| IRENAEUS (actual wording you supplied) | TERTULLIAN (Adv. Val. VIII Latin) | Translation of Latin | Transformation Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Logos and Zoe… produced Anthropos and Ecclesia” (earlier description of the aeonic generations; structure presupposed in the system summarized in Ch. II–III) | ecce enim secunda tetras, Sermo et Vita, Homo et Ecclesia | “Behold the second tetrad: Word and Life, Man and Church.” | Direct structural equivalence. Logos→Sermo, Zoe→Vita, Anthropos→Homo. |
| “The AEons… produced by conjunction… conjugal pairs” (implicit throughout Irenaeus’ system) | coniugales per copulam utriusque naturae | “conjugal [pairs] through the coupling of each nature.” | Conceptual condensation; Valentinian syzygy translated into Latin formula. |
| Structure of grouped aeons (tetrads, decad, duodecad; numerical organization of pleroma — implied in discussion of duodecad and aeonic generations) | Sermo et Vita decuriam Aeonum simul fundunt | “Word and Life together produce a decad of Aeons.” | Narrative explanation reduced to schematic statement. |
| “Sophia… the youngest of the Duodecad which sprang from Anthropos and Ecclesia” | Theletus et Sophia (last pair in list) | Proper name list | Structural retention — Sophia remains final member of duodecad. |
| Lists of aeons within the pleroma (Irenaeus recounts their names as part of Valentinian teaching) | Bythios et Mixis… Monogenes et Macaria | Proper names retained | Direct reuse of aeon catalogue tradition. |
| Further aeon list forming duodecad | Paracletus et Pistis… Ecclesiasticus et Macariotes… Theletus et Sophia | Proper names retained | Same order preserved; only Latinized spelling. |
| “the whole Pleroma of the AEons” | hoc erit Pleroma illud arcanum, divinitatis tricenariae plenitudo | “this will be that secret Pleroma, the thirtyfold fullness of divinity.” | Concept retained; tone shifts to irony/polemic. |
| Numerical structures emphasized (duodecad; structured aeonic system) | quaternarii et octonarii et duodenarii | “the fourfold, eightfold, and twelvefold.” | Mathematical shorthand replacing explanatory prose. |
What emerges from comparing Irenaeus’ exposition with Tertullian Adv. Valentinianos VIII is not independent description but systematic compression of a pre-existing schematic tradition. Tertullian preserves the structural backbone of the Valentinian system exactly: the sequence of generative pairs (Logos/Zoe → Anthropos/Ecclesia), the organization into tetrad, decad, and duodecad, the full thirty-aeon pleroma, and—most decisively—the ordered lists of aeon names. The agreement is too specific to be coincidental. Rather than retelling the narrative as Irenaeus does, Tertullian extracts the formal framework (pairings, numbers, genealogical structure) and translates it into concise Latin formulae (“Sermo et Vita decuriam Aeonum simul fundunt”). This indicates dependence on a common dossier or descriptive template of Valentinian cosmology, probably already systematized before either author’s polemical adaptation.
The methodological transformation is therefore reduction plus rhetorical reframing. Irenaeus presents explanatory prose: motivations of aeons, metaphysical logic, theological narrative (e.g., Sophia’s drama, the function of Horos). Tertullian strips away the explanatory layer and retains only the schematic elements—names, numerical groupings, generative sequences—turning them into a quasi-diagrammatic catalogue. Once reduced to bare structure, he overlays satire: numerical fixation becomes absurd arithmetic, name lists become rhetorical caricature, and the pleroma becomes “divinitatis tricenariae plenitudo” framed ironically. The shift is not textual invention but polemic through condensation, where fidelity to structure enables sharper ridicule.
In methodological terms, the process can be described as: (1) preservation of technical terminology and ordered lists; (2) compression of narrative units into formulaic clauses; (3) replacement of explanatory exposition with evaluative commentary. This pattern strongly suggests that Tertullian is not reconstructing Valentinianism from scratch but working from an already structured anti-heretical presentation similar to that reflected in Irenaeus. The polemical force of his Latin depends precisely on retaining recognizable structural markers from that earlier exposition while recontextualizing them as evidence of doctrinal excess or artificial systematization.
