Possible New Information About the Marcionites in Tertullian De Pudicitia

[Secret Alias]

James is said to have declared in our text of Acts 15:

After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled youwith words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

De Pudicitia makes the case that the prohibition on (a) idolatry (b) blood (c) what has been strangled and (d) fornication is everlasting and inviolable. Apparently there were 'others' who argued that Paul forgave even these sins:

But about those, who think there is a difference between that paraclete, which was in the apostles and that, which was working by them, and which, recognised nowadays in their special prophets, they can no longer see in the apostles, now they may show anyhow by means of the scriptures of the apostles, that the commaculation of the flesh and especially stained after baptism can be cleansed by penitence, not, that the form of the old law has been dissolved even in the apostles; and they may not think according to the conception of the criminality of adultery, that this form is thought to be less severe in our new discipline than in the old. When the Gospel was first heard and had shaken the old conception to such a degree, that one began to discuss, whether the old form of the law was to be retained as matters stood, at this moment the Holy apostles, by the authority of the Holy Ghost emitted this commandment,"For it seemed good," they are saying to those, who among the Gentiles had begun with the first things in the law (i.e. circumcision) "to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats, offered to idols, and from fornication and from blood: from which if ye keep yourself ye shall do well according to the will of the Holy Ghost."

It may be enough to state, that even at this point adultery and fornication have their place of honour between idolatry and homicide. (For as to blood I would prefer to think of human blood.) For how severe must such crimes be regarded by the apostles, which they before all are excepting from that old law as to observation, which they before all decide are to be avoided of necessity? Of course, they do not permit others, but they before all put these crimes as impossible to forgive, these apostles, who have for the Gentiles made the other burdens of the law excusable. Why do you think they are lifting away such a yoke from our neck, if not for ever to impose on us this more simple discipline? Why do they relax so many bonds, if not to tie us for ever to more necessary things? They have absolved us from so many burdens, thus taking us obliged to avoid that which is more pernicious. There has been an exchange made. We have gained much end must offer a little. But it is not possible to cancel this exchange, if of course it is not cancelled by the renewal of this very adultery or homicide or idolatry. For the law is to be accepted in its full extent, if the condition for forgiveness is solved. But the Holy Ghost has not made this bond with us inadvisedly but has made it of his own accord and so it is to be held more sacred. Nobody will annihilate his covenant, if not the ungrateful. And now he will not take back that which he has given away, and he has not given away that which he has reserved for himself. The statements of a last testament are ever prevailing and of course the statement of this decree and this commandment will remain to the end of the world. He has sufficiently refused the forgiveness of such things, which he has elected to be observed, and he has provided for that, which he has not sanctioned in the same way. That is why no forgiveness is given by the church either for idolatry or for homicide. It is not allowed to presume - as I think - that the apostles have made any exception of this statement of theirs; or if someone can presume that, he will have to give proof of it.

We know well their suspicions even about these matters. For in fact they are suspecting that St. Paul, the apostle, has given his forgiveness in the second epistle of the Corinthians to the same fornicator, whom he in the first epistle had said was to deliver unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, the impious heir of his father's wife, as if he had later on changed his mind, writing: "But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient... is the punishment which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you, that ye would conform your love toward him. For to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient to me in all things. To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also. For if I too forgave anything, I forgave it in Christ. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices." [De Pudicitia 13]

I think this material has been understood. Yes Tertullian invokes the idea that there are those who say that the Paraclete who was 'in the apostles' (i.e. the community of James) said different things from those - 'the prophets' - who came after them. But the underlying argument which follows in De Pudicitia seems to be a referendum on Paul - i.e. did Paul, the Paraclete (a term from Marcionism cf. Origen Homilies on Luke, Hegemonius etc).

Yes the author is using Catholic texts (i.e. Acts, references to Peter in Matthew etc) but the underlying argument that Paul was the Paraclete who contradicted things said by James in Acts is Marcionite.

[Secret Alias]

It also suggests that a text of Acts circulated among the Montanists which reflected Montanist ideas. Notice:

Ἔδοξεν γὰρ τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν μηδὲν πλέον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμῖν βάρος πλὴν τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες 29 ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε Ἔρρωσθε

Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis nullum amplius uobis adicere pondus quam eorum a quibus necesse est abstineri, a sacrificiis et a fornicationibus et sanguine. A quibus obseruando recte agetis uetante uos Spiritu sancto.

There are some notable differences between the text of Acts 15:29 cited by Tertullian in the above mentioned fragment of Pud. and other
Western texts:

A) εἰδωλοθύτων is not translated as ab idolothyta or ab immolatis simulacrorum, but a sacrificiis. It has to be noted that the word idolothyta was not only known, but also used by Tertullian in Pud. when he cited other scriptural verses whose Greek versions contain the word εἰδωλοθύτα.
97
B) The content of quotation shows that Tertullian is citing Acts 15:28- 29. The order of the prohibitions, however, is typical for the Western text of Acts 15:20: unchastity is placed between sacrifices and blood.
C) Tertullian translates πορνεία (singular) with the plural fornicationibus.
D) The Golden Rule does not appear in the Tertullian’s quotation of Acts 15:29. Tertullian, however, includes in it a phrase similar to the one
found in the Codex Bezae of Acts and in Irenaeus’ quotation of Acts 15:29 (Adv. haer. III.12.14). This addition occurs in the final part of the quotation of Acts 15:29 in Pud. and reads as follows: uetante uos Spiritu sancto (as found in 14th -century Codex Ottobonianus, followed here by critical editions of CCL and SC) or uectante uos Spiritu sancto (editio princeps Martini Mesnartii from 1545). The latter version, not supported by the modern critical editions, is closer in meaning to the phrase in the Codex Bezae of Acts; it may have been a result of harmonization with the more diffused version of the Western text of Acts.

[Secret Alias]

More:

First it is necessary to analyse the meaning of the prohibitions according to Pud. 12. Abstaining from sacrifices (sacrificiis) is mentioned as the first prohibition. It is noteworthy that in the following sentence Tertullian calls the same prohibition idolatry (idololatria). Moreover, as already mentioned above, Tertullian does not use the word idolothyta to denote this prohibition. Thus, it appears that Tertullian understands this prohibition in a broader sense, i.e., as a ban on all kinds of activities connected with offering pagan sacrifices.

As regards the second prohibition, Tertullian uses the word fornicatio in plural: a fornicationibus. After providing the quotation from Acts, Tertullian ironically adds that to adultery and fornication (moechiae et fornicationi) the place of honour is given between the other two prohibitions. This remark suggests that Tertullian understood the word fornicationibus as adultery and fornication (or unchastity in general). Through this ironic remark, Tertullian emphasizes once more the gravity of these immoral deeds labelled as fornicationes.

Tertullian’s statement in Pud. about abstaining from blood is the most thought provoking. It is clear that abstaining from blood is interpreted in this treatise as shunning murder (homicidium). Still, the sentence: Interdictum enim sanguinis multo magis humani intellegemus, especially the words multo magis indicate that the just mentioned understanding of the prohibition of blood is the preferable one, but not the only one. We shall return to this matter later.

Thus, Tertullian in Pud. interprets the three prohibitions as the commandments forbidding idolatry, adultery (and other unchaste acts) as well as murder. In line with wider Christian thought, Tertullian holds these commandments as absolutely binding and not possible to change in the future. He puts it very clearly in the words following his quotation of the Apostolic Decree:

Nouissimi testamenti semper indemutabilis99 status est, et utique recitatio decreti consiliumque illud cum saeculo desinet.100

Moreover, in Pud. Tertullian not only acknowledges the Apostolic Council’s prohibitions as immutable, but also claims that idolatry, adultery and murder cannot be forgiven by the mediation of human beings. According to him, if someone commits one of these sins as a baptised Christian, it becomes a non-remissible sin for him:

Porro qualia uideri uolunt apostoli crimina, quae sola in obseruatione de lege pristina excerpunt, quae sola necessario abstinenda praescribunt? Non quod alia permittant, sed quod haec sola praeponant utique non remissibilia, qui ethnicorum causa cetera legis onera remissibilia fecerunt.101

According to Tertullian, the sins against the Apostolic Council’s prohibitions are not the only existing non-remissible sins. As we learn from
Pud. 19,25102, he also considers fraud (fraus), denial (negatio), blasphemy (blasphemia) and any other violation of the temple of God (si qua alia uiolatio templi Dei) as non-remissible.

It has to be mentioned, however, that Tertullian did not understand non-remissibility of sins in an absolute sense. Such sins cannot be pardoned by human beings on behalf of God, but they are left to the direct judgment of God who alone can pardon them to the penitent sinner.103 In order to get the full picture of Tertullian’s interpretation of the Apostolic Council’s prohibitions, we need to take into due consideration his other statements about the prohibitions. These comments are scattered among his other writings and do not contain any direct references, neither to Acts nor to the Apostolic Council; they are, however, thematically linked with the contents of the Apostolic Decree.

[Secret Alias]

So this is what I get from this:

1. the author understands from Acts that the Paraclete - i.e. the Holy Spirit - came upon the Jerusalem Church and continued through until the 'prophets' contemporary with the author.
2. some seem to make the case that that the Paraclete arose as a result of the end of the law and to announce a doctrine of mercy in the person of Paul
3. the author strengthens the material from Acts 15 to make it seem that they were divine prohibitions which rendered the hearers liable for eternal damnation.

I see the author reading 1 Corinthians 5 as proving (3). But clearly the idea that a threat was attached to Acts 15 is not supported by the material. It could have been read in the context of a doctrine of mercy as in (2). It would seem to me that an anti-Marcionite argument is being intentionally developed in order to contradict the idea that the Christian god is entirely merciful.

[Secret Alias]

The author begins his treatise acknowledging that his adversaries are the 'psychics' - a community he once belonged to - but now he has gone over to the 'pneumatics':

Now this tract against the psychici can even be said to be directed against me, because earlier I was one of them, and so they much more reproach me with this fact as a proof of inconstancy.

What is unusual of course is that in this one instance 'the spiritual' are the ones who take a hard line on sin - saying that transgression leads to damnation - while the 'animals' advocate mercy. So he says:

But we, want to prevent the greatest or the most serious sins even in that manner, that we do not allow the existence of a second marriage after taking the Creed, while it is only separated from adultery and fornication by stipulations written about the marriage and perhaps about the dower, and consequently we sternly shut the door Before remarried persons, as they are dishonouring the Paraclete with 'their' practice of the Christian doctrine.

Nobis autem maxima aut summa sic quoque praecauentur, dum nec secundas quidem post fidem nuptias permittitur nosse, nuptialibus et dotalibus, si forte, tabulis a moechiae et fornicationis opere diuersas, et ideo durissime nos infamantes Paracletum disciplinae enormitate digamos foris sistimus.

The original translation has the author identify himself as a 'montantist' and specifically references dishonoring 'the Holy Spirit.' But I thought it was important to lay the material out as it actually reads. What I want to draw attention to is that Paul is an obstacle to this understanding of an 'absolute line in the sand' regarding any punishment. The Marcionite Paul was a spokesman for mercy, plain and simple. Everything was forgivable. As such Paul becomes the fault line that the nascent orthodoxy necessarily ran over.

So we read the response from the author's opponents in what immediately follows sound more or less what we would expect from a Marcionite:

'But' are they saying 'Our Lord is good and the best, most merciful, both a commiserator and the first in mercy (bonus et optimus et misericors et miserator et misericordiae plurimus), and he desires this more than all offerings; he has not so great pleasure in the death of the wicked as in his penitence; he is giving his salvation to all men, especially to those that believe. And so even the children of Cod ought to be merciful and peaceable, forgiving each other as even Christ has forgiven us, not judging that we be not judged. "Then to his own master every one standeth and falleth: who art than that judgest another man's servant!" Forgive and ye shall
be forgiven!

[Secret Alias]

The author begins his treatise acknowledging that his adversaries are the 'psychics' - a community he once belonged to - but now he has gone over to the 'pneumatics':

Now this tract against the psychici can even be said to be directed against me, because earlier I was one of them, and so they much more reproach me with this fact as a proof of inconstancy.

What is unusual of course is that in this one instance 'the spiritual' are the ones who take a hard line on sin - saying that transgression leads to damnation - while the 'animals' advocate mercy. So he says:

But we, want to prevent the greatest or the most serious sins even in that manner, that we do not allow the existence of a second marriage after taking the Creed, while it is only separated from adultery and fornication by stipulations written about the marriage and perhaps about the dower, and consequently we sternly shut the door Before remarried persons, as they are dishonouring the Paraclete with 'their' practice of the Christian doctrine.

Nobis autem maxima aut summa sic quoque praecauentur, dum nec secundas quidem post fidem nuptias permittitur nosse, nuptialibus et dotalibus, si forte, tabulis a moechiae et fornicationis opere diuersas, et ideo durissime nos infamantes Paracletum disciplinae enormitate digamos foris sistimus.

The original translation has the author identify himself as a 'montantist' and specifically references dishonoring 'the Holy Spirit.' But I thought it was important to lay the material out as it actually reads. What I want to draw attention to is that Paul is an obstacle to this understanding of an 'absolute line in the sand' regarding any punishment. The Marcionite Paul was a spokesman for mercy, plain and simple. Everything was forgivable. As such Paul becomes the fault line that the nascent orthodoxy necessarily ran over.

So we read the response from the author's opponents in what immediately follows sound more or less what we would expect from a Marcionite:

"But," say they, "God is 'good' (bonus cf. Mark 10:18) 'and 'most good' (optimus cf. Against Marcion Book 4 and its discussion of Mark 10:18) and 'pitiful-hearted' (misericors) 'and 'a pitier,' (miserator) 'and 'abundant in pitiful-heartedness,' (misericordiae plurimus cf Exodus 34.6 - 7) which He "prefers to all sacrifice (quam omni sacrificio anteponit cf Hosea 6:6) 'not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance (mortem quam paenitentiam cf Ezekiel 18:23)',18 'a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.' (salutificator omnium hominum et maxime fidelium 1 Tim 4:20) And so it will be becoming for 'the sons of God' too to be 'pitiful-hearted' (Luke vi. 36 cf Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν) and 'peacemakers' 'giving in their turn just as Christ withal hath given to us' (donantes inuicem sicut et Christus donauit nobis cf Ephesians 4:32) 'not judging, that we be not judged' (non iudicantes, ne iudicemur Luke 6.37) For 'to his own lord a man standeth or falleth; who art thou, to judge another's servant? ' (Rom 14:4) 'Remit, and remission shall be made to thee.'" (Dimitte, et dimittetur tibi Luke 6.37) Such and so great futilities of theirs wherewith they flatter God and pander to themselves, effeminating rather than invigorating discipline, with how cogent and contrary (arguments) are we for our part able to rebut,----(arguments) which set before us warningly the "severity" of God, and provoke our own constancy? [4] Because, albeit God is by nature good, still He is "just"28 too. For, from the nature of the case, just as He knows how to "heal," so does He withal know how to "smite; "29 "making peace," but withal "creating evils; "30 preferring repentance, but withal commanding Jeremiah not to pray for the aversion of ills on behalf of the sinful People,----"since, if they shall have fasted," saith He, "I will not listen to their entreaty."31

This is so critical to see. And I thank Giuseppe indirectly for this realization. For I think we have this notion of the Marcionites as basically a niche community who spent their time arguing that the Law and the gospel were separate. The reality is that this is what offended the orthodox about their doctrine. The reality is that they were unlikely to be 'textual critics' first and foremost. They simply argued that the Christian god was all mercy.

[MrMacSon]

2. some seem to make the case that that the Paraclete arose as a result of the end of the law and to announce a doctrine of mercy in the person of Paul

They may have tried to make such a case, but it could just as well be that the Paraclete was used to end [reliance on] The Law.

So (1) and (2) might have happened in reverse order [as outline in Gal] thus -

1. some seem to make the case that that the Paraclete [was used to] end of the law & to announce a doctrine of mercy in the person of Paul
2. the Paraclete - i.e. the Holy Spirit - was said to have come upon the Jerusalem Church through the 'prophets' [& perhaps subsequent prophets]

[ (ii) material such as Acts 15 was used to preach divine prohibitions which rendered the hearers liable for eternal damnation. ]

[davidmartin]

SA, that makes it sound like the only two choices he had were Marcionites or Montanists at the time if you were a non-Gnostic kind of guy that didn't want to convert to Judaism
Not sure if that's accurate but didn't the orthodox church exist as well?
Strange.
It's hard to understand the real difference between Marcionism and Montanism since both were fairly ecstatic, prophetic movements
maybe its just a case of the Marcionites losing their sparkle after the passing of Marcion, turning into more of a social club with attendant matchmaking he disproves of and the Montanists came along with new fire.. but damn, if folk like Tertullian went Montanist where was Orthadoxy?

[MrMacSon]

... but didn't the orthodox church exist as well?

Unlikely.

(if it did it's unlikely the pontifications of the likes of Irenaeus and Tertuallian would have been necessary so late or deemed worth preserving)

eta: Justin Martyr gives very little if any indication he's aware of orthdoxy)

[Secret Alias]

Here's the proof the 'they' in Pudicitia are Marcionites. First Pudicitia 2.1

Ceterum Deus, inquiunt, bonus et optimus et misericors et miserator et misericordiae plurimus, quam omni sacrificio anteponit, non tanti ducens peccatoris mortem quam paenitentiam, salutificator omnium hominum et maxime fidelium. Itaque et filios Dei misericordes et pacificos esse oportebit, donantes inuicem sicut et Christus donauit nobis, non iudicantes, ne iudicemur. Domino enim suo stat quis uel cadit: tu quis es, ut seruum iudices alienum? Dimitte, et dimittetur tibi.

"But," say they, "God is 'good, 'and 'most good, 'and 'pitiful-hearted, 'and 'a pitier, 'and 'abundant in pitiful-heartedness, '16 which He holds 'dearer than all sacrifice, ' 'not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance' 'a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.' And so it will be becoming for 'the sons of God' too to be 'pitiful-hearted'21 and 'peacemakers; ' 'giving in their turn just as Christ withal hath given to us; 'not judging, that we be not judged.'

For 'to his own lord a man standeth or falleth; who art thou, to judge another's servant? '25 'Remit, and remission shall be made to thee.'"26 [3] Such and so great futilities of theirs wherewith they flatter God and pander to themselves, effeminating rather than invigorating discipline, with how cogent and contrary (arguments) are we for our part able to rebut,----(arguments) which set before us warningly the "severity"27 of God, and provoke our own constancy? [4] Because, albeit God is by nature good, still He is "just"28 too. For, from the nature of the case, just as He knows how to "heal," so does He withal know how to "smite; "29 "making peace," but withal "creating evils; "30 preferring repentance, but withal commanding Jeremiah not to pray for the aversion of ills on behalf of the sinful People,----"since, if they shall have fasted," saith He, "I will not listen to their entreaty."31

And Against Marcion 4.17.8:

Misericordiam quoque praecipiens, Estote, inquit, misericordes, sicut pater vester misertus est vestri. Hoc erit, Panem infringito esurienti, et <qui>4 sine tecto in domum tuam inducito, et nudum si videris tegito, et, Iudicate pupillo, et iustificate viduam. Agnosco doctrinam eius veterem qui mavult misericordiam quam sacrificium. Aut si alius nunc misericordiam praecepit, quia et ipse misericors sit, cur tanto aevo misericors mihi non fuit? [9] Nolite iudicare, ne iudicemini. Nolite condemnare, ne condemnemini. Dimittite, et dimittemini. Date, et dabitur vobis, mensuram bonam, pressam ac fluentem, dabunt in sinum vestrum. Eadem qua mensi eritis mensura, remetietur vobis. Ut opinor, haec retributionem pro meritis provocatam sonant. A quo ergo retributio? Si ab hominibus tantum, ergo humanam docet disciplinam et mercedem, et in totum hominibus obediemus: si a creatore, ut a iudice et dispunctore meritorum, ergo illi nostrum impellit obsequium apud quem constituit retributionem captandam vel timendam, prout quisque iudicaverit aut condemnaverit aut dimiserit aut mensus fuerit: si ab ipso, ergo et ille iam iudicat, quod Marcion negat.

Compassion also does He teach: "Be ye merciful," says He, "as your Father also that had mercy upon you."635 This injunction will be of a piece with, "Deal thy bread to the hungry; and if he be houseless, bring him into thine house; and if thou seest the naked, cover him; "636 also with, "Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow. I recognise here that ancient doctrine of Him who "prefers mercy to sacrifice."638 If, however, it be now some other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of his own mercifulness, how happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to me for so vast an age? [9] "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure withal, it shall be measured to you again."639 As it seems to me, this passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits. But from whom shall come the retribution? [10] If only from men, in that case he teaches a merely human discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to obey man: if from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits, then He compels our submission to Him, in whose hands640 He has placed a retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with,641 his neighbour; if from (Marcion's god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function which Marcion denies.