Against Marcion 1.9
Summary: Marcion's god, unknown until Christ, is at best uncertain; and since both gods are claimed to share the same divine nature, the uncertain one must be tested by the pattern of the known Creator, who was never unknown.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:300–302
Scio quidem, quo sensu nouum deum iactitent, agnitione utique. sed ipsam nouitatem cognitionis percutientem, rudes animas ipsamque naturalem nouitatis gratiositatem uolui repercutere, et hinc iam de ignoto deo prouocare. utique enim quem agnitione nouum opponunt, ignotum ante agnitionem demonstrant. age igitur, ad lineas rursum et in gradum! persuade deum ignotum esse potuisse. inuenio plane ignotis deis aras prostitutas, sed Attica idolatria est. item incertis deis, sed superstitio Romana est. porro incerti dei minus noti, ut minus certi, et proinde ignoti, qua minus certi. quem titulum incidemus ex duobus deo Marcionis? utrumque, opinor, et nunc incerto et retro ignoto. sicut enim ignotum eum fecit deus notus, creator, ita et incertum deus certus. sed non euagabor, uti dicam: deus si ignotus fuit latuitque, illum regio latebrarum obumbrauit, noua utique et ipsa et ignota et similiter nunc quoque incerta, certe inmensa aliqua et maior indubitate eo, quem abscondit. sed breuiter proponam et plenissime exequar, praescribens deum ignorari nec potuisse nomine magnitudinis nec debuisse nomine benignitatis, praesertim in utroque praelatiorem nostro creatore. sed quoniam animaduerto in quibusdam ad formam creatoris prouocari oportere omnis dei noui et retro ignoti probationem, hoc ipsum ratione fieri a nobis prius commendare debebo, quo constantius utar rationis editae patrocinio. ante omnia quidem quale est, ut qui deum agnoscis creatorem et priorem de notitia confiteris, non eisdem modis et alium scias tibi examinandum, quibus iam in alio didicisti deum nosse? omnis res anterior posteriori normam praeministrauit. duo nunc dei proponuntur, ignotus et notus. de noto uacat quaestio. esse eum constat, quia notus non fuisset nisi esset. de ignoto instat altercatio. potest enim et non esse, quia si esset, notus fuisset. quod ergo quaeritur, quamdiu ignoratur, in incerto est, quamdiu quaeritur, et potest non esse, quamdiu in incerto est. habes deum certum, qua notum, et incertum, qua ignotum. si ita est, ecquid tibi uidetur iusta ratione defendi, ut ad normam et formam et regulam certorum probentur incerta? ceterum si ad hanc causam, et ipsam adhuc incertam, etiam argumenta de incertis adhibeantur, series implicabitur quaestionum ex ipsorum quoque argumentorum aeque incertorum retractatu periclitantium de fide per incertum, et ibitur in illas iam indeterminabiles quaestiones, quas apostolus non amat; sin de certis et indubitatis et absolutis regulae partibus, incertis et dubiis et inexpeditis praeiudicabunt. plane in quibus diuersitas status inuenitur, fortassean non prouocentur incerta ad formam certorum, ut liberata a reliqua comparationis prouocatione per diuersitatem status principalis. cum uero duo dii proponuntur, communis est illis status principalis. quod enim deus est, ambo sunt: innati infecti aeterni. hic erit status principalis; cetera uiderit Marcion, si in diuersitate disposuit. posteriora enim (non) sunt in retractatu, immo nec admittentur, si de principali statu constet. porro constat, quia dii ambo: et ita de quorum statu constat communem esse, cum sub eo ad probationem deuocantur si incerta sunt. ad eorum certorum formam prouocanda erunt, cum quibus de communione status principalis censentur, ut proinde et de probatione communicent. hinc itaque constantissime dirigam deum non esse, qui sit hodie incertus, quia retro ignotus, quando quem constat esse ex hoc ipso constet quod numquam fuerit ignotus, [ideo nec incertus]
English · Claude translation
I know, of course, in what sense they boast of a new god: in respect of his being acknowledged. But I wished to strike back at the very novelty of the knowledge that strikes untrained souls, and at the natural charm of novelty itself, and so to go on from here to challenge them about an unknown god. For in setting him up as new by acknowledgment, they show that before acknowledgment he was unknown. Come, then, back to the lines and to your position! Persuade me that God could have been unknown. I do indeed find altars set out to unknown gods, but that is Attic idolatry; likewise to uncertain gods, but that is Roman superstition. Further, uncertain gods are less known, as being less certain, and so unknown, in so far as they are less certain. Which of the two titles shall we carve for Marcion's god? Both, I think: uncertain now and unknown before. For just as the known God, the Creator, made him unknown, so the certain God made him uncertain. But I will not wander so far as to say: if God was unknown and hidden, some region of hiding-places overshadowed him, itself also new and unknown, and likewise still uncertain now — certainly some immense region, and undoubtedly greater than the one it hid. Rather I shall propose briefly and pursue most fully the plea that God neither could have been unknown by reason of his greatness nor ought to have been by reason of his goodness, especially being superior to our Creator in both.
But since I notice that in certain matters the proof of every new and formerly unknown god must be referred to the pattern of the Creator, I must first show that we do this with reason, so that I may the more firmly rely on the support of a reason once set out. Before all else, how can it be that you, who acknowledge the Creator as God and confess that he was known first, should not realize that the other must be examined by you by the same methods by which you have already learned, in the first case, to know God? Everything earlier has set the norm for what is later. Two gods are now proposed, an unknown and a known. About the known there is no question: it is agreed that he exists, for he would not have been known unless he existed. About the unknown the dispute presses: for he may even not exist, since if he existed he would have been known. What is sought, then, is uncertain as long as it is unknown; and as long as it is sought it may also not exist, as long as it is uncertain. You have a God who is certain, as known, and one who is uncertain, as unknown. If so, do you not think it can be defended with just reason that uncertain things be proved by the norm, form, and rule of certain things? Otherwise, if in this cause, itself still uncertain, arguments are also drawn from uncertain things, a chain of questions will be tangled up from the discussion of those arguments, equally uncertain, which put faith at risk through uncertainty; and one will go on into those endless questions which the apostle does not love. But if the certain, undoubted, and settled parts of the rule are used, they will prejudge the uncertain, doubtful, and unsettled ones. Clearly, where a difference of state is found, uncertain things perhaps need not be referred to the form of certain ones, being released from any further appeal to comparison by the difference in their principal state. But when two gods are proposed, their principal state is common to them. For in being God, both are: unborn, unmade, eternal. This will be the principal state; the rest Marcion must see to, if he has arranged them in difference. For the later points are not under discussion — indeed they will not even be admitted — if the principal state is agreed. And it is agreed, since both are gods. And so those whose state is agreed to be common, when under it they are called to proof, if they are uncertain, must be referred to the form of those certain ones with whom they are reckoned to share the principal state, so that they may accordingly share in the manner of proof as well. Hence I shall draw the line most firmly: he is not God who is uncertain today because he was unknown before, since of one who is agreed to exist it would be agreed on this very ground that he was never unknown,
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The Athenian altars to unknown gods recall Acts 17:23; the “endless questions” are those of 1 Tim 1:4 (cf. 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9). The editor deletes “ideo nec incertus” (“and therefore not uncertain either”) as spurious. The sentence continues into ch. 10.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (Line-break hyphen and stray letter in the digital text.; Line-break hyphen and stray mark in the digital text.; Stray letter (line marker) in the digital text.): per-I suade → persuade; communem esse.i cum → communem esse, cum; diri-: gam → dirigam.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.9 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/9/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.9 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/9/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text