Against The Valentinians

by Tertullian

Against The Valentinians is a book written by Tertullian, a prominent early Christian writer and theologian. The book is a polemic against the Valentinian Gnostics, a group of heretical Christians who believed in a complex system of emanations and spiritual beings. Tertullian argues against the Valentinian beliefs, using both scripture and reason to refute their claims. He also critiques their practices, such as their use of secret teachings and rituals, and their rejection of the physical body. Throughout the book, Tertullian emphasizes the importance of orthodox Christian beliefs and practices, and warns against the dangers of deviating from them. He also emphasizes the need for unity within the Christian community, and the importance of staying true to the teachings of the apostles. Overall, Against The Valentinians is a significant work of early Christian theology and apologetics, providing insight into the debates and controversies of the time.Now it is held amongst them, that, for the purpose of honouring the celestial marriages, (1) it is necessary to contemplate and celebrate the mystery always by cleaving to a companion, that, is to a woman; otherwise (they account any man) degenerate, and a bastard(2) to the truth, who spends his life in the world without loving a woman or uniting himself to her. Then what is to become of the eunuchs whom we see amongst them?This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction, History, Church History

48 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 212

About the author

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD), was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology." Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas), and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"). He wrote his trinitarian formula after becoming a Montanist; his ideas were at first rejected as heresy by the church at large, but later accepted as Christian orthodoxy.

Reviews

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 5 out of 5]

En elegant och väldigt rättfram skrift mot religiösa hemligheter, och mot användandet av litterär standard (i detta fall personifikationer) som religiös eller etisk standard. Argumentet handlar om att felappliceringen urvattnar begreppen, och att mytologiseringen som följer - genom att fånga uppmärksamhet och skapa känsla av sympati med karaktärerna - berövar de troende möjligheten att ta dem på allvar. Det vi äger, och kan ändra på (dvs. sagor) kan vi inte se som objektivt verkligt. Samtidigt förkastar han komplex ritual och rituella tystnadseder, eftersom de lockar till förfalskning för att försäkra sig om vördnad - medan sann religion inte behöver det, eftersom processen sker inom den troende, genom kontemplation. Här ser vi äntligen den psykologiska och religiösa subtilitet som Tertullianus är känd för, och inte bara hans hårdhet mot religiösa dissidenter.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Basically, the Valentinians were theological weirdos; they seem to have been similar to modern Mormons.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

NEW REVIEW:

A short book worth the re-read of the intro; the actual gnostic name-mythology crap which comes afterwards is forgettable, except for the part where Tertullian says (in not as many words) that gnostics are "fucked" (their reward for being good little followers is becoming the wife of some angel). He starts off by questioning whether esoteric "teachers" can really be called such since their primary role is that of concealing. Rather than making things clear and meeting people where they are, these gnostics make opaque and withhold "truth". Tertullian anticipates Augustine in saying that "truth blushes at nothing except being hidden away," going on to excoriate esoteric teaching because it "persuades before teaching" instead of the honest, exoteric approach of "truth persuad[ing] by teaching." Tertullian also expounds the general wisdom of preferring "a lesser intelligence than an evil one; better to err than to deceive."

One small moment that felt accidentally enlightening was when Tertullian admitted "the openhanded charity of the divine scriptures; from such a large work, many interpretations can be
drawn." In many denominations today, because of partisanship, fear, or some other folly, multiple senses/hermeneutics, or even admitting that people can interpret it differently, is often disallowed. The one correct interpretation just so happens to be ours, and no one else has it right. But Tertullian, along with Origen and other contemporaries, understood (interestingly, along with Zizek and other post-modern philosophers) that the Bible's strength comes from its plurality of meanings, not just one right meaning. But with all this in mind, how does he come to so strongly denounce Valentinus? Well, for starters he's not an absolute relativist; there are certain interpretations, especially the gnostics', which are so abhorrent and false that they need to be opposed.

Lastly, I found it very interesting that Tertullian so comfortably called Valentinus's teachings "myths" (in the modern sense?); this shows that, at least in the Christian community, there was active disdain for myths (despite the "lowly" state of most Christians, socially as well as intellectually, at this time). This is striking in its contrast with the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) and the not-yet-formed New Testament corpus. If one is myth, and the other is not, then what is it? Interesting questions arise. Ultimately, I appreciated Tertullian's tone of voice maybe most of all; his writing rings with a humor and levity like Luther's, but less coarse and explicit. I'll have to read the rest of Tertullian's work, his corpus being small enough that one can do that.


ORIGINAL REVIEW:

Someone once said a religion is a cult plus 400 years. Rather, the cult/religion dichotomy hinges upon the esoteric/exoteric binary. Tertullian wittily lays out the gnostic "secret knowledge," which you'd normally have to wait years to learn. And what's their secret? "The image of a penis." I guess nothing really has changed, has it?

Reality is never good enough for some people. They have to invent conspiracy theories to spice up life. Gnostics were really the first of those boring people who think obsessing over aliens and government secrets is "quirky." In reality, it just makes them unbearable to be around. Of course, on the surface, these groups (the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, Liberal Theologians) claim they worship the same God as you: "if you feel them out diplomatically, they swear they have the same beliefs as you, only blurred in translation. If you indicate you know what they really think, they deny they know anything." Ever asked a Mormon about having space babies with "sealed" spouses? And Lording over your own planet? Yeah. That's not high on the list of talking points. Tertullian makes an important point:

They do not even reveal their secrets to their own disciples before they make them their own, but instead they have a trick by which they persuade them before they teach them. In our case, however, truth persuades by teaching, she does not teach by persuading.

In other words, "truth blushes at nothing except being hidden away." Christianity deals openly and honestly with those who inquire, hiding nothing. It's all out there in the open. Gnostics, by contrast, show contempt for the average person, and even for their own supposed religion:

The other heretics allow themselves to change their teachings with the same frequency a prostitute changes her makeup--and why not?--since each of them discovers that well known spiritual seed in himself: if they invent anything new, they immediately call it a revelation; they call their audacity a spiritual gift.

With no respect for scripture, for tradition, for open teaching, they feel free to twist and distort scripture, invent new traditions, and justify it all with secret teachings. The same thing not only happens in modern cults (JW and LDS) but with liberal theology more generally: "As we see, their list of rules has been painted over by their innovations and looks as if it had been scribbled on by an ignoramus." Such an approach to religion, rather than making it ultra-special and behind a paywall, so to speak, actually insults the very nature of religion, making a mockery of the divine and replacing truth-value with shock-value.

In this essay, Tertullian doesn't even attempt a formal refutation of the gnostics (known as Valentinans, and their ilk); rather, he merely shows what hides behind the paywall, making jokes as he goes along:

Also, if you must laugh in places, do so; it will suit the subject. Much of this should be refuted with laughter so that it will not be awarded serious consideration. Silly ideas often meet with ridicule. It is suitable even for truth to laugh because it is happy, to mock its enemies because it is safe.

The first joke he makes is about the number of heresies and thus the number of invented gods and divine beings that these groups have to make in order for their mysticism to sound special:

Perhaps they have various shops built on in front and assigned to each god by floors--as many floors as there are heresies. In this way the world becomes an apartment house; indeed, you might think the celestial flats are the Happy Isles Apartments, located somewhere. There even the Valentinian god lives--in the penthouse.

The majority of his exposé spends time explaining the complicated creation myth that the gnostics invented out of thin air, to essentially explain how the God of the old testament isn't the rightful God, but rather is an imposter, a weak sub-god who made material reality and never ascends to the Pleroma, or the sphere of the original god(s).

Two things can be noted from this. First off, this flipping of the old narrative on its head, namely that the OT God is secretly an Evil God and there's a Good God of light and spirit who is higher than him; this is THE classic conspiracy theory invention technique. In other words, look around for things people take for granted, e.g. God is Good, and then invert it. Similarly with, for example, birds being fake. We all know birds, see them, might even have them as pets. But what if they didn't exist until recently? Or if they were all replaced with government drones!? Stupid, but it grabs your attention. The second point is how these many gnostic "gods" are introduced. Essentially, all of them are invented out of thin air (both by Valentinius, and by the "Original Father" god) through language. Essentially, whenever that original "god" creates a word, it names something that now exists. Similarly, whenever those words (now sub-gods?) create a new word or concept, that also comes into being. Really, it's a recipe for overpopulation and chaos, which basically is what follows.

The details are largely irrelevant, but Tertullian dutifully goes through an abbreviated (much shorter than Irenaeus) account of the gnostic creation myth. What we learn here is a view toward language which is reserved only for the Creator God. These gnostics (along with their gods, and those who follow their thinking today, radical leftists) believe that language has the power to create reality, and that it should not merely be something descriptive of reality. Thus reality itself, in their delusion, is under their sway (thus, they are god(s)). This is the exact same reasoning which goes into the transgender movement, among other reality-denying radical politics. If reality is unsettling, just become delusional! Works every time!

Interestingly, Tertullian calls all of this "the same as counterfeiting a fake," which brings to mind Baudrillard's notion of the hyperreal. This inventing of reality extends quite naturally into morality, as when Tertullian points out:

Because of these beliefs, they do not consider good works necessary for themselves, and they do not observe any calls of duty. ... For their part, they prove their noble birth by the looseness of their life and by their delight in sin. Achamoth in this way coddles her own, since she sinned and benefited by it. They have the rule (adopted for the purpose of honoring the higher pairs) of contemplating and engaging frequently in the sacrament of uniting with a "companion," namely, a woman.

This sounds like exactly the playbook of a good many contemporary Antinomians, those who throw out any of the 10 commandments that they want because of political or cultural pressures. Ultimately, the ease with which both ancient gnostics and modern liberal theologians manipulate the Word of God for their own personal gain grows from the same root. As Tertullian words it, "Yes, 'improvers,' for there have arisen in his school students superior to their master." Though subtle and extremely tempting to all who wrestle with theology, this breaking of the first commandment, to declare one's self God, above God and His Word and His Commands; it's the crux of the issue. If we can do so, Christ's death quickly becomes worthless. And if Christ is worthless, why call yourself a Christian? Your move, cultists.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This 2015 edition is surely a reprint of a 19th century edition of this important treatise by Tertullian. Tertullian, along with other early Church Fathers, are an invaluable resource for information on Gnosticism. The writer of the introduction to this book is unidentified but it must be Arthur Cleveland Coxe, who wrote the introduction to Algernon Thelwall's (d. 1863) and Peter Holmes's (d. 1878) translation of Tertullian's works. In the introduction, Coxe identifies Holmes as the translator of this section of Tertullian.

The 19th century prose of the translation and introduction made this book somewhat difficult to follow, which in my case necessitated reading this slim book twice. Each chapter had a brief chapter description, that I assume was added by the editor.

The main body of the work (chapters 6-32) is a description of the Valentinian system as Tertullian understood it. The introductory chapters are a caustic polemic against Valentinianism (Tertullian compares it to a prostitute) and the final seven chapters are a description of some variations among the beliefs of some Valentinians. In the main body Tertullian can’t resist getting sarcastic, noting that bythos (meaning"deep") is an ironic name to give the high god, and that if you’re going to have 30 aeons in your system, you may as well have 50 or 100. This tends to confirm for me the truism that other people's religions always tend to look ridiculous.

There were several chapters on the figure of Achamoth which I found particularly interesting. I don’t know a lot about this cryptic gnostic figure (Tertullian finds her name inexplicable). In my further reading I will have to take note of where she is mentioned and come back to what Tertullian says about her. Also interesting was Tertullian's passage about the devil, whom Tertullian says the Valentinians call munditenens. I had never heard this word before, but it is the Latin equivalent of kosmocrator. This word appears in the N.T. only once, in the plural, in Ephesians 6.12, to refer to evil world powers. It seems rather strange to me to leave this Latin word untranslated.

Why should a modern reader read this ancient book? To understand the origins of Christianity, it is necessary to understand that orthodox Christian theology developed largely as a reaction to various unorthodox forms of Christianity, especially Gnosticism. And while there are those that disagree, I think it is essential for a modern person in the West to have a basic understanding of Christianity, whether they are a believer or not.

[Maxime N. Georgel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tertullien ne réfute pas les Valentiniens, il se contente de lister leur croyance, de les divulguer (car elles étaient tenues secrètes) et leur ridicule et incohérence suffit pour qu'elles s'auto-réfutent.