Tertullian Witness the Marcionite Substitution Myth

[Stephan Huller]

As I have mentioned before, perhaps as many people in the world believe that Jesus was miraculously 'substituted' at the crucifixion as 'really' died on the cross. Andrew Criddle wasn't convinced that the Marcionites believed this. Here is a possible reference in Tertullian:

If you require still further prediction of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm is sufficiently able to afford it to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then prophetically declaring His glory. "They pierced," says He, "my hands and my feet," which is the special cruelty of the cross. And again, when He implores His Father's help, He says, "Save me from the lion's mouth," that is, the jaws of death, "and my humiliation from the horns of the unicorns; "in other words, from the extremities of the cross, as we have shown above. Now, David himself did not suffer this cross, nor did any other king of the Jews; so that you cannot suppose that this is the prophecy of any other's passion than His who alone was so notably crucified by the nation. Now should the heretics, in their obstinacy, reject and despise all these interpretations, I will grant to them that the Creator has given us no signs of the cross of His Christ; but they will not prove from this concession that He who was crucified was another, unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as His by their own god, so that from the diversity of predictions there might be maintained to be a diversity of sufferers, and thereby also a diversity of persons. But since there is no prophecy of even Marcion's Christ, much less of his cross, it is enough for my Christ that there is a prophecy merely of death. For, from the fact that the kind of death is not declared, it was possible for the death of the cross to have been still intended, which would then have to be assigned to another (Christ), if the prophecy had had reference to another. Besides, if he should be unwilling to allow that the death of my Christ was predicted, his confusion must be the greater if he announces that his own Christ indeed died, whom he denies to have had a nativity, whilst denying that my Christ is mortal, though he allows Him to be capable of birth. [Tertullian Adv Marc 3.19.5]

Elsewhere Adv Marc he refers to a particular disciple associated with the heretics who is Jesus's 'fellow-sufferer' and 'fellow-something or other' (escapes me the exact terminology). Could it be Judas?

[Stephan Huller]

Also this repeated citation in Tertullian:

For in the person of Pilate "the heathen raged," and in the person of Israel "the people imagined vain things; ""the kings of the earth" in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together against the Lord, and against His anointed (= his Christ)." [Resurrection of the Flesh 20.4]

How can Jesus be 'the Lord' and 'his Christ?'

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Stephan huller,

I'm afraid I have to agree with Andrew Criddle on this one. It seems to me that Tertullian is talking about Marcion's Christ as a totally other Christ. He says, "I will grant to them that the Creator has given us no signs of the cross of his Christ; but they will not prove from this concession that he who was crucified was another unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as his by their own God." In other words, the Hebrew God predicted Christ' death, although he did not speak about the means being crucifixion. But that doesn't mean that the crucifixion-less prediction by the Hebrew God allows us to substitute Marcion's crucified Christ for another -- Tertullian's Jewish crucified Christ.

I found the other stuff really fascinating in this quote:

They pierced," says He, "my hands and my feet," which is the special cruelty of the cross. And again, when He implores His Father's help, He says, "Save me from the lion's mouth," that is, the jaws of death, "and my humiliation from the horns of the unicorns; "in other words, from the extremities of the cross

Why does Tertullian think that piercing hands and feet is the special cruelty of the cross? The gospels give no indication that Jesus' feet were pierced. Also the extremities of the cross seems to be fighting wild lions and unicorns (unicorns? And grown adults believe this stuff?), I think he means facing wild animals. Apparently, there is evidence that people during gladiator contests were tied to a cross and eaten alive by hungry wild beasts. I guess the crucifixion of Christ could have been worse, he could have been devoured by wild beasts (and unicorns) while crucified. And some people say God isn't merciful.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

As I have mentioned before, perhaps as many people in the world believe that Jesus was miraculously 'substituted' at the crucifixion as 'really' died on the cross. Andrew Criddle wasn't convinced that the Marcionites believed this. Here is a possible reference in Tertullian:

If you require still further prediction of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm is sufficiently able to afford it to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then prophetically declaring His glory. "They pierced," says He, "my hands and my feet," which is the special cruelty of the cross. And again, when He implores His Father's help, He says, "Save me from the lion's mouth," that is, the jaws of death, "and my humiliation from the horns of the unicorns; "in other words, from the extremities of the cross, as we have shown above. Now, David himself did not suffer this cross, nor did any other king of the Jews; so that you cannot suppose that this is the prophecy of any other's passion than His who alone was so notably crucified by the nation. Now should the heretics, in their obstinacy, reject and despise all these interpretations, I will grant to them that the Creator has given us no signs of the cross of His Christ; but they will not prove from this concession that He who was crucified was another, unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as His by their own god, so that from the diversity of predictions there might be maintained to be a diversity of sufferers, and thereby also a diversity of persons. But since there is no prophecy of even Marcion's Christ, much less of his cross, it is enough for my Christ that there is a prophecy merely of death. For, from the fact that the kind of death is not declared, it was possible for the death of the cross to have been still intended, which would then have to be assigned to another (Christ), if the prophecy had had reference to another. Besides, if he should be unwilling to allow that the death of my Christ was predicted, his confusion must be the greater if he announces that his own Christ indeed died, whom he denies to have had a nativity, whilst denying that my Christ is mortal, though he allows Him to be capable of birth. [Tertullian Adv Marc 3.19.5]

Elsewhere Adv Marc he refers to a particular disciple associated with the heretics who is Jesus's 'fellow-sufferer' and 'fellow-something or other' (escapes me the exact terminology). Could it be Judas?

[Stephan Huller]

But how do you explain the retelling of the gospel narrative:

Pilate "the heathen raged," and in the person of Israel "the people imagined vain things; ""the kings of the earth" in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together against the Lord (= Jesus), and against His Christ

Which is Jesus 'the Lord' or 'His Christ'? It is awkward to pretend that 'God in heaven' is meant here. Everyone else is physically present at the trial. The gospel does not mention another God beside Jesus.

[Stephan Huller]

And also the Syriac of Mark 1:11 'divides the person of Christ' to use Tertullian's terminology

'my Son and my beloved'

This is also the Marcionite reading at the Transfiguration. The Diatessaron had this saying at the baptism (no baptism in the Marcionite text):

The voice openly proclaimed, ' This is My Son and My Beloved,' that the voice might reprove prying http://books.google.com/books?id=m3A3AA ... em&f=false

The Old Syriac similarly has "Thou art my Son, and my beloved one, in whom I am well-pleased", a form closer to Mark. Curious that this division is consistently reflected in the Syriac tradition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I1_2Yh ... 22&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

Another example which is more subtle. I am credited in an article of Baarda's somewhere as getting him to look at the Transfiguration in the Arabic text. There are two interesting variants. The first was the one he spent most time on - the strange editorial reference to the existence of another version of the Transfiguration identifying it as taking place after the Passion (i.e. "And they thought that the time of his decease which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem was come.") Baarda considered and rejected my understanding that this demonstrated knowledge and a subsequent rejection of a heretical version of the story after the resurrection (as in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter and has been theorized by Teeple and many others).

To be honest, I was unhappy with Baarda's conclusions and sucked out on helping him proof read the article. But until now I didn't have a comeback because quite honestly Baarda is like brilliant and a master of every language under the sun and I am just some blogger who is rather stupid at times. Well I didn't have much to go on at the time until I started doing this seemingly moronic 'super-gospel' exercise. But now I found something which I think proves my original assumptions that Tertullian's heretical adversaries had the reading found in our Arabic Diatessaron. It develops from the second significant variant in the passage just before the 'after the time of decease in Jerusalem). We read in the Arabic Diatessaron:
And while they were praying, Jesus changed, and became after the fashion of another person; and his face shone like the sun, and his raiment was very white like the snow, and as the light of lightning, so that nothing on earth can whiten like it. And there appeared unto him Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus. And they thought that the time of his decease which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem was come.

Compare this reading with what is said in Tertullian De resurrectione mortuorum:

The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mount, had changed His raiment for a robe of light; but He still retained features which Peter could recognise. In that same scene Moses also and Elias gave proof that the same condition of bodily existence may continue even in glory-the one in the likeness of a flesh which he had not yet recovered, the other in the reality of one which he had not yet put off. It was as full of this splendid example that Paul said: "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body." But if you maintain that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any substance, then it follows that "Saul, when changed into another man," passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when "transformed into an angel of light," loses his own proper character. Such is not my opinion. So likewise changes, conversions and reformations will necessarily take place to bring about the resurrection, but the substance of the flesh will still be preserved safe. [De resurrectione mortuorum 55 § 10 BORLEFFS J.G.Ph., CCL 2 (1954), (p.1002, l.38) BP1]

While the text does not cite the Diatessaronic reading it is obvious (at least to me) that Tertullian (or his source) is combatting heretics who use the Transfiguration narrative as proof that we change into another person when we are resurrected. Hence Tertullian's citation of the canonical texts where the offending line 'changed into another person' does not appear. The implication nevertheless is that the heretics must have had the reading prior to Tertullian's citation and thus the reading existed in the late second century (= Tatian).

Going back to the reference to the apostles wrongly thinking that the Transfiguration happened after the time of his decease at Jerusalem. I again think - as I originally suggested to Baarda - that this means the editor of the Arabic Diatessaron was correcting the original 'Diatessaronic-gospel' of Tatian or some other second century figure explicitly identified as the gospel written by Peter and the apostles (see above). It's identification as a variant of Matthew 17:2 is confirmed by A Hobson The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic problem p. 66

[andrewcriddle]

As I have mentioned before, perhaps as many people in the world believe that Jesus was miraculously 'substituted' at the crucifixion as 'really' died on the cross. Andrew Criddle wasn't convinced that the Marcionites believed this. Here is a possible reference in Tertullian:

If you require still further prediction of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm is sufficiently able to afford it to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then prophetically declaring His glory. "They pierced," says He, "my hands and my feet," which is the special cruelty of the cross. And again, when He implores His Father's help, He says, "Save me from the lion's mouth," that is, the jaws of death, "and my humiliation from the horns of the unicorns; "in other words, from the extremities of the cross, as we have shown above. Now, David himself did not suffer this cross, nor did any other king of the Jews; so that you cannot suppose that this is the prophecy of any other's passion than His who alone was so notably crucified by the nation. Now should the heretics, in their obstinacy, reject and despise all these interpretations, I will grant to them that the Creator has given us no signs of the cross of His Christ; but they will not prove from this concession that He who was crucified was another, unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as His by their own god, so that from the diversity of predictions there might be maintained to be a diversity of sufferers, and thereby also a diversity of persons. But since there is no prophecy of even Marcion's Christ, much less of his cross, it is enough for my Christ that there is a prophecy merely of death. For, from the fact that the kind of death is not declared, it was possible for the death of the cross to have been still intended, which would then have to be assigned to another (Christ), if the prophecy had had reference to another. Besides, if he should be unwilling to allow that the death of my Christ was predicted, his confusion must be the greater if he announces that his own Christ indeed died, whom he denies to have had a nativity, whilst denying that my Christ is mortal, though he allows Him to be capable of birth. [Tertullian Adv Marc 3.19.5]

Elsewhere Adv Marc he refers to a particular disciple associated with the heretics who is Jesus's 'fellow-sufferer' and 'fellow-something or other' (escapes me the exact terminology). Could it be Judas?

Hi Stephan

I think you are misinterpreting Tertullian here.

Tertullian is trying to argue (against Marcion) that the Christ of the New Testament is predicted in the Jewish scriptures, Marcion apparently accepts that a future deliverer or deliverers is predicted in the Jewish scriptures but denies that this refers to the Christ of the New Testament.

Tertullian argues that a crucified figure is predicted in the Jewish scriptures (with the implication that if so this crucified figure must be the Christ of the New Testament). However, Tertullian is realistic enough to admit that his opponents will not find his interpretations of Scripture plausible. Therefore he has another argument. He claims that Scripture clearly teaches about a future figure who will die to bring deliverance (even if the manner of death is unspecified). Therefore either these prophecies speak of the New Testament Christ or there has been or will be a prophesied deliverer who will die to bring about deliverance but who is not the New Testament Christ. (Tertullian implies that although this second alternative is formally possible it is not at all plausible.)

Andrew Criddle