Tertullian's Use of Ridicule in "Against the Valentinians": Implications for Modern Social Media Engagements

J. Neil Daniels

The Ancient Art of Refutation

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (ca. 155 to ca. 240 AD), known simply as Tertullian, stands as one of early Christianity's most formidable intellectual defenders. From Carthage in Roman Africa, he crafted penetrating theological works that established foundations for Western Christian thought. Among his most intriguing contributions was his strategic approach to confronting heresy, particularly evident in his treatise "Against the Valentinians" (Adversus Valentinianos). Here, Tertullian develops a sophisticated rhetorical stance toward the elaborate Gnostic cosmology proposed by Valentinus, recognizing that some ideas are so fundamentally absurd that earnest refutation would inadvertently dignify them.

The Philosophy of Ridicule

In the sixth chapter of his polemic, Tertullian articulates what might be called a philosophy of ridicule, a measured approach to confronting intellectual absurdities. "There are certain things which do not deserve to be refuted seriously," he declares, "lest by so refuting them one should seem to concede that they deserve to be refuted seriously." This insight reflects profound rhetorical wisdom. By engaging elaborate but groundless theories with detailed counterarguments, one implicitly acknowledges their legitimacy as reasonable positions worthy of scholarly attention.

Tertullian instead advocates a different approach: "Vain and silly topics are to be laughed at; they are not worth serious handling." This position represents not intellectual laziness but strategic discernment. The most effective response to profound nonsense is not always laborious refutation but appropriately directed mockery that exposes inherent contradictions and logical failures. Ridicule, properly deployed, becomes a tool of intellectual hygiene, preventing the contamination of public discourse with ideas that lack substantive merit.

Ethical Boundaries of Mockery

Crucially, Tertullian establishes ethical parameters around this rhetorical strategy. "Let our jest, however, be free from insult; let it be free from bitterness; let it be seasoned with modesty and truth." Here he distinguishes between ridicule directed at ideas versus attacks on persons, a distinction often blurred in contemporary discourse. The objective remains the exposure of falsehood rather than the denigration of individuals. By grounding his approach in biblical wisdom, particularly Paul's warning against "profane and vain babblings" (1 Tim 6:20) and the Proverbs admonition to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Pro 26:5), Tertullian presents ridicule not as mere rhetorical savagery but as a theologically justified defense of truth.

Social Media's Amplification Dilemma

The contemporary digital landscape presents challenges remarkably parallel to those Tertullian confronted. Social media platforms function as unprecedented amplifiers of both information and misinformation, with algorithms often rewarding engagement regardless of content quality. When encountering patent absurdities, from flat earth theories to elaborate conspiracy narratives, modern communicators face Tertullian's dilemma: how to respond without inadvertently promoting what deserves dismissal?

The problem intensifies through what communication scholars call the "attention economy," where visibility itself confers a form of legitimacy. Extensive refutations, regardless of their accuracy, often increase the prominence of the very ideas they seek to counter. This creates the paradoxical situation where well-intentioned debunking may inadvertently strengthen the cultural presence of misinformation.

Strategic Communication in Digital Spaces

Tertullian's approach suggests an alternative pathway. When confronting obvious absurdities online, measured ridicule can effectively undermine their credibility without expanding their reach. Rather than crafting exhaustive point-by-point rebuttals to baseless claims, which may be algorithmically rewarded with greater visibility, a concise exposure of logical inconsistencies through humor can disarm falsehood without dignifying it.

This strategy aligns with contemporary research on persuasion and belief formation. Studies in cognitive psychology reveal that direct confrontation often triggers defensive reactions, strengthening rather than weakening commitment to existing beliefs, what researchers term the "backfire effect." Humor, by contrast, can bypass defensive barriers, creating cognitive space for reconsideration without triggering identity-protective cognition.

The Psychology of Belief Revision

The psychological mechanisms underlying belief formation further validate Tertullian's approach. When individuals encounter information contradicting deeply held convictions, they typically experience cognitive dissonance, psychological discomfort that motivates defensive processing of counterevidence. Direct refutation often intensifies this discomfort, paradoxically strengthening attachment to original beliefs.

Ridicule functions differently in cognitive processing. By highlighting absurdity through humor rather than direct confrontation, it creates psychological distance between persons and ideas, enabling individuals to reconsider positions without feeling personally threatened. The strategic deployment of ridicule thus becomes not merely rhetorical preference but psychological wisdom, creating pathways for belief revision that direct refutation might inadvertently block.

Practicing Digital Discernment

Implementing Tertullian's wisdom in contemporary contexts requires developing what might be termed "digital discernment," the capacity to distinguish between ideas deserving serious engagement and those warranting brief exposure of their absurdities. Not every mistaken claim deserves elaborate refutation, just as not every social media confrontation demands exhaustive response. The discerning communicator, like Tertullian, recognizes when engagement itself becomes counterproductive.

This discernment extends to platform-specific dynamics. On Twitter, where brevity constrains communication, pointed wit may effectively expose nonsense without algorithmic amplification. On Facebook, where extended discussions unfold in comments, strategic disengagement from patently absurd claims may prevent their propagation through engagement metrics. Across platforms, the judicious use of humor, respectful toward persons while unsparing toward falsehoods, implements Tertullian's rhetorical wisdom in digital spaces.

Conclusion: Ancient Wisdom for Digital Discourse

Tertullian's strategic deployment of ridicule against Valentinian Gnosticism offers surprisingly relevant guidance for navigating contemporary digital discourse. His recognition that some ideas collapse under their own weight when merely exposed rather than exhaustively refuted provides a template for engaging modern absurdities. By maintaining ethical boundaries that distinguish between mocking ideas and insulting persons, contemporary communicators can employ this ancient rhetorical strategy while preserving intellectual integrity.

The enduring relevance of Tertullian's approach reminds us that while communication technologies transform rapidly, the fundamental challenges of truth-seeking discourse remain remarkably consistent across centuries. In both ancient theological controversies and modern social media disputes, discernment about when to engage seriously and when to simply expose absurdity remains essential to effective communication. Tertullian's judicious use of ridicule offers not merely historical curiosity but practical wisdom for navigating an information landscape where attention itself has become a scarce and contested resource.

Sources and Further Study 

Primary source

For the primary source of Tertullian's Against the Valentinians, a widely accessible and authoritative edition is:

Tertullian. Adversus Valentinianos. Translated by Mark T. Riley, 1971.  Available at: The Tertullian Project, http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_valentinianos.htm.

This edition includes the complete Latin text, English translation, and commentary, making it a reliable source for studying Tertullian's rhetorical strategies, including his use of ridicule.

An alternative print edition, which includes additional context and is part of a broader collection, is:

Tertullian. Against the Valentinians. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by Alexander Roberts, 1885, pp. 503–520. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Available at: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.viii.html.

On Tertullian's Rhetorical Strategy and Use of Ridicule

Kingreen, Sarah-Magdalena. Tertullians Schrift „Adversus Valentinianos“: Die argumentative Widersetzung Tertullians gegen die Valentinianer als ein in rhetorischer Perspektive geschlossenes Werk. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 120. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-159603-2.

This scholarly work provides a detailed analysis of Tertullian's rhetorical techniques in Adversus Valentinianos, emphasizing his use of satire and ridicule to dismantle Valentinian Gnosticism. It highlights the text as a cohesive rhetorical work, offering insights into how Tertullian strategically employed humor to avoid dignifying absurd ideas.

On Ridicule and Social Media Discourse

Baym, Nancy K. "The Performance of Humor in Computer-Mediated Communication." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1, no. 2 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1995.tb00327.x.

This article examines humor in digital communication, offering a modern parallel to Tertullian’s use of ridicule. It discusses how humor can expose inconsistencies without amplifying problematic ideas, aligning with Tertullian’s strategy for handling absurdities in a way that avoids the pitfalls of the attention economy.