IV. Tertullian's Debt to his Predecessors :
Aarts debt: 4 ast laa, en
INTRODUCTION
Sa of one or other of the western writers had become known in the | f era East.
One might suggest that the connecting link was Firmilian, ^——— the correspondent of Cyprian: his name does not appear in the superscription of the letter, but he is known to have been in close touch with the composers of it.
IV. TERTULLIAN'S DEBT TO HIS PREDECESSORS
Tertullian, though by no means a slavish copyist of other men's matter, would have been the last to claim for himself any credit as an original thinker.
His purpose, in his dogmatic treatises, is to make a competent and forceful forensic presentment of the case for the traditional Christian faith.
His qualifications, besides his command of language and his skill as an advocate, were a comprehensive grasp of the Scriptures, the sound common sense which enabled him to disentangle their matter-of-fact meaning from the mists of speculation with which the gnostic schools had enveloped it, and appreciative and retentive reading of such works of the apologists as had come into his hands.
Of these last he was most indebted ted tol Justin} whose expositions he reproduces without the tentativeness and reserve which were natural to that gentler mind: he was also acquainted with the work of Tatian, and perhaps with that of Theophilus and . Athenagoras: and if the present book does not afford much scope for borrowing from Irenaeus, the Praescriptio haereticorum and the treatise against the Valentinians show that he could on occasion make extensive use of that father.
The following notes show his indebtedness in respect of the doctrine of the Logos
(§ 5). Concerning his constant claim (for which he has some New Testament authority, and in which he is at one with all the fathers until the fourth century and with many after that) that the '
\eewre.
Lord who in the Old Testament appeared to the patriarchs and others is God the Son who afterwards was incarnate, reference should be made to the notes to §§ 12-16: and for the identification of the Logos with the divine Wisdom and for the interpretation of Pss. 45 and 110 to the notes on § 6, 7.
WOrO?.
This term comes into Christian theology from John 1. 1, to which there is always a reference either explicitly or by implica-
TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS
tion, as Adv. Prax. 5, sermonem .
. in primordio apud deum fuisse.
Christian writers do sometimes, when addressing a pagan audience, make some small apologetic capital out of the fact that it was in use among the philosophers: so Tertullian, Apol. 21, apud vestros quoque sapientes Xóyov, id est sermonem atque rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis. hunc enim Zeno determinat factitatorem, qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit: eundem et fatum vocari et deum et animum Iovis et necessitatem omnium rerum.
But they can hardly have been unaware that Aóyos in the philosophers is neither speech nor reason, far less a divine person (though they designate it *god"—for god to them is depersonalised), but is little more than mathematical ratio: for the Stoics see the excerpts quoted from Diogenes Laertius by Ritter and Preller, $ 493
(8th ed.), especially Goket 9" adrots apyas elvar TOv OXov Svo, TO ToioUv Kal TO máocxov: TO pev o)üv máo Xov eivau THY
&Toiov ovo iar, TU Uv, TO O6 moioUv TOv ev avr Aóyov, tov Oeóv . .. kai óoep €» TH yovij TÓ oTépy.a. Tepiéxerau, oUTO Kal TOUTOV TEP [LAT UKOY hoyov ovTa TOU
KOopou Towdvee UVmodimerOa ev TO vypo Evepyov avro ToouvTa THY UNqv pos THY TOv EENs yéveow.
"Ratio in matter" and "spermatic ratio of the world" are as far as can be from the real sentiments of the Christian apologists, and their references to Stoic theories can have amounted to no more than a plea that the Christian doctrine of the Logos, the creator of the world, who was incarnate and is Jesus Christ, must not be summarily dismissed as unreasonable.
When Tertullian says, Apol. 23, Christus .
. dei virtus et dei spiritus et sermo et sapientia et ratio, he is saying things which (in their own peculiar sense of the word ** god") the Stoics might have understood; but when he adds, et dei filius, he speaks of what to them is inconceivable.
The same can be said of the use of the term by Philo Judaeus (see Ritter and Preller, 88 609, 610): it has little in common with Christian theology.
De cherubim, 27, Philo claims a transcendental illumination: éheye 9€ ou Kata TOV Eva óvross OVTA
Ücóv dvo TAS dverdre elvau Kai mporas Óvvápeis dyabornra Kat e€ovotav, kal dyabornre pev TO Tv yeyevvukérvau, e€ovoia O6 TOU yevenÜévros dpxew, Tpirov o6 ouvarywyov dot pécov evar Aóyov:
Aóyo yap kai apxovTa Kal dyaÜov etvar Tov Ücóv.
Here (as R. and P: remark, § 609 note b) Aóyos is either the ratio which reconciles God's goodness
" aa bs / ~J fes Ww 25 Noyes
INTRODUCTION
and his power, or else something superior to and transcending them both, but inferior to God: in either case it is a mathematical mean and has evidently no connexion with Christian usage.
Quis rer. div. haer. 42, T@ 6€ apxayyédw Kal mpeaBvráro Xóygo dwpeav é£atperov &&okev 6 rà da VEVVHTAS maTnp, wa peAdpios ards Td yevdopevov Siaxpivy Tod Temowkóros.
6 O autos ikérns pev éate Tov Ovytod kypaívovros del mpos TO d$Üaprov, mpeo[evris 96 Tov
NYEHOVOS mpós TO Umákoov ..
. ovTE ayévyNnTos ws 6 0s Óv ovre YEvVNTOS ws vets, AMA uécos TAY àkpov, audotépois 6unpevwv.
Here, and in the passages referred to by Ritter and Preller § 610 note a, the Aóyos is substantified or even personified; but again it is a mathematical mean which Philo has in mind, and although some of the words have an almost
Christian sound their sense is not that taken up by Christian theology.
So we are brought back to the opening words of the Fourth Gospel, where the word is so evidently due to recollection of the Old Testament texts "and God said"', *by the word of the Lord were the heavens made", "he spake and it was done", that one can only wonder at the perverse ingenuity of those who look for Greek sources of the Johannine terminology.
Justin MARTYR uses the term, but sits loosely to it: it is no . fundamental element in his thought.
That he was acquainted with the Gospel according to St John is evident from many reminiscences of its language (for which see Otto's Index); but he does not refer to the Prologue.
He appears to some degree to accommodate his language to his auditors: in the Dialogue he paraphrases Aóyos (which does not occur in the required sense in the Hebrew Scriptures) into Svvapyis tus Aoyucj: in the Apology there is less need for anticipatory explanation, for the philosopher emperor was aware of the Stoic use of the term and would think he knew more or less what Justin meant.
Dial. 61: peprópuov 86 kai ado jpiv ..
. dmó Tov ypapav Odo OTL GQpxTv pO TavTwY TOV krwcdrov 0 Üeós yeyévvnke $vapív twa éÉ éavroÜ oyiuKHv, "Tw Kat dd€a Kuptov bd Tov mvevpatos ToU ayiov KaetTal, ToTE 86 vios, toté 06 codia, mote O6 adyyedos, moré Se eds, more 8é
^ NI V4 * * > , € / KUptos Kal Aóyos:
ToTé O€ apxLoTpaTnyoV cour ad Aéyet Cc
TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS
ev dvÜpcov poppy, Qavévra (quaero an legendum dóaveis) TÓ TOU Navij "Ino'o9Exel yap mara. mporovop.ales Gar ek TE TOU Ümmperetv TÓ TOTpUuKG Bovdjpare Kat €K TOU dro TOU TAT POs Dedijoret yeyerjo Oat. GÀAX ov TovovTov ómotov kai ed Hav ywópevov Opapev ; Aóyov yáp Twa. mpoBandovres Aóyov yevvóypuev, oU kat dmoropT)v ws éAarro vau Tov év qp Xóyov mpoBaddAdpevor.
Similarly fire kindles fire, without any diminishing of the parent fire.
Justin proceeds to quote Prov. 8, texts from Gen. 1-3, and Josh. 5. 13: 6. 3. On Gen. 3. 22 he comments: àAÀAÀà ToUro TO TQ OvTL ATO ToU TaTpOs vmpoDAn0€v yévvoua mpd mávrov
TOV TOWNMATMOY cvvüv TQ TaTpl, Kal TOUTQ Ó TaTHp vpocopuXev, but comes back immediately to the identification with codia and àpxwuapdrwyos kvptov.
Evidently Justin is thinking not in terms of philosophy, but of the exegesis of the Old Testament, especially the theophanies, and Son is nearer to his mind than Word.
At Dial. 128 he seems almost afraid of the term: he refers to some who by anticipatory explanations
(twas mpoXéyew Tadta BovXouévovs) weaken the force of his illustrations: these Aóyov kahodow €TELON kai TAS Tapà TOD
TATPOS opudias péeper Tots avOparous, and suggest that this Ovvapus is atuyntos Kal axdpioTos ToU Tat pos, and that the Father órav BovdAntar.
. . Osvapav avTov mpomydav Toret, Kat orav BovAntas má CH MUT eis éavróv.
With these anticipators of Sabellius Justin does not agree: 7) Óvvajus avrn . OUX GS TO TOU Hriov PHS Óvópar. povoy apLOuEtTat,
GANA kai apie érepóv Ti éaru: the illustration of fire lighted from fire, the offspring permanent and the parent undiminished, is better than that of the sun emitting and withdrawing its rays.
He concludes (8 129):
VOELTE, @ axpoarat, et ye VOUV mpoaéxere:
Ka Oru yeyevvija o. bro TOU TaT pos TOUTO TO yévvqpa mpd Tüvrov amas TOV KTLO ura Ó Aoyos
(sc. our argument) €dxphou, Kal TO YEVVOPEVOV TOU YEVV@VTOS &piÜj.Q érepóv éoT, Tas daTITOUY Gporoyyoete.
Once more yévynja. is closer to Justin's mind than Aóyos.
In Apol. ii. 6 (to the Senate) the words 6 Móyos could drop out without altering the sense: 6 d€ vids éxeivou, 6 povos Xeyópevos Kupios vids, 0 Móyos, mp TÓV Trot roov cvvàv Kat .Yevvóp.evos,
OTE Tov py V avTov mavTa ékrwc€ Kal eKOo NTE, Xpuoros uev .
. keyerat, 'Ipooüs O6 kai dvOpwmov kai
INTRODUCTION
TwTHpos ovopa kai avjuacíav exer. At Apol. ii. 5 it is essential to the argument: o) yàp povoy év "EAXgow Sia Xokpárovs
U76 Aóyov HéexOn rara, dÀAXà kai ev BapBdpots bm abro TOU Aóyov uopooévros kai dvOparov yevopévov kai Inoov
Xpva'ToU kNÜévros : so also ibid. 21: rov Aóyov, 0 éort TpOTov yévvnpa. ToU co, dvev émuu£(as . . . yeyevvio ban, *Incovv
Xpwrróv Tov diddoKadov yuav. The last two passages suffice to show that though he neither quotes nor refers to John 1. I-14, the sense of it was in his mind, and that he probably read ds... éyevvij.
TATIAN reproduces some of Justin's phrases, e.g. Aóyov dvvapis, dvvaps Aoyucj, and his illustration of fire kindled from fire yet leaving the parent fire undiminished; but he differs from his master in that his thought is based on Aóyos rather than on vids or yévvopua and that the Aóyos concept is essential to his argument.
Orat. ad Graecos 5: Üeàs jv év apy, THY 66 dpyzyv Aóyov Óvapw rapedjgaper.
6 yap Oeamórgs Tov GXov, avTos Umápxyov ToU mavrOs 7) )mócTaOis, kaTà pev THY pndérw yeyernuevny moinow pdvos Sv: Kalo 86 máca
Svvapis óparüv re kal dopdtav aitds vmócTacis Tv, ody a)vTQ Ta mTdvra' adv a)rQ Sid Xoyucijs Suvdpews adrds Kat 0 ddyos bs Jv év ait@ bréotnoe! Hedrjpare Sé THS amhdTyTos avToU mpomynda Xóyos 6 S€ Adyos od Kara
Kevov Xwpyoas, épyov TpoTórokov ToU TaTpos vyiyvera. rovrov igpev ToU kóopov THY adpyyv. yéyove 66 xarà pepugpóv, ov Kata. dmokomyw Td yap ámoruoÜtv ro TpÓTOV KEXwpiotat, TO Oe pepo Oey oixovoptas TH aipegw mpoohaPov obk évdea Tov dOev eiNymrou memoínkev.
There follows an illustration of torch kindled from torch, and a carefully drawn comparison between the human word giving order and arrangement to the minds of the audience, and the divine
Word first fabricating and then ordering the constituent elements of creation.
It seems likely that Tertullian had Tatian's exposition in mind while writing the Adv. Prax. 5: he avoids some of the Assyrian's crudities of thought, but cannot altogether divest himself of the idea that the Aóyos reaches complete subsistence as the result of a time-process, and that the holy
! Otto wrongly translates substitit: Maranus, more correctly, sustentabat : but fieri fecit would be best: '' caused all things to be".
TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS
Trinity is in some sense a development.
Orat. 7 (146 B) and 20 (159 C), quoted in the notes on § 8, equate Aóyos and rmveUpa.
THEOPHILUS,
possibly misled by the false application of | efnpevato from Ps. 45. 1 (see the note on § 7), boldly introduces the contrasting terms évóváÜeros, mpopopixds: he substantifies apyy and identifies it with Aóyos: identifies Aoyos with the voice of the Lord which Adam heard in the Garden: and makes the first explicit citation of John 1. 1-3.
Ad Autol. ii. 10: éycv otv Ó Beds TOV EQUTOU Aóyov €vOuáÜerov év Tots idious omhayXxvous eyevynoev avTov pera TNS idtas copias efepevEdpevos ™po
TOV O\OV .
.. obros Aéyera, apyy, OTL apyer kai KupLever TaVvT@v TOV Ov avTOU S<Snmrovpynuevenr. Ibid. 22: The Word dvarapBaveov TO TpocwTov TOU TAaTpOS Kal kvpiov TOV oXov came into the Garden and talked with Adam: the Scripture says that Adam heard the voice: $ovr) 86 Ti addo éariv GAN
73) 6 Aóyos 6 Tov ÜcoU, os éo Tw Kal vids avToU; There is nothing here akin to the poetic fables of sons of gods, ah\a ws adnbeia dinyetras Tov Aóyov TOV ovTa did TAVTOS: evdid erov év Kapoia Oeo. pO yap TU yivea Bau ToUTOv eixev aópBovXov, EQUTOU voUv koi ppdovnow ovta: ómóre de HOA ynoev 6 Beds Tornoat Oca é€Bovrevoato, TovTOV TOV
Àóyov éyévvmoev mpodQopwóv, TpwTdToKOV TaTHS krío'eos, ov KevoÜeis adtds ToU Aóyov, àÀÀà Aóyov yevvycas Kal ii Aóyc avToU dia mavrOs dpirov.
Then, quoting John 1. tag} with explanatory notes, he concludes:
Ücós otv àv ó yos Kat ex Üeo0 mepuKds, omdrav Bovhyrat à Ó mai np TOV ohwv me paren avrov els TWa TóTOV, Os Trapaywóp.evos kat dKoveTar Kat oparat, TejmÓpevos UT avTOv, Kal €v rómOQ evpioxerau. [There is probably no need to regularise the grammar of this sentence by reading wéuzrew and omitting os.]
ATHENAGORAS
stands somewhat outside the Justin-TatianTheophilus sequence, and does not repeat their stock phrases.
Suppl. IO: voovpev yàp . Kal voy TOU 0co0 UU ear ipS vids ToU Beov Móyos TOU Tar pos év ld€a Kat evepyeta: pos avTov yàp kai dv avrob TavTa eyevero, évàs ovTos Tov
Tar pos Kat ToU viod. ovTos d€ Tov viod ev Tmarpt Kat TATPOS €v vig, evornte Kai Ovvápe Ted Paros, vous kai hoyos ToU maTpós 6 vids Tod ÜcoÜ .
. éf apyyns yap 6
Ted. on hoy M df : jam
INTRODUCTION
0eós, vous atoLos @ ov, elyev QUTOS ev EAUT@ TOV Aóyov, aLoLws hoyixds dw.
The nearest he gets to the contrast évSidOeros, mpopopixds, is in the sentence (omitted in the previous quotation) ovy ws yevopevov ...
GAN ós Tov ÜDukQv £vmávrav .
. da kai évépyea eivar mpoedOav, which is capable of an interpretation to which later orthodoxy would not have objected.
Compare also with Tatian's expression cata p.epuo uv, Supp. 18, "fas the empire is subject to the emperors, father and son" oUres evi TQ Oe@ kai T@ Tap avroU Aóyco viQ voovuévo apEploT@ TaVvTA VITOTETAKTAL.
IRENAEUS has the identification filius, id est verbum, too often % to need quotation.
Warned by gnostic error, he sees the danger of certain expressions and illustrations which had hitherto been in good repute. He does not like the comparison.with-the-human voice, nor any idea of emission or prolation.
Haer. ii. 42. 3:
. vos autem generationem eius ex patre divinantes et verbi hominum per linguam factam prolationem transferentes in verbum dei, iuste detegimini a vobis ipsis quod neque humana nec divina noveritis .
. . (4) non ergo magnum quid invenerunt qui emissiones excogitaverunt neque absconditum mysterium, si id quod ab ommibus intelligitur transtulerunt in unigenitum dei verbum.
He knew and used Justin's work, but he is an interpreter of Scripture rather than an original thinker, and therefore avoids the pitfalls in which others were caught.
C. Tertullian found the term already in use, with sermo as its conventional Latin equivalent (Adv. Prax. 5): from whichit would appear either that the African Churches possessed theologians before him, or else that the title Aóyos and the Johannine prologue were familiar to the unlearned.
He can, when addressing pagans, lend himself to that bit of special pleading involved in the reference to the Stoic use of the term: but in the present treatise, an address to Christians (mistaken though they may be), he goes back to the Gospel text.
Warned by Irenaeus, he safeguards the Is idea from the suspicion of affinity with gnosticism ($ 8); but he is chiefly concerned, as against the monarchians, to exclude any . suggestion that the Logos is an impersonal attri jon of God.
The Logos is Jesus Christ the Son of God, and so cannot annot by any means be impersonal: that, though unexpressed,