Tertullian's
Apology is a strong defense of the Christian faith, but it sometimes seems more than a bit provocative. Read Chapters 1 and 50 at the link
here (and any chapters in between that appeal to you). What's your overall impression? Is this work more likely to make the Roman authorities think twice about torturing and executing Christians, or is it more likely to irritate them? Or does it do something of both? How would you have reacted to this work if you had been a Roman official directly or indirectly involved in the trials of Christians?
I thought those chapters were very well put. The author made it feel like come on guys you should understand it. It is common sense. I think it will make them think twice because in the first chapter he compared criminals to Christians and show Christians have done nothing wrong. If I was a Roman official I would investigate this. I think at first you would get mad because they are kind of saying your a bad person for killing them. I would make sure the author knows what he is talking about then get some opinions from other officials.
ReplyDeleteI really think that these defenses of Christianity would both make the Roman authorities think twice, while also irritating them. Tertullian makes some fantastic arguments, like his case with criminals, who do not admit their doing because they are doing evil deeds. But Christians are open and willing to accept any suffering they will receive by announcing their faith, because what they believe in is entirely good, and they feel no shame in it, and see no reason to hide it. But, at times, Tertullian seems kind of "in your face" with his defenses. In chapter 1, he repeatedly calls the Romans ignorant, and plain wrong for hating Christians without knowing anything about Christianity. He constantly slams them, but mixes in some strong arguments. In chapter 50, he again attacks the Romans by saying the shouldn't complain about the persecutions, because the Christians are giving them what they want, suffering! He basically goes on to call them barbarian, in a sense, so wrapped up in war and glory and winning, that they overlook the true goodness that Christianity offers. If I were a Roman official related to this case, I would probably be a little upset initially. These defenses really slam Roman character, and they do it very openly. But, there are many good arguments, and it's hard to argue the cases Tertullian makes about the goodness of Christianity, and the injustice of the hatred and persecution of the Christians.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading some of the chapters from Tertullian's apology, it was easy to understand that this writer's tone was vastly different from Athenagoras and Justin Martyr. In the first couple of sentences from the first chapter, the reader can easily understand that the tone is condescending and a little sarcastic in its tone as well. I would assume that this type of apology would have had the irritating affect on the Roman authorities, but it might have been able to help as well. I think it must have directly depended on the person interpreting the apology.
ReplyDeleteI think that while Tertullian's Apology may have helped a little bit, but it seems more likely to cause irritation. The tone of this is more condescending to the people that it is talking to than that of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras. He also repeatedly calls the people he is talking to ignorant. Combining the condescension and the calling people ignorant seems like it would cause irritation because I think that that is probably the effect that it would have on me so it possibly may not have helped to make them think again about persecuting the Christians.
ReplyDeleteMallory Schlechter