Tertullian on Heresiology in Against Praxeas
Megan L.
The second and third centuries were a time of much confusion for many Christians. All sorts of different readings of the sacred texts were flying around and they had different people telling them different things. This led to the clashing between those proclaiming to be what we now call proto-orthodox, and those who were deemed heretics. In particular, it is interesting to study the writings of Tertullian, a man who was involved with a Christian group known as the Montanists. He was known to often attack those he saw as heretical with his words. One such occasion when he saw fit to do so was towards the end of the second century when the view that Jesus Christ was actually God himself in human form. This went directly against the commonly accepted teachings of the time and Tertullian vehemently opposed the view.
One of the leaders of this school of thought was a Roman Christian by the name of Praxeas. This man was the recipient of Tertullian’s unhappiness with the choices being made by these Christians. Tertullian refuted Praxeas about his belief and then moved on to re-state the proto-orthodox belief system about Jesus and where he came from. The fact that this document was even written shows just how complex and particular the beliefs of ancient Christians were starting to become. One of the problems that they were facing at this time was the attempt to reconcile their religion with philosophy, something that Tertullian also opposed. When approached about the possibility of philosophy further proving the stories told in the gospel “Tertullian flatly disagreed” (Kaufman 171) on the grounds that “philosophers’ solutions strayed from scripture’s meaning and caused greater difficulties” (Kaufman 171).
Tertullian was a single figure that stood (in general) for the whole of proto-orthodoxy. There was a huge range of different belief sets and practices within Christianity back then, much like it is today. But the proto-orthodox tended to have the most fiery documents against those that they deemed heretical. The word heresy originally meant change or difference, but in this era of history it came to mean something slightly different. The word began to be used in the context of religion and differences in religious beliefs. It came to mean any set of beliefs that did not line up with what was widely recognized. Clearly, this could be a lot of different belief systems and would be interpreted by various groups very differently. In general though, we commonly see the proto-orthodox using the word to mold the shape of their religion and make clear what did not fit into that mold.
A particular group of people that Tertullian had a large problem with where Christina philosophers. They would try to find a deeper meaning to the scriptural texts and that was something Tertullian opposed. These learned Christians would often try to apply Roman philosophy to Christian texts and ideas in order to make more sense to them. Tertullian, on the other hand, thought that was “dragg[ing] troubling passages from their context” (Kaufman 171) which directly went against his views that the scriptures incapable of being contradictory or inconsistent.
There are many reasons that the proto-orthodox wanted to correct the people they deemed hereitcal. Some of these probably stemmed from wanting to share what they believed to be the full and irrefutable truth. Others are slightly less kind and stem from an attempt to inform others of their heresy and demand that they change their beliefs to reflect the proto-orthodox truths. Tertullian could easily be said to fall into the latter categories in many ways, such as when he calls out Praxeas by saying that he “did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy” (Tertullian 1).
Tertullian felt that all he needed to understand Christianity was scripture. He believed that “everything necessary for interpretation was on view somewhere in the scripture” (Kaufman 171). In his refutation, entitled “Against Praxeas” this viewpoint is pretty clear. As he restates what he thinks are the proper beliefs for Praxeas, his summary is succinct and very much drawn from the gospels and other accepted scriptures. He even goes so far as to say that “this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel” (Tertullian 2) and that “whatever is first is true” (Tertullian 2). This is an incredibly wide claim to make and yet Tertullian doesn’t back down from it in the least.
The tone that’s present in this excerpt of writing is interesting. In the first section, Tertullian is in attack mode, tearing Praxeas to pieces and listing out things he has been doing wrong and why exactly he is a heretic. He lumps Praxeas in with the “carnally-minded” (Tertullian 1) and claims that he is “destroy[ing] the truth by defending it” (Tertullian 1). In the second section he goes on to reiteraate what the “right” beliefs are by “wield[ing] scriptural assurances of Christ’s incarnation [and] corporeality” (Kaufman 172) in a very passionate way. He held firmly in his belief that “God has...a son...who proceeded from himself, by whom all things are made, and without whom nothing was made” (Tertullian 2) and flatly refuted anything that went against that.
Tertullian is a very good model to look at the for the beliefs and attitudes of the proto-orthodox so far as their views on heresy are concerned. Christians are often know to be devout and adamanat in their beliefs and the ancient Christians were not afraid to show that. Tertullian does an incredible job to refute what he believes to be wrong and remind readers of what he believes to be the ultimate truth. The proto-orthodox Christians were widespread and didn’t always line up with the specifics of their beliefs, but the core of that belief remained steadfast and true. It became something that they would argue in defense of and even die for. Tertullian was an exceptionally strong writer and his deep defense of his religion adds a particular fire to “Against Praxeas” that makes it a very interesting and compelling read.
Ehrman, Bart D.. "Tertullian: Against Praxeas." In After the New Testament: a reader in early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 224-226.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. "Tertullian On Heresy, History, And The Reappropriation Of Revelation." Church History 60, no. 02 (1991): 167-179.
The second and third centuries were a time of much confusion for many Christians. All sorts of different readings of the sacred texts were flying around and they had different people telling them different things. This led to the clashing between those proclaiming to be what we now call proto-orthodox, and those who were deemed heretics. In particular, it is interesting to study the writings of Tertullian, a man who was involved with a Christian group known as the Montanists. He was known to often attack those he saw as heretical with his words. One such occasion when he saw fit to do so was towards the end of the second century when the view that Jesus Christ was actually God himself in human form. This went directly against the commonly accepted teachings of the time and Tertullian vehemently opposed the view.
One of the leaders of this school of thought was a Roman Christian by the name of Praxeas. This man was the recipient of Tertullian’s unhappiness with the choices being made by these Christians. Tertullian refuted Praxeas about his belief and then moved on to re-state the proto-orthodox belief system about Jesus and where he came from. The fact that this document was even written shows just how complex and particular the beliefs of ancient Christians were starting to become. One of the problems that they were facing at this time was the attempt to reconcile their religion with philosophy, something that Tertullian also opposed. When approached about the possibility of philosophy further proving the stories told in the gospel “Tertullian flatly disagreed” (Kaufman 171) on the grounds that “philosophers’ solutions strayed from scripture’s meaning and caused greater difficulties” (Kaufman 171).
Tertullian was a single figure that stood (in general) for the whole of proto-orthodoxy. There was a huge range of different belief sets and practices within Christianity back then, much like it is today. But the proto-orthodox tended to have the most fiery documents against those that they deemed heretical. The word heresy originally meant change or difference, but in this era of history it came to mean something slightly different. The word began to be used in the context of religion and differences in religious beliefs. It came to mean any set of beliefs that did not line up with what was widely recognized. Clearly, this could be a lot of different belief systems and would be interpreted by various groups very differently. In general though, we commonly see the proto-orthodox using the word to mold the shape of their religion and make clear what did not fit into that mold.
A particular group of people that Tertullian had a large problem with where Christina philosophers. They would try to find a deeper meaning to the scriptural texts and that was something Tertullian opposed. These learned Christians would often try to apply Roman philosophy to Christian texts and ideas in order to make more sense to them. Tertullian, on the other hand, thought that was “dragg[ing] troubling passages from their context” (Kaufman 171) which directly went against his views that the scriptures incapable of being contradictory or inconsistent.
There are many reasons that the proto-orthodox wanted to correct the people they deemed hereitcal. Some of these probably stemmed from wanting to share what they believed to be the full and irrefutable truth. Others are slightly less kind and stem from an attempt to inform others of their heresy and demand that they change their beliefs to reflect the proto-orthodox truths. Tertullian could easily be said to fall into the latter categories in many ways, such as when he calls out Praxeas by saying that he “did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy” (Tertullian 1).
Tertullian felt that all he needed to understand Christianity was scripture. He believed that “everything necessary for interpretation was on view somewhere in the scripture” (Kaufman 171). In his refutation, entitled “Against Praxeas” this viewpoint is pretty clear. As he restates what he thinks are the proper beliefs for Praxeas, his summary is succinct and very much drawn from the gospels and other accepted scriptures. He even goes so far as to say that “this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel” (Tertullian 2) and that “whatever is first is true” (Tertullian 2). This is an incredibly wide claim to make and yet Tertullian doesn’t back down from it in the least.
The tone that’s present in this excerpt of writing is interesting. In the first section, Tertullian is in attack mode, tearing Praxeas to pieces and listing out things he has been doing wrong and why exactly he is a heretic. He lumps Praxeas in with the “carnally-minded” (Tertullian 1) and claims that he is “destroy[ing] the truth by defending it” (Tertullian 1). In the second section he goes on to reiteraate what the “right” beliefs are by “wield[ing] scriptural assurances of Christ’s incarnation [and] corporeality” (Kaufman 172) in a very passionate way. He held firmly in his belief that “God has...a son...who proceeded from himself, by whom all things are made, and without whom nothing was made” (Tertullian 2) and flatly refuted anything that went against that.
Tertullian is a very good model to look at the for the beliefs and attitudes of the proto-orthodox so far as their views on heresy are concerned. Christians are often know to be devout and adamanat in their beliefs and the ancient Christians were not afraid to show that. Tertullian does an incredible job to refute what he believes to be wrong and remind readers of what he believes to be the ultimate truth. The proto-orthodox Christians were widespread and didn’t always line up with the specifics of their beliefs, but the core of that belief remained steadfast and true. It became something that they would argue in defense of and even die for. Tertullian was an exceptionally strong writer and his deep defense of his religion adds a particular fire to “Against Praxeas” that makes it a very interesting and compelling read.
Ehrman, Bart D.. "Tertullian: Against Praxeas." In After the New Testament: a reader in early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 224-226.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. "Tertullian On Heresy, History, And The Reappropriation Of Revelation." Church History 60, no. 02 (1991): 167-179.
Heresiology in Ancient Christianity: An Examination of Tertullian’s On the Flesh of Christ
Lauren L.
By definition, the term heresiology is the study of heresy, which is a belief or theory that is inconsistent with the accepted doctrine of a church or religious system. Centuries after the death of Christ, formal churches began to confirm certain Christian writings and concepts as true and certain Christian writings and concepts as false (or heretical). Writers of mainstream Christian thought are often referred to as proto-orthodox and writers of heretical doctrine are often aligned with a separate sect of Christian thought, called Gnosticism. Near the end of the second century, an influential author named Tertullian converted to Christianity and began writing proto-orthodox arguments against various heretics of the church.
In a specific writing called Tertullian: On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian focuses solely on the argument of Jesus’ earthly flesh because Gnostics of his time were promoting an idea called “docetism,” which says that Jesus only appeared to inhabit human flesh, but he never actually did. Tertullian begins On the Flesh of Christ by directly addressing his main Christian opponent, a heretic named Marcion, who preached docetism as well as other philosophical concepts about Christ’s true meaning which Tertullian and other proto-orthodox Christians deemed dangerous to the faith, irrelevant and wrong.
“O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that his flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority….If, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have reason to say) cease to live. For indeed you are already dead, since you are no Christian…” (On the Flesh of Christ 2).
Tertullian spends considerable length addressing and discrediting Marcion’s logic with his own. Heretical arguments for docetism (like Marcion’s) begin by assuming that a deity would not lower himself to take on flesh - hungry, dirty and tempted by sin. Tertullian, however, considers this assumption fallacious. He reminds heretical opponents that what humans perceive as “unbecoming” to God is just our own narrow view of who He is. Tertullian then goes on to beg the question: why would God present himself in the flesh and not be in the flesh; moreover, if God did not want to be born, he would not have presented himself as a human.
Tertullian then returns to more of Marcion’s arguments: one being that God cannot change his form, because he cannot change his character as divine; in other words, Marcion claims that God changing into human form puts an end to his form as God. Tertullian reminds Marcion of the transformation of the Holy Spirit into a dove during Jesus’ baptism, and angels’ ability to walk among humans yet still be divine. Tertullian then goes on, saying that Christ had to have been one with God the Creator, a God Gnostics generally said was not of Christ but of the Earth, and furthermore, that the Creator justly loved his own creation, for had Christ come from another God, his death would have been excessive, since he redeemed humans – the major creation of the world. Another point directly follows this: Tertullian says that rejecting a fleshly God because it seems “foolish” is rejecting a trait Christians know God maintains, for scripture says that “…[you] will not be ‘wise’ until [you] become a ‘fool’ of the world…” (On the Flesh of Christ 5).
The rest of Tertullian’s argument emphasizes the fact that Christ could not have performed his last miracle (his resurrection) had he not been of the flesh; he then concludes by reminding enemies of proto-orthodoxy that God does not trick and, finally, that Christ’s entrance into the world was both of the flesh and of the divine (a symbol of God’s interaction with his creation), for he was born of a virgin.
In Tertullian on Heresy, History, and the Reappropriation of Revelation, author Peter Iver Kaufman writes that Tertullian was simply a man who felt it necessary to promote exactly what scripture says about Jesus’ coming to Earth, and to prevent Gnostics from drawing out imagined truths from Jesus’ words.
Kaufman writes that Tertullian believed that philosophers read figuratively-passages of the bible, took them through backwards routes of the mind and imagined they found truth in their journey, when in reality they were misinterpreting the words all along. Though Tertullian was not surprised by heresy during his time, he felt it was his duty to argue (and maintain) proto-orthodoxy for the sake of the future of the church. Tertullian used logic to argue about a subject matter most would consider illogical as a whole; heretics of Tertullian’s time did not question Jesus’ pre-existence or divinity; they questioned his literal presence on Earth. Tertullian argues Jesus’ pre-existence, divinity and literal presence on Earth. More than any other philosophical argument, though, Tertullian wanted to address the flesh of Christ because he believed that Christians could only understand salvation once they understood the humility of a God who came to be with his creation, the final sacrifice of his blood and his suffering on the cross for the world’s sins.
Out of all of Tertullian’s opponents, Marcion apparently took the most “fire,” and that, Kaufman writes, is the reason Tertullian deliberately probes at Marcion’s heretical proclamations – for they were widespread and spreading. Tertullian points to scripture and Jesus’ words to make his argument; that is all he believed he needed, for at one point in the book of Luke, Jesus advises a lawyer to follow the Law in order to inherit eternal life (the Jewish law that Marcion insisted was no longer relevant) (Lk 10:25-27).
Kaufman writes that “Tertullian continued to write against [heretics], as if their misguided attempts to establish philosophical rationality were helpful prods, exciting the best expositors to defend the historicity of the resurrection and the historical rationality of revelation” (Reappropriation of Revelation 178). Tertullian was a man with a mission, insistent that he had a concrete argument to every Gnostic or heretical view of Christianity and, most significantly, an impenetrable wall of reasons why he knows that Jesus really did walk on Earth in the flesh.
Bibliography:
Ehrman, Bart D.. "Tertullian: On the Flesh of Christ." In After the New Testament: a reader in early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 218-224.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. "Tertullian On Heresy, History, And The Reappropriation Of Revelation." Church History 60, no. 02 (1991): 167.
Lindsell, Harold, and Verlyn D. Verbrugge. "Luke." In NRSV Harper study Bible. Expanded and updated. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1991. 1785.
By definition, the term heresiology is the study of heresy, which is a belief or theory that is inconsistent with the accepted doctrine of a church or religious system. Centuries after the death of Christ, formal churches began to confirm certain Christian writings and concepts as true and certain Christian writings and concepts as false (or heretical). Writers of mainstream Christian thought are often referred to as proto-orthodox and writers of heretical doctrine are often aligned with a separate sect of Christian thought, called Gnosticism. Near the end of the second century, an influential author named Tertullian converted to Christianity and began writing proto-orthodox arguments against various heretics of the church.
In a specific writing called Tertullian: On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian focuses solely on the argument of Jesus’ earthly flesh because Gnostics of his time were promoting an idea called “docetism,” which says that Jesus only appeared to inhabit human flesh, but he never actually did. Tertullian begins On the Flesh of Christ by directly addressing his main Christian opponent, a heretic named Marcion, who preached docetism as well as other philosophical concepts about Christ’s true meaning which Tertullian and other proto-orthodox Christians deemed dangerous to the faith, irrelevant and wrong.
“O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that his flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority….If, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have reason to say) cease to live. For indeed you are already dead, since you are no Christian…” (On the Flesh of Christ 2).
Tertullian spends considerable length addressing and discrediting Marcion’s logic with his own. Heretical arguments for docetism (like Marcion’s) begin by assuming that a deity would not lower himself to take on flesh - hungry, dirty and tempted by sin. Tertullian, however, considers this assumption fallacious. He reminds heretical opponents that what humans perceive as “unbecoming” to God is just our own narrow view of who He is. Tertullian then goes on to beg the question: why would God present himself in the flesh and not be in the flesh; moreover, if God did not want to be born, he would not have presented himself as a human.
Tertullian then returns to more of Marcion’s arguments: one being that God cannot change his form, because he cannot change his character as divine; in other words, Marcion claims that God changing into human form puts an end to his form as God. Tertullian reminds Marcion of the transformation of the Holy Spirit into a dove during Jesus’ baptism, and angels’ ability to walk among humans yet still be divine. Tertullian then goes on, saying that Christ had to have been one with God the Creator, a God Gnostics generally said was not of Christ but of the Earth, and furthermore, that the Creator justly loved his own creation, for had Christ come from another God, his death would have been excessive, since he redeemed humans – the major creation of the world. Another point directly follows this: Tertullian says that rejecting a fleshly God because it seems “foolish” is rejecting a trait Christians know God maintains, for scripture says that “…[you] will not be ‘wise’ until [you] become a ‘fool’ of the world…” (On the Flesh of Christ 5).
The rest of Tertullian’s argument emphasizes the fact that Christ could not have performed his last miracle (his resurrection) had he not been of the flesh; he then concludes by reminding enemies of proto-orthodoxy that God does not trick and, finally, that Christ’s entrance into the world was both of the flesh and of the divine (a symbol of God’s interaction with his creation), for he was born of a virgin.
In Tertullian on Heresy, History, and the Reappropriation of Revelation, author Peter Iver Kaufman writes that Tertullian was simply a man who felt it necessary to promote exactly what scripture says about Jesus’ coming to Earth, and to prevent Gnostics from drawing out imagined truths from Jesus’ words.
Kaufman writes that Tertullian believed that philosophers read figuratively-passages of the bible, took them through backwards routes of the mind and imagined they found truth in their journey, when in reality they were misinterpreting the words all along. Though Tertullian was not surprised by heresy during his time, he felt it was his duty to argue (and maintain) proto-orthodoxy for the sake of the future of the church. Tertullian used logic to argue about a subject matter most would consider illogical as a whole; heretics of Tertullian’s time did not question Jesus’ pre-existence or divinity; they questioned his literal presence on Earth. Tertullian argues Jesus’ pre-existence, divinity and literal presence on Earth. More than any other philosophical argument, though, Tertullian wanted to address the flesh of Christ because he believed that Christians could only understand salvation once they understood the humility of a God who came to be with his creation, the final sacrifice of his blood and his suffering on the cross for the world’s sins.
Out of all of Tertullian’s opponents, Marcion apparently took the most “fire,” and that, Kaufman writes, is the reason Tertullian deliberately probes at Marcion’s heretical proclamations – for they were widespread and spreading. Tertullian points to scripture and Jesus’ words to make his argument; that is all he believed he needed, for at one point in the book of Luke, Jesus advises a lawyer to follow the Law in order to inherit eternal life (the Jewish law that Marcion insisted was no longer relevant) (Lk 10:25-27).
Kaufman writes that “Tertullian continued to write against [heretics], as if their misguided attempts to establish philosophical rationality were helpful prods, exciting the best expositors to defend the historicity of the resurrection and the historical rationality of revelation” (Reappropriation of Revelation 178). Tertullian was a man with a mission, insistent that he had a concrete argument to every Gnostic or heretical view of Christianity and, most significantly, an impenetrable wall of reasons why he knows that Jesus really did walk on Earth in the flesh.
Bibliography:
Ehrman, Bart D.. "Tertullian: On the Flesh of Christ." In After the New Testament: a reader in early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 218-224.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. "Tertullian On Heresy, History, And The Reappropriation Of Revelation." Church History 60, no. 02 (1991): 167.
Lindsell, Harold, and Verlyn D. Verbrugge. "Luke." In NRSV Harper study Bible. Expanded and updated. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1991. 1785.
Tertullian: Prescription of the Heretics
by Marcella Schaufler
As one might assume, Tertullian’s Prescription of the Heretics discusses Tertullian’s beliefs about Christianity and heresy. Tertullian was very concerned with canon and context of the bible. Terturllian describes heretics as deadly to the human race, though they were necessary to test the strength of Christianity. (Ehrman 212) He believed that heretics misinterpreted the bible and twisted the messages in the bible to appeal to their own views, instead of accepting the passages for what they are. (Ehrman 214) To Tertullian, you were only a true Christian if you followed all the books of the bible. (Ehrman 217)
The fact that Christ was in fact a human being was very important to Tertullian. He insisted not only was Jesus flesh and blood, but that he was also humble and suffered greatly for the sake of all humans. (Kaufman 170) Tertullian makes this point very clear is his Prescription of Heretics, describing that Jesus “was made flesh in [Virgin Mary’s] womb, was born to her and lived as Jesus Christ”. (Ehrman 213) A human Christ is much more relatable to people than some kind of divine being that cannot suffer, which is why Tertullian was so vehement that Christ was one of us. The Gnostic view of Christ was more likely to turn people off from Christianity as he was seen as less caring and above humans, instead of Tertullian’s view of a Christ that cared so much that he died for us.
Tertullian followed the bible very strictly. He believed that questions brought up in one particular section of the bible could be answered other passages. (Kaufman 171) Everything that was important was covered in the text, which is why he took offense to philosophers trying to find a deeper meaning. He believed that context played a vital role to understanding the bible as a whole. (Kaufman 171) Tertullian went so far as to describe the changes that heretics made to the bible as “massacring the scripture”, and describes heretics as “violent” and “perverts”. (Ehrman 213) This defiantly paints the heretics as awful monsters, and thus making they’re ideas seem revolting as well. Tertullian seems to be set on making the heretics out to me as barbaric and malevolent as possible.
Philosopher’s tendency to try to find a deeper meaning in bible passages was the main reason why Tertullian described philosophers as heretical, as they looked for a deeper meaning in the bible. By putting so much effort into trying to find meaning where there was none, the philosophers where neglecting to pay attention to the important parts of Christianity. (Ehrman 213) Tertullian generalizes philosophers with heretics, stating that they both “perpend the same tings and are caught up in discussions” (Ehrman 213). His description makes it appear that philosophers are never able to move forward and instead stick to ideas that are meaningless.
Tertullian’s views were in some ways even stricter than the church’s, as he believed they “pardoned unpardonable sins”. He was concerned that the pagans would use this against Christianity (Church History 176) It seems that Tertullian was not only concerned about the interpretation of Christianity, but also how it appeared to others. Tertullian’s concern show’s that he wanted the religion to look appealing. He didn’t want to give the heretics something they could use against his religion.
In the beginning of his Prescription of the Heretics, Tertullian compares heresies to fevers, as they end human life (Ehrman 212), which makes heretics themselves appear very dangerous and deadly. The very description would make anyone want to avoid heretics. It makes them out to be like a disease. Tertullian goes on to state explain that heresy comes from the Greek word choice, and that a heretic “chooses for himself the cause of his own condemnation”. This description of self-destruction implies that heretics are not in their right minds.
An interesting fact to point out was that though Tertullian constantly attacked heresy, he believed that it was necessary to “keep traditional or ‘regular’ Christianity advancing on its proper course.” (Kaufman 168) In his Prescription of the Heretics, he describes it as “a test of faith”. (Ehrman 213) This reflects the belief that bad things happen for a reason, a belief that is still present in Christianity today. This reasoning strengthens Tertullian’s argument, as it shows God in a more positive light. God isn’t unable to stop heretics, but by not stopping them he is helping strengthening ‘real’ Christianity. By proving these heretics wrong, traditional Christianity in term comes out looking better.
More peculiar still, Tertullian saw efforts to convert heretic as useless. He believed that heretics were stubborn and would “never concede defeat”. (Kaufman 178) Tertullian even went so far as to say that “heretics should not be allowed to appeal to the scripts”, and true Christians should not even talk to them. (Ehrman 215) This view is very similar to the Gnostic view of ‘hylics’, which were people that Gnostics believe could not learn true Christianity (in their case Gnostic Christianity) and were hopeless. Though he believed heretics could not be reasoned with, Tertullian continued to write against heretics. (Kaufman 178) Tertullian probably thought this was necessary to write these attacks so that he could discredit the heretics. By making a well thought out argument against people who he considered heretics, Tertullian could convince other people who weren’t so stubborn to practice Christianity the way he believed was right. His writing could also validate Christians who already followed his views, keeping them on the right path.
Interestingly enough, Tertullian describes the heretics’ way of life as “futility, earthly, all too human, lacking in gravity, in authority, in discipline, as suits their faith”, (Ehrman 217) which almost identical to the accusations that Gnostics have for the port-orthodox. Tertullian uses this description to make the heretics seem uncivilized and immoral. He accuses them of letting their woman be ‘forward’ and preforming baptisms (Ehrman 217), which decreases their masculinity, and therefore makes them weaker. Tertullian also makes accusations that “one man is bishop today, another man tomorrow. The deacon of today is tomorrow’s reader, the priest today is tomorrow a layman.” (Ehrman 217) This description makes heretics seem unorganized. The ‘layman priest’ implies that heretics let those who are uneducated and without authority teach the word of God, which greatly hurts their credibility.
Tertullian is only concerned with what is in the text, nothing in-between. He believed that anyone so much as wavered form the text was a heretic, which where the destroyers of life itself. (Ehrman 212) Given this belief, it is easy to understand why Tertullian was so adamant about attacking heretics, though he believed they were a constant in the world.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. Church History, 167-179. Cambridge University Press and American Society of Church History, 1991.
Ehrmen, Bart D. After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity, 211-217. Oxford University Press, 1999.
The fact that Christ was in fact a human being was very important to Tertullian. He insisted not only was Jesus flesh and blood, but that he was also humble and suffered greatly for the sake of all humans. (Kaufman 170) Tertullian makes this point very clear is his Prescription of Heretics, describing that Jesus “was made flesh in [Virgin Mary’s] womb, was born to her and lived as Jesus Christ”. (Ehrman 213) A human Christ is much more relatable to people than some kind of divine being that cannot suffer, which is why Tertullian was so vehement that Christ was one of us. The Gnostic view of Christ was more likely to turn people off from Christianity as he was seen as less caring and above humans, instead of Tertullian’s view of a Christ that cared so much that he died for us.
Tertullian followed the bible very strictly. He believed that questions brought up in one particular section of the bible could be answered other passages. (Kaufman 171) Everything that was important was covered in the text, which is why he took offense to philosophers trying to find a deeper meaning. He believed that context played a vital role to understanding the bible as a whole. (Kaufman 171) Tertullian went so far as to describe the changes that heretics made to the bible as “massacring the scripture”, and describes heretics as “violent” and “perverts”. (Ehrman 213) This defiantly paints the heretics as awful monsters, and thus making they’re ideas seem revolting as well. Tertullian seems to be set on making the heretics out to me as barbaric and malevolent as possible.
Philosopher’s tendency to try to find a deeper meaning in bible passages was the main reason why Tertullian described philosophers as heretical, as they looked for a deeper meaning in the bible. By putting so much effort into trying to find meaning where there was none, the philosophers where neglecting to pay attention to the important parts of Christianity. (Ehrman 213) Tertullian generalizes philosophers with heretics, stating that they both “perpend the same tings and are caught up in discussions” (Ehrman 213). His description makes it appear that philosophers are never able to move forward and instead stick to ideas that are meaningless.
Tertullian’s views were in some ways even stricter than the church’s, as he believed they “pardoned unpardonable sins”. He was concerned that the pagans would use this against Christianity (Church History 176) It seems that Tertullian was not only concerned about the interpretation of Christianity, but also how it appeared to others. Tertullian’s concern show’s that he wanted the religion to look appealing. He didn’t want to give the heretics something they could use against his religion.
In the beginning of his Prescription of the Heretics, Tertullian compares heresies to fevers, as they end human life (Ehrman 212), which makes heretics themselves appear very dangerous and deadly. The very description would make anyone want to avoid heretics. It makes them out to be like a disease. Tertullian goes on to state explain that heresy comes from the Greek word choice, and that a heretic “chooses for himself the cause of his own condemnation”. This description of self-destruction implies that heretics are not in their right minds.
An interesting fact to point out was that though Tertullian constantly attacked heresy, he believed that it was necessary to “keep traditional or ‘regular’ Christianity advancing on its proper course.” (Kaufman 168) In his Prescription of the Heretics, he describes it as “a test of faith”. (Ehrman 213) This reflects the belief that bad things happen for a reason, a belief that is still present in Christianity today. This reasoning strengthens Tertullian’s argument, as it shows God in a more positive light. God isn’t unable to stop heretics, but by not stopping them he is helping strengthening ‘real’ Christianity. By proving these heretics wrong, traditional Christianity in term comes out looking better.
More peculiar still, Tertullian saw efforts to convert heretic as useless. He believed that heretics were stubborn and would “never concede defeat”. (Kaufman 178) Tertullian even went so far as to say that “heretics should not be allowed to appeal to the scripts”, and true Christians should not even talk to them. (Ehrman 215) This view is very similar to the Gnostic view of ‘hylics’, which were people that Gnostics believe could not learn true Christianity (in their case Gnostic Christianity) and were hopeless. Though he believed heretics could not be reasoned with, Tertullian continued to write against heretics. (Kaufman 178) Tertullian probably thought this was necessary to write these attacks so that he could discredit the heretics. By making a well thought out argument against people who he considered heretics, Tertullian could convince other people who weren’t so stubborn to practice Christianity the way he believed was right. His writing could also validate Christians who already followed his views, keeping them on the right path.
Interestingly enough, Tertullian describes the heretics’ way of life as “futility, earthly, all too human, lacking in gravity, in authority, in discipline, as suits their faith”, (Ehrman 217) which almost identical to the accusations that Gnostics have for the port-orthodox. Tertullian uses this description to make the heretics seem uncivilized and immoral. He accuses them of letting their woman be ‘forward’ and preforming baptisms (Ehrman 217), which decreases their masculinity, and therefore makes them weaker. Tertullian also makes accusations that “one man is bishop today, another man tomorrow. The deacon of today is tomorrow’s reader, the priest today is tomorrow a layman.” (Ehrman 217) This description makes heretics seem unorganized. The ‘layman priest’ implies that heretics let those who are uneducated and without authority teach the word of God, which greatly hurts their credibility.
Tertullian is only concerned with what is in the text, nothing in-between. He believed that anyone so much as wavered form the text was a heretic, which where the destroyers of life itself. (Ehrman 212) Given this belief, it is easy to understand why Tertullian was so adamant about attacking heretics, though he believed they were a constant in the world.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. Church History, 167-179. Cambridge University Press and American Society of Church History, 1991.
Ehrmen, Bart D. After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity, 211-217. Oxford University Press, 1999.