Against Marcion 1.5
Summary: If two gods are admitted, there is no reason not to admit many; two equal gods would be pointless and would make worship itself impossible to get right.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:296–297
Aut quae ratio duo summa magna composuit? primo enim exigam, cur non plura, si duo, quando locupletiorem oporteret credi substantiam diuinitatis, si competeret ei numerus. honestior et liberalior Valentinus, qui simul ausus est duos concipere, Bython et Sigen, tum usque ad triginta Aeonum fetus, tamquam Aeneiae scrofae, examen diuinitatis effudit. quaecumque ratio plura summa magna non patitur admitti, eadem nec duo, ut (et) ipsa plura. [post unum] post; unum enim numerus. quae potuit duo admittere, eadem potuit et plura. et duo enim multitudo, unione iam excessa. denique apud nos uis rationis istius ipso termino plures deos credi non sinit, quo nec duos illa regula unum deum sistens. qua deum id esse oporteat, cui nihil adaequetur, ut summo magno, unicum autem sit, cui nihil adaequetur. iam nunc duo summa magna, duo paria, cui operae pretio, cui emolumento deputarentur? quid interfuit numeri, cum duo paria non differant uno? una enim res est, quae eadem in duobus est. etiamsi plura essent paria, tantundem omnia (quantum); unum fuissent, nullo inter se differendo, qua paria. porro si neutrum ex duobus altero distat, ut ambo summa magna, qua dei ambo, neutrum plus altero praestat, nullam iam rationem numeri sui ostendunt, praestantiam non habentes, numerus autem diuinitatis summa ratione constare deberet, uel quoniam et cultura eius in anceps deduceretur. ecce enim duos intuens deos tam pares quam duo summa magna, quid facerem? si ambos colerem, uererer, ne abundantia officii superstitio potius quam religio existimaretur, quia duos tam pares et in altero ambos possem in uno demereri, hoc ipsum testimonio praestans parilitati et unitati eorum, dum alterum in altero uenerarer, dum in uno mihi duo sunt. si alterum colerem, aeque recogitarem, ne suffundere uiderer numeri uanitatem sine differentia superuacui, hoc est: tutius censerem neutrum colendum quam alterum cum scrupulo [colendum ] aut ambos uane.
English · Claude translation
Or what reason has put together two supreme greats? For first I shall ask: why not more, if two? since the substance of divinity would have to be believed the richer if number were fitting for it. Valentinus was more honourable and more generous: having once dared to conceive two, Bythos and Sige, he then poured out a swarm of divinity, a litter of as many as thirty Aeons, like Aeneas's sow. Whatever reason does not allow several supreme greats to be admitted does not allow two either, since two are themselves several. After one comes number. A reason that could admit two could admit more as well; for two is already a multitude, once unity has been exceeded. In short, among us the force of that reason does not allow many gods to be believed, by the very limit by which that rule, establishing one God, does not allow two: namely, that God must be that to which nothing is equal, as the supreme great, and that that is unique to which nothing is equal. Now then, two supreme greats, two equals — for what worthwhile purpose, what advantage, would they be reckoned? What would number matter, when two equals do not differ from one? For what is the same in two is one thing. Even if there were more equals, they would all have been just as much one, differing in nothing among themselves inasmuch as they are equal. Further, if neither of the two differs from the other, since both are supreme greats inasmuch as both are gods, and neither surpasses the other, they show no reason for their number, having no pre-eminence; yet the number of divinity ought to rest on the highest reason, not least because its worship too would be thrown into doubt. For see: looking on two gods as equal as two supreme greats, what should I do? If I worshipped both, I should fear that the excess of duty might be thought superstition rather than religion, because two so equal, each containing both, I could win over in one, bearing witness by that very act to their equality and unity, as I venerated the one in the other, since in one there are two for me. If I worshipped one, I should equally reflect that I might seem to pour shame on the emptiness of a number made superfluous by having no difference. That is, I would judge it safer to worship neither than one with scruple, or both in vain.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- Aeneas's sow with its litter of thirty is from Virgil, Aeneid 3.390–392 and 8.43–45. Bythos (“Depth”) and Sige (“Silence”) head the Valentinian system of thirty Aeons. The editor deletes a repeated “post unum” and “colendum” as spurious.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (Stray letter (line marker) in the digital text.): sistens. i qua → sistens. qua; summo i magno → summo magno; iam nunc i duo → iam nunc duo; porro si i neutrum → porro si neutrum.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.5 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/5/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.5 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/5/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text