Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:26:24.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tertullian on Heresy, History, and the Reappropriation of Revelation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Peter Iver Kaufman
Peter Iver Kaufman
Affiliation:
Mr. Kaufman is Bowman & Gordon Gray professor of religious studies in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tertullian understood the apostle Paul to have suggested there would always be heretics (1 Cor. 11:19), and he presumed God had supplied scripture for their use. Without sacred literature heretics would have nothing of consequence to misread. Without contests over critical passages, there could be no winners, no losers—no heretics.1 The difficulty, Tertullian acknowledged, was that heretics were the poorest of losers; they never conceded defeat. He advised against trying to take (or take back) scripture passage by passage. The only way to get the best of heretics and get on with the work of interpreting texts correctly was to deny heretics' right to appeal to scripture.2 It had been supplied for them, but only to enable wayward expositors to identify themselves as heretics. This was Tertullian's version of “enough rope.” Heretics' expositions showed others how far the expositors deviated from the precious tradition originating with the apostles, and to assist those others apologists introduced a rule of faith condensing the apostles' instruction and tradition. Tertullian's several presentations of the rule of faith raise important questions; discrepancies prompt suspicion that no precise formulation or rule inspired consensus, that rules were rather makeshift. At the time, however, Tertullian obviously was more interested in another discrepancy, the one between his rule(s) expressing Christianity's incontrovertible truths and the opinions and exegesis of benighted heretics, for God provided heretics, apologists, and controversy to keep traditional or “regular” Christianity advancing on its proper course.3 Tertullian's confidence in the advance of Christianity is the subject of this paper. How did he come by it and just how did he relate the persistence of heresy to the progress of Christianity?

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 167 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. De praescriptionibus adversus haereses omnes (hereafter cited as Praes.), 39.7. I have used texts in Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vols. 1–2 (Turnhout, 1953–1954).Google Scholar For Tertullian'spraescriptiones, see Stirnimann, Joseph K., Die praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des römischen Rechts und der Theologie (Freiburg, 1949), pp. 135–149;Google Scholar for his tactics,Leer, Flesseman-Van, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, 1954), pp. 180–185Google Scholar and Kuss, Otto, “Zur Hermeneutik Tertullians,” Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrzft für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Blinzler, J., Kuss, Otto, and Mussner, F. (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 140–144.Google ScholarSiniscalo, Paolo, “Recenti studi su Tertulliano,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 14 (1978): 396–405Google Scholar and Sider, Robert D., “Approaches to Tertullian: A Study of Recent Scholarship,” The Second Century 2 (1982): 228–260Google Scholar provide bibliographical surveys. Useful bibliographical remarks as well as a general biographical introduction are available in the second edition Barnes, Timothy D., Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1985);Google Scholar the postscript corrects errors in the first edition (Oxford, 1971) and recommends the plural of praescriptio, which I have adopted also. Among other studies that take difft;ent approaches to the issues discussed here, note Zimmermann, Gottfried, Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien Tertullians (Würzburg, 1937);Google ScholarKarpp, Heinrich, Schrift und Geist bei Tertullian (Gütersloh, 1955);Google ScholarFredouille, Jean Claude, Tertullien et la conversion de culture antique (Paris, 1972);Google ScholarVan, J. E. L. der Geest, Le Christ et l'Ancien Testament chez Tertullien (Nijmegen, 1972);Google Scholar and particularly two recent, provocative papers: Grossi, Vittorino, “A proposito della conversione di Tertulliano al Montanismo (De pudicitia 1.10–13),” Augustinianum 27 (1987): 57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Uglione, Renato, “La gradualità della rivelazione in Tertulliano,” in Crescita dell'uomo catechesi dei padri, ed. Felici, Sergio (Rome, 1987), pp. 133–144.Google Scholar

2. Praes., 15.4 and 19.2–3.

3. Adversus Marcionem (hereafter cited as Marc.), 4.5.2–4. For Tertullian's summaries see Praes., 13; De virginibus velandis (hereafter cited as Virg.), 1.2–3;Google ScholarAdversus Praxean (hereafter cited as Prax.), 2.1–5; and Kuss, , “Hermeneutik,” pp. 146–150.Google Scholar Tertullian's stands against heresy and for doctrinal conformity are customarily cited in comments on his rules; see, for example, Leer, Flesseman-Van, Tradition, pp. 159–173;Google ScholarHagglund, Bergt, “Die Bedeutung der regula fidei als Grundlage theologischer Aussages,” Studia Theologica 12 (1958): 19–29, 34–44;Google Scholar and Moingt, Joseph S.J., Théologie trinitaire de Tertullien, 4 vols. (Aubier, 1966), 1:79–86.Google Scholar For general remarks on the issue of apostolic origins, see Pederson, Sigfred, “Die Kanonfrage als historisches und theologisches Problem,” Studia Theologica 31 (1977):Google Scholar especially 85–89. The most helpful and suggestive conclusions about formulations and functions of Tertullian's regulae are those of Braun, René, Deus Christianorum: Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1977), pp. 446–453Google Scholar and Countryman, L. William, “Tertullian and the Regula Fidei,” The Second Century 2 (1982): 208–227.Google Scholar Countryman identifies the pattern followed by instructors, accounting for consistencies and variations by associating the rules with catechesis (“oral instruction”) and with “the need to innoculate the catholic people against Gnosticism.” O'Malley, Thomas P., S. J., Tertullian and the Bible (Utrecht, 1967)Google Scholar reconstructs Tertullian's attitudes toward exegesis, yet also consult Hanson, R. P. C., “Notes on Tertullian's Interpretation of Scripture,” The Journal of Theological Studies, new series 12 (1961): 273–279;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBraun, , Deus Christianorum, pp. 454–473;Google Scholar and Waszink, J. H., “Tertullian's Principles and Methods of Exegesis,” Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In honorem Robert M. Grant, ed. Schoedel, William R. and Wilken, Robert L. (Paris, 1979), pp. 17–31.Google Scholar

4. De pudicitia (hereafter cited as Pud.), 1.10–13 and Grossi, “Della conversione,” pp. 64–67. Despite the declaration, Tertullian was no schismatic (see for example, Moignt, , Théologie 1:58–59).Google ScholarRambeaux, Claude, Tertullien face aux morales des trois premiers siêcles (Paris, 1979), pp. 304–305Google Scholar implies that childish ways” may refer only to Tertullian's early agreement with the church's policy on pardons. At issue is also the character of Montanism in North Africa. Could it have been a loyal opposition within the church? Powell, Douglas, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975): 38–40, 52–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Paulsen, H., “Die Bedeutung des Montanismus für die Herausbildung des Kanons,” Vigiliae Christianae 32 (1978): 28–29, 37–40Google Scholar offer suggestive and conditionally affirmative answers. Also consult the informative presentations in Barnes, , Tertullian, pp. 130–142Google Scholar and in two much older yet still valuable studies, Monceaux, Paul, Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne, 7 vols. (Paris, 1901), 1: 394–438Google Scholar and Pierre Champagne de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (Paris, 1913).Google ScholarBray, Gerald Lewis, Holiness and the Will of God: Perspectives on the Theology of Tertullian (Atlanta, 1979), pp. 60–65Google Scholar minimizes Montanist influence.

5. Fredouille, , Tertullien, pp. 434–442Google Scholar and Uglione, , “Gradualitá,” pp. 141–144.Google Scholar

6. Apologeticum (hereafter cited as Apol.), 39.3; De monogamia (hereafter cited as Monog.),12.3; Praes., 36.1 (“apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur sonantes vocem et repraesentes faciem”); and De spectaculis, 19–21. Also note De anima, 9.4, where Tertullian may be emphasizing correspondences between worship among the Montanists and among Christian critics of Montanism (“scripturae leguntur”). See Tertullianus, De Anima, ed. Waszink, John Hendrik (Amsterdam, 1947), p. 169.Google Scholar For other observations on Tertullian's revelations about reading, consult Glaue, Paul, “Die Vorlesung heiliger Schrift bei Tertullian,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 23 (1924): 147–149.Google Scholar

7. Tertullian's attitude toward philosophy can be perplexing. Philosophy was useful, even admirable (De anima, 20.1 on Seneca and De pallio, 6.2), but it was also, he said, the principal source of heresy (Praes., 7.3: “haereses a philosophia subornatur”). I will stress Tertullian's appreciation of the sinister influence of philosophy, yet his sensitive handling of pagan political thought and his profound debts to classical rhetoric betoken generally positive assessments of the culture of classical antiquity. See Klein, Richard, Tertullian und das römische Reich (Heidelberg, 1968),Google ScholarSider, Robert Dick, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford, 1971),Google ScholarFredouille, , Tertullien, particularly pp. 29–35, 152–178, 307–357,Google Scholar and Burrows, Mark S., “Christianity in the Roman Forum: Tertullian and the Apologetic Use of History,” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988): 209–235.Google Scholar

8. Pud., 8. 12.

9. Adversus Valentinianos, 6. 3 and 27. 2.

10. Ad nationes (hereafter cited as Nat.), 2. 11; Apol., 10. 6–7.

11. De anima, 6.

12. Praes., 7; Apol., 47. 11; and De idolatria, 10.1.

13. De resurrectione mortuorum, 21.2 and 27.2. On consistence see Monog., 11.13 and Pud., 19. 3–4.

14. De came Christi (hereafter cited as Carne), 22; Apol., 21. 8; and Nat., 1. 19.

15. Marc., 4. 35. 14–15. Also see Zimmermann, , Prinzipien, pp. 10–17;Google ScholarFredouille, , Tertullien, pp. 285–288Google Scholar and his “Bible et apologétique,” in Le monde latin antique et la Bible, ed. Jacques Fontaine and Charles Pietri (Paris, 1985), pp. 483–485;Google Scholar and Uglione, Renato, ldquo;L'Antico Testamento negli scritti Tertullianei sulle seconde nozze,” Augustinianum 22 (1982): 169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Prax., 14.

17. Apol., 6.9–10 and 21.31. Also see Burrows, , “Christianity,” pp. 211–214.Google Scholar

18. Adversus Judaeos, 8.2 and 14.2–3; Carne, 9.6–8; and Marc., 5.5.9: “Quid infirmum dei fortius homine, nisi nativitas et caro dei?”

19. De anima, 1.1–4.

20. Praes., 8 and 14.

21. Prax., 18.

22. De fuga in persecutione, 6.1–2. Tertullian's position in De fuga reverses the one articulated in Scorpiace, 10. 14–17. For the reversal, see Barnes, , Tertullian, pp. 171–186.Google Scholar

23. Marc., 4.25.14–15.

24. In addition to Campenhausen, Hans von, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. Baker, J. A. (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 276–277Google Scholar (“down-to-earth”) and Hanson, , “Notes,” p. 275Google Scholar (“realism and restraint”), see Hanson's, “Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. Ackroyd, Peter and Evans, C. F. (Cambridge, 1970);Google ScholarWaszink, , “Principles,” pp. 27–30;Google Scholar and O'Malley, , Tertullian, pp. 132–133, 151–152, and 172.Google Scholar

25. Apol., 4.

26. Monog., 3.8.

27. Nat., 1.7.

28. Pud., 21.16–17.

29. Ibid., 15–16.

30. Ibid., 1.3.

31. Ibid., 9.22: “Non est levior transgressio in interpretatione quam in conversatione.”

32. Virg., 1.4;Monceaux, , Histoire, pp. 285–286;Google Scholar and Cardman, Francine, “Tertullian on Doctrine and the Development of Discipline,” Studia Patristica 16.2 (1985): 139–141.Google Scholar

33. Virg., l.7; Pud.,11;and Uglione, ,“Gradualità,”pp. 139–140.Google Scholar

34. Praes., 39.7 has already been cited, but also consult Prax., 10.8. All things are possible for God. Monarchians, however, infer the truth of their absurd propositions from their possibility. God, after all, could have made humans with wings yet he did not. God could have obliterated hawks and heresy, but both were necessary; “oportebat enim et milvos esse et haereticos.”

35. Praes., 12.4–5.

36. Carne,8.1.

37. For example see Marc., 5.2.

38. Monog., 3.4–4.1; Pud., 14.27; and Fredouille, , Tertullien, pp. 165–166.Google Scholar

39. Pud., 1.12: “Nemo proficiens erubiscit.”