Text and translation of Eckhart, Sermo die b. Augustini Parisius habitus

Text

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155

<LW5:89> 'Vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso', Eccli. 50. Ad commendationem beati Augustini potest proprie introduci haec auctoritas, et inter cetera commendatur sub vasis metaphora in tribus quae in vase continentur: primo in pretiositate materiae, quia per aurum intelligitur sapientia, ibi: 'vas auri', secundo in dispositione formae, ibi: 'ornatum omni lapide pretioso', tertio in ponderis quantitate, ibi: 'solidum'. Primo ergo commendatur a pretiositate materiae, id est multitudine sapientiae et scientiae sub diversis habitibus collectae. Ipse enim erat bonus theoricus, egregius logicus et excellentissimus ethicus. Sic enim dividunt nobis magistri scientiam philosophiae, scilicet in theoricam, logicam et ethicam sive practicam. Et hoc secundum illa tria, quae ita vicissim occupant homines, ut nunquam aliquo tempore ab aliquo istorum trium feriari videantur; et ea sunt cogitatio, locutio et operatio. Theoricam sive speculativam ulterius partiuntur <LW5:90> in mathematicam, physicam et ethicam sive theologiam. »In naturalibus autem ratio-nabiliter, in mathematica disciplinabiliter, et in divinis intellectuabiliter versari oportebit neque deduci ad imagines, sed potius respicere formam, quae vere forma est nec imago est et quae esse est et ex qua esse est«, quia secundum Boethium libro De trinitate »omne esse ex forma est«. Mathematicus autem formas et figuras materiae actu inhaerentes disciplinabili consideratione sequestrat. Physicus, id est naturalis, causas qualitatum, motuum et quantitatum inquirit. Ethicus sive theologus ideas rerum, quae in mente divina, antequam prodirent in corpora, ab aeterno quo modo ibi intelligibiliter exstiterunt, subtilius intuetur. Et de divinis aliquando ratiocinatur auctoritatibus maiorum, aliquando exemplis extra quaesitis, aliquando vero ipsam divinam usiam sine subiecta materia contemplatur. Auctoritatibus usus fuit beatus Augu-stinus, quando trinitatem personarum cum unitate essentiae primo nobis volens insinuare introduxit illud in Genesi: 'faciamus hominem ad <LW5:91> imaginem et similitudinem nostram', et per verbum pluralis numeri trinitatem intelligens et per nomina singularis numeri declarans substantiae unitatem. Exemplo etiam usus est Plato in Timaeo, qui dum de principe summo rerum loqui esset animatus, dicit: ita +im++possibile est aliquid de deo profari, sicut difficile est ipsum reperiri. Et ideo idem confugit ad rerum similitudines et exempla et inter omnes res creatas solem ei quam simillimum repperit; unde et solem nominavit. Et Iohannes evangelista, dum de verbo increato loqui auderet, lucem ipsum appellavit, quia lux est prima et universalis species formarum corporalium et principium vitae in corporalibus. Et sic verbum dei patris est omnium »exsistentium substantia« et omnium »viventium vita« <LW5:92> et »omnis substantiae et vitae principium est et causa«, secundum Dionysium De divinis nominibus. Et sic contingit theologum duplici ditari cognitione in via: una est 'per speculum et in aenigmate', alia est per speculum et in lumine. Prima fit tripliciter, scilicet ablatione, eminentia et causa. Ablatione in hunc modum procedendo: nullum corpus est deus; nullum intelligibile creatum est deus. Et cum demonstratio de re cognoscibili fiat ad sensum vel ad intellectum, de deo autem cognoscendo non potest fieri demonstratio ad sensum, quia est incorporeus, nec ad intellectum, quia forma nobis cognita caret, sed per solam alterius formae remotionem: quasi ab aliis eligendo separatur et separando eligitur. Quod innuit Boethius in libro De duabus naturis dicens: »deus et materia integro perfectoque intellectu capi non possunt, sed aliquo modo privatione ceterarum rerum capiuntur«. Unde Dionysius dicit quod affirmationes de deo factae vel dictae incompactae sunt, negationes vero verae. <LW5:93> Eminentia cognoscitur, quando in unoquoque, quod nobilius est et eminentius, deo attribuitur. Secundum quod dicit Augustinus X Confessionum: qui facit pulchra, pulchrior est, qui fortia, fortior et qui bona, melior est. Disce ergo homo ex creaturis cognoscere creatorem, et ne inhaereas ei quod factum est et perdas eum per quem factum est. Causa vero cognoscitur, quando omnia mobilia ad unum immobile, omnia variabilia ad unum invariabile, omnia corporabilia ad unum simplex et omnium multitudinem ad primam resolvimus unitatem, quae quidem »principium et causa est omnium« eorum quae sunt. Unum enim est in generatione omnium ante multa, et simplex est ante compositum prioritate naturali, secundum philosophum in De caelo et mundo. Secundo cognoscitur in via per speculum et in lumine, quando scilicet lux divina per effectum suum aliquem specialem irradiat super potentias cognoscentes <LW5:94> et super medium in cognitione, elevans intellectum ipsum ad id quod naturaliter non potest. »Mentis enim humanae acies invalida in tam excellenti lumine non figitur, nisi per iustitiam fidei prius purius emundetur«, secundum Augustinum libro De trinitate; et in VII Confessionum dicit: »aeterna veritas et vera caritas et cara aeternitas, tu es deus meus, tibi suspiro 'die ac nocte'; cum te primo cognovi, tu assumpsisti me«. Ecce qualiter dicit quod assumptus fuerit, ut videret esse quod viderat, »et nudum me esse qui videram; et reverberasti infirmitatem meam radians in me vehementer, et contremui amore et horrore et inveni me longe esse a te in regione dissimilitudinis«. Et haec cognitio operatur ad tria: primo ad occulta vel futura pronuntiandum, secundo ad meritorie operandum, tertio ad divinam dulcedinem praegustandum. Primus modus est prophetalis; secundus in habitibus gratuitis usque ad fructus; tertius in exstasi mentis, et haec in fructibus. Secundus et tertius perfecte erant in eo, quia de tertio dicitur secundum quod est in intellectu <LW5:95> practico. Haec cognitio scientia vel sapientia, quasi sapida scientia, quae aliquando intromittit hominem in affectum multum. Ecce quomodo 'vas' illud 'auri' commendatur a pretiositate materiae, id est utilitatis scientiae. Et secundum hoc talis et tanta scientia non fuit in materia vitii, sed virtutis. Unde dicitur X Confessionum: »da mihi te, deus meus, redde te mihi«; non enim amo 'primos recubitos in cenis' nec 'salutari in foro', nec 'vocari ab hominibus rabbi'; sed te »amo et, si parum est, amem validius. Et nec possum metiri, quantum mihi desit amoris ad id, quod satis est, donec currat vita mea in amplexus tuos et abscondatur in absconsione vultus tui. Hoc tamen scio, quia mihi male praeter te, non solum extra me, sed etiam in me ipso, et omnis copia, quae deus non est, egestas mihi est«. Secundo commendatur beatus Augustinus a dispositione formae in eo quod dicitur 'ornatus omni lapide pretioso'. Dispositio autem formae in ipso est exhibitio virtutis in operatione. Et bene dicitur virtus gratuita forma, quia rem esse est a forma, secundum Boethium De trinitate. Et bene dicitur <LW5:96> esse a virtute, quia sicut improprie dicuntur mortui homines, ita malus improprie dicitur esse. Esse enim est »quod ordinem retinet servatque naturam«, secundum Boethium in III Consolationum. Et virtus est ordo, secundum Augustinum, ordo inquam amoris, quia qui virtutem habet, ordinem tenet servatque naturam. »Nihil enim est quod servans naturam deo contrarie conetur«, secundum Boethium in eodem. Sapientia igitur beati Augustini fuit sibi pro materia virtutis, virtutis inquam monasticae, politicae et theologicae. Monastica virtus ordinat et perficit hominem in se ipso, quia opus eius est carnis suppeditatio. Actus virtutis monasticae est +hic; fructus eius est++ spiritualis laetitia ex luculenta bonorum operum exercitatione, virtutis politicae cum civium amicitia et ex integra spiritus conservatione actus virtutis theologicae obtinetur spiritualis effectus a dei gratia. Fructus eius iste est. Unde ad Gal. 5: 'fructus autem spiritus caritas, gaudium'. De quo gaudio Eccli. 30: 'non est sensus supra sensum salutis, et non est oblectamentum supra cordis gaudium'. De quo gaudio Augustinus X Confessionum dicit: »est gaudium, quod non datur <LW5:97> impiis, sed eis qui te gratis colunt«, domine, »quorum gaudium tu ipse es. Et ipsa est beata vita: gaudere ad te, in te, propter te, ipsa est vita et non est altera«. Virtus politica est luculenta bonorum operum exercitatio et perficit hominem et ordinat in civium collegio. Actus virtutis politicae est haec, quae exhibet opera amicis in deo et inimicis propter deum in tantum, ut 'si esurierit inimicus, cibat illum; si sitit, potum dat ei'. Fructus autem qui ex hoc sequitur, est non tantum civium, sed etiam inimicorum vindicata amicitia. Unde ad Rom. 12: 'hoc enim faciens carbones ignis congeres super caput eius', et ad Rom. 12: 'caput eius' est mens animae, super quam carbones congeruntur, dum per praeventionem beneficiorum ad reddendum compelluntur. Theologica virtus perficit hominem cum deo, quia est integra spiritus conservatio ex carnis subiectione. Actus virtutis theologicae, id est fidei, dilectionis, est hic. Fructus eius est spiritualis effectus gratiae ad perfectionem iustitiae. Sed quia non contingit nos de deo aliquid scire nisi per effectus, ideo distinguamus septem modos gratiae adventus in 'vas' taliter 'ornatum'. Venit enim <LW5:98> primo per modum nivis refrigerantis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet ab aestu carnalium desideriorum refrigeratio. Secundo venit per modum roris impinguantis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet aeternorum desideriorum impinguatio. Tertio venit per modum vini inebriantis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet omnimoda rerum mutabilium oblivio. Quarto venit per modum olei subiectum penetrantis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet illuminatio dei et inflammatio. Quinto venit per modum ignis depurantis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet perfecta purgatio. Sexto venit per modum lucis se cum subiecto unientis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet 'in eandem imaginem' cum deo transformatio. Septimo venit per modum spiritus vehementer impellentis, et sic relinquitur eius effectus in anima, scilicet naturalis vitae defectio. Ecce per istum modum beatus Augustinus fuit ditatus, ideo dicitur sic 'vas electionis' a dispositione formae. Tertio commendatur beatus Augustinus a ponderis quantitate in eo quod dicitur 'solidum'. Quantitas autem in pondere est vehementia in amore. De quo idem: »Quantum te amabo, bone Iesu? Tuus amor sicut fons, meus sicut <LW5:99> sitis. Ex toto enim tu amasti me. Scio enim, quid faciam. Ponam totum meum contra totum tuum, quia plus non possum. Potero autem, cum donare volueris. Unum scio, quia non quiescam, donec totus amor fiam.« Quod nobis praestare dignetur, qui vivit deus. Amen. Iste sermo sic est reportatus ab ore magistri Echardi de Hochheim, die beati Augustini, Parisius.

◊1◊ ◊2◊ ◊3◊ ◊4◊ ◊5◊ ◊6◊ ◊7◊ ◊8◊ ◊9◊ ◊10◊ ◊11◊ ◊12◊

Translation

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

A vessel of pure gold, adorned with whatever most precious stone, Jes. Sir. 50[:10][1] One can appropriately introduce this verse for the commemoration of Saint Augustine, wherein, amongst others, he is commended in three ways which are implied in the metaphor of a vessel: first, in the preciousness of the material, for by ‘gold’ we have to understand ‘wisdom’, when [it is said], a vessel of gold, second, in its characteristics, when [it is said], adorned with whatever most precious stone, third, in the magnitude of its weight, when [it is said], pure. First, therefore, he is commended by the preciousness of the material, for the breath of wisdom and knowledge gathered under his many talents. For he was a good theorist, an exceptional logician, and a most excellent ethicist. For in such a way do the Masters divide for us the science of philosophy, namely into Theory, Logic, and Ethics or Practical [philosophy]. And according to these three, which so in turn occupy men, that they were never seen to rest for any time from any of these three: thinking, talking, and doing. Theory or speculation is further divided into mathematics, physics, and ethics or theology. ‘On natural things, however, one has to ponder rationally, on mathematicals with discipline, and on divine things intellectually; and neither to be drawn to images, but rather to refer to form, which truly is form, not image, and which is being and from which being is’, as [one reads] in Boethius' book On the Trinity, ‘all being is from form’. The mathematician, however, separates the forms and shapes which are indeed inherent of matter, by way of disciplined consideration, the scientist of physics, i.e. of nature, makes inquiries into the causes of quality, motion, and quantity, the moral philosopher or theologian more subtly looks closely into the ideas of things which are in the divine mind, before they come forth into bodies, according to which mode they exist there from eternity in an intelligible manner. And of the divine things, sometimes it is argued according to the highest authorities, at other times, by means of examples searched for outside [these], but at other times the divine substance itself without subjected matte is contemplated. Saint Augustine made use of authorities when he first wants to lead us to the trinity of persons with their unity of essence and introduces it from Genesis: Let us make man according to our image and likeness [Gen. 1:26], and through the plural form of the verb understanding the trinity and by means of the singular of the noun declaring the unity of substance. The example is also used by Plato in the Timaeus, when speaking about the highest principle of all things, he says, ‘it is thus impossible to say anything about God, just as it is difficult to find him, and so one flees to the similitude of things, examples and amongs all created things only to that one which one finds most similar [to God]’. And John the Evangelist, when he dares to speak of the uncreated word, calls it light [John 1:4], because light is the first and universal species of corporeal forms, as well as the principle of life in bodies. And thus the word of God, the Father, is ‘the substance of’ all ‘that exists’, and ‘principle and cause of all substance and life’, according to Dionysus' On the Divine Names. And thus on [his] way the theologian reaches a twofold knowledge; one is through a mirror and in darkness [1Cor. 12:13], the other is through a mirror and in light. The first happens in three ways, namely by taking away, by eminence and by causality. Taking away proceeds in the following manner: no body is God, nothing intelligibly created is God. And as a recognicable thing is being shown by way of sense or intellect, God, indeed, cannot be recognised by way of sense or intellect, because he is incorporeal and has not a known form like us, but [he can only be recognised] solely through the removal of the other form, which as if by selecting it was separated and by separating it was selected, which Boethius introduces in his book On the Two Natures: ‘God and matter cannot be grasped wholly and perfectly by the intellect, but they may be grasped by another way of privation of other things’. Therefore, Dionysius says that our affirmations about God are incompletely made or said, whereas negations are true. By eminence, he [God] becomes known, when in a single way something that is more noble and more eminent is attributed to God, according to which Augustine says in Confessions X: ‘Who makes things beautiful, is more beautiful; things strong, is stronger, and who made things good, is better. Learn therefore, human being to know the creator from the creatures, do not cling to things which have been made, losing the one through whom it has been made’. By cause, he [God] becomes known when we resolve all that is moveable to the one immovable; all that is varied to the one invariable, all that is corporeal to the simple one, and all multiplicity to the first one, who, indeed, is ‘the principle and cause of all’ those which are. The one, indeed, in the generating of all prior to the multiple things, and he is simple by natural priority before anything composed according to the Philosopher [Aristotle] in On Heaven and Earth. Secondl, hew [God] becomes known on the way through a mirror and in light, when, for example, the divine light, through its own effect, shines on something special beyond the powers to know and beyond the mean of cognition, elevating the intellect itself to that what it can naturally not achieve. ‘Truly the feeble sight of the human mind is not remedied in so excellent a light, unless it is first cleansed more purely through the justice of faith’, according to Augustine in the book On the Trinity. And in book VII [10:16] of the Confessions he says: ‘Eternal truth, true love and beloved eternity, you are my God, to you I sigh both day and night [Ps. 1:2]. When I first knew you, you raised me up [see Ps. 26:10]’. See, in which way he says that he was raised up, so that he saw being that he say, ‘yet I was naked, when I saw, but you cast aside the infirmity of my sight, shining heavily into me, and I trembled with love and fear; and I found myself to be far off from you, in a land of dissimilitude’. And this cognition operates towards three things: First, towards the annunciation of hidden or future things; second, towards things that have to be done for benefit, third towards the foretasting of divine sweetness. The first is the prophetic way; the second happens in graced habits until they carry fruits; the third takes place in the ecstasy of the mind, and this means in the fruits. The second and third were perfectly present in him [Augustine], because it is spoken about the third one according to that which exists in the practical intellect. This cognition by science or wisdom, like tasting wisdom, sometimes comes into a person in a heavy affect. See how that vessel of gold is commended by the preciousness of its material, i.e. its usefulness for knowledge. And according to this such kind and breath of science did not happen in the material of vice, but of virtue. Therefore, it is said in book XIII of the Confessions: ‘Give yourself to me, my God, give yourself back to me’, for I do not love the places of honour at table [Matth. 23:6] nor salutation in the square [Matth. 6:2], nor to be called ‘Rabbi’ by human beings [Matth. 23:7], but ‘I love you, and if that is not enough, make me able to love you more. How much is my love still lacking? I can never know, so give to my life your bounty and shelter me in the shadow of your presence. Only this I know, my life is worthless to me, not only the things outside myself, but things within myself, and [this] is my poverty, all the treasures I have which are not God.’ Second, Saint Augustine is commended for the characteristics of this which is said to be adorned with whatever most precious stone. The characteristics in itself is an exhibition of virtue in action, and virtue is well-called free form, because something is through form, according to Boethius in On the Trinity. And it is well said to be through virtue, because just as men are improperly said to be dead, so the evil person is improperly said to be. Being, namely, is ‘what retains order and preserves nature’ according to Boethius in book III of the Consolation. And virtue is order according to Augustine, indeed the order of love, for the one who has virtue keeps order and safeguards preserves nature. ‘Nothing that [truly] serves nature can be contrary to God’, according to Boethius in the same place. Wisdom, therefore, of Saint Augustine was for him the matter of virtue, namely monastic, political, and theological virtue. Monastic virtue directs and perfects human being in itself because its work is the submission of the flesh. The act of monastic virtue is <this: its fruit is> spiritual delight from the splendid exercise of good works; of political virtue, it is the obtaining the friendship with fellow-citizens; and from the entire preservation of the spirit the act of theological virtue is obtained as spiritual effect from the grace of God. Its fruit is that one, from where [one reads] at Gal. 5[:22]: The fruit of the spirit are love, joy. Of that joy Jes. Sir. 30[:16 writes]: There is no greater riches than bodily health, and there is no delight greater than a joyous heart. On that joy Augustine says in book X of the Confessions: ‘There is a joy not granted to the impious, but only to those who abide by grace in you’, Lord, ‘and you, yourself, are this joy. The blessed life is this, to rejoice unto you, in you, and with you. This is life and no other’. Political virtue is the splendid exercise of good works, and it perfects human being and directs one in the community of citizens. These are the works of political virtue: it exhibits its deeds for friends in God and for enemies, insofar as God is in them, as [it is said]: If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat; if thirsty, give him something to drink [Rom. 12:20]. The fruit which follows from this is not just love of the citizen, but even the vindicating love of our enemies. Therefore, [one reads at] Rom. 12[:20]: In doing this you will heap red hot coals upon your head. And ad Rom. 12[:20]: Your head is the mind of the soul, upon which coals are heaped when through the anticipation of kindness they are compelled to give back. Theological virtue perfects a human being in relation to God, because it is a entire preservation of the spirit from the subjection of the flesh. The fruit of it is the effect of spiritual grace for the perfection of justice. But because we are not able to know God other than through His effects, we must therefore distinguish seven manners of grace having come into the vessel so adorned. It comes first in the manner of a cooling snow, and so it leaves its effect on the soul, namely cooling the heat of fleshly desires. Second, it comes through the manner of dense dew, and so it leaves its effect on the soul, namely the intensifying of desires for eternal things. Third, it comes through the manner of an inebriating wine, and so it leaves its effect on the soul, namely in the forgetfulness of all mutable things. Fourth, it comes through the manner of ointment that penetrates to what it is applied, and so it leaves its effect in the soul, namely the illumination of and the burning for God. Fifth, it comes through the manner of a purging fire, and so it leaves its effect in the soul, namely that perfect purification. Sixth, it comes through the manner of light, uniting itself with what is subjected to it, and so it leaves its effect in the soul, namely one's transformation into the image of God (Gen. 1:26). Seventh, it comes through the manner of the spirit blowing vehemently, and so it leaves its effect in the soul, namely giving up one's natural life. Behold, in this way Saint Augustine was enriched, and so he is called a chosen vessel for his character. Third, Saint Augustine is praised for the magnitude of that which he pondered, [for it] is called “solid.” Magnitude in weight is intensity in relation to love, about which he himself has said: “As much as I love you, Good Jesus, your love is like a spring, whereas I am parched. You have loved me without limits. Indeed, I know my deeds. I lay my whole being before you, because nothing more is possible. I will drink, if you but command. I know only this, I shall not be satisfied until I am made completely [yours] in love” which he deigns to offer us, God who lives. Amen. This sermon has been recounted from the mouth of Meister Eckhart of Hochheim, on the Feast of Saint Augustine, at Paris.

◊1◊ ◊2◊ ◊3◊ ◊4◊ ◊5◊ ◊6◊ ◊7◊ ◊8◊ ◊9◊ ◊10◊ ◊11◊

---

[1] This translation takes note of (although often deviating from) the translation provided by M. Demkovich, OP; P. Hyde, and J.D. Rooney, and edited by M. Demkovich, OP, available at https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxheWNhcmR1c3Byb2plY3R8Z3g6MmY3ZDY0NTUzYmJjN2IzNw. 

Eph. 3:9, Marcion and the Catholic redaction

TJ Lang has presented a fascinating paper on Eph. 3:9, Marcion and Tertullian. When attending this paper at the last Oxford Patristic Conference of 2015, it became clear to me that this is a wonderful example (one of many) where one can see that the apologetics' claim of Marcion being the redactor, whereas the orthodox had the original text can be shown as rather unlikely to be true. As I wrote to a colleague who asked me about this topic:

There are so many places where if you compare the textus receptus with Marcion's attested text you will see that Marcion's text quite often can be interpreted in an orthodox/catholic way, while the textus receptus could not have been subscribed by Marcion or, if one follows the argument below, on should say, is anti-Marcionite.

One example is precisely the passage that TJ Lang dealt with in Oxford, Eph 3:9, as reported by Tert., Adv. Marc. V 18. There Tertullian complains that Marcion left aside the 'in'/ἐν (τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι), hence understood the text as saying that the mysteries were hidden 'from' the God who created the all, hence the creator. Yet, without the 'in', one could still have read the text, as it is now being read with the 'in'. Therefore, a redactional striking off of the 'in' by Marcion had made no sense whatsoever, whereas a catholic redaction of adding the 'in' was a unambiguous clarification of the sense of the passage that went against the grain of Marcion's theology.

This, as I say, is just but one example which could be multiplied.

The sole conclusion from all these instances is that if Irenaeus/Tertullian/Epiphanius were right that Marcion redacted the textus receptus, he must have been either a pretty bad redactor turning texts into ambiguous readings which could be used against him (and Tertullian has exactly this opinion and ridicules Marcion for this non-professionalism), or what is more likely, when Marcion published this text, he had his own reading of Paul's text, a reading which in the context of his NT and his Antitheses was too harsh so that the catholic redaction made the text exclusively anti-marcionite.

In my eyes, the job which Ulrich Schmid thought to have done by elaborating on Marcion's Paul needs to be done again, this time, however, not on the unquestioned apologetic position of A. v. Harnack that one would not even question that Marcion was the later redactor.

A first glimpse at the newly rediscovered Eckhart Manuscript (Pfeiffer P Giessener Privatsammlung), now Wartburg-Stiftung Ms. 1361-50

To establish the nature of this recently rediscovered Eckhart Manuscript (identified by our colleague Balasz J. Nemes, Freiburg i.Br., it will for the first time presented to the public at a major exhibition at Erfurt, Waidspeicher, opening on 23 January 2016, 7pm), here a first glimpse and interpretation of the first part of the first small opening section which, in the manuscript, follows Psalms and a sermon which still need to be looked at more closely. So after these introductory texts we read the following text, given here in row 2 in Middle High German, followed in row 3 by my own English translation. In row 1 you will read Thomas Aquinas' text to compare with row 2:

Thom. Aqu., S. Th. I q. 105 a. 5	Wartburg Ms. 1361-50	Translation of Wartburg Ms. 1361-50
Videtur  quod Deus non operetur in omni operante... Deum operari in rebus, quod tamen ipsae res propriam habeant operationem. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod, cum sint causarum quatuor genera, materia quidem non est principium actionis, sed se habet ut subiectum recipiens actionis effectum. Finis vero et agens et forma se habent ut actionis principium, sed ordine quodam.	Meister thomas vraged of god ein midwirker si, in allen den dingen die da wirkend, als so ich etwas wirke of god das werk in mir wirke. Hie spriched er also, das god in allen dingen wirke also das doch dv ding ir eigen werk [33v] hauend, das in van ir eigener nature zuo behoerd. Vnd hervmb das wir dis deste das merken, so svlen wir wissen, das vier lei sachen sind. Dv ein heissed ein materliche sache, vnd mag nihd ein anvang sin eins werkes, mer si helded sich als ein lidlichv sache dv einphenglich ist des werkes der wirkenden sache. Dv ander sache heissed dv leste sache. Dv dridde heissed dv wirkende sache. Dv vierde heissed dv foermliche sache, vnd dise drie sache sind alle drie ein anvang der wirklicheid. Vnd doch nah einer [34r] ordenunge	Meister Thomas asked whether God was cooperating in all things that act, so that when I do something, whether God is doing the work in me. To this, then, he [Thomas] says that God is acting in all things, so that nevertheless the thing retain their own work [33v] which belongs to it by its own nature. And in order for us to notice this, we have to know that there are four things. The one is called a material thing, which may not be the principle of a work, but behaves like a suffering thing that receives the work of the acting thing. The other thing is called the last thing. The third is called the acting thing. The fourth is called the formal thing, and these three things are all three one principle of reality. Yet according to an [34r] order.

This first piece with which the text in the Wartburg manuscript opens starts with a reference to Thomas Aquinas. And, indeed, it is not only a reference regarding Thomas’ teaching in a more general sense, but the text begins with a literal translation of a section, taken from Thomas’ Summa Theologia (I q. 105 a. 5). This question of Thomas deals with the broader problem of ‘divine governing or the change of creatures by God’ (De secundo effectu gubernationis divinae qui est mutatio creaturarum). This question Thomas addresses after having answered the prior questions of 1) Can God move immediately the matter to the form? 2) Can He immediately move a body? 3) Can He move the intellect? and 4) Can He move the will?

Despite the fact that we find a literal translation of Thomas’ quote in our text, right from the beginning we also have to note subtle alterations which the translator introduces into his rendering. Already in the question, he intensifies the operating or working of God ‘in all things’ by sharpening it to what he calls a ‘cooperating’ (midwirker si). That our author puts emphasis precisely on this notion can be seen by the first deviation from his pre-text which he explains in more detail: ‘so that when I do something’, one has to ask ‘whether God is doing the work in me’. God’s cooperation, hence, is referred to the individual agent and is raised to the tension, if not emphatic paradox of an agent ‘I’ that is confronted with God as agent. The following bridging introduction of the next portion of the translation (‘To this, then, he [Thomas] says ...’) reveals that the translator is not only conscious of the fact that he had deviated from his source, but also indicates this deviation to his audience or readership, thus, marking out the different levels of source/translation and commentary. This indication highlights from the beginning that we are not dealing with a simple excerpt from Thomas, but with a learned, careful reading, translating and rendering of Thomas with the view of interpreting him in a particular way. The source of this interpretation is quickly found, as the paradox of the agent ‘I’ and God the agent is known from Eckhart and, more importantly, with explicit reference to precisely the passage of Thomas we have quoted and translated here. In his Commentary on John, Eckhart writes:

‘What he says here: The Father who remains in me, he himself does the works [John 14:10], which is the same as what has been said in the first chapter: All things have been done by him, and without him nothing has been done [John 1:3]. The principle without principle, namely, is the Father, which works in everything that is principled or produced. Therefore, it is also said that God works in everything that works, as Thomas teaches p. I q. 1[0]5 a. 5.[1]

According to Eckhart God, the Father, is the agent ‘in everything’, whereby things are understood as acting things. While God is the principle without principle, the things are acting with God acting in them. As authority for his explanation of John 14:10 and John 1:3, he explicitly refers to Thomas’ Summa Theologia, the passage that is been translated in our Wartburg manuscript. Interestingly, the Wartburg manuscript allows us to correct the text of the manuscripts, the critical edition and also of the reference text that the editors of the critical edition are referring to, as Eckhart is not pointing to STh p. I q. 15 a. 5 as given by the manuscripts and the critical edition which was already seen by the editors, hence they point in the apparatus to STh  l q. 15 a. 3 ad 2: deus ... essentia sua est principium operationum aliarum, but to our passage here. In Eckhart’s Commentary we read: Propter quod et deus dicitur operari in omni operante, ut docet  Thomas p. I q. 15 a. 5, which can be found in STh I q. 105 a. 5 as: Videtur quod Deus non operetur in omni operante. Quite obviously, the zero has been dropped in the transmission process of Eckhart’s text, but can now be restored on the basis of the Wartburg manuscript.

The same theological topic recurse in Eckhart, both in his Latin and German works. Early on in his Sermons and Lectures on Jesus Sirach 24 he discusses the working of God in the preacher:

Like a vine. The ‘like’ signifies a relation of similarity. However, in a relation, being oneself is being not oneself; [in a relation] to be for oneself is to be not for oneself, but of another, towards the other and for the other. In the same way the preacher of the word of God who is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God’ [1Cor. 1:24], should not be or live for himself but for Christ [see 2Cor. 5:15] whom he preaches according to that [verse] Gal. 2[:20]: ‘I live, yet not I, in truth Christ lives in me’. ‘I, yet not I’, and this means: like me or like a vine, it is Christ, like Christ, John 15[:1]: ‘I am the true vine’. Christ [is] the vine, the preacher is ‘like a vine’. And because the work belongs to the one who is, the teaching of Christ’s preacher should not focus on anything else than Christ, so that he can say with John 7[:16]: ‘My teaching is not mine, but of him who sent me’. This is therefore, secondly, what is required from the preacher, sincerity of purpose: ‘like a vine’. [2]

As with God in everything that works, so is Christ the one that lives and works in the preacher who preaches, hence it is Christ teaching in and through the preacher and the preaching of the preacher is not his own, but Christ’s. A little later, in his second lecture on Jesus Sirach, Eckhart adds more philosophically, joining end and principle:

Someone’s work that has its end in something other than God, for this one’s work God is not the principle, because God is both, end and principle. A work is namely not divine, the principle of which is not God. As an image and example of this it is said Jn. 14[:10]: The Father who remains in me, he himself does the works.[3]

Close to what follows in the Wartburg manuscript as further quotation from Thomas with regards the principle of form for matter, Eckhart states in his Commentary on John:

So it is, therefore also with any substantial form that is united to matter which communicates its being to matter and by its own being inhabits matter and by inhabiting communicates its own works to it. And from the outer works shines back that itself inhabits, is at and is in matter, according to that verse [1]Cor. 13: You search for proof of him that Christ speaks in me [2Cor. 13:3].[4]

Also Eckhart’s German works deals with this inbeing of the divine agent in the human agent. Most prominently, we read in his Predigt 31 towards the end about the Godlike soul:

To call a man enlightened as we sometimes do, means little. Where it comes out of it is far better; where it breaks through into the soul and makes her Godlike, divine, as far as may be, and light inwardly. In this interior light she climbs up above herself in the light of God. Now she has come home and is at one with him, there she is a cooperator. Nothing is wrought by creature, unless the Father works alone. The soul shall never stop until she works as powerful as God. Then she works together with the Father all his work: she shall work as one with him, wisely and lovingly. That we have to work together with God, Gold help us. Amen.[5]

Here, Eckhart starts with the idea that the soul, once herself in the light of God, is a fellow-worker, a cooperator with God to end with God being the cooperator of the soul, as he is the one that ‘works alone’. As in the explanatory part of our Wartburg section, therefore, it is God’s doing the work ‘in me’ that my own activity is retained, yet it is interpreted by Eckhart as an activity done by God himself. It is this in-working of soul and God, of acting agents as which he interprets the cooperation between the acting soul and the acting God which makes him interpret the cooperation as a unity, a wise and loving one. This idea of a unity of human and divine agent makes Eckhart even think of his own origin where he was born, a birth that he reflects as a result not only of the sexual unity of his parents, but as one that was such cooperations of human and divine agent:

Many years ago, I was not; not long after that my father and my mother eating meat, bread and cabbage that grew in the garden, from which I became to be human being. In this my father and my mother were unable to cooperate, but God made my body without aid and created my soul after the supreme. Thus I became to own my life.[6]

Although Eckhart seems to deny the cooperation between God and Eckhart’s parents, as God produceds both body and soul after the supreme, it is not without the meal of meat, bread and cabbage (with meat mentioned first, therefore, perhaps not an ordinary, daily, but a festive meal) and what happened after it that Eckhart came to life, and yet he sees both his body and soul as being the product of God, a product, however, which, he asserts, is not simply belonging to the divine realm, but is owned by himself. Ownership and agency, is intertwined, is a unity, the topic which is dealt here in the first text of our Wartburg manuscript.[7] As the discussion comes close to what Eckhart in his Predigt 14 mentions to have been written down in his notebook,[8] whether, what we have here in the Wartburg manuscript may derive from such a booklet.

---

[1] Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 582 (LW III 509,11-5): quod hic dicitur: 'pater in me manens, ipse facit  opera', ipsum est quod supra primo capitulo dicitur: 'omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et  sine ipso factum est nihil'. »Principium enim sine principio«, pater, operatur in omni principiato  seu producto. Propter quod et deus dicitur operari in omni operante, ut docet  Thomas p. I q. 1[0]5 a. 5.

[2] See Eckhart, In Eccl. n. 4 (LW II 233,1-11): 'Quasi vitis'. Li quasi relationem similitudinis significat. Relationi autem  suum esse est non suum esse; sibi esse est non sibi, sed alterius, ad alterum  et alteri esse. Sic praedicator verbi dei, quod est 'dei virtus et dei sapientia',  non debet sibi esse aut vivere, sed Christo quem praedicat, secundum illud  Gal. 2: 'vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus'. 'Ego, iam non ego',  et hoc est: ego quasi vel quasi vitis, id est Christus, quasi Christus, Ioh. 15:  'ego sum vitis vera'. Christus vitis, praedicator 'quasi vitis'. Et quia eius est  operari cuius est esse, praedicatoris Christi doctrina non debet quidquam  intendere praeter Christum, ut possit dicere illud Ioh. 7: 'mea doctrina non  est mea, sed eius qui misit me'. Hoc est ergo secundum, quod in praedicatore  requiritur, intentionis sinceritas: 'quasi vitis'.

[3] Eckhart, In Eccl. n. 57 (LW II 286,8-12: ... Cuius enim operis finis est quippiam praeter deum, huius operis deus non est principium, quia deus idem, finis et principium. Opus autem divinum non est, cuius deus  principium non est. In cuius figura et exemplo dicitur Ioh. 14: 'pater in me  manens, ipse facit opera'; see also ibid. n. 66 (LW II 296,1-6); In Sap. nn. 101-2 (LW II 437-440); with reference to the builder see n. 123 (LW II 460,10-461,5); n. 184 (LW II 520,5-521,1); In Ioh. n. 68 (LW III 56,7-14).

[4] Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 156 (LW III 129,8-10): Sic enim etiam se habet de omni  forma substantiali unita materiae, quae esse suum materiae communicat et per  ipsum esse suum materiam inhabitat et inhabitando opera sua illi communicat; et ex operibus extra relucet ipsam inhabitare, adesse et inesse materiae, secundum  illud Cor. 13: 'experimentum quaeritis eius, qui in me loquitur Christus'.

[5] Eckhart, Pr. 31 (DW II 124,5-125,5): Daz man etwenne sprichet: daz ist ein erliuhtet mensche, daz ist kleine. Aber dâ ez ûzbrichet, daz ist verre bezzer und brichet durch in die sêle und machet sie glîch gote und gotvar, als ez mügelich ist, und înerliuhtet sie. In der înerliuhtunge klimmet si über sich in dem götlîchen liehte. Als si nû danne alsô heim kumet und alsô mit im vereinet ist, sô ist si ein mitewürkerin. Kein crêatûre enwürket niht dan der vater, der würket aleine. Diu sêle sol niemer ûfgehœren, si enwerde des werkes als gewaltic als got. Sô würket si mit dem vater alliu sîniu werk; si würket mit im einvalticlîche und wîsliche und minniclîche. Daz wir mit gote also würken müezen, des helfe uns got. Amen. (trans. based on Evans, altered).

[6] Eckhart, Pr. 51 (DW II 474,2-6): Vor manichen jaren do was ich nitt; darnach nit lang, do asß meyn vatter vnnd meyn muter fleisch vnnd brott vnd kraut, das in dem garten wuchß, vnnd dauon bin ich eyn mensch. das selb mochte meyn vatter noch meyn muter nit mitwürcken, sunder gott der machet meyn leychnam on mittel vnnd geschuff meyn sele nach dem aller höchstenn. hie besaß ich meyn leben.

[7] See also Eckhart, Pr. 81 (DW III 395-404); this text may also reveal, why the section on Thomas is followed by the question of the changeability of God.  

[8] Eckhart, Pr. 14 (DW I 237,8).

What should cancer patients eat during Taxol (paclitaxel) chemotherapy?

Nothing spectacular for those who have experience with eating diets for cancer patients, but I think the following information summarises well the latest information on what to prefer and what to leave during Taxol (paclitaxel) chemotherapy in ovarian cancer:

Taxol (paclitaxel) is effective in improving breast cancer prognosis: numerous studies have found that it protects against breast cancer recurrence and death. Taxol and other taxanes can result in side effects such as hair loss, mouth sores, nausea, fatigue, low white blood cell count, neuropathy, muscle and joint pain, cognitive impairment (chemo brain) and serious infections. While obtaining relief from these side effects obviously is desirable, it is very important for breast cancer patients to avoid consuming foods or taking supplements that will lessen the cytotoxic impact of chemotherapy on cancer cells.

While various micronutrients found in fruits, vegetables and other foods have been shown to help protect against breast cancer development and metastasis, some of the same micronutrients might enable breast cancer cells to survive chemotherapy. Therefore, the strategy we recommend during chemotherapy and for the following month is to consume the foods recommended below, as well as those listed on the bland chemotherapy diet (also below), while limiting or avoiding the foods listed below that should not be consumed while on Taxol (as well as those on our avoid list). Please see also our web page on factors influencing Taxol's effectiveness.

Foods that enhance the effectiveness of Taxol

The following foods are very good sources of compounds that have been shown to increase the anti-cancer effects of Taxol:

Apples

Artichokes

Arugula

Basil

Bell peppers

Black pepper

Blueberries

Bok choy, or Chinese cabbage

Brazil nuts

Broccoli

Brussels sprouts

Cabbage

Carrots

Cauliflower

Celery

Collard greens

Cranberries

Garlic

Ginger

Grape juice, purple

Grapes, red

Greens

Hot peppers

Kale

Leeks

Mustard

Olives and olive oil

Onions, yellow

Parsley

Rice, brown

Salmon, wild

Seaweed

Spinach

Tomatoes

Turmeric

Turnips and turnip greens

Watercress

Watermelon

Many women undergoing chemotherapy develop abnormally low iron levels, which must be treated. However, excess iron is also to be avoided during chemotherapy. Curcumin (found in turmeric) has been shown to be an iron chelator, a compound that removes iron from the body. Turmeric might also protect the brain from chemotherapy, thereby possibly reducing chemo brain.

Sour cherries, olive oil and vitamin D might relieve joint and muscle pain, although their effectiveness has not specifically been studied in the context of taxane chemotherapy. Brazil nut consumption should be limited to no more than one nut per day, on average, to avoid consuming excess selenium.

Please note that while salmon and the closely-related Arctic char are recommended for consumption during Taxol chemotherapy, recent research suggests that herring, sardines, anchovies, mackerel, lake trout and similar fish should not be consumed the day before through the day after a chemotherapy treatment. In addition, these fish should be consumed only in moderation during the remaining days of each cycle. Fish oil supplements should not be consumed by those undergoing chemotherapy.

Foods and other products that should not be used during Taxol chemotherapy:

The following foods and supplements have been found either to interfere with the effectiveness of Taxol or, in the case of raw shellfish, should not be consumed by those with impaired immunity:

Açaí berries

Caffeine, any source

Caviar

Coffee, regular or decaf

Fish oil

Grapefruit

Hormone replacement therapy, including bioidentical or natural hormones

Iron supplements (unless medically necessary)

Mint tea

Multivitamins & antioxidant supplements

Saffron

Sage

Shellfish, raw

Acetyl-l-carnitine, which is sometimes used for the prevention of taxane-induced neuropathy, has been found actually to increase neuropathy.

Citrus flavonoid hesperidin could reduce effectiveness of cyclophosphamide

Hesperidin, a flavonoid found in oranges, tangerines, kumquats, lemons, limes and grapefruit, has the potential to interfere with chemotherapy regimens containing cyclophosphamide, such as TAC (taxotere, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide). Cyclophosphamide is an alkylating agent frequently used in combination with taxanes (Taxol, Taxotere) and/or anthracyclines (Adriamycin, epirubicin) to treat breast cancer. Hesperidin is found most abundantly in the peel, pith and membranous parts of oranges and other citrus fruits. Prepared food sources include orange tea, unfiltered orange juice, orange marmalade, and dishes that incorporate citrus peel such as Szechuan Orange Chicken.

Bland diet for use during Taxol chemotherapy

The list below features bland, as well as somewhat bitter-tasting foods, that do not promote cancer (when consumed in moderation). It is important not to drive up blood sugar and insulin levels with high carbohydrate/low fiber meals. Select as wide a variety of these foods as possible and consume any one of them in moderation in addition to the foods recommended above.

Almonds, skinless

Bananas

Beans, white

Bread, whole grain

Chicken, organic

Coconut, raw

Cucumbers

Green beans

Honey, minimally processed

Lettuce, iceberg

Melons, pale winter

Onions, Vidalia

Peaches, white

Pears

Peas

Potatoes

Rice

Turkey, organic

Vinegar, white

Yogurt, low-fat

Zucchini

Weight loss and weight gain during chemotherapy

Recent studies suggest that fasting around chemotherapy treatments could protect normal cells from the toxic effects of chemotherapy while sensitizing cancer cells to the treatment. However, more studies and human trials are required before it can be determined whether fasting during chemotherapy is safe and effective.

On the other hand, weight gain, which is common during chemotherapy, is known to be associated with less favourable prognosis and should be avoided.

 

Unfortunately no specific webpage exists so far for food and diet in ovarian cancer cases, so the occasional posts here may make a start of what has already been well developed in the field of breast cancer research: http://foodforbreastcancer.com/articles/what-should-breast-cancer-patients-eat-during-taxol-(paclitaxel)-chemotherapy%3F

On side-effects of chemotherapy, see the informative diagram and commentary of Healthline.

Did the Valentinian Heracleon write a Commentary on Luke or on Marcion's Gospel?

As Tertullian himself indicates in De praescriptione 25,1 (ut diximus), he first refers to the earlier discussion of Marcion’s position of the ignorance of the Apostles to here move on to the Valentinian tenets, according to which the Apostles ‘were neither ignorant ... nor preached different doctrines’, ‘but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few’. It is interesting to learn from Tertullian that such claims were based on the Pastoral Letters. Already Michael Baumgarten has brought together the evidence that the Valentinians made use of and quoted the Pastoral Letters,[1] and it is particularly interesting that it was precisely in Heracleon’s commentary not on Luke 12:9-11, as it has always been thought, but, as it will be shown, on Marcion’s Gospel where this ‘most distinguished of the school of Valentinus’[2] uses 2Tim. 2:13:

 

 

 

Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9

Heracleon, Fragment, in Clem. Alex., Strom. IV 9 (trans. William Wilson, ANF, altered)

Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν μόνην, φησίν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς, δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν. ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος καθολικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον, ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. καθολικὴ δὲ ἣν νῦν λέγει, ἡ ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι καταλλήλοις τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως. ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ ἡ μερικὴ ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ καὶ ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ. ὁμολογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ, ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει. καὶ καλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ὁμολογούντων ἐν ἐμοὶ εἶπεν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων τὸ ἐμὲ προσέθηκεν. οὗτοι γάρ, κἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν αὐτόν, ἀρνοῦνται αὐτόν, τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες. μόνοι δ' ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνειλημμένος αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τούτων. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται (2Tim. 2:13)· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὃς ἀρνήσηται ἐν ἐμοί, ἀλλ' ἐμέ· οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν. τὸ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν σῳζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως παρ' οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ πολιτείᾳ, παρ' οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἡρακλέων·

In explanation of this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus, says expressly, that there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice. The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession. Not soundly, though, as also hypocrites can confess with this confession. But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed. Of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. And confession by the lip is not universal, but partial. But that which He specifies now is universal, that which is by deeds and actions corresponding to faith in Him. This confession is followed by that which is partial, that before the authorities, if necessary, and reason dictate. For he will confess rightly with his voice who has first confessed by his disposition. And he has well used, with regard to those who confess, the expression in Me, and applied to those who deny the expression Me. For those, though they confess Him with the voice, yet deny Him, not confessing Him in their conduct. But those alone confess in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them. Wherefore He never can deny Himself (2Tim. 2:13). And those deny Him who are not in Him. For He said not, Whosoever shall deny in Me, but Me. For no one who is in Him will ever deny Him. And the expression before men applies both to the saved and the heathen similarly by conduct before the one, and by voice before the other. Wherefore they never can deny Him. But those deny Him who are not in Him. So far Heracleon.

 

If we had no other fragment by Heracleon, from this one alone we could agree with Clement’s characterisation of him as a most distinguished teacher. What Heracleon is saying here is subtle and shows him as a highly sensitive interpreter far from any sophistery. He first distinguishes between two forms of confession (ὁμολογία), one by faith and conduct and one by voice. And he sees that in the pericope under discussion, there is mention of a confession before the authorities (12:11) which he sees as the one that ‘most reckon’ to be ‘the only confession’, apparently the way, this passage was either understood by other readers or by the author of the text itself. The plural (‘most’; οἱ πολλοί) points, however, towards readers. Heracleon sees two reasons why this is not the only and even not the most important confession, as he is going to develop further. The first reason he gives is that also ‘hypocrites’ can make such oral confessions. More importantly, however, is his second reason, namely that such oral confessions are not ‘universal’ ones, but ‘partial’ ones, making the distinction between οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. Interestingly amongst those who have made ‘partial’ confessions he counts important names of Apostles: Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi and adds ‘many others’. It is a partial confession only, because it is necessitated by a specific situation, or called for by authorities and follows the dictate of reason.

In contrast to this form of confession of the voice (or the lips), Heracleon develops what he means by the universal, the true confession which is ‘corresponding to faith in Him’ – and this is the first of the above defined confession, the one ‘by deeds and actions’. Yet, he also adds that the two forms of confession should not be entirely separated, but that the confession of the voice has to be preceeded by the one of ‘disposition’ or ‘action’ (τῇ διαθέσει; τῇ πράξει). He then gives a precise definition of the essential confession: It is confessing ‘in Him, who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them’.[1] It is a mutual being-in of the one who believes in Him and the Lord in whom the confessor believes and who is contained in the believer and held by the believer.

This immediacy between believer and the divine, Heracleon could not have found in Luke 12:9-11, as contrary to Marcion’s Gospel (as attested by Tertullian) the textus receptus of Luke places ‘the angels’ as mediators in between the believers and the Lord:

Mcn *12:8-9 (teste Tert., reconstr. M. Klinghardt)	Luke 12:8-9	Matth. 10:32-3
8Λέγω δὲ γὰρ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὁμολογήσω                ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ: 9 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.	8Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει                 ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ: 9ὁ        δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.	32Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς: 33ὅστις δ' ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.

Tertullian clearly points out the immediacy between believer and Lord in Marcion’s Gospel: ‘For I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, I will confess him before God’[1] and Epiphianis highlights precisely the difference between Marcion’s immediacy and Luke’s angelic mediation, when he notes that in Marcion’s Gospel we read that we read instead of Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ simply Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.[2] There is no mention of angels in Heracleon and angels as in Luke would have defied the idea of such mutual in-being between believer and the one the believer believes in. Moreover, Luke reads like an attempt to remove such intimacy, whereas Heracleon seems to read Marcion’s Gospel by also relying on 2Timothy to substantiate his view that such essential union makes it entirely impossible to be dissolved and, conversely, that people who do not live in such union by their very nature – and not only in given situations – are in denial of the Lord.

In our passage of De praescriptione, therefore, Tertullian, rightly moves from contradicting Marcion to an argument against those Valentinians whom he has branded to be disciples of Marcion before. It is not unlikely that the quotes from the Pastoral Letters (here 1 and 2Timothy) which he puts into the mouth of his opponents have indeed been used by his Valentinian opponents.

---

[1] Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 28,4: Dico enim vobis, omnis qui confitebitur in me coram hominibus, confitebor in illo coram deo.

[2] Epiph., Pan. Schol. 30: ἀντὶ τοῦ Ὁμολογήσει ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ Ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγει.

---

[1] See also his spiritual interpretation of the ‘in Him’ in Orig., In Ioh. 15.

---

[1] M. Baumgarten, Die Aechtheit der Pastoralbriefe (1837), 38; this is also noted by E. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul (1975), 166 (although she erroneously Clem. Alex., Strom. 2.13 instead of 4.9).

[2] More on Heracleon see Tert., Adv. Val. 4,2; Iren., Adv. haer. II 4,1; Hipp., Ref. VI 24; 30; Origen, In Ioh. II 15.