Tertullian's Downright Perplexing Arguments Against Marcion

Introduction

Chapter 39 of Tertullian's Against Marcion contains one of the strangest arguments in early Christian polemics. The confusion surrounding this chapter arises from its convoluted logic and unexpected references, making it a perplexing piece for scholars and readers alike. Let's delve into this chapter and explore its intricacies.

The Argument in Chapter 39

Tertullian's argument hinges on the names "Christ" and "Jesus" and their rightful ownership. He contends that Marcion's Christ cannot be the true Christ because the name "Christ" originates from Jewish scriptures, where it is foretold. Marcion, therefore, has no right to claim this name for his god. The passage reads:

"We have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names, that it appertains to him who first proclaimed his own Christ among men, and changed a name to Jesus. Thus we shall also be in agreement concerning the presumption of one who says that many will come in his name, when it is not his name if he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom the rightful possession of the name belongs, and when, what is more, he forbids our acceptance of others who are in like case with himself, seeing that he, no less than they, has come in a name not his own—unless it was his purpose to forewarn the disciples against lying claimants to the name, he himself through rightful ownership of the name possessing the truth of it."

Tertullian accuses Marcion of stealing the name "Christ" from Jewish scriptures and questions why he would also choose the name "Jesus," which wasn't expected in Jewish writings.

Context from Book Three

To understand Chapter 39 better, it's essential to revisit Book Three of Against Marcion, where Tertullian discusses the names in more detail:

"Next, as concerns his other names, and in particular his name of Christ, what answer are my opponents going to give? If in your opinion the name of Christ is a common noun, just as the name of god is, with the result that it is permissible for the sons of each of two gods to be called Christ, as also for each <of those gods> to be called father <and> lord, assuredly reason will controvert this proposition..."

Here, Tertullian argues that the name "Christ" is a specific title that belongs exclusively to the figure foretold in Jewish scriptures. He finds it absurd that Marcion would use this name for a different god.

Arguments Against the Jews

Interestingly, many of Tertullian’s arguments against Marcion seem to be repurposed from arguments originally directed at the Jews. This can be seen in Tertullian’s work Against the Jews, where he uses similar language and reasoning:

"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?" Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation Jesus..."

Borrowed Arguments from Justin Martyr

The ultimate origin of these arguments can be traced back to Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin uses similar arguments against Jewish expectations of the Messiah:

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee... For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus."

The Problem with the Gospel References

A major point of confusion is Tertullian’s use of gospel references. For example, he seems to draw from Matthew rather than Luke when discussing false Christs:

"So then those people will come, saying I am Christ. You, <Marcion,> will receive them: you have received one exactly like them."

This reference to Matthew 24:5 complicates attempts to use Tertullian’s arguments to reconstruct Marcion’s gospel, which supposedly was based on Luke.

Conclusion

Tertullian’s arguments in Against Marcion are perplexing due to their convoluted logic and the reuse of arguments initially directed at the Jews by a previous generation of Church Fathers. Understanding the context and sources of these arguments helps clarify Tertullian's intentions but also raises questions about the effectiveness and originality of his polemics against Marcion. The repurposing of Justin Martyr’s arguments and the confusion between gospel references highlight the complexity and, at times, the inconsistency in Tertullian’s approach.

The takeaway is clear: while Tertullian's Against Marcion offers valuable insights, its arguments must be scrutinized carefully to separate effective polemics from rhetorical confusion.