Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | März/2022 |
Spalte: | 217–218 |
Kategorie: | Kirchengeschichte: Alte Kirche, Christliche Archäologie |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Kingreen, Sarah-Magdalena |
Titel/Untertitel: | Tertullians Schrift »Adversus Valentinianos«. Die argumentative Widersetzung Tertullians gegen die Valentinianer als ein in rhetorischer Perspektive geschlossenes Werk. |
Verlag: | Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2020. XIV, 496 S. = Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 120. Kart. EUR 104,00. ISBN 9783161596025. |
Rezensent: | Einar Thomassen |
Tertullian wrote a book against the Valentinians. Why he wanted to do so is not evident, since as far as we can tell there were no Valentinians to be confronted in his African environment. Moreover, Tertullian had no information to offer about Valentinian doctrines and practices beyond what had already been made known by Irenaeus, whom he simply plagiarises in his presentation of Valentinian teachings. His motives for writing the book must therefore lie elsewhere. It may well be that he saw his project primarily as an opportunity to display his own rhetorical skills and that he felt able to improve on Irenaeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator (5.1) by putting them to work.
It is Tertullian’s use of rhetoric that forms the focus of Sarah-Magdalena Kingreen’s book, which is a revised version of a doctoral thesis defended at Humboldt University’s Faculty of Theology. The book offers a critical text of the Adversus Valentinianos accompanied by a new German translation and a detailed commentary. A series of introductory chapters discuss Tertullian’s rhetorical education, the purpose of Adv. Val., the rhetorical strategies employed, the intended readership and the work’s possible sources. K. argues, convincingly, I think, that Adv. Val. was conceived as an integral work and not as an introduction to a more extensive treatment of the Valentinians that Tertullian may have had in mind. Tertullian’s rhetorical tools are studied with ample references to classical models.
K. is a well-trained classicist and, above all, an excellent Latinist. This is particularly evident in the commentary, which offers a close reading of Tertullian’s text with fine attention to the flow of the argument and to semantic detail. For future studies of Adv. Val. as a rhetorical text K.’s work will be indispensable.
For readers (such as the present reviewer) whose interests lie primarily in Tertullian’s text as a source for the study of Valen-tinianism, or of ancient »Gnosticism« in general, the book has less to offer. The author does not appear to be well conversant with that field of research. Specialists in the study of »Gnosticism« will be puzzled by the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of any pre-Valentinian form of gnosis (225–6, with n. 27). It is, in fact, a generally accepted view among scholars that Valentinianism represents a secondary phase in the historical development of »Gnosticism.« After all, Irenaeus is at pains to chart the predecessors of the Valentinian heresy, which he does along two distinct (and not quite correlated) lines: first, in the genealogy of heretics beginning with Simon Magus in Haer. 1.23–28, and, secondly, in his descrip-tion of the groups specifically named »Gnostics« in 1.29–31 (»Barbelo« at the beginning of 1.29 is to be deleted, with Rousseau and Doutreleau). Adv Val. 4.2 cuiusdam veteris opinionis semen nactus is clearly a paraphrase of Irenaeus’ remark in Haer. 1.11.1 about the Gnostike hairesis as Valentinus’ source of inspiration, and a few lines further down in that paragraph Irenaeus makes an explicit cross-reference to his later treatment of those pre-Valentinian »Gnostics« (»like the falsely called Gnostics whom we shall speak about later«). The »Gnostics« of 1.29–31 have also fallen out of K.’s field of vision when she refers to Irenaeus’ use of the term Gnostici (6 n. 13).
Lack of familiarity with Valentinian ideas has sometimes led to misunderstandings of Tertullian’s text. In 15.1, Tertullian remarks that the Valentinians pretend to know better than all the Greek philosophers how Matter came into being. The words materia, quam innatam volunt clearly refer to the classical philosophical schools, which considered Matter to be an unoriginated first principle, and not to the Valentinians (cf. commentary, 327), who de-rived Matter from the passion of Sophia. This is a standard and central element of Valentinian doctrine which also emerges clearly in Tertullian’s presentation and which K. herself acknowledges a little later when she comments on chapters 16–17 under the head-ing »Die Entstehung von Materie« (334). The error of the Valenti-nians in the eyes of Tertullian is not that they regard Matter as innata, but that they deny creatio ex nihilo by having Matter come into being before the Demiurge begins his work, and that is also what leads Tertullian to put the Valentinians in the same bag as Hermogenes.
The matris semen of 27.3 is not primarily a Christological concept, as K. assumes (388–91), but a technical Valentinian term for the ekklesia of spiritual humans: the »spiritual seed« that was brought forth by the fallen Sophia in joyful response to the manifestation of the Saviour and his angels. The incorporation of the spiritual seed into the body of the Saviour took place at a later stage as the Saviour descended to perform his work of salvation in the physical world. Tertullian is here copying Irenaeus 1.7.2 (1.712 ff. Rousseau-Doutreleau) directly. The point of the statement in Irenaeus, which Tertullian probably understood, is that not only the Saviour himself but the Valentinian pneumatikoi as well are exempt from passion. It may be added that this is not a view that was shared by all Valentinians (Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 73–76).
K.’s book may be credited for offering comments worthy of consideration regarding the unique pieces of information about the history of Valentinians given by Tertullian in chapter 4 and 11.2. As a whole, however, the book is not to be regarded as a contribution to the study of Valentinianism. Its strengths lie in its meticulous study of Tertullian’s text as a work of rhetorical art and in that respect it constitutes a commendable achievement.