Authors and Their Caretakers: Evaluating the Editor in Roman Antiquarian Discourse and Tertullian's Heresiological Refutation of Marcion
Tertullian of Carthage routinely depicts Marcion as a bad editor, who both removed passages from the apostolic writings to support his heretical teachings and failed to completely purge the writings of orthodox theology. But as recent scholarship challenges this classic heresiological picture of Mar...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Early christianity
Year: 2025, Volume: 16, Issue: 1, Pages: 42-64 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Tertullianus, Quintus Septimius Florens 150-230
/ Marcion, Sinopensis ca. 2. Jh.
/ Häresiographie
/ Sophistry
/ Editor
/ Restitution
|
| IxTheo Classification: | CE Christian art KAA Church history KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity TB Antiquity |
| Further subjects: | B
Status
B Gellius B heresiology B Marcion B Tertullian B Philology B Galen |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Tertullian of Carthage routinely depicts Marcion as a bad editor, who both removed passages from the apostolic writings to support his heretical teachings and failed to completely purge the writings of orthodox theology. But as recent scholarship challenges this classic heresiological picture of Marcion, new questions emerge concerning the logic of Tertullian's depiction. This article addresses these questions by situating Tertullian's philologically oriented heresiology within the antiquarian discourse of the Second Sophistic, showing how Roman intellectuals evaluated the credibility of editors on the basis of their social position. Placing Tertullian's evaluation of Marcion as an editor within Roman antiquarian discourse not only contributes to our understanding of Tertullian's heresiological argumentation, it helps to fill out our picture of the function of attribution - both authorial and editorial - within Roman antiquarian discourse more broadly. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1868-8020 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Early christianity
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1628/ec-2025-0005 |
