RE: After I know this how could I leave the church?
August 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2014 at 12:32 pm by Michael.)
Well, what we have copied was Tertullian's record; that's what the early scribes (copyists) would have had access to.
The reality is that much of history, especially more ancient history, is recorded through secondary sources. The question then is obviously how trustworthy are they? But historians are well used to dealing with this. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th century "The History of the Kings of Britain" is universally dismissed as entirely unworthy of serious study of history; Geoffrey has no credibility in his recording. But Tertullian has face credibility, because of his extensive writings and known activity. So a historian is not going to dismiss Tertullian lightly. That is not to say that a historian will therefore trust everything written by, or is said to be written by, Tertullian. Rather Tertullian's writings (or pseudo-writings) should be put outside of the polemics of either trying to just dismiss them out of hand, or saying that they completely substantiate the historicity of the person Jesus. When historiography gets wrapped up with polemics I think you may as well say goodbye to any credible conclusion (in either direction); scholarship has been trampled by polemic agenda, and Tertullian is worth more care than that for those with genuine thinking and enquiring minds.
The reality is that much of history, especially more ancient history, is recorded through secondary sources. The question then is obviously how trustworthy are they? But historians are well used to dealing with this. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th century "The History of the Kings of Britain" is universally dismissed as entirely unworthy of serious study of history; Geoffrey has no credibility in his recording. But Tertullian has face credibility, because of his extensive writings and known activity. So a historian is not going to dismiss Tertullian lightly. That is not to say that a historian will therefore trust everything written by, or is said to be written by, Tertullian. Rather Tertullian's writings (or pseudo-writings) should be put outside of the polemics of either trying to just dismiss them out of hand, or saying that they completely substantiate the historicity of the person Jesus. When historiography gets wrapped up with polemics I think you may as well say goodbye to any credible conclusion (in either direction); scholarship has been trampled by polemic agenda, and Tertullian is worth more care than that for those with genuine thinking and enquiring minds.
