Part Ii: Texts
NOTES
PART I
INTRODUCTION
PART II
TEXTS
1
LIFE AND WORKS OF TERTULLIAN
On the rhetorical structure of this text see Dunn (2002a):47–55.
Barnes 1985:58 suggests c. 170 as his date of birth. On his name see On the Veiling of Virgins 17.5. A full name of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is attested in some manuscript headings.
On Roman education see Bonner 1977.
Dekkers (1995:9) lists Against the Jews as a doubtful work. There is debate about Tertullian’s involvement in writing or editing Passion of Sts Perpetua and Felicity.
According to Jerome, Tertullian also wrote six books On Ecstasy to which was attached a seventh Against Apollonius (On Illustrious Men 24.3; 40.4; 53.5). This work was a defence of Montanism. Jerome also mentioned On the Hope of the Faithful (On Illustrious Men 18.4); To a Philosophic Friend (Letter 22.22; Against Jovinianus 1.13), which is described as an early work; On Circumcision and On Clean and Unclean Animals (Letters 36.1); and On Aaron’s Vestments (Letter 64.23). Tertullian himself referred to On Paradise (Against Marcion 5.12.8; On the Soul 55.5); Against Apelles (On the Flesh of Christ 8.3); On Fate (On the Soul 20.5); and The Origin of the Soul (On the Soul 1.1). Three other works (On Flesh and Soul; On the Submission of the Soul; and On the Superstition of the Age) are known only by titles in the index of the Codex Agobardinus.
NORTH AFRICAN CHRISTIANITY
Frend (1965:313) dated the martyrdom of Namphamo and companions to a fortnight before the Scillitan martyrs (cf. Barnes 1985:261–2). In later works Frend made no reference to Namphamo (Frend 1977:21).
Quispel (1982:258) states that the Bible read in the Jewish synagogues was the Septuagint, which was translated spontaneously into Latin. Then on 262 he writes that the synagogue lector could have been reading and translating from a Hebrew text. On 265 he suggests further that the lectors read and translated the Greek in the light of their knowledge of Hebrew.
On this proconsul see Birley 1992:37–40.
Frend (1977:23) thinks that they were separate basilicas. Ennabli (1997:32–4) thinks them to have been the same.
3
SCRIPTURE AND TERTULLIAN
In Against Praxeas 20.2 he referred to ‘both testaments’, whereas a few sentences earlier he mentioned Is 45.5 as being ‘in the old’. In Against Marcion 4.1.1 he referred to two ‘instruments’ usually known as ‘testaments’. In On the Prescriptions of Heretics 36.5 he referred to the law and the prophets being united in one volume with the gospels and the letters of the apostles.
At On Flight in Time of Persecution 11.2, for example, Tertullian’s Latin of Lk 8.18 (…ab eo autem, qui non habet, etiam quod uidetur habere auferetur) is judged to be better than the Old Latin versions that stick more rigidly to the Greek word order (Aalders 1937:263).
As one example, at Against Marcion 4.14.14 and 4.26.10 Tertullian borrowed eicere from Marcion’s version of Lk 6.22 and 11.19, but, in introducing the latter text he had used his own word expellere (Against Marcion 4.26.10) (Higgins 1951:17).
4
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN
On Lactantius as rhetorician see his own Divinae Institutiones 5.2.2 and Jerome, On Illustrious Men 80.1.
5
PHILOSOPHY AND TERTULLIAN
I cannot agree with the idea that On the Pallium is an epideictic oration. Tertullian is advocating change (indeed, chapters 2–4—about one-half of the work—are devoted to the nature of change), which is what one would expect in deliberative oratory. Sider (1971:120) sees elements of both, with a strongly deliberative focus.
González (1974:21) states: ‘What he is saying is simply that these things, which seem impossible, are not really such, because God willed them to happen. In other words, he is not saying that the criterion for truth is impossibility. He is saying that the criterion of natural reason, usually valid, is not always ultimately valid, for that reason itself shows that God, who is the ultimate deciding factor, does not have to subject himself to it. He is also saying that in such cases the criterion of truth is not some inner logic which one can discover purely by rational investigation, but rather whether God did or did not will the event in question—in this case the incarnation and its sequel—to happen.’
7
TERTULLIAN AND PAGANS
For an evaluation of the debate about the rhetorical genre of Apology see Dunn (2002a:48– 51). For an analysis of its structure see Sider (1973:405–23).
Osborn (1997b:241–7), in his assessment of Tertullian’s Romanness has not taken this point into account, which lessens the value of his statement on 244 that: ‘Careful study, therefore, indicates that Tertullian, for all his intransigence and rigour, maintained a positive attitude towards the Roman state.’
Barnes (1985:55) dates it to summer/autumn of 197. On 32 he points out the terminus post quem of February 197 because of the historical allusion to the defeat of the imperial usurper Clodius Albinus in February of that year.
Barnes (1969:118) thinks that this reference to rabbits may indicate that Christians are fleeing from persecution. Given the whole tenor of the treatise, though, it would seem a little inconsistent for Tertullian to argue, on the one hand, that God presented the opportunity for martyrdom for the Christian to do battle with the enemy, and, on the other, that avoiding capture was acceptable.
In his revision, Barnes (1985:328) moves back to 211 as the date of composition, although any appropriate date between 208, when Tertullian turned to Montanism, and 211 would be a possibility.
Gero’s argument only stands because he dates On Idolatry to late in Tertullian’s literary career. If it is dated earlier it creates problems for his argument of Tertullian’s ideas changing over time. The great weakness in his case is To Scapula, which is correctly dated late. Its tone contrasts with On the Military Crown and On the Pallium, as Gero (1970:293– 4) correctly observes, and so contradicts the idea of Tertullian simply changing his mind over the years.
On whether this was P Julius Scapula Tertullus Priscus, the consul of 195, or his cousin C.
Julius (Scapula) Lepidus Tertullus, consul between 195 and 197, see Barnes (1986:202, n.
8); Birley (1991:81, n. 1); Birley (1992:53).
See Dunn (2002a:47–55).
8
TERTULLIAN AND JEWS
Frend (1977:27; 1978:189–90) states that at the site of the largest Christian church, which is just north of the city walls, Damous el Karita, is a large burial ground that contains Jewish and pagan as well as Christian burials.
I use this term rather than ‘anti-Jewish’ to indicate that Tertullian’s debate was religious not ethnic, although this may be a distinction that is of importance only in a more modern context.
Taylor (1995:141): ‘To the extent that the Judaism portrayed by the church fathers is recognized as a figurative entity which emerges out of Christian theorizing about Christianity, it cannot simultaneously be interpreted as referring to a living Judaism from which useful information can be gleaned about Jewish-Christian interaction.’
11
AGAINST THE JEWS
Although in the 1985 revision of his biography on 330 Barnes moderated this view, he did so only to the extent that he admitted that Tertullian knew contemporary Jews in Carthage but still did not engage them in conversation.
Here I am revising my opinion (Dunn 1998:120, 143; 1999b:317–18; 2000:3–4) that there was a narratio (1.3b–7) and a partitio (1.8–2.1a). Tertullian offers more argumentation than would be typically expected in a narratio. He seems instead to be moving between the question as it was defined in the debate and the question as he wished to redefine it for his treatise, which would be more appropriate for a partitio.
Literally ‘on account of the blending sound of the debate’.
Ex gentibus. On Tertullian’s use of gens see Balfour (1982:785–9). As a rule, I translate populus as ‘people’, natio as ‘tribe’ and gens as ‘clan’ (when unspecified) or ‘Gentile’ or ‘foreigner’ (when the contrast is with Jews). In general, I have avoided the words ‘nation’ and ‘race’ as they are more modern constructs not applicable, as the sociologists tell us, to the ancient world. MacMullen (1975:409) states: Through common usage, the perception of what we would call nationality is thus exposed for what it was at the height of the empire, a perfect chaos of ideas and images.’ Buell (2002:432) writes that race, ethnicity and cultural identity overlap in ancient Christian writers. In other words, one could change race by changing identity; it was not a genetically inherited feature. While she believes that race is an elastic term, I think it is swimming against the tide to redefine a popularly understood term and hence I avoid it.
Is 40:15.
Gen 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 25:23.
On Tertullian’s interpretation of this passage in relation to other early Christian interpretations see Dunn (1998:119–45).
In partus editione.
Gen 25:23.
Ex 32:1, 23; Acts 7:40.
Ex 32:4, 8.
On the structure and arguments in chapters 2 to 6 see Dunn (1999b:315–41).
Rather than translate Tertullian’s personal pronouns about God in a gender-specific way in English, I have simply used the appropriate term in brackets.
Gen 3:3.
Dt 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27.
Lev 19:18; Mt 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8.
Ex 20:13–16, 12; Dt 5:17–20, 16, 21; Lev 19:11, 3; Mt 19:18–19; Lk 18:20; Rom 13:9.
Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21; Rom 13:9.
Gen 3:6, 8, 5; 2:7.
Ex 32:15–16.
Gen 7:1.
Is 41:8.
Gen 14:18.
Ex 12:40; Gal 3:17. Cf. Acts 7:6.
Gen 17:14.
Gen 4:3–5.
Gen 7:23.
Gen 5:24.
Gen 14:18.
Gen 19:12–16.
Gen 17:24.
Gen 14:17–18. In fact, Abraham was not circumcised until some time after (Gen 15:1) the encounter with Melchizedek.
Ex 4:24–26.
Tertullian ignored the fact that in the Pentateuch the law of circumcision was not derived from this incident. The general law that existed already was simply being applied in this instance.
Tertullian overlooked the fact that the command of circumcision was not given through Moses but through Abraham (Gen 17:14).
After the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–5, the emperor Hadrian had forbidden Jews to enter Jerusalem. For the details see Smallwood (1981:460). Tertullian’s reference to this event is mentioned again in this text at 13.4. Tertullian’s point that circumcision became the way in which the Romans could check on those trying to enter Jerusalem does not take into account that under Hadrian the practice of circumcision was universally banned. Only under Antoninus Pius was an exemption made for the Jews to resume this practice. This is one of Tertullian’s few references to near contemporary events and it is likely that Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho was his source.
Is 1:7–8.
Is 1:2.
Is 1:15.
Is 1:4.
Jer 4:3–4.
Jer 31:31–32.
Is 2:2.
Is 2:2–3.
Dan 2:34, 45.
Dan 2:34, 46 Is 2:3–4.
Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Dt 19:21.
Ps 17 (18):43–44.
Ps 77 (78):12–13, 24, 11; Ex 16:4, 35; Wis 16:20; Dt 8:16.
Ex 32:l.
Gen 2:2–3; Ex 20:11.
Ex 20:8, 10; 12:16.
Is 1:13. The arguments in this and the following chapter about sabbaths and sacrifices appear also in On Idolatry 14.6 in a much briefer fashion, which may suggest that Against the Jews was written earlier.
Ezek 22:8.
Is 66:23.
Is 54:15?
Jos 6:3–5.
Jos 6:15–20.
Jos 6:16, 21.
The Hebrew has ‘the one crouching’, i.e. the devil. The Latin text is difficult to determine here, possibly because Tertullian has misunderstood the scriptural text or had a poor text from which to work.
Gen 4:3–11, 14.
Mal 1:10–11.
Gentium. Ps 95 (96):7.
Ps 95 (96):7–8.
Ps 50 (51):19.
Ps 49 (50):14.
Is 1:11.
Is 1:13.
Is 1:11–12.
Mal 1:10–11.
Mal 1:11.
Is 9:1.
I have attempted to use the definite article when Tertullian referred to the messiah. I have omitted it when it is obvious that he used it as an alternative name for Jesus. It is not always an easy distinction to make.
Is 45:1.
Ps 18 (19):5.
Acts 2:9–10, 5. On Tertullian’s change to Acts see Dunn (2000:10–11).
Is 45:1–2.
Ps 9 (10):16; Jer 10:10.
1 Kgs 4:25 (5:5).
Dan 9:26. On Tertullian’s interpretation of this passage of Daniel in this chapter see Dunn (2002b:330–44; 2003b:140–55). In particular it should be noted that Tertullian, dependent upon Theodotion, has inverted the order of the first two blocks of weeks as found in Daniel (and expanded them to eliminate the third block) from 7 and 62 to 62.5 and 70.5.
On the importance of these sentences for the structure of the treatise see Dunn (2000:5–6).
Dan 9:1–2.
On whether or not to include septem et dimidia et ebdomades in the text see Dunn (2002b:339–40). The problem appears to be that the Greek translation by Theodotion with which Tertullian seems to have been familiar has misunderstood Daniel. While Daniel saw 7 and 62 weeks as quite separate, Theodotion joined them. I do not believe this phrase ought to be included in Tertullian’s text.
Dan 9:21–27. Given that Tertullian was dependent upon Theodotion’s flawed Greek version of Daniel in the LXX (either by translating the Greek to Latin himself or working from someone else’s Latin translation of Theodotion), it is not surprising that, in a number of instances, there have been changes to what was originally in Daniel, making Tertullian’s version in those places rather unintelligible.
Dan 9:25.1 have suggested that Tertullian seems here to be referring to the possibility of a third temple, not to the second temple. See Dunn (2002b:338).
Dan 9:26. Note the mixture here of the two different versions of Dan 9:26 previously used by Tertullian in this treatise (8.1 and 8.6).
I have turned this question into a statement.
Dan 9:23b, 25.
On the accuracy of Tertullian’s names and figures throughout this chapter see Dunn (2003b:145–51).
It is necessary to omit repetitive and superfluous text and to punctuate it this way in order for this passage to make sense.
See Dan 9:24.
Mt 11:13.
Following TPNFR Ven—Tiberius Claudius annis XIII, mensibus VII, diebus XX. On whether to include mention of Claudius in Tertullian’s text see Dunn (2003b: 151).
Ps 21 (22):17.
Ex 12:5–6.
Mt 27:25; Jn 19:12; Mt 26:56.
Against the Jews 9.1–3=Against Marcion 3.12.1–3.
Is 7:13–15; 8:4.
Against the Jews 9.4–18=Against Marcion 3.13.1–3.14.3.
Is 8:4.
Or diapers, as the Americans say.
Is 7:14.
Zech 14:14.
Ps 71 (72):15, 10.
This is the earliest evidence of what would become the popular Christian opinion that the magi were kings. Powell (2000:474–5), in examining the development of this tradition, does not consider Tertullian’s Against the Jews, only Against Marcion. His argument is that Tertullian was not interested in the status of the magi as much as he was making an argument against an anti-pacifist interpretation of Psalm 72. On 474 he writes that ‘they [the magi] are symbols of hostile kings from the past who were conquered by Christ rather than images of pious or present kings who worship him.’ Powell goes further and translates the Latin fere (which I here translate as ‘generally’ and Evans translated as ‘for the most part’) as ‘almost’ and argues on 475 that ‘…the magi must remain “almost” kings, symbols at best of hostile kings who in a bygone era were conquered by Christ “without fighting or armament”…’ and that ‘…the story must be explicitly identified as a figurative story illustrating the manner of Christ rather than describing an actual conversion of earthly rulers, which neither Tertullian nor Matthew could envision.’ I cannot agree with Powell when, on 477, he writes that ‘he [Tertullian] does not identify the magi as kings’. If we look at the end of Against the Jews 9.12 (and Against Marcion 3.13.8), we find Tertullian commending the magi for worshipping Jesus. Powell’s argument that Tertullian’s focus was on pacifism cannot be correct either; the focus is on the age of one who does not need arms. If one alters Powell’s translation then what Tertullian has to say about the magi is more in line with the way Powell interprets Augustine on the magi—they are models for earthly rulers.
escennius Niger was governor of the whole province in 193. It was soon after this that Septimius Severus divided Syria into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia. See Birley (1988:114). If this is correct then the comment in Justin must be a later gloss or an indication that even before the split Syria had acquired the name Syria Phoenicia.
Mt 2:9–11.
1 Kgs 13:33–34.
Is 1:10.
Ez 16:3.
Is 1:2.
Is 19:1–24.
Rev 17:5.
Ps 44 (45):3.
Ps 44 (45):2.
Ps 44 (45):5.
Rev 2:12; Heb 4:12; Mt 16:27.
Against the Jews 9.19–20a=Against Marcion 3.14.5–7.
Ps 44 (45):5–6; Heb 4:12.
Against the Jews 9.21–2 3a=Against Marcion 3.16.3–5.
Num 13:16.
Jos 5:2–3.
Num 12:5–8.
Ex 23:20–21.
Mal 3:1; Mt 11:10.
Ps 131 (132):17.
Jn 5:35; 1:29.
Against the Jews 9.25=Against Marcion 3.16.5–6.
Is 11:1–3. Against the Jews 9.26b–29=Against Marcion 3.17.3–5.
On Mary being a descendant of David see Dunn (2001b:349–55).
Is 53:3, 7.
Is 42:2–3.
Is 60:1–2.
For the next few sentences, Tertullian deviated from the arrangement of topics he had set for himself to consider this twofold pattern.
Is 58:1–2.
Is 35:4–6.
Jn 5:16.
Against the Jews 10.1=Against Marcion 3.18.1.
Gal 3:13 (Dt 21:23). Both Tertullian and Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 96.1, like Paul, cite this from the LXX, which has the addition of ‘on a tree’, and omit from the LXX ‘by God’.
Dt 21:22–23. Here Tertullian included ‘by God’ and went on to explain this in a positive way.
Is 53:9; Mt 5:39; 1 Pt 2:22.
Ps 34 (35):12.
Ps 68 (69):5.
Ps 21 (22):17.
Ps 68 (69):22.
Ps 21 (22):19.
Against the Jews 10.5b–16=Against Marcion 3.18.2–3.19.9.
Gen 22:6; Rom 8:32; Jn 19:17.
Gen 37:27.
Dt 33:17. See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 91.1–2.
Gen 49:5–6.
The sense of this sentence is not easy to determine.
Ex 17:10–11. See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 90.
Ex 20:4; Num 21:8–9. See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 91.4.
Ps 95 (96):10, although without reference to the tree.
Is 9:6.
Is 9:6.
Jer 11:19.
Mk 14:22; Mt 26:26; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24.
This is confirmation that Tertullian was using the LXX.
Ps 21 (22):17.
Ps 21 (22):22.
Is 53:8–10.
Is 57:2.
Is 53:12.
Amos 8:9–10.
Ex 12:2–10; Num 9:10; 28:16; Dt 16:1–8; Jn 19:14.
Ez 8:12–9:6.
Dt 28:63–66.
See 8.12.
11.10b–11a is a repeat of 8.15.
Against the Jews 11.11b–12.2=Against Marcion 3.20.1–5.
Ps 2:7–8.
Here I reject Kroymann’s text (Nec poterit alium deum dei filium uindicare quam Christum) and Tränkle’s text (Nec poteris alium dei filium dicere quam Christum) and offer Nec poteris alium Dauid filium uindicare quam Christum. (I have changed the opinion I expressed in Dunn (2000:17–18), yet I continue to read Dauid as accusative rather than genitive.)
Generis.
Is 42:607.
Mic 5:1.
Is 1:7.
Is 33:17.
Is 33:18.
Dan 9:26.
See Against the Jews 8.3.
Dan 9:26. See Against the Jews 8.1, 6, 8.
Is 65:2–3.
Ps 21(22):17–18.
Ps 68 (69):22.
Ps 66 (67):7.
Jl 2:22; Ps 1:3.
Ex 15:25.
Jer 2:10–12.
Jer 2:13.
Amos 8:9; Mk 15:33, 38; Mt 27:51–52; Lk 23:44–45.
Jer 2:13.
Is 65:13a, 14b–16.
2 Kgs 6:4–7.
Gen 22:1–14.
Is 53:7.
Is 53:8.
Is 53:8.
Hos 5:15–6:2.
Against the Jews 13.24–29=Against Marcion 3.23.1–7.
Is 3:1–2.
Is 5:6.
Mt 11:13.
Jn 5:1–4.
Is 52:5.
Scholer (1982:825) argues that the text is corrupt here and that we should be guided in our interpretation by what we find in Against Marcion 3.23.3: ‘for from them began that infamy—and they failed to understand that the time that intervened between Tiberius and Vespasian was [a time for] repentance…’. On the basis of this revised reading, Scholer finds no evidence in Against the Jews for Tertullian charging contemporary Jews with the persecution of Christians.
Jer 46:21. These two sentences are difficult to punctuate.
Is 1:7–8.
Is 1:3–4.
Is 1:20.
Ps 58 (59):12.
Is 50:11.
Against the Jews 14.1–7=Against Marcion 3.7.1–6.
Is 53:7. This is the third time in this treatise that Tertullian has used this passage, although once would have been enough.
Is 53:2–3.
Is 8:14.
Ps 8:8.
Ps 21 (22):7.
Dan 2:34–35.
Dan 7:13–14.
Ps 44 (45):3–4.
Ps 8:6.
Jer 17:9.
Is 53:8.
Zech 3:1–5.
Jn 13:27.
Against the Jews 14.9–10=Against Marcion 3.7.7–8.
Lev 16:5–29. On Tertullian’s interpretation and for a comparison with other early Christian interpretations see Dunn (1999c:245–64).
On the relationship between 14.11–12a and 11.11b–12.2a see Dunn (2000:15–18). I have argued that these last sentences of the treatise are the only ways that were obviously not written by Tertullian himself on the basis of the misinterpretation of Tertullian’s earlier interpretation of Ps 2.
Ps 2:7–8.
These last two sentences seem very awkward.
12
ANTIDOTE FOR THE SCORPION’S STING
Barnes (1985:178) considers that Tertullian kept his promise in On Flight in Time of Persecution.
This is the juridical or qualitative issue as found in To Herennius 1.14.24; Cicero, On Invention 2.21.62–2.39–115; and Quintilian, Oratorical Instruction 3.6.
The elder Pliny, Natural History 28.24, could not mention the scorpion without thinking of Africa.
As one would expect from a competent orator, Tertullian has put some effort into his opening comments, here employing rhyming pairs, something of which I have tried to capture in English.
Nicander of Colophon flourished c. 130 BC and wrote, among other things, the poem Theriaca about scorpions (769–804), snakes, spiders and other such creatures.
See Pliny the elder, Natural History 11.86–91, 100.
The Roman military catapult for hurling arrows or stones was known as a scorpion. It derived its firepower from a bow, the tension for which came from twisting springs of sinew or hair.
See Vitruvius, On Architecture 10.10.
The elder Pliny, Natural History 11.88, reports Apollodorus as having stated that some scorpions use the south wind to fly.
Pliny the elder, Natural History 27.5, describes aconite (wolfsbane) as being a remedy for scorpion’s stings, but not as a preventative. Taken by a healthy person, it is a poison that kills. In 27.6 Pliny suggested that aconite numbs scorpions when applied to them, against which they use white hellebore to reverse the numbness.
Azzali Bernardelli (1990b:178) suggests that Tertullian was arguing either that making the sign of the cross, praying or anointing (and I follow her reading of the manuscripts here) was an indication of the lack of a Christian’s faith or that faith was undermined by the incorrect performance of these actions. I am not inclined to the second position. Tertullian was saying that the Christian needed no superstitious practices; the promise of God was sufficient.
The use of ethnicus is usually an indication of the late date of composition. See Balfour (1982:786).
Acts 28:3–5. See also Mk 16:18.
Ex 3:2.
Heb 7:27; 9:28; 10:12, 14; Rom 6:9–10; 1 Pt 3:18.
Is 1:11; Ps 49 (50):13; Heb 7:27.
Ez 18:23; 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9.
Canicula is the lesser dog star, Canis Minor, in the mouth of the canine constellation. This star would become visible on the horizon, after having been obscured for some period of time by the sun, at the hottest time of the year. Hence, it was another way of referring to the height of summer. The word was also used to refer to the worst dice throw. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.1.5, described Diogenes, the Cynic philosopher, as canicola (dog-like) because of his shamelessness.
In Apology 6.8, Tertullian’s reference to the dog-headed one is certainly to an Egyptian god, either Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the underworld or Thoth, the dog-headed baboon god of the moon, wisdom, speech and time (who was also sometimes depicted as an ibis).Barnes (1969:123) takes this not as a reference to Caracalla or any governor but to the devil.
Venationes could describe the amphitheatre entertainment that involved not gladiatorial combat but mock animal hunts. I would emend uenatio to uenatione.
Barnes (1986:118; 1985:176) takes this an indication that this work must be early, when Tertullian accepted the legitimacy of flight from persecution. Azzali Bernardelli (1990a:60– 1) rejects this. Here I would agree with her because the verb obsido does not have any sense of Christians in flight.
Ps 18 (19):10; 118 (119):103.
Ex 3:8, 17.
Is 5:20.
Ex 20:2–5.
Ex 20:22–3.
Dt 6:4–5.
Nationum, i.e. the Gentiles. As Balfour (1982:788) points out, when Tertullian was contrasting Jews with others (as one would find in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures), natio was Tertullian’s regular word choice.
Dt 6:12–15.
Dt 11:26–8.
Dt 12:2–3.
Dt 12:29–30.
Dt 13:2–6.
Literally ‘who is in your bosom’.
Dt 13:7–11.
Dt 12:13–17.
Dt 13:17–18.
Dt 27:15.
Lev 19:4.
Lev 25:55–26:1.
Ps 113 (115):4–8; 134 (135):15–18.
Ex 32:1–6, 20.
Ex 32:2.
Mt 6:21. On the phrase ‘fire of wisdom’ see Minucius Felix, Octavius, 35.
In Egyptian mythology the goddess Hathor is often depicted as a woman with a cow’s head.
The goddess Isis is often depicted with a cow-horned head-dress. The god Ptah is sometimes in Memphis depicted as the bull Apis, while Osiris could be depicted in Helopolis as the bull Mneus. There was a cult of Buchis at Hermothis near Thebes. The white bull was sacred to Min, a harvest and fertility god.
Ex 32:27–9.
Num 25:1–3.
Num 25:5, 8–9. The number is given as 24,000.
Jud 2:8, 12–14.
The censor traditionally was the highest Roman magistracy. It used to be held by two ex-consuls every five years for an eighteen-month period. Their responsibility was to update the census of the citizen body and the Senate, which led to them being involved in safeguarding public morality. Under the empire this office was often held by the emperor as part of the basis of his authority.
Jud 2:20–1.
Barnes (1985:40) takes this as a reference to On the Prescriptions of Heretics and possibly the first edition of Against Marcion.
Ex 23:13.
Ex 20:4–5.
Barnes (1969:107) does not find this helpful in dating this treatise because Against Marcion underwent three editions over a number of years.
See the elder Pliny, Natural History, 20.22.
Gen 2:16–17.
The pythicus agon was a musical contest with singing and dancing. Barnes (1969:125–8) dates the awarding of these games to Carthage with the visit of Septimius Severus, which he places in the middle of 203, which would have been the occasion for the construction of the odeon, which backs onto the theatre, on the hill of Juno. Birley (1988:146) is more inclined to date the visit to Carthage in mid-202, before the visit to Lepcis. The stadium was the venue for foot races and it has not been located in Carthage.
This reference here is to more than foot races or the Pythian games, including as it does mention of wrestling, boxing and horse racing.
Jn 14:2.
1 Cor 15:41.
Gen 2:7.
The reference would seem to be to Mt 22:11.
Mt 25:3.
Lk 15:4–5.
Ps 31 (32):1–2.
Prov 10:12; 1 Pt 4:8.
Sophia is the youngest of the aeons in the Valentinian cosmology, the one who splits from the others by acting without her pair, Teletus (or Theletus), who becomes the mother of the demiurge (the God of the Old Testament). In contrast to the Valentinians, Tertullian presents Christ as the only-begotten son of Sophia, not as a separate aeon. See Stead (1969:75–104).
Prov 9:2.
Prov 1:20–1.
Is 44:5.
Zech 13:9.
Rom 8:32.
Rom 4:25.
Is 40:13–14; Wis 9:13; Rom 11:34.
On human sacrifice in Carthage see Stager (1980:1–11).
Rome itself.
Ps 115:5 (Ps 116:15).
Is 57:1–2.
Gen 4:5–8.
1 Sam 19:1–2.
1 Kgs 19:3.
Heb 11:37 speaks of prophets sawn in two. This is found with reference to Isaiah in the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah 5.9, 14, which is in the first section known as The Martyrdom of Isaiah, which was a Jewish Midrash of 2 Kgs 21:16, probably written in the first century AD. Tertullian, On Patience 14.11, mentioned the same incident. Tertullian probably derived his information from Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 120.5.
2 Chr 24:21; Mt 23:35; Lk 11:51.
Lk 16:16.
Mk 1:2; Mt 3:3; Lk 3:4; 7:27.
Mt 14:6–11; Mk 6:22–8.
Dan 3:1–15.
Bar 6:3.
Dan 3:16–18.
Tertullian’s aim is to show that both Old and New Testaments teach the same thing with regard to the need for martyrdom and that the argument of his opponents—that there is no teaching that Sophia cuts the throats of her children—is proven wrong from both.
Mt 5:10. Tertullian has presented the Valentinian position and, in the extract from the Beatitudes, a quick indication that their position was absurd (unless it was interpreted figuratively, something that he would not here accept).
Mt 5:11–12.
Barnes (1969:115–16) argues that Tertullian would not have made this kind of statement during his Montanist years. Azzali Barnardelli (1990a:57–8) thinks this is really only an argument from silence on Barnes’ part.
Mt 10:16; Lk 10:3.
Mt 10:17–18.
Mt 10:21; Mk 13:12.
Mt 10:22.
Mt 10:22.
Mt 10:24.
Mt 10:28.
Mt 10:29.
Mt 10:30.
Mt 10:31.
I have not wanted to use the English ‘confess’ to translate confiteor because of its additional modern penitential meaning. At the same time I need to find a term in English that can be both transitive and intransitive, as will become clear in Tertullian’s argument in 9.11.
To avoid gender-specific problems in English, I have translated the Latin singular into the English plural. That Tertullian was not being gender-specific is clear from his use of omnis. I shall continue to do this unless it is clear that the reference is specifically to one gender alone.
Mt 10:32–3.
Note that this is the transitive form, unlike the intransitive in 9.8.
This would make more sense if it simply said ‘have denied Christ’.
The Latin is corrupt. Azzali Barnardelli reconstructs it as pro <bro> auspice and I have followed that here.
Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26.
Here Tertullian referred cynically to Valentinian cosmology. Acinetus, which means motionless or unmoveable one, was one of the thirty aeons in the Valentinian Pleroma according to Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 6.25. In Tertullian’s Against the Valentinians 8.2, 4, Acinetus is mentioned while Theletus (note the variant spelling), which means perfect and who was paired with Sophia, is mentioned is 8.2, 4; 9–2; 12.1; 30.1; 32.5.
Abascantus, which means resistant to the spiteful, is not mentioned.
Is 40:5.
Seels 40:22.
Ps 48 (49):13, 21.
Mk 8:27; Mt 16:13; cf. Lk 9:18.
Mt 7:12; Lk 6:31.
Aratus was a Valentinian. The other four are mythological characters after whom celestial constellations are named. Erigona is the constellation Virgo. Although some of these were also named in Tertullian’s To the Heathens 2.15.1, the point here is that the only thing to be found in the heavens are the stars and not the Valentinian superior ‘spiritual’ or ‘heavenly’ Christians.
Cf. Mt 10:32. That the Lord did not say ‘heavenly’ tells against the Valentinians according to Tertullian.
Following Azzali Bernardelli in reading Carnam. As Barnes (1969:120) points out, Tertullian referred to Carna (corrupted in the manuscripts to Cardea) in three other treatises:
To the Heathens 2.15.5; On Idolatry 15.5 and On the Military Crown 13.9. These were primitive Roman household deities of hinges, doors and thresholds. See also Ovid, Fasti 6.101; Augustine, On the City of God 4.8; 6.7; Arnobius of Sicca, Against the Nations 1.28;
4.9.
Ps 23 (24):7, 9.
Amos 9:6.
On the significance of this for Tertullian’s thoughts about the Roman church, see Dunn (2003a:14). Even this passage makes it clear that the power of the keys was inherited by every Christian.
Cf. Mt 10:28. Tertullian’s accusation against the Valentinians is that they have misinterpreted this passage, by turning a negative command into a positive one.
One should note Tertullian’s sarcasm here.
Tertullian again sarcastically stated his opponents’ view.
Ps 109 (110):1; Mt 22:44; Heb 1:13; 10:12.
This statement has been the source of its own controversy about how to interpret Tertullian.
Barnes (1969:132) states that context—the reference to the fate of the apostles—would indicate that Tertullian was referring to Christianity at its origins, while the reference to the pagans was a more contemporary one. Frend (1965:334; 1968:8–9 and 1970b:92–6) argues that the references both to the Jews and the pagans referred to contemporary events. Like Frend, I believe that Tertullian often had contemporary relationships between Christians and Jews in mind when he wrote, but I do not believe, in this instance, that he was saying that the Jews were persecuting Christians. It would seem to me more of a statement that he was blaming the Jews for starting the persecutions, which now were being continued much more forcefully by the pagan authorities. I take this statement as evidence of ongoing feelings but not ongoing persecutions. I would think it to be the same thing at 15.2 where there is a mixture of scriptural and more contemporary references.
i.e., the Gentiles.
I have resisted translating genus as ‘race’ here because the distinction is one of religious affiliation not race or ethnicity (however we define those terms), just as his reference to a third genus (the existence of which he rejected) in On the Veiling of Virgins 7.1 was on the basis of sexual distinction. As we find in Clement, Miscellanies 6.42.2, what Tertullian said here is that only the third genus, the Christians, will reach heaven, while the other two (Jews and pagans) will not.
Lk 21:16.
Once again, Tertullian is being sarcastic.
A reference to the two constellations Ursa Major and Ursa Minor.
A reference to the constellations Taurus and Leo.
Mt 10:34–6.
Mt 10:21; Mk 13:12.
Mt 10:22.
Mt 10:37; Lk 14:26.
Mt 16:25; Lk 17:33; Jn 12:25.
I have added this to give the sense of Tertullian’s sarcasm and to balance with the point he makes in the next sentence.
Mt 10:19.
Mt 10:20.
Mt 25:36.
Lk 18:7.
Mt 13:5–6, 20–1.
Tertullian’s logic is difficult to follow here. In this instance, because it suited his argument, he was arguing for a rather literal interpretation of Scripture against the Valentinians who were advocating other events than the ones that were most obvious as the fulfilment of scriptural prophecy. Tertullian wanted to argue here (and it must be remembered that he could argue for a more allegorical interpretation of Scripture when it suited him) that any event could be seen as the fulfilment of a prophecy if one were not to take the words at face value. Those events, like persecution, that seemed to match the literal fulfilment of the words of Jesus must therefore be taken to be those to which Jesus referred. I have the impression that one is not meant to understand Tertullian’s logic here with great clarity; its very complexity and obscurity could well have been meant to overwhelm a reader into accepting his point.
Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28; 1 Cor 15:8.
2 Cor 1:4.
Again, Tertullian is being sarcastic.
1 Pt 2:20–1.
1 Pt 4:12–16.
1 Jn 3:16.
1 Jn 4:18.
Mt 10:28.
Rev 2:10.
Rev 2:13.
Rev 3:7–8.
Rev 2:7.
Rev 2:17.
Rev 2:27–8.
Rev 3:5, 12.
Rev 3:21.
Mt 20:21; Mk 10:40.
Rev 6:9–11.
Rev 7:9.
Rev 7:14.
Is 1:18.
Rev 17:5–6.
Rev 21:8.
1 Jn 4:18. See Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 12.4.
Is 2:4.
Gen 49:27. On Paul’s Benjaminite membership see Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5. In Against Marcion 5.1.5 Tertullian also made the connection between Paul and the imagery of his tribe as a ravenous wolf.
Gen 25:34; 27:25.
2 Thess 1:4–5.
Rom 5:3–5.
Rom 8:17–18.
Rom 8:35–9.
2 Cor 11:23–5.
2 Cor 12:10.
2 Cor 4:8–10.
2 Cor 4:16–18.
This is not from either letter to the Thessalonians but from Phil 1:30. Is this an indication that Tertullian was trying to cite from memory?
Phil 2:17–18.
2 Tim 4:6–8.
2 Tim 2:11–13.
2 Tim 1:8.
2 Tim 1:7.
Rom 13:1.
Rom 13:4.
Rom 13:3–4.
Rom 13:7.
Mt 22:21.
1 Pt 2:13.
Acts 5:40.
Acts 7:59.
Acts 12:2.
Acts 14:19.
Lk 19:40.
See Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Cf. Suetonius, Nero 16.
Jn 21:18.
As I point out in Dunn (2001a:410–11), while in On the Prescriptions of Heretics 36.3,
Tertullian also referred to the manner of the two apostles’ deaths and the location, only here was it linked specifically with Nero.
Acts 21:10–12.
Acts 21:13.
Acts 21:14.
Mt 4:10; Dt 6:13. Cf. Mt 16:23; Mk 8:31.
13
ON THE VEILING OF VIRGINS
Literally ‘from the time when they shall have completed the changing of their age’. That Tertullian felt the need for a Latin edition of his Greek original should be an indication that he wanted it to be read more widely We may speculate that the Greek original had been addressed to the virgins themselves. If so, this could suggest either that these girls came from better-off local families where they could afford to have learnt several languages or that they came from Greek-speaking migrant families where such a non-veiling had been the custom and which they wished to maintain (and extend) in Carthage. This latter idea would make sense of why, in 2.1, Tertullian mentioned other communities in the Greek world that did veil their virgins. Stücklin (1974:108) thinks it not out of the question that Tertullian’s reference to an earlier work was to On Prayer, but I am not inclined to agree.
One should contrast these early chapters here, where Tertullian argued against custom when it was contrary to the truth, with what he wrote in On the Military Crown 3 where he described much of Christian liturgical life as being derived from custom and not from Scripture. Like a good orator, he was able to speak either for or against a position depending upon the particular circumstances.
Jn 14:6.
Col 1:17.
Resuscitatum. The same verb is used in Against Praxeas 2.1 but not in On the Prescriptions of Heretics 13.4, which uses resurgo. While resuscito does mean ‘raise up again’, I am wanting to emphasize the difference between the two verbs, perhaps suggesting that resuscito is a more primitive, less theologically precise word than the later resurgo.
See Countryman (1982:208–27). It is surprising, in a supposedly Montanist work, that the rule of faith contains no reference to the Spirit.
Reference to the Holy Spirit as Paraclete is taken by Barnes (1985:44) as one of the indicators of a work being written later in Tertullian’s career, when he was most under the influence of Montanism.
Jn 16:12–13. Gramaglia (1984:22612) points out that Tertullian was translating this passage from the Greek and not the Old Latin version.
Jn 14:26.
One should note how this sentence gives structure to the rest of the treatise, in a very similar way to which the threefold pattern of faith, teaching and truth gives shape to On the Shows (Sider 1978:339–65). Throughout this treatise I have translated disciplina as ‘teaching’.
Tertullian used the word to refer to teaching about how one should live one’s life rather than teaching about matters of what to believe intellectually, so perhaps it could even be rendered as ‘practical teaching’. The emphasis throughout is on the theory of how a Christian should live rather than on how Christians actually did live, hence my preference for ‘teaching’ over ‘conduct’ or ‘discipline’. In On the Shows, discussion about practical teaching comes in the section on truth, while the heading disciplina is used to refer to Scripture, in contrast with On the Veiling of Virgins.
Ecc 3:17.
A reference to Tertullian’s opposition to Marcion, who had argued that the god revealed in the Old Testament (the creator) was an inferior god to the one revealed in the New Testament (the God of justice).
Rather than gender-specific language about God (in this instance the Paraclete), I prefer to use the substantive, putting it in brackets to indicate where Tertullian simply used a personal pronoun.
Mt 23:8.
Jn 14:26; 16:13b. Tertullian had not included this part of verse 13 in his earlier extract from chapter 16.
It is only in this text that Tertullian used antecessor in its sense of ‘law professor’ (with it parallels with the usual Latin translation of 
as advocatus—see Tertullian, Against Praxeas 9.3—rather than intercessor) rather than its usual sense of ‘predecessor’.
Balfour (1982:786) points out that gentiles never appears in any of Tertullian’s works after Against Marcion. The fact that the related noun (gentilitas) appears here is either an exception, or an indication that the work ought to be dated earlier. Here the word does not mean Gentile (as opposed to Jew) but pagan (as opposed to Christian).
Tertullian’s final comment (et puto ante quosdam) is ambiguous in that it depends upon something else. If that verb is proposui (‘I have proposed’) then Tertullian was saying that he believed that he had proposed apostolic churches as setting a precedent before anyone else had proposed this. I have taken the reference to be to the apostles and their associates. Gramaglia (1984:23324) finds a reference to the bishop of Carthage as the ‘certain others’. I think it more likely to be a reference simply to the other churches to which the unveiled virgins turned for their precedent.
What Tertullian argues is that not only do a great number of churches veil their virgins but the apostolic churches in particular, which set precedent, veil them. The later churches, as he refers to them, i.e., those of more recent, non-apostolic origin, are those that do not veil them. As Rankin (1995:99) points out in another context, it is a church’s conformity to apostolic teaching that is of most importance, more so even than its ability to trace some apostolic succession.
Tertullian’s argument is that, just because the practice of veiling virgins is found in Greek and foreign churches, this is no reason for it to be rejected in Africa. He offers three reasons:
the practice is also found in Africa, some of those other (Greek) churches are apostolic churches (which ought to be imitated by others), and they are not foreign churches but form part of the one body.
Eph 4:4–6.
1 Cor 12:25. Rankin (1995:104) takes this passage as indicating that, even as a Montanist, Tertullian remained a member of the church and was not schismatic.
Includit. The word is used here to mean ‘encloses them in a veil’. Yet the verb also means to ‘shut in’ and even ‘control’, and there is a sense that this is Tertullian’s motive in wanting virgins veiled.
Jn 5:44; 12:43.
What Tertullian said was that praising virgins would cause them to blush and, not being veiled, the visible sign of the offence of being singled out for praise (their blushing), would last long after the words were spoken.
Schulz-Flügel (1997:207) suggests that Tertullian is being pointed here in his reference to his opponents.
Prostitui. This verb more commonly meant ‘to be exposed to prostitution’ or simply ‘to prostitute oneself. Tertullian’s choice of words is very revealing.
1 Cor 7:25–39.
1 Cor 7:22, 34.
Stücklin (1974:122–3) finds a reference to Seneca’s Letter 94 here.
The adjective nundinaticius, -a, -um is connected with a word for market and is used to imply that those virgins who went about unveiled were offering themselves for sale. Again, the overtones of prostitution are present behind Tertullian’s choice of words.
Publicatio could also have the sense of public exposure (Schulz-Flügel 1997:210). I am more inclined to use it in the more traditional sense of confiscation, especially because of the reference to the veil having been taken (sublato) in the next sentence.
Tertullian seems to suggest here that the loss of physical virginity is less of a degradation than the loss of spiritual virginity because, while sexual intimacy is at least natural, ripping of a woman’s veil is unnatural. I do not think Tertullian meant rape when he referred to physical violence, but the violence done to virginity through any kind of sexual intimacy (even consensual) involving a dedicated virgin.
Habitus can refer both to what one wears as well as to one’s character or nature or deportment. If Tertullian’s statement applies to an item of clothing, then he provides us with information about its blessing. If the statement applies more to one’s appearance, then he seems to suggest that the virgins make a commitment to God to appear a certain way (that is to say veiled). The veil becomes the sign of that commitment.
Ps 73 (74):22.
Tertullian is saying that the custom of letting virgins themselves choose whether to be veiled or not was destroyed by those virgins who wanted to force their still-veiled sisters to be liberated.
1 Cor 11:5–16.
1 Cor 7:34.
Most of this section of 4.1 (with the exception of the reference to 1 Cor 7:34) parallels On Prayer 21.2–4.
1 Cor 7:34.
This section of 4.2 parallels On Prayer 22.2.
1 Cor 7:34.
As one can tell from the number of additions a translator has to add to this treatise in order to make it make sense, in this work Tertullian himself is giving us an example of this maxim in action. Indeed, this could be his own motto for his mature style as an author.
Here we have an appeal to simple Aristotelian biology. The general, antecedent, universal genus is ‘woman’ to which belongs any number of particular, subsequent, partial species, including Virgin’, ‘widow’ and ‘married woman’. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul had used the term ‘woman’ as equivalent to ‘married woman’—this is Tertullian’s interpretation—while in 1 Corinthians 11 he used the term ‘woman’ in its more general sense.
Gen 2:18.
Gen 2:23.
This section parallels On Prayer 22.1.
Gen 2:24.
Gen 2:19–20.
Gen 2:25.
Gen 2:23.
This sentence parallels roughly with On Prayer 22.3.
Gen 2:24.
Gen 2:23.
Gen 3:20.
Tertullian’s rather long-winded statement appears to be that it is not the term ‘woman’ that indicates Adam’s helpmate as his future wife, but the very name Eve itself that indicates her future status as mother (and wife too).
Gal 4:4.
Ebion is reputed by Tertullian and Hippolytus to have been the founder of the Ebionites, a group of Christians who observed many Jewish ritual practices and who were branded as heretics because of their belief that Jesus was born of normal human sexual intercourse and was invested by God with extraordinary powers and yet was not divine. Scholars today debate whether the Ebionites were a particular sect or whether the term applied to Christian Jews in general.
Lk 1:26–8.
The use of the substantive derived from the verb desponso, which we find a number of times in this chapter and in chapter 11, suggests an agreement to marry, probably still negotiated between families rather than between the marrying couple, that was less formal than the arrangement that involved the use of the verb spondeo or sponso. See Treggiari (1991:141– 2).
1 Cor 11:3. It is to be noted that in this section of the treatise, where the argument is drawn from reason and nature, that Tertullian still appeals to Scripture.
Nubere is a verb that means to veil. As the wearing of the flammeum, the flame-coloured mantle, was an integral part of the Roman wedding ceremony, the verb came to mean to marry. I want to capture this twofold meaning in my translation.
1 Cor 11:6.
This sentence parallels On Prayer 22.7b.
1 Cor 11:7.
1 Cor 11:8–9.
Gen 2:23.
1 Cor 11:10.
1 Cor 11:10.
Tertullian argued that if even the angels lusted after virgins, it was to be expected that men would do the same, and that as a consequence virgins ought to be veiled to protect themselves. This section of 7.2b parallels On Prayer 22.5.
Gen 6:1–2.
This is an indication that Tertullian was using a Greek text of Genesis.
7.2c–3a parallels On Prayer 22.6.
1 Cor 11:14–15.
Cor 11:7.
Cor 11:3.
Gen 2:23.
Cor 11:5.
Cor 11:4.
Investis can also refer to an unmarried man.
Here we have a clear instance of Tertullian applying the term uirgo to males.
8.3–4a parallels On Prayer 22.4b not 22.8a as Schulz-Flügel (1997:28) suggests.
1 Cor 11:16.
Stücklin (1974:42) omits the negative particle.
1 Cor 14:34.
1 Tim 2:12.
Cardman (1999:325, 32) says that here ‘Tertullian rails against women speaking …’. I certainly agree that Tertullian repeats the Pauline instruction but I would not go as far as to say that he rails. Indeed, the Montanist style of Christianity to which Tertullian was attracted was founded upon three prophets, two of whom had been female. In On the Soul 9.4 Tertullian mentioned a (Montanist) woman who was inspired by the Paraclete during the liturgy and who delivered her message (to those in the assembly who were of Montanist leanings) when the liturgy was concluded. Here in On the Veiling of Virgins, it suits Tertullian’s purpose to portray himself as being submissive to Scripture as he wants the unveiled virgins to be equally submissive. Cardman’s statement does not take into account what we find in Against Marcion 5.8.11 where, using the same piece of Scripture (1 Cor 11:5–6), Tertullian was able to argue that women could utter prophecy as long as they were veiled. The closest parallel to this section in On Prayer is 22.4a.
1 Tim 5:9.
1 Tim 5:10. This is a difficult passage to translate and my result must remain rather conjectural. The German and Italian translations have the two ut clauses referring to the widows (which certainly seems to make most sense of the first clause), while the French translation has them referring to the virgin (which makes most sense of the second clause). I am making the first refer to the widows and the second to the virgin (and others like her).
The honourable mark is their unveiled condition. It is obvious that Tertullian here is being sarcastic.
These were an inland African people. The elder Pliny refers to them in his Natural History 5.36, 38, 45.
Stücklin (1974:124) believes that Tertullian’s information comes from Tacitus, Germany 38, where he describes the practice of the male Suebi, who sweep up their hair and tie it in a knot to give them the appearance of greater height. This practice distinguishes them from other Germans.
1 Cor 7:5. The common hardship may be taken as a reference to marriage, thus those who have protested against marriage are the virgins.
Gen 1:27; 1 Cor 11:7.
On the question of whether or not Tertullian accepted that women were, like men, created in the image of God, see Church (1975:90–1).
See 8.2. The opponents have argued that if Tertullian were right, that ‘women’ referred to females of every age, then he ought to be consistent and argue for the veiling even of prepubescent girls, which he does not. In a wonderful display of rhetoric Tertullian will now go on to argue further about the definition of virgin. Up until this point he has put the case that ‘virgins’ (a species of the generic term ‘woman’) meant unmarried adolescent and unmarried adult females, and they should be veiled. Now he is prepared to agree with his opponents that virgins should not be veiled only because, for the sake of argument, he has redefined ‘virgins’ to be only those who are prepubescent.
Gen 2:25.
Gen 3:6–7.
1 Cor 11:10.
11.1–2 parallels On Prayer 22.8.
Gen 24:63–5.
Mt 5:28.
In On the Military Crown 4.2, Tertullian also turned to Rebekah to argue that if one were only to follow Scripture (and not take custom into account) then she would be the precedent only for virgins coming to marriage to be veiled at the moment they recognized their intended husbands. No other females and virgins at no other times should be veiled. As this was obviously not the case, Tertullian argued that Christians sometimes needed more than Scripture in order to devise rules for life. 11.3 parallels On Prayer 22.10c.
This is how the German, Italian and French translations render ex angustiis, yet the term can also have the sense of narrow-mindedness.
This is a reference to the changes of puberty, including the onset of menstruation.
Here Tertullian seems to be using the term ‘woman’ now to indicate a particular species (adult females) rather than the genus.
I add this to make clear how Tertullian can seem to have made a statement contrary to his overall position.
The use of ethnicus is an indication of the late date of composition. See Balfour (1982:786).
For classical references to the flammeum, the flame-coloured wedding veil, see Juvenal, Satires 6.224–6; Pliny the elder, Natural History 21.46; Festus 79.23L; 32.6L.
See Lucan, Pharsalia 2.370–1. Treggiari (1991:149–50) makes the point that it is only on the basis of Tertullian’s ‘tendentious’ evidence that we may conclude that the wearing of the veil, the kiss and the joining of the right hands was part of the engagement ceremony. At her engagement ‘[t]he physical contact with a male body and the mental awareness make her to all intents and purposes a married woman already’. Tertullian’s overall point is clear: it is not marriage (or even engagement) that makes a girl a woman but her age.
The use of the Latin verb sponso indicates the Roman practice of an agreement to marry being reached between two families. I have translated this term here and at 16.4 with the idea of promise to indicate that this first step did not involve those to be married. See Treggiari (1991:138–46).
Sponsalia refers to the ratification of the promise to marry that had been made by the families. The ratification needed to be made by the couple themselves. The term also refers to the celebration of the engagement. See Treggiari (1991:145–8).
I would not take Tertullian at face value here, for although he says ‘ours’ he really meant that in a very loose sense. His comments are about the unveiled virgins who, although in every other respect dress as adults from the time of puberty onwards, continue to dress as children when it comes to the wearing of the veil.
The pallium was a Greek rectangular mantle unlike the Roman curved toga. Women wore a palla rather than a pallium, so it is interesting to find this term, about which Tertullian wrote so much in On the Pallium, associated with women.
12.1b–2 parallels On Prayer 22.9a.
Literally ‘the brothers’. I have offered the more inclusive translation to indicate that perhaps Tertullian meant that these virgins ought to show respect to the other females in the community (as well as the males).
Cf. Gal 1:10. 13.1–2a parallels On Prayer 22.9b.
Mt 6:4.
Gloria. Groh (1971:11) notes that gloria is self-exaltation, the very opposite to Christian humility and that in this part of his work, Tertullian points to its manifestation in clothing and personal appearance.
1 Cor 4:7.
13.3 parallels On Prayer 22.9c.
Tertullian was being ironic, even sarcastic, here.
This is an excellent example of the rhetorical figure of gradatio. See To Herennius 4.25.34;
Quintilian, Oratorical Instruction 9.3.55–7. One may note the parallel with On the Shows 15.3–4.
Produco can have the sense that it is envy that ‘leads’ them to behave the way they do, that their pregnancies are ‘exposed’ to common knowledge, and that it is their envy that makes their stomachs ‘grow and bear’.
Phil 3:19.
Prov 5:22; Is 5:18.
There seems to be something missing in what Tertullian wrote at this point, which makes interpretation of what he meant difficult.
Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9.
Mt 10:26; Lk 12:2.
Here I take publicatio in its secondary sense. Cf. 3.4.
14.1–5 parallels On Prayer 22.9d.
1 Sam 2:7; Ps 74 (75):8; 146 (147):6; Lk 1:52.
1 Thess 5:21.
Eph 6:11, 13.
This section parallels On Prayer 22.9e.
Pudicitia. Tertullian has a treatise entitled On Modesty. The word can also mean decency, virtue, good character or chastity. Tertullian’s On Exhortation to Chastity uses the Latin word castitas, which more commonly means purity. Classical literature praised the woman of good character as suitable for marriage and by that is meant a woman of restraint or modesty in all things, and one part of that would have been sexual modesty, or chastity. See Treggiari (1991:103–7, 218–19, 236).
1 Cor 11:10.
Her identity is unclear. Indeed, these couple of sentences seem to make awkward sense. I have taken the ‘they’ to refer to the pagan females who wear their veil: they are unhappy because they can see what they are loving, whereas men cannot see them to decide whether or not to love them; yet they are happy because they do not have the constant attention of men which they would if they were not veiled.
Is the Christian woman in question of Montanist persuasion, for whom prophetic revelations were an important dimension of their religious identity, or not? Such revelations did not seem as important to non-Montanist Christian women. If she were a Montanist, though, one would presume that she would already have been veiled, as demanded by their more rigorous way of Christian life. That the angel can see the certain sister’s neck could indicate that she was a non-Montanist Christian woman (who were generally of a more libertine persuasion than their Montanist-inclined sisters). However, as I suggested at the end of the introduction to this text, perhaps it is more likely that some of the Montanist virgins had been seeking liberation from the veil and that this female prophet was indeed a rebellious Montanist woman. The sarcastic tone of the angel’s comment would indicate that the prophecy was a warning to be veiled down to the base of the neck. Whether or not the woman responded positively to the warning we cannot tell, though if she had, one would imagine Tertullian would have mentioned her change as it would have been so useful to his position.
It would seem that Tertullian was describing the ostrich.
Stücklin (1974:123–4) finds a parallel with the elder Pliny’s Natural History 10.1 here.