Couldn't Paul have simply believed Jesus was human?

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter & all,

1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1 Clement 42:3 also tends to connect the cause of the resurrection of Jesus to the consequence of the faith of the apostles, while 1 Clement 42:2 is also suggestive of a relatively close chronological link between sending Christ and sending the apostles.

I want to be make a remark on that (this is not a critique of what you wrote):
By "apostles", I do not think Clement necessarily was thinking about the Galilean eyewitnesses of Jesus, since Paul is also an apostle in 5:5. So, according to 1 Clement, the preaching of the apostles to "everywhere" could have started progressively within a few decades after the alleged resurrection.
Later, however, it was specified Jesus' own witnesses went everywhere to preach right after the alleged resurrection:
a) Mk16:20a (interpolation made after other gospels were known) (early 2nd century?) "And they [the disciples, right after the alleged ascension] went out and preached everywhere ..."
b) gMatthew 28:19a (probably part of an interpolation early 2 century) (I have reservations on this one: "everywhere" not specified)
c) Aristides (120-130) Apology "... ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ..."
d) Justin Martyr (150-160), in his 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere"
Also from Justin's works:
- 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking"
- 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him"
- Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."
e) Despite attesting 'Acts' in 'Against Heresies', Irenaeus (180) wrote in his 'Demonstration apostolic':
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles"

About Revelation 11:8, I agree with you with "Rome". But, because I think that 11:8 was part of the initial Jewish Revelation, written soon after the events of 70, (later Christianized around 90-95), the "Lord" is the Jewish God, figuratively "crucified" (because of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple). http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

About Revelation 11:8, I agree with you with "Rome". But, because I think that 11:8 was part of the initial Jewish Revelation, written soon after the events of 70, (later Christianized around 90-95), the "Lord" is the Jewish God, figuratively "crucified" (because of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple). http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

Here is what I find on that page:

where also their Lord was crucified.
[who is He? Jesus was not crucified in Rome (neither Sodom, nor Egypt). It may mean God himself (figuratively), because of the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple and many Jews. OR, more likely, a later Christian interpolator, with tunnel vision, locked on “the great city” of the verse, thought it was about Jerusalem, and inserted “where also their Lord was crucified” (or as a margin note which got into the text by a later copyist)]

It sounds like you are of two minds on the topic. But what would you say to someone who regarded this verse as evidence that Jesus was thought by some to have been crucified in Rome (whether with or without a sideways glance to the instigations of Chrestus as found in Suetonius)? Your only real argument here assumes that Jesus was not crucified in Rome; it therefore cannot be used as evidence of the same, and thus seems powerless against a reading which interprets the Great City as Rome and "their Lord" as Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

I want to be make a remark on that (this is not a critique of what you wrote):
By "apostles", I do not think Clement necessarily was thinking about the Galilean eyewitnesses of Jesus, since Paul is also an apostle in 5:5. So, according to 1 Clement, the preaching of the apostles to "everywhere" could have started progressively within a few decades after the alleged resurrection.
Later, however, it was specified Jesus' own witnesses went everywhere to preach right after the alleged resurrection:
a) Mk16:20a (interpolation made after other gospels were known) (early 2nd century?) "And they [the disciples, right after the alleged ascension] went out and preached everywhere ..."
b) gMatthew 28:19a (probably part of an interpolation early 2 century) (I have reservations on this one: "everywhere" not specified)
c) Aristides (120-130) Apology "... ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ..."
d) Justin Martyr (150-160), in his 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere"
Also from Justin's works:
- 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking"
- 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him"
- Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."
e) Despite attesting 'Acts' in 'Against Heresies', Irenaeus (180) wrote in his 'Demonstration apostolic':
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles"

There is also a tradition that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem for 12 years after the resurrection, before going out into all the world. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.5:

For, in addition to the preaching of Peter, the apostle Paul will show that, as God wished to save the Jews by giving to them prophets, and also by raising up prophets of their own in their own tongue as they were able to receive the beneficence of God, he distinguished the most excellent of the Greeks from the common herd, saying: Take also the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, how it is shown that God is one, and how the future is indicated. And, taking Hystaspes, read and you will find much more luminously and distinctly the son of God described, and how many kings shall draw up their forces against Christ, hating him and those that bear his name, and his faithful ones, and his patience, and his advent. Then in one word he asks us: Whose is the world and all that is in the world? Are they not of God? Wherefore Peter says that the Lord said to the apostles: If anyone of Israel then wishes to repent and by my name to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him. After twelve years go forth into the world so that no one may say: We have not heard.

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.18.13:

[Apollonius] speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Savior commanded his apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years.

Acts of Peter 5:

And as they prayed and fasted, God was already teaching Peter at Jerusalem of that which should come to pass. For whereas the twelve years which the Lord Christ had enjoined upon him were fulfilled, he showed him a vision after this manner, saying unto him: Peter, that Simon the sorcerer whom thou didst cast out of Judaea, convicting him, hath again come before thee (prevented thee) at Rome.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another tradition seems to have seven years. Clementine Recognitions 1.43:

For on this point only does there seem to be any difference between us who believe in Jesus, and the unbelieving Jews. But while they often made such requests to us, and we sought for a fitting opportunity, a week of years was completed from the passion of the Lord; the Church of the Lord which was constituted in Jerusalem was most plentifully multiplied and grew, being governed with most righteous ordinances by James, who was ordained bishop in it by the Lord.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't think someone like Craig has to prove anything; he just has to put up a fight that is at least as good as the one for interpolation. There's definitely no presumption in favor of an interpolation hypothesis. Most of the arguments from Price are fairly 'soft' themselves. Perhaps the most interesting one is the absence of the appearance to 500 or to James in the canonical gospels.

I'm interested in this interpolation hypothesis, but we shouldn't all just jump on the same bandwagons...

Agreed. All arguments for an interpolation here are bound to be soft, so to speak, though of course some will be stronger than others. There is something to be said, I think, for the combination of various observations, as well. The combination which strikes me the hardest in favor of interpolation is as follows:

1. The list of appearances to the apostles is superfluous to the argument. It is not referenced again in the chapter, nor does any later statement seem to rely upon its testimony. Instead, arguments are mounted from analogies in nature and such.
2. The references to the Marcionite passage in Tertullian and Epiphanius retain enough of it to answer the most pointed objections to the hypothesis of interpolation (as I mentioned above with regard to Craig's arguments) while omitting the appearances to the apostles, already noted as superfluous. Thus, the apparently attested Marcionite text (mainly the creed involving the death and resurrection), minus the text unattested for Marcion (mainly the appearances themselves), happens to hit a sweet spot of sorts, avoiding most objections on the one side while explaining why the appearances play no further part in the chapter on the other.
3. The presence of the appearance list itself is a nearly perfect antidote to certain Marcionite views concerning the relationship of Paul to the other apostles.
4. This passage has Paul apparently claiming to have received the gospel from other humans, while the Paul of Galatians claims that his gospel derives from no human.

Nothing is certain here, obviously, and I can think of pretty good individual responses to at least two of these points. What I have trouble doing is avoiding the force of all four observations at once.

Definitely some good points here.

Interestingly, the first and third of these objections have no force against the specific reconstruction I currently support:

There is a case to be made that verses 1-11 read as follows in the Marcionite text:

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain — 3b that Christ died, 4a that he was buried, 4b and that he was raised on the third day. 11b So we preach, and so you believed.

I might propose a variant to this, arguing by analogy with other, similar creed-like statements in Paul. Quotes from ESV.

Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν; Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀποθανών, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθεὶς (ἐκ νεκρῶν), ὅς [καί] ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·

1 Thessalonians 4:14
For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.

2 Corinthians 5:15
and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι.

We might get this:

For I delivered to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. So we preach and so you believed.

παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν καὶ ἡγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν. οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε.

From this:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised [from the dead] on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ... so we preach and so you believed.

παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ... οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε.

Looking at it now, does anyone else notice that ἐν πρώτοις ("as of first importance") cuts against the idea of the long chain of nested clauses that follow? It's as if Paul forgot that he was mentioning the most important thing and starts telling the whole story with some personal history on top.

There's an art to these things. For example, I suggest that ἐκ νεκρῶν was replaced only because it would maintain the balance of the phrases (with a chiasm). I rather like ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν as it prevents the statement about "we" that follows from being an isolated first person plural pronoun, providing a better psychological explanation for the shift into plural. The four-fold ὅτι, which W. L. Craig plausibly ascribes to the same author, is cleanly removed to the second layer by making the creed a simple conjunction of verbs, similar to the other examples in Paul. The brevity of the statement is proportional to the promise set up in the phrase ἐν πρώτοις. The actual content, death and resurrection, has high impact rhetorically and is better suited to the development of Paul's subsequent argument for the resurrection from the dead, in general.

Of course, if correct, this would solve exactly nothing for our debates.

We have no true attestation for 1 Cor 15:1-11 in the text of Marcion. All is inference from quotations that the fathers make, which might have been intended to be quotes from their text (by memory perhaps - even us moderns have it memorized). Here is the passage in Tertullian:

Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind; he is by this time afraid to say which side has the better right to a Christ who is not yet revealed. Just as my Christ is to be expected, who was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a better faith, which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe in. Touching the resurrection of the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:12 let us first inquire how some persons then denied it. No doubt in the same way in which it is even now denied, since the resurrection of the flesh has at all times men to deny it. But many wise men claim for the soul a divine nature, and are confident of its undying destiny, and even the multitude worship the dead in the presumption which they boldly entertain that their souls survive. As for our bodies, however, it is manifest that they perish either at once by fire or the wild beasts, or even when most carefully kept by length of time. When, therefore, the apostle refutes those who deny the resurrection of the flesh, he indeed defends, in opposition to them, the precise matter of their denial, that is, the resurrection of the body. You have the whole answer wrapped up in this. All the rest is superfluous. Now in this very point, which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is requisite that the proper force of the words should be accurately maintained. The word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital principle, by means of which it used to live. Now the body is that which loses life, and as the result of losing it becomes dead. To the body, therefore, the term dead is only suitable. Moreover, as resurrection accrues to what is dead, and dead is a term applicable only to a body, therefore the body alone has a resurrection incidental to it. So again the word Resurrection, or (rising again), embraces only that which has fallen down. To rise, indeed, can be predicated of that which has never fallen down, but had already been always lying down. But to rise again is predicable only of that which has fallen down; because it is by rising again, in consequence of its having fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen. For the syllable RE always implies iteration (or happening again). We say, therefore, that the body falls to the ground by death, as indeed facts themselves show, in accordance with the law of God. For to the body it was said, (Till you return to the ground, for out of it were you taken; for) dust you are, and unto dust shall you return. That, therefore, which came from the ground shall return to the ground. Now that falls down which returns to the ground; and that rises again which falls down. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:21

Tertullian doesn't quote this part of the text when dealing with chapter 15. He does mention, however:

Just as my Christ is to be expected, who was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a better faith, which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe in.

He could have been reminded to say this, at this particular point, in contrast to the absence of the double "according to the scriptures" at 15:3-4.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

It sounds like you are of two minds on the topic. But what would you say to someone who regarded this verse as evidence that Jesus was thought by some to have been crucified in Rome (whether with or without a sideways glance to the instigations of Chrestus as found in Suetonius)? Your only real argument here assumes that Jesus was not crucified in Rome; it therefore cannot be used as evidence of the same, and thus seems powerless against a reading which interprets the Great City as Rome and "their Lord" as Jesus.

You are right. I did not check what I wrote long ago. I think now the 2nd option is far-fetched and I will remove it.
What would I say? Because that verse was part of the initial Jewish Revelation, that "Lord" cannot be Jesus.
If you want to keep the option Chrestus was crucified in Rome, so be it. The Great city is certainly Rome according to my analysis and Peter's.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

We have no true attestation for 1 Cor 15:1-11 in the text of Marcion. All is inference from quotations that the fathers make, which might have been intended to be quotes from their text (by memory perhaps - even us moderns have it memorized).

That is true. What strikes me is one coincidence and one observation. First, the coincidence. Tertullian knows the text which has "according to the scriptures":

Tertullian, Against Praxeas: ...that he suffered, died, and was buried, according to the scriptures....
Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh: How then did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? No doubt, since you are told that He "died according to the Scriptures," and "that He was buried according to the Scriptures," no otherwise than in the flesh, you will also allow that it was in the flesh that He was raised from the dead.

Yet in Against Marcion 3.8.5 he has this line as:

"I have delivered unto you before all things," says he, "how that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day."

He provides no hint that he is using the Marcionite text here, so for all we know he is simply quoting the most relevant parts from memory, and the omissions mean nothing. Epiphanius, however, who is probably doing the same thing, comes very close to this same reconstruction in Panarion 42.11.7 and 42.12.3:

On resurrection of the dead: 'Brethren, I make known unto you the gospel which I preached unto you.' Also, 'If Christ be not raised, it is in vain,' and so on. 'So we preach, and so ye believed .... that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again the third day .... When this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.'

....

On resurrection of the dead: 'Brethren, I make known unto you the Gospel ye believed ... that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day ... When this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.'

Tertullian has "for our sins" (I like your point about this leading into the plural nicely) where Epiphanius does not, but the rest is the same, lacking "according to the scriptures". It may just be a coincidence, with each of the two heresiologists quoting the most relevant parts, but second, the observation. Is it not interesting that neither one of them thinks to use "according to the scriptures", "what I also received", or any of the appearances to fellow apostles against Marcion?

I might propose a variant to this, arguing by analogy with other, similar creed-like statements in Paul.

Very interesting idea.

Looking at it now, does anyone else notice that ἐν πρώτοις ("as of first importance") cuts against the idea of the long chain of nested clauses that follow? It's as if Paul forgot that he was mentioning the most important thing and starts telling the whole story with some personal history on top.

That is interesting. It is similar to my observation that the appearances (and the personal history) are superfluous, but I like the textual component with ἐν πρώτοις. How many things on this list really qualify as the "most important" or "foremost" pieces of information? By the quotations you assemble from other Pauline epistles, really only the death and the resurrection. Maybe, then, what was "most important" for Paul was sadly lacking from a slightly later and decidedly non- or anti-Marcionite perspective, and so somebody added a few other things which were by that time deemed to be quite important, as well.

Tertullian doesn't quote this part of the text when dealing with chapter 15. He does mention, however:

Just as my Christ is to be expected, who was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a better faith, which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe in.

He could have been reminded to say this, at this particular point, in contrast to the absence of the double "according to the scriptures" at 15:3-4.

Another good point among many.

[Secret Alias]

He provides no hint that he is using the Marcionite text here, so for all we know he is simply quoting the most relevant parts from memory, and the omissions mean nothing. Epiphanius, however, who is probably doing the same thing, comes very close to this same reconstruction in Panarion 42.11.7 and 42.12.3

Tertullian almost never says he is quoting from Marcion's gospel or apostle. The original author is citing from his own text. I've always thought that Epiphanius uses the same original source. But why no 'for our sins'? Hard one.

[Secret Alias]

I don't know if you noticed the context that this reference in Adv Marc 3.8.5 appears within? It immediately comes after a statement borrowed from the common source shared with Adv Iud:

Adv Marc. 3.7.1 Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together. We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness,90 when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: "He is like a tender plant,92 like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty: His form was disfigured; " "marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity; "94 "placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; "95 "made by Him a little lower than the angels; "96 declaring Himself to be "a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people."97 [3] Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence," but after His rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and elevated to the top place98 of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom.99 [4] Of this advent the same prophet says: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."100 [5] Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men. "Thou art fairer," says (the Psalmist), "than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath blessed Thee for ever. Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and Thy majesty."101 For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, "will crown Him with glory and honour, and put all things under His feet."102 [6] "Then shall they look on Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe; "103 because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human condition. He is even a man says Jeremiah, and who shall recognise Him Therefore, asks Isaiah, "who shall declare His generation? "104 So also in Zechariah, Christ Jesus, the true High Priest of the Father, in the person of Joshua, nay, in the very mystery of His name,105 is portrayed in a twofold dress with reference to both His advents. At first He is clad in sordid garments, that is to say, in the lowliness of suffering and mortal flesh: then the devil resisted Him, as the instigator of the traitor Judas, not to mention his tempting Him after His baptism: afterwards He was stripped of His first filthy raiment, and adorned with the priestly robe106 and mitre, and a pure diadem;107 in other words, with the glory and honour of His second advent.108 [7] If I may offer, moreover, an interpretation of the two goats which were presented on "the great day of atonement,"109 do they not also figure the two natures of Christ? They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the Lord's identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced. One of these goats was bound110 with scarlet,111 and driven by the people out of the camp112 into the wilderness,113 amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing,114 being thus marked with all the signs of the Lord's own passion; while the other, by being offered up for sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were,115 of the Lord's own grace, whilst the residue go away from salvation without tasting it.116 [8] Since, therefore, the first advent was prophetically declared both as most obscure in its types, and as deformed with every kind of indignity, but the second as glorious and altogether worthy of God, they would on this very account, while confining their regards to that which they were easily able both to understand and to believe, even the second advent, be not undeservedly deceived respecting the more obscure, and, at any rate, the more lowly first coming. Accordingly, to this day they deny that their Christ has come, because He has not appeared in majesty, while they ignore the fact that He was to come also in lowliness.

Adv Iud Learn now (over and above the immediate question) the clue to your error. We affirm, two characters of the Christ demonstrated by the prophets, and as many advents of His forenoted: one, in humility (of course the first), when He has to be led "as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb voiceless before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth," not even in His aspect comely. [2] For "we have announced," says the prophet, "concerning Him, (He is) as a little child, as a root in a thirsty land; and there was not in Him attractiveness or glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men," "a man set in the plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence,"322 and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels,"323 He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People."324 [3] Which evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall be made no longer "a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal," but "the highest corner-stone,"325 after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation,326 and that "rock"--so we must admit--which is read of in Daniel as forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.327 [4] Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: "And, behold, as it were a Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom one which shall not be corrupted."328 [5] Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be) "blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men."329 "Grace," says the Psalmist, "hath been outpoured in Thy lips: wherefore God hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom and beauty!"330 while the Father withal afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels, "crowned Him with glory and honour and subjected all things beneath His feet."331 [6] And then shall they "learn to know Him whom they pierced, and shall beat their breasts tribe by tribe; "332 of course because in days bygone they did not know Him when conditionedin the humility of human estate. Jeremiah says: "He is a human being, and who will learn to know Him? "333 because, "His nativity," says Isaiah, "who shall declare?" [7] So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery334 of His name withal, the most true Priest of the Father, His own335 Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with reference to the Two Advents.336 First, He was clad in "sordid attire," that is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him--the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor337 --who even after His baptism had tempted Him. In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the Second Advent; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour." [8] Nor will you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak,"338 who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus"339 there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad with a garment down to the foot,"340 and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.341 [9] So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day.342 Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come? A pair, on the one hand, and consimilar (they were), because of the identity of the Lord's general appearance, inasmuch as He is not to come in some other form, seeing that He has to be recognised by those by whom He was once hurt. But the one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and piercing, was cast away by the People outside the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of Christ's passion; who, after being begirt with scarlet garment, and subjected to universal spitting, and afflicted with all contumelies, was crucified outside the city.343 The other, however: offered for sins, and given as food to the priests merely of the temple,344 gave signal evidences of the second appearance; in so far as, after the expiation of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, of the church, were to enjoy345 a spiritual public distribution (as it were) of the Lord's grace, while all others are fasting from salvation.

[10] Therefore, since the vaticinations of the First Advent obscured it with manifold figures, and debased it with every dishonour, while the Second (was foretold as) manifest and wholly worthy of God, it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the Second, which is in honour and glory), they have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure--at all events, the more unworthy--that is, the First. And thus to the present moment they affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they are ignorant of346 the fact that He was first to come in humility.

[Secret Alias]

Clearly both Adv Marc and Adv Iud both use some common source. The first line in each:

Adv Iud 14 Discite nunc ex abundantia erroris vestri ducatum. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos, totidem adventus eius praenotatos: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tamquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat et tamquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce sic non aperiens os, ne aspectu quidem honestus. [2] Adnuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo: sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non erat ei species neque gloria, et vidimus eum et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga positus et sciens ferre infirmitatem, scilicet ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis et minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos,vermem se pronuntians et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et abiectionem populi. [3] Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competuntsicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. [4] De quo secundo adventu eius prophetes: Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tamquam filius hominis veniens venit usque ad veterem dierum et aderat in conspectu eius et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum; et data est ei potestas regia et omnes nationes terrae secundum genus et omnis gloria serviens illi et potestas illius aeterna quae non auferetur et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur. [5] Tunc scilicet speciem honorabilem et decorem habiturus est indeficientem supra filios hominum - tempestivus enim decore ultra filios hominum; effusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in saecula; accingere ensem tuum circa femur tuum, potentissime tempestivitate et pulchritudine tua --, cum et pater, posteaquam diminuit illum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronavit illum et subiecit omnia sub pedibus eius. [6] Et tunc cognoscent eum quem pupugerunt et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverint eum in humilitate condicionis humanae constitutum. Et homo est, inquit Hieremias, et quis cognoscet illum, quia et nativitatem eius, inquit Esaias, quis enarrabit? [7] Sic et apud Zachariam in persona Iesu, immo et in ipsius nominis sacramento verissimus sacerdos patris Christus ipsius duplici habitu in duos adventus deliniatur: primo sordibus indutus id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris qui eum etiam post baptismum temptaverat, dehinc spoliatus pristinas sordes, exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda id est secundi adventus, quoniam gloriam et honorem adeptus demonstratur.

Nec poteritis eum Iosedech filium dicere qui nulla omnino veste sordida sed semper sacerdotali fuit exornatus nec umquam sacerdotali munere privatus, sed Iesus iste Christus dei patris summi sacerdos qui primo adventu suo humanae formae et passibilis venit in humilitate usque ad passionem, ipse effectus etiam hostia per omnia pro omnibus nobis, qui post resurrectionem suam indutus podere sacerdos in aeternum dei patris nuncupatur. Sic enim et duorum hircorum qui ieiunio offerebantur faciam interpretationem. Nonne et illi utrumque ordinem Christi qui iam venit ostendunt, pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem domini conspectum, quia non in alia venturus est forma, ut qui agnosci habet a quibus et laesus est; unus autem eorum circumdatus coccino maledictus et consputatus et convulsus et compunctus a populo extra civitatem abiciebatur in perditionem,manifestis notatus insignibus Christi passionis qui coccinea circumdatus veste et consputatus et omnibus contumeliis adflictus extra civitatem crucifixus est; alter vero pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus tantum templi in pabulum datus secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, quia delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis id est ecclesiae dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. [10] Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimis figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo dignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt eum solum intuentes id est secundum qui est in honore et gloria non inmerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem certe indigniorem id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant in humilitate primum fuisse venturum.

[11] Sufficit hucusque de his interim ordinem Christi decucurrisse, quo talis probatur qualis adnuntiabatur, ut iam ex ista consonantia scripturarum divinarum [intellegamus] et quae post Christum futura praedicabantur ex dispositione divina credantur expuncta. Nisi enim ille venisset post quem habebant expungi, nullo modo evenissent quae in adventu eius futura praedicabantur. [12] Igitur si universas nationes de profundo erroris humani exinde emergentes ad deum creatorem et Christum eius cernitis, -- quod prophetatum non audetis negare, quia et si negaretis statim vobis in psalmis, sicuti iam praelocuti sumus, promissio patris occurreret dicentis:
Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; pete a me et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae. Nec poteritis in istam praedicationem magis David filium Solomonem vindicare quam Christum dei filium nec terminos terrae David filio
promissos qui intra unicam Iudaeam regnavit quam Christo filio dei qui totum iam orbem evangelii sui radiis inluminavit. [13] Denique et thronus in aevum magis Christo dei filio competit quam Solomoni, temporali scilicet regi qui solo Israeli regnavit. Christum enim hodie invocant nationes quae eum non sciebant et populi hodie ad Christum confugiunt quem retro ignorabant. Non potes futurum contendere quod vides fieri. [14] Haec aut prophetata nega, cum coram videntur, aut adimpleta, cum leguntur; aut si non negas utrumque, in eo erunt adimpleta in quem sunt prophetata.

Adv Marc 7. [1] Discat nunc haereticus ex abundanti cum ipso licebit Iudaeo rationem quoque errorum eius, a quo ducatum mutuatus in hac argumentatione caecus a caeco in eandem decidit foveam. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos totidem adventus eius praenotasse: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tanquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce, ita non aperiens os suum, ne aspectu quidem honestus. [2] Annuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo: sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non est species eius neque gloria, et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga, et sciens ferre infirmitatem, ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos, vermem se pronuntians et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et nullificamen populi. [3] Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competunt, sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem templi, ecclesiae scilicet, et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. [4] De quo adventu idem prophetes, Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tanquam filius hominis veniens, venit usque ad veterem dierum, aderat in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum, et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes nationes terrae secundum genera, et omnis gloria famulabunda, et potestas eius usque in aevum, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non vitiabitur, [5] tunc scilicet habiturus et speciem honorabilem et decorem indeficientem super filios hominum. Tempestivus enim, inquit, decore citra filios hominum, effusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in aevum. Accingere ensem super femur tuum, potens tempestivitate tua et pulchritudine tua; cum et pater, posteaquam diminuit eum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronabit illum et subiciet omnia pedibus eius.[6] Tunc et cognoscent eum qui compugerunt, et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverunt eum in humilitate condicionis humanae: Et homo est, inquit Hieremias, et quis cognoscet illum? Quia et, Nativitatem eius Esaias, quis,inquit, enarrabit? Sic et apud Zachariam in persona Iesu, immo et in ipso nominis sacramento, verus summus sacerdos patris, Christus Iesus, duplici habitu in duos adventus delineatur, primo sordidis indutus, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris, ne dicam etiam post baptisma temptator, dehinc despoliatus pristinas sordes, et exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda, id est secundi adventus gloria et honore.

[7] Si enim et duorum hircomm qui ieiunio offerebantur faciam interpretationem, nonne et illi utrumque ordinem Christi figurant? Pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem dominum conspectum,quia non in alia venturus est fonna, ut qui agnosci habeat a quibus laesus est. Alter autem eorum circumdatus coccino, maledictus et consputus et convulsus et compunctus, a populo extra civitatem adiciebatur in perditionem, manifestis notatus insignibus dominicae passionis. Alter vero, pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus templi in pabulum datus, secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, qua delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis, id est ecclesiae, dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur, ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. [8] Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimum figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo condignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt, eum solum intuentes, id est secundum, non immerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem, certe indigniorem, id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant etiam in humilitate fuisse venturum.

8. [1] Desinat nunc haereticus a Iudaeo, aspis quod aiunt a vipera, mutuari venenum, evomat iam hinc proprii ingenii virus, phan-
tasma vindicans Christum. Nisi quod et ista sententia alios habebit auctores, praecoquos et abortivos quodammodo Marcionitas, quos
apostolus Ioannes antichristos pronuntiavit, negantes Christum in carne venisse, et tamen non ut alterius dei ius constituerent, quia
et de isto notati fuissent, sed quoniam incredibile praesumpserant deum carnem. [2] Quo magis antichristus Marcion sibi eam rapuit
praesumptionem, aptior scilicet ad renuendam corporalem substantiam Christi, qui ipsum deum eius nec auctorem carnis induxerat nec resuscitatorem, optimum videlicet et in isto, et diversissimum a mendaciis et fallaciis creatoris. Et ideo Christus eius, ne mentiretur, ne falleret, et hoc modo creatoris forsitan deputaretur, non erat quod videbatur, et quod erat mentiebatur, caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde deus Christus nec deus.

It would seem to me on second viewing that the transformation occurred from a Latin source. Tertullian copied out a source that he had in Latin. There is no way that this could represent a translation of a text in Greek or Aramaic into Latin twice. But why the differences?