Why Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion Shouldn't be Trusted as a Reliable Source of Information about the Marcionites

Very few people know that all the stuff that is written about the Marcionites is mostly based on the writings of Tertullian. Even fewer people still have any clue how dangerous it is to draw any firm conclusions about who or what the Marcionites were from this or any other report from the other Church Fathers for that matter.

Let's pass over the fact that all the Church Fathers were not only hostile against the Marcionites, but ultimately unwilling to present a fair and objective treatment of the beliefs and practices of this sect.

Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion is the worst possible source of information given what is acknowledged in the opening lines of the book. But more on that later.

Tertullian absolutely sucks as a historical witness. Period.

I want to illustrate how Tertullian could take over opinions from earlier source and make it seem as if he had first hand experience with his subject matter. Just look at what survives in Against Hermogenes (a text Eusebius identifies as originally having been written by Theophilus). Tertullian says in the opening words that:

We are accustomed, for the purpose of shortening argument [compendii gratia] to lay down the rule against heretics of the lateness of their date.

Of course this is a standard tactic of the Church Fathers - to say that heretics were subsequent to the apostles. But now Tertullian makes it seem as if this Hermogenes who apparently lived c. 180 CE now resided in Carthage in the third century:

in so far must all later opinions be prejudged as heresies, being such as were, by the more ancient rule of truth, predicted as (one day) to happen. Now, the doctrine of Hermogenes has this taint of novelty. He is, in short, a man living in the world at the present time; by his very nature a heretic, and turbulent withal, who mistakes loquacity for eloquence, and supposes impudence to be firmness, and judges it to be the duty of a good conscience to speak ill of individuals. Moreover, he despises God's law in his painting, maintaining repeated marriages, alleges the law of God in defence of lust, and yet despises it in respect of his art. He falsifies by a twofold process-with his cautery and his pen. He is a thorough adulterer, both doctrinally and carnally, since he is rank indeed with the contagion of your marriage-hacks, and has also failed in cleaving to the rule of faith as much as the apostle's own Hermogenes.

It is very odd that Tertullian never mentions Theophilus' original treatise against Hermogenes - until you remember that this very same thing happens all the time in Tertullian's writings.

All you have to do is remember that Against Marcion Book III was developed from Against the Jews WITHOUT EVEN SO MUCH AS A WORD OF EXPLANATION. Indeed Tertullian only discusses what his original sources when one of his readers mentions apparent contradiction between what now appears in Tertullian's recycled text and the original. So the introduction to Against Marcion Book One:

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.[AM i.1]

So let's take this line by line folks and see how this text - which has become virtually 'the Bible' of Marcionite research has little or no worth as a historical source.

Sentence 1: Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern.

Wow! Really? That would be like me saying - nothing I have written about To Theodore and its relationship to the redemption ritual of the Marcosians is any longer my concern. You want me to break that down for you some more. Tertullian is saying that this new work is completely UNLIKE and ultimately contradicts WHAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE about the Marcionites.

Sentence 2. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one.

See above

Sentence 3. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment.

Ok the author makes it seem as if (a) he wrote THE original text of Against Marcion (just think about what is being said here).

Sentence 4. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction.

There are almost no references to the Paraclete in Against Marcion which is surprising because Origen tells us that the Marcionites thought Paul was the Paraclete. For that reason alone it would have been interesting to hear what the REAL Tertullian had to say about the Marcionite faith. Yet now, there is a complete absence of Paraclete references which - when coupled with what is said here - demonstrates with absolute certainty to me that a later editor has systematically 'corrected' Tertullian's original work which - we must be certain - included real discussions of the beliefs and practices of the Marcionites.

Now however we have a more or less worthless text which tells us nothing about what is wrong with the Marcionite faith other than the most generic statements about their belief in another god and their hatred for the Law IF ONLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO DAMAGING TO THE CHURCH TO HEAR WHAT TERTULLIAN THINKS CONSTITUTES TRUE ORTHODOXY - i.e. Montanism.

The 'apostate' mentioned here is the real Tertullian of history.

Sentence 5. Hence the need for correction.

See above.

Sentence 6. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions.

This is the editor again speaking not 'the real Tertullian.' In other words, on top of revisions to the original Montanist material (i.e. things TAKEN OUT of which reflected heretical beliefs presented as orthodoxy), the editor also ADDED things which made it seem that the original author (Tertullian) shared the same beliefs as the rest of the Church.

Sentence 7. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it

Yes so you now you see. The editor is saying in effect, 'if you run across Tertullian's original text - you know the one where you see him speaking like a crazy Montanist and holding that the Paraclete was a guy living in Asia Minor who was accompanied by a bunch of prophetesses - burn that text. What you have here is the really the right one (even though I just told you that I made changes to the original text) ...

So just before we start going line by line through what LITTLE the current Against Marcion in Five Books has to say about Marcion and Marcionite beliefs (the text really should be identified as being written by pseudo-Tertullian), we have to acknowledge that there are serious epistemological difficulties right at the outset. Clearly on the one hand - Tertullian appropriated original material from other sources (Justin) and passing them off as firsthand testimonials. On the other hand, even these secondhand witnesses passed off as personal insights were then subsequently subjected to wholesale editorial revisions not once but several times BY PEOPLE WHO HAD EVEN LESS LIKELIHOOD OF EVER HAVING SEEN A REAL LIVE MARCIONITE OR HAD ANY FIRSTHAND INFORMATION ABOUT MARCIONITE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES.

In other words, as we recognize that our text of Against Marcion was likely completely reworked in the fourth century or some subsequent period we should not take its account of who or what Marcion or Marcionites actually were or what they believed or practiced.

Actualy the last part is easy to overcome as there is almost nothing other than the most generic statements about what the Marcionites believed or practiced in the surviving account.

So now, with that said we go back to the problem which we highlighted at the beginning of our discussion - i.e. the strange parallel universe which unfolds were there are THREE Hermogenes - one living at the time of Paul (presumably somewhere in Asia Minor), another living at the time of Theophilus in Antioch and yet another living at the time of Tertullian in Carthage.

Isn't it obvious that these three different Hermogenes were necessarily 'created' as the original work against Hermogenes was taken over and appropriated by subsequent generations of 'spiritually charged' Church Fathers. Theophilus was no different than the real Tertullian. He can be demonstrated to have believed that the prophetic spirit could be passed on from body to body allowing for each new individual to 'know' what previous individuals were saying when they wrote or said something.

The Holy Spirit even allowed for those new individuals in whom the Spirit made its home to 'correct' what was wrong with previous editions of the same text.

Of course, the ancient readers of Tertullian would have had no problem with accepting that the underlying 'authenticity' of the report against Marcion wasn't compromised by these systematic 'additions,' 'subtractions' and general reworkings, but can we?

Can we really believe that what little survives of substance in Against Marcion is still faithful to what the original author saw and reported on regarding the 'Marcionite tradition'?

I can't accept that proposition. I will not allow my need for SOMETHING in the way of information about this elusive sect to force me to fall victim to these reworkings.

After all, let's be honest - on some level the later editors DON'T WANT US TO HAVE A FAVORABLE VIEW OF MARCIONITISM. Indeed if we think about it one of the arguments that the 'real Tertulian of history' must have made was that Marcion restricted the 'prophetic spirit' - the beating heart of his Montanist community.

Something of this original argument DOES SURVIVE - albeit in a very watered down form in Book One where Tertullian says:

Our previous position is accordingly made good, that no god is to be believed whom any man has devised out of his own conceits; except indeed the man be a prophet, and then his own conceits would not be concerned in the matter. If Marcion, however, shall be able to lay claim to this inspired character, it will be necessary for it to be shown. There must be no doubt or paltering. For all heresy is thrust out by this wedge of the truth, that Christ is proved to be the revealer of no God else but the Creator. [AM i.21]

Now if we accept Marcion as a back formation of the Aramaic term 'those of Mark' (viz. 'Marqiyone') then doesn't the Mark of the Marcionite community sound ever so similar to the Mark of the Marcosians, the Mark whom Irenaeus (or his original source in Lyon) criticizes by saying:

but already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived ... [who are] well aware that the gift of prophecy is not conferred on men by Marcus, the magician, but that only those to whom God sends His grace from above possess the divinely-bestowed power of prophesying; and then they speak where and when God pleases, and not when Marcus orders them to do so. For that which commands is greater and of higher authority than that which is commanded, inasmuch as the former rules, while the latter is in a state of subjection. If, then, Marcus, or any one else, does command ...to prophesy, giving forth as oracles what is in harmony with their own desires,--it will follow that he who commands is greater and of higher authority than the prophetic spirit, though he is but a man, which is impossible. But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church.[AH i.13.4]

In other words, both 'Marcion' and 'Marcus' are attacked for claiming to be 'the inspired character' that the Montanist community identified with the Paraclete, the one who received the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent forth before his ascension.

More on this comparison later (I have to go) but the reader already knows that Origen says that the Marcionites identified 'the apostle' Paul as their Paraclete. If the reader accepts (even tentatively) my argument that for the Marcionites there was only Mark it is not difficult again to reconcile the Mark of the Marcionites and the Mark of the Marcosians.

After all at its most basic level the Marcionites MUST HAVE HELD that the Apostle received the Holy Spirit from God when he wrote the gospel. In fact, the Marcionites are depicted in the Dialogue of Adamantius as holding the position that the gospel wasn't written by a man. It was a heavenly revelation made to the apostle who acted merely as a receptacle for that sending forth of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, again - he was of a prophetic character.

Tertullian's ORIGINAL argument against the Marcionite would have been identical as the author of the report against the Marcosians - viz. NO MAN had the authority to restrict the prophetic spirit. No man had the authority to tell them that their continuing revelations from heaven were counterfeit.

Does everyone see what I am going with this? More later. Have to put my son to bed ...