Comments on: The Odd Couple http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/ Mike Aquilina's Blog Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:36:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-2011 Mike Aquilina Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:03:40 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-2011 That's very true. And magnanimous. That’s very true. And magnanimous.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-2010 Kevin P. Edgecomb Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:58:42 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-2010 Goodness, I've no scimitar, you can be assured, and even if I did, I wouldn't pull it on you! All I want to ensure is that, yes, one may misconstrue the evidence to say that Tertullian was a heretic, but that I don't think that's right. There's nothing there in his own writings which absolutely and unequivocally requires that conclusion, and if that's the case, then what's going on? There are equally plausible explanations otherwise. For instance, Cyprian simply need not have identified his recent and well-known precursor as he was so well-known still and especially there. So, something other than what we have so readily assumed is proven may actually be so. It's easy enough to not call a man a heretic for that reason alone. Cranky yes, but heretical no. Goodness, I’ve no scimitar, you can be assured, and even if I did, I wouldn’t pull it on you! All I want to ensure is that, yes, one may misconstrue the evidence to say that Tertullian was a heretic, but that I don’t think that’s right. There’s nothing there in his own writings which absolutely and unequivocally requires that conclusion, and if that’s the case, then what’s going on? There are equally plausible explanations otherwise. For instance, Cyprian simply need not have identified his recent and well-known precursor as he was so well-known still and especially there. So, something other than what we have so readily assumed is proven may actually be so. It’s easy enough to not call a man a heretic for that reason alone. Cranky yes, but heretical no.

]]> By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-2006 Mike Aquilina Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:35:52 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-2006 Yes, but ... there is an odd circumstance brought up by most of the modern commentators. Tertullian is widely quoted by the early Fathers, but almost always without attribution. Cyprian — the bishop in Tertullian's hometown in the very next generation — does this consistently. Eusebius mentions Tertullian, but only once and in a kind of hit-and-run. Others do the same thing as Cyprian. It's almost as if they find his prose irresistible, but they fear the taint of his name. He's an elephant in the ecclesiastical kitchen. (The Jerome passage I quoted earlier is interesting because Jerome seems to see Tertullian as a kindred spirit. All that complaining about how Tertullian suffered from the envy of Roman clerics — it sounds more like the life of Jerome than the life of our lawyer friend!) For all those who are watching and waiting for Kevin to draw his scimitar: There's abundant material on Tertullian and his life and afterlife at www.Tertullian.org. It's there that I learned about T's prodigious production of neologisms. Get this, from Altaner: in Tertullian's known works we find that he "formed 509 new nouns, 284 adjectives, 28 adverbs and 161 verbs, i. e. together 982 new words." Yes, but … there is an odd circumstance brought up by most of the modern commentators. Tertullian is widely quoted by the early Fathers, but almost always without attribution. Cyprian — the bishop in Tertullian’s hometown in the very next generation — does this consistently. Eusebius mentions Tertullian, but only once and in a kind of hit-and-run. Others do the same thing as Cyprian. It’s almost as if they find his prose irresistible, but they fear the taint of his name. He’s an elephant in the ecclesiastical kitchen.

(The Jerome passage I quoted earlier is interesting because Jerome seems to see Tertullian as a kindred spirit. All that complaining about how Tertullian suffered from the envy of Roman clerics — it sounds more like the life of Jerome than the life of our lawyer friend!)

For all those who are watching and waiting for Kevin to draw his scimitar: There’s abundant material on Tertullian and his life and afterlife at http://www.Tertullian.org. It’s there that I learned about T’s prodigious production of neologisms. Get this, from Altaner: in Tertullian’s known works we find that he “formed 509 new nouns, 284 adjectives, 28 adverbs and 161 verbs, i. e. together 982 new words.”

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-2005 Kevin P. Edgecomb Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:20:06 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-2005 Right, but all of those are much later, as much as we do respect both Augustine and Jerome! We don't have anything from close enough to Tertullian's time that actually says he was a Montanist. Even with examination of his writings, there's no clear set of Montanist and pre-Montanist ones. It may have been the case that he did turn Montanist and anti-Church, but that would be anachronistic for one thing, as the Montanists themselves weren't quite anti-Church, but considered themselves a kind of revivalist movement within the Church, and that mostly in the East. We have no evidence for Montanism in Africa at all aside from these odd sayings about Tertullian. It just doesn't wash. Mostly for the reason that no one would ever think Tertullian was a Montanist simply from reading his writings, if they had never heard the idea already from others. I find it more likely tha it could very well be the case that because Tertullian's rigorous morality was somewhat akin to the Montanists, his writings were co-opted by some later group of them and reworked into something anti-Great Church. Such happened all the time, and caused problems for many. Anyhow, within the body of writings that we have from Tertullian, there's nothing determinedly heretical. The assumption is that he was a heretic either permanently or temporarily at some point, but his writings don't indicate anything outré, so why should we think that? I've only read about half of them myself, but what I've seen is typical of African Christianity in general: rigorously moral, highly ascetic, almost sere in discipline, but vibrantly faithful and devoted to the Church. There's nothing of the freewheeling Montanists there. Drop that unbelief! Convert! Right, but all of those are much later, as much as we do respect both Augustine and Jerome! We don’t have anything from close enough to Tertullian’s time that actually says he was a Montanist. Even with examination of his writings, there’s no clear set of Montanist and pre-Montanist ones. It may have been the case that he did turn Montanist and anti-Church, but that would be anachronistic for one thing, as the Montanists themselves weren’t quite anti-Church, but considered themselves a kind of revivalist movement within the Church, and that mostly in the East. We have no evidence for Montanism in Africa at all aside from these odd sayings about Tertullian. It just doesn’t wash. Mostly for the reason that no one would ever think Tertullian was a Montanist simply from reading his writings, if they had never heard the idea already from others. I find it more likely tha it could very well be the case that because Tertullian’s rigorous morality was somewhat akin to the Montanists, his writings were co-opted by some later group of them and reworked into something anti-Great Church. Such happened all the time, and caused problems for many. Anyhow, within the body of writings that we have from Tertullian, there’s nothing determinedly heretical. The assumption is that he was a heretic either permanently or temporarily at some point, but his writings don’t indicate anything outré, so why should we think that? I’ve only read about half of them myself, but what I’ve seen is typical of African Christianity in general: rigorously moral, highly ascetic, almost sere in discipline, but vibrantly faithful and devoted to the Church. There’s nothing of the freewheeling Montanists there. Drop that unbelief! Convert!

]]> By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1995 Mike Aquilina Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:23:39 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1995 The Gelasian Decree also seems to deep-six the works of Tertullian, though that does not necessarily mean he was himself a heretic. Help thou my unbelief. The Gelasian Decree also seems to deep-six the works of Tertullian, though that does not necessarily mean he was himself a heretic.

Help thou my unbelief.

]]> By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1993 Mike Aquilina Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:19:41 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1993 And this is from Jerome's De Viris 53: "Tertullian was a priest of the church until middle age, but then, because of the envy and insults of the clergy of the church of Rome, he lapsed into Montanism and refers to the New Prophecy in many treatises. In particular, he directed against the church discussions of modesty, of persecution, of fasting, of monogamy, and of divine possession (in six books, with a seventh against Apollonius)." And this is from Jerome’s De Viris 53: “Tertullian was a priest of the church until middle age, but then, because of the envy and insults of the clergy of the church of Rome, he lapsed into Montanism and refers to the New Prophecy in many treatises. In particular, he directed against the church discussions of modesty, of persecution, of fasting, of monogamy, and of divine possession (in six books, with a seventh against Apollonius).”

]]> By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1992 Mike Aquilina Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:14:56 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1992 Well, a Google search brought me a lick from Augustine, and he's an ancient (though a later ancient) who lived in Tertullian's backyard: "Therefore, the reason Tertullian became a heretic was not for this, but because in joining the Cataphrygians, whom he had earlier demolished, he also began to condemn, contrary to Apostolic teaching, second marriage as debauchery. Later, having separated from them too, he established congregations of his own" (from De Haeresibus 86). Again, I want to take the boat your way, Kevin. But the current seems strong in this stretch of the river. Well, a Google search brought me a lick from Augustine, and he’s an ancient (though a later ancient) who lived in Tertullian’s backyard: “Therefore, the reason Tertullian became a heretic was not for this, but because in joining the Cataphrygians, whom he had earlier demolished, he also began to condemn, contrary to Apostolic teaching, second marriage as debauchery. Later, having separated from them too, he established congregations of his own” (from De Haeresibus 86).

Again, I want to take the boat your way, Kevin. But the current seems strong in this stretch of the river.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1987 Kevin P. Edgecomb Mon, 14 Aug 2006 05:04:04 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1987 Mike, all of that started showing up in the late nineteenth century, and became an entrenched and unexamined scholarly dogma. The facts remain: 1.) There's nothing in Tertullian's writings themselves which are unequivocally Montanist; 2.) He makes no mention at all of joining with them; and 3.) The Montanists were not universally anathematized until Nicea. I'm not saying the man is or should be a saint, but nor should he be accused of something of which he's not guilty. All of the elaboration of the Montanist Tertullian is based solely in the secondary and tertiary literature, like so much of the junk Biblical Studies literature today: repeat it in enough footnotes and it becomes truth. It's simply not so. There's not a lick of it in the ancients or in his own writings, which are still the primary sources. Mike, all of that started showing up in the late nineteenth century, and became an entrenched and unexamined scholarly dogma. The facts remain: 1.) There’s nothing in Tertullian’s writings themselves which are unequivocally Montanist; 2.) He makes no mention at all of joining with them; and 3.) The Montanists were not universally anathematized until Nicea. I’m not saying the man is or should be a saint, but nor should he be accused of something of which he’s not guilty. All of the elaboration of the Montanist Tertullian is based solely in the secondary and tertiary literature, like so much of the junk Biblical Studies literature today: repeat it in enough footnotes and it becomes truth. It’s simply not so. There’s not a lick of it in the ancients or in his own writings, which are still the primary sources.

]]> By: Mike Aquilina http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1982 Mike Aquilina Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:00:19 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1982 Kevin, I wish what you're saying could be true. It's what I'd want to believe. But both Quasten and Drobner use strong language to describe Tertullian's change of allegiance ("went over to ... a sect" in the former; "severed his ties with the Catholic Church" in the latter). Altaner says Tertullian "broke with the Church." According to Von Campenhausen, Tertullian remained with the Montanists after the Pope, the bishop of Carthage, and then all the bishops of Africa declared the Montanists to be in schism. F.L. Cross uses similar language. I think all of these guys would want to find Tertullian a loophole if they could. Now, I'll grant that the manuals don't cite sources for the assertion (they rarely cite anything), but to find it stated so strongly so universally — and by such varied and judicious men — makes me tend to believe it, even if I'd rather find the contrary to be true. Kevin,

I wish what you’re saying could be true. It’s what I’d want to believe. But both Quasten and Drobner use strong language to describe Tertullian’s change of allegiance (“went over to … a sect” in the former; “severed his ties with the Catholic Church” in the latter). Altaner says Tertullian “broke with the Church.” According to Von Campenhausen, Tertullian remained with the Montanists after the Pope, the bishop of Carthage, and then all the bishops of Africa declared the Montanists to be in schism. F.L. Cross uses similar language. I think all of these guys would want to find Tertullian a loophole if they could.

Now, I’ll grant that the manuals don’t cite sources for the assertion (they rarely cite anything), but to find it stated so strongly so universally — and by such varied and judicious men — makes me tend to believe it, even if I’d rather find the contrary to be true.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/comment-page-1/#comment-1977 Kevin P. Edgecomb Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:14:12 +0000 http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/08/13/the-odd-couple/#comment-1977 Keep in mind that Tertullian died in full communion with the Church, Montanism not having been declared a heresy during his lifetime. There is also no explicit evidence for Tertullian having "joined" the Montanists, only that some very few of his positions were sympathetic. Keep in mind that Tertullian died in full communion with the Church, Montanism not having been declared a heresy during his lifetime. There is also no explicit evidence for Tertullian having “joined” the Montanists, only that some very few of his positions were sympathetic.

]]>