SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
MARK TIMOTHY RILEY
RILEY, Mark Timothy, 1942-
Q.S.FL. TERTULLIANI ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS:
TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND COMMENTARY. [Latin
Text with English Introduction, Translation and
Commentary, and portions in Greek.]
Stanford University, Ph.D., 1971
Language and Literature, classical
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
[This HTML document has been created from a print of the microfilm
which has been scanned and manually corrected. Greek text is
given using the Scholar's Press SPIonic TrueType font. Hebrew text
is usually handled with some tiny inline bitmaps, but occasionally given in
the Scholar's Press SPTiberian font. Both fonts are freely available
for Windows and Macintosh from http://www.tertullian.org/support.
HTML created by Roger Pearse for the Tertullian Project, 28/12/2000]
This is an authorized facsimile, made from the microfilm
master copy of the original dissertation or master thesis
published by UMI.
The bibliographic information for this thesis is contained
in UMI's Dissertation Abstracts database, the only
central source for accessing almost every doctoral
dissertation accepted in North America since 1861.
A Bell & Howell Company
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346
Printed in 2000 by digital xerographic process
on acid-free paper
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my
opinion it is fully adequate, is scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my
opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my
opinion it is fully adequate, fn scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Approved for the University Committee
on Graduate Studies:
Dean of the Graduate Division
This dissertation is the work of a student of
Classical Antiquity, not of a theologian. Hence the
emphasis is on Tertullian's style, language, and the
like, not on his theology, which actually is not of
much concern in this work anyway.
I wish to acknowledge the help of Professor
Brooks Otis, now of the University of North Carolina,
in completing this study.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
TRANSLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
COMMENTARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
I. ABBREVIATIONS OF TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 180
II. FREQUENTLY CITED WORKS . . . . . . . 182
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS
Adv. Val. is one of the tractates found in the
"Corpus Cluniacense," the largest and most complete of
the collections of Tertullian's works.l* This collection
contains all of T's antiheretical writing and was saved
perhaps because of its combative value. At any rate many
mss. survive, mostly in Italy.2 E. Kroymann studied this
corpus and constructed a stemma which in general is cor
rect (see below).3
Adv. Val. occurs in several closely related mss.:
M -- Montepessulanus H 54, saw. XI.
P -- Paterniacensis 436 (Scelestadtensis), saw. XI.
This ms. contains only half of the treatises.4
X -- Luxemburgensis 75,5 saw. XV.
F -- Flor. Magliabechanus VI 10, saw. XV.
N -- Flor. Magliabechanus VI 9, saw. XV.
L -- Leidensis Lat. 2, saw. XV.
V -- Neapolitanus Lat. 55 (formerly Vindobonensis
4194), saw. XV.
* For notes, see end of each chapter; notes for
Introduction, p. 19.
Kroymann and Borleffs have shown that N is a copy
of M, F is a copy of X, and VL are several copies re-
moved from X. VL were used by Oehler for his text. MPF
were used by Kroymann (for these texts, see below). I have
restudied PMXN; copies of which are in my possession.
PM frequently agree with each other in opposition
to X: for example, in Adv. Val. 7, X has "illic epulantem
legerat"; PM have "legarat"; X has "disposita"; PM have
"deposita." More frequently PMX agree with each other in
error: Adv. Val. 7, "in habitaculum de" for "in habita-
culum dei"; Adv. Val. 8, all omit "Ageratos. .. Autophyes."
Consequently, I consider them only relatively independent.
The stemma of Adv. Val. is as follows:6
Cluniacensis Hirsaugensis (see below)
| | |
M P X
| | |
F V L
EDITIONS OF ADV. VAL.
The first printed edition of Tertullian's complete
works was by Beatus Rhenanus (first edition, Basil 1521;
second edition, Basil 1528; third edition, Basil 1539. The
second edition is a reprint of the first.). In his first
edition Rhenanus used P, in which his marginal notes oc-
cur, for the treatises De pat., De carne., De res., Adv.
Prax., Adv. Val., Adv. Iud., Adv. omnes haer., De praes.,
Adv. Herm., and added in the margin readings from a lost
ms., Hirsaugensis. Hence for our treatise he printed P
with one correction from the Hirsaugensis ("cupidine," Adv.
Val. 9). For the treatises not in P, Rhenanus printed
this Hirsaugensis with his own conjectures in the margin.
In his third edition he reported the readings of another
lost ms., the Gorziensis.7 Consequently, since we have
Rhenanus' prime source, P, for Adv. Val., and since we now
have a ms. copied from the Hirsaugensis, X, without
Rhenanus' conjectures, I have not reported Rhenanus' edi-
tions (Rl, R2, R3) except where he reports the Gorzienszs
or his own emendations.
For Adv. Val. the editions aside from R have no
independent value. I have adopted a few of their emenda-
tions. These editions are those of:
S. Gelenius, Basil 1550;
Pamelius, Antwerp 1579 (who reports the emendations
of Latinus Latinius);
Iunius, Franeker 1597 (who reports the emendations
of Joseph Scaliger);
Rigaltius, Paris 1634 (;reprinted in Migne);
Oehler, Leipzig 1853 - 4 (who was hindered by his
choice of poor mss., VL, but who had great criti-
cal abilities and a sense of T's style. His edi-
tion in modern times has been used as the basic
text by E. Evans in his editions of Adv. Prax.,
and De carne, and by Waszink in his translation
and commentary to Adv. Herm.);
Kroymann, Vienna 1906 (who reports some of the
emendations of A. Engelbrecht. Kroymann's is the
only modern or "scientific" text of Adv. Val.,
but unfortunately it is so marred with the willful
and unnecessary conjectures to which Kroymann was
prone as to make it very difficult to use.8 A
glance at the apparatus will illustrate this ten-
dency. Moreover, much work has been done on T's
idiosyncratic style since Kroymann's text, work
that has elucidated many difficulties.).
The purpose of my edition is to apply the work on
T's style of the last sixty years to the text of Adv. Val.
and to correlate this text closely to that of Irenaeus,
which is the foundation for T's work. I have kept the mss.
reading where possible. Many incorrect emendations of ear-
lier editors were caused by their unfamiliarity with T's
style, and by a desire to regularize his peculiar Latin
(e.g., "detrudat," "armabimus," Adv. Val. 3. See notes ad
loc.). In several places of course the mss, are clearly
wrong. The editor of the editio princeps corrected many of
these obvious errors. I have ventured my own corrections
in a few places (Adv. Val. 9, 16, 29), and have explained
my choice of readings in the notes, as well as certain
peculiarities of T's style that might cause difficulties.
TRANSLATIONS OF ADV. VAL.
I have used the translations by A. Roberts in the
series, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, and by L. Lehanneur in
French in the Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Caen
1.1 (1885). The latter is not a complete translation, but
more a paraphrase. Lehanneur slides gracefully over the
cruxes of translation by omitting the difficult places. He
translates Oehler's text. Roberts' translation is also
from Oehler's text and is quite literal, as are all trans-
lations in this series--too literal for readability. He
also misses the point occasionally, as in his translation
of the joke about Phosphorus' family (Adv. Val. 8). There
is a German translation by Kellner which I have found help-
ful in spots. He makes one suggestion on the emending of
the text, "intricata" (Adv. Val. 14).9
THE DATE OF ADV. VAL.
The date of Adv. Val. cannot be fixed with any cer-
tainty.l0 It was written after De praes., since chapter 44
of that work announces a series of individual works against
heretics, presumably including the Valentinians. This is
the "terminus post quem." The date of De praes., however,
is uncertain, probably in the early 200's before T had
become a Montanist. Adv. Val. was written when T was a
Montanist, as is shown by "Proculus noster," Adv. Val. 5.
T had become a Montanist by 207/8 as is shown by this date
in Adv. Marc. I. 15, which was written in his Montanist
period. (Adv. Marc. I. 29 is a discussion of the Para-
clete's teachings on marriage.)
De res. 59 shows a knowledge of Valentinian activity
and perhaps this would indicate that De res. is later than
Adv. Val., but this cannot be certain. At any rate De res.
was written after 211 (De res. 22, "Christianos ad leonem,"
refers to Scapula's persecution,12 giving a possible "ter
minus ante quem").
Adv. Val. was written after Adv. Herm. (see Adv.
Val. 16), but Adv. Herm. cannot be dated closely.13
In sum, this treatise can be dated to the first dec-
ade of the third century, but with the available evidence
no further accuracy is possible.
TERTULLIAN AND IRENAEUS
This work of T, starting from "hunc substantialiter
quidem. . ." (Adv. Val. 6), is a direct translation from
Irenaeus' Contra Haereses l.l.l.ff. (I have indicated in
the commentary what chapters T is translating.) Irenaeus
has been transmitted to us by a Latin version, IL, of the
entire work Contra Haereses, and by the Greek original of
most of Bk. I quoted by Epiphanius, Haer. XXXI, 9 - 32,
XXXII, XXXIII, passim.14 Some of the Greek text has also
been quoted by Hippolytus, Refutatio VI. The nature of T's
translation can be illustrated with a few quotations. I
also append IL of the passages concerned.
le&gousi . . . u(pa&rxonta ??d ' au)to_n a)xw&rhton kai\ a)o&raton, a)i/dio&n
te kai\ a)ge&nnhton, e)n h(suxi/a| kai\ h(remi/a| pollh|~ ge-
gone/nai e)n a)pei/roij ai0w~si. sunupa&rxein d ' autw|~
kai\ !Ennoian, h$n de\ kai\ Xa&rin kai\ Si/ghe onom_a&zousi.
Kai\ e)nnohqh~nai\ pote a)f e(autou~ proba&lesqai to_n
Buqo_n tou~ton a)rxh_n tw~n pa&ntwn, kai\ kaqa&per spe&rma
ta_n probolh_n tau&thn, h#n proba&lesqai e)nenoh&qh, kai\
kaqe&sqai w(s e)n mhtra th|~ sunuparxou&sh| e(autw|~
Sigh|~. Tau&thn de_ u(tiodecame&nhn, a)pokuh~sai
Nou~n, o#moio&n te i1son tw|~ proba&lounti kai\ mo&non
xwrou~ta to_ me&geqoj tou~ Patro&j.
(IL 1, 1, 1) Dicunt. . . esse autem illum invisibilem
et quem nulla res capere possit. cum autem a nullo
caperetur et esset invisibilis, sempiternus, et
ingenitus, in silentio et in quiete multa fuisse in
immensibus Aeonibus. cum ipso autem fuisse et
Ennoiam quam etiam Charin et Sigen vocant. et ali-
quando voluisse a semetipso emittere hunc Bythum
initium. (et velut semen prolationem hanc praemitti
voluit) et eam deposuisse semen hoc et praegnantem
factam generasse Nun, similem et aequalem ei qui
emiserat et solum capientem magnitudinem patris.
(Adv. Val. 7) Sit itaque Bythos iste infinitis retro
aevis in maxima et altissima quiete, in otio plurimo
placidae et--ut ita dixerim--stupentis divinitatis
qualem iussit Epicurus. et tamen quem solum volunt,
dant ei secundam in ipso et cum ipso personam,
Ennoian, quam et Charin et Sigen insuper nominant.
et forte accedunt in ilia commendatissima quiete
movere eum de proferendo tandem initio rerum a
semetipso. hoc vice seminis in Sige sua velut in
genitalibus vulvae locis collocat. suscipit ilia
statim et praegnans efficitur et parit (utique
silentio) Sige. et quem parit? Nus est, simillimum
Patri et parem per omnia. denique solus hic capere
sufficit immensam illam et incomprehensibilem mag-
Note that T is undoubtedly translating: he tells
the same facts in the same order. The tone of T's trans-
lation is, however, considerably different from that of the
original. (1) He is talking directly to the reader; he
asks, "et quem parit?" just as below he asks, "et quale
est. . .?" There are no direct questions or addresses to
the reader in Irenaeus apart from his Introduction.
(2) T takes the part of an adversary to the system about
which he is telling: "Sit itaque. . ." implies that he
could have more to say about this ridiculous divinity, but
that he will press on. He also uses the loaded words,
"stupentis divinitatis." (3) As part of his hostile pre-
sentation T is sarcastic: note here, "et parit, utique
silentio, Sige." Irenaeus on the other hand does not take
a stand in his presentation; his refutation is left for the
(Irenaeus 1. 2, 3) e#nioi de\ au)tw~n pws to_
pa&qoj th~j Sofi/as kai\ th_n epistrofh_n
muqologou~sin. a)duna&tw| kai\ a) katalh&ptw| pra&g-
mati au)th_n e)pixeirh&sasan, tekei=n
ou)si/an. a!morfon, oi3an fu&siv ei@xe qe&leian
tekei=n. h#n kai\ katanoh&sasan, prw~ton me_n
luphqh~nai dia_ to_ a)tele\j th~j gene&sews
e!peita fobhqh~nai mhde\ au)to_ to_ ei=nai
(IL 1, 2, 3) Quidam autem ipsorum huiusmodi passionem
et reversionem Sophiae velut fabulam narrant. impos-
sibilem et incomprehensibilem rem eam agressam,
peperisse substantiam informem, qualem naturam habebat
femina parere. in quam cum intendisset, primo quidem
contristatem propter inconsummationem generationis;
post deinde timuisse ne hos ipsum finem habeat.
(Adv. Val. 10) Sed quidam exitum Sophiae et restitu-
tionem aliter somniaverunt: post inritos conatus et
spei deiectionem deformantam eam; (pallore credo et
macie et incuria. proprie utique patrem non minus
denegatum dolebat quam amissum.) dehinc in illo
maerore ex semetipsa sola nulla opera coniugii con-
cepit et procreat feminam. miraris hoc? et gallina
sortita est de suo par ere, sed et vultures feminas
tantum aiunt. et tamen sine masculo mater et metuere
postremo ne finis quoque insisteret . . . .
Note here again some of the same characteristics of
T's translation: direct address, "miraxis hoc?"; loaded
words, "somniaverunt," corresponding to muqologou~sin.
We have here 3s well another rhetorical trick of T, the
sarcastic parallel, which correlates Sophia with vultures.
T employs the same trick in his joke about the rhetor
Phosphorus (Adv. Val. 8).
T brings in contemporary references not found in
Irenaeus. Compare Irenaeus 1, 4, 1. kai\ e)ntau~qa to_n q(ron kw-
lu&onta au)th_n th~j tou!mprosqen o(rmh~j ei)pei=n 'Iaw_ . . .
(IL 1, 4, 1) "et sic Horon coercentem eam ne anter-
ius irrueret, dixisse Iao; unde et Iao nomen factum
(Adv. Val. 14) tamen temptavit et fortasse appre-
hendisset si non idem Horos qui matri eius tam pros-
pere venerat nunc tam importune filiae occurrisset
ut etiam inclamaverit in eam "Iao"--quasi "Porro
Quirites" aut "fidem Caesaris." inde invenitur "Iao"
Thus he refers to contemporary Roman customs, again
I presume with sarcastic intent: the doings of these Valen-
tinian gods are of no more value than common Roman street
scenes. In Adv. Val. 15, T again makes reference to con-
(Adv. Val. 15) Age nunc discant Pythogorici, agnos-
cant Stoici, Plato ipse, unde materiam quam innatam
volunt et originem et substantiam traxerit in omnem
hanc struem mundi, quod nec Mercurius ille Trismegis-
tus magister omnium physicorum recogitavit. audisti
conversionem genus aliud passionis. ex hac omnis anima
huius mundi dicitur constitisse.
This passage elaborates the following.
(Iren. 1, 4, 2) tau&thn su&stasin kai\ ou)si/an th~j
u3lhj gegenh~sqai le&gousin e)z h}j o3de o( ko&smoj
(IL 1, 4, 2) eam collectionem et substantiam fuisse
materiae dicunt ex qua hic mundus constat.
These passages we typical of T's translation. As
is evident from them, T has no original material to present
about the Valentinians. What material he adds to Irenaeus
is occasionally false, as is his comment on the "sacra" or
the Eleusinian mysteries (Adv. Val. I). T's originality
lies in his treatment of Irenaeus' researches; T set him
self to turn these researches into a polemic, employing the
rhetorical devices illustrated above. This polemic as a
whole is characterized by humor of a leaden sort, humor
which T himself said was suited to the subject (Adv. Val.
6).15 This humor evidences itself in jokes, e.g., Phos-
phorus family (Adv. Val. 8), the "leges Iuliae" (Adv. Val.
31); sarcastic comparisons, e.g., comparing the Valentinian
Jesus to a character in an Oscan farce (Adv. Val. 12); com-
paring the Valentinian heaven to an apartment house (Adv.
Val. 7); and personal insults, e.g., Ptolomy developed his
system from children's fairy-tales (Adv. Val. 20). Typical
of T's method is the extended joke on the gender of Spiri-
tus Sanctus, which is feminine in the Valentinian system of
paired emanations.16 He says that this union of Christ and
the Holy Spirit is "turpissima" (Adv. Val. 11), and that the
Spirit, although a female, has all the honors of a male,
even--he supposes--a beard (Adv. Val. 21). He even takes
the part of a director for a play, treating this drama of
the aeons as a comedy and telling the audience how to react
to it (Adv. Val. 13). In general, his humor consists of
this sort of insult and innuendo directed toward the persons
and ideas which he is discussing.
Also original are the many brief references to con-
temporary life and to other philosophers, as I mentioned
above, e.g., "qualem iussit Epicurus" (Adv. Val. 7), and the
mention of three specific waters in Adv. Val. 15.
The basis of this style is of course oratory, especi-
ally Second Sophistic oratory with its love of colorful
style and vitriolic attack.17 T seems to have been widely
read in ancient literature, and he undoubtedly used these
handbooks, and would have been skilled in oratory, thanks to
his legal training.18 What we have in his treatise against
the Valentinians is the transformation of an expository work,
Irenaeus', into a declamation. This transformation, not any
original material about the Valentinians, was T's
TERTULLIAN AND IRENAEUS LATINUS
As I mentioned above, Irenaeus has been transmitted
to us in a Latin version, IL. The question has long been
debated whether T used IL or vice versa.19 This question
could be settled if we knew the date of IL; unfortunately
we do not. If IL antedated T perhaps T may have used him.
Occasionally T and IL in common use a rare expression
("appendicem," IL 1, 2, 4, and Adv. Val. 10) or together
differ from the Greek text ("in hunc autem vel in Sophiam
derivarat," Adv. Val. 9; "in hunc aeonem id est in Sophiam
demutatam," IL 1, 2, 2; the Greek omits Sophia's name.);
The two preceding examples have been used to show that T
used IL.20 Both of them however can be explained quite
easily as having arisen independently; the former, "appen-
dicem," is a technical medical term which exactly fits here
(see commentary, ad loc.). The latter passages both add
Sophia's name in the Latin because of the difference in
genders: after "in hunc" one would not expect a feminine
noun unless expressed. Note T's comment, "viderit
soloecismus" (Adv. Val. 9). Besides there are real substan-
tive differences between T and IL: in Adv. Val. 8, T says
"quaternarii et octonarii et duodenarii" where IL has
"octonationem et decada et duodecada." IL reproduces
Irenaeus while T has used his own expression (see note ad
loc.). In a similar fashion T has recast Iren. 1, 5, 6;
IL has "animam quidem a Demiurgo, corpus autem a limo, et
carneum a materia, spiritalem vero hominem a matre Acha-
moth," which corresponds to Irenaeus. T has "censum proinde
eum ab Achamoth . . . animalem a Demiurgo, choicum substantia
a)rxh~j, carnem materia" (Adv. Val. 25). He adds here a
"substantia a)rxh~j" not derived from Irenaeus (see note
ad loc.). The most cursory glance at IL shows it to be a
very literal translation of the Greek. Compare the IL ver-
sion of Iren. 1, 2, 3, quoted above. Note especially the
awkward "velut fabulam narrant" for muqologou~sin. Note also
Adv. Val. 7, "hoc vice seminis in Sige sua velut in geni-
talibus vulvae locis collocat"; IL 1 1.1, "et velut semen
prolationem hanc praemitti voluit et eam deposuisse quasi
in vulva eius, quae cum eo erat, Sige"; corresponding to
"Kai\ kaqa&per spe&pma . . . e)n mh&tra| th~| . . . Si/gh|."
Note the conciseness of T's version, the "sua" taking the
place of IL's awkward "quae cum eo erat." IL uses the ana-
phoric "is" very often, as here with "eam," "eius," "eo,"
while he tries to keep the Greek sentence pattern. The
variation between infinitives and finite verbs in IL,
"voluit," "deposuisse," is his attempt to reproduce the
Greek sequence, where the finite verb comes in a relative
clause. Nothing could be more unlike T's version, which
is adaptive and free.21 Because of the demonstrable close-
ness of IL to Irenaeus' Greek and T's departures from it,
it is impossible to believe that IL used T as a source.
That T used IL as a source cannot be disproved but I think
there is no reason to suppose he did. T wrote treatises
in Greek (peri\ eksta&sewj,22 De spectaculis),23 and
I see no reason to suppose his knowledge of Greek to be so
scanty as to require the help of IL.
Parenthetically, it is clear that T had a detailed
knowledge of Irenaeus' work, for he also cites or quotes
Irenaeus in Adv. Marc. 1 and often in De an.24 Irenaeus
seems to have been practically the entire source of T's
knowledge of the various heretical schools.
TERTULLIAN AND THE VALBNTINIANS
T mentions the Valentinians many times in his work.25
There is no evidence that he knew anything about the Valen-
tinians apart from what Irenaeus says. Our knowledge of the
Valentinians and of the other Gnostic sects has been in
creased greatly in the last few years by the discovery of
the Nag Hammadi documents.26 The chief work of Valentinus
himself, called The Gospel of Truth,27 was found there in a
Coptic translation, and has been published.28 The teach-
ings contained in this Gnost is work apparently have little
in common with the teachings exposed as Valentinian by
Irenaeus and T. In the first place, no distinction is made
ìn The Gospel of Truth between the unknown Father-God and
the Demiurge, the creator of this particular world, although
a hint of this may lie in the passage,
In this manner the deficiency is filled by the pler-
oma, which has no deficiency, which has given itself
out in order to fill the one who is deficient,
so that grace may take him from the area which
is deficient and has no grace.29
This "deficient" place could be interpreted as this world
from which the "one who is deficient" is removed by the
Father, who would then be superior to the masters of this
world. Such an interpretation is not explicit in The Gospel
Secondly, in The Gospel of Truth there are no enum-
erations or emanations of Aeons, although Aeons are cer-
tainly mentioned, e.g., "This is the manifestation of the
Father and his revelation to his Aeons."30 Furthermore
there are emanations from the Father, e.g., "All the spaces
are his emanations. They know that they stem from him as
children from a perfect man."31 The sense here is that
everything in the universe is an emanation from the Father;
the Aeons we not given a separate genealogy, as they are
ìn Irenaeus and T.
Thirdly, The Gospel of Truth nowhere distinguishes
three types of human beings; it implies the existence of
only two types, the material and the spiritual: "Many re-
ceived the light. .. but material men were alien to him."32
Apparently the teachings of Valentinianism so mocked
by T derive from Ptolomaeus, not directly from Valentinus.
We can deduce this fact from what T himself says: "Ptolo-
maeus. .. nominibus et numeris Aeonum distinctis in personales
substantias . . ." (Adv. Val. 4). Irenaeus says the same:
" . . . le&gw de\ tw~n peri\ Ptolemai=on , s)panqi/sma
ou!san tn~j Qualenti/nou skolh&j.
Iren. "praefatio" (Harvey, p. 5). Ptolomaeus hyposta-
tized Valentinus' psychological structure into a cosmic sys-
tem, a system to be sure which could be seen in Valentinus'
work also. In addition, Valentinus' writing was probably
esoteric while Ptolomaeus' work, or at any rate his system
as we see it in Irenaeus and T, was exoteric. This means
that in their public preaching, knowledge of which was
available to Irenaeus, the Valentinians presented their doc-
trine in the form of a cosmology. In their private ses-
sions, not available to Irenaeus, they would explain the
true meaning of this cosmology; we find this explanation in
the Gospel of Truth.33
T is not interested in this detail; he is solely
interested in attacking the Valentinian heresy as he imag-
ines it exists today. Consequently he picks out the most
nonsensical and ridiculous teachings of the heresy for at
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. For a review of the other corpora see the "Praefatio"
to the "Corpus Christianorum" edition of T, Vol. I,
2. See E. Kroymann, "Die Tertullian-Uberlieferung in
Italien," Sitzungsberichte Wien, CXXXVIII (1898) Heft 3,
p. 32, for details of these many mss.
3. E. Kroymann, "Kritische Vorarbeiten für den III. und
IV. Band der neuen Tertullian-Ausgabe," Sitzungs-
berichte Wien, CXXXXIII (1901), Heft 6. Same information
in the "Praefatio" to his text of T in CSEL LXX (1942).
4. De pat., De carne, De res., Adv. Prax., Adv. Val., Adv.
Iud., Adv. omnes haer., De praes., Adv. Herm.
5. This ms. was unknown to Kroynann. It was reported by
J. W. Borleffs, "Zur Luxemburger Tertullianhandschrift,"
Mnemosyne III, 2 (1935), 299-308.
6. From Ae. Kroymann, "Praefatio," CSEL, LXX (1942). Also
reproduced in the "Corpus Christianorum" edition of T,
Vol. I, p. XXVII.
7. E. Kroymann, "Kritische Vorarbeiten," pp. 10-12.
8. This tendency is recognized by the compilers of the
"Corpus Christianorum" text of T. Note their monitum
to Adv. Herm.: "At persaepe, etiam ubi nihil adnotauimus,
lectio codicum, quam indebite more suo postposuit Kroymann,
omnino seruanda est. Quod enim omnes iam sciunt Septimii
9. Kellner's translation, Tertullians apologetische,
dogmatische, and montanistische Schriften, Kempten-
Munich, 1912-1916, seems to be available in the U.S. only
from the Library of Congress.
10. Main facts of chronology in A. Harnack, Geschichte de
Altch. Literatur, 2nd edition, part 2, Vol. 2, p. 256 ff.
11. Harnack, p. 209.
12. Harnack, p. 284.
13. Harnack, p. 285, and Waszink, Against Hermogenes, p.13.
14. Both versions in W. W. Harvey, Sancti Irenaei Libros
Quinque contra Haereses, Cambridge, 1857.
15. On this subject see G. Quispel, "De Humor van Ter-
tullianus," Nederlandsche Theol. Tijdschrift, II (1947),
280-290. (In Dutch)
16. Apparently derived from the feminine gender of Hebrew
or its Syriac equivalent; see Harvey, p. 22.
17. A similar love of attack in Apuleius, Apologia, against
the relatives of his wife, On the Second Sophistic see
E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, (Leipzig 1898), II, 378.
18. He had been a lawyer by profession in Rome (Jerome, De
viris ill. 53; T's familiarity with Rome shown in De spec.
19. Harnack, p. 315 ff. Extensive discussion in W. Sanday
and C. H. Turner, Nouum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, Old
Latin Biblical Texts #7, Oxford, 1923, and in F. C. Burkitt,
"Valenti nian Terms," JTS, 1923, pp. 56-67.
20. A. d'Ales, "Note," REG 29 (1916), pp. XLVIII-XLIX.
21. For a fine study of IL see Irénée de Lyon, Contre les
Heresies IV, sources Chretiennes 100, ed. A. Rousseau
(Paris 1965), 110-185.
22. Mentioned in Jerome, De viris ill. 40, 53.
23. Mentioned by T in De cor. 6.
24. Waszink, De Anima, pp. 45*-46*.
25. De an. 12.1; 18.4; 21.1; 23.4; De carne 1.3; 15.1; 15.3;
19.2; 20.3; 24.2; Adv. Marc. 1, 5.1; IV 10.9, and others.
26. For a catalog of what was found see M. Krause, "Der
koptische Handschriftfund bei Nag Hammadi," Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo,
XVIII (1962), 121-132. For a review of the little that has
been published see J. M. Robinson, "The Coptic Gnostic Lib-
rary Today," New Test. Studies, XIV (1968), 356-401.
27. Mentioned in Irenaeus I, 11, 9, and T's De praes. 25.
28. M. Malinine, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, Evangelium
Veritatis, Zurich, 1956. This work includes an Eng-
lish translation. Another translation is by W. W. Isenberg
in R. M. Grant, Gnosticism, New York, 1961, which I have
cited. Also compare Kendrick Grobel (traps.), The Gospel
of Truth, Abingdon, 1960.
29. Isenberg, in Grant, p. 157.
30. Isenberg, in Grant, p. 152.
31. Isenberg, in Grant, p. 152.
32. Isenberg, in Grant, p. 154.
33. G. Quispel, "The Jung Codex and Its Significance," in
F. L. Cross (ed.), The Jung Codex, London, 1955, 53-4.
This document ( last modifed 28th December 2000) from the Tertullian