Tertullian: What Is the Greater Context Of The Quote Used in JWO

Eric provides friendly criticism on December 25, 2010 -- questioning whether the larger context of Tertullian provides a narrower point than I find in quoting Tertullian.

Context: My Quote of Tertullian

In 207 A.D., Tertullian in Against Marcion -- quoted at length in Jesus' Words Only at 395 (see this link to read it in full) -- made the following sobering points about Paul:

• Jesus never made Paul an apostle from the records that we can read.
• Paul's claim to apostleship solely relies upon Paul's veracity.
• If Paul were a true apostle, he is still an inferior apostle because Paul in Acts 15 submitted his doctrine to the twelve.
• If Paul later varied from the twelve, we must regard the twelve as more authoritative than Paul because Paul came later.
• Paul's claim of being selected as an apostle later by Jesus seems implausible. That story asks us to believe Jesus had not planned things adequately with the twelve.
• Lastly, Tertullian said Jesus warned us of false prophets who would come doing miracles in His name and signs and wonders, and Paul perfectly matches that prophesied type of prophet.

The key quote with most of these points is the following passage from Tertullian -- written in 207 A.D. in Against Marcion:

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god:.... (Tertullian, Against Marcion (Oxford University Press, 1972) at 509, 511, reprinted online at  http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm .)

Challenge Whether Tertullian In Context Is As Negative As This Sounds

Eric writes:

You don't tell the whole story with Tertullian and Paul. Quote: "What was the main point of Tertullian's attack on Marcion? As we shall see, Tertullian primarily attacks Marcion for his undue reliance on Paul. Paul's apostleship is dubious, Tertullian explains."

After reading Against Marcion, I'd have to say Tertullian's main point is something more like, "The God of the OT is the same one we find in Luke and Paul's writings because time and again this God is honored, referenced, and used as the authority (even to abolish His own law)."

Rather than attack him for his undue reliance on Paul, Tertullian actually relies on Paul and the mangled version of Luke to counterattack Marcion (since those are the only witnesses Marcion will accept).

Of course it's stated that Marcion should accept more Gospels and Acts but Tertullian doesn't belabor the point since he knows he won't get anywhere with it.

In the main section where he claims Paul's apostleship is dubious (V,1) he is claiming that *Marcion's* Paul has a shaky claim, because Marcion does not allow Acts (and only has Paul testifying about himself), and b/c signs and wonders can be false. He then goes on to give his two reasons why he believes Paul *is* an apostle ("I deny [Paul], to convince you [Marcion] that he is mine [Tertullian's].").

John similarly writes about this quote:

The "evidence" Tertullian used to prove Paul's apostleship was the Book of the Acts of the Apostles which Marcion rejected from his canon. Since Marcion rejected Acts, he had no means of proving Paul's apostleship except Paul's word alone. When Tertullian wrote, "Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation," the other person that Tertullian uses to attest to Paul's apostleship is Luke, as do I. Yet, you refuse to accept Luke's attestation much to my bewilderment.

To Eric I reply, I acknowledge that Tertullian says Paul is "my apostle." I noted that in my discussion. He simply never said he was an "apostle of Jesus Christ." I pointed out that Tertullian liked many things that Paul says, as do I. Because Tertullian accepts Paul as one who has valuable teaching does not mean he regards him as inspired. Tertullian's use of Paul does not prove Tertullian believes Paul is an inspired source in the church. Many in the early church through this period regarded all the apostles' letters as edifying, not inspired. It was only when the canon was finally put together in the 300s that verbal inspiration of even letters was considered the case.

As Reverand Gardner explained in 1858:

The Fathers [i.e., Christian commentators from 125-325 A.D.], however, differed in their views of inspiration; some took it in a more restricted, others in a more comprehensive sense, But they were usually more inclined to admit verbal inspiration in the case of the Old than of the New Testament; and it was not till the canon of the New Testament had been completed, that they adopted concerning it the views which they had long entertained concerning the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament. (Rev. James Gardner, "Inspiration," The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) at 142.)

Hence, one cannot read into Tertullian's approving use of Paul as an agreement that Paul is inspired. I demonstrate an entire chapter where in refuting Marcion Tertullian refutes predestination, eternal security, total depravity, faith alone, etc. - doctrines that Marcion, the Paulinist, was no doubt citing Paul in support, as Paulinists today continue with such interpretations of Paul. (Jesus Words Only at this link.)

Next, the point Eric and John make is that Tertullian said Marcion cannot prove his case of Paul's authority without Luke's Acts. And that would be true. But it does not follow that Tertullian believed that once one adds back in Acts, one could overcome the points of criticism that Tertullian hurled at relying upon Paul alone by Marcion.

Thus, while both Eric and John are correct Tertullian said that Marcion could not prove his case for Paul without Luke, it is reading too much into that to assume Tertullian's points meant that Paul's status could now be maintained by those who accept Luke's Acts.

Instead, Tertullian's points were too brutal in the quote above. Once we put Luke, i.e., Acts, back into the mix, as we should, Paul cannot still be proven to be valid under the points raised by Tertullian.

For example, Paul is still self-serving in his claim to be an apostle of Jesus Christ as Tertullian said if you add back in Luke's Acts. Nothing in Acts proves Jesus in the 3 vision accounts appointed Paul an apostle. Jesus only said Paul would be a "martus," a witness, not an "apostolos." (See Act 9, 22, 26.)

"In Acts...Paul is denied the title of Apostle." (Hengel & Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch (John Knox Press, 1997) at 321.)

Moreover, Tertullian in the quote above said that Acts 15 proved Paul was inferior to the 12. That explicitly remains true if Acts is considered because Tertullian's point is based on Luke's account in Acts.

And Tertullian quotes Jesus' point about false prophets with signs and wonders, and suggests that applies to Paul too. If Acts is considered, Acts unwittingly provides great support for that statement that Paul is a false prophet with signs and wonders. Luke in Acts assiduously documents many signs and wonders of Paul. Hence adding Luke's Acts back in as authority does not change the consequence of accepting Tertullian's very harsh statements. Rather, Luke's Acts provides the backbone to prove Tertullian's charge that Paul fit Jesus' warning of some false prophet coming with "signs and wonders" to deceive even the elect.

Hence, Tertullian already said too much in the extended quote I have provided. It now cannot be taken back, and even with Acts, Tertullian's points remain and destroy Paul's validity.