers i.e. that the God who is never seen BY THEM wanted them not only to believe in him but in a 'rule' or 'rules.' This is outlandish and not easily explained in anyway that makes Tertullian and Irenaeus look like they are being consistent with Jewish belief.

[Secret Alias]

The Christians turn around the lessons from the Pentateuch into 'belief in abstract truths' or doctrines which is ridiculous. Basically the story of the 'faith' of the Patriarchs is - Lionel Messi comes to visit you at your house and tells you that you will be a professional soccer player if you believe in him and miraculously you become a professional soccer player. The only difference is the part about Abraham promise (i.e. that his descendants instead of being professional soccer players become stars in heaven after their dad sees a luminous heavenly man and his friends at his dinner table).

[andrewcriddle]

Hello everyone,

At the moment I'm working on a thesis about Tertullian and his relation with philosophy. I must say, I'm really impressed with him and the way he adresses the subject. But I'm confused. I've been mainly reading translations of his apology, prescription of heretics and his treatise on the soul. I've also been reading Eric Osborn's work on him.

If I understand him correctly he says something along the line of, the christian appeal to the truth is the right appeal, and thus we need faith to grasp the truth, or only when we search within the Rule of Faith can we really know what truth is.
Philosophers also build on what the scriptures (who have authority because of their proved antiquity) have told them. Only they corrupted it, they do not have faith, they kept searching beyond the rule of faith, driven by their passion for glory, etc. But, where does Tertullians trust i faith come from? I know that he praises the faith that comes before reason.

But it doesn't seem convincing for an outsider, that probably doesn't bother him (because it doesn't seem like convincing 'pagans' is his main concern). But it bothers me, he says "We are in communion with the apostolic churches. That is not true of any other doctrine. This is evidence of truth". Another proof he gives is this "is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith". But again, it doesn't seem convincing.
The only thing I can say here, and this is also in regards to his supposed 'credo quia absurdum', is that he proposes a sort of 'leap of faith' in terms of Kierkegaard (who I believe saw Tertullian as a great example of a true christian). I want to argue in favor to Tertullian, or at least try my best to give an honest account of his thought. So who can help me out? What proof does Tertullian have in regards to christianity as the better philosophy? What am I missing? I'm currently stuck, but maybe I'm just not getting him right?

king regards,

Zhukov

I don't think that Tertullian is trying to argue from first principles. He is arguing from principles shared with his opponents. He assumes his readers agree that there is some ultimate truth and that it is possible to have a secure knowledge of this truth. He argues that orthodox Christianity has better credentials as firm knowledge of ultimate truth than does any alternative.

I'm not sure that Tertullian explicitly faces the challenge "maybe there is no ultimate truth or at least no such truth knowable by humans", but other early Christians would reply that unless you accept the axioms you won't make any progress in any field of knowledge. Without accepting at least some premises it is impossible to reach any conclusion.

Andrew Criddle

[Zhukov]

Yes but I think Z's point is that making a 'belief' in an outcome the starting point in your investigation ... is fucking stupid or at least counter-intuitive. It's like investigating why objects fall to the earth with the 'faith' that 'that's where they belong' as your starting point and then like Aristotle you arrive at 'that's where they belong.' The emphasis on faith in Paul is different. Various Patriarchs like Abraham are admired for staying steadfast to god while - for instance - their wives are being raped by other people. Abraham never swayed from his belief in God while he was told to sacrifice his son. These are all great examples of something ... but they really don't extend to what Tertullian and Irenaeus want them to extend to i.e. belief in a dogma about God.

The point here is that when Abraham 'believes' in God he sees God. God and his posse come for dinner. He insults Abraham's wife (or at least behaves badly as a dinner guest). It's not like what Tertullian is suggesting to his readers i.e. that the God who is never seen BY THEM wanted them not only to believe in him but in a 'rule' or 'rules.' This is outlandish and not easily explained in anyway that makes Tertullian and Irenaeus look like they are being consistent with Jewish belief.

I'll quote this to reply to all your answers, they have all been very helpful already!

This is indeed my main concern, Tertullian has an enormous confidence in his faith as the truth, and I'm looking for the evidence he gives us so that we could possibly share his trust in God or in what he calls the rule of faith. But he seems to argue that faith alone should be enough.
So there is a Greek logos and a Christian logos, but they started from the same impulse, which is a longing for truth, right? And so the Christian logos is the better way to finding truth, while the Greek logos keeps searching without finding anything.

He argues that orthodox Christianity has better credentials as firm knowledge of ultimate truth than does any alternative.

But all of his reasoning stays within his own circle (he also explains why he does so), my paper is being writin from the POV of someone who studies philosophy. What I'm looking for in Tertullian's work now, is an argument he gives that is more in line with a Greek logos kind of reasoning (I kind of hope to find that in his credo quia absurdum). I don't think I will find that, but maybe that should be my point?

[iskander]

Are you looking for a pretext to write an essay about faith in the divine?


The Rule of Faith

" The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm


To be or not to be
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.

[John T]

But all of his reasoning stays within his own circle (he also explains why he does so), my paper is being writin from the POV of someone who studies philosophy. What I'm looking for in Tertullian's work now, is an argument he gives that is more in line with a Greek logos kind of reasoning (I kind of hope to find that in his credo quia absurdum). I don't think I will find that, but maybe that should be my point?

Actually, I enjoy the wit of Tertullian using the Socratic Method of questioning/answering, comparing/contrasting all forms of Greek philosophy against themselves.

e.g., Tertullian uses Greek philosophy to mock the lack of understanding of the origin of the soul. i.e., Traducian theology.


"But Scripture-which has a better knowledge of the soul's Maker, or rather God---has told us nothing more than that God breathed on man's face the breath of life, and that man became a living soul"....Tertullian

Tertullian credits Socrates for reasoning that man has an immortal soul but points out Socrates' ignorance on the difference between soul and spirits.

Tertullian explains the nature of the soul as understood by different Greek philosophers and compares and contrasts it with the understanding given in the Bible.

"Some of [the philosophers] deny the immortality of the soul. Others affirm that it is immortal, and something more...It will be for Christians to clear away whatever noxious vapors (exhaled from philosophy) obscure the clear and wholesome atmosphere of truth."... Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.184

I admire Tertullian's exercise in metaphysics using Christian scriptures.

Sincerely,

John T

Edit* In conclusion, I think it is a mistake to read Tertullian's philosophy as "Fideism" i.e., Christian existentialism as argued by the followers of Kierkegaard. Tertullian is deliberately being absurd (irony) to point out the absurdity of Greek philosophy regarding the logos and concludes the Christian Logos theology makes more rational sense than the metaphysics of the Greek logos or the Gnostic Marcion.

But what do I know?

[Zhukov]

Are you looking for a pretext to write an essay about faith in the divine?


The Rule of Faith

" The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm


To be or not to be
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.

"these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. " This last sentence, I think, is what's been bothering me. But I think I'm overcomplicating things. Perhaps the moment you find that standard - external to faith - in the world, is the moment you lost your faith? So, that's why Tertullian thinks philosophy is the father of all the heresies, they can't trust or take faith as it is revealed.