Jehovah's Witness Research Blog

Those who do not have the truth cannot argue against it. If they are opposed to the truth for some reason of their own, then they will try to counteract it by telling things that are not true. But the truth cannot be hidden for long if you are really interested in finding it. Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -MacMillan

Search This Blog

Friday, September 11, 2009

Tertullian and the Trinity Brochure

--> I wanted to do a very brief post regarding Tertullian and the Trinity Brochure, as that seems to be brought up quite often. [1] I will do my best to remain objective throughout and not delve into motives, because even though I do admit to the possibility that there was a quoting error somewhere in the process, it would still be pure assumption and unsupported speculation on my part to impute bad motives to the WTBS by turning an error into an intentional deception and lie, as so many opposers and assailants of Jehovah's Witnesses try to do.

The main quote from Tertullian within the “Trinity” brochure occurs on page 7:
“Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not…Before all things, God was alone.”” (Should You Believe in the Trinity p. 7) [2]
Contrary to appearance, these are actually quotes from three different texts, not two. Let us now break them each down and locate their sources of origin. 

“The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” (SYBT 7)

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, As he Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.” (Against Praxeas chapter IX)

“For before all things God was alone…” (SYBT 7) 

“For before all things God was alone…” (Against Praxeas Chapter V)

The next quote, I felt, deserved some special attention; therefore, I am dealing with it separately below. It is the contention of many opposers (Rob Bowman included) that the “son was not” quote simply does not exist in Tertullian’s writings in any way, shape or form. I will attempt to show that the quote does indeed have a basis in Tertullian’s writings, and that those who make such accusations are merely showing off their own foolishness and bias. 
“There was a time when the Son was not…” (SYBT 7)

It is of note that while the exact language of the Trinity brochure quote cannot be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers volumes, the quote can be found in a slightly different form within Tertullian’s “Against Hermogenes”: 
“There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son;” (Against Hermogenese Chapter III)
The reason for this difference should not be too big of a stumper. Different translations have different wording—just compare any two modern translations of the Bible and you will see numerous variances in language. And the fact that the Trinity Brochure is not using traditional translations (such as the Ante-Nicene Father’s volumes that I link to) is made more obvious when we notice that the first quote from Praxeas Ch. IX is also worded quite differently than the Trinity brochure’s version.

Another possibility, and quite a strong one, is that the quote was not taken from Tertullian directly, but rather was taken from a book by Alan Lamson [3], who himself quotes Tertullian. 
“Tertullian, though he admits the preexistence of the Son, expressly denies his eternity. “There was a time,” he tells us, “when the Son was not.” Again: “Before all things, God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to himself.”” (Lamson 108) 
I say that Lamson as the source is a strong possibility for two primary reasons: 

1. The two quotes mentioned by Lamson are the exact same quotes used by the Trinity brochure, in the same order. 

2. Lamson and his book are actually cited in the Trinity brochure, on the exact same page as the Tertullian quotes. 

So then, the question naturally comes up: Did Lamson misquote Tertullian? Again, it is hard to say, due to the very first possibility that I mentioned: differences in translation. In reality, both of my possibilities could be true—The Trinity brochure could have taken the quote directly from Lamson who himself used an uncommon translation of Tertullian’s writings. And while it is by no means exhaustive, the following three examples do show that others have also used the same phrasing as Lamson and the Trinity brochure: 
“Tertullian argued that there was a time when the son ‘was not.’” (Thomas R. Clawser. “The Doctrine of the Trinity.”) [4]
"There was a time when the Son was not," (adv. Herm. 3) [5]

“Tertullian's pronouncement that "there was a time when…the Son was not," played right into the hands of the the Arians, making it that much harder for the Western bishops to get a credible hearing at the Council of Nicaea. The fact that Tertullian's words had now become a rallying cry for the opposition impelled the bishops at Nicaea to meet this populist (now political, as well as theological) upheaval with equally forceful language in order to repudiate it.” (Trinity Is Wrong: Historical Perspective. Excerpts from 'Astonished At His Doctrine: Volume I: The Godhead' By Mark Strohkorb) [6]
So unless all three of these authors quote directly from the exact same page of the exact same source, then it is likely that the “Son was not” translation does exist somewhere outside of Lamson’s book and the Trinity brochure. 

But then how about another question: Even if Lamson or the Trinity brochure by extension did misquote Tertullian, did they actually misrepresent him? An examination of Tertullian’s theology and beliefs about God and the Logo bear out the answer to this question, that answer being: “No, the Trinity brochure absolutely did not misrepresent Tertullian’s views, even if Lamson or the WBTS did not get the quote perfect.”


First, let us examine an article from the Watchtower of April 1, 1992 pages 24-30 for a more in depth look at Tertullian’s beliefs. 
“Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.) was the first to use the Latin word trinitas. As noted by Henry Chadwick, Tertullian proposed that God is ‘one substance consisting in three persons.’25 This does not mean, however, that he had in mind three coequal and coeternal persons. However, his ideas were built upon by later writers who were working toward the Trinity doctrine.

Tertullian’s concept of Father, Son, and holy spirit was a far cry from Christendom’s Trinity, for he was a subordinationist. He viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. In Against Hermogenes he wrote: 

“We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being.”26 

Also, in Against Praxeas, he shows that the Son is different from and subordinate to Almighty God by saying: 

“The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I.’ . . . Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”27 

Tertullian, in Against Hermogenes, states further that there was a time when the Son did not exist as a person, showing that he did not regard the Son as an eternal being in the same sense that God was.28 Cardinal Newman said: “Tertullian must be considered heterodox [believing unorthodox doctrines] on the doctrine of our Lord’s eternal generation.”29 Regarding Tertullian, Lamson declares: 

“This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was afterwards, as Tertullian believed, converted into the Word, or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian assigned to him, however, a rank subordinate to the Father . . . 

“Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation [as a heretic] would be hopeless. He could not stand the test a moment.”30” (w92 4/1 24-30)
Next, a very nice quote from Bernard Lonergan’s “Philosophical and Theological Papers.”[7] 
“Tertullian held that the Father is eternal and that the son was emitted from the Father when the Father proposed to create; the Father is eternal, and the Son is not eternal. We would conclude from that that the Son was not God. Tertullian held that the Father is the whole and the Son is a part, that the Father is Supreme and the Son subordinate. From that we would conclude that the Son is not God, but that is because we have a different conception of God from Tertullian. Because Tertullian placed divinity in being made of, consisting of, divine stuff, the Son could consist of divine stuff, even though he were temporal and subordinate and partial. And if he consisted of divine stuff, then he really and truly was God. But because he was temporal while his father was eternal, he was distinct from the Father.” (Lonergan 256) 
Finally, I will provide a section of an enlightening article written by Hal Flemings all the way back in 1990. [8]

“The much quoted Tertullian (160 - 230 C.E.) is our next "Father".  His views will sound a somewhat familiar ring. Tertullian penned the following: 

THE APOLOGY 
Chapter 21: "We have been taught that he (the Word) proceeds forth from God, and in that procession he is generated; so that he is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun - there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled... So, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one.. In this way, also, as he is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, he is made a second in manner of existence - in position, not in nature; and he did not. withdraw from the original source but went forth."

TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION, BOOK 2: 
 Chapter 27: "With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that he was never visible, according to the word of Christ, 'No man knoweth the Father, save the Son' for even in the Old Testament he had declared, 'No man shall see me and live'. He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was he God who appeared as the Son of God... (Christ) even in this manner is he our God... uniting in himself man and God, God in mighty deeds, in weak ones man, in order that he may give to man as much as he takes from God..."

Tertullian's Logos was generated out of the being of God and because of that he is God for God is still "in" the Logos like 'the sun is still in a ray'. The notion of two persons being one God seems inherent in Tertullian's theology. The Holy Spirit has not arrived to this level in Tertullian.

It may be interesting to compare Tertullian's Logos to that of his predecessors and contemporaries. Justin Martyr saw the Logos as "another God and Lord"; Tertullian saw them both as the very same God. Tatian saw the Logos as a being originating out of the substance of God, one who seemed to be a being all to himself, while Tertullian's Logos seems to be nothing more or less than an extension of the very being of God. This is also true when we consider the views of Theophilus of Antioch; his Logos comes from God but is seen as another being helping God and going wherever he is sent, since he is a subordinate. Irenaeus is less restrictive with his identification of "God". For him, this term applied to the Father, to the Son and to adopted believers here on the earth. For Irenaeus, the Logos is not "God" in the sense he is "God" with Tertullian.”


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

About Me

My photo
[Please follow fair quoting rules and ethics when using my posts as references. Do not reproduce large portions of my words (more than 300 words or 10% of a post) without first obtaining permission. I reserve all rights of distribution for original work.]