{"id":23339,"date":"2026-09-15T16:02:35","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T20:02:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/?p=23339"},"modified":"2026-09-23T10:50:30","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T14:50:30","slug":"romans-carthaginians-celts-and-scythians-tertullian-combats-charges-of-human-sacrifice-and-incest-against-jesus-adherents-early-third-century-ce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/2026\/09\/romans-carthaginians-celts-and-scythians-tertullian-combats-charges-of-human-sacrifice-and-incest-against-jesus-adherents-early-third-century-ce\/","title":{"rendered":"Romans, Carthaginians, Celts, Scythians and others: Tertullian combats charges of human sacrifice and incest against Jesus adherents (early third century CE)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ancient author: <\/em><\/strong>Tertullian, Apology<\/em> 7-9 (link<\/a>); Tertullian, To the Peoples<\/em> \/ Ad Nationes <\/em>1.7-8, 11, 15-16 (link<\/a>; link<\/a> to Latin).<\/p>\n

Comments:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>As this series on the redirection of ethnographic characterizations of foreign peoples at internal groups within society shows, Tertullian is in a significant line of Jesus followers who responded quite directly to circulating rumours that involved Greeks or Romans criminalizing with one brush all Jesus adherents. What may set Tertullian apart from predecessors like Justin, Athenagoras, and Theophilos is his over-the-top, sarcastic style.<\/p>\n

In order to debunk the criminal charges of human sacrifice and eating human flesh, for instance, Tertullian’s ostensible judicial defence sardonically describes in gruesome detail an supposed initiatory rite of an association devoted to Jesus. These rites, he says, involve a bloody oath (compare the stories about Catiline and about the Bacchic devotees in this series) taken in connection the sacrifice of a baby, whose flesh and blood is eagerly consumed by the participants.<\/p>\n

These extreme images then set the stage for an easier debunking in which Tertullian, also like his predecessors, turns the accusations back on the accusers \u2013 principally Romans in this case \u2013 and on other ostensibly barbaric peoples.\u00a0 The other peoples are, once again, those who frequently faced similar categorization as criminal populations, including Carthaginians, Celts, Taurians, Massagetians, Scythians, and Persians. But here Tertullian compares Romans to these most savage of all populations. So ultimately the charges are turned back on the Romans themselves as savages.<\/p>\n

Tertullian’s\u00a0Apology<\/em> seems to be a later version of his earlier work To the Peoples (Ad Nationes). <\/em>In both (excerpted below), Tertullian sarcastically wonders whether the barbarous characterization of Christians suggests they are some kind of new, unbelievable people, like the dog-faced people or umbrella-feet people. On these images, see the ethnographic accounts of Skylax (link<\/a>), Ktesias (link<\/a>), and Pliny the Elder (link<\/a>), for instance.<\/p>\n

It is only in To the Peoples<\/em>, however, that Tertullian expressly deploys the idea of Christians as a new “third people (genus<\/em>),” which may also reflect a characterization by outsiders. It is here that Tertullian recounts the story (modified from Herodotos’ account in Histories <\/em> 2.2 \u2013 link<\/a>) about the Egyptian pharaoh’s experiment which resulted in the discovery that Phrygians were, in fact, the very first people, and not the Egyptians. But overall, the “three peoples” seem to have been: Romans, Judeans, and Christians. Tertullian mocks this notion of a triad in various ways.<\/p>\n

\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017<\/p>\n

Apology<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[Crime of baby-murder and consumption of human flesh]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(7) We are declared to be the most criminal persons (sceleratissimi<\/em>) with regard to our baby-murder under oath and the eating that goes with it, as well as the incest that follows the banquet, where the dogs are truly our pimps in the dark and make a sort of decency for guilty lusts by overturning the lamps. Anyways, that is what you always declare about us. And yet you make no effort to bring into daylight what you have been saying about us all this long time. Then, I say, either bring it out, if you believe all this, or refuse to believe it after leaving it uninvestigated. Your habit of looking the other way constitutes a demurrer in the case, a presumption that the thing is not there at all, which not even you yourselves dare to try to bring out. It is quite a different task that you enjoin on the executioner against the Christians, namely not to make them say what they do, but deny what they are.<\/p>\n

This way of life dates from the reign of Tiberius, as we have already said. Truth and hatred of truth start together. As soon as a way of life has appeared, it begins to be disliked. Count the outsiders, and you count its enemies. The Judeans are its proper enemies from rivalry, the soldiers are its enemies for the purpose of extorting money, while it is nature itself that makes the household our enemies. Everyday we stand siege, every day we are betrayed, and most of all we are surprized in our gatherings and our assemblies.<\/p>\n

Yet, I ask, who came across a baby wailing, as they say? Who ever kept for the judge\u2019s sight the jaws of Cyclops and Siren, bloodstained as he had found them? Who, again, found in our wives the traces of impurity? Who discovered such crimes and concealed them or who was bribed to silence his discovery while his hands held the culprits? If we always escape detection, when was our wicked conduct betrayed?<\/p>\n

On the contrary, who could have betrayed them? I wouldn’t think it would be the guilty persons themselves, since in all the rites known as mysteries the very fact that they are mysteries requires the pledge of silence. The mysteries of Samothrake and Eleusis remain unspoken. How much more would such mysteries as these remain unspoken, mysteries whose betrayal will provoke immediate human vengeance and future vengeance from God? Well, if the guilty are not their own betrayers, it follows that outsiders must betray them. And where do the outsiders get their information, when even pious initiations always forbid the uninitiated and guard against observers? Or are you suggesting that the impious are less afraid?<\/p>\n

[Rumour and how it works]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Everybody knows the nature of Rumour. It is in your literature: “Rumour, a curse, and the quickest of all curses” [Virgil, Aeneid <\/em>4.174 ]. Why is Rumour a curse? Because she is quick? Because she is an informer? Or because she is generally a liar? Why, Rumour, even when she does bring a bit of truth, does not quite escape from her vice of lying: she subtracts from the Truth, adds to it, alters it. What? Surely the terms of her existence are that she only survives while she lies, and only lives so long as she fails to prove her tale. When she has proved it, she ceases to be Rumour. As if she had completed her task of telling, she gives us fact. After that, it is fact that is held, and fact it is called. Nor does anybody say, for example, \u201cthey say this occurred at Rome,\u201d or \u201crumour is that so and so is assigned the province.” Rather, they say: \u201cHe has been assigned the province\u201d and \u201cthis did occur in Rome.\u201d Rumour, a synonym for the uncertain, has no place where there is certainty. Would anybody believe Rumour, except the unthinking? The wise man does not believe uncertainty. It lies with everybody to reflect that, however widely Rumour has been spread around, with whatever assurance it has been contrived, it must necessarily have originated at some moment with some single person who started it. After that it creeps through ramifications of tongues and ears. Something wrong in the little seed from which it sprang completely obscures everything else in the rumour, so that no one reflects whether that first mouth sowed the lie, as often happens, from an envious nature, from harmful suspicion, or from the pure pleasure of lying which for some people is no new thing but inborn in them. It is a good thing that time reveals everything, as your own proverbs and maxims show, and reveals it by the law of nature, which has so ordained that nothing long lies hidden, even when Rumour has not thrown it around.<\/p>\n

Very properly, then, all this time Rumour alone is the authority for the crimes (scelera<\/em>) of the Christians. Rumour is the informer you bring forward against us. Yet what she once launched and for all this time has solidified into general belief, she has not been able to prove up until this hour. So I would appeal to the authority of Nature herself to give evidence against those who assume such charges to be credible.<\/p>\n

[Sarcastic sketch of what is imagined in the rumours of crimes]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(8) Look, then. We offer a reward for these deeds (facinora<\/em>)! These deeds promise eternal life! For the moment believe it. Then I ask a question on this point: namely, whether even you, who have believed it, count eternal life worth winning at such a price, with all this on your conscience? Come here and plunge the knife into the baby, nobody\u2019s enemy, guilty of nothing, everybody\u2019s child! Or, if that is the other person\u2019s job, do you just stand there (that is all) by this human creature dying before it has lived. Look for the young soul as it escapes. Catch the infant blood. Dip your bread in it. Eat and enjoy it.<\/p>\n

[Crime of sexual perversion \/ incest, with mention of ethnographic accounts of unbelievable peoples]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, as you recline on your couch, locate where your mother and your sister may be. Take careful notice so that, when the darkness falls due to the dogs\u2019 contriving, you can make no mistake of where to go. You will be guilty of a sin if you have not<\/em> committed incest. So initiated, so sealed, you live forever.<\/p>\n

I want you to answer: Is eternity worth this? Or if it is not worth this, then you must not believe the tales. Even if you have believed, I deny that you want it at this price. Even if you would want it, I deny that you could do the thing. Then how can others do it, if you cannot do it? Why can\u2019t you, if others can? Oh, we have another nature, I suppose! We are “Dog-face people” (Cynopaene),<\/em> perhaps, or “Umbrella-feet people” (Skiapodes<\/em>)\u00a0<\/em>[cf. Skylax \u2013 link<\/a>; Ktesias \u2013 link<\/a>]? Do we have a different arrangement of teeth, and other muscles for incestuous lust? You, who believe this about any person, you can do it just as easily as you believe it. You are human yourself, and that is just what a Christian is. You, who cannot do such a thing, should not to believe that another person could do it. For a Christian is also human, and exactly what you are.<\/p>\n

[Further sarcastic scenarios in the form of diatribe demonstrating how ridiculousness of the rumours]<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Imagined interlocutor:] \u201cBut, of course, ignorant people are trapped into this deed; the trick is played on them. For they never knew that any such thing is asserted about Christians. They did not know that they should look into this or investigate this carefully.\u201d However, when men seek initiation, I think that the usual thing to do is, first of all, to approach the \u201cfather\u201d of the ritual, to map out what is to be prepared. Then he states to the person seeking initiation: \u201cYou must have a baby, still tender, that can know nothing about death, that can smile under your knife. In a similar way, you must have a loaf of bread to catch the baby’s juicy blood. Add lampstands and lamps, a dog or two, and some treats to set the dogs tumbling the lamps over. Above all, you must come with your mother and sister.\u201d But if your mother and sister won\u2019t come, or if you have none? What, Christians with no relatives? I suppose, a man is not a regular Christian unless he is a brother or a son.<\/p>\n

[Imagined interlocutor:] \u201cBut, look! What if all this is made ready for people who know nothing about it?\u201d In any event, they would know about it afterwards, and bear up under it, and forgive it. \u201cThey are afraid of punishment, if they were to tell the story.\u201d They will deserve to be protected. They would prefer to die rather than live with such deeds on their conscience. Put it that they are afraid. Why do they go on with the deed? For it follows that you would not want to be any longer what, if only you had known before, you never would have been.<\/p>\n

[Retorsion: Criminalizing other peoples]<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Crimes of human sacrifice and consumption of human flesh and blood<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Carthaginians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(9) To refute these charges still further, I will show that these very things are done by you, sometimes openly, sometimes in secret. Perhaps that is why you have believed the rumours about us as well. In Africa, infants used to be sacrificed to Saturn, and quite openly, until the proconsulship of Tiberius. TIberius took the priests themselves and hung them alive like votive offerings on crosses on the very trees of their temple, under whose shadow their crimes (scelera<\/em>) had been committed. The soldiers of my own country [Africa, around Carthage], who served that proconsul in that very task, are witnesses to this. Yes, and even today that sacred deed (facinus<\/em>) continues in secret.<\/p>\n

Christians are not the only people who defy you. No crime (scelus<\/em>) is ever completely rooted out. Nor does any of your gods change his ways. Saturn did not spare his own children. So, where other people\u2019s children were concerned, Saturn naturally persisted in not sparing them. Their own parents offered the children to him, they were glad to respond, and they comforted their children so that they would not cry as they were sacrificed.<\/p>\n

[Romans compared to Gauls \/ Celts and Taurians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a huge difference between murder and sacrifice of children by parents! Elderly people used to be sacrificed to Mercury among the Gauls. The plays about the Taurian Chersonesos belong to the theatres, and I’ll leave them there.<\/p>\n

But, look!:\u00a0 In that most scrupulous of all cities, in the city of the pious descendents of Aeneas, there is a certain Jupiter whom they drench with human blood at his own games. \u201cYes, but only the blood of a man condemned already to the beasts,\u201d you say? That, I take it, makes it something less than a man\u2019s blood? Or may it not be so much worse because the blood of a bad (malus<\/span><\/em>) man? Anyways, it is at least the blood of murder. What a Christian Jove this is, to be sure, his father\u2019s only son so far as cruelty goes! But since there is no difference as to baby-murder whether you do it as a sacred rite or just because you choose to do it (though we must grant a difference between murder and killing your own child), I will turn to the people.<\/p>\n

How many of you standing around here and panting for Christian blood, how many of you, most just magistrates who are most severe with us, how many should I charge in their consciences for killing their own children who were born to them? Since there is a difference between one kind of death and another, surely your way is more cruel: to choke out the breath by drowning, or to expose the body to cold, starvation and the dogs. Grown-up people would sooner die by an iron sword.<\/p>\n

For us murder is completely forbidden. So it is not lwaful for us to even destroy the child in the womb while the mother\u2019s blood is still being drawn on to form the human being. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life after it is born or destroys it as it comes to birth. A human is one is going to be a human. The fruit is always present in the seed.<\/p>\n

[Romans compared to Scythians and Massagetians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

With respect to tasting human blood, and other tragic dishes like this, read \u2013 wherever it may be told, perhaps in Herodotos<\/strong> [Histories<\/em> 4.70 \u2013 link<\/a>] \u2013 how some peoples (nationes<\/em>) have used blood drawn from the arms of both parties and taste it to seal a treaty. Something of the kind was tasted in Catiline\u2019s plot [e.g. Sallust,\u00a0War with Catiline <\/em>22]. They say, too, that among some Scythians every dead man is eaten by members of his own descent group [Herodotos<\/em> 1.216, on Massagetians \u2013\u00a0link<\/a>].<\/p>\n

But I go too far afield. Today and here, when men are dedicated to the goddess Bellona, the thigh is cut, the blood is caught in a little shield, and given them to consume as a symbol. Again, what about those who, when a show is given in the arena, with greedy thirst have caught the fresh blood of the guilty slain as it pours fresh from their throats and carry it off as a cure for their epilepsy? Again, those who dine on the flesh of wild animals from the arena, keen on the meat of boar or stag? That boar in his battle has touched the blood off the person whose blood he drew; that stag has wallowed in the blood of a gladiator. These people seek after the bellies of the very bears which are full of raw and undigested human flesh. Man\u2019s flesh belches, fattened on man\u2019s flesh. You who eat these things, how far are you from those Christian banquets?<\/p>\n

[Christians superior]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Blush before the Christians because of your unnatural eating practices. For we Christians do not even consume animals\u2019 blood in our natural diet. For this reason, we abstain from strangled animals or from animals that die naturally [cf. Acts 15], so that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is hidden in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood. Of course, you are thoroughly aware that blood is forbidden among them, but you want to make them transgress. Now, I ask you, what sort of a thing is it, that when you are confident they will turn with horror from animals\u2019 blood, you should assume that they are greedy for human blood \u2013 unless perhaps you yourselves have found human blood sweeter than animal blood? Human blood should, therefore, be used as an extra test with the Christians, like a altar for burning offerings or an incense-box. They would be convicted as much by their eagerness for human blood as by their refusal of sacrifice, and acquitted if they did not taste it, just as they would be if they had sacrificed. And when your prisoners were being tried and condemned, there would, I am very sure, be no shortage of human blood.<\/p>\n

[Crimes of incest and sexual perversion]<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Romans compared to Persians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Then again who are more incestuous than the disciples of Jupiter? The Persians according to Ktesias<\/strong> [link<\/a>] consort with their mothers. And the Macedonians are suspected of it too, because when they first heard the tragedy of Oedipus, they laughed at his grief for the incest: \u201che lay with Jocasta,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

Yet now reflect how far error may go in promoting incest, as your uncontrolled promiscuity offers occasion. To begin, you expose your children to be taken up by the pity of any stray outsider who passes, or shall we say you release them to be adopted by better parents. When the family is discarded, sometimes memory of relatives is lost and, when a mistake happens, then a strain of incest will continue as stock and sin creep on together. Then, in the next instance, whatever the spot, at home, abroad, across the sea, lust goes with you, whose attacks may in every place beget you children without your knowing it. A very little of the seed will do it, so that a stock scattered through the range of human travel may fall in with its own source and, completely unaware, fail to recognize an incestuous union.<\/p>\n

[Christians superior]<\/strong><\/p>\n

From such an event we are guarded by a chastity, supremely careful and faithful. We are protected from random sex and from all excess after marriage, and in that degree from the risk of incest. In fact, some guard themselves with even greater security against the violence of this sin by a virgin continence, old in years but still children. If you would realize that these sins are found among yourselves, you would see that they are not to be found among the Christians. The same eyes would assure you of both facts. But two sorts of blindness easily meet, so that those who do not see what is really there, seem to see what is not there. The same holds in all the points at issue, as I will show you. But now on to our more conspicuous crimes!<\/p>\n

(10) You say: \u201cYou do not worship the gods. You do not offer sacrifice for the Emperors.\u201d . . . [omitted non-ethnographically focussed sections<\/em>].<\/p>\n

\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017<\/p>\n

To the Peoples \/ Ad Nationes<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

[Rumour about Christians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(7)\u00a0 You will say, how is it possible that such a Rumour (fama<\/em>) has grown up around you [i.e. Christians] in order to convince our lawmakers of its truth? . . . [omitted extensive theorizing about the nature of rumour that parallels the\u00a0<\/em>Apology above<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[The name “Christians”]<\/strong><\/p>\n

This name of ours [“Christians”] arose in the reign of Augustus. Under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity. Under Nero the name was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the character of the persecutor. If he was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure. If he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: Our persecutor himself demonstrates what sort of people we are since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this institution of ours has firmly remained: righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author of its persecution.<\/p>\n

[Sarcastic outline of the alleged crimes within the rumour]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. Meanwhile, there have been so many harmful actions. So many crucified criminals have attained divinity. So many infants have been slaughtered. So many loaves of bread have been soaked in blood. So many candles have been put out. There have been so many illicit unions. Yet up until now it is merely Rumour who fights against the Christians. No doubt Rumour has a strong support in the wickedness of the human mind, and utters its falsehoods with more success among cruel and savage men. . . .\u00a0 [omitted further explication of<\/em> Rumour which largely duplicates the material in the <\/em>Apology above<\/em>].<\/p>\n

To my knowledge, even our manner of life has become better known. You know the very days of our assemblies; therefore we are actually besieged, attacked, and kept prisoners in our secret congregations. Yet who ever came across a half-consumed human corpse among us? Who has detected the traces of a bite in our blood-soaked loaf of bread? Who has discovered, by a sudden light invading our darkness, any marks of impurity, let alone incest? If you imagined that we save ourselves by a bribe from being dragged out before the public gaze with such a low character, how is it that we are still oppressed? We certainly have it in our power not to be apprehended at all, because who either sells or buys information about a non-existent crime (crimina<\/em>)?<\/p>\n

But why do need I to disparagingly refer to strange spies and informers, when you charge us with offenses that we have done without much noise? The charges are either heard because we previously showed them to you or concealed from you for a time until you have yourselves discovered them. No doubt, when anyone wants to be initiated in the mysteries, their custom is first to go to the master or “father” of the sacred rites. Then that person will say: “You must bring an baby to be sacrificed, as a guarantee for our rites, as well as some bread to be broken and dipped in the baby’s blood. You will also want candles, and dogs tied together to knock them over, as well as treats to inspire the dogs. Moreover, you will need a mother or a sister.” What, however, is to be said if you have neither? I suppose in that case you could not be a genuine Christian.<\/p>\n

Now, let me ask you: Will charges like these be spread around by complete outsiders? It is impossible for outsiders to understand activities in which they do not take any part. The first step of the process is perpetrated with deceit. Our feasts and our incestous marriages are invented and detailed by ignorant people who have never before heard about Christian mysteries. Eventually these informers will acquire some knowledge of these mysteries to be passed on to others whom they bring along. Furthermore, how absurd is it that outsiders know about mysteries which the priest does not know about? They remain silent about the mysteries and take them for granted. So these tragedies of Thyestes [i.e. eating human flesh] or Oedipus [incest] do not at all come to light, nor find their way to the public? Even more voracious bites take nothing away from the credit of those who are initiated, whether servants or masters. If, however, none of these allegations can be proven true, we have an incalculable grandeur which clearly overcomes the burden of these vast atrocities!<\/p>\n

Wretched and pitiful peoples (nationes<\/em>)! Look: we set before you the promise which our way of life (disclipina<\/em>) offers. It guarantees eternal life to those who follow and observe it. On the other hand, it threatens with eternal, fiery punishment those who are profane and hostile. At the same time, a resurrection from the dead is proclaimed to both groups. We will see about their truthfulness when we discuss them in their proper place. Meanwhile, however, believe them, even as we do ourselves, for I want to know whether you are ready to reach them, as we do, through such crimes.<\/p>\n

Come, whoever you are, plunge your sword into a baby. Or, if that is someone else’s role, then simply stare at the breathing creature dying before it has lived. Anyways, catch its fresh blood to dip your bread in it. Then feed yourself without hesitation. While all this is going on, recline. Carefully pay attention to the places where your mother or your sister may have lied down. Mark their places well so that, when darkness falls, relying on where everyone is, you may not make the awkward mistake of encountering somebody else. You would have to make atonement if you failed in achieving the incest.<\/p>\n

When you have achieved all of this, eternal life will be in store for you. I want you to tell me whether you think eternal life is worth such a price. Absolutely not! You do not believe it!\u00a0 Even if you did believe it, I maintain that you would be unwilling to pay the price. Or, if you were willing, you would be unable to do it. But why should others [i.e. the Christians who supposedly do these things] be able if you are unable? Why should you be able if others are unable? What price would you put on impunity and eternity? Do you suppose that these can be bought by us at any price? Do Christians have a different sort of teeth than other humans? Do they have more ample jaws? Do they have a different muscle for incestuous lust? I think not. It is enough for us to differ from you in with respect to truth alone.<\/p>\n

[Outsiders’ label of “third people” compared with other unbelievable and uncivilized peoples]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(8) We are actually called a “third people (genos<\/em>).”\u00a0We are “Dog-faced people” (Cynopaene),<\/em> perhaps, or “Umbrella-feet people” (Skiapodes<\/em>), or “Upside-down people” (Antipodes<\/em>) on the other side of the world [cf. Skylax \u2013 link<\/a>; Ktesias \u2013 link<\/a>; Plutarch, On the Face of the Moon <\/em>924; Diogenes of Laertes, Lives<\/em> 8.26]? If any of these names make sense, please tell us which is the first and which is the second people, that so we can know something about this “third.”<\/p>\n

[Legend of Psammetichos’ experiment to determine the first people]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Psammetichos [seventh century BCE Egyptian pharaoh] thought that he had made an ingenious discovery of primeval man [see Herodotos, Histories <\/em> 2.2 \u2013 link<\/a>]. He is said to have removed certain new-born infants from all human interaction, and to have entrusted them to a nurse. He had previously removed her tongue. Psammetichos did this in order that, being completely isolated from the sound of any human voice, they might form their speech without hearing it. By deriving their speech from themselves alone, this might indicate what that first people was whose speech was determined by nature. Their first utterance was “bekkos<\/em>,” a word which means “bread” in the language of Phrygia. Therefore, the Phrygians are supposed to be the first people (genos<\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n

[Absurdities of this story about the first people]<\/strong><\/p>\n

We must not pass over one observation about the absurdities of your fables with the aim of showing how your faith is devoted to falsities rather than truths. Is it at all credible that the nurse survived with her life after losing such an important body part, the very organ of the breath of life. Also it was cut out by the very root, mutilating her throat, which cannot be wounded even on the outside without danger or without the putrid gore flowing back into the chest. How could she survive after being deprived of food for for so long? Let’s supppose that she retained her life by the remedies of a Philomela who, according to the wisest people, account for her dumbness not by way of cutting out the tongue but rather from the blush of shame. Even if the nurse lived, she would still be able to blurt out some dull sound. A shrill inarticulate noise can come from opening the mouth only without any movement of the lips and forcing air out of the throat, even if there is no tongue. This, it is probable, the infants readily imitated, and the more so because it was the only sound. Only they did it a little more neatly, since they did have tongues. Then they attached that sound to a definite meaning.<\/p>\n

[Christians not the “third people”]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even if we grant that the Phrygians were the earliest people, it does not follow that the Christians are the third people. For how many other peoples usually come after the Phrygians? Take care, however, in case the ones you call the third people should obtain the first position, since there is no people which is not Christian [i.e. there are Christians among many peoples]. Therefore, whatever people was the first is nevertheless Christian now. It is ridiculous folly which makes you say we are the most recent people, and then you specifically call us the third.<\/p>\n

But we are considered third in terms of our “superstition” (superstitio<\/em>), not our peoplehood.\u00a0 The series is: Romans, Judeans, and Christians after them. Where, then, are the Greeks? Or if the Greeks are reckoned amongst the Romans in regard to their superstition \u2013 since Rome borrowed the gods from Greece \u2013 where at least are the Egyptians, since these have a mysterious form of worship (religio<\/em>) peculiar to themselves, as far as I know? Now, if those who belong to the third people are so monstrous, what would those who preceded them in the first and second position be like? . . . [omitted section<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[Retorsion: Romans and other peoples criminalized]<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Animal worship, including an interpretation of Tacitus’ ethnographic account on Judeans and the donkey head]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(11) Regarding this, we are supposedly guilty not merely of deserting the community’s sense of obligation to the gods (religio<\/em>), but of introducing a monstrous superstition (superstitio<\/em>). For some among you have dreamed that our god is an donkey’s head. This is an absurd thing that Cornelius Tacitus first suggested in the fourth book of his Histories <\/em>where he is dealing with the Judean war [Tacitus, Histories <\/em>5.3-4 \u2013\u00a0link<\/a>]. Tacitus begins his description with the origin of that people (gens<\/em>), and gives his own views regarding both their origin and the name of their form of worship (religio<\/em>). He reports that, when the Judeans were migrating in the desert and suffering due to lack of water, they escaped by following some wild donkeys as guides. The Judeans assumed the donkeys were searching for water in a pasture. For this reason, the image of one of these animals was worshipped by the Judeans. From this, I suppose, it was presumed that, because of our close connection with the Judean form of worship (religio<\/em>), we also have the same consecrated image.<\/p>\n

However, the same Cornelius Tacitus \u2013 who is actually a spewer of lies\u00a0 \u2013 forgetting his later statement [about Judeans and the donkey], relates how Pompey the Great, after conquering the Judeans and capturing Jerusalem, entered the temple but found no sign of an image, even though he examined the place carefully. Where, then, should the Judean’s God have been found? Nowhere else, of course than in so memorable a temple which was carefully closed to everyone except the priests, and into which there could be no fear of a foreigner entering.<\/p>\n

[Romans and animal worship]<\/strong><\/p>\n

But what defence do I have to offer for what I am going to say, since I have no other aim now than to make a passing remark or two in a general way which will be equally applicable to yourselves?: Even if we suppose that our God takes the guise of a donkey, will you deny that you share similarities with us in that respect? Not only the heads, but entire donkeys are certainly objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona [i.e. Celtic goddess of horses also adopted by the Romans]. You consecrate entire herds, cattle, and wild animals, as well as their stables! Perhaps your grievance with us is that we are simply devoted to donkeys when we are surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind! . . . [omitted sections 12-14 offering further defence of Christians<\/em>].<\/p>\n

[Baby murder]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(15) Since we are on a par with you in respect of the gods [i.e. Tertullian has been retorting that Romans or others do what they charge Christians with], it follows that there is no difference between us on the point of sacrifice or even of worship. If I may be allowed to make a comparison from another sort of evidence, we begin our rites by slaughtering a baby [i.e. according to the charges and rumours]. As for you, since your own transactions in human blood and baby murder have faded from your memory, you will be duly reminded of them in the proper place. At this point, we postpone most of the instances so that it does not seem like we are dealing with the exact same topics over and over. Meanwhile, as I have said, the comparison between us does not fail in another point of view. For if we are baby murderers in one sense, you also can hardly be considered such in any other sense: because, although you are forbidden by the laws to kill new-born babies, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public and the legal sanction of everyone. Yet there is no great difference between us, except that you do not kill your babies in the form of a sacred rite or with an iron blade. But then you do away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.<\/p>\n

However, if some difference occurs between us in this matter, you must not overlook the fact that it is your own dear children whose life you quench. This will supplement, no, in fact, greatly aggravate on your side of the question whatever is defective in us on other grounds. Now we are said to eat our impious sacrifice! While we postpone to a more suitable place whatever resemblance even to this practice is discoverable amongst yourselves, we are not far removed from you in voracity. If in the one case there is unchastity, and in ours cruelty, we are still on the same footing (if I may so far admit our guilt) in nature, where cruelty is always found along with unchastity. But, after all, what do you do less than we do. Or, rather, what do you not do in excess of us? I wonder whether it is a small matter to you to pant for human entrails, because you devour full-grown men alive? Is it only a minor issue that\u00a0 you lick up human blood when you draw out the blood which was destined to live? Is it a light thing in your view to feed on a baby when you completely consume one before it is come to the birth [i.e. through exposure]?<\/p>\n

[Incest and sexual perversion]<\/strong><\/p>\n

(16) I am now come to the time for extinguishing the lamps, using the dogs, and practising deeds of darkness. And on this point I am afraid I must give way to you. For what similar accusation can I bring against you? However, you should immediately commend the cleverness with which we make our incest look modest, in that we have devised a spurious night to avoid polluting the real light and darkness. We have even thought it right to dispense with earthly lights, and to play tricks also with our conscience.<\/p>\n

For whatever people do themselves, they suspect in others when they choose to do so. As for your incestuous actions, on the contrary, men enjoy them freely in the light of day, or in the natural night, or before high Heaven. In proportion to their successful issue is your own ignorance of the result, since you publicly indulge in your incestuous intercourse in the full cognizance of broad day-light. No ignorance, however, conceals our conduct from our eyes,\u00a0 for in the very darkness we are able to recognise our own misdeeds.<\/p>\n

[Persians and Macedonians]<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to Ktesias<\/strong>, the Persians live quite promiscuously with their mothers, as you know. They do this in full knowledge of the fact and without any horror. It is well known that the Macedonians constantly do the same thing, and with complete approval: for once, when the blinded Oedipus came upon their stage, they greeted him with laughter and derisive cheers. The actor playiing Oedipus, taking off his mask in great alarm, said, “Gentlemen, have I displeased you? “”Certainly not,” replied the Macedonians, “you have played your part well enough; but either the author was very silly, if he invented this mutilation as an atonement for the incest, or else Oedipus was a great fool for his pains if he really so punished himself.”\u00a0 Then they shouted out to one another, “He slept with his mother.” Does one or another people contaminate the whole world?<\/p>\n

As for us, we of course have infected the very sun, polluted the entire ocean! Cite one people which is free from the passions which allure all humankind to incest! If there is a single people which knows nothing of having concubines through the necessity of age and sex \u2013 to say nothing of lust and licentiousness \u2013 that people will be a stranger to incest. If any nature can be found so peculiarly removed from the human state as to be liable neither to ignorance, nor error, nor misfortune, that alone may be adduced with any consistency as an answer to the Christians.<\/p>\n

[Romans and incest via child exposure]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reflect, therefore, on the licentiousness which floats about amongst people’s passions as if they were the winds, and consider whether there are any communities which the full and strong tides of passion fail to waft to the commission of incest. In the first place, when you expose your infants to the mercy of others, or leave them for adoption to better parents than yourselves, do you forget what an opportunity for incest is supplied? How wide a scope is opened for its accident? No doubt, some of you are more serious about self-control and careful reflection, abstaining from lusts which could produce results of this kind. Wherever you happen to be, whether at home or abroad, there is no indiscriminate diffusion of seed or licentious reception of it.<\/p>\n

In the case of these [exposed] children, they might unknowingly experience chance encounters in later life with their own parents or siblings. The restraint of age is powerless against lust. All acts of adultery, all cases of fornication, all the licentiousness of public brothels, whether committed at home or perpetrated out of doors, serve to produce confusions of blood and complications of natural relationship, and thence to conduce to incest. From this consummation, your players and buffoons draw the materials of their exhibitions. . . [omitted instance of an accidental case of incest through enslavement and omitted the remainder of the defence<\/em>].<\/p>\n

\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017\u2017<\/p>\n

Source of the translations: <\/em><\/strong>T.R. Glover and G. H. Rendall, Tertullian: Apology, de Spectaculis. Minucius Felix<\/i>, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1931), public domain (Glover passed away in 1943; Rendall passed away in 1945), adapted by Harland.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ancient author: Tertullian, Apology 7-9 (link); Tertullian, To the Peoples \/ Ad Nationes 1.7-8, 11, 15-16 (link; link to Latin). Comments:\u00a0As this series on the redirection of ethnographic characterizations of foreign peoples at internal groups within society shows, Tertullian is in a significant line of Jesus followers who responded quite directly to circulating rumours that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79,587,163,76,721,709,90,296,126,719,81,244,189,256,728,94,142,116,720,228,178],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-05-judeans-jews-and-jesus-adherents-christians-as-participants-in-ethnographic-culture","category-08-criminalization-of-populations","category-carthaginians","category-celts-gauls","category-drinking-human-blood","category-eating-human-flesh","category-egyptians","category-ethnicity-ancient-world","category-herodotos-greek","category-human-sacrifice","category-judeans-israelites-hebrews","category-ktesias-greek","category-macedonians-or-greco-macedonians","category-massagetians-subset-of-scythians","category-murder","category-persians-iranians-magians","category-romans","category-scythians-pontic-peoples","category-sexual-perversion-incest","category-taurians","category-tertullian-of-carthage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23339"}],"version-history":[{"count":45,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23861,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23339\/revisions\/23861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philipharland.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}