Against Marcion in five books

The treatise Against Marcion in Five Books (203-212) is the third edition of this work and is Tertullian's most extensive and best polemical work against Gnosticism. It contains a refutation of the most serious opponent of Catholic Christianity - Marcion. Marcion was a proponent of strident dualism and spread his errors in Rome. He recognized the existence of two Gods - the Demiurge, the strict God of the Old Testament, and the loving God-Redeemer of the New Testament. In his book Antitheses, he argued that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Tertullian criticizes the contradictions of the Antithesis. In the first book, the author sets out the doctrine of the unity of God and His properties, proving that there is no good God who would not at the same time be the Creator of the world. The second book reveals the doctrine that the Creator of the world is the one true God, possessing all the properties with which the Marcionites endow their good God; and also about the image of God in man, about the origin of sin, which has its basis in the abuse of human freedom, and about the human image of Christ. The third book of a Christological nature aims to prove the identity of Christ who appeared on earth and what was predicted in the Old Testament. This refutation of Marcion's theology and Christology in the fourth and fifth books is followed by the elimination of the contradictions that Marcion wanted to find between the law and the Gospel, and a criticism of Marcion's New Testament canon: Marcion, in order to harmonize with his teaching, accepted only the Gospel of Luke and the ten epistles of the Apostle Paul. *The title of the work in Latin is Adversus Marcionem. Contents A.Yu. Bratukhin. Works and days of Tertullian A.Yu. Bratukhin. Works and days of Tertullian To my daughters Elizaveta and Evdokia Biography. Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian was born between 150 and 170. after A. X. in Carthage and died after 220. In his youth he was, as can be concluded from his fairly detailed description of the Mithraic mysteries (Tert. De praescr., 40, 3-4 and Tert. De cor., 15, 3), initiated into the third degree of the mysteries of Mithras, a very popular god in the Roman Empire. In any case, this Christian writer’s close acquaintance with Mithraism is beyond doubt. 1 Quintus Septimius was greatly influenced by the philosophy of the Stoics, 2 He even calls Seneca the Younger “always ours” (Tert. De an., 20, 1). For some time Tertullian lived in Rome (Tert. De cult., I, 7, 2), where he probably practiced law: Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” (II, 2, 4) calls him “who knew Roman laws perfectly (τοὺς Ῥωμαίων νόμους ἠκριβωκώς)". Did Quintus Septimius come from the family of a proconsular centurion and was he ordained a presbyter after his conversion to Christianity, as the blessed one reports? Jerome in his book “On Famous Men,” this information is questioned by some scientists. 3 After receiving baptism, Tertullian married a Christian woman, with whom he lived, according to him, for quite a long century (saecularibus satis agentes sumus) (Tert. Ad ux., I, 1–2). In the second half of the first decade of the 3rd century. he, dissatisfied with the Roman clergy, turned to Montanism. Members of this sect preached asceticism and prohibited, in particular, second marriage. However, Tertullian also broke with the Montanists and founded his own sect of Tertullianists. It is curious that the two most ardent defenders of Christianity and fighters against paganism - Tatian and Tertullian - ultimately left the Catholic Church, unable to reconcile their ideas about the religion of Christ with historical Christianity. Creation. Considering the character of Tertullian, which forced him to rush from Mithraism to Orthodoxy, and from Orthodoxy to Montanism, it will be easy to understand the variety of themes in the works of this Carthaginian author, which are divided into apologetic, dogmatic-polemical and practical-ascetic. 1) Quintus Septimius defends Christian truth from the pagans in “To the Gentiles” (two books), in “Apologetics”, in a short work “On the Witness of the Soul” and in the epistle “To Scapula”; from the Jews - in the treatise “Against the Jews”. 2) Tertullian attacks heretics, mainly Gnostics, in his treatises “On the Prescription of Heretics”, “Scorpiacus”, “Against Hermogenes”, “Against the Valentinians”, “On the Flesh of Christ”, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh”, “Against Marcion” (five books), “Against Praxeus”; He argues with philosophers in his treatise “On the Soul.” The Carthaginian apologist fights not only with external and internal enemies of the Church. 3) He fights for the moral purity and perfection of Christians in the works “To the Martyrs”, “On Spectacles”, “To the Wife” (two books). “On female attire” (two books), “On the wreath”, “On idolatry”, “On the promotion of chastity”, “On flight during persecution”, “On maiden veils”, “On monogamy”. In the book “On Fasting,” Tertullian defends the Montanist fast; the essay “On Modesty” is directed against the bishop, who absolved carnal sins. The following works also belong to practical-ascetic works: “On Baptism”, “On Prayer”, “On Repentance”, “On Patience”, “On the Cloak”. In his last work, Tertullian explains his change from a toga to a philosopher's cloak. As we see, Tertullian, in contrast to the so-called. “Apostolic men” who addressed their co-religionists only with words of exhortation, in contrast to the Greek apologists, who only defended Christianity from the pagans, and in contrast to St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who only refuted the Gnostics, developed all these themes. In order for the reader to gain a more complete understanding of the work of Quintus Septimius and the diversity of his interests, we will dwell on some of his works belonging to different thematic groups. Since a detailed analysis of even one of them would take a lot of space, we will only touch on some of their aspects. This approach will allow us to get acquainted with the problems faced by researchers of the works of the Carthaginian author. Using the example of apologetic writings, certain issues related to Tertullian’s sources and the genres he used will be considered. The dogmatic-polemical treatise “On the Soul” will introduce us to Tertullian’s method of biblical quotation and thus prepare us for the perception of the relevant passages from the books “Against Marcion”. The practical-ascetic work “On the Crown” will provide us with material concerning the difficulties that await the textual critics and commentators of Quintus Septimius. Tertullian's work “To the Gentiles” (Ad nat.) was published in 197, shortly before the publication of the second treatise “Apologetics” (Apol.) addressed to the persecutors of Christians. There are several scientific explanations for the incompleteness of Ad nat. The fact that its cause cannot be a lacuna in the text is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that Ad nat., like almost all of Tertullian’s works of this period, ends with an allusion to the Last Judgment. 4 According to Paul Monceau, the conclusion of the treatise follows so naturally from what was said earlier, “that it was superfluous to express it in words.” 5 However, the incompleteness of Ad nat. is manifested in the absence not so much of a conclusion as of a statement of the foundations of Christian teaching. Carl Becker believes that Tertullian abandoned the sketch, which was for him Ad nat., in the process of work, in order to devote himself to writing Apol. 6 According to another opinion, in Ad nat. Tertullian attacks the pagans, and promises to give an exposition of the teachings of the Church later. 7 Jean-Claude Freduille, disagreeing with Becker's assessment of Ad nat. as a sketch for Apol., defends the originality of the first work, which, according to him, is not sufficiently emphasized by A. Schneider, who sees in Ad nat. just a "pamphlet". 8 J.-C. Freduy writes: “The relationship between Apol. and Ad nat. comparable to the ratio between Apol. and “Testimony of the soul” (De test.). In Ad nat., as in De test., Tertullian chose a particular aspect: philosophical with moral and legal elements in the first work and exclusively philosophical in the second. Arol. also includes material from both works. 9 Originality Ad nat. the French scientist sees in Tertullian’s adaptation for the needs of his polemics with the pagans the concept of philosophical origin and admits the possibility that the real name of the treatise was De ignorantia nationum. 10 Note that in Apol. Much attention is paid to the topic of pagan ignorance of the truth in general and Christianity in particular. Let's compare two excerpts from these works: Eleven years after the publication of the monograph by J.-C. Freduja H. Hagendahl called Ad nat. a “revised version” of Apol., his “imperfect sketch.” 11 Thus, we can state the existence of an unresolved question about the reasons for both the incompleteness of Ad nat. and the publication in the same 197 of Apol, which borrowed a lot from this work. According to J.-C. Freduillat, “having gone further than he perhaps wanted, Tertullian abandoned his treatise, no longer caring about improving it, about giving it a real conclusion, reminiscent of the unity of the concept of labor as a whole. He chose to devote himself to Apol., the hopes for which were more significant, and the literary genre of which allowed him to balance and combine the themes of ἀπολογία, ἐπίδειξις and σύγκρνσις in one harmonious synthesis.” 12 It is not entirely clear, however, why the author, who decided to write a new treatise while working on the old one, decided to publish both the early one containing errors and the corrected later one. If an apologist wanted to create a work of philosophical orientation along with a treatise on a wider range of topics, he would have to take care at least that there were no contradictions in these two works, created almost at the same time. Therefore, the treatise Ad nat. had to see the light of day before work on Apol began. It seems likely that Tertullian initially planned to publish not two, but three books of Ad nat. However, having published two and discovered shortcomings in them that he could not accept, he decided to create a new treatise. In Roman literature one can find other examples of the non-simultaneous publication of books that constitute one work. Thus, Ovid published (for a different, albeit, reason) not twelve, but only six books of “Fasts”; at different times, two books of Horace’s “Satire” were also published. Thus, the words “will hereafter be blunted by the exposition of our entire doctrine (postmodum obtundentur expositione totius nostrae disciplinae)” (Ad nat., I, 10, 1), contrary to the opinion referred to by Freduil, 13 should be attributed not to Apol., but to the never written third book of Ad nat. Tertullian usually begins his works, in which he develops a topic he touched upon earlier, with a reference to previous works. Thus, the treatise “On the Soul” begins with the words: “About what the soul is, I argued with Hermogenes (we are talking about the lost work of Tertullian De censu animae. - A.B.), who suggested that it was formed, most likely, from an accumulation of matter than from the breath of God; now, having turned to the consideration of other issues, it seems that I will have to mainly fight with philosophers” (Tert. Dean., 1, 1). The treatise “Against Marcion” begins like this: “From now on, everything that we have undertaken against Marcion previously loses its meaning. Leaving the old behind, we begin a new business. I subsequently crossed out the first short essay, written hastily, with a more detailed work. I lost it, when no copies had yet been made of it, due to the treachery of a man who was then a brother in Christ, but then became an apostate. In a highly inaccurate manner, as he happened to do, he copied some of it and published it. There was a need to correct the changes he had made. This prompted me to add some things. Thus, this work - the third after that second and from now on has become the first - must begin with words about the annulment of what I wrote before, so that no one is confused by the changes made to the previous text, which are found here and there" (Tert. Adv. Marc., 1, 1, 1-2). at the beginning of the treatise “Against Hermogenes” (Tert. Adv. Herrn., 1, 1) there is an allusion to the essay “On the Prescription of Heretics.” Since many passages from Ad nat. turned out to be transferred almost verbatim to Apol., at the beginning of this work one would expect a reference to the previous one, but nowhere in Apol. there is no hint of an earlier work. Tertullian seems ashamed to refer to his hastily published work, without being able to blame anyone for its imperfection. The Carthaginian author’s ignorance of his early work can be explained, among other things, by errors made in it and corrected in Apol. influenced by the "Admonition to the Gentiles" (Protr.) of Clement of Alexandria. So, in Arol. there is no longer any word about the abduction of the priestess of Ceres (Ad nat., II 7, 15; cp.: Protr., 2, 15, 1–3); there is no story about Psammetichus and the babies (Ad nat., I, 8, 2–9; cp.: Protr., 1,6,4) and there is no identification of the biblical Joseph with Serapis (Ad nat., II, 8, 10–19; cp.: Protr., 4, 48, 4–6). However, it seems unlikely that the mere presence of errors could force Tertullian, who was not distinguished by his desire for accuracy, not only to completely rework his earlier work, but also to “erase” it from his work altogether. Let us recall that in the first chapter of the first book Adv. Marc, the author announces his small, hastily written essay, which the new work seems to cancel. Ad nat. not much inferior to Apol. in volume and cannot be considered as “a small, hastily written essay.” The only thing that could have prompted the apologist to return to a topic he had previously worked on and even covered in two published books was his fundamental disagreement with something he wrote in them - a disagreement that he suddenly realized while working on the third book. In order to better understand this issue, consider the structure of Ad nat. and Apol. and compare the material used in both treatises. In Arol. Christians are not spoken of as a kind of third race (this topic was revealed in Ad nat. in the chapter on Psammetichus) and the motive of “self-incrimination” is not introduced (except for the words spoken about Jupiter Latiar: “Oh, Jupiter, you are truly a Christian and the only son of your father in cruelty! (O Iovem Christianum et solum patris filium de crudelitate)” (Apol., 9, 5). Most of the topics touched upon in Ad nat., are reflected in more or less detail in Apol., while many important points included in the text of Apol. (primarily demonology and the story of Holy Scripture and the passions of Jesus Christ) were not covered in Ad nat. It should be noted that in Protr. there is an identification of gods with demons (§ 40–44). The fact that in Apol. information about the three kinds of gods according to Varro was not included (physical, which is spoken of by philosophers, mythical, which is sung by poets, and folk, accepted by one or another people), at first glance, should indicate that Ad nat. dedicated, first of all, to criticism of pagan gods, and Apol. is not intended as a replacement for Ad nat. However, Tertullian may have refused to include material from the first chapter of the second book of Ad nat. in Arol. because Protr served as a negative example for him. Clement. The Alexandrian author, talking about the seven ways in which idolatry arose (Protr., 26, 1–7), singles out, firstly, the deities of different peoples (luminary gods among the Hindus and Phrygians, fruit gods among the Athenians and Thebans); secondly, the deities of the poets (Erinyes, Eumenides, the gods of Hesiod and Homer, the “saviors” Dioscuri, Hercules, Asclepius); thirdly, the deities of philosophers (types of passions, abstract concepts). Tertullian, having discovered similarities between the more complete classification of the gods of his contemporary (whose teaching quite strongly contradicted his own teaching) and his own (i.e. "Varronian"), considered it probably best to abandon the latter. By the way, in the above-mentioned passage, Clement also mentioned the etymology of the word “god” from “to run.” 14 This moment, present in Ad nat. (II, 4.1), also disappeared from Apol. In Arol. the theme of elemental gods (or elements) is not developed (chapter 3, 5–6 of book II Ad nat.). Meanwhile, the elemental gods are discussed in great detail in Protr. (§ 64–65 and § 102, 1 and 4). An analysis of the views of various philosophers on God and nature (Ad nat. II, 4) does not appear in Apol. – Clement discusses this topic in detail in § 66. Thus, Tertullian seems to be in a hurry to get rid of everything that in his first work resembled Protr. Note, however, that the paraphrase from Isa. 6:9–10 contained in Ad nat. (II, 1.3), was included in ch. 21 Apol., and information about Croesus and Thales, about Socrates, who ordered the sacrifice of a rooster, from Ad nat. (II, 2.11–12) is used in Apol. (46, 8 and 5) – Tertullian does not want to give up material that is useful to him and not directly related to that contained in Protr. teaching. Disappearance from Apol. the story about the Roman deities themselves (chapters 9, 11 and 15 of the second book of Ad nat.) can be explained by the author’s desire not to tease readers by mocking Roman heroes. It is curious that in the chapter on the passion of Christ, Tertullian repeatedly makes attempts to connect Christianity with Rome (Apol., 21, 18-19 and 23-25). The very method of criticizing the pagan gods with the help of a detailed story about them, which Clement used without any measure, could seem to Tertullian after reading Protr. inappropriate. By sacrificing the abundance of names of gods and their functions in Apol. (for example, in Apol. there is no mention of the star gods and gods who received their name from the actions they perform or from their habitats, cp.: Ad nat., II, 11 and 15), Tertullian made the new work more accessible to readers. If in Ad nat. (II, 1, 9; 9, 2) the gods of philosophers, poets and peoples were in some way contrasted, then in Apol. philosophers and poets are mentioned together as having borrowed and distorted the truth from the prophets (47, 11–12 and 14; 49, 1). In Arol. Tertullian writes about the gods: “Shall I list them one by one, so many and such, new and old, barbarian and Greek, Roman and foreign, conquered and chosen, own and common, male and female, rural and urban, maritime and military? It would be a useless exercise to even list their names” (10, 5–6). The fact that the mythical gods of the poets are dead people is said only in Ad nat.: in Ad nat., II, 7 there are the words “after all, now we should only lightly touch upon this kind of gods, a detailed analysis of which will be given in its place (delibanda enim nunc est species ista, cuius suo loco ratio reddetur).” Indeed, Tertullian returns to men numbered among the gods in Ad nat., II, 14, speaking of Hercules, Aesculapius and Theseus. In Arol. (14, 5) only a passage about Aesculapius was included. Quite large fragments from chapters devoted to criticism of pagan theology were included in the Apol. Moreover, they were included in such a volume that does not allow us to talk about episodic self-citation, the use of small fragments of another in one independent work. One can rather speak of the “plundering” of a work considered by the author as destined for oblivion (by the way, of all Tertullian’s works, Ad nat. contains the most gaps). Thus, Ad nat., II, 2 speaks of the physical gods of the philosophers. A passage from this chapter on the Platonic and Epicurean ideas about God (Ad nat., II, 2, 8) was included in the Apol. (Apol., 47, 6). In Ad nat., II, 8 we are talking about the tribal gods of peoples and cities; mention is made of Atargatis of the Syrians, Celeste of the Africans, Barsutina of the Moors, Obod and Dusar of the Arabs, Belenus of Norican, as well as Delventinus of the inhabitants of Casinus, Visidian of the inhabitants of Narnia, Numiternus of the inhabitants of Atina, Ancharia of the inhabitants of Askol and Nortia of the inhabitants of Volsinia (Ad nat., II, 8,6). In Arol. mentioned: Atargatis, Dusara, Belen, Celeste, the kings of the Moors, Delventin, Visidian, Ancharia, Nortia, Valentia, Hostia and Juno Curris (Apol., 24, 8). Ad nat., II, 10 tells of the deification of the harlot Larentina; at the same time it is compared with Ceres. Apol., 13, 9 speaks of the pagans’ veneration of the public woman Larentina “along with the Junos, Ceres and Dianas.” In Ad nat., II, 16, we also talk about the “discoverer” gods, who are compared with mortals, in particular with Gnaeus Pompey, who brought the Pontic cherry to Italy (Ad nat., II, 16, 5). In Arol. in the place of Pompey, Lucullus appears in the corresponding context (Apol., 11, 8). It is known that the treatise “Against the Jews” largely duplicates Adv. Marc., however, these works were intended for two completely different audiences, in contrast to those addressed to the pagans Ad nat. and Apol. In our opinion, Tertullian, having become acquainted with Protr., discovered some points in his work that brought it closer to the work of Clement, whose concept of Christianity and attitude towards pagan culture was very different from the views of the Carthaginian author, who believed that Athens and Jerusalem had nothing in common. Let us pay attention to the words of Tertullian from the 1st chapter of De test., which says that a person who wants to find evidence of Christian truth from poets or philosophers will need great curiosity and a memory that surpasses it. According to Tertullian, the human soul is a much better witness. Here the Latin apologist challenges the methodology of such defenders of Christianity as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who taught the pre-Christian operation of the Logos among the pagans. Refusing Apol. from considering the philosophical doctrine of the gods, Tertullian demonstrates his complete disagreement with Clement’s interpretation of the Christian Revelation. A peculiar dispute with the Alexandrian author is Tertullian’s use of the phrase “Bacchic mysteries” in Apol., 37, 2. Clement compared the Christian sacraments with the Bacchic mysteries. Let's sum it up: Ad nat. is an unfinished work, the publication of which was interrupted by the will of the author. Recognize the point of view of J.-C. Freduillet is not possible, since it is difficult to talk about the originality of the work, almost every chapter of which was used in one way or another in Apol. De test. is not in the same ratio to Apol. as Ad nat. The Epistle "To Scapula" (Scap.) - the last of Tertullian's works addressed to a pagan audience, written in 212 - is noticeably different from his "Apologetics", created in the summer or autumn of 197. The most striking differences in Scap., besides its brevity (five chapters versus fifty chapters of Apol.), are the use of numerous examples of divine punishment of persecutors of Christians and the reduction of the apologetic component. If in Arol. Tertullian set himself the task of ensuring that the truth was not condemned without knowing it (cp.: Apol., 1, 2), then in Scap. he wants to warn the pagans from the danger posed by the condemnation of Christians: “We published this book, not fearing for ourselves, but for you...” (Scap., 1, 2). Scap., thus, turns out to be an exhortation letter with apologetic features, which is reminiscent of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Galatians 15 (cf.: “Oh, foolish Galatians,” Gal. 3: 1 - “we mourn your ignorance,” Scap., 1, 3). In turn, “Apologetic”, according to Eberhard Heck, was framed as a judicial defense speech. At the same time, scientists note that of all the surviving apologetic works, only this one can be considered as a speech, as well as the “negative-epidictic” “Speech to the Hellenes” by Tatian and “Petition for Christians” by Athenagoras. 16 Of course, it should be borne in mind that “from the “classical” defense speech, Christian apology as a type of verbal art had significant differences.” 17 L. J. Swift notes that “the judicial nature of Apologetics must be understood in a broader sense.” 18 According to E. Heck, the Carthaginian author in Apol. “does not find the correct answer” to the Roman teaching about religio as the reason for the greatness of Rome, and the work in which he creates a Christian tradition of examples of punishment for those who despise the true God turns out to be the letter “To Scapula” he wrote 15 years later. 19 The German scholar believes that Tertullian in Apol. does not give examples that could impress pagan readers, because in 197 he simply did not have them at his disposal. Analyzing Ch. 3 Scap., 20 E. Heck indicates that the devastation of Christian cemeteries mentioned in it occurred in 203, prolonged downpours accompanied by floods occurred in 211, a thunderstorm in 211 (or 212), a solar eclipse in Utica in 212. Saturninus became blind after 180, but for Tertullian this should have remained "a little-spoken special case." The case of Germinian is “undated” and in 197 could still be unknown to the apologist. Placing the story of Caecilius Capella in 195 or 196, 21 E. Heck notes that its importance could only be appreciated in 197 or later. The incident with Mavil, according to him, occurred in 212. 22 It is not clear, however, why Tertullian, who mentioned in Apol. Niger, did not attach importance to the events in Byzantium, which attracted his attention only 15 years later. The same applies to the message about Saturnyne. It is known that Tertullian reacted vividly to what was happening in the world. He mentions in “Apologetics” the ongoing persecution of his accomplices Albinus and Niger (Apol., 35, II), 23 that is, he immediately responds, being the “first political journalist,” 24 to contemporary events. He refers to “the Moors, the Marcomanni, and the Parthians themselves,” whom the Christians, who had spread throughout the world, supposedly outnumbered them and could, if they wished, be more dangerous (Apol., 37, 4), from which we can conclude that he was working on the Apologetics before the war with the Parthians, which began in the fall of 197 and turned out to be easy. 25 We see that the Carthaginian apologist writes about facts that may be useful to him, without waiting until they cease to be “little special cases” or, on the contrary, turn out to be outdated. Moreover, it is strange to assume that in the 15 years that separated the writing of Apol. from writing Scap., Tertullian had at his disposal such a quantity of information about the “punishments of the oppressors of Christians” that he had not been provided with in the 133 years that had passed since the first persecutions of the era of Nero (64). It should be noted that the Carthaginian author did not mention a word about the evil death of Nero and Domitian as punishment for repressions against Christians. “Check your archives; from them you will learn that Nero, in a frenzy, was the first to turn Caesar’s sword against this sect, which arose precisely then in Rome. But we are even proud to have such a culprit for our condemnation. After all, anyone who knows Nero will understand that he could only condemn some great good. Domitian also attacked us, not far behind Nero in cruelty; but, being still a man, he easily stopped what he started, returning even those whom he had exiled. Such are always our persecutors: unjust, wicked, vile, whom you yourself usually condemned and restored to the rights of those condemned by them” (Apol., 5, 3-4). The fact that in Scap. events of the recent past are mentioned, speaks not so much about the fact that such events did not exist before, but about the desire of the author of the message to use modern examples. In Apol. Tertullian defended the undifferentiated distribution of God's punishments: “After all, He who once appointed eternal judgment after the end of the age does not hasten to separate the good from the evil (this separation is a condition of judgment) before it. He is still the same in relation to every kind of people, both in His condescension and in His censure. He wished that happiness should come equally to the uninitiated, and grief to His own servants, so that we would all experience His kindness and severity alike” (Apol., 41, 3). But he did this not because of a lack of examples to the contrary, but because, in accordance with the requirements of the genre of apology, he wanted, first of all, to protect Christians and, rather, to accuse the pagans, 26 than to convert them to his faith. 27 Indeed, in Apol. there is no direct call to accept Christianity. Against the background of the same conclusions, the contrast of the following statements in the last chapters of Apol is indicative. and Scap.: “Crucify, torture, condemn, exterminate us: after all, your injustice serves as proof of our innocence. Therefore, God allows us to endure this. And yet your cruelty, which becomes more and more refined over and over again, gives you nothing. She rather plays the role of bait, attracting people to our sect. We become more numerous after every mowing you do: the blood of Christians is the seed” (Apol., 50, 12-13). “Have mercy on yourself, if not on us. Have pity on Carthage, if not on yourself. Pity the province, which, when your intentions became obvious, found itself exposed to the extortion of soldiers and personal enemies of everyone. And yet this sect will not fade away, which, so you know, is then more created when it seems to be destroyed” (Scap., 5, 3-4). The appeal to opponents in Apol., 50, 12 is quite consistent with the genre of judicial or political speech. 28 Appeals for pity in Scap. reveal that the work belongs to a completely different, exhorting genre. Despite the fact that Tertullian, according to A. Amman, “completely lacks taste and sense of proportion,” 29 the Carthaginian writer never forgot about rhetorical rules. The fact that there are few direct quotations containing complete verse in Tertullian's writings suggests that Tertullian strictly followed the rule of style (die Stilregel), which did not allow verse to be interspersed in elaborate prose (in der kunstmässigen Prosa). 30 So, Tertullian did not threaten the pagans in Apol. because he did not want to break the boundaries of the genre, despite all his innovation. 31 In addition, examples of inevitable divine retribution against persecutors would reduce the tragic pathos of the words “when you condemn us, God justifies us” (Apol., 50, 16). If God is punishing persecutors already in this age, why is there any need for defensive speech at all? If Christians have such a Defender, any apologies become unnecessary. An experienced lawyer, Tertullian did not want to give his hypothetical opponents the opportunity to make such an objection. Thus, the reason for the differences between Scap. and Apol. lies not in the emergence of new information by the apologist, but in his decision to turn to a new genre: to move from “oratorical prose” to “message”. The reasons for this decision are unknown to us. We can only assume that one of them was some internal contradiction, some logical vulnerability organically inherent in apologetic speech. A vulnerability that Tertullian was aware of back in 197, when he asked a question on behalf of the pagans: “Why,” you say, “do you complain that we are persecuting you if you yourself want to suffer, while you should love those who cause you the desired suffering? Of course, we want suffering, but just like a soldier wants war. No one willingly goes to her, since she brings horror and danger. However, the one who complained about the battle fights with all his might and, winning it, rejoices, for he receives both glory and spoils. Our battle begins when we are called before the court to risk our lives to fight for the truth. Victory is getting what you fought for. This victory brings both the glory of pleasing God and the reward of eternal life” (Apol., 50, 1-2). However, the objection of opponents remains logically unrefuted: if the guarantee of life in eternity is martyrdom, then Christians who want victory should strive for it. In his treatise On the Soul, Tertullian argues that achieving heaven immediately after death is the privilege of martyrs: “How is it that the region of heaven revealed to John in the spirit, which is located under the altar, did not show any souls except the souls of the martyrs? But why did Perpetua, the most courageous woman, on the day of martyrdom in revelation see there only martyrs, if not because the sword, the gatekeeper of paradise, is not inferior to anyone, except those who died in Christ, and not in Adam? (Tert. De an., 55, 4). Thus, Tertullian’s desire to protect Christians from persecution turned out to be unfounded. In Scap. the emphasis is on something else: the author of the message, guided by the Christian commandment of love for enemies, wants to save them from God’s wrath. This position is logically flawless. Among Tertullian’s numerous dogmatic and polemical works, a special place is occupied by the treatise “On the Soul” (De an.), in which Tertullian polemicizes not with a specific heretical teaching (as in the works “Against Hermogenes”, “Against the Valentinians”, “Against Praxeus”), but with those provisions of the teachings of ancient philosophers that heretics use for their own purposes. This treatise surpasses other Tertullian texts (such as Scorpiacus, On the Flesh of Christ, On the Resurrection of the Flesh) in the importance of the problems it addresses. It, like other works of the named thematic group, contains a huge number of references to the Bible, designed to support the author’s judgments or refute the opinions of opponents. These references represent: a) reminiscences (for example: “Saul’s treasure was where his heart was” (De an., 57.9); cf. Matthew 6:21); b) allusions (for example: “the sword, the gatekeeper of paradise” (De an., 55.4); here Tertullian uses the same word as the Septuagint - romphaea, cf.: Gen. 3:24); c) paraphrases (for example: “the one who was ahead at birth [Esau] was held back by the one behind [Jacob], who had not yet fully emerged, born only by hand" (De an., 26.3); cf.: Gen. 25: 24–26); d) quotes (for example: “What is this with the son of Kish? Is Saul also a prophet?” (De an., 11.5); cp.: 1 Sam. 10:11). Let's consider Tertullian's use of biblical quotations, in some cases representing fragments of translations into Latin of the Holy Scriptures, completed long before the creation of the blessed one. Jerome of the Vulgate. Tertullian knew Greek well: there were several of his works written in this language, but not preserved to this day 32. Therefore, he could rely not only on the Latin translation of the Bible (A. A. Stolyarov suggests that the translation used by Tertullian is identical to the so-called Itale 33), but also on the Septuagint. 34 However, finding out when Tertullian relied on it when quoting, and when on one of the Latin translations that existed in his time (the Old Latin translation of the Bible was not complete: “... the books were translated several times, and there is no version where all 27 books were translated by the same translator” 35), is quite complex and unprincipled: the old Latin version (Vetus Latina) follows very precisely Septuagint 36, being made on its basis. 37 When comparing Tertullian's biblical quotations with the Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible, it becomes obvious that Tertullian followed the version of it that is represented precisely by the LXX translation: its Hebrew source is very different from the Masoretic text, translations into Aramaic (Targums), Syriac (Peshitta), Latin (Vulgates) and many Qumran texts. 38 In the 11th chapter, the author of the treatise “On the Soul” quotes the prophet Isaiah (Is. 57:16): “Spirit has gone out from Me, and every breath I have created (spiritus ex me prodiuit, et flatum omnem ego feci)” (De an., 11, 3). The highlighted word was not in the Hebrew text (where the word “soul, breath” is plural), but it is in the Greek translation. In addition, in the original it is not said that the spirit came out from God (as in the Septuagint), but that it “fainted” before Him. In the 32nd chapter the 21st verse from Psalm 49/48 is quoted: “Man,” he says, “has become like the foolish beasts of burden (assimilatus est, inquit, homo inrationalibus iumentis)” (De an., 32, 8). The Greek translation reads: “he became like the foolish cattle and became like them.” The same words are found above (De an., 48:13). The original says: “like cattle, it perishes” (Ps. 49/48:13, 21). The Hebrew verb דמה [dmh] used in the verses under consideration, which in the passive form nif'al means “to fall silent”, “to perish”, has a homonym with the meaning “to be like”. In chapter 35, Tertullian quotes the prophet Malachi: “And behold, I will send you Elijah Thesbiten (et esse mittam uobis Helian Thesbiten)” (De an., 35.5). It is obvious that in this place the author of the treatise relied on the Septuagint or its Latin translation: the Greek text is as follows: “And behold, I send you Elijah Thesbitz” (Mal. 3:22). But the Hebrew text speaks of “Elijah the prophet” (Mal. 3:23 = 4:5). We also find a similar dependence on the version presented by the Septuagint in the 38th chapter: “Behold, I have given you everything for food, like the greenery of cut grass (esse dedi uobis omnia in escam tamquam olera faeni)” (De an., 38, 3). In the Septuagint, in contrast to the Hebrew text, according to which God gives people for food “everything like the green grass,” it is said: “for food, like the green grass (cut) I have given you everything” (Gen. 9: 3). In chapter 45, Tertullian uses a word also found in the Septuagint: “And God sent ecstasy (ecstasin) upon Adam, and he fell asleep” (De an., 45:3). The Greek translation is ἔκστασις (Gen. 2:21). In the passages cited, the quotations reproduce the text of the Septuagint quite accurately. However, quite often this is not the case. The same biblical phrase within the work under consideration may look different. In Matt. Romans 5:28 says, “Whoever looks at a woman and lusts after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Tertullian refers to this place three times in the treatise under discussion. In the 15th chapter, the Gospel quotation looks like this: “Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart” (qui uiderit feminam ad concupiscendum, iam adulterauit in corde) (De an., 15:4); in the 40th and 58th chapters the word feminam “woman” is omitted, and in the 40th the noun (ad concupiscentiam) is used with the preposition ad (De an., 40.4), in the 58th the gerund (ad concupiscendum) (De an., 58.6). Tertullian quotes Genesis twice. 2:23–24: “hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex carne mea; propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem et agglutinabit se mulieri suae, et erunt duo in unam carnem (this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they both shall become one flesh)” (De an., 11, 4) and “hoc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex came mea uocabituur mulier; propterea relinquet homo patrem et matrem et agglutinabitur mulieri suae et erunt duo in carnem unam (this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she will be called woman; therefore a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and both will become one flesh)” (De an., 21, 2). He conveys differently the words of the Apostle Paul (Eph. 2:3): “we were once by nature the sons of wrath” (fuimus aliquando natura filii irae) (De an., 16:7) and “we were once by nature the sons of wrath” (fuimus et nos aliquando natura filii irae) (De an., 21, 4). G. Rönsch gives the following explanation for such discrepancies: firstly, Tertullian freely quoted from memory, and secondly, in his time there were various translations of the Bible that he could use. 39 B. M. Metzger notes that Christian authors, when quoting, referred to the corresponding passage in the manuscript if the quotation was long; “short quotations were more often reproduced from memory.” 40 It should be noted that in the Gospel itself we find quite a lot of inaccurate Old Testament quotes. For example: Mk:. 1:2 – Mal.3:1, cf.: Exod. 23:20 ; Mk. 7:6 – Isa. 29:13; Ai/c. 14:27– Zech. 13:7, etc. It is known that until the end of the 1st century. During the Christian era, the manuscripts of the Old Testament were very different from one another. In the inaccuracies made by Tertullian when quoting, one can detect repeating features. First of all, we should note the rearrangement of individual words or their combinations in biblical phrases. The fact of the rearrangement suggests that Tertullian here quoted from memory or changed the order of words intentionally - the translator would not have allowed such purely formal distortions, even if it was the author of the so-called. “Western type of text”, distinguished by its penchant for paraphrase. 41 Latin Bible translators generally maintained word order. 42 The fact that Tertullian was quoting from memory is also indicated by the fact that he combined words that referred to different statements in the biblical text. Thus, in the 2nd chapter of his treatise, he notes: “The apostle also forbade endless debates” (De an., 2, 7). We are talking about 1 Tim. 1:4: “And not to engage in endless myths and genealogies, which cause debate.” Below (De an., 35.2) we also find contamination: “love your enemies and pray for those who curse (lit.: slander) you.” Both Matthew (5:44) and Luke (Luke 6:7) talk about love for enemies, however, according to both evangelists, those who curse should be blessed (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28), and pray for offenders (Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:28) and for persecutors (Matt. 5:44). There is also the opposite phenomenon, which is hendiadys, that is, a figure in which one concept is denoted by two words connected by conjunctions: “the heart is the true observer” (Wis. 1:6) - “we read about God as a researcher and observer (scrutatorem et dispectorem) of the heart” (De an., 15, 4). Tertullian repeatedly uses words with the same root in those phrases in which the Greek text contained words with different roots. In some cases, Tertullian replaced verbs with an abstract meaning with verbs with a more specific meaning. Among the above deviations of Tertullian from the biblical text, some can be explained not so much by the arbitrariness of the memory of this author, but by his desire to subordinate everything with which he works to his creative plan. So, in De an. (15, 4) he, unlike the Evangelist Matthew, focuses not on the fact that the scribes thought evil, but on the fact that they did it in their hearts (Chapter 15 is devoted to proving that the soul has a leading principle that resides in the heart). In De an. (17, 14) Tertullian, having spoken first about sight, hearing, taste, touch, and having this order in mind when enumerating the senses, rearranged the words in the passage from the Epistle of John. In the 26th chapter, the author of the treatise, trying to prove that babies still in the mother’s womb have a soul, puts the word that is more important for him in this context before the less important one: not “formed in the womb,” but “formed in the womb.” In 16:6 a sentence with a phrase from 1 Tim. 3:1 has the following form: “And the apostle speaks of desire: If anyone desires the bishopric, he desires a good deed (dat et apostolus nobis concupiscentiam: si quis episcopatum concupiscit, bonum opus concupiscit). The word concupiscentia in the author’s speech predetermines the appearance of a cognate verb in the quotation. In chapter 39, Tertullian writes about superstitions associated with childbirth. That is why, probably, he replaces the word “is” of the original with the word “are born”. So, Tertullian, who used the Septuagint (or its Latin translation), allowed, like many other Christian writers, deviations from the original text. In most cases, the reason for this is quoting from memory. Sometimes the text is changed in accordance with the will of the author of the treatise. Tertullian's critical attitude towards the Latin translation of the Bible he used is known in cases where this translation made it difficult for him to debate with his opponents. 43 For the author of the treatise, the biblical texts were not “sacred” formulas not subject to any change, but a tool with which to crush opponents. It is curious that of the two Latin equivalents of the Greek word "Bible" - instrumentum and testamentum (terms used in Roman law, the former meaning a written contract and the latter a will) - Tertullian preferred the instrumentum. 44 His creative approach to the sacred texts is fully consistent with his “Montanist” conviction that Revelation did not end even after the Apostle John (De an., 9, 3). The main thing for Tertullian is faith, and not reading the Scriptures (see: Tert. De praescr., 14, 3). As an example of an essay from the practical-ascetic thematic group, let’s take the work “On the Wreath,” in which the author argues that it is inadmissible for Christians to accept award wreaths in military service or to serve in the army in general. It is in this work, as mentioned above, that Tertullian describes in detail the rite of initiation into the third degree of the Mysteries of Mithra. Using the “warrior Mithras” as an example for Christian soldiers who are hesitant to refuse the award wreath, he says: “At initiation in the cave, the true camp of darkness, he (the adherent of Mithras. - A.B.) is persuaded to remove with his hand the wreath placed on his head, which had previously been offered to him on the sword, as if in imitation of martyrdom, and with the words that his wreath is Mithras, on his shoulder, perhaps. transfer ; and they immediately begin to consider him a warrior of Mithras, if he throws off the wreath, if he says that it lies for him in his god (coronam interposito gladio sibi oblatam, quasi mimum martyrii, dehinc capiti suo accommodatam monetur obvia manu a capite pellere et in humerum, si forte, transferre dicens Mithran esse coronam suam, statimque creditur Mithrae miles, si deiecerit coronam, si eam in deo suo esse dixerit)” (Tert. De cor., 15.3). This reading of manuscripts, proposed by E. Kroimann, based on the words si eam in deo suo esse dixerit, the conjecture of dei (“God”), as well as the commentary in the bilingual edition of Fabio Ruggiero (Mailand, 1992) did not satisfy Ekkehard Weber. A German scientist proposed in this not entirely clear place to replace the word humerum “shoulder” with the word humum “earth”. 45 Thus, according to him, the person being initiated into the mysteries of Mithra had to throw the wreath offered to him to the ground. However, the verb transferre “to transfer” prevents such an understanding of this passage. In his other writings, Tertullian never uses this word in the sense of deiicio, “to throw off.” 46 At best, we are talking about a descent into the underworld: quod ad inferna transfertur post diuortium corporis (De an., 7, 3). The spelling humum is not found in the passage under study in any codex. In the Parisian Code (Agobardinsky) there are no words at all: et in humerum, si forte, transferre. Adding an entire syllable, which also obscures the meaning of the phrase, seems unlikely. So, the change from humerum to humum is prevented both by the control verb and by manuscript tradition. You could just as well replace humerum with Homerum "Homer." In this case, we would be talking about the phraseological unit 47 invented by Tertullian on the fly “to send a wreath to Homer” 48 with the meaning: “here is what is not good for us, God.” The words si forte “perhaps” probably indicate that the shoulder was not an object on which it was customary to lay a wreath in the Mithraic cult, but was an object whose name accidentally occurred to the author. After all, it is impossible to say: “The priest, baptizing the baby, perhaps immerses him in the font.” Where else can he put it? However, it is unlikely that any arbitrary rituals were permissible in the initiation rite. In addition, the action performed in relation to the wreath is expressed below by the verb deiicio, “to throw off” (Ekkehard Weber also draws attention to this in his article 49 ). The verb transferre, as we have seen, has no such meaning. Thus, all the words missing from the Agobardin Codex (et in humerum, si forte, transferre) are inappropriate in this context. This fact leads us to assume that they are either a later insertion or a damaged fragment, the reconstruction of which is currently impossible. The translation of the entire passage would then be as follows: “At the initiation in the cave, the true camp of darkness, the devotee of Mithras is persuaded to remove with his hand the wreath placed on his head, which had previously been offered to him on the sword, as if in imitation of martyrdom, with the words that his wreath is Mithras; and they immediately begin to consider him a warrior of Mithra if he throws off the wreath, if he says that it lies for him in his god.” "Against Marcion". Having examined Tertullian’s work through the prism of various problems facing researchers of his works, and immersed, so to speak, in the atmosphere of his study, let’s move on to more specific issues concerning the treatise “Against Marcion” itself (written after 208). Marcion, representative of the Syrian gnosis, 50 was born at the end of the 1st century. after P. X. in the Asia Minor city of Sinope. Through his ascetic life he achieved ordination as a presbyter. However, he was later excommunicated from the Church by his father, the Bishop of Sinope, for his non-Orthodox teaching. Marcion tried to enlist the support of Christians in Ephesus, Smyrna, Rome, 51 but after his rejection in the capital of the Empire in 144, he created his own “church” in alliance with the heretic Cerdon, which existed in different regions of the Mediterranean until the 10th century. Marcion died between 177 and 190. His “literary heritage” includes the ten epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Luke, distorted by him, from which he excluded everything that contradicted his teaching, declaring it to be later insertions of the Jewish apostles. In addition, Marcion wrote Antitheses, in which he tried to prove the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. 52 After the death of its founder, his sect split. Later, Marcionism made itself felt in Bogomilism, Catharism, and Albigensianism. 53 Marcion's system is dualistic. There is a good God and eternal evil matter, controlled by Satan. According to Marcion, the world and man, without the knowledge of a good god, were created by a stern, warlike and just Demiurge or Creator (a creature of not entirely clear origin) from eternal matter, over which Satan ruled. Matter tried to regain the human soul, which it ultimately succeeded in: man sinned, and paganism arose. The only destiny of the Creator remained the Jewish people, who received from Him the Law, according to which sinners were sent to Gehenna, and the righteous to the “bosom of Abraham.” To cope with the growing evil, the Creator promised the Jews Christ, who would come to defeat the pagans and give the kingdom to the chosen people, and at the same time carry out judgment, fraught with the condemnation of the majority of humanity to torment; this Christ, according to Marcion, is the Antichrist. To save people who were, from the Creator’s point of view, sinners, the good God sent his son into the world - the real Christ. He, having accepted the virtual flesh of Jesus, unexpectedly appeared in Capernaum in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius and pretended to be Christ belonging to the Creator, in order to thus attract the Jews to himself. The Creator, a jealous God, was jealous of Jesus, about whom he knew nothing, and prompted the Jews to destroy him, and Satan, for his part, inspired the pagans to do this. Jesus Christ was not born and did not really die: his death on the cross was only apparent. 54 By learning the secret of the supreme god and leading a strictly ascetic life, the Marcionites, as they believed, saved their souls; they denied the resurrection of the flesh. At baptism, they took a vow of chastity and refused to eat meat and wine. Their readiness for martyrdom turned into a desire to die for Christ. Tertullian's five-book work Against Marcion is the most extensive of the works of the Carthaginian author. This is not just another treatise against a certain heretic, it is at the same time a kind of “symphony”, “concordance” - where Tertullian selects correspondences in the Septuagint for almost every passage from the Gospel of Luke and the epistles of the Apostle Paul - and a theodicy of the Creator, and proof of the organic connection between the Old and New Testaments, and an interpretation of a huge number of biblical texts, and a commentary on them. 55 The essay “Against Marcion” contains almost all the main provisions of Christianity and serves as a kind of textbook on sect studies and on the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. Being written during the Montanist period of the work of Quintus Septimius, this work bears the imprint of Tertullian’s passion for the “New Prophecy”; chiliastic ideas are also present here. However, even the presence of unorthodox thoughts does not in any way detract from the significance of the present work, in which the first Latin Christian author defends, among other things, the truth of the incarnation, suffering and death of the Savior predicted by the Old Testament prophets and the resurrection of the dead. Although some of Tertullian's arguments may seem unconvincing, most of his points are quite ingenious. What we have before us is not a document of interest only to historians of heresies, but “an old but formidable weapon,” in the words of V.V. Mayakovsky. Tertullian's language is quite complex, his sentences sometimes take up half a page, his thoughts are tortuous. We tried to the best of our ability to preserve the author’s style without oversimplifying the text. This makes reading somewhat difficult, but it helps to get to know the man Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian better, whose passion, conviction in his rightness and desire to turn readers away from dangerous errors at any cost inspire respect and make us wonder whether the fire of living faith has weakened in people over the last 18 centuries, whether indifference and conformism, proudly called tolerance, have taken possession of us. More detailed information on specific issues relating to the treatise “Against Marcion” is contained in the notes to the text of our translation. To prove the relevance of the fight against Gnosticism, or rather, with its principle, according to which all people are divided into pneumatics (“spiritual”, i.e., in modern language, supermen destined for the salvation of Übermenschen), psychics (“spiritual”, who need to try very hard to be saved) and giliks (“material”, i.e. subhumans doomed to death), we quote from modern journalism. “A loser turns into a winner, a slave into a fighter, a coward into a hero, a confused crowd into a liberating army. This is what is called “transitioning from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.” Within each person there are both of these kingdoms. And he himself can move from one to another. “Can”? And if it doesn’t “can,” then what’s the point of talking about free will? There is a point of view according to which some “can” and some cannot. They say that people are anthropologically, ontologically, even metaphysically unequal to each other. Moreover, they are FUNDAMENTALLY unequal. There are bestial anthroposes (giliks). There are anthroposes that are a little more complex (psychics). But there are genuine people (pneumatics). This point of view is in no way reducible to the Gnostic heresy. It is older than canonical Gnosticism and much more diverse. It is very difficult to talk about the origins here. The trail stretches back to ancient times. There is a hidden underground that keeps this “black fire". And from time to time this fire breaks out to the surface. The last time it broke out was in 1933. It was literally about this very fundamental inequality. In no way reducible to racial. Order fascism was much more complex. “It” was expelled and “sealed” with the help of the Soviet army and the Soviet alternative project. Then the savior was equated with the destroyer. And “excluded from history." And then the question of “the end of history” arose. And “this” - in a new guise - began to flirt with humanity, which had lost its memory and was immersed in a sweet buzz. This time, “this” began to call itself “globalization.” After all, they often and openly say that there is no “globalization”, but there is “glocalization” (i.e., the combination of supranational integrations with the fragmentation of nations into ethnic groups, subethnic groups, etc.). tribes). But “glocalization” is not the final name. What's under these masks? Beneath them is the very familiar and, to put it mildly, disgusting mug of the so-called “multi-story humanity.” Moreover, humanity should not just be multi-story (someone lives in a luxury apartment on the fifth floor, and someone lives in a dirty basement). This time, access from one floor to another should be completely closed. And precisely in an irresistible way. “Gilics, psychics, pneumatics”... And if other words appear, they will turn out to be only semantic covers, that is, masks. And very soon the masks will be taken off. And what lies behind them will reveal its – precisely fundamentally fascist – essence. What other one? Fascism had a gnostic and pragnostic ancestor, going back centuries. Now a descendant appears. But there is only one line. It has been repeatedly said that Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita” is the greatest Gnostic novel of the 20th century. Agree, to deny the Gnostic spirit of this novel, to put it mildly, is incorrect. But if this is the case, then it is clear where “Fatal Eggs” and “Heart of a Dog” 56 came from. Thus, Tertullian, fighting with Gnostics of various stripes, who asserted their chosenness and considered other people, so to speak, “Untermensches” or “balls,” turns out, despite all his fury and intolerance, to be a greater humanist than his less ardent contemporaries, who sought a compromise with the forerunners of “Thule.” 57 It was precisely the rejection of any form of gnosis that probably forced Tertullian to “renounce” his work Ad nat., which, as stated above, contained some provisions close to the teaching of Clement of Alexandria. After all, the latter highly valued gnosis (see, for example: Cl. Strom., II, 17, 76, 2-3) and in the Stromata (written shortly after 192, later Protr.) he tried to reveal to “perfect Christians” the knowledge of the Divine hidden from the crowd: “But since gnosis is not for everyone, then our writings are for the majority, as the proverb says, like a lyre for a donkey. Pigs prefer dirt to clean water” (Cl. Strom., 1, 1, 1–2. Translated by E. V. Afonasin). Clement even wrote that if the wise man (lit. “Gnostic”) had to choose between the knowledge of God and eternal salvation (if they were different), then the sage (Gnostic) would prefer the first (Cl. Strom., IV, 22, 136, 5). Above, when considering the message “To Scapula,” it was said about Tertullian’s desire to write on the topic of the day, to touch upon the most important issues at the moment. From this we can conclude that the problem of combating Marcionism in the first decade of the 3rd century. Christian era was the most acute in the Church. If the sect founded by Marcion had not gained strength, Quintus Septimius, processing the work he had previously created, would not have turned it into his greatest work. Crushing the Gnostics with powerful “Tertullian blows,” Quintus Septimius made his feasible contribution to curbing the misanthropic sects. After all, if in the 2nd–3rd centuries. Gnosticism won, we would now live in a completely different world, a world of apartheid and ontological inequality, worshiping either Lucifer or the Serpent. But the gates of hell cannot overcome the Church (cf. Matthew 16:18). About translation. In Russia, there were different approaches to translating the works of ancient writers and poets. In some translations, the thought of the ancients was clothed in a form characteristic of the Russian language, while the authors of others sought to preserve the form of the original. It is natural to expect a desire for literalism from translators working with canonical texts. In secular literature such literalism is inappropriate. At the same time, replacing a translation with an approximate retelling seems like a kind of profanation. An ancient Greek and Roman writer or poet, when creating a text, expressed his thoughts in the words of a classical language, which has a much richer series of synonyms than modern languages. For example, the Russian verb to love corresponds to the Greek words ἀγαπᾶν, ἐρᾶν, στέργειν, φιλεῖν. The presence in Greek of such tense as aorist, such mood as optative, such voice as medial, frequent use of untranslatable particles, free word order, etc. turn any translation from it into a pale copy of the original. A similar situation is observed when translating from Latin. Therefore, below we will not talk about an ideal (reflecting all the nuances of the original) translation from classical languages ​​- it is impossible in principle. According to Plato, “the ideal essence of an object is one thing, and our interpretation of this essence, recorded in the corresponding name, is completely different. all our interpretations may have varying degrees of reliability, they may be closer to the subject, or further from it.” 58 We will talk about the optimal translation - a certain hypothetical translation that would most fully and accurately convey the author’s thought using the means of a specific modern language; a translation that the author himself would have made if he had known the language of this translation perfectly. The question is whether it is possible to talk about the existence, in principle, of several optimal translations, translations of synonyms, or the optimal translation should be thought of as unique, in which accuracy, artistry, style would be harmoniously combined, and the figures of speech and thoughts of the original, its metrics, and other things would be taken into account. A similar question can be asked regarding the original text: was there one single adequate way of expressing the author’s thoughts, or were there several of them, and the author constantly found himself in the position of Buridan’s donkey? At first glance, there is no problem. In fact, the presence in a language of complete synonyms (for example: strike and strike) seems to imply the possibility of the existence of completely synonymous phrases. However, there have been debates on this issue for a long time. Prodicus also tried to “discover nuances in the meaning of words even in cases where linguistic usage perceives them as completely synonymous. This tendency is seen as a desire to refute Democritus’ argument in favor of an arbitrary connection between words and things, based on the existence of completely interchangeable words (ἰσόρροπα).” 59 Let us note that two objectively complete Greek or Latin synonyms may not be synonyms at all for a particular ancient author, who relied on one or another literary tradition, or was guided by one or another of his predecessors. There are also other possible reasons for words losing their “synonymy.” The musicality of the phrase, its rhythmic pattern, and its sound should be taken into account. Thus, we have to admit that two synonymous expressions should not be obviously identical for one or another author. Classical languages ​​are much more nuanced than modern ones. With their much less “sensitivity” to shades of thought than classical texts, modern translations (which can be the same even if the original texts are different), being different, can hardly fully correspond to one original. They have a different, so to speak, dimension with the latter: if classical languages ​​“round off” a thought “to hundredths,” then modern languages, at best, “to tenths.” If we denote the value of the original text A as 1.11, and its optimal translation B as 1.1, then translation B will be something like 1.0 or 1.2. What determines this or that degree of closeness of a particular translation to the optimal one? As we see it, this is taking into account (or not taking into account) “hidden parameters”. A few words about the history of this term: during physical experiments, an electron fired at a target in a special device does not always hit it. A. Einstein explained this by saying that there are “hidden parameters” that the experimenter does not know (for example, some external influence on the electron). In our case, by hidden parameters we mean some unknown X, Y, Z and others, where X is understood, for example, as the features of the language and worldview of the era in which the translated author lived (for example, in antiquity, words with the meaning of “new” could evoke associations of “bad”, “suspicious”: ancient and modern people have different ideas about good and evil), by Y – the features of the literary, philosophical or religious movement to which the author belonged (Second sophistry, stoicism, platonism, Christianity, etc. etc.), under Z – the features of the author’s own style, the complexity of his grammar. In addition, hidden parameters include the consequences of working with the manuscript of numerous copyists, various dark places (the so-called “cruces interpretum” “translator’s crosses”) and much more. As a result, the translator is not faced with a dilemma: whether to prefer literalism or artistry, but before a choice: whether to strive for an optimal translation, plunging as deeply as possible into the corresponding era, getting to know the personality of the ancient author and his text (perfectionism), or to be content with a more or less accurate and fairly artistic good translation (goodness). In any case, the translator should be guided by the principle of féci quód potuí, faciánt melióra poténtes “he did what he could, whoever can do it better,” since the search for the optimal translation is endless. The point is not only in the constantly changing target language and in the growing information about the time the original was written and about its author, but also in the asymptotic nature of the optimal translation, with which specific translations cannot coincide. Let us also take into account the fact that among people living today there is not a single one for whom ancient Greek and Latin were their native languages. We don't have a carrier to consult. Moreover, the translator of ancient Greek and Latin finds himself in a more difficult position than the translator of texts created in modern languages, since he has to choose both one of several possible interpretations of the same reading at first glance, and one of several possible readings proposed by researchers. The fact is that publishers and interpreters have worked a lot over the past two thousand years, replacing words in surviving manuscripts with their own conjectures, the number of which is sometimes quite large. Trying to give an optimal translation, you may not give any, because a textual analysis of even one sentence with all the discrepancies, taking into account data on the use of “problem” words in other works of the translated author, can take more than one day. Considering the above, we advise discerning readers to whom our translation of Tertullian’s work seems far from optimal, not so much to criticize the translator, remembering the words of the Savior from Matt. 7:1, how much we ourselves will undertake to improve the Russian text of the five books “Against Marcion.” In our translation, the sign [...] denotes interpolations, the sign denotes those words inserted by us that make the text easier to understand (Tertullian’s extremely unclear style forced him to somewhat expand his sentences during translation), or fragments that fell out of the manuscript and were restored by the publishers. As a rule, in this case only the authorship of Kroymann is indicated, many of whose conjectures are considered controversial. When translating the disputed passages, we took into account the English translation of 1870 (P. Holmes), 1972 (E. Evans) and the German translation of 1882 (H. Kellner). The following dictionaries, concordances and editions of the Bible were also used: A Greek-English Lexicon compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. A new edition revised and augmented throughout by H. S. Jones. Vol. I. Oxford, 1948. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint compiled by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie with the collaboration of G. Chamberlain. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–1996. P. I–II. The Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson publishers, 1999. Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament /Ausgearbeitet... von G. Lisowsky. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Schmoller A. Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament/ Neu bearbeitet von B. Köster. Stuttgart, 1989. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia/Edd. K. Eiliger et W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1997. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem/Rec. R. Weber. Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft. 1994. Novum Testamentum. Graece et Latine/Edd. K. Aland et al. Stuttgart, 1984. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes/ Ed. A. Rahlfs. Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft. 1979. I thank my wife Lyudmila, who patiently checked my translation and corrected many annoying errors. Albrecht M., von. History of Roman literature / Trans. with him. I. Lyubzhina. M., 2005. T. 3. Amman A. The Path of the Fathers. Brief introduction to patristics / Transl. from fr. M., 1994. Auni D. The New Testament and its literary environment. Per. from English A. V. Polosin, ed. A. L. Khosroeva. St. Petersburg, 2000. Afonasin E.V. Ancient Gnosticism. Fragments and evidence. St. Petersburg, 2002. Balanovsky A. F. Tertullian, defender of Christianity // Orthodox Review. 1884. August. pp. 585–604. Bolshakov A.P. Early Christian apologies: origin and content // Ancient East and the ancient world. Proceedings of the Department of History of the Ancient World, Faculty of History, Moscow State University. Vol. 5. M., 2002. pp. 151–165. Bychkov V.V. Aesthetica patrum. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. I. Apologists. Blessed Augustine. M„ 1995. Vdovichenko A.V. Discourse – text – word. Articles on history, biblical studies, linguistics, philosophy of language. M., 2002. Vdovichenko A.V. Christian apology. Brief overview of the tradition // Early Christian apologists of the 2nd–4th centuries. Translations and research. M., 2000. pp. 5–38. Bupper R. Yu. The emergence of Christian literature. M., 1946. Vipper R. Yu. Essays on the history of the Roman Empire (end). Rome and early Christianity // Selected works. In 2 volumes. T. 2. Rostov-on-Don, 1995. Vipper R. Yu. Origin of Christianity. M., 1946. Golubtsova N.I. At the origins of the Christian Church. M., 1967. Gatch E. Hellenism and Christianity // General history of European culture. St. Petersburg, b. g. Drews A. The origin of Christianity from Gnosticism / Trans. with him. M., 1930. Durof V. S. Latin Christian literature of the 3rd–5th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2003. Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. M., 1994. Kublanov M. M. The Emergence of Christianity: The Epoch. Ideas. Searches. M., 1974. Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics. Results of a thousand years of development. Book 1. M., 1992. Losev A.F. Critical remarks to the dialogue “Cratylus” // Plato. Collected works. In 4 vols. M., 1990. T. 1. Mayorov G. G. Formation of medieval philosophy (Latin patristics). M., 1979. Metzger B. M. Textology of the New Testament. Manuscript tradition, the emergence of distortions and reconstruction of the original / Transl. from English K. Burmistrova, G. Yastrebova. M., 1996. P. 87. Metzger B. M. Early translations of the New Testament. Their sources, transmission, limitations / Trans. from English S. Babkina. M., 2002. Neretina S.S. Tertullian’s paradoxes // Man. 1996. No. 1. P. 68–81. Popov K. Tertullian, his theory of Christian knowledge and the main principles of his theology. Kiev, 1880. Posnov M.E. Gnosticism of the 2nd century and the victory of the Christian Church over it. Kiev, 1917. Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church (before the division of the Churches - 1054). Brussels, 1964. Preobrazhensky P. F. Tertullian and Rome // Preobrazhensky P. F. In the world of ancient ideas and images. M., 1965. pp. 163–393. Sventsitskaya I. S. Early Christianity: pages of history. M., 1987. Svetlov R.V. Ancient Neoplatonism and Alexandrian exegesis. St. Petersburg, 1996. Sidorov A.I. The problem of Gnosticism and syncretism of ancient culture in historiography // Current problems of classical philology. M., 1982. Issue. 1. pp. 91–148. Stolyarov A. A. Tertullian. Epoch. Life. Teaching//Tertullian. Selected works / Trans. from Latin, common ed. and comp. A. A. Stolyarova. M., 1994. pp. 7–34. Tov E. Textology of the Old Testament. Per. from English K. Burmistrova, G. Yastrebova. M., 2001. Trofimova M.K. Historical and philosophical problems of Gnosticism. M., 1979. Sternov N. Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage. Essay on his scientific and literary activities. Kursk, 1889. Shcheglov N. Apologetician of Tertullian. Kiev, 1888. Aland V. Gnosis und Philosophia//Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, 1973. Leiden, 1977. S. 34–73. Alt K. Philosophie gegen Gnosis. Plotins Polemik in seiner Schrift II9. Stuttgart, 1990. Alus A., de'. Tertullien helleniste//Revue des études grecques. 1937. T. 50. P. 329–362. Andresen C. Die Kirchen der alten Christenheit. Stuttgart, 1971. Angus S. The religious quest of the Graeco-Roman world: A study in the historical background of early Christianity. New York, 1929. Armstrong A. H. Hellenic and Christian studies. London, 1990. Ayers R. H. Language, logic, and reason in the Church Fathers: a study of Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas // Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien. 1979. Bd. 6. Bardy G. La vie spirituelle d’apres les Peres des trois premiers siecles. Paris, 1935. Barnes T. D. Tertullian the antiquarian // Studia patristica. 1976. Vol. 14. P. 3–20. Barnes T. D. Tertullian: a historical and literary study. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1985. Barton I. M. Africa in Roman Empire. Accra, 1972. Baur F. Ch. Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche Religionsphilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Darmstadt, 1967. Becker C. Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung. Munich, 1954. Bianchi U. Ä propos de quelques discussions recentes sur la terminologie, la definition et la methode de l’etude du Gnosticism // Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, 1973. Leiden, 1977. P. 16–26. BöhligA. Gnosis und Synkretismus. Teil I–II. Tubingen, 1989. Borleffs J. W. Ph. De Tertulliano et Minucio Felice. Groningae, 1926. Bousset W. Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. Gottingen, 1907. Braun R. "Deus Christianorum". Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris, 1962. Broek R., van den. The present state of Gnostic studies // Vigiliae Christianae. 1983. No. 37. P. 41–71. Brox N. Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenaeus von Lyon. Salzburg, 1966. Bulhart V. Tertullian-Studien // Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sitzungsberichte. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. 1957. Bd. 231. Abh. 5. Bultmann R. Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary setting. London, New York, 1956. Burkitt F. C. Church and gnosis. Cambridge, 1932. Campenhausen H. Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts. Tubingen, 1963. Carcopino J. De Pythagore aux Apötres. Etudes sur la conversion du monde Romain. Paris, 1954. Chadwick H. Die Kirche in der antiken Welt. Berlin, 1972. Clauss M. Mithras und Christus//Historische Zeitschrift. 1986. Bd. 243.2. Heft. Cochrane Ch. N. Christianity and classical culture. A study of thought and action from Augustus to Augustine. London, New York, Toronto, 1944. Churton T. The Gnostics. London, 1987. Daly C. Tertullian the Puritan and his influence. Dublin, 1993. yapiyoioi J. Histoire des doctrines chretiennes avant Nicee. Les origines du christianisme latin. Paris, 1991. Daniälou J. Message evangelique et culture hellenistique aux II e et III e siecles. Tournai, 1961. Deutsch N. The Gnostic Imagination. Gnosticism, Mandeism and Merkabah mysticism. Leiden, 1995. Dodds E. R. Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety. Cambridge, 1965. Edwards M. J. Neglected texts in the study of Gnosticism // Journal of theological studies. 1990. No. 41. P. 27–50. Evans E. Tertullian’s commentary on the Marcionite Gospel // Studia Evangelica. Berlin, 1959, pp. 699–705. Faye E., de. Gnostiques et Gnosticisme. Paris, 1925. Filoramo G. A history of Gnosticism. Oxford, 1990. Foerster W. Gnosis: A selection of Gnostic texts. I–II. Oxford, 1972. Fredouille J.-C. Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique. Paris, 1972. Frend W. H. C. Martyrdom and persecution in the early Church. Oxford, 1965. Grant R. M. After the New Testament. Philadelphia, 1967. Grant R. M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York; London, Green H. A. Gnosis and Gnosticism: A study in methodology // Numen. 1977. No. 24. P. 95–134. Groningen G., van. First Century Gnosticism. Its origin and motifs. Leiden, 1967. Haardt R. Gnosis: character and testimony. Leiden, 1971. Hagendahl H. Latin Fathers and the classics. A study on the apologists, Jerome and other Christian writers // Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia. 1958. Vol. 6. Hagendahl H. Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor. Die profane literarische Tradition in dem lateinischen christlichen Schrifttum/ /Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia. 1983. Vol. 44.163 S. Harnak A. Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Leipzig, 1921. Heck E. Μὴ θεομαχεῖν oder: Die Bestrafung des Gottesverächters: Untersuchungen zu Bekämpfung und Aneignung römischer religio bei Tertullian, Cyprian und Lactanz // Studien zur klassischen Philologie. Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York, 1987. Bd. 24. Hengel M. Judentum und Hellenismus. Tubingen, 1969. Hilgenfeld A. Die Ketzergeschichte der christlichen Gnosis. Leipzig, 1884. Hornus J.-M. Etüde sur la pensee politique de Tertullien // Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses. 1958. T. 38. No. 1. P. 1–38. Jonas H. The Gnosis und spätantiker Geist. I–II. Göttingen, 1934–1954. Jonas H. The Gnostic religion. Boston, 1963. JungJ. Zu Tertullians auswärtigen Beziehungen // Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für classische Philologie. Vol. 13. Heft. 2.1891. P. 231–244. Kelly J. The world of the early Christians. Collegeville, 1997. Knox J. Marcion and the New Testament. Chicago, 1942. Koester H. Ancient Christian Gospels. Philadelphia, 1990. Koschorke K. Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen des kirchliche Christentum. Leiden, 1978. Labriolle P., de. La physiologie dans l’oeuvre de Tertullien //Archives générales de médecine. 1906. Année 83. Vol. 197. T. 1. P. 1317–1328. Laistner M. L. W. Christianity and pagan culture in the later Roman Empire. Ithaca, New York, 1967. Layton B. The Gnostic scriptures. New York, 1987. Leipoldt I. Griechische Philosophie und frühchristliche Askese. Berlin, 1961. Leisegang H. Die Gnosis. Stuttgart, 1954. Lietzmann H. Geschichte der alten Kirche. I–III. Berlin, 1932–1938. Mansfeld J. Studies in later Greek philosophy and Gnosticism. London, 1989. May G. Marcion in Contemporary view: results and open questions // The second Century. 1987–1988. No. 6. P. 129–151. Monceaux P. Histoire litteraire de l’Afrique chretienne. T. 1: Tertullien et les origines. Paris, 1901. Moraldi L. Testi gnostici. Torino, 1982. Morgan J. The importance of Tertullian in the development of Christian dogma. London, 1928. Nisters B. Tertullian. Seine Persönlichkeit und seine Schicksal // Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie. 1950. Vol. 25. Nock A. D. Essays on religion and the ancient world. Cambridge, Mass., 1972. Vol. 2. Nöldechen E. Tertullians Erdkunde//Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. 1886.6. S. 310–325. Orbe A. Cristologia gnostica. I–II. Madrid, 1976. Osborn E. Tertullian, first theologianof the West. Cambridge, 1997. Pagels E. The Gnostic Gospels. New York, 1979. Pepin J. Mythe et Allegorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judeo-chretiennes. Paris, 1958. Perkins Ph. The Gnostic dialogue. The early Church and the crisis of Gnosticism. Toronto, 1980. Petitmengin M. P. Tertullien et la religion romaine//Revue des etudes latines. 1967. T. 45. P. 47–49. Petrement S. Le Dieu separe: les origines du gnosticisme. Paris, 1984. Quispel G. Gnosis als Weltreligion. Zurich, 1951. Quispel G. Gnostic Studies. I–II. Istanbul, 1974–1975. Quispel G. Marcion and the text of the New Testament//Vigiliae Christianae. 1998. No. 52. P. 349–360. Rankin D. Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge, 1995. Rauch G. Der Einfluß der stoischen Philosophie auf die Lehrbildung Tertullians. Halle, 1890. Rönsch H. Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache durch Beispiele erläutert. 2. Ausg. Marburg, 1875. Rossi S. Minucio, Giustino e Tertulliano nel loro rapporti col culto di Mitra // Giornale italiano di filologia. 1963.16. No. 1.17–29 p. Rudolf K. Die Gnosis. Leipzig, 1977. Rudolf K. Gnosis und Spätantike Religionsgeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Leiden, 1995. Schelowsky G. Der Apologet Tertullianus in seinem Verhältnis zu der griechisch-römischen Philosophie. Leipzig, 1901. Schneider A. Le premier livre “Ad nations” de Tertullien. Neuchätel, 1968. Schenke H.-M. The problem of Gnosis/ /The second Century. 1983. No. 3. P. 72–87. Seliga S. De conviciis Tertullianeis//Eos. Kwartalnik klasyczny. Organ polskiego towarzystwa filologicznego. 1936. Vol. 37. Phase. 3. P. 267–273. Sider R. D. Ancient rhetoric and the art of Tertullian. Oxford, 1971. Sidwell K. Reading Medieval Latin. Cambridge, 1995. Simon M.-Benoit A. Le judäisme et le christianisme antique. Paris, 1968. Stroumsa G. A. Another seed: studies in Gnostic mythology. Leiden, 1984. Swift L. J. Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian’s Apologeticum//Latomus. Revue d'etudes latines. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem / Edited and translated by E. Evans. I–II. Oxford, 1972. Timothy H. The early Christian apologists and Greek philosophy. Assen, 1973. Walker B. Gnosticism. Its history and influence. Wellingborough, 1983. Waszink J. H. Tertullian’s principles and methods of exegesis // Early Christian literature and the classical intellectual tradition. Paris, 1979. P. 17–31. Weber E. Zwei Gedanken zum Mithraskult/ / Hyperboreus. 2001. Vol. 7. Phase. 1–2. P. 329–331. Wellstein M. Nova verba in Tertullians Schriften gegen die Häretiker aus montanistischer Zeit. Stuttgart; Leipzig, 1999. Williams M. A. Rethinking Gnosticism. An argument for dismantling a dubious category. Princeton, 1994. Wilson R. McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford, 1968. Wilson R. McL. The Gnostic problem. A study of the relations between Hellenistic Judaism and the Gnostic heresy. London, 1958. Wilson R. McL. The Gnostics and the Old Testament // Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism. Stockholm, 1973. Leiden, 1977. Yamauchi E. M. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A survey of proposed evidence. London, 1973. Rossi S. Minucio, Giustino e Tertulliano nel loro rapporti col culto di Mitra // Giomale italianodi filologia. 1963.16. No. 1. P. 23–24, 28; Clauss M. Mithras und Christus // Historische Zeitschrift. 1986. Bd. 243, 2. Heft. S. 268. Barnes T. D. Tertullian: a historical and literary study. 2nd edition. Oxford, 1985, pp. 13–21; Rankin D. Tertullian and the church. Cambridge, 1995, pp. 38–40. Fredouille J.-C. Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique. Paris, 1972. P. 85. Monceaux P. Histoire litteraire de l’Afrique chrctienne. T. 1: Tertullien et les origines. Paris, 1901. P. 215. Becker C. Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung. Munich, 1954, pp. 96–99. Schneider A. Le premier livre “Ad nations” de Tertullien. Neuchätel, 1968, pp. 30–31. Fredouille J.-C. Op. cit. P. 86, n. 73. Hagendahl H. Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor. Die profane literarische Tradition in dem lateinischen christlichen Schrifttum // Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia. 1983. Vol. 44. S. 13. Fredouille J.-C. Op. cit. P. 86. Braun R. "Deus Christianorum". Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris, 1962. P. 30–35. “Gal. can be seen as a message of exhortation with some apologetic features." See: Auni D. The New Testament and its literary environment. Per. from English V. V. Polosin, ed. A. L. Khosroeva. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 204. Heck E. Μὴ θεομαχεῖν oder: Die Bestrafung des Gottesverächters: Untersuchungen zu Bekämpfung und Aneignung römischer religio bei Tertullian, Cyprian und Lactanz // Studien zur klassischen Philologie. Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York, 1987. Bd. 24. S. 23. Vdovichenko A. V. Christian apology. Brief overview of the tradition // Early Christian apologists of the 2nd–4th centuries. Translations and research. M. 2000. P. 23. Swift L.J. Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian’s Apologeticum // Latomus. Revue d'etudes latines. 1968. T. 27. Phase. 4. P. 877. Cp.: Heck E. Op. cit. S. 18. The following is a translation of this chapter: “ 1. However, as we said above, our grief is inevitable, because not a single city that shed our blood will go unpunished. As during the time of Governor Gilarian, when the people shouted for land (areae) for Christian burials: “Let there be no land!” They themselves had no land for threshing (areae), because they did not reap the harvest. 2. It is also obvious, however, that last year’s downpours should have reminded the human race - of course, the flood, which happened before because of human unbelief and injustice. Those who saw the lights that recently hung over the walls of Carthage at night know what they threatened. And those who are numb know what the previous thunderclaps meant. 3. These are all signs of God’s terrible wrath, about which we, to the best of our ability, must proclaim and warn, begging at the same time that this wrath be local in nature. After all, those who interpret its particular manifestations differently will in due time experience it in all its fullness and completeness. After all, the sun in the Utich district, when the light was almost eclipsed, appeared as a miraculous sign insofar as during an ordinary eclipse this could not have happened to it, being at its zenith and home. You have astrologers, . 4. We can also tell you about the deaths of some governors who, at the end of their lives, realized that they had sinned when they tortured Christians. Vigelius Saturninus, who was the first to raise his sword here, lost his sight. Claudius Lucius Germinian in Cappadocia, angry that his wife had joined this sect, began to brutally deal with Christians. And he, left by everyone in his residence, stricken with an infectious disease, began to swarm with worms. “Let no one know,” he said, “so that Christians do not rejoice and Christian women do not hope!” Subsequently realizing his mistake - after all, under torture he forced some to renounce their beliefs - he died almost like a Christian. Caecilius Capella exclaimed at the disaster that befell Byzantium: “Rejoice, Christians!” 5. But those who feel that they have not been punished will still appear before the Lord's judgment on that day. We wish you that the warning remains only a warning, since when the same Caecilius condemned Mavila of Adrumet to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, illness immediately followed, and now, for the same reason, blood damage” (Translated by L.V. Bratukhina). The story about Capella talks about the destruction of the city, which took the side of Pescennius Niger, by Emperor Septimius Severus at the end of 195 - beginning of 196, i.e. a year and a half before the writing of Apologetics. See: Herodian. History of imperial power after Mark. M., 1996. P. 212, approx. 34. Based on this mention, J. W. F. Borleffs concludes that “Apologeticus” “was written a little later than June 197, after the return of Emperor Severus to Rome” // See: Borleffs J. W. Ph. De Tertulliano et Minucio Felice. Groningae, 1926. P. 9–10. According to T. D. Barnes, Apologeticus was written in the fall of 197 or some time thereafter. See: Barnes T. D. Tertullian: a historical and literary study. P. 34. Frend W. H. C. Martyrdom and persecution in the early Church. Oxford, P. 365. Borleffs J. W. Ph. Op. cit. P. 9–10. “Early Christian apologies of the 2nd–4th centuries. It is not at all characterized by a defensive, “protective” character. In fact, the works of the Fathers of the Church are religious pamphlets, full of sharp attacks against traditional religion and the state system sanctified by it.” See: Bolshakov A.P. Early Christian apologies: origin and content // Ancient East and the ancient world. Proceedings of the Department of History of the Ancient World, Faculty of History, Moscow State University. Vol. 5. M., 2002. P. 162. M. von Albrecht's statement that “Tertullian, with his Apologeticum, creates to some extent a new genre. Among the Greeks, defensive speech and the call to convert to one’s faith existed only separately,” is quite controversial. See: Albrecht M., von. History of Roman literature / Trans. with him. A. I. Lyubzhina. M., 2005. T. 3. P. 1670. Wed: “Now, Catiline, continue to follow the path you took” (Cis. Cat., 1,5,10; trans. V. O. Gorenshtein). Amman A. The Path of the Fathers. A brief introduction to patristics. Per. from fr. M., 1994. P. 49. Hagendahl N. Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor. S. 19. E. Heck, trying to prove that Tertullian still has in Apol. there was an intention to give examples of punishment of persecutors (see: Heck E. Op. cit. S. 143–144), does not take into account his desire to remain within one genre. The Carthaginian author can, in his non-defensive essay “On Spectacles,” addressed to Christians, write with gloating joy about the posthumous torments of their oppressors, he can hint at these punishments in Apol., 48, 15, but he avoids warnings and teachings in a speech that, although not intended to be read in a courtroom, is still formally related to judicial eloquence. After all, ““Apologetic” is nothing more than a judicial defense of Christians carried out according to all the rules of legal argumentation.” See: Durov V.S. Latin Christian literature of the 3rd–5th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 13. Warnings and teachings are more consistent with the genre of exhortation or message. See: Albrecht M., von. Decree. Op. S. 1665. Stolyarov A. A. Tertullian. Epoch. Life. Teaching // Tertullian. Selected works / Trans. from Latin, common ed. and comp. A. A. Stolyarova. M. 1994. P. 23. “Although at that time there was already a Bible in Latin, Tertullian prefers to read it in Greek and translates the text himself.” See: Albrecht M., von. Decree. Op. S. 1669. Metzger B. M. Early translations of the New Testament. Their sources, transmission, limitations / Trans. from English S. Babkina. M., 2002. pp. 305–306. Sidwell K. Reading Medieval Latin Cambridge, 1995. P. 29. Tov E. Textology of the Old Testament. Per. from English K. Burmistrova. G. Yastrebova. M., 2001. P. 133. Rönsch H. Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache durch Beispiele erläutert. 2. Ausg. Marburg, 1875. S. 3. Metzger B. M. Textology of the New Testament. Manuscript tradition, the emergence of distortions and reconstruction of the original Trans. from English K. Burmistrova, G. Yastrebova. M., 1996. P. 87. Metzger B. M. Textology of the New Testament... P. 129. Durov V. S. Latin Christian literature of the 3rd–5th centuries. P. 9. Rötisch H. Op. cit. S. 3–4. Metzger B. M. Canon of the New Testament. Emergence, development, significance / Trans. from English D. Gzgzyan. 3rd ed. M., 2001. P. 158. Weber E. Zwei Gedanken zum Mithraskult // Hyperboreus. 2001. Vol. 7. Phase. 1–2. P. 329–331. Examples of the apologist using various forms of words with the roots fer-, tul-, lat and the prefix trans-: Ad nat.: we are talking about turning charges against the accusers themselves (I, 11, 5); about replanting a tree (I, 12, 11); about transferring the name of God to false gods (II, 4,6); on allegorical interpretation (II, 12, 20); about transferring someone to heaven (II, 15.1); about replacing one with another (II, 16.2). Ad mart.: about transfer from a prison (i.e., the world) to a refuge (i.e., a prison) (2, 4); about the imaginary transfer of a person by his soul (2, 10). Apol.: about transferring grace to someone (21, 6); about the transfer of veneration from one to another (21, 27); about transferring (placing) hope on someone (24.4); about spreading the word of God (31.1); about transforming the appearance of the world (48, 12). De test.: about the transmigration of the soul from man to animals (4, 2, cp.: De an., 32, 2; 32, 4; 32, 7–8). De praescr.: about the transition to another gospel (27, 3, cp.: Adv. Marc., 120, 4 and 6; V 2, 4–5). Scorp.: about the transference to heaven of everything that is used to punish Christians (10, 9; cf.: 10, 13). Adv. Herrn.: about Hermogenes’ “deliverance” of God from evil (11, 2); about transformation for the better (37, 1; cf.: 37, 3 and 43, 2); about transformations (39, 1). De pal.: about changing clothes (4, 2); about betrayal of nature and modesty (4.8). Adv. Val.: about the transfer of Achamoth to the top (31.1). De an.: about referring a word to someone (35.3); about the transfer of Elijah (35.6); about the transfer of Elijah and Enoch (50, 5, cp.: De res., 58, 9; Adv. lud., 2, 13 and 4, 6 - o Enoch). De carn.: about the transfer of blood (20, 6). De res.: o deprivation of one’s own property (30.1); about the transference of members to eternal life (47.8); about moving into eternity (60.4). Adv. lud.: on the metaphorical use of place names instead of their inherent sins (9, 13, cp.: Adv. Marc., III, 13.9); about changing the previous name (9, 21, cp.: Adv. Marc., III, 16, 3). De bapt.: about the transfer of the spirit from John to the Lord (10, 5); about bringing Israel into the wilderness (20:4). De or.: about the cup from Luke. 22:42 (4, 5, cf.: De fuga. 8, 4); ο food delivery (29, 1). Ad ux.: about the transition to an angelic state (I, 1, 4). De cult.: about the change of the fatherland (II, 6.1). Adv. Marc.: about attributing the highest greatness to God (1, 4, 3); about transference to heaven (II, 4, 4; II, 10, 3); about turning to evil (II, 10, 4); about moving to the Kingdom of Heaven (III, 24, 6); about the transfer of acquired property to Babylon (IV, 15.9); about transferring the name of blood relatives to others (IV, 19, 11; 26, 13); that one can only endure what a person possesses (IV, 19, 12); about the transfer to Christ of the doctrinal authority of Moses and Elijah (IV, 22, 11); about transfer (i.e. deprivation) of faith (V, 7, 13); about the transition from faith in the Law to faith in the Gospel (V, 13.2); about the separation of reference to the body of Christ from the substance of the flesh (V, 19, 6); about the transition from shadow (i.e. from images) to flesh (i.e. to truth) (V, 19.9). De cor.: about transferring the wreath (15, 3). De idol.: about the transfer of obligation (21, 3). De ex.: about the transition from words spoken on one’s own behalf to words spoken on behalf of the Lord (3, 6). De fuga: about the movement of a mountain (14, 1). De mon.: about the attribution of our state to Christ (5, 6). De ieiun.: about the transfer of the servant to Elijah (9, 5). Adv. Prah.: about bringing people from many gods to one (3, 1); about alternation (27, 12). In the remaining works of Tertullian, the forms of the words in question are absent. See the phraseological unit nihil enim ad Andromacham, “out of place,” “irrelevant” in Tertullian’s essay “On Modesty” (Tert. De pud., 8.11); cp.: Strab. VIII, 6, 23 (381); Plut. Symp., 1, 1, 5 (615a). Homer in this case would have played the same role as Pushkin in a question like “will Pushkin work?” “The crowned Homer” is mentioned by Tertullian in Book II “To the Gentiles”: “Plato decided that the accusers of the gods - the poets - should be put out of the door, and Homer himself, even if crowned (ipsum Homerum sane coronatum), should be expelled from the State” (Tert. Ad nat., II, 7, 11). Just above the passage under discussion it is said: “Claudius will declare that even the sky in the songs of Homer is crowned (coronatum) with stars (cp.: Il. XVIII, 485), - of course, by God, of course, for man” (Tert. De cor., 13, 8); the seventh chapter talked about poets who wrote about wreaths. Compare: “Homer is condemned to be a peacock, and not glorified by it. He will rejoice more at the reward of this world, being considered the father of noble arts, for he will prefer the beauty of his glory to the beauty of his tail” (Tert. De an., 33, 8). Weber E. Op. cit. R. 330, n. 21. “Representatives of Gnosticism are divided into Eastern, or Syrian, and Western, Alexandrian. The first include the Ophites, Saturnilus, Basilides, Cerdon and Marcion, the second include Carpocrates and Valentinus. In Eastern Gnosticism, the influence of Persian living dualism is more noticeable, while in Western, or Alexandrian, Platonism and partly neo-Pythagoreanism are clearly visible.” See: Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church (before the division of the Churches - 1054). Brussels, 1964. P. 144. A. F. Losev notes the following about this division of the Gnostics: “M. E. Posnov also understands this division thematically, while for us it is only territorial” (Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics. Results of a thousand years of development. Book 1. M., 1992. P. 259). Marcion, being a wealthy shipowner, “contributed 200,000 sesterces to the Christian community of Rome” (see: Sventsitskaya I.S. Early Christianity: pages of history. M., 1987. P. 146) and “almost immediately took a leading position in the Roman community” (Ibid. P. 266), however, in the end, “he was expelled from the Roman Christian community, and he was even returned it contribution" (Ibid. p. 268). “Marcion was one of the most educated people among Christians of that time. It was his education that allowed him to create “Antithesis” - a comparison of the Jewish Law and the Gospel of Christ, the main goal of which is to discover the contradictions and inconsistency between them.” See: Svetlov R.V. Ancient Neoplatonism and Alexandrian exegesis. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 43. Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. M., 1994. P. 36. “What is the price of suffering and death if they are only appearances? What are they for? – Is it not so that the just Demiurge rightly loses the right to those saved through the unjust murder of the Righteous? Or so that only by apparently dying, Christ could descend into hell and save from it those who turned to him in hell, that is, not the Old Testament righteous, but Cain, sodomites, pagans? See: Sventsitskaya I.S. Decree. Op. P. 37. E. Evans has an article “Tertullian’s Commentary on the Marcionite Gospel” // Studia Evangelica. Berlin, 1959, pp. 699–705. Kurginyan S. Medvedev and development // “Zavtra”. 2008. No. 18 (754). pp. 1–2. The Thule secret organization was closely linked to the Nazis. See: Goodrick-Clark N. Occult roots of Nazism. Secret Aryan cults and their influence on Nazi ideology. St. Petersburg, 1993, pp. 162–169. L osev A.F. Critical remarks to the dialogue “Cratylus” // Plato. Sob. Op. In 4 vols. M., 1990. T. 1. P. 831. Verlinsky A. L. Ancient teachings on the origin of language. St. Petersburg, 2006. P. 118. You might be interested in: