Signs Tertullian is Copying Out and Translating Into Latin a Greek Against Marcion

[Secret Alias]

So it is - for instance - in De Baptismo that Tertullian offers an explanation of the meaning of Christ from a POV of someone who could read and speak it:

That is why (the high priest) is called a christ, from 'chrism' which is 'anointing': and from this also our Lord obtained his title, though it had become a spiritual anointing, in that he was anointed with the Spirit by God the Father: and so <it says> in the Acts, For of a truth they are gathered together in this city against thy holy Son whom thou hast anointed.

The story that is spun in these Latin texts is that Tertullian could not only read Greek but actively wrote treatises in Greek. Not so sure that makes sense in light of the evidence. But that is what the texts say. Another possibility is that Irenaeus was fluent in both Greek and Latin and that Tertullian only copied out Irenaeus's Latin texts.

[Secret Alias]

Self references in Tertullian:

Ad uxorem Book 1 (beginning)

I have thought it meet, my best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord, even from this early period,1 to provide for the course which you must pursue after my departure from the world, if I shall be called before you; (and) to entrust to your honour the observance of the provision. For in things worldly we are active enough, and we wish the good of each of us to be consulted. If we draw up wills for such matters, why ought we not much more to take forethought for our posterity5 in things divine and heavenly, and in a sense to bequeath a legacy to be received before the inheritance be divided,----(the legacy, I mean, of) admonition and demonstration touching those (bequests) which are allotted out of (our) immortal goods, and from the heritage of the heavens? [3] Only, that you may be able to receive in its entirety6 this feoffment in trust of my admonition, may God grant; whom be honour, glory, renown, dignity, and power, now and to the ages of the ages! The precept (Praecipio), therefore, which I give you is, that, with all the constancy you may, you do, after our departure, renounce nuptials; not that you will on that score confer any benefit on me, except in that you will profit yourself.

Ad uxorem Book 1 (end) These considerations, dearest fellow-servant, I commend to you thus early,97 handled throughout superfluously indeed, after the apostle, but likely to prove a solace to you, In that (if so it shall turn out98 ) you will cherish my memory in them.

[Secret Alias]

Curious that Irenaeus knew Horace:

they lift up their opinions against God, inflated by a vain presumption and unstable glory,—men for whose purgation all the hellebore1 - on earth would not suffice, so that they should get rid of their intense folly.[Irenaeus AH 2.30]

1 Irenæus was evidently familiar with Horace; comp. Ars. Poet., 300.

[Secret Alias]

Dunn notes that Tertullian's chronology in Adv Iud referenced a Ptolemaic succession list and therefore was Alexandrian and written in Greek https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/ ... us-Iudaeos. He also argues Clement used the same source.

[Secret Alias]

The Greek phrase is cited in Greek and Latin the first time and then repeated a second time later in the treatise entirely in Latin:

But seeing that he argues with unusual insistence in the presence of one whom he calls a kind of suntalai/pwroj, companion in misery ( id est commiseronem), and summisou&menoj, companion in hatred ( id est coodibilem), regarding the cleansing of the leper, I shall not think it amiss to meet him, and first to show him the force of that figurative law [4.9]

So then when he is asked by that certain man, Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?, he inquired whether he knew—which means, was keeping—the Creator's commandments, in such form as to testify that by the Creator's commandments eternal life is obtained: and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up, he got the answer, One thing thou lackest; sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Come now, Marcion, and all you companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness of that heretic (commiserones et coodibiles eius haeretici), what will you be bold enough to say? Did Christ here rescind those former commandments, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother? Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? [4.36]

From Abbott ὁ συμμισουμενος Marcion meant the typical Christian, who, if faithful, must be “hated in partnership [with his Lord].” Comp. Jn xv. 18 foll. “if the world hateth (uores) you... it hath hated me before you.” This is expressed by Luke, but not (verbally at least) by the parall. Matthew in :— Mt. v. II Lk. vi. 22 Blessed are ye when they Blessed are ye when men Shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake

[Secret Alias]

Lieu writes " the Greek terms are συνταλαιπορος and συμμισουμενος; Tertullian uses the Latin equivalents, evidently coined by himself, commiseronis and coodobilis, again later in IV. 36.5. See also the epithet of Christ as ὁ ἐπερχομενος (IV. 23.1; 25.70).

But how and why would a Latin writer coin a Greek phrase like this in a book for a Latin audience? Let's see the second example she found:

Suscipio in me personam Israelis. Stet Christus Marcionis et exclamet: O genitura incredula, quousque ero apud vos? quousque sustinebo vos? Statim a me audire debebit: Quisquis es, επερχομενε, prius ede quis sis, et a quo venias, et quod in nobis tibi ius. Usque adhuc creatoris est totum apud te. Plane si ab illo venis et illi agis, admittimus increpationem. [2] Si vero ab alio, dicas velim quid nobis unquam de tuo commisisti quod credere debuissemus, ut exprobres incredulitatem, qui nec te ipsum aliquando nobis revelasti? Quam olim apud nos agere coepisti, ut tempus queraris? In quibus nos sustinuisti, ut patientiam imputes? Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo venis, et iam exclamas. Suscipio adhuc et personam discipulorum, in quos insiliit. O natio incredula, quamdiu ero vobiscum, quamdiu vos sustinebo? Hanc eruptionem eius utique hoc modo iustissime repercuterem: Quisquis es, επερχομενε , prius ede qui sis, a quo venias, quod tibi ius sit in nobis.

and again:

Ceterum si ἐπερχομενος ille, quae sunt omnia quae illi a patre sunt tradita? Quae sunt creatoris?

So oddly enough Greek terminology appears in the Latin text when Jesus as 'sufferer' or 'fellow-sufferer' and 'fellow-hated' appear.

[Secret Alias]

I think the editor of this edition of Tertullian is arguing that Tertullian's use of commemoro sounds like Greek phraseology https://books.google.com/books?id=mV1jz ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

4.22.14 Cum enim desiderasset conspectum domini Moyses dicens, Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta te mihi, ut cognoscenter videam te, eum conspectum desiderans in quo hominem esset acturus, quod propheta sciebat.

For when Moses desired to see the Lord, saying, "If therefore I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly," (= γνωστῶς) the sight which he desired to have was of that condition which he was to assume as man, and which as a prophet he knew was to occur.

[Secret Alias]

On there being a 'Latin layer' developed on top of an original Greek:

The findings of G.J.D. Aalders and T.P. O'Malley provide a helpful guide to answering the question of whether Tertullian customarily used the Bible in Latin or Greek. Aalders compares Tertullian's quotations of Luke to several versions of the Vetus Latina, and concludes that 'often they strikingly correspond with some of those versions'.185 On the other hand, Aalders also finds that there were more cases where Tertullian's quotations did not agree with the Old Latin, or where there was a closer correspondence with the Greek. Aalders thus reasons that Tertullian normally used the Greek and created his own translations for quotations. In the process of translation, Aalders argues, he also consulted a pre-existing Latin version where one was available. In his monograph surveying Tertullian's use of the Bible, O'Malley generally agrees with Aalders. He writes: 'There is no doubt but that Tertullian is in contact with Latin renderings of some parts of the Scriptures.' Yet O'Malley also recognises that Tertullian did not restrain himself to the Vetus Latina version: Just as Jerome and Augustine and others witness to variety of renderings of the same locus, and reflect upon the translations which they knew, Tertullian is already engaged in the same process. Sometimes with greater acumen than his successors showed, with independence which permits him to examine the Greek and translate it for himself, and always with an eye for clarity and precision of language.186 For the purpose of this study, the question of whether Tertullian used the Vetus Latina will be investigated in instances where his reading of the Bible on the question of the unborn child clearly diverged from that of the Greek, to a text of the Old Latin. https://books.google.com/books?id=SCAlD ... kQ6AEIKTAA

[Secret Alias]

Against Hermogenes:

Here is an example which lays out the Greek ur-text quite persuasively. Tertullian apparently wrote two tracts against Hermogenes, one of which survives down to us. It is generally acknowledged that "the minuteness with which his arguments are answered indicates that Tertullian is replying to a published work of Hermogenes" - but here is where the difficulties come. Because Tertullian is now preserved in Latin the assumption is made that Theophilus must have also written in Latin. But where Hermogenes is preserved - such by by Clement of Alexandria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 56) that text was clearly written in Greek. Indeed Theophilus wrote "against the heresy of Hermogenes" (H. E, iv. 24) in Greek. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes was also answered by Origen who also wrote in Greek.

Moreover Tertullian specifically mentions Theophilus as being alive in his day and - seemingly present before him in Carthage:

Now, the doctrine of Hermogenes has this taint of novelty. He is, in short, a man living in the world at the present time

How could a heretic alive at the time of Theophilus and presumably living in Antioch c 150 - 180 CE - have come all the way to Carthage and still be deemed to have a 'novelty' about his ideas given the widespread promulgation of his opinions? Clearly Tertullian is just copying out something - i.e. 'Against Hermogenes' - written by Theophilus who originally said - i.e. back in the days of Commodus - that Hermogenes represented a novelty.

Hermogenes's name " indicates [him to be] of Greek descent." The text assails his private character, entering into details in a way which would not be intelligible unless both he and the original author were inhabitants of the same city. Here is something else worth considering: