O 206 o340a9 FORDHAM UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Rose Hill Campus This book is due not later than the dato on slip. For each book kept overtis there is a fine for each day, = °V*TtIme FACULTY MEMBERS MUST RETURN, ‘BOOKS AT THE CLOSE OF THE Bertrand de Margerie, S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Il The Latin Fathers Preface by M.-J. Rondeau Translated from French by Pierre de Fontnouvelle with footnotes translated by Paul Duggan Seas ramNe, & CONSTANT CHA Saint Bebe’s PUBLICATIONS Perexstan, MASSACHUSETTSBRONX, NY ROSE HILL Contents Chapter Saint Hillary, Pauline and Eschatological Exegete of the Gospel and the Psalms .. Chapter II: ‘St. Ambrose’s Moral and Mystical Exegesis. ChapterIV: ‘The Dilemma Facing St. Jerome as Translator of the Bible: Worldly or Biblica Culture? IndicesSaint Bede’s Publications PO. Box 606 271 North Main Street Petersham, MA 01366-0545 (©1995 St. Bede's Publications All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America Imprimi potest HL. Madelin, SJ. Provincial, French Province ‘March 31, 1982 Imprimatur +P Faynel, vé Paris, April 17, 1982 “The Imprimi potest and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or ‘pamphlet is free of doctrinal and moral error. No implication is con- tained herein that those granting the Imprimi potest or Imprimatur agree ‘with the content, opinions or statements expressed. Lisrany oF Concress CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Margerie, Bertrand de. {Introduction a Vhistroire de l’exégeges. English] ‘An introduction to the history of exegesis / Bertrand de Margerie. pom. Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: 2. The Latin fathers. ISBN 1-879007-13-4 (v. 2) $19.95 1. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, ete—History. I. Title BSS00.M2813 1994 220.6°09—de20 94-31340 cP ‘Anal. Greg. ccsL DIC Ench. Bibl. Eph. Theol. Lovan. Abbreviations ‘Acta Apostolicae Seis, (Rome, 1909ff) Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orienatalium, (Louvain) Supplement du Dictionnaire de la Bible, (Paris) Denziger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, ed. XXXII (Freiburg-im-Brisgau: Herder, 1968) Dictionnaire de Spiritualite ascetique et mystique, (Paris) Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, (Paris) Enchridion Biblicum: Documenta ecclesiastica (Commissionis de Re biblica edita, (Rome, 1961) Ephemerides Theologica Lovanienses, (Louvain)vi / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers Greg Gregorianum, (Rome, 19204.) IHEGF NRT [Nouvelle Revue Theologique, (Namur) Or. Christ. Per, Orientalia Christiana Perodice, (Rome) PG Patrologia graca, Migne, (Paris, 1857-1866) PL atrologia latina, Migne, (Patis, 1878-1890) Rech. Se. Rel. (RSR) Recherches de Science Religieuse, (Paris) RB Revue Biblique, (Patis) Rev. Sc. Rel. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, (Strasbourg) sc Sources Chretiennes, (Paris) TU Texte und Untersuchengen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, (Berlin) Vig. Christ, Vigilie Christiane, (Amsterdam) Preface Our age is rediscovering patristic exegesis. But up until now only the initiates have been able to profit by this new and happy phenomenon. For, with rare exceptions, the studies published in this area—and this is a measure of the seriousness in the present state of research—are extremely specific: monographs on the exegesis of particular authors in the best cases, most often articles on a partial aspect of this or that ancient time for synthesis has perhaps not yet arrived, Bertrand de Margerie will be thanked for having offered the reader a coherent sketch of the present state of our knowledge on the major exegetes of antiquity, renewing contact with the exegesis of the Fathers. In his preface to volume I, Ignace de La Potterie remarked signifi- cantly, and with the full authority attached to his competence as an exegete, how useful, even indispensable, it would be for the exegetes of today to reread their great ancestors of the first Christian centuries. Without, of course, renouncing any of the philological and historical methods that have been developed since the last century, and have given sufficient proof of their effectiveness, our contemporaries will find in the Fathers something that they too often lack themselves: a sense of the dynamism of the sacred text that alone allows us to comprehend it in its truth and full scope. ‘A like invitation could be addressed mutatis mutandis to the theologians of today. Without doubt theological science has, through the ‘course of the ages, employed conceptual tools that are new with respect to those that served in the doctrinal elaboration of the patristic era. History teaches us how great has been the fecundity of this necessaryvii / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers in revelation, and a theology that would and Stoic apparatus of the Fathers theology that refrains from recourse of the times that gave birth to the ofa highly significant ‘The patristic commenta: theological treatises are lation, itis a tribunal ’ the heretics, those “technologists” who rationalized the revealed data instead of placing their reas patristic age labored in this that remains a good subject practice, in every detail, it always incontest on the culture of their times, they could be guilt Harassed by sharp adversaries they sometime: “technology.” In short, one ot another Father could have given this or that verse of Scripture a dogmatic interpretation that one might ei mately theotogi with bringing to light the theo! Fathers. We need only read, to dedicated to the Latin authors anteri ‘Augustine, what he says of the Hilarian exegesis of the episode of the Transfiguration or, follow- ing P. Henry, of the hymn of Philippians 2. Always with Hilary he brings out, dependent on E. Mersch and Henri de Lubac, the Johannine infrastructure of crucial passages of the De Trinitate. He underlines the theological merit of the exegesis that Ambrose gives of the narrative of the institution of the Eucharist. Even if the examples isolated in this book are specific and scattered, whereas a synthesis, when this becomes pos- Preface / ix sible, will sure believe that the al development and continuity, it is important we tion of historians of dogma and of theologians be drawn as of now to the fact that the theological discourse of the first Christian centuries is steeped in exegesis. -M. J. RondeauIntroduction In 1980, I offered to the public a volume of introduction to the history tullian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome. The same method is used as in the preceding volume. I will not repeat what I wrote in the introduction to that volume. ‘There I described the limits and scope of the project, the method fol- lowed, the Jewish antecedents and the biblical foundations of the exege- sis of the Fathers, and its evaluation by the magisterium of the Church, It would be useful, however, to clarify a few aspects, in light of the reactions of several readers and reviewers. I am grateful to them for having helped me, by their reflections, to better delimit the subject mat- ter, to better reveal the light that illumines it. ‘My purpose was and remains doctrinal; this is what I would like to underline here and now. I also wanted to respond to the following ques- tions: Is a history of the exegesis of the Fathers p ection be established between the exegesis contemporary scientific exegesis? Can the exegete, following the example of the Fathers, and without detriment to his specific work, participate by it in the ecclesial effort of evangelization? Let us take each of these different points in order and develop them in further detail. By introducing the reader to the history of the exegesis of the Fathers, intend at once to present him with examples of this exegesis, the2 The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers diversity of its methods—even within the work of this or that individual Father—but also, and above all, to initiate him in the richness of the doc- trinal and theological exegesis practiced by bishops, successors of the Apostles, witnesses of the faith of the church. In their exegesis, the Fathers underlined the importance they attached to doctrine taught or rejected. The emphasis placed here is in perfect harmony with the explicit mind of the Apostles (jn 7:16-17; 2 Jn 9-10; 1 Tm 49; Ti 19). Next, comparing the doctrine of Christ and of the Apost errors or tendencies that were coming to light in their authors of the Old and New Testaments. So much the more in that they tly equipped to grasp certain of its aspects. all this follows a necessary consequence: my project includes /—though only partially—certain aspects of the biblical theolo- loped by the Fathers. ee Note tive plurl. One finds with the Fathers, in line with the diversity of their personal formation and the situations of their churches, a mul- tiplicity of biblical theologles, within the unity of the faith and of the us, with its human authors, a ration of the one and only their complementary diver theologies as also that of their exegeses, can, in the same way as the diversity of the theologies of the sacred writers, be the object of a sense that the Fathers are witnesses of a divine- apostolic Introduction / 3 history. The fact that itis a work of continuation—in the sense that the assistance the Spirit gives to those who preach the Gospel in communion with the successors of Peter and of the Apostles continues in effect—in no way prevents our writing this history precisely in view of facilitating its continuation. ‘An exegete of our timet has pointed out very well how the Bible itself initiates the exegetical technique of the Fathers: the updated re-reading, within a new historical context, of the inspired text. We could summarize the process of the interpretation of the Old ‘Testament in the primitive Church in the following way: + a scriptural text may originally have been written in reference to a just individual, king or prophet; ‘in the Old Testament itsel relating to the eschatolo it has been reinterpreted and seen as es, * the Jewish interpretation of Jesus’ time pushes it a bit further toward a messianic sense; «Jesus may have cited it in connection with his own person and work; + it was re-read in the lig the Resurrection; + then used by the Church to further illustrate the person and function of the risen Christ; ‘+ when the need was felt for an apologetic, this text was employed in the controversy with the Jews; * finally, since the Church was herself viewed as the earthly continua- tion of Christ, the text was read in relation to her and to the community. ‘The Fathers, then, in their exegesis resumed and carried forward the "gous way, we can today utilize the exegesis ofthe Fathers, ith the help of contemporary exegetical techniques, for the4 J The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers purpose of proclaiming the Gospel to our living brothers and even (by Way of them) to future generations. Itis here that some have objected to us on two scores. On the one hand, Father Lagrange wrote with reason: “the exegete’s sole concer by his office is to penetrate a mind that is foreign to his own, to follow its contours, to sacrifice to is his own way of viewing things.”® If such is the proper mission of the exegete, how would he simultaneously be able to pursue, ftom within his very exegetical effort itself, a goal of evangelization? In reality, no contradiction exists between these two ends. The pri- ‘mary and immediate end of the exegete as such is the understanding of the writing under examination; but since this writing itself appears as, integral to the message of salvation, he places himself under the best conditions for an integral understanding and a knowledge by connatu- rality of the text to the extent that he participates in the evangelical con- cem that animated its author. Evangelization thus reveals itself as the horizon of the Christian exegete. We might say, in scholastic terms, that it is the mediate finality he pursues* beyond and by way of his immediate finality as an exegete. A like perspective applies just as much for the modem exegete as Moreover, the examines is fa that he is living at that saw the birth plishes his work of interpretation within the ecclesial community which received, ceaselessly examines and transmits the word written by God. and by the sacred authors. Many aspects of the biblical sayings may escape him, but w! 1ot escape him is the messianic and ecclesial heart of the message of salvation which illumines the entire periphery of the Scriptures. Would it be rash to assume that the Fathers of the Church. perceived this core of the Scriptures with as much, if not more, clarity than we do today? 5M. Lagrange, OP, “Les etracttions exégtiqus de S. Augustin,” Misc. Agos, tI, pp 373-96: the quoted text i found on p. 294 out calming that an unbelieving exegte—vwho would not beable to reach the ofthe Senptares, to know the mystery of Christ and his Church, following an agnostic could well engage inthis sort of wor believers themselves to better understand the Fathers” in their biblical exegesis and then 10 understand Seripture itself better. Introduction / 5 On the other hand, the objection we have just examined comes up again under another form: is the concer to reassert the value of patristic ‘exegesis compatible with the preoccupation of a “strictly scientific exe- gesis”?” If by “strictly scientific exegesis” is meant an interpretation that ‘om any overall view of the Christian phenomenon, t possible either for the believer or the unbeliever: every particular view point is necessarily set against the background of an overall view. Nevertheless, faith in the message of Christ and of his Church in no way prevents the application of scientific norms of inter- pretation relative to the understanding of literary texts in general, and in particular to that of religious texts. My introduction to the preceding volume! gives the reader to understand that grate a scientific exegesis, an authentic exegetic spiritual, in the manner of the Fathers, in our criticism properly underst. No one perhaps has explained better than Louis Bouyer the unity of “authentic exegesis,” at once scientific and religious, of the one Scripture: Theological exegesis could not do without the help supplied by philological the Word that is addressed to the Peopl 1em—the most scientific interpretations ty, and even of missing the point entirely, either the study of the whole Christian tradition, or when. they prescind from the directives of the living magisterium of the Church.° 7Ct, G. H. Ettinger, Tholgial Studies underscoring my doctrinal purpose. SCE IHEGE, notably pp. SCL P. Auvray, “Exegte,” Catolico 41956, 85-654 Louis Bouyer, “Exdgie,”Diconsire Tog, Tourn, 1969), p. 254-25.6 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers In other words—and it is to Bouyer’s credit that he said this two years ‘Tradition and Magisterium are insepara- ble: the divine-apostolic Tradition—of which Scripture is a partial crys- fion—is to such an extent inherent to Scripture as is the jerium,” that one could not but mistake its meaning were he to and from the Magisterium, which together constitute and vital and nur- turing miliew which both gives us and helps us to understand this Scripture, even to its transcendent horizon, Spiritual exegesis, says Louis Bouyer again, is then not the text. extracts from the gressively comes to light? It is this true exegesis, at once literal and spiritual, philogical and ‘theological, human and divine, that the Fathers, in their better moments, Introduction / 7 intended to practice but that we today, thanks in part to them, are in a much better position to pursue. se, Spiritual sense: we have already, on many occasions and in ys, expounded the meanings of these expressions, in the vol- 'd to the Greek Fathers. It might be useful to briefly zeturn t0 this question by way of presenting a synthesis of the different meanings of the expression literal sense and in order to better bring out the evolu- tion of its signification, In the patristic era, the expression already takes on a ing, simultaneously subjective and objective: it designat In the Middle Ages, under the pen of Thomas Aquinas,'S sense is that which the human author has in mind as instrum divine Author; it also includes what the divine Author has in mind, The Middle Ages and the great Counter-Reformation theologians'* distinguish between the literal sense properly speaking and the literal sense figurative speaking—which the Fathers, in general, did not do. In modern times, a double tendency may be observed. On the one hand, working from the distinction between human instrumental author and divine principal author, a consequence of this distinction is more clearly perceived: if what the human author intended to say is said also by God who inspires, “the literal sense is not [only] the ‘human sense,’ it isa sense of Scripture at once human and divine,” as P. Auvray18 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers Literal exegesis is not then reducible to “the knowledge of the facts: it extends to the theological thought of the author, to his spiritual , to the glimpses of prophetic insight he it demands a religious sensibility of which all men are not capabie.”® On the other hand, the fact is that a number of exegetes—some among the faithful no doubt included—seem to talk as if there were no unique, infalibleinrrant divine Author ‘of all the biblical books, making human authors as animate and free instruments. The words nse” in such a context would tend to precind from the intention not to forget nor to empty of meaning the concept of the divine Author, the divine authority of the theandric Scriptures, nor their salvific final By its preoccupations if not by its outmoded technical tools - tates for us the research on biblical themes which in our times, more than image, over the course of the ages, by successive bibl reveal a sense that escapes each of them but not the divine Author who guides them all, even in the choice of w: It thus appears that today the “divine” sense is seen as more rich and almost more omnipresent than in the past and, in particular, than in the age of the Fathers. For the application of the theory of instrumental cau- sality to inspiration and the study of biblical themes reveal the presence of divine horizons, whether unconscious (biblical themes), or conscious (theological literal sense), at the level of human authorship; the religious and supernatural aspect ited to the spiritual sense; ftom one Point of the very distinction between the literal i inile retaining its validity and its objective bases, has been transcended. “This is doubtless what the reader will perceive as he reads through cour expositions of the exegeses of Tertullian, Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome. Mp. Auvray,no.9. P.Grelot, no. 15,430. mand mt speak, with P. Benoit (art “npition® Catala V, cok about a verbal inepiration “the point is crucial for establishing nue) at che French Dominican exgete points out, who has Shed & Introduction | 9 Jn most cases, the impression of originality will result more from our syntheses than from our analyses which but take up the fruits of earlier works of specialists to whom we wish to express our gratitude. There is, however, one point that may appear original or new to some researchers: the idea of the marrow of the Scriptures with Tertullian. As we conclude our presentation to the reader of this volume —followed by one other entirely devoted to the exegesis of Saint Augustine, and indeed by still another on that of his disc to Saint Bernard—we can do no better than to transmit to hia this prayer inspired by Saint Ambrose: may the Scriptures, read with the help of the Fathers bring us consolation, exiles that we are amidst the shadows of the present life; thanks to them, hasten toward Christ your oan, the eternal son of love; he will save you from the coldness of this shadowy darkness.” Bertrand de Margerie, J publishing studies on peti exe and of iyi atest the amewerk of Catholic universities. We would add one more tothe preceding ary: the ecumenical andChapter 1 Tertullian, First Great Exegete of Latin Christianity ‘The Carthaginian Tertullian (circa 155-222 ), at first a militant pagan, became, after his conversion, the first Christian writer of the Latin world to comment on the Scriptures, not only in Greek—in which language, however, he did write several books'\—but in Latin as well? Thanks in part to him, biblical exegesis passed from the Greek to the Latin language. ‘Tertullian published four of his works at fist in Greek: the treatises De spectaclis, De mili, Another, De extasi, did not at all innumerable quotations from them, of which many seem robable that the Greek writings of Tetulian are largely will Towed by the page)12 | The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers Tertullian’s adherence, many years after his conversion, to the heresy of Montanism should not conceal from us the importance of his contribution to Christian exegesis, particularly in the struggle against false gnosis. Vincent of Lérins, in the fourth century, wrote about Tertullian: “With the Latins, he is to be considered, without hesitation, the prince of our writers.... With almost every word he really has something to sa ‘Somewhat forgotten during the Middle Ages, this Afric Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Bossuet and J. A. Moehler draw on his writings as well as Newman. Hamack, who sees in the gnostic a predecessor of Luther, found Tertullian, today has everything to gain by reflecting on Te: Why? The old gnostic theses, products is once again exerci of men. By way of reaction, fthout neglecting the importance of laid the emphasis, against Marcion (Adversus Marcionemt fal method of exegesis—long before such a method was championed by the school of Antioch. Like Saint Justin, he brought out the importance of to whose writings he gave an “exact interpretation. important book—the most significant of his works from the point of exegesis—that, in expounding the texts of the New Testament, “he displays a very keen sense of the authentic interpretation of Scripture,” and he even appears here as a “magisterial exegete of Saint Paul Our plan then is laid out. First we will recall the exegetical rules developed by Tertullian. Then we will give a few characteristic examples of his Old and New Testament exegesis. Finally, on the basis of these examples, we will point out the limitations and the merits of his exegesis Tertullian / 13 Which, like that of Justin and Irenaeus, is situated within the horizon of martyrdom. A) The Rules of Hermeneutics According to Tertullian If itis true, as it undoubtedly is, that Tertullian nowhere presented an orderly synthesis of the principles of his hermeneutic, nevertheless, it has been possible to reconstruct them from his writings. We will be drawing in part from the studies of Adhemar d’Ales? in 1905, of Gottfried Zimmermann, in 1937, and of Heinrich Karpp," in 1955, in presenting the hermeneutical criteria of the African writer. Without slavishly following Karpp, we could list seven of them., while acknowledging the somewhat artificial character of such an enumeration which isolates aphorisms from their contexts—aphorisms of an author very much inclined to express himself in this manner. It will be noted moreover that several of these rules coincide in fact with the norms followed by Justin and Irenaeus" in the second century. IE the influence ofthe firs on Tertullian is certain, that of the second is no ss evident. es, La Taologie de Tertulien, Pats, an, Die hermenetischen Prinzp pp, Schrift und Geist be Trt iged that these correspond, ‘Montanism, in contrast with14 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers 1. Scripture is to be interpreted as a whole, in the light of its dominant and directive ideas: “secundum plura intelligi pauciora,” as opposed to the tendency of the heretics who interpret the whole Bible in the isolated sentences. To some extent, this principle : tican I: “to discover the exact meaning of the sacred is necessary to comsider...the unity of the whole of Scripture.’ Let us call this the “principle of totality 2. The literal sense must be considered first. A spiritu sidered first. A spiritual sense, beyond the literal sense, should be envisioned only if the text cl hi from excluding reality, ic ofa figure is to represent If we take the eschatological prophecies in the ¢n we will also avoid looking for a detail of the parables. Here fa tendency of the Alexandrian Schools and in this way ium.” the primacy of the 3. For a more accurate perception of the literal sense, the interpreter , the inte ca consider the time and the audience of the reported biblical ase, wer words, it is not enough to appl i totality and situate a particul SF tne cntent of Sept og Tertullian, Adversus Prezee, 20, “vatican Il, Constitution Dei Verbum lation, §12. ‘Marconem, I 8. Tertullian in atim- Yet to happen, takes the exact opposite of the x event” Tertullian / 15 when the Lord pronounced this saying: seek and you shall find (Mt 7:7) It was at the very beginning of his teaching, when all were still in doubt as to whether he was the Christ. Peter had not yet declared him Son of God.... With good reason then could he say to them at that time: ‘seek and you shall find.’ He still had to be sought, because hhe had not yet been recognized. And moreover, the word is addressed to the Jews.”® Tertullian, against the gnostics, thinks that this no longer addressed in the same way to Christians” We might call this third norm the principle of interpretation according to context: “ex supra et infra scriptis intellegere.”* 4. More generally, Tertullian inculcates above all the necessity of proceding from the known to the unknown, from the certain to the ‘bneertain, and to explain obscure passages by clear passages taken as suca multis, dubia certis, obscura manifestis adumbran- ‘would do exactly the opposite; they would latch ,, whose meaning they would falsify, and whole doctrine. ‘Thus, when one has some hesitation over the meaning of some is natural to have recourse to the New in order fate it, for Christ came to justify the prophets and the ‘depositories of his thought, are qualified to re-state it for us. principle could be called that of the progressvity in the understanding of the text* 5. Inclose connection with the preceding principles, Tertullian submit also that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, whether in their teachings or in the intentions of their authors. Nor in the intentions of the same author of several biblical writings, such as Paul. “Nihil enim custodiendum est qua diversus sibi deprehendatur”: there is nothing we have to avoid so much as accusing a biblical author of contradicting himse must examine the proposed interpretation of a passage to see if tis in harmony with the moment 1, see Refoule's interesting note De prasritione§25 and 8; on thi interpretation of Clement of j, no. 2), emphasizing the very se thereafter no, 129. this general principle that Tertullian understands 1 Tm 1:18 and 1 25,6. prascrptions 25, ff. De es. cami, ch 21 (PL2, 823A). adimplendse" ef Karpp p. 2716 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers and the occasion, with the precedi srgument receding; examples also withthe phrases that fellow" This brings us back te Wied Principle mentioned above and also to the frst, : Not only must we inner tutored the wit 0 Seiras oy Some teh nia sustaleobe in harmony with the rule of faith eee 1 fertullian understand this expression?® beinning of his carer the Ain distinguishes two rules that ot faith and that of discipline. The first has priority, and irrevocable. It includes the dogmas of i Incamation and the Church. Though one in itself, this nevertheless comprises distinc truths.» ' ‘Ape Tella this rule of faith goes back to Cit and tothe ames The Church transmit it (raiton)—after having received from the Aposte, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God.” The confrontation with the heretics, guards, as heir to the Apostles, “the truth of the Scriptures an ee \ the correct int is ‘bi enim apparuerit ese veitatem,, fide christina Hien: . \.-.fidei chris it Scripturarun et expositionum et oman taditienan shee as In contrast to heresies, which are posses ; posterior to the authentic mle which hee passed ne lega te Eanes eginning of the Gospel: “ab initio Evangel, etiam quosque haereticos.”* Sse ae Pores i Tertullian, De monegania 1 Cr. the ile established by again F. Refoule, Introduction au Twi won a ea souk eral pe Te 1. De praescriptione | . 294; in his Mont tans period, Tertullian and striking—of a regula spe with respect De res. ars, 8), © cD. Van den Eynde,p. 297 Tertullian / 17 ‘To be sure, this sixth criterion reminds us of Irenaeus, with whom Tertullian is in substantial agreement However, he diverges from him in point of terminology. By his preference for the expression rule of faith over that of rule of truth, he brings out more clearly the strictly doctrinal content of this rule of faith and is able to formulate it in closer dependence on the creed. ‘These are but minor nuances within the framework of substantial agreement. To one who will ask how to interpret the Scriptures without fear of error, Tertullian will reply: it is sufficient never to depart from what the Apostolic Churches believe and teach today So we could call this sixth principle that of apostolic and ecclesial exegesis. We have insisted on this at some length because we have noticed that some historians, under the influence of Protestantism, pass over it in silence? 7. ‘The same could be said. forthe seventh and last exegretical principle of Tertullian, one which, in contrast to the preceding, is absolutely original (not in substance, b cpression) and proper to the ‘African, who, however, extracte the New Testament itself; furthermore, this principle is logical consequence of the preceding. Here it ist since Christians, from within the Apostolic Ctuurches, have acquired possession of the Scriptures by virtue of a "fide-comissum,” of a testamentary disposition of the Apostle, entrusting the administration of the Gospel to his disciple Timothy, called to succeed him in this charge, in view of transmitting this deposit to those who receive the faith, such an apostolic heritage can never leave the boundaries of the ecclesial family, whose inalienable patrimony it constitutes—a patrimony over which strangers have no Fight” The “Apostles have in advance disinherited and disowned the heretics, as strangers and enemies, because of the divergence of their doctrine”—which means particularly, of their interpretation of above and IHEGF, pp. 52-54. /an den Eynde,p. 297 DP. S657; Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, 1, 21: “t jm que hodie apud ipsorum ecclesia ning Prescriptiones chez Tertullien, Théologie 76, (Pais, 1969), p. 118 / The History of Exegesis: The Lain Fathers Scripture—"which they have received or invented each according to his choice, against the Apostles.” Their lack of communion with the summarize as follows: the material possession of the sufficient to confer the right or the capacity to interpret them correctly; the heretics misuse the sacred books, because it is not ‘they who have received them: the Scriptures have but one meaning, that given them by the Apostles” Let us go over the argument again step by step. “Since Christ sent the Apostles to preach, other preachers than those established by Christ should not be received,” writes Tertullian. Consequently, ‘we must not accept other interpretations of the words of Christ. They must be judged a priori as “coming from falsehood. ”* D. Michaelides has given a remarkable presentation of the way ‘ertullian’s thought is articulated: we cite him at length: Heretical exegesis reveals its basic it rejects the relationship of Tradition to the Scriptures, denying, from the start, the normative function of the one and the nature of the other. It is as though the Scriptures were something, foreign to the “fides tradita” whose very “documents” independently of this faith and, ine ‘exegesis ends up then tuming ly involves doing violence to their cont follows that any debate over: ent becomes impossible ‘The awareness, with Tertullian, of the anti-apostolic and ultimately futile character of heretical exegesis was, in fact, based on the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. The rejection by Tertullian of heretical exegesis is “Michaelides, p.197, Tertullian / 19 then itself biblical and apostolic. “Timothy, guard what has been preserve, transmit intact to future generations, and render to Christ, when his Day arrives, the deposit, the teaching of the Gospel that has been entrusted to you; in order to accomplish this, “what you have heard 3 to faithful people who will be The deposit, Tertullian brings out commenting on these texts is not a secret esoteric Gospel, destined for a few only, but the public Gospel, destined for all generations.® It is in virtue of this fdet-commissum of the ‘Apostle to Timothy that Tertullian, arguing from within an apostolic iptures and knows i (lttere fide’) of the Church, , the deeds of the apostolic faith. "Thus the consequence Tertullian draws from this, in harmony with St. Paul, and here also in fidelity to the earlier Fathers* no biblical discussions with heretics: ‘They put forward the Scriptures ‘an impression on some. In comt the weak, and when they d indifferent.... Our faith owes obedience to the Apostle when he fo associate with the heretic after an admonition. He does not say: “after a discussion.” So much so did he forbid discussion that he specifies that one duty ofthe Churches an of ‘eho has enrasted ito them, namely God, it inact subsequent generations the revelation of Chit ae the teaching ofthe apostle Cr Tellan, De prasriptoe ch 37 §5 “ego sum heres aposolonum." See on this text Michaelides, 0 ‘ip 38, here Michaldes presents an apt synthesis ofthe tet of Tertulian on the Seiptres in De prescrip. Cr Refoul 109 no Is -This prohibition agprst meeting with sien i attested by all the Fathers Fortheeacond ana thd centre, ee, for example, Ignatius, Sr 1, and Vi, 2;ienaes, Ade Har 34".20 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers sey eee reo id that there is a flaw here, an ambiguity in Pa eee ina seca ene need Sere eer See gee ‘occasion,” he wrote in concluding De prascriptione, ather taken up a general position against heresies, [showing without Fermi, me shall prepare answers fo cen of tes heer in separate eae ral discussions Does this mean that Tertullian was ready to engage ino with heretics on biblical fexts? There i no indcation that such was the ‘have little impact on their to add a specific rebuttal of each of these heresies.” Otherwise, as he explained in Adversus Marcionent** he would have been suspected of avoiding and fearing discussion. Refoule,p. 3697. STertlian, Ade. Marcionem, 1,1, Tertullian / 21 In short, Tertullian drew a distinction between theory and practice, between the situation which should obtain and the actual state of affairs: by rights, heretics should not invoke Scripture, which does not belong to ‘them, but in fact they constantly refer to the Bible. For their own benefit, and for that of Christians, we discuss their Scriptural exegeses materially rather than formally (to make use of a philosophical distinction), and in writing rather than orally. In a deep and true sense, Tertullian, faithful to Paul’s example, does not argue with heretics about the Scriptures, but critically examines their exegesis, so as to draw advantage from it for faith. The thesis is a rejection of any discussion with heretics on their ‘exegesis; the hypothesis is the discussion of these exegeses, against the background of Apostolic faith In developing this principle (which is actually the seventh) of his exegesis—"hereties are not entitled to argue about the Scriptures, which do not belong to them”—Tertullian evolves a line of argumé doctrinal basis was provided but not detailed by Irenaeus would vainly seek in his works any preliminary considerati as a rejection of any doctrinal or Scriptural controversy with heretics. Tertullian deserves the credit for this." Several objections immediately arise in connection with Tertullian’s seventh exegetical rule, Though substantially faithful to the Pauline spirit expressed in the Pastoral Letters, does this rule not “overstate” the implications of the “trust” which the Apostle bequeathed to Timothy, in essence carrying out a generalization on the basis of one specific instance? Moreover, did the Church not in fact forsake the rule in question, on the occasion of Vatican II? We shall seek to answer these two questions. In point of fact, Paul’s charge to Timothy merely makes logically explicit the risen Lord’s instructions to the Twelve (Mt 28:19ff); the Prohibition of biblical discussions with heretics also arises, even before the Pastorals, from Paul's words to the Thessalonians (: subsequently from the teachings of the Apos the Second Letter of Peter (2 Jn 10; Jude 4 ff; these texts are epitomized in the struggle against “false doctors” and the rejection of anti-Apostolic teachings. Since Paul urges the Thessalonians to withdraw. from every brother “who [does] not obey what we say in this leter; have nothing to do with (him], so that they may be ashamed,” and since John. specifies “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching,” clearly the Apostles therefore reject even more strongly the idea of a doctrinal and biblical discussion Michaelides, 143-144,22 | The History of Exegesis. The Latin Fathers with those who, “after a first and a second admonition,” persevered in is indeed clear that these Apostles did not consider heretics to be legitimate possessors of the Scriptures. ‘We may therefore conclude that the Apostles were unanimous—and in this they followed the warning given by Jesus himself (Mt 7:15)—in mistrusting false prophets and their interpretations of Scripture. Their stand was thus consistent with an attitude which may already be noted in Deuteronomy (13:2-6; 189-22), in connection with those who d speak in the name of God words that he did not command thers to ut ‘The Magisterium of the Church, in the person of Pope Leo maintained these attitudes, and refers specifically to Tertullian. In the words of the Encyclical Providentissimus * Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, bein w the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never at of Gregory the Gi marrow [pith] ‘Vatican I—in the context of a situation and of problems very different in many respects from those faced by Leo XIIf and Tertullian reaffirmed and deepened the same fundamental principle which posits that the Church is the sole owner and authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures), while promoting a biblical dialogue between all Christians, ‘without ever mentioning either heresy or heretics. ‘On the one hand, “the written word of God, the life of Grace...can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church;” (however), “all of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by see Lettres Apost. de Léon XI, ‘Tertullian, Scrpice, XH 1; “quis nune melullam scipturarum magis nosset quam ipsa Crist schola?” The ensuing text shows that this “school of Christ” is composed of the ur teachers. Today we would ‘Magisterium of his teaching 5 the Scriptures” to be understood? What does it consist fof Could it be granted that it consists especialy in the revelation and the doctrine of the two natures and substances of Christ? This what we must ask ourselves. Tertullian / 23 right to the one Church of Christ.” This is once again a reflection of the antinomy, already recognized by Tertullian, between the way things should be by right and the actual state of affairs. In the view of Vatican II, however, this rightful ownership enjoyed by the Church rests exclusively on the fact that Holy Scripture, along with the words of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. So much so that “the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God...has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church interpretation has thus not been given to the members of the Church who do not enjoy “the sure charism of truth,” not even to theologians or id indeed not even to Catholic exegetes.* A fortiori, those ively heretics can be neither owners, nor repositories, nor authentic interpreters of Holy Scripture. Moreover, the Catholic Church remains united with the separated Western Churches and ecclesial communities in the love and veneration, fone might almost say the cult, of the Holy Scriptures and in the jon of their divine authority. So that, in spite of doctrinal differences on the relationship between Scripture and Church, "in the dialogue it cred Word is a precious instrument in the might ing to that unity which the Savior holds out to all heretics—for nowhere does the Council consider as such the members of Vatican I, Unitas Redintegrtio, Decree on Ecumenism, 3 ‘bid, §7 and 8 ‘knows lemny,Pensées sur Elise, Unam Sanctam vol. 30, (Paris, 1956), . ‘Vatican I, Unitas Redint 21 i.24 1 The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers the separated Easter or Western Churches or ecclesial communities awhor even a discussion on the Scriptures, but rather a dialogue, which is quite a different matter. ef that the most recent Council at once maintained ‘We may therefore say small and moved beyond Tertullian’s position in relation to what the seventh and most original of his exegetical criteria. asserting both that the Church is the sole owner of the Sc that only its living doctrinal authority may authentically in Vatican TI logically rules out the possibility that they might fully belong to or a fortiori be legitimately interpreted by any community of vidual not in perfect communion with the Church Moved beyond, for the Council explicitly promotes a dialogue free from polemical discussion between all those who in fact use the Bible, this dialogue around the Church. Eis all Th Cour suggested the deeper reason justying the ‘dialogue between users”: many of them “are already incorporated in some way to the people of God,” ie,, to Christ's Church, although imperfectly and no more than analogically, by virtue of an unrenounced baptism. To the very extent that they are in partial communion with the one and universal Church, they themselves partake in its perfect possession of the Scriptures. A most imperfect and limited partaking, to be sure, one whose beneficial consequences are often reduced through these users’ failure to recognize the authentic and living Magisterium of Church. wre go doing, Vatican II lid down the principles which now allow us to acknowledge that Tertullian—who had been christened, but later became a semicMontanist, then a full-fledged Montanist—still partook in the Church's possession of the divine Scriptures, since he acted in good faith. Whence the acceptability to the Church of several exegeses ile pointing out (Unitas Redint 3 thatthe Holy Sprit doesnot refuse to make use ‘while pointing out (Unitas Redint, 2) y Spl erp this thatthe Ecumenical Directory published by the Holy of Scripture Tertullion / 25 developed by Tertullian after his adoption of Montanism, particularly when these interpretations concerned the fundamental mysteries of the Trinity and the redeeming Incarnation It was therefore proper to discuss at greater length the most original of the hermeneutical rules set forth by Tertullian. We shall subsequently see why one may say that this seventh rule, setting the stage for a sound exegesis through participation in the Apostolic and ecclesial trust, is actually the development of a criterion which remained implicit in Tertullian’s thinking but was subsequently brought into progressively sharper focus. This is the Christological criterion, already subsumed in the rule of faith stressed by Tertullian, and also partly suggested by the second criterion, which relates to the importance of the literal sense, foreshadowing Christ's humanity. The lack, in Tertullian’s teaching, of any consciously systematic presentation of the rules of his Scriptural interpretation or hermeneutics prevented him from recognizing the extent to which his admirable affirmation of Christ's two states and substances underlies these rules. We shall begin to realize this in now offering a brief summary of Tertullian’s exegeses of the Old and the New Testaments. B. Tertullian, Exegete of the Old Testaments Spiritual Sense and of the New Testament's Literal Sense In the dual context of his controversies with the Jews and the Gnostics, Tertullian wrote commentaries on many passages of the Old and the New Testaments. As Cardinal Daniélou pointed out, Tertullian’s position in relation to Scriptural interp: : He defends We shall quickly review several of these points, and in doing so our ‘main reference will be Adversus Marcionem, Tertullian’s longest treatises by far, and particularly books IM, IV and V, directed against Marcion’s “Especially in Adversus Prem. ). Denigiou, Ls origines du Christianisme atin Paris, 1978), p. 322.26 / The History of Exegesis: The Lat agnosis,” and dealing respectively with Christ as prophesied in the Old he appears in the Gospel According to Jews and Marcion (whom Tertullian saw 1 African theologian emphasized mainly The Incarnation, far from being a sudden and unexpected event, had long been predicted, and the way had been prepared for it. The prophecies, even more than miracles—which false and unannounced Christs might perform (cf. !}—bear witness to Christ, Son and representative of the Fathe Christ’s coming was announced beforehand by events.” It is therefore fitting that the mystery of Christ's death on the Cross ly in words, but also would have proved a formidable stumbling-bloci such that the mystery needed to be obscured by a of speaking, so that the awesome task of coming to grips act asa spur to pray for the requisite grace” against Marcion who retained only the and rej tion CCSL, I followed by the page ‘number. We note the existence of an English translation of this work of Tertullian: Arte. Tertullian, Ado. Marcionem, id: *...qvantogue magni sgratiam Dei quaereret.” CCL, 1 531. tanto magis cbumbrandum, ut difcultasintllectus Tertullian / 27 Tertullian emphasizes eloquently that the Gospel’s Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of the antithetical predictions, made by David the Psalmist, on the king who is “beautiful above the sons of men,” and by Isaiah (53), fon the Suffering Servant reduced, on a bodily level, to the abject condition of a worm, toa state no longer human; through spiritual grace, however, he is “beautiful above the sons of men,” inasmuch as he is gitded with the sword of the Word, which is truly his form, his beauty and his glory." We see already at work here a reading of the Old Testament which recognizes in ita foreshadowing of the two states and natures of Christ, God and man. of Psalm 44 and Isaiah 7 (the Virgin Mother), Tertullian essential not to see a warrior king in Emmanuel, or God teral sense does not rule out a metaphor. On the one hand, Isaiah announces the sign of a virgin who shall conceive and beat a son, the sign of a birth that is extraordinary rather than ordinary. A young woman who and gives birth certainly does not constitute a sidered that a virgin mother is offered by G i, a sign from God would not have been a si unless it was something new and prodigious. On the other hand, child is prophesied to be the one who would take away “the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria...in the presence of the king of '4), which foreshadows, in the view of Tertullian (who does ige a warrior Messiah), the conversion of idolatrous ‘Samaria in the person of the Magi: “nor is this an unusual manner for the Creator (in his Scriptures) figuratively to employ names of places as a metaphor derived from the analogy of their sins."” ‘The point is noteworthy: the ‘exegesis of Isaiah 7:14 and the metaphorical exegesis of Isaiah 8:4 together show a two-fold polemi us is not only the Son of a Virgin, but also a ly triumphant, and victorious over sin rather than against earthly powers. This view rejects any form of purely temporal Messianism, now on the basis of the literal sense, and now on that of its spiritual dimension. In the Old Testament, Tertullian’s attention is strongly drawn to the ying the future Incarnation, in two distinct states. We shall ly return to this subject. Suffice it, at this point, to indicate briefly that the African theologian supplements this Christocentric 17;CCSt, I, . 530,11. 15H 23-526.28 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers reading of the “old instrument”® with a moral reading, extolling in Daniel the just persecuted for having refused to adore idols and showing in Job an example of patience.” In addition to a “figurative exegesis,” Tertullian thus practices a “moral exegesis” and points to the figures of the Bible as models of the different virtues. Let us now move on to the New Testament. In this connection, Tertullian the theologian repeatedly exhibits his overriding concem to stress the fundamental continuity between the two Testaments, in ‘opposition to Marcion. Faced with Marcion’s gnosis, Tertullian reads the Gospel—much more so than we do today—in the context of the Law. ‘Though it may not seem in keeping with our time, his exegesis is most stimulating in this respect, as a few examples will show. ‘When a leper fell on his face before him saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean,” despite Leviticus 13:46 (which deals with the segregation of lepers), did not hesitate to touch and heal him: “Be clean.” In Tertullian’s words: ‘The Lord, wishing that the Law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts, ..touched the leper, by whom (even although as a man he might have been defiled) he could not be dé ‘od, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could no for him, ...seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause def him.... Now, it was not as an enemy of the Law that he touched the leper: “Go, show yourself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded, that it may bea testimony for you." Tertullian noted: For the figurative signs of the Law in its types [Jesus] still would have ‘observed, because oftheir prophetic import ® These types signified that a man, On the origin, probably in Latin Judaism, of the designation by Tertullian of Scripture Deus Christianorum, Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de sgumenta enim figurata uipote prophets legis adhuc in suis imaginibus tuebatur. translated “argumenta” by “probative signs”; we understand the words “prophets legis” as referring to the law of Moses the prophet, Tertullian / 29 ‘once a sinner, but afterwards purfied...by the Word of God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving in the Church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the Father (catholicum patrssacerdotem) Tertullian therefore added: “That it may be for a testimony unto you,” whereby Jesus testified “that he was not destroying the Law, but fulfilling it,” and that “it was he himself who was f take away their sicknesses and infirmities” (cf. Is 53:4; This is a most remarkable exegesis of the healing of the leper, bringing t an astonishing way its various meanings: doctrinal interpretation Tertullian subsequently provides in his Adversus Marcionem of this remote healing (rather than through direct contact) admirably complements the exegesis we have just discussed. In the nine Jewish but non-Samaritan lepers who have been cured but tude, Tertullian sees a metaphor for the tribes whi drew into rebellion against Solomon’s son and settled in Sa IV. 35.7) marvelously stats that Chis examined the lep- ‘ende ofthe law Priest, of whom al the priests under the Mosaic law were but copies,” perfect harmony with Heb 10:30 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers Kgs 11:19-29; 12:15). The Samaritan’s faith saved him and made him whole (ef. Lk 17:19), because of his understanding that he should make a true offering—veram® oblationem—iee., give thanks (a reference to the Eucharist), in God’s true temple, before his true High Priest, Christ (apud verum templum et verum pontificem, Christum).” It is clear in all this that Tertullian reached an admirably balanced view, and that he succeeded in doing so, in a manner of speaking, thanks to Marcion and to Judaism. In opposing the former's thesis, he emphasized the continuity between the figurative signs of the Law and the Gospel which the Law signifies; and in resisting the latter's exegesis, he stressed the discontinuity between the Gospel and the law, which becomes merely a figure of Christ, and whose purpose is then to bear witness to him. In addition to this polemical commentary on nearly all the Gospel according to Luke, Tertullian produced, in De Oratione, a most remarkable non-polemical commentary on the Lord's Prayer. Written around 198-199, itis “the earliest surviving exposition of the Pater Noster in any language.”* ‘Tertullian held that Christ intended, through his prayer, to teach the new disciples of his new dispensation a new form discipulis novi testamenti novam orationis formam determina completing, fulfilling or perfecting the real renewing all things from carnal into spi spiritaia renovavit)" So much so that the Pater Noster, far from serving, only as a prayer, became an epitome of the whole Gospel (breviarium totius Evangeli), covering nearly the whole doctrine and discipline of the Lord.” ‘Namely, the offering accomplishing the offerings ofthe ‘the allusion tothe Buchan is indeed not doubtful cf. A Als: “The see the priests ofthe Temple; but the the offering according to the Lave, ula satis jam obtulerat Pi, 1,6 CCSL, Lp. Tertullian / 31 Since Christ, in Tertullian’s view, sought through his form of prayer to move his disciples from the old to the new covenant, from the flesh to the Spirit, we shall examine more closely the exegesis of two petitions in which the African theologian makes a distinction between the carnal and the spiritual sense: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us. this day our daily bread.” His interpretation of the third petition is as follows: For, by figurative interpretation of flesk and spirit, we are “heaven” and {figurata carnis et spiritus nos sumus cl to be understood simply, sil the sense of the peti the capacity to do it, that we may be saved both in the heavens and on earth; because the sum of his willis the salvation of those whom he has adopted. There is, too, that will of God which the Lord accomplished in preaching, in working, in enduring: for if he himself ed that he did not his own, but the Man is body and spi upon to do the will of the Father on earth, so that it may be done in hheaven, which is to say in the beyond. This will of the Father is man’s, salvation; which is probably why Christ himself, our Savior, is called Will of the Father," in a striking contraction. In becoming one with Christ, a Christian carries out the Father's will on earth and reaches heaven, As for the petition for our daily Bread, itis mainly in a spiritual sense that the term should be understood, in Tertullian’s view: “Spiritualiter potius intellegamus.” “Christ is the Bread of Life; his body is reckoned in bread (corpus ejus in pane censetur”); and so, in petitioning for our daily bread, we ask for perpetuity in Christ and indivisibility from his body.” bid. 1V, 1-5; CCSL, I p. 259-260; “pse erat voluntas et potestas pa Wwe are using the translation of A. Hamman, Le Pater expligué par ls Pores, ‘why it cannot be concluded from a similar formula that ts author excded faith in the real presence.32 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers ‘The spiritual interpretation of the text is the most important one to Tertullian (pethaps he sees it as dual: bread of the Word and Eucharistic bread). How could we disagree with him, if we go beyond his original anthropology and remember that, even in his estimation, the soul surpasses other bodies, just as God rules over matter, and that material is the Gentiles who strive for all these things’ [Mt ‘a camal sense, acceptance of a certain poverty, without superfluous, leads the soul to seek sustenance, in a spiritual sense, from the good things specially suited to it: the Word the Body of Christ. The literal sense, which is already spiri way, leads through its very fulfillment to that of the fully spiritual sense. The full meaning petition for daily bread emerges through the spiritual dynamics involved in the petition’ fulfillment. It is therefore clear that Tertullian, in connection with either the will of the Father or the petition for daily bread, carefully distinguishes two ‘more closely to our body, to the flesh, to the spint, the immortal soul, the invisible world and etemal life, ‘Access to this second meaning seems more difficult, though also more important. The first meaning summarizes the Old Covenant, while the second encapsulates the New Dispensation. ‘These considerations derive from the prologue to De Orationem, which contrasts John the Baptist and Christ. Their forms of prayer symbolize earth and heaven: “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. ‘The one who comes from heaven is above all” (jn 3:31-32).* Everything we have just said about Tertullian’s exegesis found in his. Adversus Marcionem and De Orationem prompts us to stress the MHL Petre (RSR, Mélonges Lebreton, I" parte, 50), pp. 67 and 79) underscores plea for daily Bread, in Tertullian Tertullian / 33 fundamental value of his interpretation, By emphasizing both the carnal or literal meaning (itself considered in the widest sense, dimension) and the totally spiritual outlook to which in a human body—the focus and “pith” of the substances: such is the fundamental rule of context of Tertullian’s life led him to emphasize by nity and his true humanity. In connection with the id, his spiritual exegesis saw the Old Testament as prophetic of Christ God and of his two comings, the first humble and human, the second divine and glorious. In relation to Marcion and his gnosis, the African theologian’s literal exegesis of the New Testament extolled the actual corporeity of the Son of Ged who became son of man. In Adversus Marcionem, generally speaking, “congruence between Prophetic assertions and the words of the Lord” is the major exe rule which Tertullian repeatedly stresses and consistently applies Which was homogenous rather than heterogeneous, since the shift involved in particular a greater awareness of the latent presence of the second of the Christologies within the frst. tis known that, in Tertull34 / The History of Exegesis: The Latin Fathers As William H. Marshner has shown,” it had already been necessary for the writers of the New Testament to answer two distinct questions: were the Jesus crucified by men and the Jesus powerfully restored to life by God one and the same? And who was this Jesus, capable of laying down his life and regaining it? These two distinct and successive questions greatly troubled the churches during the found their respective answer in Romans 1 (for the fi 2 and John 10 (for the second). Even before Pat Jerusalem, Peter had given the following answer to questions: “...God has made him both Lord and s 2:36). The answer gi concerning the ident Paschal Christ led quite naturally to the question concerning the ontology of Christ ‘The Christology of the flesh-Spirit duality in Romans 1—already jons of Philippians 2—leads, vealed in the flesh...vindicated tioch in his famous letter to the and spiritual, from Mary and from ‘of Sardis concludes that there are ‘wo between the pre-Paschal Jesus and the post-Paschal Christ ‘hat the prophets had to say about lity and the second in glory (Is 53 and Dn 7).** Tertullian believes that Zechariah 3:3-5 prophetically linked together these two Advents: (Christ Jesus, the true High