Why Doesn't Tertullian Say He Has an Actual Marcionite Canon in His Hand?

Reading Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem can be a perplexing experience, especially when trying to discern his actual sources and motivations. Throughout the text, Tertullian engages in a vigorous critique of Marcionism, yet he often does so without making it explicitly clear whether he has the Marcionite canon directly in front of him. This raises the question: why does Tertullian avoid clearly stating that he has access to Marcion's texts?

The Context of Adversus Marcionem Book Five

First, let's establish the peculiarities in Book Five of Adversus Marcionem. Unlike Book Four, which systematically critiques Marcion’s gospel by comparing it to the orthodox Gospel of Luke, Book Five tackles Paul's epistles, often lacking the detailed counter-exegesis of Marcionite interpretations seen in the earlier book. This difference in approach and depth raises questions about the sources and methods Tertullian employs.

In Book Four, Tertullian's approach is structured and methodical:

1. Load a Passage from Luke: Tertullian presents a passage from the Gospel of Luke.
2. Explain the Meaning: He explains the passage’s meaning from an orthodox perspective.
3. Refute Marcion: Tertullian argues why Marcion’s interpretation is incorrect.
4. Move to the Next Passage: He proceeds to the next passage in sequence.

This Ford assembly line approach gives Book Four a mechanical and systematic quality, consistently refuting Marcion with a clear structure.

The Nature of Book Five

Book Five, on the other hand, diverges from this method. While it also critiques Marcion's interpretation, it does so with a focus on proving Paul's orthodoxy rather than dismantling Marcion’s interpretations piece by piece. Here are some key observations:

• Lack of Marcionite Exegesis: Tertullian rarely provides the detailed Marcionite exegesis of Pauline passages. Instead, he often engages with the text as if addressing an orthodox understanding directly.
• Superficial Critiques: Statements such as "Marcion’s god isn’t the only one who is merciful" lack the depth seen in Book Four’s detailed refutations.
• Orthodox Canon Focus: The focus in Book Five often seems more on aligning Paul with orthodox teachings rather than specifically refuting Marcionite interpretations, suggesting a reliance on the orthodox canon.

Reasons for the Differences

1. Sources and Authenticity: One plausible explanation is that Tertullian’s sources for Marcionite exegesis in Book Five were less comprehensive than those available for the gospel critique in Book Four. If Justin Martyr’s works (which predate Tertullian) served as a foundational source for Book Four, the absence of similar sources for Paul’s letters might explain the discrepancy.

2. Tertullian’s Methodology: Tertullian might have been engaging more with an orthodox audience in Book Five, aiming to fortify their understanding of Paul rather than directly confronting Marcionism. This audience-centric approach could explain the less combative tone and the lack of detailed Marcionite exegesis.

3. Justin’s Influence: The systematic approach in Book Four possibly reflects Justin Martyr’s influence, who might have had more concrete arguments against Marcion’s gospel. Book Five, lacking this foundation, resorts to a more generalized defense of Paul’s orthodoxy.

4. Strategic Ambiguity: By not explicitly stating he has Marcion’s texts, Tertullian maintains a strategic ambiguity that allows him to critique Marcion’s theology broadly without being pinned down to specific textual comparisons. This ambiguity serves his rhetorical purposes, allowing him to navigate criticisms without direct textual confrontation.

Conclusion

The stylistic and methodological differences between Books Four and Five of Adversus Marcionem are significant and suggest differing sources and strategies. Book Four’s structured critique of the Marcionite gospel contrasts sharply with Book Five’s more generalized defense of Paul. This disparity points to a possible reliance on Justin Martyr’s works for Book Four and a more orthodox-centric approach in Book Five, where Tertullian perhaps did not have the same depth of Marcionite texts or exegesis to engage with. This nuanced understanding provides a clearer picture of Tertullian's rhetorical and apologetic strategies in his confrontation with Marcionism.