19. posse: Leop posse, Semi distinguit league.

19. posse: Leop posse, Semi distinguit league.

1/,,)-10,'+

damnet neque praedamnet, neminem vinciat, neminem recludat aut torqueat, si haec credibile est fieri posse.

18. 1. Jam vero de solo suggestu et apparatu honoris retractandum. Proprius habitus uniuscuiusque est tam ad usum quotidianum quam ad honorem et dignitatem. Jgitur purpura illa et aurum cervicis ornamentum eodem more apud

Aegyptios et Babylonios insignia erant dignitatis, quo more nunc praetextae without condemning or forejudging, without putting anybody in irons, without emprisoning or torturing, if it is believable that all this is possible.

18. 1. But now we should draw our attention only to the attire and pomp of a high office. There is an appropriate wear for everyone, both for daily use and for office and dignity (high function). Thus the well-known purple and the gold as an ornament for the neck were among the Egyptians and Babylonians insignia of dignity, comparable to the togae praetextae, the trabeae and the tunicae palmatae and the golden wreaths of the provincial priests, but not on the same terms. 2. For it was only for the sake of honour that these ornaments used to be granted to those who by merit became intimates of kings and hence they were called 'the purpled men of kings' after the purple, just as we have candidati, 'men in white', called so after the toga candida, the 'white toga'. The purpose was not that this splendid attire should also be bound up with priestly duties or any services to idols. If this were the case, undoubtedly men of such holiness and steadfastness would at once have refused these tainted vestments, and it would at once have become evident that Daniel had not been a servant of idols nor a worshipper of Bel or the dragon, as became evident much later.

5 vel trabeae vel palmatae et coronae aureae sacerdotum provincialium, sed non f. 118 eadem condicione. 2. Tantum enim / honoris nomine conferebatur his, qui familiaritatem regum merebantur unde et purpurati regum memorabantur a purpura, sicut apud nos a toga candidati -, sed non ut suggestus ille sacerdotiis quoque aut aliquibus idolorum officiis adstringeretur. Nam si ita esset,

10 utique tantae sanctitatis et constantiae viri statim habitus inquinatos recusassent statimque apparuisset Danielem idolis non deservisse nec Belem nec draconem colere, quod multo postea apparuit. 3. Simplex igitur purpura illa nec iam dignitatis erat, sed ingenuitatis apud barbaros insigne quodammodo enim et Joseph, qui servus fuerat, et Daniel, qui per captivitatem statum

15 verterat, civitatem Babyloniam et Aegyptiam sunt consecuti per habitum barbaricae ingenuitatis -. Sic penes nos quoque fideli, si necesse fuerit, poterit et puerilis praetexta concedi et puerilis stoIa, nativitatis insignia, non potestatis, generis, non honoris, ordinis, non superstitionis. Ceterum purpura vel cetera insignia dignitatum et potestatum insertae dignitatibus et potestatibus

3. That purple, then, was something simple among the barbarians, not yet a sign of a high function, but of free birth. For in a sense both Joseph, who had been a slave, and Daniel, who had changed his status through captivity, attained Babylonian and Egyptian citizenship by receiving the dress of foreign nobility. In the same way in our Christian community, if it is necessary, the boy's praetexta can be worn and the girl's stoIa, signs of descent, not of power, of lineage, not of office, of class, not of superstition. But the purple or the rest of the insignia of high rank and power, which from the beginning have been consecrated to the idolatry involved in these dignities and powers, carry with them the taint of their own dedication. Hence, the idols themselves are also robed in praetextae, trabeae and lati clavi, and fasces and rods are carried before them, and rightly so; for the demons are the magistrates of this world: fasces and purple are worn by them as the insignia of one and the same league.

20 idololatriae ab initio dicata habent profanation is suae maculam, cum praeterea ipsis etiam idolis induantur praetextae et trabeae et lati clavi, fasces quoque et virgae praeferantur, et merito. Nam daemonia magistratus sunt saeculi huius; unius collegii insignia, fasces et purpuras gestant. 4. Quid ergo proficies, si suggestu quidem utaris, opera eius vero non administres? Nemo

25 immundis mundus videri potest. Tunicam si induas inquinatam per se, poterit forsitan ilIa non inquinari per te, sed tu per illam mundus esse non poteris.

3-4. Gen. 41, 42. Dan. 5, 29.

11. vid. comment.

13-15. Gen. 39, I. Dan. 5, 13; 6, 14.

22. cf. Ephes. 6, 12.

19. posse: Leop posse, Semi distinguit 1 .. appratu A 2. cotidianus B ad in margo add. A m. ead.

S. virgulam post sacerdotum ponit RIg; appro bat K. Baus, Der Kranz in Antike u. Christentum 57-8 6. conditione A conferebantur Rig his Gel) is A iis Rid 7-8. merebantur unde ... candidati -, sed dist. vdNat) merebantur, Unde ... candidati, Sed A merebantur. Unde .. . candidati: sed B Gel merebantur. Unde

.. . candidati: sed Oehi Rid 7. vocabantur B Gel 8. sicuti LaC toga candida B Gel

12. poste A 13. dlgmtatl A erat sed ingenuitatis am. A 13-16. insigne quodammodo .. . ingenuitatiS -:. Sic dist. vdNat) insigne; quodammodo .. . ingenuitatis, Sic A insigne. Quodammodo ... ingenUitatlS, SIC B Gel (:sic) insigne; quodammodo ... ingenuitatis. Sic Hartel P. S. 1, 51

13-14. quodammodo A B Gel; vindicat Hartel P. S. 1, 51] quemadmodum Pam 14. statim B IS. Aegyptiam Rlg).Aegyptum A B Gel 16. Fideli A; vindicat Gomperz 22) fideles B Gel si) sic Rig 17. prius puenhs A; vmdlcat Gomperz 22) pueris B Gel post. puerilis A B; vindicat Gomperz 22) puellis

Gel 18. Inde a verbIs ceterum purpura cap. XVIII incipere putat Iun; approbat LaC 19. insertae A B Gel) inserta Hartel P. S. 1,51, qui post dignitatem virgulam ponit post insertae virgu4. So what will you accomplish, if you use this attire but do not perform the functions connected with it? Nobody can give an impression of cleanness in unclean clothes. If you put on a tunic soiled of itself, it may perhaps not be soiled through you, but certainly you will not be able to be clean because of it. lam ponit Scal dignitatibus vdNat) dignitati A B Gel 20-21. propterea LaC 21. induantur Lat; appro bat Iun) in quantum B Gel om. A 23. distinctionem post huius tollit B unius om.

Rig hoc modo distinguens: saeculi. huius collegii (summi add. Wissowa) fascias mavull Pam 24. vero eius Gel interrogationis signum post administres primus posuit Pam

25. in inmundis Rig poteris B Gel 26. illam .. . inquinare B Gel

ou l~,q-l';J,l

Further, you, who take an argument from the cases of Joseph and Daniel, you must know that we cannot always compare things old and new, rude and polished, only begun and fully developed, servile and free. 5. For these men, even by their circumstances, were slaves. But you are nobody's slave, in so far as you are solely the slave of Christ, who even freed you from the imprisonment of this world. You will thus have to act according to your Lord as pattern. He walked in humility and obscurity, uncertain about his dwellingplace, for He said: the Son of men has nowhere to lay his head. He was uncared for in his dress, for otherwise He would not have said: Behold, they lam nunc qui de loseph et Daniel argumentaris, scito non semper compaf. liB v rand a esse vetera et nova, rudia et polita, coepta et explicita, servilia / et liberalia. 5. Nam illi etiam condicione servi erant; tu vero nullius, in quantum

30 solius Christi, qui te etiam captivitate saeculi liberavit; ex forma dominica agere debebis. Ille dominus in humilitate et ignobilitate incessit domicilio incertus nam filius, inquit, hominis non habet, ubi caput collocet -, vestitu incultus neque enim dixisset: ecce qui teneris vestiuntur, in domibus regum sunt -, vultu denique et aspectu inglorius, sicut et Esaias pronuntiave35 rat. 6. Si potestatis ius quoque nullum ne in suos quidem exercuit, qui bus sordido ministerio functus est, si regem denique fieri conscius sui regni refugit, plenissime dedit formam suis dirigendo omni fastigio et suggestu quam dignitatis quam potestatis. 7. Quis enim magis iis usus fuisset quam dei filius?

Quales et quanti eum fasces producerent, qualis purpura de umeris eius florewho are clad in soft raiment are in kings' houses. He was, indeed, inglorious in countenance and appearance, as Isaiah had predicted. 6. Furthermore, if He exercised no right of power even towards His own followers, for whom

He performed a menial service, and, above all, if He, though aware of His kingship, avoided being made king, we may conclude that He most fully gave an example to His followers by putting into its proper place all the pomp and splendour of both dignity and power. 7. For who should have used these rather than God's son? What kind and what number of fasces would have accompanied Him, what kind of purple would have gleamed on His shoulders, what kind of gold would have beamed upon His head, had He not considered wordly splendour to be alien both to Himself and to His followers?

He thus rejected the worldly splendour which He did not want, and He condemned what He rejected, and what He condemned, He consigned to the pomp of the devil. For He would not have condemned anything except what was not of Him; but things that are not God's could be of nobody's but the devil's. 8. If you have sworn off the devil's pomp, know then that all that you touch of it is idolatry.

40 ret, quale aurum de capite radiaret, nisi gloriam saeculi alienam et sibi et suis iudicasset? 19itur quam noluit, reiecit, quam reiecit, damnavit, quam damnavit, in pompa diaboli deputavit. Non enim damnasset, nisi non sua; alterius autem esse non possent, nisi diaboli, quae dei non sunt. 8. Tu si diaboli pompam eierasti, quicquid ex ea attigeris, id scias esse idololatrian. Vel hoc te

45 commonefaciat omnes huius saeculi potestates et dignitates non solum alienas, verum et inimicas dei esse, quod per illas adversus dei servos supplicia consulta sunt, per ill as et poenae ad impios paratae ignorantur. 9. 'Sed et nativitas et substantia tua molestae tibi sunt adversus idololatrian.' Ad evitandum

/ remedia deesse non possunt, cum et, si defuerint, supersit unicum illud, quo 50 felicior factus non in terris magistratus, sed in caelis.

19. 1. Posset in isto capitulo etiam de militia definitum videri, quae inter Let moreover this fact remind you that all the powers and dignities of this world are not only foreign but even hostile to God: that by their agency punishments have been fixed against God's servants and also that by their agency the punishments prepared for the impious remain unknown.

32. Mtth. B, 20. Luc. 9, 5B.

33. Mtth. II, B. Luc. 7, 25.

34. Is. 53, 2.

35-36. Ioh. 13, 416.

36. Ioh. IB, 36; 6, 15.

27. nunc qui de Seal Rig] nunc quid de B Gel numquid A post argumentaris interrogationis signum ponit LaC 29. conditione A servi conditione Gel nullius A; vindicat Hartel P. S. 1,52;

3,62] nullius servus B Gel in quantum Gel B (inquantum); vindicat Hartel P. S. 1,52] inquillinatum A 30. solus B post liberavit punctum ponit fun ex A; restituerunt Lat fun A non inspecto] et B Gel 31. et ignobilitate om. A domicilii Ciacconius; lectionem traditam vindicant

1un LaC Hoppe Beitr. 30 32. caput A B; mavult fun] caput suum Gel 34. alt. et om. A 35. potestatis ius ... nullum A] potestatem ... nullam B Gel 36. regem A; restituit LaC A non inspecto] regem se B Gel 37. dirigendo A B Gel] derigendo fun Oehl Hoppe Beitr. 96 de reiciendo Mercurus deiciendo vel derogando susp. Rfd; utrum diran deran de regendo legendum sit dubitat L~C fastidio A carr. quam A; vindicat Hoppe Beitr. 125] tam B Gel 38. iis A] hiS B Gel hiS magis LaC 39. quales ante eum susp. Leap deum eris A de humeris B Gel 41. primum quam A Rig] quae B Gel reiecit, quam reiecit, damnavit, quam damnavit Rig] reiecit. quam reiecit. quam damnavit. damnavit: A reiecit, quae reiecit damnavit, quae damnavit, B

Gel 43. possunt Leap Wissowa; lectionem traditam vindicat Hoppe Beitr. 36 44. post idololatriam virgulam exhibet B 46. inimica A 47. convulta A irrogantur Lat; approbat fun dignorantur LaC Sed et B Gel] Sed A 48. tua ex sua A molesta &ibi A tibi molesta LaC post sunt punctum ponit fun distinctionem post idololatrian tal/ens post idololatriam virgulam

9. 'But both your birth and your property are a burden to you in the fight against idolatry.' To avoid it, remedies cannot be absent since even if they would fail, there would remain that one thing by which you will be made a happier magistrate, not on earth but in heaven.

19. 1. In the last chapter a decision might also seem to have been given conexhibent B Gel; punctum primi posuerunt Seal LaC aevitandum A Re/iqua in A desunt; post evitandum fiber De anima incipit a verbis de minutiloquio aristotelis (cap. Vf, 7)

49. post possunt interrogationis signum ponit Pam 1597; virgulam restituit Seal et, si fun] et si B etsi

Gel quod Rig 50. in tel ris eris magi stratus Kroym Q. C. 29; repudiat et lectionem traditam vindicat Hoppe Beitr. 45 in terris magistrabis Fr. Leo ap. Kroym

1. possit Leop Oehl Rfd, quod tuetur Hoppe Beitr. 36 putans possit traditum esse intra Seal

6i.

1~,I-.. W,4

l~, i-L.U,4 U.J

dignitatem et potestatem est. At nunc de isto quaeritur, an fidelis ad militiam converti possit et an militia ad fidem adrnitti, etiam caligata vel inferior quaeque, cui non sit necessitas immolationum vel capitalium iudiciorum. 2. Non cerning that part of military service which pertains to the ranks of dignity and power. But now the question at issue is whether a believer may enlist and whether military men can be admitted to the faith, even the private soldier or every lower rank, for whom there is no necessity to sacrifice or to pass capital judgement.

5 convenit sacramento divino et humano, signo Christi et signo diaboli, castris lucis et castris tenebrarum; non potest una anima duo bus deberi, deo et

Caesari. 'Et virgam portavit Moyses, fibulam et Aaron, cingitur loro et Iohannes, agmen agit et Iesus Nave', bellavit et Petrus, si placet ludere. 3.

Quomodo autem bellabit, immo quomodo etiam in pace militabit sine gladio, 2. Incompatible are the human oath of allegiance (sacramentum) and the divine sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the legions of light and the legions of darkness. One soul cannot serve two lords:

God and Caesar.

10 quem dominus abstulit? Nam etsi adierant milites ad Iohannem et formam observationis acceperant, si etiam centurio crediderat, omnem postea militem dominus in Petro exarmando discinxit. Nullus habitus licitus est apud nos inlicito actui adscriptus.

20. 1. Sed enim cum conversatio divinae disciplinae non factis tantum, verum etiam verbis periclitetur (nam sicut et scriptum est: ecce homo et facta eius, ita: ex are tuo iustificaberis), meminisse debemus etiam in verbis quoque idololatriae incursum praecavendum aut de consuetudinis vitio aut timiditatis.

'Moses wore a rod and Aaron a buckle, John girded himself with a belt, Jesus Nave led an army'-and Peter waged war, if I may sport with the matter. 3. But how will he wage war, nay, how will he even in peace do military service without the sword, which the Lord has taken away? For though soldiers had come to John and received a rule to be guided by, although even a centurio had come to faith, every soldier of later times was ungirded by the Lord, when He disarmed Peter. With us no dress is allowed which belongs to a forbidden action.

20. 1. Living according to divine discipline, however, is not only endangered by deeds but also by words. For it is written, Behold man and his deeds, as well as, Out of your mouth you will be justified. We should thus also keep in mind that we must prevent idolatry from attacking us in words, too, which it can do owing to our vice of habit or that of timidity.

5 2. Deos nationum nominari lex prohibet, non utique, ne nomina eorum pronuntiemus, quae nobis ut dicamus conversatio extorquet. Nam id plerumque dicendum est: 'in templo Aesculapii illum habes', et: 'in vico Isidis habito', et: 'sacerdos Iovis factus est', et multa alia in hunc modum, quando et hominibus hoc genus nomina inducuntur. Neque enim Saturnum honoro, si ita

10 vocavero eum suo nomine; tam non honoro, quam Marcum, si vocavero Marcum. 3. Sed ait: nomen a/iorum deorum ne commemoremini neque audiatur de tuo are. Hoc praecepit, ne deos vocemus illos. Nam et in prima parte legis non sumes, inquit, nomen domini dei lui in vano, id est idolo. Cecidit igitur in idololatrian qui idolum nomine dei honoraverit. 4. Quodsi deos

2. The Law forbids us to mention the gods of the heathens. Its sense, of course, is not that we should not pronounce their names, which every-day life forces us to use. For quite often one has to say things like: 'You will find him in the temple of Asclepius', or 'I live in the Quarter of Isis', or 'He has become a priest of Jupiter', and many other expressions of this nature, since such names are also given to men. For clearly I am not honouring Saturn, if I so call him by his name; I honour him no more than Marcus, if I call him

Marcus.

15 dicendum erit, adiciendum est aliquid, quo appareat, quia non ego illos deos dico. Nam et scriptura deos nominat, sed adicit 'suos' vel 'nationum'; sicut

5-6. cf. 2 Cor. 6, 14. Mtth. 6, 24. Luc. 16, 13 .

7-8. Exod. 4, 2; 17,5; 2B, 12. Mtth. 3,4. Exod.

17,9.

9-10. Mtth. 26,52. Ioh. 1B, 11.

10-11. Luc. 3,14.

11. Mtth. B, 5-10. Luc. 7,2-10. 12.

Ioh. 1B, 11.

2-3. vid. comment. Mtth. 12, 37.

5. Exod. 23, 13. 11. Exod. 23, 13. 13. Exod. 20, 7.

3. But Scripture says: Make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let such be heard out of your mouth. The precept given here is that we do not call them 'gods'. For in the first part of the Law, too, is written: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, that is, in connection with an idol. So whoever honours an idol with the name of 'god' has lapsed into idolatry. 4. And if I have to speak of 'gods', something should be added to make it clear that I am not the one who calls them 'gods'. For Scripture also mentions gods but adds 'their' or 'of the heathens'. This is how David spoke,

3-4. quoque Urs 7. virgam quoque LaC portavit Gel celt. ] portabit B cingitur Gel celt.] cingetur B 8. Ioannes B Gel agit Gel celt.] aget B Petrus vdVliet SI. Eccl. 1,41; Th. Birl Philol.

83 (1928) 176; approbal Dekkers CC] populus B Gel celt.

9. belJabit Gel] belJavit B belJabit iam? quomodo mavull fun belJabit in pace? imo quomodo etiam militabit sine gladio? scribere vull LaC 10. quem Gel] quaeB et si Gel Ioannem B Gel 12. dominus Gel] domini B exarmando Gel] examinando B

2. sicut et B; vindicant Lojsl Krit. Apol. 94, ThOrn St. T. 2, 77] sicut Gel 3. etiam] esse Urs

5. prohibet, non uti que ne nomina Gel] prohibet, non utique nomina B prohibet non utique: nomina Rjd 7. B hoc modo distinguit: dicendum est in tempio Aescuiapii, ilJum habes all. in add. Rig 9-10. si ita quem vocavero suo nomine Urs si quem ita vocavero suo nomine Rig 11. commemoremini B Gel] commemorabitur Urs neque commemorabitur LaC comminiscamini susp. Rjd, quem rejutant el lectionem traditam vindicant Hartel P. S. 1, 52, Hoppe Synt.

audietur Rig 12. de ore tuo Gel 16. dico] voco LaC 16-17. sicut et B] sicut Pam sic et

Gel

L.u,'+-~ 1 ,J v-'

et David cum deos nominasset, ubi ait: dei autem nationum daemonia. Sed hoc mihi ad sequentia magis praestructum est. 5. Ceterum consuetudinis vitium est 'Mehercule' dicere, 'Medius Fidius' accedente ignorantia quorunwhen he had mentioned the gods, saying: the gods of the heathens, however, are demons.-But I have put this here rather as an introduction to what follows .

20 dam, qui ignorant iusiurandum esse per Herculem. Porro quid erit deieratio, si per eos, quos eierasti, quam praevaricatio fidei cum idololatria? Quis enim, per quos deierat, non honorat?

21. 1. Timiditatis est autem, cum te alius per deos suos obligat iuratione vel ali qua testificatione et tu, ne intellegaris, quiescis. Nam aeque quiescendo confirmas maiestatem eorum, cuius causa videberis obligatus. 2. Quid refert, deos nationum dicendo deos an audiendo confirmes, iures per idol a an ab alio

5. Well then, it is a vice of habit to say 'By Hercules' or 'So help me the god of faith', even if ignorance clings to the use of the latter on the part of some people who are unaware that it is an oath by Hercules. Moreover, if you swear by beings whom you have renounced, what else will this oath be than faith being in league with idolatry? For who does not honour those by whom he swears?

21. 1. On the other hand, it is a sign of timidity, when somebody else puts you under an obligation in the name of his gods by means of an oath or a solemn declaration and you keep silent out of fear of being recognized. For equally by your silence you confirm their divine majesty on account of which you will seem to be bound. 2. What does it matter whether you confirm the gods of the heathens by calling them 'gods' or by hearing them so called, whether you swear by the idols or, when somebody else swears to you by them, keep silent? Why not let us recognize the wiles of Satan, who is intent on accomplishing through the mouth of his servants what he cannot accomplish through our mouth, thus introducing idolatry into us through our ears?

5 adiuratus adquiescas? Cur non agnoscamus versutias satanae, qui, quod ore nostro perficere non potest, id agit, ut suorum ore perficiat per aures inferens nobis idololatrian? Certe quisquis ille est, aut arnica aut inimica congressione adstringit. 3. Si inimica, iam ad pugnam vocaris et scis tibi dimicandum esse; si arnica, quanto securius in dominum transferes sponsionem tuam, ut dissol10 vas obligationem eius, per quem te malus honori idolorum, id est idololatriae, quaerebat adnectere. 4. Omnis patientia eiusmodi idololatria: honoras eos, quibus impositis obsequium praestitisti. Scio quendam, cui dominus ignoscat, cum illi in publico per litem dictum esset: 'Iuppiter tibi sit iratus', respondisse:

'immo tibi'. Quid aliter fecisset ethnicus, qui lovem deum credidit? Etiamsi At all events, whoever it is who binds you, he does so either through friendly or hostile contact. 3. If it is through hostile contact, you are now challenged unto battle and know that you must fight; if it is through friendly contact, then how much more safely may you transfer your pledge to the Lord, in order that you dissolve the obligation of him through whom the Evil

One sought to bind you to the honour of the idols, that is, to idolatry. 4. All passivity of this kind is idolatry: you honour them in that you show submission to them when they are laid upon you.

15 non per eundem retorsisset maledictum nec per ullum lovis similem, confirmaverat lovem deum, per quem se maledictum indigne tulisse demonstraverat remaledicens. 5. Ad quid enim indigneris per eum, quem scis nihil esse? Nam si insanis, iam esse confirmas et erit idololatriae professio timoris tui; quanto magis, cum per ipsum remaledicis, eodem lovis honorem facis, quo et ille, qui

20 te provocavit. Fidelis autem in eiusmodi ridere debet, non insanire, immo secundum praeceptum ne per deum quidem remaledicere, sed plane benedicere per deum, ut et idola destruas et deum praedices et adimpleas disciplinam.

I know someone-may the lord forgive him-who, when it was said to him during a quarrel in the street: 'May Jupiter be angry with you', answered:

'No, with you' . What else would a heathen have done, who believes Jupiter to be a god? Even if he had not flung back the curse in the name of the same god or in the name of an equal of Jupiter, he would have confirmed Jupiter as a god, since by returning the curse he had shown that he was indignant about such a curse in his name. 5. For why should you be made indignant because of him whom you know to be nothing? For if you are angry, you already confirm his existence, and the manifestation of your fear will count as idolatry; how much more so, when you even curse back in his name, thus honouring Jupiter in the same way as he who defied you?

17. Ps. 96, 5 (LXX 95, 5).

21,21-22. 1 Petr. 2, 23 et 1 Petr. 3, 9 (cf. Mtth. 5, 44. Luc. 6, 28).

17. dei RiRl dii B Gel 18. fnde a verbo Ceterum cap. XXf incipere iudicat fun 20. ignorantius iurandum B erit Lat] erat B Gel 21. si per eos B Gel] per eos Lat si per eos deierasti Harrisius

2. B hoc modo distinguit: testificatione. Et ... quiescis, nam 3. videris fun 'ita habebam ad oram mei libri. Alii scribunt videberis, alii videbaris' LaC 4. iures B Pam] iuret Gel 6-7. perficiat? per aures inferes nobis idololatriam B 8. te adstringit Lat; lectionem traditam vindicat Lo/st Spr. Tert. 55 9. transfers mavult fun responsionem Gel; dubitat Pam 14. quid aliud Lat credit susp. fun post credidit virgulam exhibet B 15. illum B 16. per eum maledictus Urs 18. insanus B idololatria Lat; fun dubitat timor tuus LaC 18-19. quanto magis, si, cum

.. . maledicis, eodem ... facis Kroym Q. C. 30 19. lovis B Gel; vindicat Lo/st Spr. Tert. 9] lovi

Seal Urs honore fun 'alii eodem lovem honore facis' LaC 21. et maledicere B 23-22, I. disciplinam aeque ... nationum. distinguit B

A believer, however, ought to laugh in a situation like this, and not be angry; rather, according to the commandment he should not curse back even in God's name but openly bless in the name of God, in order that you destroy the idols and preach God and fulfil the discipline.

22,1-23,3

UI 22. 1. Equally one who has been initiated into the religion of Christ will not tolerate to be blessed in the name of the gods of the heathens, so as not always to reject the impure blessing, and purify it for himself by transferring it to God. To be blessed in the name of the gods of the heathens is to be cursed in the name of God.

22. 1. Aeque benedici per deos nationum Christo initiatus non sustinebit, ut non semper reiciat immundam benedictionem et earn sibi in deum convertens emundet. Benedici per deos nationum maledici est per deum. 2. Si dedero eleemosynam vel aliquid praestitero beneficii et ille mihi deos suos vel colo5 niae genium propitios imprecetur, iam oblatio mea vel operatio idolorum honor erit, per quae benedictionis gratiam compensat. 3. Cur autem non sciat me dei causa fecisse, ut et deus potius glorificetur et daemonia non honorentur in eo, quod propter deum feci? 'Sed deus videt, quoniam propter ipsum feci.' Pariter videt, quoniam propter ips urn fecisse me nolui ostendere et prae2. If I give someone an alms or confer a benefit on him, and that man prays that his gods or the genius of the colony may be propitious to me, my gift or benefit will therewith be a homage to the idols in whose name he returns to me his blessing, which is his thank. 3. But why should he not know that I acted for the sake of God, in order that it is rather God who is glorified, and that it is not the demons who are honoured by that which I have done for the sake of God?

10 ceptum eius idolothytum quodammodo feci. 4. Multi dicunt: 'Nemo se debet promulgare.' Puto autem nec negare. Negat enim quicumque dissimulat in quacumque causa pro ethnico habitus, et utique omnis negatio idololatria est, sicut omnis idololatria negatio sive in factis sive in verbis.

23. 1. Sed est quaedam eiusmodi species in facto et in verbo, bis acuta et infesta utrimque, licet tibi blandiatur, quasi vacet in utroque, dum factum non videtur, quia dictum non tenetur. Pecuniam de ethnieis mutuantes sub pignoribus fiduciati, iurati cavent, etsi negant se scire; volunt scilicet tempus

'But God sees that I did it for His sake.' Likewise, then, He sees that I did not want to show that I did it for His sake, and thus in a sense I turned His commandmant into a sacrifice to the idols.

Many say: 'Nobody ought to make himself known'. Nor, in my opinion, should anyone deny. For clearly he denies who dissembles when he is taken for a heathen on any occasion, and, of course, every denial is idolatry, just as every form of idolatry is a denial, either in words or in deeds.

23. l. But there is a certain species of that kind (of hidden idolatry) in deed and word, double-edged and threatening on both sides. Nevertheless, it appeals to you because it is as if it were not there in both respects, since nothing seems to have been done, because no word is heard. When they borrow money from the heathens under pledged securities, they give a guarantee under oath, though they deny to be conscious of this: but, of course, this knowledge is required by the time of the legal proceedings, the place of the law-court and the person of the president. 2. Now Christ prescribes that swearing is forbidden.

5 persecutionis et locus tribunalis et persona praesidis. 2. Praescribit Christus non esse iurandum. 'Scripsi', inquit, 'sed nihil dixi. Lingua, non litter a occidit.' Hie ego naturam et conscientiam advoco: naturam, quia nihil potest manus scribere, etiamsi lingua in dictando cessat immobilis et quieta, quod non anima dictaverit quamquam et ipsi linguae anima dietaverit aut a se

10 conceptum aut ab alio traditum -. 3. lam ne dicatur: 'Alius dictavit'; hie conscientiam appello, an quod alius dictavit anima suscipiat et sive comitante sive residente lingua ad manum transmittat. Et bene, quod in animo et consci entia delinqui dominus dixit. Si, inquit, concupiscentia vel malitia in cor

23,1. bis acuta: Apoc, 2, 12. Hebr. 4, 12.

5. cf. Mtth. 5, 34.

13-14. cf. Mtth . 5, 28.

'I have written', one objects, 'but I have not said anything; it is the tongue, not the letter which kills.' Here I appeal to nature and human consciousness.

I appeal to nature, because the hand cannot write anything which the soul has not dictated, even if the tongue remains motionless and quiet during this dictation;-although the soul has also dictated to the tongue itself something which is either conceived by the soul itself or passed on to it by another being.-3. Further, lest it be said, 'Another dictated', I appeal here to consciousness as to whether what another dictated is not taken up by the soul and transmitted to the hand, whether the tongue accompanies this action or whether it is at rest. Fortunately, the Lord has said that sins are committed in the mind and in the consciousness. He says that if concupiscence or malice

1. atque LaC per om. B Christo initiatus Gel] Christum Sationistus B 2. non dele! Pam quem refutat LaC 3. Si cui dedero Urs; 'vix necessarium' Kroym Q. C. 30 6. per quae B Gel; vtndlcant ~artel P. S. 1,52, Kroym Q. C. 30] quem per susp. Rfd compensat Urs] compensant

B Gel; vtndlc~t Kroym Q. C. 30 legens: per quae benedictiones gratiam compensant 7. honorantur B

8. feCI? Sed deus Rig Urs (feci.)] feci sse deus B feci deus Gel feci? deus LaC feci? Si deus

Oehl 9. post feci punctum primus posuit Rig feci: B Gel feci, Oehl et contra Rfd, quem refutat lectlOnem traditam vindicans Hartel P. S. I, 53

1. post species v~?ulam ponit LaC in v~rbo , b,is acuta B Gel] in verbis acuta fun mavult; Rig tn observ. et Rig In verbo, blsacuta Rig' In verbIs, acute Rig sec. Leap 'in verbis cauta alii' Oehl qUi vlrgulam post verbo tollit 2. utrimque] utrinque Gel utrique B 3. post tenetur distinctionem am. B 4. fiduciatis Rig 1 post fiduciati virgulam exhibet B etsi (aut et rem) negant se scire' volunt Hart~1 p, S. I, 53-4; quod approbant Kroym Q. C. 30 et Dekkers] et se necant se scir~ volunt B t '

, e .SIC negant, sCIre volunt Gel et SIC negant sCIre. Volunt fun et se negant; se scire volunt

Oehl se sCIre nolunt, SCltur fort. ' Rfd et se negant, sed scire volunt Hartel ap. Rfd 5. locus B

Oehl] locum Gel persona BOehl] personam Gel 6. dixit B 7. ego BUrs; susp. lun] ergo

Gel 8. dlctando B; resttluit Lat] dictitando Gel 9. quamquam] tamquam Hartel P. S. 1,54; contra dlsp. Kroym Q. C. 30 animae B 10. post traditum distinctionem am. B alius Gel] aliquis B dictavit Gel] dictarit B post dictavit punctum cum virgula ponit Oehl

12. post transmittat virgulam exhibet B; interrogationis signum pan it LaC 13. delinquit. Dominus dixit, B; post dixit interrogationis signum ponit Pam; punctum restituit Scal concupiscentiae vel malitiae B

Lj,j-L4,j Lj , j-L4 , j

hominis ascenderit, pro facto teneri. 4. Cavisti igitur, quod in cor tuum plane rises into the heart of a man, this is held as a deed. 4. Thus you have given a guarantee, a thing which clearly has risen into your heart, a thing which you can neither contend that you did not know or did not want. 5. For when you gave the guarantee, you were conscious of it, and when you were conscious of it, you were, of course, willing; and therewith this is real both in deed and in thought.

15 ascendit, quod neque ignorasse te contendere potes neque noluisse - 5. nam cum caveres, scisti, cum scires, utique voluisti -, et est tam facto quam cogitatu. Nec potes leviore crimine maius excludere, ut dicas: 'Falsum plane feci cavendo, quod < Christianus > non facit; tamen non negavi, quia non iuravi', quoniam, etsi nihil tale fecisses, tamen dicereris deierare, fecisse si

Nor can you by a lighter crime exclude a greater one, viz., by saying: 'I clearly committed a fraud by giving a guarantee, a thing which a Christian does not do; yet I have not denied my faith, because I did not swear'; for, even if you had done nothing of the kind, you still would be said to have sworn, if you would have consented to have done it.

20 consenseris. 'Non valet tacita vox in stilo et mutus in litteris sonus.' 6. At enim

Zacharias temporali vocis orbatione multatus cum animo conlocutus linguam inritam transit; nam manibus suis a corde dictat et nomen filii sine ore pronuntiat: loquitur in stilo, auditur in cera, manus omni sono conclarior, littera omni ore vocalior. Quaero, an dixerit qui dixisse compertus est. 7. Dominum

25 oremus, ne qua nos eiusmodi contractus necessitas circumsistat et, si ita evenerit, det fratribus operandi copiam vel nobis abrumpendae omnis necessitatis constantiam, ne illae litterae negatrices vicariae oris nostri in die iudicii adversus nos proferantur signatae signis non iam advocatorum, sed angelorum.

24. 1. Inter hos scopulos et sinus, inter haec vada et freta idololatriae velificata spiritu dei fides navigat, tuta si cauta, secura si attonita. Ceterum inenatabile excussis profundum est, inextricabile impactis naufragium est, inrespirabile devoratis hypobrychium in idololatria: quicumque fluctus eius

'The silent voice of the pen and the mute sound of the letters do not count.'

6. But this is not true, for Zacharias, punished by a temporary privation of voice, converses with his mind and passes by his useless tongue; with the help of his hands he dictates from his heart and pronounces the name of his son without using his mouth. In his pen there speaks a hand which rings more clearly than any sound, in the wax one hears a letter more eloquent than any voice. I ask, whether a man has not spoken who is ascertained to have spoken.

7. Let us pray the Lord that the necessity for such a contract may never come over us and that, if such a thing should happen, He may confer on our brethren the means for helping, or give to us the constancy for breaking off the bonds of all necessity, lest those letters which deny the faith, and which took the place of our mouth, be brought forward against us on the day of judgement, sealed no longer with the seals of witnesses, but of angels.

24. 1. Amid these cliffs and bays, amid these shallows and straits of idolatry navigates the faith, its sails filled by God's breath, safe if cautious, secure if sharply watchful. But so perilous is idolatry that for those who have been washed overboard there is a depth from which one cannot swim away, for those who have struck the rocks there is shipwreck without rescue, for those who have been swallowed up there is a vortex admitting of no respiration.

Everyone of the waves of idolatry is choking, every one of its whirlpools sucks down to the depths of hell.

5 offocant, omnis vertex eius ad inferos desorbet. 2. Nemo dicat: 'quis tam tuto praecavebit? Exeundum de saeculo erit!' Quasi non tanti sit exire, quam idololatren in saeculo stare. Nihil esse facilius potest quam cautio idololatriae, si timor eius in capite sit. Quaecumque necessitas minor est periculo tanto comparata. 3. Propterea spiritus sanctus consultantibus tunc apostolis vincu20-22. cf. Luc. I, 20. 62 seqq.

6. cf. I Cor. 5, 10.

9. cf. Act. ap. 15, 10. 20.

14. teneri BUrs ) teneris Gel IS. potes Lal Urs) potest B Gel 'potes Lal; si ex Mss recle; sin minus legerim pot' est, id est, Quvcn ov, possibile' fun

16. et est B; approbat Hartel P. S. 1,54) et es Gel et haeres Lat; approbat fun egisti Oehl facto B; appro bat Hartel P. S. 1,54) in facto

Gel in facto ... in cogitatu Leop; post cogitatu virgulam exhibent B Gel; punctum primus posuit

LaC 17. maius Lat) manus B Gel dicas: falsum Kroym Q. C. 30-1] dicas falsum celt.

17·18. feci ... facit; tamen '" iuravi Kroym Q. C. 30-1 ('Minus recte, ut videtur' Dekkers)] effici ... facit tamen, ... iuravi LaC Christianus (vel fidelis) excidisse pulant Wasz Wind

19. quoniam B Oehl)lmo Gel quin immo Rid quinam? Hartel ap. Rid et P. S. 1,54-5 19-20. quoniam et (sc. tunc negavisses), si .. . fecisses, si tamen .. . deierare. Si fecisse consenseris, non ... sonus? Kroym

2. Let no one say: 'Who can be so precautious with such a degree of security? He will have to leave the world'. As if it were not as well to leave the world, as to stay in the world as an idolater! Nothing can be easier than to guard against idolatry, if the fear of it is put above everything else. Every necessity, whatever it may be, is of less importance if compared to such a danger.

Q. C. 50-1

19. etsi Pam) et si B Gel fecisses, tam en Gel) fecisses . Si tamen B fecisses, sic tamen Oehl fecisse om. Gel.

20. post consenseris distinctionem om. B post sonus interrogationis signum ponit Lal 22. nam Hartel P. S. 1, 55 ('recte' Dekkers)) earn B om. Gel, cum Oehl iam susp. Rid 23. manu B conclarior B) clarior Gel celt.

24. Quaere Pam Rig Oehl Rid post est virgulam exhibet B 25. circumsistat et, si Oehl) circumsistat. Etsi B circum sis tat et si Gel 26. det Gel) de B operandis B copia B 27. constantia B 2. attenta susp. fun, 'nulla necessitate' LaC 3. in pactis B 4. post devoratis punctum exhibet

B in idololatria) idololatria mavult LaC; post idololatria distinctionem tollit B S. vortex

3. Therefore at the time of the council of the apostles, the Holy Spirit Rig tam) iam mavult fun 8. in capite sunt quaecumque B post periculo virgulam ponit Pam; corr. fun comparato B

24,3-24,4 24,3-24,4

10 lum et iugum nobis relaxavit, ut idololatriae devitandae vacaremus. Haec erit lex nostra, quo expedita hoc plenius administranda, propria Christianorum, per quam ab ethnicis agnoscimur et examinamur; haec accedentibus ad fidem proponenda et ingredientibus in fidem inculcanda est, ut accedentes deli berent, observantes perseverent, non observantes renuntient sibi. 4. Viderimus relieved our fetters and our yoke, in order that we should devote ourselves to the shunning of idolatry. This shall be our law. Since it is so light, it must be carried out more fully. It is a law peculiar to the Christians and by it the heathens recognize and test us. It must be held up to those who are joining the faith and must be inculcated in those who enter the faith, in order that they consider it when they join, persevere in observing, and renounce themselves, when they do not observe it.

15 enim si secundum archetypum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecc1esia erit; certe idololatres in archetypo non habetur: nullum animal in idololatren figuratum est. Quod in arc a non fuit, in ecc1esia non sit.

4. It may be that raven, kite, wolf, dog and serpent are in the Church in accordance with the archetype (the Ark of Noah). At any rate the idolater is not found in the archetype. No animal figures as a symbol of the idolater. Let not that be in the Church which was not in the Ark.

11. quo B Gel] quod Hartel P. S. 1, 55, quem refutat leetionem traditam vindieans Thorn St.

T. 2, 2-3 (ef Hoppe Serm. 51) Christianum B 13. in fide fun 14. perseverent, non observantes om. Rig videbimus susp. Rfd, quem refutat leetionem tradifam vindieans Hartel P. S. 1,

56 15·16. arehetypum ... are he typo B Gel] areae typum ... areae typo Lat 'sed nihil mutandum'

Seal 16. habet B nullum] nee ullum Leop 17. distinetionem post est tol/it B

COMMENTARY

Ch. 1. Idolatry: summit and summary of all sins 'Idolatry is the chief sin. It also includes all other sins, for though every sin retains its proper features and will have to be accounted for in its own name on the day of judgement, it is also included in idolatry.

The idolater is a murderer, since by his idolatrous acts he has killed himself (§ 1); he commits adultery, because he serves false gods and every falsehood is adultery; he makes himself guilty of fornication by cooperating with impure spirits-accordingly Scripture calls idolatry fornication (§ 2); the idolater is also guilty of fraud, since he refuses to God the honours due to Him, and to refuse another his due is fraud; and because he confers this honour to others he adds contumely to thefraud.-Sincefraud, fornication and adultery cause death, the idolater is for this reason once more guilty of murder (§ 3).

Also all other crimes, each in its own feature, are present in idolatry, viz., concupiscences of the world, lasciviousness and drunkenness, injustice, vanity, mendacity (§ 4). So it is clear that all sins are found in idolatry and idolatry in all sins.

There is, furthermore, a second reason why every sin is in idolatry: all sins are directed against God. Now everything directed against God is allotted to the demons and impure spirits, to whom the idols are subject. Therefore, every sinner serves the possessors of the idols and, in consequence, commits idolatry (§ 5). '

Remarks a. Idolatry includes all other sins. Owing to his tendency to give the greatest possible emphasis and prominence to the subject under discussion, Tertullian in this introductory chapter forcibly extends the concept of idolatry. He advances as his proposition: omnia (crimina) in idololatria et idololatria in omnibus (criminibus) (1, 5). The first part of this proposition, namely that whoever commits idolatry is as a consequence guilty of all sins, is supported in 1, 1-4. The argument consists of two parts. First Tertullian argues that idolatry includes four capital sins: murder, adultery, fornication, fraud (with contumely). Then he asserts that also the other sins (cetera) are present in idolatry, and he enumerates what obviously must represent the totality of all other sins: concupiscence of the world, lasciviousness and drunkenness, injustice, vanity and mendacity.

The difference between the two groups is that the first group is of a more serious nature. Tertullian states first that idolatry is murder, which is, of

I ..

1, .l\..t:.1VIAJ:\..1\...) I.)

course, the most serious crime. But the other three are not less serious, for after arguing that idolatry is adultery, fornication and fraud, he goes on to say that these three sins cause death and are, in consequence, murder as well.

Hence the whole group is qualified as exitiasa, devarataria salutis.

For Tertullian every sin is idolatry, because every sin takes honour away from God and gives it to the demons, and to give honour to the demons is idolatry. Tertullian is not the first author who gives such a large extension to the concept of idolatry. In his article 'Gotzendienst' in RAC XI col. 869,

Fredouille states: "Wenn die Vater schon frtih (bereits bei den apostolischen Vatern) Gotzendienst (= idalalatria) nicht nur im eigentlichen, sondern auch im weiteren Sinn, d.h. als ein gegen Gottes Willen verstossendes Handeln oder

Verlangen, begreifen, so folgen sie damit nur einer bereits im NT erkennbaren Entwicklung" .

All other sins, too, are in one way or another (ad aliquem madum) discernible in idolatry (in idalalatria). Five times Tertullian reiterates in ilia, which is an elaboration of in idalalatriae crimine expungitur of 1, 1.

Van der Nat (p. 21) gives another explanation of the distinction in two groups. According to him Tertullian distinguishes between sins that are identical with idolatry (the first group) and sins that are not identical with idolatry but which are clasely related ta it ar result fram it. This distinction was perhaps suggested to him by the adjunct ad aliquem madum (1, 4), which could seem to point to a lower degree of identity. But we think that the text does not allow such an interpretation. Tertullian does not speak of identity or non-identity between idolatry and the other sins. He states (in 1, 1) that all other sins are committed in idalalatriae crimine and elaborates this thesis in 1, 1-4. With regard to the second group he reiterates in illa five times. He thus emphasizes that the relation between idolatry and the sins of the second group consists in the fact that those sins are in idalatry, just as was said of the totality of other sins in 1, 1. Van der Nat comes in conflict with his own interpretation when he elsewhere (p. 22) states that the other sins, in Tertullian's opinion, are 'species of idolatry'. For how could e.g. murder be at the same time identical with idolatry and a species of idolatry? In our view, one should stick to Tertullian's own formulation and say that all other sins are present in, or are discernible in idolatry.

It should be noticed that herewith the term 'idolatry' has shifted away from its etymological fundament. It does not mean any more 'worship of idols' but 'worship of demons'. When Tertullian speaks of 'idolatry' he actually means

'demonolatry'. ('Demons' is used here as the equivalent of immundi spiritus.) As Tertullian will say in 3, 1-2, there was idolatry before there were idols, i.e. images of gods; but then the devil brought into the world the makers of images, and this practice of idol-making gave to idolatry both its name and its increase.

In other words: idolatry is, strictly speaking, a wrong term. Idolatry is in fact demonolatry. It has got its name from that form of demonolatry which is the most spectacular one, viz. the worship of 'idols', i.e. images of gods. c. Tertullian an idals. As was already stated above, idala are, in Tertullian's vision, not essential for idolatry in the sense of demonolatry. There was idolatry before the idala came to existence.

The concept of idalum in Tertullian demands closer examination. Its first meaning is, of course, that of 'image', i.e. image of a god. But idalum has a much wider significance in Tertullian. b. All (ather) sins are idalatry. Having argued that idolatry includes all other sins, Tertullian adds as the counterpart of this proposition that all sins are idolatry. One should, however, notice that this counterpart does not follow logically from 1, 1-4.

As was stated above, the idol is not the real object of worship in Tertullian's view. The real object of worship are the demons. The idol is something that serves as an intermediate entity between man and demon. The image of a god is one of those intermediate entities, but it is not the only one. Every thing that fulfils that function of intermediate entity is, in Tertullian's view, a idalum. Not only is the image of a god an idol, but also the god himself, who, according to the theory of Euhemerus, is a dead king or hero. Even during his life that king, being honoured as a god, was then a idalum. The now living king, too, may become a idalum, if he is honoured as a god. The gods of doors like Carna, Limentinus, Forculus, lanus, those well-known numina, who are, according to Tertullian, just idle and fictitious names, are, in his view, idala. Even a doctrine or a word may become an idol, because it draws the worship of man away from the one true God to the demons. (See J. C.

It is merely a rhetorical inversion so characteristic of Tertullian's writings (e.g. 22, 3). In this case, however, the inversion was aimed at from the beginning, to wit the phrase in the first sentence: tata causa iudicii idalalatria.

That ultimately all sins are idolatry is not proven until the next section. This is announced as a second demonstration (sed et alias), which is in fact incorrect.

The argument in which the major and minor are given in inversed order, runs as follows:

Everything directed against God is allotted to the demons.

All sins are directed against God.

Thus all sins are allotted to the demons.

M. van Winden, 'Idalum and idala/atria in Tertullian', Vig. Chr. 36 (1982), 108-14.)

1, K.r.MAKK:S

1, KJ::.MJ\K.l\..~

Thus idolum has a subordinate place in idolatry. It may be described as the visible point of contact between man and demon. From the human side this contact is realised by consecration (cf. 15,5 fin.). If one considers the situation from the side of the demons, one may say that the demon uses those idols in order to draw the veneration of man away from God to themselves. The idols are, so to speak, instruments in the hands of the demons. Hence in the present chapter, § 5, quibus idola mancipantur. (The way in which the demons use these instruments can be described differently. The demon can be said to hide himself in the image or move around it, etc. See e.g. ad 11, 2.) he is wrong in describing their evolutions as running parallel to each other.

ELcwAOA<X'tpd<x has, indeed, become the equivalent of sin. The reason given by him ("da Gotzendienst ein Fehlverhalten ist") could be formulated somewhat more precisely as follows: "because every sin draws the honour due to God away from Him and gives it to the demons". Fredouille observes rightly that for Paul the demons are the true "Nutzniesser des heidnischen Kultus und der

Opfer zu Ehren falscher Gotter". But he goes wrong in stating that dowAov also becomes the equivalent of 'sin' and so making dowAOV follow the same path as dCWAOA<X'tpd<x, saying that dowAov has received "eine sUirkere vergeistigte Deutung" (col. 867, and again col. 868). A priori this is very improbable. What should dCWAOA<X'tpd<x mean, if dOWAOV means 'sin'? EtowAOV has something to do with the object of worship, A<X'tpd<x is in the subject. The two terms cannot have the same meaning. The New Testament texts referred to by the author in support of his thesis, e.g. I Thess. 1, 9 1tW~ <X1C~(j'tpi~<x't~ 1tPD~

It may be clear that, for TertulIian, the problem of the relationship between the gods and their images-a vexed question in antiquity-is of minor importance. Gods and images are both idols. They are instruments of the demons to draw the human veneration from the one true God to themselves. d. Idolum and idololatria: paradigmatic terms. With regard to both terms, one may say that they cover a wide domain, but that they have got their name from one outstanding feature in that domain. Idololatria covers the whole domain of demonolatry but is called so, since mainly in the worship of idola

(images) does demonolatria become visible. Idolum covers the whole domain of intermediate entities between man and demon, but it is called so since the idola (= images) are the intermediate entities par excellence. Or to put it otherwise, the two terms, idololatria and idolum, may be called paradigmatic terms. Etymologically they signify something quite special: 'worship of an image', 'image'. But these terms are used for a very large domain of acts or things which are supposed to have the same nature. 'The worship of an image' has become the paradigm of all acts of false worship, i.e. worship not given to the one true God, i.e. demonolatry. 'Image' has become the paradigm of everything that misleads man's veneration, drawing it away from God to the demons.

'tDV 9~DV <X1tD 'tWV dCWAWV, do not point in his direction. The apostle does not say 'how did you turn away from the sins to God?' but 'how did you turn away from the idols (= the false object of worship) to God (= the true object of worship),. Also here idola indicates the object of worship, not (something in) the subject.

With regard to the concept of idololatria, the first chapter of De idol. shows already the same large extension of this term as Fredouille indicated for the NT and the early Christian literature.

The term idolum also has here a large extent. It indicates all those entities that function as intermediaries in the worship of the demons, that is, any worship not directed to the one true God. Tertullian repeatedly stresses the fact that in itself the idolum is of no importance. It becomes important because it receives a function in the latria of the demons. Three illustrative texts:

De corona 7, 8: non quasi aliquid sit idolum, sed quoniam quae idolis ab aliis fiunt ad daemones pertinent (cf. idol. 15, 2 quae ad daemonas pertinent; ib.

In modern discussions one finds much obscurity and confusion in the descriptions of these concepts. The recent article 'Gotzendienst' in RAe XI col. 828-895 by Fredouille is a good example. Dealing with the concept of dowAov (col. 867) he says: "Die Begriffe dOWAOV, dCWAOAcX"tP1j~, dCWAOA<X"tp(~)[<x meinen im NT ein doppeltes: 1. 'Gdtze'. Einerseits verwenden die ntl.

Autoren ~towAov im Sinne der LXX: es bezeichnet die heidn. Gotter u. ihre figurliche Darstellung, dCWAOA<X"tp(~)[<x u. dCWAOAcX"tP1j~ demnach den ihnen dargebrachten Kult bzw. den sie verehrenden GHiubigen ... 2. 'Gottlosigkeit'.

Da Gotzendienst ein Fehlverhalten ist, wird das Wort anscheinend sogar zum Synonym von 'Sunde': dOWAOV bezeichnet dann nicht mehr die heidn. Gottheit, ihre figurliche Darstellung und Verehrung, sondern jede unreine Tat, jede Haltung die von Gott wegfiihrt". Fredouille is right in observing that 15, 4 ad daemonia perveniens).

Spect. 13, 2: Non quod idolum sit aliquid, ut apostolus ait (cf. I Cor. 8, 4; 10, 19), sed quoniam quae faciunt daemoniis faciunt consistentibus scilicet in consecrationibus idolorum sive mortuorum sive, ut putant, deorum.

Spect. 10, 10: Scimus nihil esse nomina mortuorum, sicut et ipsa simulacra eorum, sed non ignoramus, qui sub istis nominibus institutis simulacris operentur et gaudeant et divinitatem mentiantur, nequam spiritus scilicet, daemones.

We have dwelled somewhat longer on this question of idola in order to emphasize Tertullian's clear distinctions in a matter which, in other authors, is often rather indistinct. dOWAOV and dCWAOA<X"tpd<x have undergone a great extension of meaning, but e. The list of sins. As Van der Nat observed in his commentary, extensive lists

II')

1, REMARKS

I, I

is the principale crimen and the summus reatus does not mean that it includes all other sins. This holds good only for tota causa iudicii, for this means that idolatry is, strictly speaking, the only sin. of sins are found in Old and New Testament and in Patristic literature.

Obviously one finds murder, adultery, fornication etc. mentioned there.

Elsewhere in Tertullian they are found as well, e.g. Marc. 4, 9, 6 (CC 1, 559 f): ... /umine earum, quae septem macu/is capitalium delicto rum inhorrerent: id%latria b/asphemia homicidio adulterio stupro falso testimonio fraude.

Title The word d8wAoAex'tptex (for the spelling of the Greek word, see F. Biichsel, art.

'd'8wAov', etc. in Kittel 2, 377, 5 seqq.) has a Greek-Jewish origin, though it does not yet occur in the LXX, Philo and Josephus. That it should only be found in the New Testament and the literature depending on it (Souter, 276;

Biichsel, 1.1.) is incorrect, cf. Test. Jud. 19, 1 (carm. Sibyll. 2, 259 and 3, 38, where d8wAOA(hp"fj~ is found, may not be referred to; for the date and composition of these books, see J. Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Ratisbon

1910), 1,524-7; Bousset, Jud. 3 , 24.38; cf. Vogtle, 223, n. 116). In Latin idololatria is first found in the North-African versions of the Bible (see

Mohrmann, Tert. Apol. , LXXXVIII) and in Tert. Often, however, equivalents occur, such as idolorum cultura, idolorum servitus, idolorum cultus, simulacrorum servitus (similarly for idololatres more than once idolorum cultor, idolis serviens, etc.). It is not known with certainty, when the shortened form idolatria became predominant, cf. TLL VII, 1: 224, 3-6:

But the proper nature of the present text is not in the summing up of sins but in subsuming all other sins under the head 'idolatry'. Tertullian could find support for his thesis in some particular cases; so from Hosea and Ezechiel onwards it is a commonplace that idolatry is fornication. Tertullian refers to this scriptural use in 1, 2. He also knew the Christian tenet that sin results in the death of the soul. But that sin means murder, viz., murder of oneself, is

Tertullian's own idea. The inclusion of all other sins in idolatry is a consequence drawn by Tertullian himself, an extreme consequence such as he likes to draw; cf. pat. 5, 21 omne peccatum impatientiae adscribendum.

With regard to Tertullian's list of sins some observations should still be made. Adultery and fornication are named in one breath. However, Tertullian makes a sharp distinction between the two: adultery is qualified as falsehood, i.e. as a sin against the truth (this truth is the 'true' relationship

'formae breviores et longiores ... ita variant in codd. et edd .... ut nihil certi elici possit'. Wolfflin (ALL 5, 496) wants to read the short form as early as in Cyprian; A. Souter, Miscellanea Latina, Raccolta di scritti in onore di F.

Ramorino (Milan 1927), 278, however, thinks that the short form cannot be admitted before texts of the sixth century. In opposition to the latter view

Mohrm., Aug., 117, justly remarks that it is unthinkable that a tongue-twister like idololatria should have maintained its position for so many centuries, whereas more easily pronounceable forms did in fact become shortened by haplology. In any case it is probable that Tert. used the longer form and that, therefore, Kroymann is wrong in preferring idolatria everywhere in CSEL

XL VII: in the first place, the haplology has started in vulgar usage of which Tert. is by no means a recorder (see Norden, Kunstpr., 2, 610 seqq.; LOfst.,

Synt., 2, 459, n. 3); secondly, Tert. takes an interest in the etymology and the exact meaning of words (cf. e.g. 3,4). Further, he is still very well aware that idololatria is a Greek word, as is evident from 3, 4. Finally the Agobardinus has the longer form everywhere with the exception of 11, 1 (see however, the Additional Note, p. 7). Cf. Souter, 276-8; Wolfflin, ALL 5, 496 and 8, 6;

Mohrm., Aug., 116-8; Svennung, Oros., 163. between God and man, which is violated by the worship of false gods; the correspondence with the relation between man and wife is evident); fornication is qualified as impurity.-Tertullian uses the juridical term fraus with a complex meaning comprising robbery or theft (si quis alienum rapiat) and denying to another one's debt or due (debitum deneget). By giving the honour due to God to another being, viz., the demon, one adds contumely to fraus; just as by refusing his love to his wife a man commits 'fraud' and by giving his love to another he adds contumely to it.-In the second part of the list Tertullian mentions first three sins which bear on the external circumstances of idolatry (external pomp, meals), while the last three concern again the essence of idolatry (unrighteousness, vanity, mendacity). f. The initial sentence. The opening sentence is a striking example of lapidary style. It contains three concepts: crimen, reatus, causa iudicii. With these concepts Tertullian summarizes human evil and its consequences: the deed, the guilt, the retribution (by judgement). Idolatry represents all this to the highest degree: it is the main crime, resulting in the greatest guilt, which will be the entire case of Judgement.

. The first two qualifications (principale crimen, summus reatus) indicate Idolatry as the summit of all evil, the third (tota causa iudicii) makes it the summary of evil. The rest of the chapter enlarges upon the last item, viz., idolatry being the summary of all evil. One should notice that nam in the second sentence in fact refers mainly to tota causa iudicii. The fact that idolatry

1. Principale crimen: for crimen = peccatum, a meaning frequent in Tert., derived from juridical idiom, see Beck, 116-7. We also find principale delictum, e.g. pat. 5, 21; pud. 5, 5. saeculi: already at an early date this word has a rather unfavourable connotation, which facilitated the development of

!Su 1,1 J , J

the meaning 'the sinful pagan world' . See especially LOfst., Synt., 2, 470-3; cf. also Tidner, Did., 141 ; Waltz., Comm. , 47; Teeuwen, 27. reatus: this word, which, according to Quintilian (instit. 8, 3, 34), was first used by Messala, originally means condicio rerum, hence culpa; cf. also Bohm, 61. tota causa iudicii: Rigaltius correctly paraphrases: 'quod in se complectitur omnia, quae in iudicium venient. IlIo nimirum supremi iudicii die' . Thus causa means 'matter'. For iudicium = iudicium ultimum, see Teeuwen, 26. 71. Cf. res. 14, 11: Vita est enim causa iudicii. Further instances of substantiva nuda are mentioned by V. Bulhart, CSEL 71 , XLII; Bohm, 61. idololatria: Tert. likes to begin a treatise with a striking sentence in which the principal word of the title is repeated, as for instance fuga 1, 1: Quaesisti proxime, Fabi frater, fugiendum necne sit in persecutione. This is found in eighteen

Wilhelm-Hooybergh, Peccatum. Sin and Guilt in Ancient Rome (thesis Utrecht, Groningen 1954). suo quoque nomine: Reifferscheid reads quodque with Scaliger and Iunius, but this conjecture

~s . unnecessary; Gomperz's interpretation, 'quoque = etiam', is possible but It IS much more probable that we have here an attraction of the indefinite pronoun; see LOfst.,

Synt. 2, 1l3-4, and cf. e.g. an. 35, 6: hae ... substantiae sui cuiusque sunt hominis; Marc. 1, 4, I : in suis quibusque regionibus; res. 2, 11: suo quoque titulo. From other authors cf. e.g. Caes. bell. civ. 1, 83, 2: suae cuiusque

/egionis; Liv. 33, 46, 9: suo quoque anno. expungitur: = petficitur. This meaning does not occur before Tert., see TLL V, 2: 1814, 21 seqq.; cf. 16,

3: operae meae expunctio; nat., 1, 7, 33: haec cum expunxeris, vives in aevum.

This term, derived from book-keeping, also means 'to strike out (by placing dots) from a list or a ledger' and 'to settle (an account)'; the latter meaning we find e.g. in 13, 4: sunt quidam dies munerum, quae apud alios honoris titu/um, apud alios mercedis debitum expungunt. See Diercks, note on orat.

9, I (p. 130); Oehler's note on scorp. 10 (p. 524 r) and apo/. 35 (p. 242 I); Ronsch, It. 1385-6 and Waszink, 297. The interpretations of Currey ('is disposed of under the charge of idolatry') and Thelwall ('is marked off under the (general) count of idolatry') are incorrect, because they give rise to a contradiction both with the preceding words suo quoque nomine iudicio destinatur and with what follows. In the present passage Tert. does not argue that all sins come under the head of idolatry (this is not done until the conclusion of this chapter in par. 5), but that the idolater commits all other sins at the same time. titulos: in the idiom of lawyers titu/us (actually 'superscription, inscription, rubric' : cf. e.g. Marc. 1,9,2) means 'name, qualification of the crime', also 'charge, indictment' (cf. 11, 8); in these senses it is synonymous with e/ogium. In Tert. the word also occurs with the meaning of '(title treatises. The complete material is given by Waszink, 82. delictum: = peccatum. This meaning has been derived from the idiom of the law; it is very frequent in Tert. 's works (Beck, 116-7), who even prefers it to peccatum, as is evident from the following list:

fuga paen. bapt. ux. an. idol.

delictum peccatum

In pud., too, delictum is much more frequent than peccatum, see De Labriolle's edition, XXVII seqq. and Index. The same applies to his quotations from Holy Scripture. He does not make the distinction found in the old

Latin versions of the Bible, where eXfL<xp·d<x is generally rendered by peccatum and eXfLOcP"tTlfL<X by delictum, although there is no semantic difference between the Greek words (see Bauer, Wdrterbuch, s.v. and G. Stahlin, art. 'eXfL<XP'tOcvw' in Kittell, 295-9). Rufin.-Orig. hom. in Levil. 5, 4: videtur quidem in scripturis divinis frequenter peccatum pro delicto et delictum pro peccato indifferenter et absque aliqua distinctione nominari; in the same treatise, however,

» name, book' (e.g. an. 3,4; pud. 20,2) and 'cause, motive' (cf. 13,4; 16, 3; this meaning is found from Livy onwards). See Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 79;

Beck 90· Hartel 4 l3. Oehler's note on apo/. 1 (p. 114 m); Waltz., Comm., "

", 19.26; Waszink, 110. 120. 409. operas: it is unnecessary to follow Latinius in reading opera on the strength of 2, 1, cf. e.g. res. 16, 5: iam ergo innocens caro ex ea parte, qua non reputabuntur illi operae ma/ae ... Licet enim nec bona opera deputentur iIIi sicut nec mala, etc. See for this use in Tert. Hoppe,

Beitr. 75-6; Waltz., £t., 356; Waszink, 192, where more literature is given for the later period in general. Cf. also 15, 1 with the note. Idololatres: this form of the word occurs from the Vetus Latina (1 Cor. 5, 10, cod. d; ib. 10,

7, codd. r 9) and Tert. onwards. The accusative-form is id%/atren. By the side of it we find the form id%/atra as early as Vetus Latina 1 Cor. 5, 11 =

Iren. adv. haer. 4,43,2 (2,243 Harvey), see TLL VII, 1: 223, 7 seqq. With respect to the haplology the same obtains as in the case of id%/atria (see p.

79 the note on the title). idem: it is incorrect to change this into item with delictum is called the less, peccatum the more serious offence, ib. 6, 31 seq.

Augustine, too, in Quaest. in Heptateuch. 3, 20 makes a distinction, though somewhat hesitantly: fortassis ergo peccatum est perpetratio mali, delictum autem desertio boni. Tert. is equally unconcerned about this latter distinction; for instance, inpud. the most serious sins, moechia and homicidium, are described as principalia delicta (5, 5) and even the sins that are directly aimed at God are called delicta (2, 10; 21, 2; 21, 15). Perhaps Tert.'s preference for delictum does not only spring from his training as a lawyer, but should also be explained psychologically; for a Roman delictum is a more strict and concrete term and, therefore, it has more deterrent force, which makes it the more suitable word in the eyes of the rigorist Tertullian. See Waszink, 232-3;

Teeuwen, 71; Aalders, 90; B. Luiselli, Riv. di cult. class. e medioeva/e 2 (1960), 214-5. On the evolution of the meaning of peccatum cf. A. E.

1,1-1,2 J ,.l OJ

'the way of life' and 'the way of death' , e.g. Did. 1 , 1: OOOt QUO dcrl, fLlCX 't7j~ ~w7j~

Oehler, cf. e.g. apo!. 44,2: quis illic sicarius, quis manticularius, etc .... idem etiam Christian us ascribitur? Thus already Cicero, De orat. 3, 143: quem

(oratorem) si patiuntur eundem esse philosophum, sublata controversia est; see the instances collected in TLL VII, 1: 191,27 seqq. and Kiihn.-Stegm. 1,

627. Of course, this use of idem is something different from the idem = item which we find in vulgar late Latin, for which see Hofm., Synt., 479 and LOfst., Per., 295. elogii: 'indictment', the report containing data about the name, age and crime of the accused which is sent to the authorities. See for this meaning Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 75; Beck, 126, and Waszink, 248-9. Waltz.,

Comm., 26, justly distinguishes the following meanings of this word in Tert.: a) 'inscription of honour' (apol. 50, 11); b) the present meaning (cf. scorp. xCXt fLlCX 'tOU 9cxv!X'tou (cf. Knopf's note ad loc., HdbNT, Erg. Bd., 4-5); cf. Barn.

19, 1; 20, 1. For the origin and development of the 'two ways', see Windisch, HdbNT, Erg. Bd. III. Der Barnabasbrief, 404-406 and Lietzmann's excursus to Rom. 1, 25 and 1, 31 (HdbNT, 8, 33 and 35-36); Bousset, Jud. 3, 406;

Bultmann, art. '~!Xw', D., in Kittel, 2, 857, n. 182; Vogtle, 113-120. For the same theme in Greek philosophical literature (cf. e.g. the myth narrated by Prodicus in Xen. Memor. 2, 1, 21-34) and elsewhere, see Rohde, Psyche, 2,

220-221, note; Festugiere, Ideal, 80, n. 9 and 120, n. 6. The figure is so obvious that it appears spontaneously in different places, see Norden,

Kunstprosa, 466-7. Instead of 9!Xvcx'to~ the terms dmwA~tCX and cX7tOAAUVCXt (·cr9cxt) are also used (cf. the present use of perisse), cf. Matth. 7, 13: ~ ooo~ ~ cX7t!XYoucrcx

15,2; Scap. 4, 3); c) 'qualification, name of the crime' = titulus criminis (in this case often accompanied by a genitive, e.g. cor. 5, 4: elogium sacrilegii); d) 'charge' and the 'crime' itself (apo!. 2,4 de nostris elogiis). From b), moreover, the meaning 'name, denomination' (especially 'ill name') has developed, e.g. Marc. 1,22,8 and 2,10,1. ambitionem: = ambitum, see TLL I: 1851,

74 seqq.; Waszink, 323; Oehler's note on this passage (p. 67 d); Gerlo 2, 163.

For the idea, cf. nat. 1, 2, 7: porro de nobis, quos atrocioribus ac pluribus criminibus deputatis, breviora ac leviora elogia conficWs. Si ... facit: 'if it contributes to'. For this meaning of facere ad, which is very frequent in Tert., see TLL VI, 1: 122, 42 seqq.; ThOrn., 2, 43; Waszink, 433-4. non extraneum: here we have a brachylogy: si quid ad elogii ambitionem facit, d~ 't1}V cX7tWA~tCXV (see Klostermann's note, HdbNT, 4, 68-9); Rom. 9, 22; Phil.

3, 19. negabit: here the reading of Mesnart and Gelenius deserves to be preferred. The meaning is: '< only> he who < is so foolish, that he> denies that the idolater is dead will < consequently> deny that the idolater has committed a murder'. Negare idololatren homicidium fecisse is the consequence of negare idololatren perisse, which, according to Tert., is impossible. This is much more forceful and pertinent than the meaning furnished by the perfect negavit found in Agob.: 'he who denies that the idolater is dead has < therefore> denied that the idolater has committed a murder'. This is merely an identification of the two parts of the sentence. A confusion between b and v occurs innumerable times (cf. e.g. 19, 4: be/labitlbe/lavit); a few cases in Thorn., 3, 8; Waltz., £t., 113. 126; cf. also orat. 17, 1 commendabimus Rig,

-avimus ABD; ib. 29, 1 with Diercks' note; Prax. 1, 3 exprobrabit Rhen. 3 , -avit codd.; an. 6, 6 fraudavit Gel, -abit B (an. 4 erravimus, where Borleffs proposes to read errabimus, is a case of a different nature, see Waszink, 122).

homicidium fecisse: by this, of course, Tert. is not putting forward anything new: if the idolater causes his own death by his sin, he is indeed a murderer (viz., of himself)-it is only a sharper formulation. Cf. pud. 5, 12: ibidem est et homicidium, ubi homo, cum inquinatur, occiditur. More or less similarly Hermas, mand. 4, 1, 2 and sim. 10, 2, 4. The fact that Tert. gives this formulation does not only spring from his endeavour to give the sharpest possible formulation but also from his strongly juridical treatment of the subject: he wants to mention properly juridical delicta as causae for the iudicium.

For this reason it seems unlikely that he should have borrowed his formulation from the Pastor Hermae, though he did know this book. As to the entire enumeration, cf. pud. 5, 6: pompam quandam atque suggestum aspicio moechiae, hinc ducatum idololatriae antecedentis, hinc comitatum homicidii insequentis. Proinde: it is not necessary to adopt Gelenius' conjecture perinde, as Reifferscheid does here and everywhere else, for proinde (which <dico: > non extraneum <idololatres occidit> ... ; cf. apol. 23, 8: nec utique divinitas deputanda est, quae subdita est homini et, si quid ad dedecus facit,

(sc. amplius dico) aemulo suo. More instances are given by Thorn., 1, 11. idololatriis: the plural is very rare, just as in Greek (according to Bauer,

Worterbuch s.v., only 1 Petr. 4, 3 and Did. 5, 1; we may add Theophil. ad Auto!' 1, 14). In Tert. also spect. 8, 2 and 20, 3; cor. 7, 8 (idolislatriae A, idolis latriae Kroymann) and 13, 7; pud. 5, 12. Further the plural only occurs in Cypr. test. 3, 119 (184, 7) = Acts 15, 29: abstinere vos ab idololatriis

«btix~cr9cxt dOWA09u'twv: Vulg. ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulacrorum).

2. perisse: the thought that death is the result of sin (an idea which Christianity shares with Judaism, see R. Bultmann, art. '~!Xw', Kittel, 2, 857, 16 seqq.) is expressed innumerable times, e.g. Rom. 6, 16.21. 23; James 1, 15-6;

Barn. 12,2. 5; 1 Clem. 3,4; 2 Clem. 1, 6; Herm. vis. 2, 3, 1; mand. 12, 6, 2; sim. 8, 8, 5. Further see the passages collected by Bultmann, art. '9!Xvcx't0~', in Kittel 3, 15, n. 67. Many instances may be added, e.g. Herm. vis. 1, 1, 8; sim. 9, 18, 2; 9, 19, 1; 10, 2, 4. The underlying idea is that not the natural, transient life is the true life, but the undestructible, eternal life which is granted by God at the resurrection. By his behaviour in this life man can become worthy of this true ~wTj. We find this view expressed in the figures of is about seven times more frequent in Tert. 's works than perin de) occurs very

!S4 1,2 I , L.

sense: adulter is equivalent to a) falsarius and b) fa/sus, adulterium to a) fa/sum facere and b) fa/sum fieri. For adulter with an active sense cf. Herm. frequently in Tert. as an equivalent of perinde. See Currey's note on spect. 2;

Waltz., Comm., 58; Thorn., Eranos 16 (1916), 123-4. adulterium et stuprum: these two terms are found together very frequently, e.g. Cic. Pis. 70;

Flacc. 34; Tusc. 4,75; also in Tert., e.g. nat. 1,16,12; 2,13,6. Inpud. Tert.

1, 2: (Hermogenes) totus adulter, et praedicationis et carnis (of course in adulter carnis the literal sense is also present here) and praescr. 30, 12 adulteri veritatis, which is an indication of the heretics (one should not think that, as Teeuwen, 124, asserts, adulter is only used by Tert. in connection with the follows the Christian usus and speaks systematically of moechia and fornicatio (pud. 4, 1-2: In primis quod moechiam et fornicationem heretics). In apol. 47, 10 the philosophers are called adulteri nostri. Adulter with a passive sense (= fa/sus) is found in Latin from Ovid ars 3, 643, adultera c/avis, onwards; from Tert. cf. e.g. an. 16, 7 naturae alterius ... adulterae; praescr. 6, 2 and 17, 2; see TLL I: 881,42-57; Waszink, 235-6;

Oehler's note on nat. 1, 16 (p. 337 d). Adulterium used figuratively with an active sense ('the act of falsifying') is found from Pliny maior downwards, e.g. n.h. 14, 80: omnia in adulterium me/lis excogitata (TLL I: 883, 46-52); from Tert. cf. cult. fem. 1, 8, 2: quis enim est vestium honor iustus de adulterio colorum iniustorum?; praescr. 31, 1 : avenarum sterilis feni adulterium; apol. 47, 11: adulteria ... sa/utaris disciplinae. The passive meaning ('the falsified object') is found e.g. in spect. 23, 5: non am at falsum auctor veritatis; adulterium est apud il/um omne quod fingitur. In the present passage the heathens are meant, for, although De idololatria is addressed to Christians, in the present chapter Tert. is speaking about idolatry in general, which in the first place includes heathendom (cf. also par. 4). Sic et: frequent in Tert. as an equivalent of item, see Thorn., 2, 95-6. stupro mergitur: mergere (-i) instead of demergere (-i) occurs more than once in Tert., see Hoppe, Beitr., 107. The addition of in (Gelenius) is unnecessary, as is evident from passages such as res. 58, 5: diabolo ... ignibus merso; paen.

4,3: peccatorumfluctibus mersum; however, the preposition is added in Iud.

13, 19: duritia huius saeculi mersa est in profundo erroris; nat. 1, 9, 6:

(insulam) in Atlantico mari mersam. immundis spiritibus cooperator: here Tert. speaks of immundis spiritibus, in 1, 5 of daemoniis et immundis spiritibus and in 15,3 of daemonia et omnem spiritum immundum. Obviously he has the same realities in mind. Immundi spiritus is the wider notion; it is applicable to all the powers of evil, which are elsewhere summarized in the terms of the baptism formula: 'the devil and his angels' (cf. 6, 1). Those angels of the devil are sometimes distinguished in two groups: the fallen angels and the offspring of those fallen angels who, according to an erroneous interpretation of Gen. 6, 2, had intercourse with mortal women (cf. the note ad

4, 2). Cooperator is found from the Vetus Latina and Tert. onwards (see TLL IV: 892, 3-21). According to Hoppe (Synt., 26) immundis spiritibus is a dativus commodi. However, this dative should be explained from the construction cooperari alicui, as was pointed out by LOfstedt (Synt., 1,213). In Tert. a strictly attributive dative only occurs by way of exception (an. 29, 2: il/e ... origini fons; ib. 48, 3: inflatui pabulum, where the final dative nominamus, usus expostulat. Habet et fides quorundam nominum familiaritatem . Ita in omni opusculo usum custodimus). But he observes:

Ceterum si adulterium et si stuprum dixero, unum erit contaminatae carnis elogium. Nec enim interest nuptam alien am an viduam quis incurset, dum non suam feminam. From these words it appears that: 1) Tert. considers adulterium and stuprum as the equivalents of moechia and fornicatio (which terms have come into usage in Latin through the translations of the Bible);

2) Tert. is aware of the fact that adulterium distinguishes itself from stuprum in the fact that it concerns a nupta. (To Tert. this distinction does not matter in the context of pud., but he shows that he is aware of it.) In the present text, in which the two terms are used metaphorically, he expresses the difference by associating adulterium with falsity (not the true wife), and stuprum with impurity.-It stands to reason that the distinction between the two terms was not always observed. Adulterium could easily be named stuprum, i.e. a special kind of 'impurity'; and it also happened the other way round. The situation is clearly described in the following juridical text: Lex (sc. Julia) stuprum et adulterium promiscue et XIX"tIXXP7}rJ"t,xw"tcpov appel/at. Sed proprie adulterium in nupta committitur, propter partum ex altero conceptum composito nomine; stuprum vero in virginem viduamve committitur, quod Graeci rpOopav appel/ant (Papin. dig. 48, 5, 6, 1). See RE 11,4, 1 s.v. 'stuprum'; Mommsen,

Strafrecht, 694, n.r.; TLL I: 882, 43 ff.-The metaphorical usage of adulterium (fornicatio) is much more frequent in Tert. than that of stuprum

(see below, p. 87). recognoscas: this verb, which is very frequent in Tert., often occurs at the end of a sentence instead of cognoscere for the sake of the clausula (also in 2,5); see Waszink, 245. For the loss of meaning of rein compounds, cf. the note on 2, 2: reputandum. A list of the meanings of recognoscere in Tert. is given by Diercks in his note on orat. 2, 6 (p. 76); cf. also ThOrn., 2, 26-7. falsis deis servit: = dOWAOACX1:peT. In the Vulgate idolis serviens is the usual translation of dowAoA&1:PTJ~, e.g. 1 Cor. 5, 10. Nam qui falsis deis servit ... adulterium est: A omits the words est veritatis quia omne falsum adulterium, an omission evidently caused by a homoeoteleuton.

Tert. 's argumentation runs as follows: 'Every falseness is adultery, viz., of the truth'. Or, to formulate it with regard to the person who perpetrates falseness:

'every falsifier is adultering the truth. Thus whoever serves false gods (i.e. whoever falsifies the service of the true God) is adultering the truth.' In a figurative sense both adulter and adulterium may have an active and a passive

1,2-1,3 '61

I,L

corresponds to the Greek adject. 1tve.ufJ.ex'tWOE~). In the instances mentioned by LOfstedt, e.g. spect. 12, 4: haec muneri origo, the substantive in the dative is the logical subject of the sentence (haec muneri origo = hanc munus originem habuit), see the detailed treatment by Waszink (p. 365). Moreover, in the instances given by TLL the substantive added to cooperator is always in the genitive (the only exceptions are Cassiod. hist. 9, 4 (PL 69, 1126 A): nequissimis cultoribus juit cooperator; Ambr. s. spiro 3, 18, 140: qui patri et jilio cooperator est omnium; there, however, we find cooperator joined to a (Christus) qui homo voluerit incedere. It is used of human beings in Verg.

Aen. 5, 67-8; with unfavourable connotation ('cum superbia') in Hor. epod.

15, 18. In the present passage the verb is used in a completely neutral sense, for which cf. e.g. Caelius ap. Cic. ep. ad jam. 8, 9, 1; Mart. 6, 39, 6; Vulg.

Ps. 41, 10, and Baruch 2, 18. For the rest we should not forget that in several instances Gust as in the present passage) the original meaning is still perceptible: 'walks about, goes through life'. Cf. also the notes on 9, 5 and 17, 3. The use of venire and vadere instead of esse (first in the coniugatio periphrastica) comes from colloquial Latin, as is shown by the continuation form of esse, which combination is practically equivalent to the verb cooperari governing a dative; in the second passage, moreover, we should make allowance for the tendency to avoid a repetition of genitives). So we must compare immundis spiritibus cooperator with expressions such as Christo servus = Christo serviens (paen. 7, 8). See Borleffs, Mnemos., NS,

60 (1933) 69, n. 3; cf. also Apul. met. 11,27 (288, 13 Helm): magno ... deo jamulum (cf. Medan, 42). conspurcatus et constupratus: conspurcare is a very rare verb (eight times in TLL IV: 503, 29-39). Before Tert. it only occurs in Lucr. 6, 22: taetro quasi conspurcare sapore omnia and Colum. 8, 3, 9. In Tert. it also occurs in spect. 11, 2 (also in connection with idolatry): quid ergo mirum, si et apparatus agonem idololatria conspurcat de coronis projanis, etc. The verb constuprare is considerably more frequent (TLL IV: 548, 30-56).

It occurs for the first time in Rhet. Her. 4, 8, 12 and 4, 39, 51. Three more instances can be quoted from Tert.: nat. 1, 10, 45: constuprantur coram vobis maiestates in corpore impuro and in the similar passage apo/. 15, 3: nonne violatur maiestas (sc. deorum) et divinitas constupratur plaudentibus vobis?; further spect. 27, 4: Non ergo jugies ... ipsum ... aerem (sc. in amphitheatro) qui desuper incubat scelestis vocibus constupratum? (conspurcatum

Reifferscheid). That the two verbs are strongly connected is shown by the fact that conspurcare is used twice as a transitive verb with the meaning of constuprare, viz., Suet. Nero 35, and schol. luven. 2, 16 (TLL IV: 503, 38-9). For Tert.'s remarkable partiality to substantives, adjectives and verbs composed with con-, see Hoppe, Beitr., 134. 141. 146 (among them are found numerous hapax legomena; see ad 23, 6 conclarior). incedit: 'in quibusdam locis incedere plus minus euanida propria not. copulae vice positum esse videtur' , of this phenomenon in the Romance languages; Propertius quite often has venire in this function; he, too, must have borrowed it from colloquial Latin.

The reason for this use is to be found in the wish to avoid the monosyllabic forms of esse; cf. Hofmann, Synt., 610, and Hofm.-Szant., Synt., 395 (who does not suppose that venire already has this function in Propertius). Atque adeo: literally: 'and in so far' = 'and thus'. This expression introduces an illustration. It is first found in Plautus and is frequent in Terent., see TLL

I: 612, 58 seqq. (for Tert. 613, 31 seqq.), and II: 1077, 58 seqq.; Hoppe, Beitr., 114 seqq.; Thierry, 224-5; Thorn., 2, 89, n. 1. scripturae ... exprobratione: the concept of the worship of foreign gods as fornication is of Jewish origin. Hosea is the first to conceive the relation of God to the people as a marriage, and apostasy from God as adultery (ch. 1-4). This metaphor is also used by Jeremiah (e.g. 5, 7), Isaiah (e.g. 57, 3) and especially Ezekiel

(ch. 16 and 23); cf. also Deut. 31, 16 with S. R. Driver's note (Internat. Crit.

Comm., 339-40). From the NT we may quote Matth. 12, 39: YEVECl1tOVTjPCl xext fJ.OlXexA£~ (cf. ib. 16, 4 and Mark, 8, 38); 2 Cor. 11, 2 (see Lietzmann's note,

HdbNT, 9, 145); James 4, 4 (see Windisch's note, ib., 15,27). Quite explicit is Hermas, mand. 4, 1, 9 (see Dibelius' note, ib. Erg. Bd., 507). Cf. also F.

Hauck in the art. 'fJ.0lXEUW', etc., Kittel 4, 738, 31 seqq. and 742,37 seqq.; R.

Seeberg, Die beiden Wege, 56 seqq. In Tert. we also find this figure inpraescr.

44, 2; scorp. 3, 4; pud. 5, 2 and especially 5, 4: itaque moechia adjinis idololatriae nam et idololatria moechiae nomine et jornicationis saepe populo exprobrata. In an. 41, 1 this concept is connected with that of baptism as a marriage of the soul and the Holy Spirit. See Waszink's comm. (456-8); he compares La. Clem. recogn. 9, 3, where the devil is called adulter, because he entices the soul away from Christ, the verus sponsus. For the devil as adulter, cf. also Commod. instr. 1, 36, 3 (see Dombart's note) and carm. apol. 179. 206. 985.

TLL VII, 1: 858, 95 seqq.; see also Marouzeau, Styl., 145-7. In this sense incedere is used in Verg. Aen. 1,46-7, where luno says: ast ego, quae divum incedo regina Iovisque et soror et coniunx. Heyne explains: 'incedo, h.e. quae sum; sed illud maiore cum dignitate ... '. That incedere contains an element of dignity and stateliness was already said by Servius ad loc.: incedere proprie est nobilium personarum, hoc est cum aliqua dignitate ambulare; cf. also

Aen. 5, 68. Consequently we find it used of gods in Prop. 2, 2, 5-6. In this connection we might also mention Aug. c.d. 19,23 (2, 395,4 Domb.): immortalis anima post corpus incedit. A borderline case is Tert. carn. Chr. 11, 6:

3. Fraudis condicio ea est, si: lit.: 'The condition for the existence (occurrence) of fraud is fulfilled, if .. .'. Condicio is here almost equivalent to status

(TLL s.v., ch. III, IV: 130,53-135,46); this meaning is particularly frequent in Roman law (ib., 132,40-133,53). ea est: A has only ea, which reading

1,3 1,,:)-1,"+ U7

was accepted by Van der Nat. However, the literature which he quotes in this connection, does not give one real parallel (for instance, Hoppe, Synt., 144, only mentions passages in which the infinitive is omitted in the acc.c. inf.).

Lbfstedt (Krit. Apol., 8, 2) quotes apol. 17, 2: ideo verus et tantus (sc. est deus); however, in this sentence the nominal consists of two adjectives, whereas in the present case the nominal is only one pronoun. Hoppe, Beitr.,

45, writes: "Auch idol. 1 ... , fraudis condicio ea (sc. est) kann mit dem Agob. richtig sein" but adds immediately in a note: "Manchmal hat diese Hs. es auch irrtumlich weggelassen ... Entscheiden lasst sich das oft nicht". He does not add any argument in favour of an ellipsis of est in this passage. alienum rapiat: by this definition jraus acquires the meaning of jurtum, peculatus

(gloss. «(X7to)cr'tipT)crL~), see TLL VI: 1270,67 seqq.; cf. spect. 3,2 = Exod. 20, it occurs forty times). See Hofm., Synt., 669; Hofm.-Szant., 492-3; Blokhuis,

116-9; Waltz., Comm., 20; Thorn., 2,31. fraudem deo: this conjecture by Rigaltius is to be preferred to the reading given by B and Gel (deo jraudem), because the omission of deo in the Agob. is much more easy to understand, if the original order wasjraudem deo than if we assume that deo stood before fraudem. fraudem deo facit: this matter-of-fact view of idolatry, worded in strictly juridical terms, is Tert.'s own. It was probably suggested to him by Matth. 22, 21, for we find the same words which he uses here in juga 12, 10, where he discusses (and quotes) this NT passage in connection with his prohibition to buy off a persecution; he may also have been thinking of Rom.

13,7. In this connection it should also be mentioned that baptism is characterized more than once by Tert. as a negotium between God and man, cf. especially an. 35, 3: pactus es ... renuntiasse ipsi (sc. diabolo) et pompae et angelis eius. Convenit inter vos (i.e. inter te et diabolum) de isto. Haec erit amicitia observatione sponsion is, ne quid eius postea resumas ex his quae eierasti, quae illi reddidisti, ne te ut jraudatorem, ut pacti transgressorem iudici deo obiciat, etc. See Waszink ad loc. (414); Beck 49-50 and 53-4;

Refoule, Bapt., 50-1; Dekkers, 195-6; de Backer, Sacramentum, 141 seqq. Of course an estimation like the one expressed here by Tert. is only possible, if idolatry is regarded as a conscious, deliberate apostasy from God. suos: = proprios. See Hoppe, Synt., 103; Lbfst., Krit. Apol., 95-6; Hartel, 1,36-7;

14: non jraudem admittes (ou XH~tL~), where the Vulgate has: non jurtum jacies; Vulg. Mark 10, 19: ne jureris ... ne jraudem jeceris (fJ.~ xH~ll~ ... fJ.~ cX1tocr'ttp~crll~); Vulg. 1 Cor. 6, 7-8: jraudem patimini ... jraudatis (cX1tocr'ttpttcr9t

... cX1tocr'ttptt'tt); cf. also pud. 14, 24. debitum deneget: time and again the Christians protest their honesty (see the numerous passages collected by Lortz, 1, 103, n. 90), often with the special assertion that they profess to abstain from depositum abnegare ('to deny (under oath) having received anything in deposito'); we find this already in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan, further e.g. Aristides, apol. 15,4; cf. also Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 87-8, who points to the Jewish tradition. From Tert. cf. Scap. 4, 7: depositum non abnegamus; cf. apol. 42, 9. It seems probable that this expression served Tert. as a model for debitum deneget in the present passage, where depositum could not be used because of the honores dei. The alteration of abnegare to denegare, too, may not be unintentional (though in apol. 46, 14 Tert. writes: Anaxagoras depositum hospitibus denegavit). In this connection abnegare always means

'to deny' (injitiari, negare; see TLL I: 111, 26-38) and, consequently, depositum abnegare is the usual expression (e.g. Plin. ep. 10, 96, 7; Dig. 47,

2, 1, 2; 12, 3, 3; 16, 3, 11); it is true that denegare may be equivalent to negare

(TLL V, 1: 523, 68. 84; in Tert. Herm. 15, 2; res. 52, 11) but in juridical writings it occurs especially with the meaning 'to refuse' (recusare, ib., 525,

6-28), and accordingly only few instances of depositum denegare are found, e.g. Cod. Theod. 9, 40, 21; 11, 1, 32; however, cf. apol. 46, 14 (quoted above). In the present passage both meanings playa part: in debitum deneget the meaning 'to deny' is the primary one, whereas in honores illi suos denegans the meaning is 'to refuse'. utique: a juridical term, first found in laws and inscriptions; only through the letters of Cicero the word gained acceptance in literary language. From this Hofmann concluded that the word belonged to vulgar usage. However, literary language does not only contrast to vulgar usage, but also to special technical idioms, in this case to the idiom of the law. Being a lawyer, Tert. uses utique very frequently (in apol. alone

Waltz., Iit., 67; Hofm., Synt., 470; Hofm.-Szant., Synt., 758. The opposite also occurs, see Thorn., 4, 127; Waszink, 100. The promiscuous use of suus and proprius originates from juridical idiom, see Kalb, Juristenlat., 57;

Lebreton, Iit. Clc., 134. contumeliam: a law term, denoting iniuria in the narrower sense, viz., 'defamation'; see Jors - Kunkel, 259. The same motif is found in the polemics against the heathens in nat. 1, 10, 11 and apol. 13,

2: praelatio alterius sine alterius contumelia non potest; cf. also apol. 13, 9.

Quodsi ... afferunt: see the note on par. 2: perisse. in his: sc. criminibus.

For in, see the note on 3, 1. de ... reatu ... Iiberatur: liberare with the meaning of absolvere is frequent in Tert., see Oehler's note on carn. Chr. 7 (p. 440 b); Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 82; Kalb, Juristen/at., 32; Waszink, 249.

4. exitiosa: cf. pud. 19, 25: Sunt autem et contraria istis (sc. delictis cotidianae incursionis), ut graviora et exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant, homicidium, idolo/atria,jraus, negalio, blasphemia, utique et moechia etjornicalio et si qua alia vio/alio templi dei (cf. the note on 1, 2: perisse). In pud.

Tert. connects the doctrine of mortal sins with the proposition that these are unforgivable; the present passage, however, contains no reference whatever to this view; no more does the highly rhetorical epilogue imply it (24, 4). So Adam (Chrono/., 417) is wrong in asserting that in these passages Tert. shows

Montanist sympathies. For the contrast with the following sa/us, cf. scorp.

1,4 1,'+

(seorsum disposita), just like the above mentioned sins. Van der Nat speaks of 'a part of idolatry' (see the quotation above), which is, in our opinion, not correct: the other sins are not 'a part of idolatry' but are 'discernible in idolatry': note that the words in ilia occur here no less than five times. The various meanings in Tert. of the verb repraesentare are fully discussed by d' Ales, Theol., 356-60. The meaning found in the present passage occurs no less than sixteen times. A particular concrete example is an. 57, 12: in resurrectionis exemplis, cum dei virtus sive per prophetas sive per Christum sive per apostolos in corpora animas repraesentat. concupiscentiae saeculi: concupiscentia is a Christianism, first occurring in the Vetus Latina and Tert., see

5, 5: Est et haec perversitas hominum salutaria excutere, exitiosa suscipere; cf. also spect. 25, 4: A vertat deus a suis tantam voluptatis exitiosae cupiditatem! devoratoria salutis: the adj. devoratorius occurs only here and in Eustathius' translation of St. Basil's In hexaem. 3, 5 (ed. de MendietaRudberg, p. 38, 10). Also the substantives devoratio (pud. 14, 22) and devorator (res. 32, 2) occur for the first time in Tert. (Hoppe, Beitr., 135); it is more than probable that all three these words did not belong to the Christian idiom but were created by Tert.; the same seems to hold good of the remarkably great number of adjectives on -torius which occur in Tert. 's works

(cf. the list in Hoppe, Beitr., 141-5; see also Waltz., Comm., 160). salutis:

= crw't1)p(()(~, 'eternal salvation' (= vitae aeternae). For this specially Christian meaning of salus see Teeuwen, index s.v. Just as vita «(w-lj), this notion is also applicable to the present, see the note on 1, 2 perisse, Knopf's note on 2 Clem.

TLL IV: 102,63 seqq.; Hauschild, Wortbild., 33 seqq.; Rensch, It., 49. For Tert. 's neologisms in -entia and -antia, see Demmel, passim (117-22 for concupiscentia); cf. also Safiund, 144-5. The genitive saeculi has the function of an adjective, as is evident from ux. 1, 4, 2-6, where Tert. first uses concupiscentia carnis and concupiscentia saeculi and afterwards denotes the same notions by concupiscentia carnalis and concupiscentia saecularis; cf. also spect. 14, 2 concupiscentiae saeculi. sollemnitas: 'festival, solemnity'.

For a study of the meanings of sollemnis and -tas in Tert., see Schiimmer, 52, n. 7. ambitione: cf. cult. jem. 1, 9, 2: haec erit ambitio, unde et nomen eius interpretandum est, quod concupiscentia apud animam ambiente nascatur. The opposite is jrugalitas (nat. 2, 4, 15; spect. 7, 5; ux. 1, 8, 3). lasciviae ... Iibidinis: instead of the alliterative combination victus et venter-which is rather surprising, since nothing negative is implied by victus-we mostly find gula et venter, e.g. spect. 13, 5; before Tert. e.g. Sen. ep. 108,14 and 114,25; Mart. 1,20,3. Tert. associates these notions closely with libido, luxuria, and lascivia, cf. e.g. Marc. 2, 18, 2: Agnosce simul et comitibus gulae, libidini scilicet atque luxuriae, prospectum (i.e. in the law), quae vera ventris castigatione jrigescunt; ieiun. 17, 3: Appendices ... gulae lasciviae atque luxuriae; spect. 2, 10; very coarse is ieiun. 1, 1-2. For the association with idolatry, cf. an. 40, 3: Caro '" increpatur in scripturis, quia nihil anima sine carne in operatione libidinis gulae vinulentiae saevitiae idololatriae ceterisque carnalibus non sensibus, sed ejjectibus, and especially pud. 5, 10 (pud. contains a remarkably high number of loci similes of passages

1, 1 (HdbNT, Erg. Bd., 153), and Lietzmann's notes on Rom. 1, 16 (ib. 8, 30) and 2 Cor. 7, 10 (ib. 9, 132). Sometimes we find crw't1)p(()( as 'preservation from death' connected with (w-lj, e.g. 2 Clem. 19, 1 and Ignat. ad Ephes. 18,

1; cf. also Rom. 5, 10 and an. 57,2 (about the devil): salutis pariter animaeque vastatorem (see Waszink, 577). cetera ... repraesentant: after arguing that the major sins just mentioned are present in the act of idolatry Tert. continues stating that also the other sins to a certain degree (ad aliquem modum) are discernible in idolatry (in idololatria condicionem suam repraesentant). The expression condicionem suam repraesentant literally means 'they show their features', which is a remarkable kind of personification. These sins are said to show themselves in idolatry which means, of course, that they can be discerned within it. The words et seorsum proinde disposita raise a problem.

Van der Nat translates: 'although they each have their own separate place as much as the previous ones'. In his opinion, these words point to what was said earlier about the separate existence of the other sins outside idolatry: etsi suam speciem tenet unumquodque delictum, etsi suo quoque nomine iudicio destinatur (1, 1). He concludes: 'Like the serious sins, the less serious ones mentioned here occur also separately (outside idolatry) but in some way or another they are committed as a part of idolatry' (ad loc.). This interpretation could perhaps be acceptable, if the statement of 1, 1 concerned those serious

~ins (murder, adultery, fornication, and fraud) only: then TerL could say that in idol.): Ego quidem idololatria saepissime moechiae occasionem subministro. Sciunt luci mei et mei montes et vivae aquae ipsaque in urbibus templa, quantum evertendae pudicitiae procurem. Of course the excesses occurring during pagan festivals also play an important part in apologetic literature: the gluttony which leaves only the inedible parts of the sacrifices to the gods (nat. 1, 10, 35-6), the carousals during the Parentalia, from which the participants return home drunk (test. an. 4, 4), the immorality in the temples (apol. 15, 7; cf. pud. 5, 10); cf. also Min. Fe!. 25, 1O-l. On the other hand, the strict morality in the Christian gatherings are strongly emphasized;

10 the same way (pro in de = perin de) the less serious sins also existed outside idolatry. But the statement of 1, 1 concerned all sins, in other words, it concerned already the sins to be discussed now. In our view, proinde must point to something that was said of the four major sins. Thus it can only concern the fact that those sins are discernible in idolatry. The words et seorsum proinde disposita must be considered to be an elaboration of what was said i~ the words in idololatria condicionem suam repraesentant. They are dIscernible in idolatry, because they are in it as a separate (moral) entity

1,J J,"t-J,J

where it is remarkably frequent, a survey of these meanings is given here, with a quotation of the most important or the clearest instances. e.g. apol. 39; Min. Fel. 31, 5; see Lortz, 1, 106 (rules of conduct to be observed during the agape and the mortuorum memoriae are found in Constit. eccles. A egypt. 20 (Funk, Didascalia, 2, 113) and Constit. Apost. 8, 44

(ib., 1,555-6); cf. also Hauler, Didasc. Apost. fragmenta Veronensia, Leipzig 1900, LXXV seq.). The sins mentioned here also have a permanent place in the lists of sins of the NT (cf. in this connection especially 1 Petro 4, 3) and of Jewish-Hellenistic apologetics (see Remark e; cf. also 2 Macc. 6, 4; 2 Enoch

I. 'to taste': literally: an. 17, 7: si ... minus sapit vinum. with remedia as a subj.: pud. 10, 2 and 6; figur.: spect. 15, 3.

II. purely intellectually: 'to be wise, to have insight into, to understand, to know' (gr. YLyvwcrxm, doivCXL): absolute: orat. 22, 8: Adam et Eva, ubi eis contigit sapere; nat. 2, 29;

Marc. 1, 19,3; an. 12, 1. 3. 4; 15,2.4; 18,2; 19,2.4.6.9; 30, 3; res.

3, 1; 5, 1. As a subst.: an. 45, 6: sapere nostrum. with the accus. of a pronoun: quid (interrog.): nat. 2, 4, 17; an. 1, 2. - 10 (Eth.); a particularly circumstantial account of the immorality during pagan festivals is given by Philo cherub. 92-3; cf. Wendland, Philo Diatr.,

41-3). We should not forget, however, that these matters were also an object of criticism in pagan philosophy (particularly in the diatribe of the Cynics and the Stoics), cf. e.g. Sen. ep. 18, 1-4 about the Saturnalia, and see Vogtle, 64 seqq. plurimum: = plerumque, saepissime, see Waltz., Comm., 61;

Hartel, 2, 34, n. 2 ex. frequententur: of course the subject is not lasciviae et ebrietates, but so//emnitates should be supplied as the subject from the preceding quae ... idololatriae so//emnitas, which expresses a plural notion.

More instances of this kind of construction in Tert. are given by Hoppe, Beitr., 50-1. For such changes of subject, where, moreover, this subject has to be supplied from the context, see Wahlen, 1 seqq.; Sorbom, 137 seqq.;

Petterson, 53 seqq. iniustitia: the characterization of idolatry as unrighteousness is elaborately argued in Rom. 1, cf. especially vss. 18-9 (cf. quid (indefin.): an. 40, 2; orat. 16, 6. aliquid: res. 46, 5. quod: ux. 2, 1, 2. hoc: an. 9, 7; hoc ipsum: ieiun. 9, 2; haec: an. 15, 6.

nihil: res. 16, 3. 12. with an adverb added: an. 1, 2 (liquido); ux. 2, 1, 2 (integre). with the accus. of a subst.: apol. 22, 10 (caelestes sapere paraturas); test. an. 6,6. with an accus. c. inf.: nat. 2, 9, 14; scorp. 1, 5. with an indirect question: idol. 10, 6.

III. 'to be imbued with, to have a certain disposition' (gr. cppovdv): as a translation of cppovdv: res. 23, 4 (Col. 3, 2); pud. 1, 12 (1 Cor. 13,

11); 17, 11 (Rom. 8, 5); praescr. 5, 5 (1 Cor. 1, 10); tr. of m.p1t~p~u~creCXL: pat. 12, 9 (1 Cor. 13, 4): protervum sapit. with an adverb: Marc. 1, 14, 3: sublimius illo (sc. domino) sapis. with the accus. of a pronoun: scorp. 1, 12; pud. 18, 2. with the neutral accus. of an adj.: spect. 19, 3: si ... bonum sapiunt. with a dative: pat. 5, 13: deo sapere (cf. ThOrn., 2, 44). with a preposition: ad finale: ieiun. 6, 1: ad lasciviam sapere. ad = secundum: res. 39, 3: ad Saducaeos. secundum: exh. cast. 10,28-9: secundum spiritum sapere. cum: bapt. 12, 5: cum aemulis sapuisse.

contra: exh. cast. 3, 25: contra voluntatem dei sapiendo.

IV. Hence sapere is used with a non-personal subject with the meaning 'to 1 Cor. 13, 6); thus also Theophilus ad Autol. 1, 14, where he alludes to Rom.

2, 8. Cf. the note on 2, 5. iustitiae patrem nescit: idolatry means a rejection of the one true God, who is the source of justice. On the OLXCXWcrUVTJ of God, cf. the art. 'OLXCXWcruVTj' by G. Schenk in Kittel 2, 194-214, especially pp. 206-8.

ratio ... substantia: Braun, 177, n. 4, rightly observes that here the expressions tota eius ratio and tota substantia eius are entirely synonymous (cf. also ib., 174). mendacium: cf. apol. 15, 8: lam quidem inte//egi subiacet veritatis esse cultores qui mendacii non sint; cf. ib. 24, 2 and scorp. 3, 1.

According to Tert., the heathens only worship a mendacium divinitatis, behind which the devil and the demons are hiding, see comm. on 1, 2 falsis deis ... veritatis. The qualification of the heathen gods as falsehood occurs already at an early date, cf. e.g. Is. 44, 20; Ier. 13, 25; Rom. 1, 25 (see

Lietzmann's note, HdbNT, 8, 33); cf. also epist. Ier. 7, 50, and numerous passages from Philo, e.g. spec. leg. 1, 332. It is noteworthy that the same thought is also found in Lucilius, fro 486-9 Marx. have a certain meaning, certain contents, a certain intention, to make something clear, to express' (see Hartel, 3, 52-3; BUchner, 56): absolute: scorp. 7, 5: verba non sono solo sapiunt, sed et sensu; ib. 11,

4 (same sense). with an adverb: spect. 3, 7: Nam et specialiter quaedam pronuntiata generaliter sapiunt; an. 32, 10: sic et divina pronuntiatio sapit; res. 33,

6; pud. 8, 9. with an accusative (mostly with the meaning 'to mean'): nat. 1, 3, 7: cum

5. alias: = alioquin, aliter, as frequently in the juridical idiom and hence in Tert.'s works; see TLL I: 1549,26 seqq.; Hoppe, Synt., 110-1; Waszink,

322. sapiant: since the dictionaries and also the commentaries contain very little information about the various meanings of this verb in Tert.'s works, quid aut barbarum sonat, aut infaustum sapit; ieiun. 2, 2: adgnoscat quid sapiat 'lex et prophetae usque ad lohannem '; ib. 17, 1; virgo vel.

7,7; res. 38, 1; 44, 10; cam. Chr. 19,4; Marc. 2, 18, 1; 2, 24, 1.

1,5 l,oL , SURVEY Y5

with a preposition: ad: ieiun. 10, 8: Hoc si magis ad religionem sapit about the nature of the gods reduced this problem to small proportions. The images of the gods, who had been human beings, did not essentially differ from those of other human beings. The Jews and the Christians were, of course, strongly opposed to the heathen gods and their idols. Among the Jews various views on heathen religion developed; the gods were either identified with their images and so became an easy object of mockery (e.g. Ps. 115,4-7

" Their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. They have mouths that cannot speak, and eyes that cannot see", etc.) or regarded as demons (e.g. ibut. 32, 17; Ps. 96, 5 etc.). These views can also be combined: in their own interest the demons have tempted men to worship idols; cf.

Enoch 19,1, Iub. 11,3. See O. Eissfeldt, 'Gott und Gotzen im Alten Testament', Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 103 (1931),151-60; Strack-B., 3, 48-60; G. Quell, art. '9c.6c;' , Kittel 3, esp. 87-90; E. Fascher, 'Gott und die Gotter', Theol. Lit.

Zeit. 81 (1956), 279-308. In the NT too, one finds a two-sided view: on the one hand the heathen gods are lifeless idols (e.g. 1 Cor. 12, 2 'tCt dowAQ( 'tCt

Christianam. adversus: idol. 1, 5; virgo vel. 1, 2: Quodcumque adversus veritatem sapit. contra: praescr. 21, 5. cum: res. 3, 6: quae cum ethnicis sapiunt (sc. haeretici). de: nat. 2, 8, 14; virgo vel.

5, 2; pud. 19, 8.

A double meaning of sapere is found in pud. 9, 22: Sed malum us in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam contra (meanings II and III).

daemoniis: daemonium occurs as a Latin word since Apuleius, who in apol. 27 (31,25-6 H.) writes Socrati daemonion, but ib. 63 (71,16-7): hoccine est, quod appellitabatis daemonium?; cf. in Tert. apol. 22, 1 and an. 1, 4: daemonium (sc. Socratis). In the sense of malus daemon we find the word for the first time in Tert., see TLL V, 1: 6, 77 seqq. Tert. uses daemonium and daemon promiscuously (cf. Thorn., 1, 11, n. 1). Actually, daemonium is regarded as the diminutive, cf. apol. 32, 2: nescitis genios daemonas dici et inde diminutiva voce daemonia? (in reality it is the neutral form of the adjective). For genius as a translation of SQ((fLwV, cf. an. 39, 3: sic et omnibus genii deputantur, quod daemonum nomen est; Min. Fel. 29, 5; Lact. d.i. 2, ocq?wvQ(); on the other hand idolatry establishes a communion with the demons

(1 Cor. 10, 14-21 with Lietzmann's comm., HdbNT 9, 49; cf. also 1 Cor. 8, 4-5 with Lietzmann's note, ib. 37). Among the Christian Apologists the same views are found, often in combination with the Euhemeristic idea that the heathen gods are deified human beings. See Waszink, 578. However, nowhere such a clear distinction between images, gods, and demons is found as in Tertullian. To him the only object of false human worship are the demons; the images of the heathen gods and the gods themselves are equally 'idols', used by the demons to distract human worship from the one true God to themselves: hence quibus idola mancipantur. mancipantur: for this lawterm, see Beck, 104. 166; cf. e.g. 12, 5; spect. 2, 4; 4, 3; an. 33,9; adv. Iud.

14, 12; this identification occurs for the first time in Apuleius (de deo Socr.

15 and Plat. 1,12 = 96,13 Thorn.). See Waszink, 445; Waltz., Comm., 219; Andres, art. 'Daimon', RE Suppl. III 292. daemoniis et immundis spiritibus: see the note on 1, 2 immundis spiritibus cooperator. nihil ... deputetur: everything directed against God is directed to (in favour of) the devil and the fallen angels, since these are the only important adversaries of God, cf. e.g. cult. fem . 1, 8, 3: alius ... praeter diabolum et angelos eius aemulus dei non est; spect. 2, 5 (see the passages collected by Waszink, 287;

Lortz, 2, 37. 39. 43-4; cf. also comm. on 18, 7). Hence the idolater could be qualified above as immundis spiritibus cooperator. deputetur: the verb deputare is extremely frequent in Tert. 's works; in Claesson's index 230 certain instances are mentioned. With the meanings ascribere, attribuere (TLL

I, 7. mancipes: for manceps in the sense of 'possessor', cf. apol. 11, 2: inprimis ... necesse est concedatis esse aliquem sublimiorem deum et mancipem quendam divinitatis; nat. 2, 2, I: auctoritas philosophorum ut mancipium sapientiae; nat. I, 9, 1; spect. 10, 9. Apart from Tert. this meaning only occurs in [Orig.] tract. de script. sacr. 8 (94, 22 Batiffol): mancipe malitiae, id est diabolo, sublato (these treatises show also elsewhere an influence of Tert., cf. e.g. Waszink, 148-9). Further see TLL VII: 252, 29 seqq.;

Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 76; Beck, 104.

S.V . sub II B, V, 1: 621 , 78 seqq.), adnumerare (ib. sub II C, col. 623, 34 seqq.), and imputare (ib. sub II D, col. 623, 15 seqq.) it occurs for the first time in Tert. For deputare in with an accus., see the note on 4, 2. quibus idola mancipantur: from these words the relation between idols and demons becomes clear. The idols are instruments in the hands of the demons; they serve as a means to distract human veneration from the one true God. As was stated above (see Remarks, p. 77), for Tertullian the concept of idol embraces not only the images of the heathen gods but also the gods themselves, who are in his view human beings who became venerated after their death

(Euhemerism). Among the heathens themselves, the significance of these images and the relation between the gods and their images constituted a vexed problem; see Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., XX seqq. and 77-8; Clerc, Culte, 91122 and 171-258; Wendland, Kultur, 391-2: obviously Euhemerus' opinion

Ch. 2. The subject-matter of the treatise 'But we will confine ourselves to idolatry in its proper sense, which, on its

Own, affords sufficient material for a treatise. For apart from its open manifestations, idolatry has a great number of ramifications by which it ruins the servants of God. This happens because the servants of God do not notice the fact or shut their eyes to it (§ 1).

~, SURVEY, REMARKS

~, REMARKS-~, 1

':II

domain (in modico consisteret) in which man could be brought to sin (de malitia). And to the ingenuity of the devil with regard to wickedness he opposes the ingenuity of God with regard to disciplina, the instrument of virtue. The idea behind this argument is that the extent of the domain of virtue corresponds to that of sin. The larger the one, the larger the other. If not only adulterous acts but also adulterous thoughts are sinful, then virtue does not only extend itself to deeds of chastity but also to thoughts.

(c) Finally Tertullian refers to another passage of Scripture according to which the righteousness of the Christians must be greater than that of the others, i.e. the scribes and pharisees. In terms of the previous paragraph, the idea may be formulated as follows: for the Christian the domain of the virtue of righteousness is larger than for others. In consequence the domain of the opposite vice, viz., unrighteousness, must be larger as well. Now idolatry is a Many people think that idolatry consists only of open manifestations such as bringing sacrifices and burning incense; this is the same as thinking that adultery is nothing else than kissing, embracing and sexual intercourse, and murder nothing else than the killing of another (§ 2). But we know from Holy

Scripture that this is not correct: according to the Lord these vices have a much broader scope (§ 3). Otherwise the domain of evil and that of virtue would be rather narrow (§ 4). And our righteousness would not exceed that of the scribes and pharisees, if we did not understand how large the domain of unrighteousness is. Now idolatry is the summit of unrighteousness. Thus we must understand how large its domain is, and not confine it to its immediately evident manifestations only (§ 5). '

Remarks form of unrighteousness, it is even the summit of it. Thus what the Lord said with regard to righteousness, and in consequence with regard to unrighteousness, holds good a fortiori of idolatry. So the Christian has to safeguard himself against the large domain of idolatry (adversus abundantiam idololatriae) even more (prius) than against the large domain of unrighteousness in its proper sense; and he will do so by (dum) not confining himself to the manifest forms of idolatry (non solum in manifestis). a. The subject-matter. In the first chapter Tertullian greatly extended the concept of idolatry in order to emphasize the importance of the matter under discussion. But it is evident that idolatry, if understood in that sense, is much too large a subject-matter for a treatise. This is why Tertullian now states that he will limit himself to a less extensive subject, viz., idolatry in its proper sense.

Here the question may arise, whether idolatry in its proper sense affords sufficient material for a treatise. If one understands 'idolatry in its proper sense' as the equivalent of 'open acts of idolatry', this question should perhaps be answered in the negative. But 'idolatry in its proper sense' is not restricted to these open acts which do not need much discussion, but has a great number of ramifications. These hidden forms of idolatry afford enough material for a treatise (sufficit sibi) and they will be the main subject (cum maxime) of Tertullian's argument. c. Place of chapter 2 in the treatise. In paragraphs 2-5 Tertullian argued agains,t those who gave too restricted a sense to idolatry. Herewith he substantiated his thesis of paragraph 1 saying that idolatry in its proper sense affords sufficient material for a treatise. The subject-matter has been determined now: it will mainly be the hidden forms of idolatry. The treatise proper may start.

In his book Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford 1971) R.

D. Sider states about the present treatise: "he (Tertullian) devotes the whole of chapters 2 and 3 to a prejudicial definition of idolatry". This is a serious misinterpretation. Chapters 2 and 3 do not belong together, and Tertullian does not give a definition in the introductory chapter 2. He states that idolatry in its proper sense has a very wide range because of its manifold hidden forms and that he will occupy himself mainly with these hidden forms of idolatry.

Chapter 3 does not belong to the introduction. b. Its extension. In 2, 2-5 Tertullian argues against those who think that idolatry is restricted to such open deeds as mentioned above. His argument runs as follows:

(a) First he compares the case of idolatry with that of adultery and murder.

Just as the Lord sees these sins as existing within a range broader than the respective manifest deeds, so idolatry extends much further than those manifest deeds.

(b) Then he makes use of a deductio ad absurdum: if idolatry (and adultery and murder) would have such a restricted extent, this would mean that the same standard of evil would apply to Christians and heathens; they would be judged for the same sins. This is impossible. Ergo.

1. proprietates: 'special natures', as in an. 2, 2: proprietatibus etiam inter similia diversis; ib. 8, 1: et ubi proprietatum privata discrimina ... ?; Prax. 27,

11 (cf. idol. 1, 1: suam speciem tenet unumquodque delictum). Sufficit sibi: idolatry in its proper sense (quod ipsa est), being so great an evil (tam inimicum deo nomen) 'is self-sufficient', viz., as subject-matter of a treatise; there is no need of taking it in the larger sense of ch. 1. locuples substantia: for substantia, cf. 1, 4 tota substantia eius; cult. fem. 2, 2, 2: tota fidei

Tertullian elaborates the argument a bit more. Instead of saying that, if the opinion of his opponents were true, the domain of evil would be rather small, he says: "the ingenuity of the devil with regard to wickedness would have a rather small range". This means: the devil's ingenuity would have only a small

2,1 L,l-L,L ':J':J

substantia. Here substantia contrasts with nomen, as in an. 11, 1 and 14, 4 with opera (see Waszink, 192 and 195), in Marc. 5, 14,4 with the plural opera, and in Prax. 2,4 withforma. For the various meanings of substantia in Tert.'s works, see especially Evans, 39 seqq.; Beck, 72-5; Danielou, Origines 280-2;

Thierry, 133-4 and 185-6. The juridical term locuples is not frequently used. of things, see TLL VII, 2: 1571, 34 seqq.; here the original sense, for which cf. e.g. Quintil. instit. 5, 10, 55: locupletem a locorum copia is still perceptible, as appears from the following idololatriae latitudo. From Tert. is still to be mentioned spect. 7, 5: quaevis idololatria sordide instructa vel modice, locuples et splendida est censu criminis sui; TLL ib. under the heading 'transfertur ad res fere naturales': Herm. 8, 2: materia ... se deo praestitit divitem et locupletem et liberalem; nat. 1, 12, 6 ('fere i.q.

9wG, which in the LXX and in the NT is applied alike to those who are special servants of God (patriarchs, Moses, prophets) and to all the faithful. The concept of man's relation to God which is characterized by this term is Semitic and alien to the Greeks (Eur. Ion 309: 'toG 9wG ... OoGAo~ is equivalent to kpOOOUAO~; no more do Eur. Bacch. 366 and Or. 418 express a religious dependence). ignorata ... dissimulata: cf. spect. 1, 1: ne aut ignorando aut dissimulando quis peccet; cult. fem. 2, 1, 2: pleraeque ... aut ignorantes simpliciter aut dissimulantes audaciter ita ingrediuntur, quasi etc. The sense is, of course, 'either not knowing or feigning not to know'.

2. Plerique ... interpretandam: time and again Tert. opposes himself to the mass of rudes and puts forward their ignorance or lack of seriousness as a motive for his writing. The main passages in this connection are Prax. 3, 1:

Simplices ... quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae maior semper credentium pars est; bapt. 1, 1: Tert. mentions eos qui cum maxime formantur together with iIlos qui similiter credidisse contenti, non exploratis rationibus traditionum temptabilem fidem per imperitiam portant; res. 2, 11 and 17, 11; scorp. 1, 5; Marc. 1, 9, 1. Heretics are said to avail themselves of this ignorance, cf. praescr. 2, 8. See Refoule's note on bapt. 1, 1 (p. 64, n. 4) and, more generally, de Vries, passim; H. Koch, 'Tert. und Cypr. als religiOse Persbnlichkeiten', Intern. kirchl. Zeitschr. 10 (1920), 48. simpliciter: is to be connected with interpretandam, cf. an. 35,2: totam iIlam allegorian domini ... primo quidem simpliciter intellegendam (see Waszink's note, 413); orat. 4, 2: si simpliciter intellegendum est; ux. 2, 2, 2. si quid

... obligetur: this, and not Mesnart's generally accepted conjecture si quis, is the correct reading, for the subject of incedat, immolet and obligetur is idololatria. polluceat: Pamelius' emendation (proluceat A B) is certainly right; the alteration has been caused by a wrong abbreviation (for similar cases, cf. 11, 5: per se Gel, posse A B; orat. 5, 2 protulissemus Rig, postulissemus A, postulassemus B). Pollucere means 'to place upon the altar pretiosus'): seu ligno seu lapide ... seu alia locupletiore materia. venas defundit: Ursinus' conjecture diffundit is seductive, if we compare passages like pat. 11, 1: lata atque diffusa est operatio mali; paen. 4, 5: de bono paenitentiae enumerando diffusa ... materia est, and the following idololatriae latitudo, the more as defundere and diffundere are frequently confused in MSS. (TLL V, 1: 1107, 25 seqq.). Nevertheless the lectio tradita is correct. Tert. has first compared idolatry with a tree which spreads many branches; he now uses a similar figure (which is also suggested by the formal parallelism: twice an active verb with an object), viz., that of a source which pours forth numerous veins of water. The same metaphor is developed in pat.

5, 18: si prima deliquit (sc. impatientia), consequens est, ut, quia prima, idcirco et sola sit matrix in omne delictum, defundens de suo fonte varias criminum venas. Moreover, diffundere is not said of a source but of a liquid only (in this case always with a reflexive pronoun or in the passive voice with a preposition, cf. Cic. n.d. 2, 138: ex his partibus sanguis per venas in omne corpus diffunditur; Curt. 3, 6, 17: Ut vero medicamentum se diffudit in venas; Cypr. bon. pat. 20). de hoc: this must refer to the words quot modis

... latitudo (which is quite normal, since hic usually refers to what follows).

Van der Nat is wrong in supposing that these words refer to tot ram os porrigit and tot venas defundit. idololatriae latitudo: with the meaning 'extent, breadth, compass', latitudo also occurs in spect. 30, 3: Quae tunc spectaculi latitudo!; cf. e.g. Caes. bell. Gall. 3, 20, 1: regionum latitudo; Cic. leg. agr.

2, 68: latitudinem possessionum; also Iren. Adv. haer., praef. (p. 6 Harvey): in latitudine sensus tui (ev 't(!) 1tA<i'tE.~ crou 'toG voG); cf. LXX 3 Regn. 2, 35 a: xocl as a sacrifice to the deity'. So polluctum in its proper sense is only that part of a sacrifice which is burned for the deity, and which does not serve as a meal for the offerers and is not sold either. However, since a banquet is closely connected with a sacrifice, polluctum is also used with the meaning 'banquet, meal'. The term mostly occurs in relation to the cult of Hercules at the Ara

Maxima. There people used to offer decumae of what they earned, cf. e.g.

Plaut. Stich. 233-4: haec veniisse iam opus est, quantum potest, uti decumam partem Herculi polluceam; Bacch. 665-6; Most. 984 with Sonnenschein's

EOWX~V XUpLO~ CPPov'Yjcr~v 't(!) ~OCAWfLWV xocl crocp(ocv 1tOn~V crcpoopoc xocl1tA<i'to~ xocpo(oc~.

The word has the sense of 'large domain' in nat. 2, 9, 2: alia iam nobis ineunda est humani erroris latitudo, immo silva caedenda (cf. Hartel, 1, 39).

Latitudines has concrete meaning in 8, 2 (see comm.). servos dei: frequently used to denote the Christians, cf. e.g. 11, 1; 13,2; 14,4 (Gal. 1, 10);

17, 2; spect. 1, 1; ux.l, 4, 2; fuga 1, 3; res. 52, 12. It is a translation of ooGAo~ note. Decumae of the spoils of war were also consecrated. Plut. Crass. 2 relates that Crassus went so far as to offer the tenth part of the whole of his fortune to Hercules. Only a small portion of such offerings, however, remained in the temple, most of it being used for a public banquet, polluctum

IUU 1.,1.-1.,3

L. ,')-L., '+

lVl

2: concupiscentia oculis arbitris utitur, see Waszink, 435. Parallel passages from the apologists in Lortz, 1, 110, n. 106, from the Stoic diatribe in Wendland, Kultur, 95. caritatis: to denote the concept of charity the Christians avoided amor, as this word had a mainly erotic significance in profane language (an exception is Tert. Marc. 5, 14, 11 (Rom. 12, 10): amore fraternitatis invicem adfectuosi (Vulg.: caritate fraternitatis invicem adfectuosi).

The difference between amor and caritas is brought out by passages like Cic. part. 36: aut caritate moventur homines, ut deorum, ut patriae, ut parentum,

Herculis. Tert. speaks about this in nat. 2, 7, 17 and apol. 14, 1. See Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 3, 146-7; Wissowa, ReI., 277-9. obligetur: cf. an. 39,3: Quis non exinde ... totumfilii caput ... aut sacrijicio ob/igat aut sacro obsignat with Waszink's note (445). Also Cic. div. 1, 7: est enim periculum, ne aut neglectis eis (sc. auspiciis) impia fraude aut susceptis anili superstitione obligemur. carnis congressione: for this expression cf. Cic. rep. 1, 38: a prima congressione maris et feminae .. . ordiar. From Tert. cf. virgo vel. 11, 4: si congressio viri mulierem facit; res. 11, 6; for further instances cf. TLL IV: 294, 70-6, and for congressus with the same meaning ib. IV: 296, 50-62. sanguinis profusione: the normal expression would be sanguinis effusione, cf. Scap. 3, 1: nulla civitas impune latura sit sanguinis nostri effusionem. Sanguinis profusio occurs as a medical term ('haemorrhage', 'bleeding') in Celsus medicin. 2, 7 (40, 12-3 Daremberg) and 7, 21

(302, 23). animae ereptione: cf. res. 28, 6: si occidere carni an imam eripere est; an. 43, 11: sleep symbolizes quasi iam ereptam (sc. animam); ib. 56, 8:

(animas) vi ereptas. reputandum: reputare is a complete synonym of putare; for this use of a meaningles rein compound verbs see the note on 1,

2 recognoscas. aut amore, ut fratrum, ut coniugum, ... aut honestate, ut virtutum; Quint. inst. 6, 2, 12: ut am or 1taeO~, caritas Tjeo~ . In this sense, however, Tert. has caritas only three times (here and apol. 39, 14; virgo vel. 14, 2); in other cases he uses the neologism dilectio; after him this word is gradually superseded by caritas. See H. Petre, Caritas, Louvain 1948; H . Janssen, 202-3; Teeuwen, 32; d'Ales, 309; Mohrm., Aug., 74-6; Diercks, 281-2; cf. also Rambaux, 49, n.

103; Spanneut, 28, n. 1.

4. Alioquin: 'otherwise'; see TLL I: 1595, 75 seqq. For the pleonasm alioquin .. . si, cf. 5, 3 and 15,4. diaboli: as is quite understandable, Tert. uses diabolus only in those writings which are addressed to Christians; for the various names of the devil, see Lortz, 2, 39, n. 34, and, more generally,

Mohrm., Aug., 99 seqq. dei domini: Bohm, 74, prefers to read dei dominium (Iunius' conjecture) on account of the rhyme (ingenium ... dominium). However, there is no correspondence between the meanings of these two substantives; moreover the reading of A can easily be defended: dei domini should be supplied with ingenium. For dominus as an attribute of deus, cf. an. 20, 5 and Herm. 3, 1. Braun, 96, n. 4 rightly observes that Tert. prefers deus dominus to the biblical formula dominus deus. disciplina:

'precepts, rules of life' (cf. infra 5, 1; 8, 1; 13, 1). The various meanings of this term in Tert. 's works have frequently been investigated with rather various results, e.g. Teeuwen, 107; Thierry, note on fuga, 1,6 (p. 123); H.-I.

Marrou, 'Doctrine et discipline dans la langue des Peres de l'Eglise', ALMA 9 (1934), 5-25, who defines it as "I 'ensemble des regles et des rites qui constitue I'unite de I'Eglise et separe les fideles des heretiques et des paYens";

V. Morel, 'Le developpement de la 'disciplina' ... chez. Tert.', Rev. Hist.

Eccles. 35 (1939), 243-65; id., 'Disciplina. Le mot et I'idee representee par lui dans les oeuvres de Tertullien', ib. 40 (1944-5), 17 seqq.; O. Mauch, Der lateinische Begriff 'disciplina' (Freiburg 1941); W. Diirig, 'Disciplina', Sacris

Erudiri 4 (1952), 245-79; R. Braun, 423-5; J. Fontaine, note on cor. 2, 4 (p.

61). diaboli aItitudines: Vrsinus' conjecture latitudines, which was adopted by RigaItius and Reifferscheid, is evidently wrong. Tert. is here alluding to Apoc. 2, 24 'til ~aee.cx 'tou :Ecx'tcxv<x (Vulg.: altitudines satanae); cf. also 1 Cor.

2, 10: 'to YIlP 1tve.uf.tcx 1tav'tcx lpe.uv~, xcxt 'til ~ae1j 'tou ee.ou (Vulg.: profunda dei);

3. quam: = quanto, cf. e.g. spect. 19, 3: quam melius; Valent. 12, 5:

Quampropiusfuit. See Lbfst., Z. Spr. T., 36; Bohm, 73. ista: sc. crimina. ista = haec, see Hoppe, Synt., 104; Waszink, 83; Hofm., Synt., 476-7;

Hofm.-Szant., Synt., 184; Lbfst., Per., 123 seqq. and Apol. 23. extensius ... disponat: in the present sense ('spectat ad sensum ultra notionem strictam dilatum') this adverb does not seem to occur elsewhere, see TLL V, 2: 1980,

37. However, we do find extendere with the meaning 'to extend a thing, so that it also relates to something else', 'to extend the scope of a thing'.

Although this use of the verb occurs elsewhere (the first examples are Liv. 24, 48, 1; 45, 31, 13; VeIl. Pat. 2, 6, 2), it is especially frequent in juridical authors, cf. e.g. Scaevola Dig. 32, 41, 6: posse ad (suburbanam) .. . quoque

(possessionem) verborum signijicationem extendi; VIp. Dig. 32, 70, 3; see TLL V, 2: 1977, 39 and 75 seqq. So in this connection Tert. probably uses this adverb as a juridical term. Cf. also 8, 2 and 11, 3. For disponere = exponere, disserere, a very frequent meaning in Tert., see TLL V, 1: 1423,68 seqq. More instances of a similar construction of a verb with an adverb are treated by Lbfst., Z. Spr. Tert., 59-60. aduIterium ... impudice: Matth. 5,

28 is very often quoted or alluded to in patristic literature, see e.g. Geffcken,

Zw. gr. Apol., 231, n. 3; Rambaux, 216, n. 809 (enumeration of the quotations in Tert.). See also Aalders, 35, and cf. cult. fem. 2, 2, 4. oculum ... impegerit: cf. Marc. 4, 7, 2: qui semel oculum impegerit in, etc.; an. 6, 3: ab ilia (sc. anima) est ... impingi ... oculos in conspectum; this expression seems to occur only in Tert. (TLL VII, 1: 616, 83 seqq.). For the idea, cf. an. 38,

2,4-2,)

3, SURVEY, REMARKS

Iren. adv. haer. 2, 22, 3 Harv.: Admirabiles sophistae et altitudines investigantes incogniti Patris et supercaelestia sacramenta enarrantes; Amob.

(ib. 2221, 13); cf. Hofm., Synt., 744; Hofm.-Szant., Synt., 614; Hoppe, Synt., 79, and Beitr., 32-3.

1, 38: (Christus) qui ... deus monstravit quid sit, quis, quantus et qualis: qui profundas eius atque inenarrabiles altitudines, quantum nostra quivit

Ch. 3. The maker of any idol is an idolater mediocritas capere, et intellegere permisit et docuit. The meaning of this passage is made clear by passages like Amob. 5, 32: sub vulgari simplicitate sermonis latet ratio secreta et altitudo involuta mysterii. The word seems to be especially proper to gnostic usage, cf. the famous passage from Valent. 1,

4: Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio 'altum est' aiunt (sc. Valentiniani); Hippolyt. refut. omn. haeres. 5, 6, 4: i7tex&)..ecrexv ~ex1J,OU~

'Idols (imag.es) are not essential for idolatry: long ago there were no images and yet there was idolatry, and even nowadays idolatry exists without idols

(§ 1). They are, however, of great importance, because the making of idols has caused an enormous increase of idolatry and has in fact given its name to this bad practice. Hence every art that makes images of whatever sort has become a source (or a summit) of idolatry.

YVWcr'LXOU~ 't1&crxov,e~ !-lOVOL ,Oe ~&91j YLYvwcrXew; Iren. adv. haer. 2, 32, 6 Harv.: qui profunda Bythi adinvenisse se dicunt. For the concept of Bythos in the doctrine of Valentinus, cf. Valent. 7; an. 12, 1; see also Knopf's note on 1

Clem. 40, 1: iyxex1J't1o,e~ d~ ,Oe ~&91j ,ij~ 9dex~ yvwcrew~ (HdbNT, Erg. Bd., 1123). We also find this word denoting a human trait of character, e.g. Iudith

8, 14: ~&9o~ xexpS(ex~ eXv9pw7to1J; Eunap. Vito soph. 197: SLOe ,OU ~&901J~ ,ij~ xexpS(ex~.

In this connection we are also reminded of SaIl. lug. 95, 3: ad simulanda negotia altitudo ingenii incredibilis (said of Sulla); Tac. an. 3, 44, 4: tanto impensius in securitatem compositus (Tiberius), neque loco neque vultu mutato, sed ut solitum per illos dies egit, altitudine animi, an conpererat modica esse et vulgatis leviora; hist. 4, 86, 3 with Heraeus' note, who also refers to Cic. off. 1,88 and adAtt. 4, 6, 3 (~ex91),;1j~). See also H. Schlier, art.

It does not matter of what material the image has been made or what form it has (§ 2). Since even without an image idolatry can be perpetrated, the kind of matter and the sort of form is of no consequence (§ 3).

The term idolum shows that every forma or formula (not only a human form) may be an idol. Thus every service (worship) of whatever image is idolatry. Hence the maker of every image is guilty of the same crime, i.e. idolatry. Or do you think that the Jewish people did not commit idolatry, because they consecrated the image of a calf and not of a man? (§ 4).'

Remarks a. Structure. In this chapter Tertullian opens the attack on one of what he called the ramifications of idolatry, the making of idols. The argument consists of two parts, the first of which ends with the conclusion: every art that makes idols of whatever sort is caput idololatriae. The conclusion of the second part is: every artist who makes idols is guilty of idolatry.

'~&9o~', in Kittel, 1, 515-6; Bauer, Wdrterb. S.V. ~&9o~; Lohmeyer, note on Apoc. 2, 24 (HdbNT, 16, 27). in his ... iudicaremur: in accordance with his studium variationis, Tert. uses in instead of propter or de; one could translate: 'in the case of'. There is no reason to follow B6hm, 75, in supposing that iudicare is here equivalent to damnare, punire. b. Idolum and idololatria. Tertullian begins by stressing the fact that idolatry can exist without idols. This statement confirms what we deduced from the end of ch. 1. Idolatry essentially means 'demonolatry', 'the worship of the demons', i.e. the worship of the powers of evil.

5. nisi ... perspexerimus: the same argumentation occurs in pat. 5, 2-3:

Itaque si de aliquo bono sermo est, res postulat contrarium eius quoque boni recensere: quid enim sectandum sit, magis inluminabis, si, quid vitandum sit, proinde digesseris. Consideremus igitur de inpatientia, an sicut patientia in deo ita adversaria eius in adversario nostro (sc. diabolo) nata atque comperta sit. caput iniustitiae: this refers to 1, 4: in ilia (sc. idololatria) iniustitia.

Quid enim iniustius ea, quae iustitiae patrem nescit? For the structure of the argument, and for caput with the meaning 'summit', see Remark C. On iniustitia in Tert. cf. Rambaux, 272-3. prius est, ut: for the meaning of prius see Remark C. It is certainly not equivalent with primum, as is asserted

Nevertheless the idols are of great importance, i.e. they are a great evil (Tertullian speaks of monstrum, rude negotium humanae calamitatis), since they came to existence at the instigation of the devil (diabolus is either the leader of the powers of evil or the Inbegriff of those powers). Although the idols are not the real object of worship, they are the invention of that real object, viz., the demons; they are the instruments by which the demons draw the human

Worship away from God to themselves. by B6hm, 76. Prius est with ut (ne) or a subjunctive is very frequent in Tert. 's works, e.g. idol. 4, 1; Marc. 1, 17, 1; 1,22,2; 3, 24, 13; 4, 10,4; 4, 17, 1.

dum: with the meaning 'as, because' or (as in the present case) 'eo, quod' may be joined to either an indicative (TLL V, 1: 2208, 25) or a subjunctive

C. Caput idololatriae. Every art that makes idols is a caput idololatriae. With Van der Nat, Thelwall and Kellner one may translate this expression by 'a SOurce of idolatry'. The TLL interprets it also in this way (III 415). However, considering the important function of the idols in the domain of idolatry, one

3, REMARKS

j, REMARKS

IV')

various forms of this statement found in c.d. which are added by Cardauns ad loc.). By general consent this theory can be traced back to Posidonius (see wonders whether Tertullian does not want to say that every art that produces idols is a summit of idolatry (cf. caput iniustitiae in 2, 5). pohlenz, Gott. gel. Anz. 175 (1913), 640-2 and Die Stoa, 1,267; 2, 257-8; Borries, 52-63; Heinemann, Monatschr. f. Gesch. u. Wiss. desjud. Volkes 1919,

113 seqq.; S. Blankert, Seneca (epist. 90) over natuur en cultuur en Posidonius als zijn bron (thesis Utrecht, Amsterdam 1940), 148-231; W. Theiler, poseidonios. Die Fragmente (Berlin-New York 1982), 1, fro 368-369, with the commentary in 2, 275-83). d. The etymology. In order to show that 'idol' is not restricted to images of human beings (Ad hoc .. . ), Tertullian refers to the etymology of idolum. This etymology leads to the conclusion that every form (if used as an idol) must be called idol (idolum se dici exposcit).

Tertullian's way of arguing is somewhat peculiar. He first states that idolum (= dOWAOV) is the deminutive of doo~ and that, just as doo~ resulted in the Latin word forma, dOWAOV has caused formula. Then he draws the above mentioned conclusion. Here a minor has been omitted that could sound as follows: <Now the term formula, and also forma, does not say a thing about the kind of form> . posidonius' theory about the evolution of religion, reported more fully in Dio of Prusa's twelfth ('Olympic') oration (of which Theiler has accepted par. 60-61 as fro 369 of this author) can be summed up as follows: In the primeval age of mankind man lived in immediate contact with the deity; the universe was his temple and he had no need of images, because he possessed an ~f.LCP\)'to~ E1tLVOlex of the deity that influenced him from every side and especially revealed itself in the visible gods, viz., the sun, the moon, and the stars (Dio 12, 39). Afterwards this direct contact was lost and artificial means were needed to re-establish the broken relationship. Teachers tried to reimpart to man the knowledge of the deity, to give him an E1tLX't'Tj'tO~ E1tLVOlex; these teachers were poets, legislators, sculptors (Dio 12, 39 and 44-6), and finally philosophers who are the only teachers capable of gaining this end who can even give an insight that surpasses the E1tLX't'Tj'tO~ E1tLVOlex. The sculptors (with whom we are here solely concerned) made use of symbols: they could, of course, have represented the divine manifestations which are visible to men

(sun, moon, etc.) but those images would have lacked spirit and, therefore, would have missed their aim. For this reason they made use of the human body, which can indeed be regarded as a suitable symbol, because it is the receptacle (&yyeLov) of the human spirit, which is closely related to the divine spirit pervading the universe and giving and governing life (Dio 12, 58-9; cf.

Blankert, 157-168). Now, compared to the original situation, this development is a degeneration, as the human symbolization of the deity gives rise to delusions. This train of thought is also found in another fragment of Varro, preserved by Augustine, c. d. 7, 5 (XVI fro 6 Agahd, fro 225 Cardauns; see

Blankert, 190 seqq.). For further particulars see Reinhardt, Poseidonios (Munch en 1981), 408-13; id., 'Poseidonios tiber Ursprung und Entartung',

Orient und Antike 6 (Heidelberg 1928), 6-24; I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften 2 (Breslau 1928; 2nd ed. Hildesheim 1968), 124;

Pohlenz, Die Stoa 1, 234-6. e. The conclusion of the second part. Tertullian concludes: inde idololatria omnis circa idolum famulatus et servitus. Both Van der Nat and Thelwall translate this statement in such a manner that idolatry is its subject:

"Accordingly, idolatry is every attendance or servitude to every idol". This would mean that Tertullian gives a definition of idolatry, and Sider, in his above-mentioned book on rhetoric in Tertullian, speaks explicitly of a definition (p. 106). But a priori this is improbable, since an author who knows about definitions does not make a definition with omnis. This would be the same as defining homo as omne animal rationale. There is, however, a decisive argument against this interpretation in the context itself. At the beginning of this chapter Tertullian stated that idolatry can exist without idols.

How could he define now idolatry as "every service of every idol"? The context demands another interpretation, whereby idololatria is not subject but predicate: "Every service (worship) of every idol is idolatry". This is exactly the conclusion towards which the whole argument of ch. 3 tended. (Kellner has the correct translation.) And this leads to the further conclusion that the maker of every idol commits idolatry. f. Tertullian and Varro. As was already argued by Eduard Schwartz

(Fleckeisens lahrb. Suppl. 16 (1888), 429; cf. also B. de Borries, Quid veteres philosophi de idololatria senserint (thesis Gottingen 1918),63 seqq.), Tert. has borrowed the material for this outline of the history of Roman religion from the first book of Varro's Antiquitates rerum divinarum. From this work St.

Augustine has preserved the following fragment, c.d. 4,31 (fr. 59 Agahd, fro Also in the fragment of Varro from which our discussion started we find traces of this elaborate theory. There it is made to fit the case of the oldest phase of Roman culture: absence of images (sine simulacro co/uisse), a purer form of worship (castius observarentur) over a period of about 170 years (the same number of years is mentioned by Plutarch, Numa, 8, 14, who also

18 Cardauns; we quote the latter edition): antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. Quod si adhuc ... ma nsisset, cast ius dii observarentur (Cardauns spaces out the words which he regards as a literal quotation) ... qui primi simulacra deorum posuerunt, eos civitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem addidisse (cf. also the

IVV 3,1-:5,2 lUI

speaks about a period without temples; according to Borries, 64-7, Plutarch is drawing there upon Varro, whereas Pohlenz, GGA 175,946 supposes that, like Varro, Plutarch is drawing directly upon Posidonius; cf. on this question

Theiler 2, 283). By assuming a period of this length Varro alludes to the regal period up to the Tarquinii; in Plin. n.h. 35, 157, we find the following note about sculpture: Varro lradil (ib. 155) ... praelerea elaboralam hanc arlem

Italiae el maxime Elruriae; Vulcam Veis accilum, cui locaret Tarquinius Priscus Iovis effigiem in Capitolio dicandam; fictilem eum fuisse et ideo miniari solitum. Here Varro was thinking of the temple on the Capitol which according to the tradition had been vowed by Tarquinius Priscus and built by Tarquinius Superbus, cf. Cic. rep. 236 and 44; see Borries, 55-63. By the ancient imageless form of Roman religion Varro (or already Posidonius?) meant the institutions of Numa Pompilius; what he had to say about this theme we find more fully in Tert., apol. 25, 12, 3 (= fr. 37 Agahd): Nam, etsi a Numa Pompilio concepta est curiositas superstitiosa (from here

Cardauns, fr. 38), nondum tam en aut simulacris aut templis res divina apud Romanos constabat. Frugi religio et pauperes ritus et nulla Capitolia certantia ad caelum, sed temporaria de caespite altaria et vasa adhuc Samia et nidor exilis et deus ipse nusquam. Nondum enim tunc ingenia Graecorum atque dogmatis auctor ebul/iunt). In this sense it is also used transitively since Tert.

(Valent. 8, 1: alios ebulliunt fetus) and the Vetus Latina (I reg. 5, 6 (Lucifer

Athan. 1, 12): et ebullivit (sc. deus) illis mures in sedibus; Ps. 104, 30 (Cas.): ebul/ivit terra eorum ranas; Vulg.: edidit, but in Exod. 8, 3: et ebullietfluvius ranas). Moreover Tert., who has a clear preference for this graphic word, uses ebul/ire twice more in a special sense which afterwards occurs only a few times, viz., of an illness in Scap. 3, 4: cum ... convivis vermibus ebullisse

(Claudius Lucius Herminianus), and of passion in Marc. 1, 27, 5: quid non in omnem libidinem ebullis ... ? (imitated by Hieron., adv. Iovin. 1, 13: carnem lascivire et ebullire in libidinem; for ebullire vermibus or ebullire vermes numerous similar passages in TLL V, 2: 17,77-18,9). Obviously the use of the verb ebullire expresses Tert. 's deep contempt (cf. huius monstri).

in hodiernum: is found from Plin. n.h. 33, 30 onwards (TLL VI, 3: 2855, 30 seqq.). Tert. always writes in hodiernum (per)manere, see Waltz., Iit., 11920; further he mostly uses ad hodiernum, which does not occur before him

(TLL, ib. 22-7); however, in hodiernum is found in Marc. 3,7,8 = Iud. 14, 10; Prax. 22, 9; an. 34, 1 (see Waszink's note, p. 405). isto: = hoc, see the note on 2, 3. isto nomine ... in isto opere: as the usual expression is hoc nomine, and Tert. more often leaves out the preposition in the first of two corresponding parts of a sentence (e.g. exh. cast. 11, 1: in secundo matrimonio duae uxores eundem circumstant maritum, una spiritu, alia in carne; numerous instances in Thorn., 1, 5-9), there is no sufficient reason to adopt Mesnart's reading. For this variation of case and prepositional expression in Tacitus, in whose work it is very frequent, see Sorbom, 79-81 (with more literature).

Tuscorum fingendis simulacris urbem inundaverant. A quite similar, but shorter statement is made by Tert. in nat. 2, 17, 11-2 (mentioned by Cardauns as one of the loci similes of fr. 38, to which he also adds the shorter statements in apol. 21, 19 seq., praescr. haer. 40, 6 and the present passage).

1. retro: in Tert. for the first time fully equivalent to antea, see Oehler's note on spect. 9 (p. 34 a); Hoppe, Synt., 113; Waltz., Comm., 20; Svennung,

Pal/ad. 399-400. For the development of this meaning (the original sense is occasionally still perceptible, e.g. in Cic. rep. 1, 58: (reges) deinceps retro usque ad Romulum), see Waszink, 302. ebullissent: 'had sprung up like bubbles'. This is a vulgar word, which is very rare in literature before the 2. statuarum ... imaginum ... simulacrorum: these words are often used as synonyms, see TLL VII, 1: 405, 11 seqq. Statuae are statues, mostly made of metal (cf. Quint. inst. 2, 21, 10); the statues of gods are not often called statuae (e.g. Sen. quaest. nat. 2, 42, 1; Tert. nat. 1, 10, 27; Min. Fel. 27, 1).

Imago is a general word for images of persons (portraits, busts, waxmasks, seals); it is also used of representations of gods (e.g. Varro r.r. 1, 1, 4; Lucr.

2,609; Verg. Aen. 7, 179-180; Stat. Theb. 10, 105; Tert. nat. 1, 12, 15; Min.

Fel. 27, 1; see TLL, VII, 1: 406, 59 seqq.). Simulacrum also can mean both statue and (painted) portrait (the latter e.g. in Cic. inv. 2, 1); the general sense is clear from passages such as Cic. Arch. 30: statuas et imagines, non animorum simulacra, sed corporum; it is especially used of representations of gods (cf. idol. 8, 2). saeculo intulit: cf. ux. 1, 7, 2: qui nos mundo infert.

Especially with compound verbs with prefix inTert. uses a dat., which springs from poetic language. See Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 9-10, and Synt., 27; for this construction in general, cf. Landgraf, ALL 8, 69 seqq.; LOfst., Synt.,

1, 189-93. rude iIIud negotium calamitatis humanae: the adjective rudis Vetus Latina and Tert. For the meaning, cf. Non. Marc. p. 38, 192: ebullire est ecfervescere; a bullis dictum. Literally this meaning occurs for the first time in Tert. Herm. 41, 1: ol/ae undique ebullientis, before him only metaphorically and mostly transitively, cf. Cic. fin. 5, 80 and Tusc. 3,42 (= iactare); animam ebullire Sen. apocol. 4 and Petron. 42, 2; 62, 19 (intrans. ebullire with the same meaning Pers. 2, 10). From this use the meaning 'subito aut magna muItitudine prorumpere' (TLL V, 1: 17, 31-2) developed, which o.ccurs for the first time in Apul. met. 2, 30: dum risus ebullit; of living beings

SInce the Vetus Latina (Ezek. 47, 9 (Weing.): anima animalium quae ebulliunt ... vivet) and Tert. (the present instance and scorp. 1, 5: tunc Gnostici erumpunt, tunc Valentiniani proserpunt, tunc omnes martyriorum refragatores ebulliunt; similarly Hieron. in Gal. 1, 1: Manichaeus et Marcion novelli

3,2 3,2-3,4

points to the primitive situation of imageless idolatry, elsewhere (11, 6) called informis idololatria. Humanae calamitatis can be understood as a genitivus possessivus or a genitivus qualitatis. In the one case the humana ca/amitas is the cause of the practice, in the other it could be the result. Thelwall chooses the first interpretation ('that former rude business of human desaster'); we prefer the second: 'that rude activity, so pernicious to man'. negotium: cf. praescr. 40, 7: (diabolus) qui ... ipsas res, de quibus sacramenta Christi about sculptors, the figulo found in AB can be understood to be a mistake in writing; if, however, filo is to be regarded as a later normalization, it is impossible to explain the evidently erroneousfigulo. For filum in this connection, cf. e.g. Ovid met. 6, 68-9: illic et lentum fitis inmittitur aurum; ib. 577

(quoted above); Apul. met. 4, 8 (80, 10 Halm): vestes ... intextae fitis aureis.

3. quam ... quam: it is not necessary to adopt the reading of Mesnart and Gelenius (qua de ... qua de) since quam ... quam is used still seven times in Tert.'s works: idol. 4, 4. 10,3. 18,6; nat. 1, 10,48.2,9,8; orat. 22, 3; Marc.

5, 1,8. See Oehler's note on idol. 4 (p. 71 d); Hoppe, Synt., 77 and Beitr., 125. ne: '< which I say, > lest someone should think ... '; see Waszink, l3940. qui: for the use of qui instead of quis after si and ne see LOfst., Synt.,

2,79-96; Waszink's note on an. 25, 8 (331-2). humana effigie: cf. Tac. hist.

2, 3: simulacrum deae non effigie humana. administrantur, tam aemulanter adfectavit exprimere in negotiis idolo/atriae; pud. 17, 1: (epistulae Pauli) omnes in luxuriae et lasciviae et libidinis negotia iaculantur. For negotium used in malam partem, see already Cic. Tusc. 1, 86.

et inde iam: introduces a conclusion, as twice in this very chapter (§ 4) and further in an. 45, 3; apo/. 19,2. So there is no good reason to prefer Mesnart's reading exinde iam, the more so, as in Tert. exinde mostly has temporal meaning (= deinde): see LOfst., Krit. Apol., 94; Thierry, 175-6. 184; Hofm.,

Synt., 492. Neque enim: explains both omnis (ars) and quoquo modo; neque enim and non enim are used promiscuously, see Kiihn.-Stegm. 2, 43, n. 7 and LOfst., Synt., 1,340. plastes: according to Schollgen, 90, this term denotes either the artist who makes the plaster cast for a statue in bronze or-less probably-the sculptor. In this connection he quotes Bliimner,

4. Ad hoc ... interpretatio: in order to support his argument, Tert. frequently discusses the exact meaning of a word, e.g. in nat. 2,4, 1-8 he considers the etymology of 9E6~ (see Lortz, 1, 167-8); in orat. 22, 3 he explores the difference in meaning between mulier ('Y1JV~) and femina (9TjAELc(), and the use of mulier to indicate the sex, see Diercks, 217-8. Cf. also praescr. 20, 4: apostoli quos haec appel/atio missos interpretatur -; Marc. 4, 14, 1: beati mendici (Luc. 6, 20) sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli, quod in Graeco est -; nat. 1,3,8-10 = apol. 3,5; spect. 5,3; Herm. 19-20; res. 18,4-19, 1;

Technologie 2-3, n. 4. caelator: Schollgen, 90, regards here, too, various meanings as possible. Tert. may mean the chasing or engraving of the image of a god on a metal ground ("auf metallenem Grund") but also-less probably-the art of the sculpture in a wider sense. Here he quotes Bliimner, op. cit., 284-5; von Petrovits, Spezialisierung, 88. The word also occurs in idol. 8, 2. The two substantives are also mentioned together by Porphyrio, comm. in Hor. sat. 1, 3, 90: Euandrum hunc caelatorem ac plasten statuarum.

phrygio detexat: phrygio, 'embroiderer', is derived from <l>pu'Yw~ (ErnoutMeillet s. v.). The Phrygians were supposed to have first practised this art, cf.

Plin. n.h. 8, 195-6; in this art they were highly skilled, see Bliimner, Privataltert., 253-4, and Technologie, 1, 209; Schollgen, 90-1. The verb detexere (for the meaning, cf. Vip. dig. 34, 2, 22: quod in tela est, nondum pertextum vel detextum, contextum appel/atur; Servo ad Verg. eel. 2, 72) is virgo vel. 4-7. sonat: = signijicat, sapit; cf. nat. 1, 3, 7: ego arbitror nul/am esse vocabulo aut homini querel/am, nisi cum quid aut barbarum sonat aut infaustum sapit vel impudicum ... ; apol. 3,5: quae accusatio vocabulorum, nisi si aut barbarum sonat aliqua vox nominis aut infaustum aut maledicum aut impudicum?; Herm. 32, 3. Thus already Cic. off. 3, 83: honestate igitur dirigenda utilitas est, et quidem sic, ut haec duo verbo inter se discrepare, re unum sonare videantur. See Waltzing, Comm., 38; some instances of a different nature in Hoppe, Synt., 15. ab eo ... fecit: the conjectures of Reifferscheid and others are completely unnecessary. Cf. the discussion of this sentence by Waszink (Mnem. ser. III, 3 (1936),171-2), which for the sake of clearness may be quoted here in full: 'secundum Reiff. ... Tertullianus sic loquitur: Cut ex voce doo~ vocabulum dOWAOV deducitur, ita apud nos forma formulam fecit.' Puto verba hoc modo interpretanda esse: 'Latine exstat used by Tert., because he thinks of the picture as a separate entity; more exact would be insuere or intexere, cf. cult. fem. 1, 1, 3: age nunc, si ab initio rerum

... Phryges insuerent; Ovid met. 6, 577: purpureasque notas filis intexuit albis. de materia refert: for the combinations refert de and interest de (the latter from Yarro r.r. 2, 7, 6 onwards, see TLL Y, 1, 72, 72), which are frequent in Tert., see Hartel, 4, 17; Waszink, 84. filo: in the series of materials gypso and coloribus correspond with plastes, and lapide, aere and argento with caelator; so a material must have been mentioned here to correspond with phrygio. This can only be filo which is found in the margin of Mesnart's edition (Bmg). As the present sentence contains all kinds of data vocabulum forma quod voci Graecae ELOO~ respondet; deminutivum dOWAOV, a vocabulo ELOO~ deductum, nos coegit etiam tale deminutivum effingere ut vocem istam Latine reddere possemus: en originem vocabuli formula.'

Isidorus etym. 8, 11, l3-4 also gives the text, as it has been handed down in the Agob., with, as a sole divergence, facit instead of fecit. The etymology here given by Tert. occurs nowhere else; see H. Funke, art. 'Gotterbild', RAC

3,4-4, SURVEY

4, SURVEY, REMARKS

to the demons he perpetrates idolatry (§ 2). Because the makers of idols make this possible, all these sins of idolatry must be imputed to them.

XI, 666; cf. also Buchsel, art. 'd'OWAOV', Kittel 2, 373-5. Isidorus continues with the refutation of an apparently current, fantastic derivation: quidam ... inperite dicunt idolum ex dolo sumpsisse nomen, quod diabolus creaturae cultum divini nominis invexil; the same derivation is given by Filastrius, 109,

7 (72, 5-7 Marx), Fulgentius Milol. 1, 1, 15 and Cassiod. in ps. 96, 7. For that matter it is also incorrect to call d'OWAOV a diminutive of doo~, since it is an independent word derived from the root yeid-; cf. Schwyzer 1, 483.

Possibly-if he has not invented this etymology pour Ie besoin de la causeTert. has been brought to this view by the circumstance that Latin forms diminutives in -Ius/lum and -la, e.g. servolus,filiolus, lineola. omnis forma vel formula: forma is indeed used to indicate images, both by heathens and Christians, cf. Cic. orat. 9: cum faceret (sc. Phidias) fovis formam aut Minervae; leg. 2, 45; Ovid Pont. 2, 8, 62: colitur pro love forma fovis (see TLL

VI, 1: 1082, 16 seqq.). On the other hand, the use of formula with this sense is extremely rare, cf. e.g. Filastr. 21, 2 (9, 27-30 M.): in eo (sc. lapide) incisiones et impressiones ... scalpentes fudaei et formulas diversas tollentes ... baiulabant in collo; see TLL, ib., 1114, 15 seqq. circa: = erga, from Cels.

Dig. 37, 6, 6, 6: officium avi circa neptem onwards; see TLL III: 1091, 55; Hofm., Synt., 515. populus: = Israel; cf. 5,4; 19,2; an. 9,8; 15,4; bapt.

9, 1; cor. 9, 3; res. 31, 1. Many instances have been collected by Kroymann, Q.c., 104; see also H. Janssen, 57-8. Already in the LXX and the NT we find

At several places Holy Scripture condems the idol makers together with the worshippers of idols (§§ 3-4). The idol maker is even a more serious idolater, since, as was argued in the beginning of the chapter, God's condemnation of the maker of idols precedes that of their worshipper (§ 5). '

Remarks a. The structure of the argument. In the previous chapter Tertullian gave the rational fundament of his thesis that the maker of idols is an idolater. The present chapter presents the testimony of Scripture for this thesis. The first sentence contains the thesis: 'God forbids the making of idols as much as He forbids their worship'. Now the worship of idols is, of course, idolatry. Thus making them is so as well.

Tertullian's argument consists of two parts:

1) Scripture forbids the making of idols.

2) Scripture puts those who worship idols and those who make them on the same level.

But before giving his argument Tertullian sharpens his thesis by stating that the making of idols is even a greater evil than their worship, because the making of an idol is prior to, and therefore more fundamental than its worship.

A1X6~ in the sense of 'Israel', see Strathmann, art. 'AIX6~' in Kittel 4, 34-7 and 51-3. LOfstedt (Synt. 2, 464 seqq.) explains the name gentes, used to denote heathens, from the fact that in profane language this word had an unfavourable meaning (,foreign peoples, barbarians, provincials') and was used in contrast with populus (Roman us); this shade of meaning is already present in Cic. de orat. 2, 76: qui (sc. Hannibal) ... cum populo Romano omnium gentium victore certasset; explicitly in SaIl. ep. ad Caes. 2, 5, 5: populus, qui ... cunctis gentibus imperitabat and Florus 1, 44, 3: victor gentium populus. Of course this shade of meaning also explains why we do

Van der Nat (p. 62) rightly distinguishes two parts in this chapter; but the way he links up the first part with chapter 3 is misleading. The third chapter is not an "introduction to the attack on the makers of idols" (p. 53), but an independent argument. It is a rational argument which is followed now by an argument based on authority, viz., the testimony of Scripture. The words deus prohibet could be the title of this chapter. (Tertullian often gives the argument from Scripture after the rational argument. Clear instances are an. 7 after 6, and an. 26 after 25.) find populus used to indicate the Jewish people.

Van der Nat makes a subdistinction in the first part of ch. 4 between 'the making of idols' and 'the manufacture of any likeness', referring to the two parts of the quotation from Exod. 20, 4 and Deut. 5, 18. In his view Tertullian's argument with regard to the second category is "by no means correct" (p. 63). He states: "notably the sentence eorum (= omnium) imagines idola, imaginum consecratio idololatria serves a mere rhetorical purpose, for if there can only be question of idololatria by means of imaginum consecratio

(see for this notion comm. on 15, 5), then it follows that the imagines are by themselves neither idols nor sinful. Therefore, the first part of the sentence

(eorum imagines idola) is either incorrect (viz., if idola has the meaning of Ch. 4. The testimony of Scripture 'God forbids the making of idols as much as He forbids their worship. In so far as the making of an idol precedes the worship of it, in so far the prohibition to make an idol is even more fundamental than the prohibition to worship them.

The text of Exod. 20, 4 (cf Deut. 5, 8) shows that God forbids the making of every idol (§ 1). And Enoch had already earlier stated that the demons had brought to worship every thing. Thus human error worships everything except

God. Of all these things man makes images, and by consecrating these images 'idols', which is certainly Tert.'s intention) or a tautology (viz., if idola is

4, J - 4 ,"::

J 1.(, 't, Kr.MAKlI..:S

equivalent to formae, in accordance with the definition given in 3, 4). In both cases the sentence furnishes no argument in favour of Tert. 's point of view.

Of course Tert. deliberately identifies imagines with idola, in order to enable himself to designate all images as idols". some others). However, in the passages quoted there is usually some indication about the name which is going to be mentioned: for instance, in an. 28, 2 the name of Pythagoras is preceded by Sam ius sophista, whereas here it is impossible to understand at once that the subject of antecesserat is Enoch.

Here one should observe that Tertullian does translate ELOWAOII in Exod. 20, 4 by idola, but that for him idolum has a much larger sense. It includes all kinds of images which are devoted to the demons by consecratio. In his view those images are, indeed, by themselves of no importance. The consecratio makes them sinful (see 1. C. M. van Winden, 'Idolum and idololatria in Tertullian', Vig. Chr. 36 (1982), 108-14). This means that to Tertullian the distinction between the 'idols' and the 'other likenesses' in Exodus is not important. They are both covered by the term idola, as Tertullian understands it. His argument is as follows: as appears from the lex divina (Ex. and Deut.) and Enoch, man makes images of every thing; these images are consecrated to the demons and it is by this consecratio that they become an instrument of idolatry. Tertullian expresses this in a very condensed form: Eorum imagines idola, imaginum consecratio idololatria.

1. materiam idololatriae: 'the material occasion, the means'; cf. e.g. cult. fem. 1, 5, 1: aurum et argentum, principes materiae cultus saecularis; exh. cast. 2, 5: neque enim diabolus voluntatem ei (sc. Adam) imposuit delinquendi, sed materiam voluntati subministravit. See TLL VIII: 464, 14 seqq.;

Thierry, 129-30. ne ... mari: the LXX reads: ou 1tot~cm~ o-e.exu't~ ELOWAOII ouo~

1texll'tO~ 0f.l0LWf.lex, DO-ex Ell 't~ OUpexll~ lillw xexi DO-ex Ell 'tTI iTI X!X'tW xexi DO-ex Ell 'tor~ UOCXO"tli

U1tox!X'tw 'tij~ iij~. A more literal translation of the second part is given in scorp.

2, 2: Non facies tibi simulacrum eorum quae in caelo et quae in terra deorsum et quae in mari infra terram. eiusmodi artibus interdixit servis dei: according to Claesson's index the verb interdicere is found 29 times in Tert. 's works; however, the quotation 'Ux. II 8, 4' is wrong, and in idol. 5,4 we should not read interdixit but indixit. In the remaining 27 instances we find the ablative of the object (as in aqua et igni interdicere) three times, viz., in the present passage, in apol. 24, 6: interdicere optione divinitatis and cor. 7, 1: rationes

... quae nostro privatim capiti coronamentis, et quidem omnibus, interdicunt.

As a transitive verb interdicere is found 21 times, e.g. paen. 3, 13: voluntatis interdicendo delicta; spect. 16, 1: Cum ergo furor interdicitur nobis; of these instances 14 contain a part. perf. pass., e.g. Marc. 2,25,2: de interdictafruge sumens. Finally we find interdicere de in three cases, e.g. idol. 11, 4: quod mihi de stupro interdictum sit (further mono 15, 1 and apol. 45, 3). b. Enim hoc - Enoch. In § 4, 4 Van der Nat reads Antecesserat enim hoc praedicens, trying to save the reading of A: .nim hoc. He thinks that enim refers to the distinction between Idola and the other similitudines in the Exodus text. This distinction, however, is in our view unimportant to Tertullian, as was argued just now. But enim could also refer to every image, including the idola in the proper sense. Van der Nat's translation could, then, be maintained: "For had not he gone before who prophesied .. . ".

But there is another, very serious, difficulty against this interpretation. The pronoun hoc is intolerable here, since the verb praedicare now gets a double

2. Antecesserat Enoch: for the reading Enoch see Remark. According to Tert., the book of Enoch precedes the decalogue, as it was written before the Flood, cf. cult. fem. 1, 3 (for this reason the lex divina mentioned in the preceding sentence can not be the subject of antecesserat). In reality this book was composed during the first two centuries B.C., see Charles, The Apocrypha, 2, 163-4. 170-1, and The Book of En., X-Xl. LII-LVI; see now also Black, 3. In cult. fem. 1, 3 Tert. emphatically defends the canonicity of this book, which in apol. 22, 3 he assigns to the litterae sanctae, and of which in idol. 15, 5 he says that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit (spiritus sanctus

. .. praececinit per antiquissimum propheten Enoch); here the book of Enoch is put on one level with Isaiah and the psalms of David. For the value set on this book during the first centuries A.D., see Windisch's notes on Iudas 14-5

(HdbNT, 15, 45) and Barn. 4, 3 and 16, 5 (ib., Erg. B., 318-9 and 390); Charles, The Apocrypha, 2, 165, and The Book of En., XIII-XIV; Tert.'s use of this book is thoroughly discussed by 1. Dani<!lou, Origines, 140-9; cf. also

1. T. Milik, The books of Enoch (Oxford 1976), 78-80. Tert. here follows object, viz., the pronoun hoc and the acc. c. inf. See the translation: "who prophesied this, that .. . ". (One should bear in mind that an acc. c. inf. is not a subordinate clause!) Because a pronoun hoc is unacceptable and enim at least unnecessary (it is even somewhat strange that the precept of Exodus is explained by words of Enoch), we prefer to follow the conjecture of Pamelius, followed by RigaItius, who reads Enoch instead of enim hoc. The corruption is easy to explain if one recalls that enim in manuscripts was often abbreviated en and the old form of the name Enoch was Enoc (see ad 4, 2 Enoch).

Moreover, the verb antecesserat, which announces an older authority, demands a subject. Now Van der Nat states that in various places Tertullian is first silent about the name of his authority and then mentions it afterwards with the addition of idem. It is true that such cases occur rather frequently in Tert.'s works (many instances are given by Thornell, 2, 3. 10-12; cf. also

Waszink, 365. 516 and Vig. Chr. 6 (1952), 189, to which Van der Nat adds

11 '+ 4, '<'

4,'<'

II J

Enoch 19,1; cf. below (p. 115) the note on daemonas et spiritus desertorum angelorum. Cf. also Rambaux, 22, n. 82. omnia elementa: here, as usually in apologetic literature, the word elementa does not only indicate the four primal substances, but is used in the wider sense frequently found in later authors, also indicating the heavenly bodies and elementary powers (sun, moon, planets, earth, sea, winds), cf. e.g. virgo vel. 4, 5; nat. 2, 3, 4; 2, 3,

7; 2, 5,2 (cf. also Waltz., Et., 228). For the history and semantic development of this word, see Diels, Elementum (Leipzig 1899), especially 41 seqq.; O.

Lagercrantz, Elementum (Uppsala 1911); Dibelius, Geister welt , 227-30, and his note on Col. 2, 20 (HdbNT, 12,27-8); Cumont, Rei. or., 189-90 with the notes (especially n. 18, p. 298); Lortz, 1, 166, n. 160; H. Koller, 'Stoicheion',

Glotta 34 (1955), 161-74; W. Burkert, 'I;'tOLXdov, Eine semasiologische Studie', Philologus 103 (1959) 167-97; W. Vollgraff, 'Elementum', Mnem., ser. IV, 2 (1949),89-115; A. Lumpe, art. 'Elementum', RAC 4, 1073-1100; id., 'Der Begriff "Element" im Altertum', Arch. f Begriffsgeschichte 7

(1962), 285-93; A. Adam, 'Die sprachliche Herkunft des Wortes elementum', Nov. Test. 6 (1962), 229-32. Elementum as a translation of (J'tOLXdov was first introduced into Latin by Lucretius, see Diels, op. cit., 5-12 (especially 9) and 68-70. Worship of the elements, though sometimes regarded as the least objectionable error (see Wendland, Kultur, 392; Lortz, I, 166), has been combated from old. Short warnings already in Deut. 4, 19; Ier. 10, 2 seqq.; it is elaborately discussed in Sap. 13, 1-9; Philo vita con tempI. 3; decal. 53 and 66 (see the collected passages in Wendland, Die Therapeuten, 706-7); in the NT Gal. 4,3. 9; Col. 2, 8 (here the angels governing the elements are especially thought of: everything in the world has its angel, see Lietzmann's note on Gal.

4, 3 (HdbNT 10, 24-5); Dibelius on Col. 2, 8 (ib., 12, 19-21 and 28-30), and Geister welt , 78-88; Diels, Elem. 50-7; Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 50, n. 1;

Schtirer, ZNTW 6 (1905), 21, n. 2). In Christian apologetics one finds an uninterrupted tradition, cf. Arist. apol. 3-6 (see Geffcken's comm., 49-59);

Athenag. legat. 16 and 22 (Geffcken's comm., 191-3 and 207-8); Tat. orat. 4

(5, 6-9 Schw.) and 21 (24,4-10): Theophil. ad Autol. 1,4 and 2, 15; Tert. nat.

2, 3, 6; Lact. d.i. 2, 5, 1 seqq. The arguments are mainly derived from the polemics of the Sceptics against the Stoa (i.a. transience and mutability); see the discussion by Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., XIX-XX. 51-2. 207. omnem mundi censum: here census has the meaning of apparatus, as e.g. in Prax. 3,

5: totum censum monarchiae (see Evans, 200-1), a meaning derived from that of opes, divitiae, e.g. Cic. Flacc. 52: homini egenti, sine censu (TLL III: 809,

28 seqq.). Before Tert. this metaphorical use only occurs in a few passages in Manilius, i.a. 2, 69 and 4, 877 (in both cases there is a divergent reading sensum (-us) , just as in the passage under discussion); see TLL III: 810, 48 seqq. Here, census cannot have the meaning 'class, group, number' , which in that case the word is accompanied by a noun in the genitive or by an adjective denoting the members of the group, cf. an. 8, 1: corporalium ... censu; nat. 2, 1, 10: deorum censum; virgo vel. 4, 5: omnis census elementorum; Marc. 2, 10, 5 and pud. 4, 1: delictorum ... censum; Valent. 32, 1: census animalis (also ib. 29, 3); carn. Chr. 8, 4: de peccatorio censu. Only an.

31, 5: de tanto Graeciae censu shows a resemblance to the present passage but it is stilI essentially different, since there census should be supplied with the genitive animarum. For Prax. 8, 1 where, according to Waszink, census also has this meaning, see also Evans, 240. Census as a synonym of origo is found almost 50 times in Tert., and further only once in Arnobius and Filastrius and twice in Rufinus (who, like Jerome, was well acquainted with Tert. 's works); see TLL III: 808, 70-809, 27. daemonas et spiritus desertorum angelorum: these words have in some way to do with that explanation of Gen. 6, 2 in which the u[O( 'tOU 9e.ou in the LXX were interpreted as the 'angels of God' (the Codex Alexandrinus even reads OinEAOL 'tou 9e.ou). Those (fallen) angels had intercourse with mortal women and got children by them, who were giants.

Sometimes those giants are said to be demons, sometimes it is said that they have been destroyed but that their spirits remained on the earth, and that those

'spirits' are the demons. It stands to reason that these 'spirits of the giants' are in fact the 'spirits of the deserted angels' (cf. R. Bauckham, 'The Fall of the Angels as the Source of Philosophy in Hermias and Clement of Alexandria', Vig. Chr. 39 (1985), 313-30). And herewith we come to one possibility of explaining TertuIIian's words under discussion here: the spiritus desertorum angelorum are the daemones. In other words, et is explicative:

'the demons, i.e. the spirits of the deserting angels' . According to Van der Nat, desertorum angelorum is a genetivus inhaerentiae: 'the spirits, who are the fallen angels'. In combination with the interpretation of et as explicative one comes to an equalization of daemones = spiritus = desert ores angeli.

Most time, however, fallen angels and demons are distinguished, as in Tert., apol. 22, 3 where the demons are a gens more corrupted than the fallen angels: sed quomodo de angelis quibusdam sua sponte corruptis corruptior gens daemonum evaserit, damnata a deo cum generis auctoribus et, quem diximus, principe, apud litteras sanctas ordo cognoscitur. Tert. obviously refers to the Book of Enoch, which he considers as canonical. For the history of this remarkable interpretation of Gen. 6, 2, see Waszink's note on an. 2, 3 (p.

105). Desertorum is an attribute to angelorum. Tert. often uses nouns, especially those in -tor and -trix, as adjectives; cf. e.g. cult. fem. 1, 2, 2: desertores spiritus; apol. 35, 12: angelis desertoribus; cult. fem. 2, 10, 2: angeli peccatores; an. 2,3: apostatarum spirituum. See Hoppe, Synt., 94-5; Hofm.,

Synt., 458-9. Angelus (OinEAO~; see for this conception Dibelius, Geister welt ,

209-21; G. Kittel, art. 'OinEAO~', etc. in Kittel, 1, 72-86) had its specific meaning already in Greek, at the time when it was adopted in Latin; it occurs occurs for the first time in Tert. (see TLL ib.: 808, 70-80; Waszink, 155), as

I IV

times; three times in idol.: 1, 1; 14, 4; 24, 4). In 10, 2 Gelenius' conjecture idololatra is, of course, also wrong. in artificem ... deputetur: for Tert.'s use of deputare in general, see the note on 1, 5. Deputare connected with in followed by an accusative also occurs for the first time in Tert. 's works. The usual meaning of this expression is 'to reckon with, to attribute to': Herm.

32, 2: eum spiritum conditum osten dens (sc. Amos 4, 13) qui in terras conditas deputabatur ('showing that that spirit was created which was reckoned to belong to the <equally> created earth', Waszink's translation, 69); Marc. 4,

34, 12: nationum in Abrahae censum deputandarum; an. 13, 1: ut ... id ... , cui massa substantiae praeerit, in officium naturale substantiae deputetur;

Marc. 5, 19, 11; pud. 14, 27. Rather frequently deputare in is connected with words denoting the death-penalty or other forms of punishment, e.g. Tert. cult. fem. 1, 2, 1: et illi ... damnati in poenam mortis deputantur (Sulp. Sev. epist. app. 2, 3: in mortem; AIcim. Avit. hom. 16, 2: in interitum); Lex already in the old North-African versions of the Bible, see Mohrm., Aug., 7980, and Tert. Apol., LXXXVIII. For more particulars on Tert's demonology, see 1, 5. adversus deum: in TerL's works this prepositional expression always means contra Deum, 'against God', cf. 7, 1; spect. 2, 9; praescr. 40,

9. praedicens ... consecrarentur: according to Charles (The Apocrypha, 2, 182, and The Book of Enoch, 42), TerL here follows Enoch 19, I: K(Xt d1tEV

(J.OL OUpL~A· lv9aoE 01 (J.LyEV'tE~ ,xYYEAOL 't(Xr~ yUV(xL~tV cr't~crOV't(xL, x(Xt 't<X 1tVEU(J.(X't(X (xu'twv 1tOAU(J.OPCP(X YEVO(J.EV(x AU(J.(XLVE't(xL 'tou~ Otv9pw1tou~ x(Xt 1tA(Xv~crEL (xu'tou~ lm9uELV

'tor~ O(xL(J.OVLOL~ (J.EXPL 't1j~ (J.qaATj<; xpLcrEW<;. In Charles' translation this passage reads as follows: 'and Uriel said to me: here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons

< as gods, Eth. >, here shall they stand, till < the day of, Eth. > the great judgment in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of'. (In his new edition Black refers also to this Tertullianean passage (p. 161).) It is true that this is the only passage of the book of Enoch which shows a resemblance to TerL 's words. However, the similarity is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that TerL had this passage exclusively in mind; for instance, the elements, which he mentions first, are not found in this passage of Enoch; however,

Enoch does discuss the worship of the elements in 80, 2-8. Therefore we do best to assume that TerL is here expressing in his own words a combination of ideas which he had found in the book of Enoch. That the formulation is entirely his own is also evident from the structure of the sentence, which bears the stamp of Tert. 's style, especially the climax built up by the successive parts of the sentence: omnia elementa omnem mundi censum; quae caelo, quae mari, quae terra continentur, and the opposition pro deo adversus deum.

Omnia ... conditorem: cf. apol. 24, 10: sed apud vos (sc. Romanos) quodvis colere ius est praeter deum verum; Marc. 5, 19, 6: (Deus) cuius admiseramus offensam colentes conditionem (i.e., the creation) adversus creatorem; spect. 2, 9. It is a commonplace in apologetics against the worship of elements, cf. e.g. Arist. apol. 3, 2; Athenag. legat. 15-6; Lact. d.i. 2, 5,

5.2,6, I. Cf. also Sap. 13; Rom. 1,25: x(Xt lAa'tpeucr(Xv Tti X'tLcrEL 1t(xp<x 'tov X'tLcr(XV't(X (see Lietzmann's note, HdbNT 8, 33, and Kaseman's note, ib. 8a, 43-4. The same theme is found in Philo, see Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 50. 189-93;

Visigoth. 6, 4, 8: in carcerem; Mirac. Thec/ae 7: in exilium. Denique: as the English 'after all' denique introduces a sentence which contains a decisive confirmation of what precedes. praedamnat: 'pre-damnations' are all norms or judgements which precede (and determine) the proper damnation.

Cf. e.g. apol. 3, 2: cum sit iustius occulta de manifestis praeiudicare quam manifesta de occultis praedamnare. Praedamnare is a rather rare verb, which is found for the first time in Livy (4,41, 11 and 27, 18, 8). Cf. especially Suet.

Aug. 52,6: ne ... destituere ac praedamnare amicum existimaretur. This verb is found no less than fifteen times in TerL 's works; it also occurs in idol. 17, 3.

3. et rursus: Tert. is quoting Enoch 99, 6-7; Gelenius, Oehler and Reifferscheid make the quotation begin at the word iuro. It is true that Tert. often introduces a second quotation from a book with et rursus (e.g. poen. 4, 2; scorp. 2, 3; 12,3; 13,4; res. 23,2; 24, 2; 47, 4; pud. 2, 5; an. 11,3); for this and similar formulae, see Borleffs, Mnem., N.S. 60 (1933), 85, n. 4 and 86, n. 1. In this case, however, the words et rursus belong to the text of Enoch, as is evident from Charles' translation of the Ethiopic version (from the Greek version of Enoch only fragments have been preserved, for which cf. the edition of Flemming-Radermacher (GCS), 13-5): 'and again I swear to you, ye sinners, that sin is prepared for a day of unceasing bloodshed. And they who worship impure spirits and demons and all kinds of idols not according to knowledge, shall get no manner of help from them'. Black's translation begins with 'Again', leaving out 'and'. quod: the first certain instance of quod with a SUbjunctive instead of an acc. c. info is found in the Bel/um

Hispan. 36, 1: legati renuntiaverunt, quod Pompeium in potestate haberent.

Next it occurs in Petronius, Tacitus (very rarely), Plinius minor and Suetonius; see Hofm., Synt., 721; Hofm.-Szant., Synt., 576-7; G. Mayen, De particulis quod quia quoniam (thesis Kiel 1889), 47, states that in quotations

~e~,dland, Die Therapeuten, 706 seqq. omnium conditorem: 'tOil X'tLcr'tTjIl 't~1I OAWII, cf. e.g. paen. 1, 2. The translation of X'tLcr't1)<; in its specifically Christian sense by conditor was greatly facilitated by the circumstance that in philosophical Latin literature, too, this substantive was already used with the meaning 'creator', cf. e.g. Manil. 2, 701: conditor mundi; Sen. provid. 5, 8: omnium conditor; see TLL IV: 146,83 seqq.; Teeuwen, 129; Mohrm., Aug.,

173. idololatria: Mesnart's and Gelenius' reading idololatra cannot be correct, since everywhere else Tert. has the nominative idololatres (in total five

4,3-4,5 ll~

't,,)

in nat. 1, 10, 14; 2, 9, 7. 23; an. 49, 2. nullum ... auxilium: likewise e.g.

Sap. 13, 16 seqq.; Arist. apol. 3, 2 and 13, 2; Cypr. Dem. 14; Lact. d.i. 5, 20, 4; Euseb. praepar. evang. 6, 2, 2. The powerlessness of idols is often demonstrated by pointing out that they are not even able to protect themselves against enemies, robbers or animals, cf. e.g. Tert. apol. 12,7; 25, 14 seqq.;

29,2; Min. Fe!. 24, 9; Cypr. Dem. 14; Amob. 6, 16; Lact. d.i. 2,4, 1-6; Clem.

Alex. protr. 4, 52; ep. ad Diogn. 2, 7; Justin, apol. 1, 9, 5; on the pagan side:

Batrachom. 181 seqq.; Lucian. Iup. con! 8; Gallus 24. See Geffcken, Zw. gr.

Apol., XX-XXI. 51, and Bilderstreit, 290-1; Borries, 95-7; Lortz, 1, 144-5; E.

H. Blakeney, The Epistle to Diognetus (London 1943), 36-7. from the Vetus Latina Tert. has 44 instances of the acc. c. inf., 48 of quod,

13 of quia, 3 of quoniam, and in other passages 2500 instances of the acc. c. inf., 56 of quod, 11 of quia and 7 of quoniam. For further material see

Hoppe, Synt., 75-6 (quod with a subj. is much more frequent than quod with an ind.); B6hm, 86-7, who rightly underlines the importance in this context of the Greek text of the NT. in diem sanguinis perditionis: in his commentary Charles explains the divergence from the Ethiopic text as follows (The Book of En., 245): 'it will be observed here that Tert. 's in diem sanguinis perditionis = d~ ~fJ.epClv CltfJ.Cl'tO~ (btWAe[Cl~ = le-jom dam le-id, where le-id is corrupt for Ie-ad = &o~ClAeL1nOU as in our text.' Sanguinis is a genitive of quality without an attribute, here of course under the influence of Hebrew

(see LOfst., Synt., 1,281), cf. bapt. 8,3: animal simplicitatis et innocentiae; ib. 28, 5 res sanguinis; an. 1, 2: philosophus, gloriae animal, with Waszink's note (p. 87). iniustitia: for the justification of this reading we refer to Van der Nat, Vig. Chr. 17 (1963), 71-4. Qui servitis lapidibus: on the one hand

Enoch speaks of 'serving (worshipping) stones', on the other hand of 'serving phantoms, demons and evil spirits'. For Tert. 's view on the relationship between images and demons, see our Remarks at ch. 1. imagines ... fictiles: elaborate enumerations of the materials of which the idols consist are a commonplace in Jewish and Christian apologetics, cf. e.g. Ps. 113, 12; 134, 15;

Dan. 5, 23; Sap. 13, 10; Jub. 11,4; Acts 17,29; carm. Sibyll. 5,80 seqq.; Apoc. 9, 20-1 (see Lohmeyer's note, HdbNT 16, 80); 2 Clem. 1, 6 (see

Knopf's note, ib., Erg. Bd., 154-5); Theophi!. ad Autol. 1, 1; ep. ad Diogn.

2, 2-3; Min. Fe!. 24, 7-8; Clem. Alex. pratr. 4, 56; Amob. 6, 14-6, cf. also 2,39; Prud. cathem. 12, 198-9, likewise Athenag. legato 15 (in 17, however, he uses the philosophical term UATj, see Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 196; cf.

Theophi!. ad Autol. 1, 10). phantasmatibus: this word, which is frequent in Tert. (e.g. apol. 22, 12; 23, 1; an. 17, 14; 57, 6. 9; Marc. 1,27, 1; 5, 14,

3; res. 2, 5), does not seem to occur before Plinius minor, see R6nsch, It., 244.

in fanis: Oehler's emendation of the traditional infamis is undoubtedly correct, as it is supported by the group of younger Ethiopic MSS. (siglum ~ in Charles), which instead of 'not according to knowledge' (= non secundum scientiam) read 'in idols' temples'. So Tert. 's text may derive from a MS. in which both expressions occurred, of which the two groups of Ethiopic MSS. have only one each. This does not seem impossible, because, as we already observed, the text of Tert. contains more divergences from the Ethiopic text, viz., (apart from iniustitia) sanguinis perditionis; lapideas (Charles: 'and stone, inserted from Tert. '); phantasmatibus: no parallel in the Ethiopic version; daemoniis et spiritibus: in inverse order in the Ethiopic; erraribus.

Charles, moreover, remarks (with reference to 'impure spirits', based on ~, whereas the other group (Cl) has 'evil'): 'corruption is native to the Ethiopic'; see also Black's commentary, p. 305. The word fanum is also used by Tert.

4. testes ... proderunt: Tert. is quoting the text of the LXX of Is. 44, 8-9: fJ.cXp'tupe~ UfJ.eL~ ecr'te ... Ii oux wrt>eATjcre~ ClU'tOU~. absque: = praeter, as always in Tert.'s quotations from Holy Scripture, cf. Marc. 2,26, 1; Prax. 18, 5; carn. Chr. 24, 7. In the sense of sine, occurring from Plautus onwards but not frequent until the second century A.D., the word is rare in Tert. (e.g. an. 43,

7; Marc. 3, 10,5; 5, 14,5. See TLL I: 185,78 seqq.; Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 44-5; Waszink, 465). quam ... quam: cf. the note on 3,3. cognoscite ... possit:

Is. 44, 20: rvw'te o't~ cr1tOOO~ ~ XClpO(Cl ClU'tWV, XClL 1tAClVWV'tCl~, XClL ouod~ OUVCl'tCl~ e~eAecr9Cl~ 't~v ~uX~v Clu'toii ... . Pamelius emended terra into errant on the strength of the Greek text. However, as Tert. more often quotes inaccurately

(see e.g. Diercks, 72. 74. 108. 133; Thierry, 148-9; cf. Aalders, 115-7 and the long list of errors in an. in the index of Waszink's edition, 632), no alteration is necessary. The mistake may be caused by passages like Sap. 15, 10: cr1tOOO~

~ XClpO(Cl Clu'toii, XClL yTj~ eU'teAecr'tepCl ~ eA1tL~ Clu'toii, 1tTjAoii 'te &'t~fJ.6'tepo~ (; ~(o~ Clu'toii.

Ubi ... facto res: Hartel, 1, 40, rightly supplies detestatur from the foregoing sentence. Ubi refers to the Bible, where the previous quotations are found. (Thelwall: 'In which sentence .. .', Kellner: 'Fast ebenso'. Both renderings are incorrect.) For Tert.'s use of factor, see Braun, 335-6: he uses the word twelve times, and almost exclusively in philosophic treatises: Herm.,

Marc. and an.). tales ... ea: here again Tert. is following the LXX (Ps. 113, 16 = Masor. Ps. 115, 8; Ps. 134, 18 = Masor. Ps. 135, 18), OfJ.Oto~ ClU'tOt~ revow'to at 1totoiiV'te~ ClU'tcX XClL 1tcXV'te~ ot 1te1tOL96'te~ e1t' ClU'tOL~. A different reading is found in scorp. 2, 14: similes erunt illis, qui ea faciunt et qui fidunt in illis; cor. 10, 4: Quod si tales edicit futuros, qui idola fabricantur ... The same text is quoted by Theophi!. ad Autolyc. 1, 10.

5. quid ... ultra quid ... quid: only the first quid is interrogative (= cur?); the third is indefinite, just as the second, and so should also be joined on to ultra. modicae memoriae homo: a formula of modesty, as occurs more often in Tert., cf. 5, 4: dignioribus; bapt. 10, 1: Diximus quantum mediocritati nostrae licuit de universis quae baptismi religionem instruunt;

lLU 4,)

Petron. 58, 13; 96, 7 (vulgar); after him it is found in the Vetus Latina and in Tert. The personal passive occurs from then onwards (cf. idol. 9, 6; 16, 2;

22,1). See TLL VIII: 164,24 seqq., LOfst., Per., 217-9; Saionius, Vito Patr., 143 seqq.; Hoppe, Serm. Tert., 10. paen. 6, 1: mediocritas nostra; nat. 27, 1; orat. 20, 1 and 22, 10, on which see Diercks, LXI, who rightly disputes Noeldechen's and Adam's assertions that these formulae indicate an early date of the composition of orat.

(according to Braun, 'Chron. Tert.', 279 such formulae do not occur any more in the Montanistic period). However, these utterances should be explained in the first place from the context (it is no accident that they are fairly numerous in paen.); thus in the present passage the formula only serves to cut off further discussion and to strengthen the authority of the pronouncements of the prophets. vox spiritus sancti: this term returns in 6, I. Roberts (p. 19) quite wrongly explains: 'the voice of the Spirit is sufficient without the support of the written word' (the same view is put forward by Noeldechen, Abj., 16. 36, who regards these words as 'phrygische

Ch. 5. The excuses of the makers of idols.

'But I will certainly answer the excuses (arguments) afforded by the makers of idols who strive for continuing the exercise of their art after conversion and therefore should never be admitted into the Church.

First they say "We have nothing else to live from ". Our answer is, that they have no right to live, if they do not live according to the laws of God (§ 1 a).

Then they refer to the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 7, 20 saying that everybody should remain in the condition in which he was before his conversion, and to texts like 2 Thess. 3, 7-12, where the Christians are incited to Ans~itze', and by Adam, Chrono/., 418). By vox spiritus sancti Tert. means the biblical passages he has quoted; cf. Bender, 117. That the Holy Spirit is active in the prophets is stated by Tert. in e.g. apol. 18, 2. From the other apologists cf. e.g. Athenag. legat. 10 (l27, 34-5 G); Justin apol. 1,36, 1: the revelations do not come from the inspired persons themselves but cX7tO 'toG work with their hands. If these precepts are interpreted in such a manner, they lead to the absurd conclusions that the Christians could remain in sin and were allowed to be thieves and robbers (§ § 1 b-2). xwoG\I'to~ cxu'tou~ 9dou AOYOU; Theophi!. ad Autol. 2, 30: 'tcxG'tCX oe 7tCX\I'tcx ~f.la~

Finally they refer to the example of Moses who made the image of a serpent (Num. 21, 8-9). However, this is a fact of completely different order, for this serpent was the figura of a secret dispensation, i.e. the prefiguration of the Lord's cross, not a repeal of the given Law. Otherwise we make God changeable, since at different times He would forbid and command the same thing.

OLOeXcrXe.L 'to 7tIIe.Gf.lCX 'to OLeX Mwcriw~ xcxt 'tW\I AOL7tW\I 7tporpTj'tW\I; cf. 2, 33; Just. apol.

1, 32, 2; for the qualification of Moses as a prophet, already occurring in LXX Deut. 34, 10 and Philo, e.g. vita Mos. 2, 292 (cf. Leisegang's Index, p.

692-3), see Waszink, 355-6, on an. 28, 1; J. Jeremias, art. 'Mwucr1i~', Kittel, 4,

869, 8 seqq. and 857, 17 seqq. See Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 176-80; cf. also Lortz, 1, 251. David can be put on a level with the prophets Jeremiah and Enoch, as the whole of the Old Testament is regarded as aprophetica paratura

(an. 2,3); see Waszink, 105, and Lietzmann's note (HdbNT, 8, 130) on Rom.

But even if one shuts one's eyes to the interpretation of this image of a serpent as a prefiguration of the Lord's cross or if one adheres to a different interpretation, thus sticking to the apostle's assertion that everything that happened to Israel had a symbolic meaning, it stands firm that it is the same

God who, on the one hand, forbade the making of an image and, on the other hand, commanded by a special precept the making of the image of a serpent.

So if you worship the same God (as Moses), follow Moses' example also in observing the precept of not making images, unless He expressly command you to do so (§§ 3-4). '

16, 26: ypcxrpcxt 7tpOrpTj'tLXCXL, which already has this meaning; cf. also from Tert. scorp. 2, 14. By Justin David is called a prophet more than once, cf. e.g. apol.

1,35,6: 6 ... dCXULO 6 ~cxcrLAe.U~ xcxt 7tporp1j'tTj~; 1,40, 1 and 5; likewise by Lactantius (e.g. d.i. 4,8, 13; 4, 12, 17; 4, 18, 31) and Augustine (de magistro 2,4; civ. dei 10, 25; 17, 11 and 18). deliberandum: here the meaning of deliberare approaches that of dubitare (Non. Marc. p. 282, 8 M.: deliberare est dubitare), especially because of the addition of ultra; a much more advanced stage of the development in this direction is found in an. 17, 13: non licet, non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos devocare, ne et in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur; Min. Fe!. 35, 4: eos ... merito torqueri, qui deum nesciunt,

... nisi profanus nemo deliberat; see Waszink, 252. an: often used instead of num in indirect questions, also by Tert., see Hofm., Synt., 696; Waszink,

221. The use of an is here the more natural, as ultra deliberandum sit approaches the meaning of dubitandum sit, and an introducing an indirect question after dubitare is classical, see e.g. Hofm., Synt., 696. maledixerit: the active use of maledicere followed by an accus. occurs for the first time in Remarks a. Non habeo quo vivam. 'I have nothing to live by'. Playing on the verb habeo Tert. answers 'So you have to live?' The English admits the same wordplay. And he continues 'What have you to do with God, if you live according to your laws?' Here some connecting thought has been omitted: 'Life can only be asked from God'. b. "Ut quisque inventus est". If one takes this statement of St. Paul in an absolute sense, we can remain in our sins, Tert. argues. Here the deductio ad

) , REMARKS

1 "'.)

absurdum could end; but Tert. stresses his point by adding: 'and everybody is a sinner (peccator inventus est refers to ut quisque inventus est in the quotation), because Christ descended for no other reason than to set free ( = to set free from sin = salvum facere, crci>~m) the sinners'. The presupposition is, of course, that Christ descended for everybody.

These two arguments should be considered somewhat more closely.

(1) Seorsum figurae quae ... Tert. intends to say that here one has to do with one of the figurae (tU7tOt) which 'were prepared beforehand (praestruebantur) for a mysterious ordinance', viz., that of the redemption. Therefore these figurae should be put in a separate category, in other words they do not fall under the normal rules. Thus the figura of the bronze serpent should not be considered as an abrogation of the law not to make images, but as a prefigurac. manibus suis unusquisque operetur. Tert. 's argument is clear. If one applies these words to everything done with the hands, it leads to absurd conclusions. The wording of the argument, however, is remarkable: si hoc praeceptum ab omnibus manibus defenditur. If one understands ab as the tion of something else, viz., the cross of the Lord, which is in fact the reason of its existence. This is a remarkable way of thinking: the events of the OT are prefigurations of those of the NT, that is to say that the latter events are the reason of the existence of the earlier ones. Thus the events of the OT are the model (exemplarium = figura) of their later realization, which is the reason of their existence (exemplarium causae suae).

(2) Si quis autem dissimulat. Here Tert. considers the case that his opponent does not admit the 'figurative' interpretation given just now. Even then, he argues, his thesis stands firm, since it is the same God who gave both orders.

But the words sive quae alia figurae istius expositio dignioribus revelata est, dummodo apostolus affirmet omnia tunc figurate populo accidisse cause a problem. The difficulty lies in sive: is it on a level with si (quis dissimulat) or not? In the second case, which is defended by Van der Nat, sive quae alia should be joined to illam effigiem ... figuram designasse dominicae crucis.

The whole sentence can be summarized, then, as follows: "If somebody closes his eyes for this 'figurative' exegesis or for any other higher explanation". In itself this is not impossible, but how to explain then the dummodo-clause, which obviously means "provided that one saves the apostle's statement that everything that happened to the Jewish people has a deeper sense" . Who refuses to give a 'figurative' sense cannot at the same time save the apostle's statement. equivalent of de, it means: "If this precept is adduced as a defence with regard to all hands" (cf. trans!. Thelwall). It is, however, also possible to take ab in its normal sense and interpret these words as a strong personification: "If this precept is adduced as a defence by all hands" . One could paraphrase Tert. 's words as follows: 'If one takes the words of St. Paul in an absolute sense every hand (even that of a robber etc.) may use it in defence of its evii practice'. d. Si hoc. Again Tert. uses the deductio ad absurdum. His wording is sarcastic. Credo et fures: as if he says: 'If I am not mistaken, people like thieves, robbers, etc., also earn their livehood by the work of their hands'.

The same sarcastic tone is in utique non pedibus, sed manibus, and in non manibus solis, sed totis membris. With regard to the actors Tert. 's argument could be elaborated as follows: 'If the idol-maker is right in saying that everyone who earns his livelihood by the work of his hands is praised by St.

Paul, the actor would be so afortiori, because he uses not only his hands but all his limbs' . A really TertulIianean mockery! e. Pateat igitur ... tolerantur is the conclusion drawn by Tertullian from the supposition si hoc praeceptum .. . defenditur, that is to say, if one accepts this defence. The words si nulla exceptio ... recipit reiterate this supposition in other words: 'if no art is expected (so that the argument of the idol-makers is. ri~ht): let then the Church be open to everyone who, in whatever way, earns hIS lIvelIhood by the work of his hands'.

In our view sive is on a level with si quis. Tertullian first refers to those who do not accept the bronze serpent as a prefiguration of the cross, and then directs his attention to those who give a different exegesis; obviously he thinks of an exegesis of a higher sort (dignioribus revelata est). And he adds: dummodo ... accidisse. Obviously Tert. wants to say that it does not matter which higher exegesis is chosen, "provided that one sticks to the apostle's statement". Curiously Van der Nat's translation can very well be understood in this sense: "However, if somebody disregards the fact that that image of the bronze serpent in the position of a hanged man provided a symbol of the Lord's cross which was to deliver us from the serpents, that is from the angels of the devil, as by itself it hung the devil who is the serpent, after he had been slain, or if some different explanation of that symbol may have been revealed to worthier men, < which is immaterial>, provided that we stick to the assurance of the apostle ... " (p. 17). f. The example of Moses. Finally the opponents appeal to the case of Moses who made the image of a bronze serpent in the desert. Why would Christian~ not be allowed to do what Moses did? The structure of Tert. 's answer is as fOllows: first he states that the serpent made by Moses was one of the prefigurations of the things to come and therefore should be considered as belon~ing to a separate category: seorsum (sc. ponantur) figurae. But, he adds, If one does not accept this interpretation, it stands firm that it is the same God, who on the one hand by His law forbade the making of an image and on the other hand by an extraordinary command ordered the image of the serpent.

5,1 12.) lL4 ) , I

could not say that they should not be admitted to the church. Thus the subject must be the person who admits him: si quis is equivalent to ab eo, qui. earn disciplinam: sc., divinam, which should be supplied from the preceding dei

(cf. dei disciplinam in 5, 3). On disciplina, see the note on 2, 4. destrictius: this, and not districtius is the correct form, see Krebs-Schmalz, Antibarbarus, s.v. The adverb destricte is found several times in Ulpianus (e.g. dig. 3,3, 13: destricte deneganda) but further it is relatively rare (TLL V, 1: 722, 7 seqq.).

Tert. probably knew it as a juridical term. It is also found in Marc. 1, 3, 1 and pud. 19, 22 (with negare). The comparative also occurs in Apul. apol. 79

(87, 17 H .), likewise with an augmentative meaning. vivere ... vivis?: for parallels of this sentence, see Fredouille, 322. habes: in Tert. habere with an infinitive means either 'must', 'have to' (cf. e.g. cult. fem. 1, 1, 2: filius dei mori habuit) or 'can' or it denotes a future sense (often equivalent to fJ.lAAm), cf. the instances in Hoppe, Synt., 43-4. This subject was thoroughly discussed by Ph. Thielmann, ALL 2,64 seqq. and 157 seqq. vivis: left out by Mesnart and Gelenius (under the influence of the erroneous interpretation of habes?). However, the word is indispensable to the meaning; besides, it is guaranteed by the c1ausula (1 0). quod ... interpretatione: this sentence is rather laboured, because Tert. is arguing two things at the same time. The most natural interpretation of the clause quod ... argumentari is that quod is a conjunction ('as regards the fact that'), and that argumentari is used absolutely. Especially the words et de scripturis are in favour of this interpretation, because they fit badly into the sentence, if quod is regarded as a relative pronoun; cf. also the analogous passage virgo vel. 4, 1: Quatenus autem et de scripturis adversus veritatem argumentari consuetudo est, .... So here Tert. takes his stand against the fact that these people use the Bible for their defence. Yet it is not only the fact that they abuse Holy Scripture which he combats but also (and particularly) their special interpretation of 1 Cor.

7, 20, as is evident from the concluding main sentence (igitur ... ex ista interpretatione); this interpretation is their argument. This is expressed by the g. figuram dominicae crucis. The serpent hung like a hanged man upon a cross (suspensi in modum). This refers to the cross of the Lord. Of course not in the sense that the serpent prefigured the Lord on the cross, but the serpent represents the devil, whose death is caused by the cross of the Lord. Therewith it liberates us from the 'angels of the devil', i.e. from the powers of evil. It should be noticed that the liberation of evil, i.e. the redemption, is ascribed not to the Lord on the cross but to the cross of the Lord. This way of speaking should be seen in connection with the veneration of the Cross. See G. Q.

Reiners, The Terminology of the Holy Cross in early Christian Literature as based upon Old Testament Typology (Graecitas Christiana Primaeva, 2),

Nijmegen 1965.

1. Plane: at the beginning of a sentence is often equivalent to sane ('certainly, to be sure'); cf. Waszink, 98. It is an adverb appropriate to the assertive style of Tert. Here it stresses the contrast with the end of ch. 4, where he said that he would not enlarge upon the texts from Scripture. We do not discover irony here, although plane not seldom has this tone in Tert. See

Waszink, 138, with literature; Bohm, 90. impensius respondebo: 'I will enlarge upon answering'. Cf. Sen. benef 2, 24, 4 loquendum est pro magnitudine impensius. domum dei: 'the Christian community' , as e.g. in ux. 2, 8, 3. For this notion, see Dibelius' notes on Eph. 2, 20-2 (HdbNT, 12,

53-4) and 1 Tim. 3, 15 (ib., 13, 38); Windisch's notes on 1 Petr. 2, 5 (ib., 15,

59-60) and Barn. 4, 11 (ib., Erg. Bd. , 325); cf. also Ignat. ad Ephes. 9, 1, and Koch, BUderfrage, 95, and Ztschr. f Kirchengeschichte 45 (N.F. 8), 1927,

524. oportet ... vivam: Kellner follows Mesnart in putting a full stop after oportet and vivam, and a comma after norit; he translates: 'wenn einmal einer diese Kunste versteht, alsdann pflegt die bekannte Redensart vorgeschutzt zu werden: ich habe nichts anderes zu leben'. However, this interpretation presents insuperable drawbacks. To begin with, the point is not whether the person in question understands these arts (even if this could be the meaning of eam disciplinam norit) but whether he does follow this occupation. Moreover, the change of subject (quis in the clause, vox in the main sentence) is surprising, and the word-order ilia obici solita vox shows that solita is a participle used attributively, and not a finite verb. Further, this interpretation disturbs the parallelism of iam ... tum ... item. On the other hand, the interpunction of the Agob. yields correct sentences. si quis '" norit: who is the subject of norit? Van der Nat thinks of the artists, who are indicated by quos.

For the variation of plural and singular (quos ... si quis) he refers to 9, 7: hoc et astrologi retulissent, ... si qui in apostolos incidisset. However, the words si quis ... norit must point here to a knowledge which is accompanied by a Christian practice: "if somebody knows this discipline and lives accordingly" .

Now, the artists under discussion are not supposed to do so, otherwise Tert. words dixisse apostolum, etc., which should be joined to argumentari. So we have to assume a sort of contamination: argumentari is used in two ways, as it were, both absolutely and joined to an accus. c. info An approximately similar case is found in an. 57, 11, where the sentence dominus in argumento iflo ... sanxit is joined to two accus. C. info (see Waszink's note, 585-6). As usually in Tert., argumentari has an unfavourable meaning; this is clearly demonstrated e.g. by spect. 4, 1: Ne quis argumentari nos putet and Herm.

3, 4: argumentari tibi videor, Hermogenes? The same applies to the words argumentum and argumentatio, see TLL II: 541, 6 seqq. and 542, 22 seqq.;

Oehler's note on spect. 4 (p. 24 a); LOfst., Amob., 65; Waszink, 109; Buchner, 57; Evans, 290. possumus ... interpretatione: an analogous line of argument is found in pud. 19, 10; Dictum est: 'Sanguis Filii eius emundat

5,2-5,3

5,1-5,2

and 23); cf. also apol. 15, 1-3; 38, 4; cor. 6, 3; Marc. 1,27, 5; pud. 7, 15.

Further, see A. Boulanger's excellent commented edition of De spectaculis, passim, especially 15-20. For further details, see Bigelmair, 258-83 and 311-3;

Geffcken, Zw. gr. Apol., 234-5. For the infamia of actors with the heathens, see Friedlander, 2, 137 seqq. nos ab omni delicto' (1 John, 1,7). Semper ergo et omnifariam delinquemus, si semper et ab omni delicto emundat nos ille; aut si non semper, non etiam post fidem, et si non ab < omni > delicto, non etiam a fornicatione. Tert.'s own conviction is expressed in paen. 6, 17: non ideo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus, quoniam iam corde loti sumus. ex: in later

Latin ex is the usual form, e mainly occurring in standing formulae. In Tert. 's works, too, e is quite rare; its use is practically confined to the expression e contrario (on the other hand, an. 8, 1: ex contrario; see the lists in LOfst.,

Krit. Apol., 51, n. 1). In idol. ex occurs thirteen times (seven times before a vowel, six times before a consonant), e not once. See LOfst., Per. 89-91, and Krit. Apol., 50-1; Hofm., Synt., 528.

3. tolerantur: it is not clear why Reifferscheid changed this passive form into an active one; tolerare with the meaning 'to maintain, to nourish' is rare, but it is occasionally found, e.g. Plin. n.h. 33, 136: quem (sc. Ptolemaeum)

Varro tradit Pompeio res agente ... octona milia equitum sua pecunia toleravisse; Caes. bell. civ. 3, 49, 2; Tac. ann. 2, 24, 4 (used of the nourishing of horses; see Draeger's note); dig. 50, 16, 203. Here it is best to give a reflexive interpretation to the passive form (= se tolerant). in eremo: ev 'ttj

2. praecepisse ... victum: this is not a quotation, as is suggested by Reifferscheid, for Tert. reproduces the contents of a few passages in which St.

Paul exhorts the Christians to follow his example, and to work for their daily bread. Tert.'s words correspond most closely to 2 Thess. 3, 7-12 and 1 Cor.

4, 12. 16; in 1 Thess. 4, 10-1 and Eph. 4, 28. St. Paul does spur on to work but he does not set up himself as an example. For the proverbial character of this exhortation, see Dibelius' note on 1 Thess. 4,11-2, HdbNT, 11,22-3. ad victum: the use of ad with the accusative of a noun instead of a final clause or an accus. followed by a gerund or a gerundive (e.g. apol. 18, 5: ad fidem divinitatis instead of ad fidem divinitatis creandam) to denote the purpose of an action is not uncommon (numerous instances may be found in TLL I: 529,

15 seqq.; cf. also Sbrbom, 111-2, and Wahlen, 51). Tert. has a remarkably strong partiality for this and other short nominal expressions formed with the help of a preposition, cf. e.g. from the Apologeticum: 22, 11 remedia ... ad miraculum nova; 23, 17; 37, 3. See Hoppe, Synt., 140-2; cf. also comm. on 9, 7 post evangelium. Si ... ab omnibus manibus defenditur: defendere has the meaning of ad defensionem adferre (since Rhet. Her. 4, 19, see TLL V, epij!J.~; eremus occurs since the Vetus Latina and Tert. (TLL V, 2: 747, 64 seqq.). As Christian authors are practically the only ones to use this word, it may be regarded as an 'indirect Christianism' (see for this term Mohrm.,

Aug., 211-3). It is especially used of the desert that was traversed by the Jews, and the desert as a dwelling-place of anchorites. For the way in which Tert. translates fpTj!J.o,; in quotations from Holy Scripture, see Aalders, 90. figurae: figura with the meaning 'symbol, emblem' (= exemplum, typus) is a Christianism, first occurring in Tert., see TLL VI, 1: 734, 81 seqq.; Thierry,

205-6. dispositioni: Christian authors often use this word with the meaning 'divine dispensation, divine ordinance'. It is already used in this sense by pagan authors, e.g. Apu!. met. 9, 1: nec consilio ... divinae prudentiae fatalis dispositio subverti ... potest; the Hermetic treatise Asc/epius, 6: caelesti dispositione(cf. Tert. apol. 21,10). See TLL V, 1: 1434,21 seqq.; Evans, 193.

204; cf. on this term the monograph by S. Otto, Nature and Dispositio. Untersuchungen zum Naturbegriff und zur Denkform Tertullians (Mi.inchener theo!. Stud., 2. Folge XIX), Mi.inchen 1960. arcanae: the use of arcanus in connection with a Christian concept is less frequent in Tert. 's works than that in connection with heretics, especially Gnostics, and heathens. It refers to Christian subjects in nat. 1, 7, 19: in arcanis congregationibus detinemur;

Marc. 2, 19, 1: ut nihil de arcanis adtingam significantiis legis, spiritalis et propheticae; ib. 4, 35, 7; praescr. 22, 3 (referring to !J.U(j'tijp\1X in Luke 8, 10);

1: 298, 75 seqq.; as a law term since Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 28, cf. TLL ib., 304, 20 seqq.; cf. Marc. 5, 9, l3: hunc psalmum ... ad meam sententiam defendi; bapt. 17, 5. For ab see Remark c. fures ... balneatores: for the interpretation of this expression, cf. Van der Nat, Vig. Chr. 17 (1963),74-6. operari

... litteras: as a transitive verb operari does not seem to occur until Tert.; see the passages collected by Waszink, 258; to these may be added cor. 7, 8; cam.

Chr. 14, 2. histriones: here in the sense of pantomimi (cf. totis membris).

During the empire histrio, originally 'actor', is used particularly to denote the pantomimist, since the latter's performances were by far the most popular and pushed into the background all other kinds of dramatic art. See Friedlander,

2, 135-6; TLL VI, 3: 2844, 43 seqq.; 81 seqq.; Heinze, 364, n. 2. Tert. strongly condemns the theatre and everything connected with it: his treatise De spectaculis is devoted to this subject in its entirety (cf. especially chapters 10, 17 ux. 2, 5, 3; the fire of the gehenna is called an ignis arcanus subterraneus in apol. 47, 12 (likewise ib., 48, 14). For arcanus referring to the doctrines of the heretics, especially the Valentinians, cf. e.g. scorp. 10, 1: arcana illa haereticorum sacramenta; Valent. 6, 1; 8, 4; cam. Chr. 19, 1; an. 18, 4: veritatem illam arcanam et superiorem et apud pleroma constitutam; ib., 50,

2. As a substantive arcanum is, with one exception: praescr. 22, 3, always used by Tert. in connection with the !J.UO"'tijp\1X of the heretics, e.g. bapt. 2, 2: idolorum sollemnia vel arcana; res. 19, 6: arcana haeretica. Cf. also von

5,3

Soden, ZNTW 12 (1911),218. ad erogationem legis: Tert.'s preference for nominal expressions to verbal ones (cf. 5, 2 ad victum) is also evident from his frequent use of a verbal substantive instead of a gerundive, cf. e.g. mart.

4, 9: ad consecutionem gloriae caelestis; orat. 4, 5: ad demonstrationem sufferentiae; ib., 11, 1: ad remissionem debitorum; ib., 9, 2: in postulatione doliis condi. In the earlier period only isolated instances occur, mostly in scriptores rustici, e.g. Varro r.r. 2, 1, 4; Colum. 5, 8,4. Besides, we find only one instance, viz., Petron. 75, 11: tamen ad delicias ipsimi annos XIV fui (cf. on this passage G. Siiss, De eo quem dicunt in esse Trimalchionis cenae sermone vulgari (Dorpat 1926), 36; Nelson, 173; Hofm., Synt., 497). From a much later period Bourciez, 255, mentions some more instances, e.g.

Goncil. Suess. (A.D. 744) 9: nullus sacra tam feminam ad mulierem habeat; Leg. Alam. 2, 1: et illos ad testes advocasset. For a similar use of 'in identitatis' see Waszink's notes on an. 19,6 and 33,3, and Mnem., ser. IV,

2 (1950), 237-8; particularly clear examples are Sen. epist. 86, 4: turres ... in propugnaculum villae ... subrectas and an. 19, 6: cuius (sc. hominis) anima tutelae; 13,2: in domini deditione; fuga 1,2: de obitu eius (sc. persecutionis)

= de ea obeunda. Cf. Thierry, Ill; Blokhuis, 88-9; Stephan, 102; Schmidt, De Latin. Tert., 1, 19. erogationem: the use of erogatio with the meaning of abrogatio is confined to the present passage (TLL V, 2: 799, 12); cf. Paul. ex Festo p. 82: exrogare est ex lege vetere aliquid eximere per novam legem.

This meaning is related to the use of erogare in the sense of delere, which is found for the first time in Val. Max. 9, 3, 8, and which is frequent in Tert., e.g. apol. 48, 14 (likewise Min. Fel. 35, 3); an. 30,5; 51, 3 (TLL V, 2: 803,

36 seqq.). The meaning 'to kill', which first occurs in Tert. (e.g. apol. 44, 1), has developed from this use. See Hartel, 2, 63, n. 3; Oehler's note on scorp.

6 (p. 512 k); Waszink, 377. legis: = legis divinae, i.e. the decalogue, especially (Exod. 20, 4): ne feceris similitudinem. ad exemplarium causae suae: '< to serve> as an example of < the later occurrence which is> their cause'. In the case of the bronze serpent the causa is the dominica crux (5, 4).

Ad is used for the sake of parallelism with ad erogationem legis. However, the parallelism is not complete, since erogatio expresses a verbal notion, and exemplarium does not (therefore, Thierry, 127-8, is wrong in putting these expressions on one level). The function of ad exemplarium is the same as that of a predicative nominative; the same construction is found in 11,2: viderint, si eaedem merces ... etiam hominibus ad pigmenta medicinalia, nobis quoque insuper ad solacia sepulturae usui sunt. Cf. fuga 6, 1: ut eam (sc. pronuntiationem domini) ad velamentum timiditatis suae utantur; ib. 2, 1: sequi ... diaboli iniquitatem ad instrumentum persecution is; apol. 36, 2; nat. 1, 16, 19.

Since figura is identical with exemplarium, just as iniquitas with instrumentum and merces with pigmenta, solacia, we may speak here of 'ad identitatis'

(cf. Hofm., Synt., 537 on in identitatis = velut). As the origin and development of this use of ad has, as far as our knowledge goes, not yet been investigated satisfactorily, a somewhat longer note may be indicated. Of course the use of ad identitatis originates from the final sense of ad, which is found in passages such as Plaut. Epid. 615: quin tu mihi adornas ad fugam viaticum; Plin. n.h. 15, 123: folia (myrti) ... siccantur in farinam ad ulcerum remedia. The determining factor is that in the present case the purpose is the same thing as the object or subject of the action. An illustrative case is Vitr.

2, 9, 4: cum eae (sc. arbores) ad materiam deiciuntur ('in order to previde wood for building' > 'as wood for building'). Plin. n.h. 13, 105-6 uses this expression alongside of a final dative: the fruit of the lotus-tree is dulcis ... cibo (105) but < it is to be added, 106> bacas ... concisas cum alica ad cibos velut surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propaginem deducta ('derived to be a layer' > 'derived as a layer'); for some further material, see Thierry, 1412; Siiss, op. cit., 35-6; Nelson, 173-4; Bourciez, 255. exemplarium: this word does not occur until Tert., cf. Herm. 38,3; 40,1; Marc. 1,1, 1; 1, 16,

1; afterwards in e.g. Arnob. 6,13; PrisciIl. tract. 10,125; 10, 141. It is formed from the plural exemplaria of exemplar, which, in its turn, is a substantivation of the adj. exemplaris (Lucr. 2, 124 still has the original form exemplare). See

M. Leumann, Die lat. Adiectiva aUf -lis (Strassburg 1917), 29 and 36; TLL V, 2: 1320, 36 seqq. Alioquin, si: for the pleonasm, cf. 2, 4 and 15, 4. adversarii legis: Tert. is alluding to Marcion and his followers, who radically rejected the Old Testament. They opposed the judging and wrathful God of the Jews, the creator, to the God of love, unknown till then, who revealed

Himself in Christ, whom they considered to have had only an apparent body.

Lex denotes the whole of the OT, just as in e.g. Marc. 1, 19, 4: Antithesis Marcionis ... quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumententur deorum. With the same meaning ieiun. 11, 3: adversarii veterum. numquid: in later Latin this word gradually comes to replace num, undoubtedly on account of the growing aversion from monosyllables.

Here it is equivalent to nonne, as, for instance, in nat. 2,9, 7; fuga 4, 1. More instances in ThOrn., 2, 41-2; see also Hofm., Synt., 649; Thierry, 153;

Stephan, 118 and 126. quod et Marcionitae: we have to assume an ellipsis of facere, as, for instance, in apol. 21, 30: non qua rupices ... ad humanitatem temperaret, quod Numa; pud. 21, 4: nam et mortuos suscitaverunt (sc. apostoli), quod deus solus, et debiles redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi

Ghristus; more instances in Hoppe, Synt., 145, and Waszink, 189-90. More frequent is the ellipsis of esse after quod, cf. e.g. res. 34, 6: si et anima interibilis, id est non inmortalis, quod et caro; apol. 8, 5: homo es et ipse, quod et Ghristianus ... Homo est ... et Ghristianus, quod et tu. However, there are cases where it is not so easy to supply a verb, cf. e.g. scorp. 9, 5:

Nemo ... eorum aut fratrem aut patrem passus est traditorem, quod plerique

JjU ),j-),4 J,'+ IJI

frequent in Tert. (e.g. idol. 9, 5). See Thorn., 1,80-2; Lbfst., Per., 91-2. figuram designasse ... suspendit: this interpretation of the serpent made by Moses is also presented by Tert. in Marc. 3, 18, 7 (= Iud. 10, 73 seqq.). We find an allusion to it in the passage Marc. 2, 22, 1 mentioned above: et taceo de figura remedii. The same interpretation, also in connection with Exod. 20,

41, is found in Barn. 12, 5-7; Just. dial. 94, 1.4; cf. also Just. apol. 1, 60, 2-5 and dial. 112, 1-3; Carm. adv. Marc. 2,166-71. An allegorical interpretation is already given by Philo leg. al/eg. 2, 76-81. In John 3, 14-5, too, Num. 21,

4-9 is associated with the crucifixion (see Bauer's note, HdbNT, 6, 56-7). The use of a serpent or dragon as a mythological embodiment of the power hostile to God is wide-spread. In Jewish tradition, too, the devil is not only represented as an evil spirit in opposition to God, but also as a monster, a dragon, as 'the old serpent' (a trace of this idea is found in Apoc. 12, 3 seqq. and 20, 2). In late Judaism we find an increasing tendency to identify the serpent of paradise (Gen. 3) with the devil (cf. e.g. Sap. 2, 24). In 2 Cor. 11,

3 St. Paul joins this tradition; of the early Christian authors we may mention Just. apol. 1,28, 1: no:p' ~fJ.Tv ... (; &pX7Jyc:"t1J~ "twv xo:xwv 8O:~fJ.6vwv ocp~~ xO:Ad"to:~ iam nostri. Waszink (loc. cit.), giving a few other examples, points out that here quod is developing into an equivalent of ut, and that this use of the relative pronoun has facilitated the later use of the conjunction quod as an equivalent of ut ('as'); for this, see Hofm., Synt., 723; LOfst., Beitr., 18 seqq.;

Spatlat. Stud., 9 seqq. For more particulars, see Waszink, loc. cit. _ omnipotenti: as a substantive this adjective, which occurs more than 20 times in Tert. 's works (especially frequent in Adversus Praxean), is only used here and in Prax. 17,4. dum = eo, quod; cf. 2, 5. inconstantiam ... mandat: the Marcionites made a point of discovering inconsistencies in God's precepts in the OT. On this point Tert. opposes them in Marc. 2,21 seqq., cf. 2, 21,

1: Sic et in ceteris contrarietates praeceptorum ei (sc. deo) exprobras ut mobili et instabili, etc. Thus they also set Num. 21, 8-9 (God's order to Moses to make a bronze image of a serpent) against Exod. 20, 4 (the prohibition to make any image at all). In Marc. 2, 22, 1 Tert. argues against Marcion in a manner quite similar to that of the present passage: proinde et similitudinem vetans fieri omnium, quae in caelo et in terra et in aquis, ostendit et causas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam cohibentes. Subicit enim: non adorabitis ea neque servietis ilIis. Serpentis autem aenei effigies postea praecepta Moysi a domino non ad idololatriae titulum pertinebat, sed ad remediandos eos, qui a serpentibus infestabantur. Et taceo de figura remedii. (About this figura

Tert. is more explicit in the present passage.) See on this subject also Meijering, 107; cf. also Iren. adv. haer. 1, 27, 2: Marcion Ponticus ... et inconstantem quoque sententia et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens (sc. deum prophetarum).

XO:L crO:"tO:viX~ XO:L 8~a~oAo~ (cf. dial. 103, 5; 124, 3); Theophil. ad Autolyc. 2,28; epist. ad Diogn. 12, 3. 6. 8; Cyprian ad Demetr. 16 (62, 20-2). In Tert. cult. fem. 1, 6, 3; spect. 9, 3 (see Biichner, 101-2) and 18, 3; res. 28, 2; cor. 10,

7; Marc. 2, 7, 3; Prax. 1, 1; cf. also Pass. Perp. 4, 4-7. That this was a quite current conception is illustrated by the great number of passages where coluber is used to denote the devil (TLL III: 1728, 68 seqq.). See Bauer,

Worterbuch, s.vv. 8paxwv and ocp~~; Foerster, art. '8paxwv', Kittel 2, 284-6, and art.

'ocp~~', ib. 5, 566-582; Lietzmann on 2 Cor. 11, 3, HdbNT, 9, 145; Lohmeyer on Apoc. 12, 7-8, ib., 16, 96-7 and 99; Windisch on Barn. 12, 5, ib., Erg. Bd., 370-1; Bousset, Jud., 408.516; Dibelius, Geisterwelt, 37-8. 501; Dolger, Sonne, 52. 54-5. Here, as in the passage from Marc. 3, 18 quoted above, we do not only find the devil described as a serpent, but also his angels; undoubtedly the demons are also included in these, cf. Marc. 4, 24, 9-10, especially 10: et utique scimus ... figurate scorpios et colubros portendi spiritalia malitiae, quorum ipse quoque princeps in serpentis et draconis et eminentissimae cuiusque bestiae nomine deputetur penes creatorem.

For spiritalia malitiae as a denomination also used of the demons, cf. Valent.

22, 1: angelorum et daemonum et omnium spiritalium malitiarum genituras; ieiun. 17, 8: spiritalia malitiae as translation of Eph. 6, 12: "teX 1tvf.UfJ.a"t~xo: "tTj~

4. dissimulat: cf. 2, 1. suspensi in modum should be joined to effigiem ~erei s.erpentis, cf. Marc. 3, 18, 7 (= Iud. 10, 75): aereum serpentem ligno lmposltum pendentis habitu; for the expression, cf. 12, 2: corpus ... quod in modum crucis est. As the words suspensi in modum express the characteristic feature that made the image of the serpent into afigura dominicae crucis (cf. dum per semetipsam diabolum, id est serpentem, interfectum suspendit), we do best to regard these words as a predicative adjunct, and, accordingly, to supply oV"to~ (or possibly oucro:v); this interpretation is supported by the fact that these words are an addition by Tert. to the account of Numeri. For such constructions, cf. Hoppe, Synt., 142 and 144; Thorn., 1,21. 45. 51-2, and Eranos 16 (1919), 102; Waszink, 129 and 531. dominicae crucis: for the semantic development of crux in Christian Latin, see Teeuwen, 46 and 75, n. 1. Dominicae = domini; for the use of an adj. instead of the genitive of a subst.-a use wide-spread in later Latin, especially with dominicus-see

1tOV7JP(O:~; in fuga 1, 5 and 12, 3 the same words are translated spiritalia nequitiae; cf. also apol. 22, 4: malitia spiritalis. Moreover, this passage furnishes one more proof of the fact that Tert. uses the term 'the devil' as 'collective singular': the serpent is a figura of the diabolus and of the angeli diaboli alike; the cross rescues mankind from both at the same time. The principle underlying the interpretation of the physical healing of the Israelites by means

~~~st., Per., 7~-81 .. and Synt., 1,.107-24; Salonius, Vito Patr., 179 seqq.; .o:n., ~, 34-7, Bohm, 96-7. - .d est: used already by Cicero in his later wrItmgs mstead of hoc est, in accordance with the current spoken idiom; very

) ,4-0, SURVEY

J.J.J JJ-<.

of the image of the bronze serpent as a symbol of the spiritual healing (salus) granted by the dominica crux is formulated by Tert. in bapt. 5, 5 with reference to John 5, 2 seqq.; in the healing power of the water of the piscina

Bethsaida he sees a figura of the power of the baptismal water: Figura ista medicinae corporalis spiritalem medicinam praedicabat, exforma qua semper cam alia in figuram spiritalium antecedunt. istius: = huius, as in 2, 3. expositio: in the sense of 'interpretation, explanation' first used by Tert., cf. serpentem deus suspendi iussit, simulacra interdicta pridem et vetita a se esse significavit'. Even apart from the fact that this explanation is forced, we should, in that case, have to join similitudinem to interdixit as an object, and serpentis to praecepto; however, praecepto serpentis is a rather strange expression. Besides, in dixit yields a better clausula. Further, the contrast between lex and extraordinarium praeceptum as both proceeding from the same God, which is accentuated by the deliberate initial position of idem, is lost in Oehler's interpretation. Finally, the fact that in the following sentence, too, mention is made of a special command (ne facias ... nisi ... deus iusserit) is an indication in favour of indixit. ne feceris similitudinem: at the end of this part of his argumentation Tert. emphatically repeats the text of Exod. 20,

4, which was his starting-point in 4, 1. respicis: approximatively equivalent to observas ('if you take account of'), see Thorn., 2, 56-7. et tu imitare

Moysen: ~ccording to Van der Nat, et belongs to imitare Moysen. He translates: "then also follow Moses", thereby underrating the pronoun tu. In our view, the phrase should be considered as a contamination of et tu idem fac and imitare Moysen. For the declension of the name Moses (Moyses), see

TLL V, 2: 1774,28 seqq. Cf. e.g. praescr. 38, 1; Prax. 14,6; pud. 9, 1. dignioribus: a formula of modesty, cf. 4, 5 modicae memoriae homo with the note. The word is deliberately chosen, since revelation is a dignatio dei, cf. an. 47, 2 with Waszink's note (p. 504). The condition for such a privilege is a good moral character, cf. apol. 18, 2; 21, 4. revelata est: in the sense of detegere we also find revelare in Apul. met. 9, 26: detectis ac revelatis fraudibus; cf. Tert. apol. 7, 13: omnia tempus revelat. In the present passage it is used in the specifically Christian sense of divine revelation. Revelatio, revelator and revelatorius are also Christian neologisms. Cf. Teeuwen, 18;

Matzkow, 16-18; Mohrm., Aug., 144; J. de Ghellinck, RSR 6 (1916),149-57; Waszink, 562. figurate: 'with symbolic significance'. This meaning occurs first in Tert., and is only found in Christian literature (TLL VI, 1: 746, 20 seqq.). The same holds good for the verb figurare 'to symbolize, to represent symbolically' (ib. 743, 48 seqq.; see Waszink, 259). As a synonym of figurate we also findfiguraliter (for the first time in Tert., e.g. ux. 1,2,2), for which word see TLL VI, 1: 738, 30 seqq.; Mohrm., Aug., 181. populo here again means 'Israel'; cf. 3, 4 with the note. omnia ... accidisse: this point of view is set out in detail in Marc. 4,9 and 5, 6. Tert. follows the common conviction of the early Christians; especially Barnabas, Justin and Clement of Alexandria have gone far in their allegorical explanation of the OT. See

Windisch's note on Barn. 12,7, HdbNT, Erg. Bd., 371 and Lietzmann's note on 1 Cor. 10, 11 (ib., 9, 47). bene, quod: Reifferscheid wrongly puts a full stop after accidisse; the correct interpretation was given by Oehler and Thornell. As was pointed out by the latter (1, 29-30), bene, quod ... in dixit is the apodosis of si quis autem dissimulat ... suspendit. A similar construction is found in e.g. Marc. 4, 14, 8: Nam et si putas creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero caelestes, bene, quod caelum nullius alterius the literature in J. Jeremias, art. 'MwucrTj~' in Kittel 4,853, n. 1. The inverse line of argument against the heretics is found in cam. Chr. 6, 4: quid illi cum

Moyse quae deum Moysi reicit? Si alius deus est, aliter sint res eius. tibi ... iusserit: the dative after iubere (on the analogy of imperare) is recorded once in Catullus (64, 140; see Kroll's note, and R. Sydow, De recensione

Catulli carminum (thesis Berlin 1881), 42) and in Cicero (ep. ad Alt. 9, 13, 2); it certainly occurs in Statius (Theb. 7, 32. 373), Tacitus (ann. 4,72,2; 13,

15,3; 13,40,3) and in later Latin. See LOfst., Per., 151-2, and Synt. 1,200 seqq.; Hofm., Synt., 376. 411; cf. also Tert. Prax. 12,7 (for the constitution of the text of this difficult passage, see Waszink, Vig. Chr. 7 (1953), 247-9).

A curious contamination is found in pud. 21, 3: nam tibi quae in te reatum habeant etiam septuagies septies iuberis indulgere in persona Petri.

Ch. 6. The sacrament of baptism is a sufficient argument in itself 'Even if no law of God and no voice of the Holy Spirit had forbidden us to make idols, the sacrament of baptism would by itself be sufficient to make us interpret such arts as contrary to our faith (§ 1). In baptism we renounced the devil and his angels. How could we maintain that we fUlfil this, if we manufacture them, i.e. their images? How, if we live from them? How could usque adhuc dei apparet, nisi cuius et terra. The expression bene, quod (with ellipsis of est) occurs since Cicero, and is very frequent in Tert. 's works

(thirty-four times i.a. idol. 23,3), cf. TLL II: 2212, 60 seqq. See also Oehler's notes on the present passage (p. 731) and onpud. 19 (p. 835 a); Waszink, 142.

et ... vetuit ... et ... indixit: the second et, inserted by Iunius, is indeed indispensable. Rigaltius' emendation indixit, too, is to be preferred to the reading of A B (interdixit). Oehler tries to explain the lectio tradita as follows:

'etiam sic bene est, ... si quidem hoc ipso quod extraordinario praecepto we maintain to be in discord with them, if we bind ourselves to them for our livelihood? Here our deeds would contradict our words (§ 2a).

The objection of the idol-maker 'I make them, I do not worship them' is not valid, because, first, worshipping and making idols are forbidden for exactly the same reason, viz., since they both offend God. Further, the idol-

↑ Back to top