The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by Giuseppe »


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.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by GakuseiDon »

No, actually Tertullian is confirming Euhemerus, or at least the modern idea that Euhemerus has come to respresent (since Euhemerus' work was a fanciful tale). Tertullian writes in that same link:

It is undoubted that not a few of your gods have reigned on earth as kings.

That's how Euhemerism is usually described.

That whole chapter from which you took your quote provides an insight into how Second Century Christianity viewed Roman beliefs about their gods, and I suggest shows the evolution of Christian beliefs. I'll quote the whole chapter here, highlighting bits of interest.

And since, as you dare not deny that these deities of yours once were men, you have taken it on you to assert that they were made gods after their decease, let us consider what necessity there was for this. In the first place, you must concede the existence of one higher God — a certain wholesale dealer in divinity, who has made gods of men. For they could neither have assumed a divinity which was not theirs, nor could any but one himself possessing it have conferred it on them. If there was no one to make gods, it is vain to dream of gods being made when thus you have no god-maker. Most certainly, if they could have deified themselves, with a higher state at their command, they never would have been men. If, then, there be one who is able to make gods, I turn back to an examination of any reason there may be for making gods at all; and I find no other reason than this, that the great God has need of their ministrations and aids in performing the offices of Deity. But first it is an unworthy idea that He should need the help of a man, and in fact a dead man, when, if He was to be in want of this assistance from the dead, He might more fittingly have created some one a god at the beginning. Nor do I see any place for his action. For this entire world-mass — whether self-existent and uncreated, as Pythagoras maintains, or brought into being by a creator's hands, as Plato holds — was manifestly, once for all in its original construction, disposed, and furnished, and ordered, and supplied with a government of perfect wisdom. That cannot be imperfect which has made all perfect. There was nothing waiting on for Saturn and his race to do. Men will make fools of themselves if they refuse to believe that from the very first rain poured down from the sky, and stars gleamed, and light shone, and thunders roared, and Jove himself dreaded the lightnings you put in his hands; that in like manner before Bacchus, and Ceres, and Minerva, nay before the first man, whoever that was, every kind of fruit burst forth plentifully from the bosom of the earth, for nothing provided for the support and sustenance of man could be introduced after his entrance on the stage of being. Accordingly, these necessaries of life are said to have been discovered, not created. But the thing you discover existed before; and that which had a pre-existence must be regarded as belonging not to him who discovered it, but to him who made it, for of course it had a being before it could be found. 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. Wherefore, if the universe existed from the beginning, thoroughly furnished with its system working under certain laws for the performance of its functions, there is, in this respect, an entire absence of all reason for electing humanity to divinity; for the positions and powers which you have assigned to your deities have been from the beginning precisely what they would have been, although you had never deified them. But you turn to another reason, telling us that the conferring of deity was a way of rewarding worth. And hence you grant, I conclude, that the god-making God is of transcendent righteousness — one who will neither rashly, improperly, nor needlessly bestow a reward so great. I would have you then consider whether the merits of your deities are of a kind to have raised them to the heavens, and not rather to have sunk them down into lowest depths of Tartarus — the place which you regard, with many, as the prison-house of infernal punishments. For into this dread place are wont to be cast all who offend against filial piety, and such as are guilty of incest with sisters, and seducers of wives, and ravishers of virgins, and boy-polluters, and men of furious tempers, and murderers, and thieves, and deceivers; all, in short, who tread in the footsteps of your gods, not one of whom you can prove free from crime or vice, save by denying that they had ever a human existence. But as you cannot deny that, you have those foul blots also as an added reason for not believing that they were made gods afterwards. For if you rule for the very purpose of punishing such deeds; if every virtuous man among you rejects all correspondence, converse, and intimacy with the wicked and base, while, on the other hand, the high God has taken up their mates to a share of His majesty, on what ground is it that you thus condemn those whose fellow-actors you adore? Your goodness is an affront in the heavens. Deify your vilest criminals, if you would please your gods. You honour them by giving divine honours to their fellows. But to say no more about a way of acting so unworthy, there have been men virtuous, and pure, and good. Yet how many of these nobler men you have left in the regions of doom! As Socrates, so renowned for his wisdom, Aristides for his justice, Themistocles for his warlike genius, Alexander for his sublimity of soul, Polycrates for his good fortune, Crœsus for his wealth, Demosthenes for his eloquence. Which of these gods of yours is more remarkable for gravity and wisdom than Cato, more just and warlike than Scipio? Which of them more magnanimous than Pompey, more prosperous than Sylla, of greater wealth than Crassus, more eloquent than Tullius? How much better it would have been for the God Supreme to have waited that He might have taken such men as these to be His heavenly associates, prescient as He must have surely been of their worthier character! He was in a hurry, I suppose, and straightway shut heaven's gates; and now He must surely feel ashamed at these worthies murmuring over their lot in the regions below.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by Giuseppe »

I have said that, in the quoted passage about Lucullus, Tertullian is deriding the Pagan Euhemerism, which is not equivalent to say that Tertullian was not a Bacchus-historicist or a Zeus-historicist.

Please like the difference.

So the irony is that Tertullian would have never accepted that his Jesus was a historical figure as (he thought to be) Bacchus or Zeus or Heracles. For Tertullian, Jesus was a divine figure even if 'also' a man,"if indeed one ought to call him a man" (Eusebius).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:00 pm how Second Century Christianity viewed Roman beliefs about their gods, and I suggest shows the evolution of Christian beliefs.
I am usual to consider any kind of comparison between Hellenistic gods and Jesus as going against the historicity of Jesus, given the absolute not-historicity of the former.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:02 pmSo the irony is that Tertullian would have never accepted that his Jesus was a historical figure as (he thought to be) Bacchus or Zeus or Heracles. For Tertullian, Jesus was a divine figure even if 'also' a man,"if indeed one ought to call him a man" (Eusebius).
That's right. As Tertullian wrote: "Most certainly, if they could have deified themselves, with a higher state at their command, they never would have been men."

Compare that with Justin Martyr, writing about 50 years earlier in his Dialogue with Trypho:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."...

[Justin replies:]... But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and[nothing more] is proved[than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so...
...
And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men

Christianity was trying to become 'philosophically respectable' in the Second Century, IMHO driving the evolution of notions of the nature of Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The great irony: Tertullian derided Euhemerus

Post by Giuseppe »

Yet in Justin "Trypho" (or whoever he was designed to allegorize) doubted the historicity of Jesus called Christ:

“But Christ – if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.”

Dialogue with Trypho 8.

Which means that for Trypho the dilemma between pre-existence and humanity, as shown here:

For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."...


...is not resolved by all by accepting only the humanity of Jesus and rejecting his presumed divinity (as a true euhemerist would have done).
Post Reply