Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (10)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Tertullian

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
16 pages, 418 KiB  
Article
Theōria as Cure for Impiety and Atheism in Plato’s Laws and Clement of Alexandria
by Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides
Religions 2024, 15(6), 727; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15060727 - 14 Jun 2024
Viewed by 1371
Abstract
The article examines the impact of Plato’s views on atheism and impiety, relayed in the Laws, on Clement of Alexandria. Clement employed the adjectives godless (atheos) and impious (asebēs) often in his writings as accusations against pagan philosophers [...] Read more.
The article examines the impact of Plato’s views on atheism and impiety, relayed in the Laws, on Clement of Alexandria. Clement employed the adjectives godless (atheos) and impious (asebēs) often in his writings as accusations against pagan philosophers and/or heretics, but also in his defence of Christians against the very charge of atheism on account of their rejection of pagan gods (Stromata 7.1; cf. Tertullian’s Apologia 10). I argue that Clement, perceptive of Plato’s defence of philosophical contemplation (theōria) and its civic benefits in the Laws, reworked the latter’s association of disbelief with excessive confidence in fleshly pleasures (Leges 888A) in tandem with his stipulation of virtue as the civic goal of his ideal colonists of Magnesia who ought to attune to the divine principles of the cosmos. Thus, Clement promoted the concept of citizenship in the Heavenly kingdom, secured through contemplation and its ensuing impassibility. For Plato and Clement, atheism was the opposite of genuine engagement with divine truth and had no place in the ideal state. Although Clement associated the Church with peace, his views were adapted by Firmicus Maternus to sanction violent rhetoric against the pagans in the fourth century when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Patristics: Essays from Australia)
20 pages, 264 KiB  
Essay
The Origins of the Christian Idea of Trinity: Answering Jewish Charges of Heresy; Exhorting Pagans against Polytheism; Countering False Gnostics
by Keith Thompson
Religions 2024, 15(4), 402; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040402 - 26 Mar 2024
Viewed by 3773
Abstract
In this essay I explain that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was first developed as a response to Jewish claims of Christian apostasy and polytheism. At the beginning of Christianity, most of its converts were observant Jews. The Jewish authorities took steps [...] Read more.
In this essay I explain that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was first developed as a response to Jewish claims of Christian apostasy and polytheism. At the beginning of Christianity, most of its converts were observant Jews. The Jewish authorities took steps to reclaim their lost sheep and to stem the flow of departures. Their primary intellectual ammunition in that effort was the claim that the Christians were polytheists, because they claimed to believe in two Gods–the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. The Christians’ apostasy was manifest by simple referring to the Mosaic commandment that righteous Israel should have only one God. This Jewish accusation of polytheism also neatly answered the inflammatory Christian charge that the Jews had crucified God and raised significant doubt about their claims of a special resurrection. The doctrine of the Trinity answered all those criticisms. God and Jesus Christ together were the one true God. But the nature of that oneness took some time to work out, and it is within a process of contending with pagan philosophical arguments and intra-Christian heretical positions, that a Christian doctrine of the Trinity begins to congeal. The work of Ante-Nicene Fathers—Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and others—whose voices we allow to be heard below—contain a trajectory of ideas that explain how the tri-unity is expressed in the momentous Creeds of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (381). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Patristics: Essays from Australia)
13 pages, 371 KiB  
Article
The Similarities and Differences in the Localization of Buddhism and Christianity—Taking the Discussional Strategies and Intellectual Backgrounds of Tertullian’s Apology and Mou Zi’s Answers to the Skeptics as Examples
by Lin Wang
Religions 2024, 15(1), 105; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010105 - 15 Jan 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2757
Abstract
After the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire and the introduction of Buddhism into China, Christianity and Buddhism were both faced with the adjustment of the existing society. In the Roman Empire, faced with some censure, apologists began to write articles to [...] Read more.
After the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire and the introduction of Buddhism into China, Christianity and Buddhism were both faced with the adjustment of the existing society. In the Roman Empire, faced with some censure, apologists began to write articles to clarify misunderstandings and express their beliefs. At the same time, there are similar argumentative documents on Buddhism in China. Their argumentation ideas also have many similarities, such as, firstly, distinguishing them from the original ideas, then using the existing ideas, and finally, actively integrating them into existing society. However, there are some bigger differences in the background of the debate between the Roman Empire and China—Christianity has strong political independence. The most fundamental difference is the atmosphere of the existing ruling ideology—China has been Confucianized, and the political independence of Confucianism is relatively weak. It is this fundamental difference that finally led to the final difference in the development paths of Christianity in the Roman Empire and Buddhism in China, which then affected their historical paths. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Medieval Theology and Philosophy from a Cross-Cultural Perspective)
12 pages, 401 KiB  
Article
1 Timothy 1:3–4 in the Memory of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Chrysostom
by Michael Scott Robertson
Religions 2023, 14(9), 1123; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14091123 - 31 Aug 2023
Viewed by 1626
Abstract
In this article, I discuss reception history, its place within the history of historical critical methods, and social memory theory. I apply a reception historical lens buttressed by social memory theory to 1 Timothy 1:3–4. I show that the historical circumstances of this [...] Read more.
In this article, I discuss reception history, its place within the history of historical critical methods, and social memory theory. I apply a reception historical lens buttressed by social memory theory to 1 Timothy 1:3–4. I show that the historical circumstances of this passage’s reception problematize using early understandings of it to reconstruct the referent behind “myths and endless genealogies”. I first show how the phrase “myths and endless genealogies” is ambiguous in the historical setting of the author. Then, I demonstrate that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Chrysostom use this phrase against very different groups; however, all of these authors use 1 Timothy 1:4 for a (perceived) problem against their present group. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hermeneutics: Contextual Approaches to Biblical Interpretation)
13 pages, 490 KiB  
Article
The Multifaceted Reception of the Torah by Early Church Fathers
by Stefan M. Attard
Religions 2023, 14(7), 926; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070926 - 18 Jul 2023
Viewed by 3392
Abstract
This paper focuses on the reception of the Torah by the Church Fathers who lived up to the beginning of the third century. Christians, having received the whole Torah through the Septuagint translation, became selective in the way they accepted it, adhering to [...] Read more.
This paper focuses on the reception of the Torah by the Church Fathers who lived up to the beginning of the third century. Christians, having received the whole Torah through the Septuagint translation, became selective in the way they accepted it, adhering to it only with reservations. Christological and ethical concerns were at the heart of their acceptance or rejection of various aspects of the Torah. This article will gauge whether Christians had a positive, negative, or neutral evaluation of the Torah and will seek to identify the ways in which they perceived the Torah. By analysing the ways in which the Torah and at times other Old Testament texts were handled, their presentation of these Jewish Scriptures will be brought to light, highlighting different approaches employed in this regard. One notes the following stances: the Torah’s commandments supplemented the Lord’s teachings (the Didache); the Torah was read allegorically and typologically despite a Midrashic approach (Epistle of Barnabas); certain laws were believed to have been instituted as a result of the people’s hardness of heart (Justin Martyr); natural law is distinct from the demands added to it after the Jews’ wayward actions (Irenaeus); the temporal aspects of the law were superseded by its eternal aspects (Tertullian); whilst upholding the promises of the Law, the prophets were seen as going beyond the Law (Tertullian) or as giving the Law a spiritual interpretation (Epistle of Barnabas); and, rarely, the Law was held in very high regard (Clement of Alexandria). This paper is not concerned with any blatant rejection of the Torah and, indeed, the Tanakh at large (as was the case with Marcion), but rather with the subtler nuances that can be detected in other writers who had to rethink the validity and role/place of the Torah in the faith. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ethics and Religion: Education towards Religious and Human Values)
17 pages, 1054 KiB  
Article
Greek Literature and Christian Doctrine in Early Christianity: A Difficult Co-Existence
by Roberta Franchi
Literature 2023, 3(3), 296-312; https://doi.org/10.3390/literature3030020 - 5 Jul 2023
Viewed by 5800
Abstract
This paper traces the complex relationship between classical literature and Christian doctrine in the first four centuries. In the earliest period of Christianity, we can identify two attitudes of Christians towards Greek literature: the hostile attitude shown by Tatian, Theophilus, and Tertullian, and [...] Read more.
This paper traces the complex relationship between classical literature and Christian doctrine in the first four centuries. In the earliest period of Christianity, we can identify two attitudes of Christians towards Greek literature: the hostile attitude shown by Tatian, Theophilus, and Tertullian, and the openness to Greek culture and philosophy demonstrated by Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, and Minucius Felix. A notable change happened in the Alexandrian milieu when Clement of Alexandria and Origen started considering Greek classics the embodiment of an authentic Christian spirit. In keeping with Origen, Basil of Caesarea realized a good synthesis between Greek thought and Christian faith. Noting germs of divine revelation in ancient Greek thought, Christian authors took the tools of Greco-Roman criticism and ancient philosophy to develop their doctrine. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Greek Literature and Society in Late Antiquity)
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 705 KiB  
Article
Traditional Conflict Management: How Early Interpreters Address Paul’s Reference to Those Baptized for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)
by J. David Stark
Religions 2023, 14(6), 772; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14060772 - 12 Jun 2023
Viewed by 1710
Abstract
Modern scholars often understand 1 Cor 15:29 as a clear reference to the baptism of living individuals as proxies for the departed. Yet before or at the time of 1 Corinthians, there appears to be no evidence for this practice or a similar [...] Read more.
Modern scholars often understand 1 Cor 15:29 as a clear reference to the baptism of living individuals as proxies for the departed. Yet before or at the time of 1 Corinthians, there appears to be no evidence for this practice or a similar one. A reasonable explanation for its emergence, therefore, is that the tradition derives from 1 Cor 15:29, rather than giving rise to it. Consequently, 1 Cor 15:29 supplies a unique opportunity to see how Paul’s earliest interpreters navigated the conflict between the emergent proxy baptism tradition and others they had inherited. Responses varied from acceptance (Marcion) to tolerance (Ambrosiaster) to rejection (Tertullian, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Eznik) of proxy baptism as being what 1 Cor 15:29 describes. Adopters of proxy baptism found support in Paul for breaking with prior tradition and interpreted 1 Cor 15:29 as a basis for creating a new tradition that fit a distinctive need in their community. By contrast, those who tolerate or reject the proxy baptism interpretation do so by considering both 1 Cor 15:29 and Paul himself as more thoroughly situated within existing prior traditions that rule out proxy baptism. These different responses illustrate the complex interplay between Paul and the conflicting traditions through which his letters have been and continue to be received. These responses also surface key features of the interplay between conflict and tradition, whether that conflict occurs within explicitly religious spheres or not. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biblical Texts and Traditions: Paul’s Letters)
18 pages, 1229 KiB  
Article
Recasting Paul as a Chauvinist within the Western Text-Type Manuscript Tradition: Implications for the Authorship Debate on 1 Corinthians 14.34-35
by Joseph A. P. Wilson
Religions 2022, 13(5), 432; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13050432 - 11 May 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 8328
Abstract
The mandate for women’s silence in 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 is an incongruity within Paul’s undisputed writings. Critical scholars expressed doubts about these verses’ authorship beginning in the nineteenth century. The consensus of egalitarian Paulists today is that vv.34-35 are not Paul’s sentiments. Disagreements [...] Read more.
The mandate for women’s silence in 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 is an incongruity within Paul’s undisputed writings. Critical scholars expressed doubts about these verses’ authorship beginning in the nineteenth century. The consensus of egalitarian Paulists today is that vv.34-35 are not Paul’s sentiments. Disagreements about circumstances beyond this fact remain unresolved. Supporters of the quotation/refutation (“Q/R”) hypothesis argue that Paul quoted a letter from Corinth in vv.34-35 and refuted it in v.36. Supporters of the interpolation hypothesis regard the passage as a marginal gloss by a later author, inserted at one of two locations (after v.33 or v.40). The present work favors the Q/R position. Tertullian of Carthage (c.155-220 CE) was the first known exegetist of vv.34-35. Tertullian and his successors employed the Western text-type manuscript tradition. The second century CE displacement of vv.34-35 (following v.40) in this text stream is not evidence of haphazard interpolation. It coheres with a pattern of anti-feminist redactions in the Western texts of the epistles and Acts. The editors of the Western text-type sought to harmonize the genuine epistles with pseudo-Pauline material. This harmonization effort shaped later orthodox exegesis, which established canonical norms by domesticating Paul and recast him in the image of a Greco-Roman gender traditionalist. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 396 KiB  
Article
Corporealism as an Ontological Position and Its Involvement in the Thought of Tertullian
by Marián Ambrozy
Religions 2021, 12(7), 534; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070534 - 15 Jul 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4599
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the meaning, role, inspirations, and place of corporealism in Tertullian’s system of thought. The extent to which corporealism is a basic philosophical belief in Tertullian’s work and to what extent it is a particular element of his theological [...] Read more.
This paper aims to examine the meaning, role, inspirations, and place of corporealism in Tertullian’s system of thought. The extent to which corporealism is a basic philosophical belief in Tertullian’s work and to what extent it is a particular element of his theological doctrine is questioned. It presents the named ontological position as a rare specificity within the range of early Christian thought, especially in Tertullian’s works De anima and De carne Cristi. This paper makes a clear distinction between corporealism and materialism, as it tries to determine the degree of influence of Stoic philosophy, especially ontology, on Tertullian, as well as the influence of Aristotle in selected areas. In this context, his traducianism is also examined. In the ontological context, the status of the soul and God in Tertullian thought is also presented. In connection with the metaphysical problem of creation, the article also touches on the question of creatio ex nihilo as a problem on which Tertullian had to take a stand. It investigates the role of corporealism in Tertullian’s polemic against Marcion, Apelles, and the Valentinian Gnosis by mapping which elements in the teachings of these representatives and Gnosis, especially (but not exclusively) Valentinian, could provoke Tertullian to controversy. This paper holds the opinion that Tertullian’s corporealism was due to his theological views and controversy with opponents, which were used as philosophical inspiration, especially stoic inspiration, but was used mainly in the service of his theological thinking and strategic needs for argumentation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exploring the Influence of Religions on Culture and Science)
13 pages, 223 KiB  
Article
Religious Diversity in Modern Orthodox Thought
by Paul Ladouceur
Religions 2017, 8(5), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8050077 - 27 Apr 2017
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 8123
Abstract
This essay explores different approaches to non-Christian religions in Orthodox thought, from the early Fathers to the present day. Among modern Orthodox theologians, Georges Khodr and Anastasios Yannoulatos inherit an inclusivist or tolerant attitude to religious diversity from Justin Martyr and other early [...] Read more.
This essay explores different approaches to non-Christian religions in Orthodox thought, from the early Fathers to the present day. Among modern Orthodox theologians, Georges Khodr and Anastasios Yannoulatos inherit an inclusivist or tolerant attitude to religious diversity from Justin Martyr and other early Fathers, while Seraphim Rose represents an exclusivist or intolerant position, characteristic of Tertullian. Philip Sherrard’s thinking on non-Christian religions can be described as religious pluralism, while that of Lev Gillet is close to comparative theology. Despite the absence of formal Orthodox declarations concerning religious diversity, Orthodox thought on the subject since World War II converges around the notions of inclusivism and comparative theology, considering that non-Christian religions are mysteriously “included” in the missions of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the world and that their adherents can achieve salvation as understood in Christianity. Full article
Back to TopTop