Tertullian of Carthage

Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus was born in Carthage to pagan parents, but became a Christian at some point before AD 197. According to Jerome[1] and Eusebius[2] he was the son of a centurion and trained as a lawyer in Rome. Following his conversion he became a presbyter in the church at Carthage, but dissociated himself from the Church after the bishop of Rome rejected the ‘New Prophecy’ of the Montanist movement. However, "...neither Eusebius nor Jerome is in this matter a reliable witness, and what can be known about Tertullian’s life must be gathered from his own writings; unfortunately, their highly rhetorical character makes inference insecure."[3)] Very different conclusions may be reached from the fragmentary evidence available to us.[4]

Throughout church history Tertullian has received condemnation for two main reasons: his association with the Montanist movement[5] and because of his supposed anti-intellectualism. However, the vast majority of scholars now agree that the Montanists were doctrinally orthodox,[6] and so there are no grounds for rejecting Tertullian’s contribution to theology on the grounds of his association with them. Roger Forster & Paul Marston, for example, refer to Minucius Felix (late 2nd/3rd century), as Tertullian’s "more orthodox" contemporary.[7] However, it should be noted that in Minucius Felix’s work Octavius Christianity is treated from the standpoint of philosophy, Scripture is not cited, nor are major biblical teachings much discussed.[8] It is therefore difficult to accept Forster & Marston’s view on the basis of arguments from silence. There has been a long history of debate whether Tertullian used Octavius as a source for his Apology or vice versa. Current opinion favours the priority of the Apology.[9] This is not the first time that Tertullian’s orthodoxy has been attacked in order to undermine his credibility as a witness to the beliefs and practises of the church of his day. William Wall used the same ploy in the 1840’s to support his case for infant baptism. Wall wrote that Tertullian "...fell into the heresy of the Montanists, who blasphemously held that one Montanus was that Paraclete or Comforter which our Saviour promised to send: and that better and fuller discoveries of God’s will were made to him than to the Apostles, who prophesied only in part."[10] To which Paul K. Jewett responds: "But the noble African’s reputation as a Christian and theologian scarcely needs defence against such beggarly invective."[11]

Tertullian is the church father who more than any other has been taken to epitomise the anti-intellectualism of the early Church. Tertullian wrote:

For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.[12]

Three facts that lie behind Tertullian’s rhetoric that are seldom considered:

1. Greek philosophy was "an amalgam of rival world-views, based on premises that are very different from the biblical revelation."[13] Their failure to establish any means of accountability to allow the resolution of disputes was already appreciated by Diodorus (c.90-21 BC), Galen (c.130-200 AD) and Claudius Ptolemy (2nd cent. AD) (and other leading thinkers of the 2nd century.[14]
2. Tertullian believed that "heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy,"[15] Plato and Aristotle being responsible for Valentinian Gnosticism.[16] David Lindberg argues that "what he therefore opposed was not philosophy generally, but heresy or the philosophy that gave rise to it."[17]
3. Tertullian himself made use of philosophical (particularly Stoic) ideas in his writings.[18] He agreed with Plato on the matter of the immortality of the soul.[19] He even claimed (as Philo and Justin Martyr had before him) that the philosophers borrowed from the Jewish Scriptures.[20] Like all writers, he assumed that he was able to write theology without incorporating his own presuppositions.[21]

The statement cited above must be viewed in the context of his other works:

Elsewhere Tertullian does not always speak in such robust terms of an unbridgeable chasm separating Athens and Jerusalem. He was as well educated as anyone of his time: a competent lawyer, able to publish his writings in both Latin and Greek with equal facility, acquainted with the current arguments of the Platonic, Stoic and Aristotelian schools and also possessing some knowledge of medicine.[22]

Finally, Tertullian’s argument "I believe it because it is absurd"[23] has been shown to be a misquotation, but more importantly it is an example of a standard Aristotelian argumentative form. Put simply what Tertullian is actually saying is that

...the more improbable an event, the less likely is anyone to believe, without compelling evidence, that it has occurred; therefore, the very improbability of an alleged event, such as Christ’s resurrection, is evidence in its favour. Thus far from seeking the abolition of reason, Tertullian must be seen as appropriating Aristotelian rational techniques and putting them to apologetic use.[24]

Indeed, in his Apology he demonstrated his familiarity with at least thirty literary authorities, which he probably had read first hand, rather than by referring to a handbook of quotations.[25]

Tertullian’s method of exegesis varied depending on the purpose of each of his works. When writing against the Gnostic Marcion (who rejected the Old Testament and all use of allegory) Tertullian defended its use, noting how even Paul had used allegory in his letters.[26] While he admitted that the use of allegory was sometimes legitimate he made it clear that he himself preferred the literal sense.[27] His principle for identifying the presence of allegory was that it was present if the literal sense resulted in nonsense; it is not present when the literal meaning makes sense.[28] In this he did not differ significantly from Origen’s principle.[29] In his other works Tertullian’s use of allegory is restrained.[30] Following other writers (such as Justin and Irenaeus) Tertullian used typology extensively to demonstrate the unity of the Testaments,[31] but the figures that he found in the Old Testament were based upon historical persons, places and events, and were used consistently.[32] As O’Malley points out: "He clearly does not feel able to allegorise generally, simply because Paul uses the words in Gal. 4:24."[33]

Rob Bradshaw, Webmaster

References