Tertullian — Against Marcion 3.12
Provoke now, as you are accustomed, to this Isaiah comparison of Christ, contending that it agrees in nothing. ‘For first,’ you say, ‘Isaiah’s Christ will have to be called Emmanuel, then take the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians.’ But this one who came was neither published under such a name nor performed any warlike deed. But I will admonish you also to recognize the coherences of each chapter. For the interpretation of Emmanuel is also subjoined: God with us—so that you may regard not only the sound of the name but also the sense. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, belongs to its own nation; but its sense, which is God with us, is common from interpretation.
Ask therefore whether this voice ‘God with us,’ which is Emmanuel, is stirred in Christ from when Christ shone. And I think you will not deny it, inasmuch as you yourself also say ‘God with us,’ that is Emmanuel. Or if you are so vain that, because among you ‘God with us’ is said, not Emmanuel, you therefore refuse that he has come whose property it is to be called Emmanuel—as if this too were not ‘God with us’—you will find among Hebrew Christians, nay even Marcionites, naming Emmanuel when they want to say ‘God with us’; just as every nation, with whatever sound it has said ‘God with us,’ will pronounce Emmanuel, discharging the sound in the sense.
But if Emmanuel is ‘God with us,’ and God with us is Christ, who is also in us—for as many as you have been dipped into Christ, you have put on Christ—Christ is as properly in the significance of the name which is ‘God with us’ as in the sound of the name which is Emmanuel. And so it stands that he has already come who was being preached Emmanuel, because what Emmanuel signifies has come—that is, ‘God with us.’
Latin
Prouoca nunc, ut soles, t ad hanc Esaiae comparationem Christi, contendens illam in nullo conuenire. \'primo enim\', inquis, (Christus Esaiae Emmanuhel uocari habebit, dehinc uirtutem sumere Damasci et spolia Samariae aduersus regem Assyriorum\'. porro iste, qui uenit, neque sub eiusmodi nomine est editus neque ulla re bellica functus est. at ego te admonebo, uti cohaerentia quoque utriusque capituli recognoscas. subiuncta est enim et interpretatio Emmanuhelis: nobiscum deus, uti non solum sonum nominis spectes sed et sensum. sonus enim Hebraicus, quod est Emmanuhel, suae gentis est, sensus autem eius, quod est deus nobiscum, ex interpretatione communis est. quaere ergo an ista uox (nobiscum deus\\ quod est Emmanuhel, exinde quod Christus inluxit, agitetur in Christo. et puto. non negabis, utpote qui et ipse dicas ( ό deun nobiscum\\ [dicitur] id est Emmanuhel. aut si tam uanus es, ut, quia penes te \'nobiscum deus\' dicitur, non Emmanuhel, idcirco nolis uenisse illum, cuius proprium sit uocari Emmanuhel, quasi non et hoc sit \'deus nobiscum\', inuenies apud Hebraeos Christianos, immo et Marcionitas, Emmanuhelem nominare, cum uolunt dicere \'nobiscum deus\'; sicut et omnis gens, quoquo sono dixerit \'deus nobiscum\', Emmanuhelem pronuntiabit, in sensu sonum expungens. quodsi Emmanuhel \'nobiscum deus\' est, deus autem nobiscum Christus est, qui etiam in nobis est, — quotquot enim in Christum tincti estis, Christum induistis — tam proprie est Christus in significatione nominis, quod est (nobiscum deus\', quam in sono nominis, quod est Emmanuhel. atque ita constat uenisse iam illum, qui praedicabatur Emmanuhel. quia quod significat Emmanuhel uenit, id est \'nobiscum deus\'.