hatsoff

According to various sources, Tertullian tells us that Basilides rejected the Pastoral epistles, and Jerome tells us that Tatian rejected 1-2 Timothy. Does anyone know where I can find the primary sources for these allegations?

Thanks in advance, guys!

mountainman

Yes, the primary source is Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.
Fourth century inventor of a new form of historiography,
termed "Ecclesiastical History" on account of the name
of his Historia Eccesiastica in which these four authors,
and an army of others that Eusebius assembled and collated,
while "The Boss" took care of other important business.

Jerome appears on the stage after the fat lady sang.
His is a mop-up act, in tune with Theodosius et al.

Roger Pearse

The only reference to Basilides in the works of Tertullian that I can find from here is in De resurrectione carnis.

There is also a passage in the spurious Adversus Omnes Haereses.

Neither says this. It sounds like confusion with Tertullian's detailed discussion of Marcion's mutilated NT in Adversus Marcionem.

Isn't it infuriating when people make assertions but give no references?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

hatsoff

I think I found one of the passages in question... well, part of it, anyway.

From this web page:

Though they should be unworthy of faith who have made their first faith void, I speak of Marcion and Basilides and all the heretics who mangle the Old Testament, nevertheless let us bear with them to some extent if they at least continue [to play] their hands in the New Testament... To pass over the rest of the epistles in silence, from which they erased whatever they saw that was contrary to their own dogma, they indeed believed that some were to be repudiated in the whole, clearly both of the two to Timothy, [the one] to the Hebrews, and [the one] to Titus.
--St. Jerome, from his preface to Titus.

There are a couple of problems with this, though. First of all, what's missing after the ellipsis, and does it interfere with the meaning of the remaining text? Second, according to other sources, he goes on about Tatian, but that section has not been offered, here. Third, what is the precise title of Jerome's "preface to the Pauline epistle to Titus," as the blogger calls it, and where can I find a full English translation? I thought it would be on CCEL, but all they had was a preface to the preface...silly, huh?

Steven Avery

Hi Hatsoff and all,

Here is the passage from another source, differing text, no ellipsis.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XpwCAAAAQAAJ
Origin and history of the books of the New Testament
By Calvin Ellis Stowe (1867) p. 351

Jerome, Comment, in Epist. Tit. :
"Speaking of Marcion and Basilides and all heretics, Jerome says, that rejecting gospels and epistles he wonders how they dare assume to themselves the Christian name, for, to be silent concerning other epistles, from which they erase whatever they see contrary to their own dogmas, they reject some entire epistles, as Timothy, Hebrews, Titus, which we are now undertaking to explain. Indeed if they gave any reasons why they suppose these epistles not to be the apostle's, we should endeavour to reply and perhaps satisfy the reader. But now they pronounce with heretic authority, and say, this epistle is Paul's, and this is not."

Ben has the first quote and some Latin.
Maybe he can tell you about the ellipsis.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcion.html
Searcharcion the heresiarch.

Schaaf has a bit about the Prologues and mentions the acceptance by Tatius, yet no text.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NQUNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PT545
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series ...

There are various issues that come up on these Prologues,
some quite fascinating.

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

All the prefaces by Jerome can be found here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm

Kevin Edgecomb and Stephen Carlson translated them all a year or so back.

But Jerome did not write any prefaces to most books of the New Testament. Praxeus gives us the clue: he did write a Commentary on four of the letters of Paul; Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, and finally Titus, soon after 386. This have the reference CPL 591. All these can be found in Migne, PL 26, 307-618 (331-656)

An English translation of Ephesians exists in R.E.Heine, The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Oxford 2002. The others seem never to have been translated into English. Nor do they exist in the Sources Chrétiennes series.

I think vol. 26 of Migne may be in Google books, but I have not been able to find it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I was completely dependent on Westcott, and the ellipsis was his.

However, a phrase search on Google Books brought up the following two pages...:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y3U...A140#PPA140,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=YLW...=PA46#PPA47,M1

...from which I have compiled the following combined screenshot:



There is still some text missing in the white space, but at least Tatian gets a turn this time round.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to translate this. I have to run; I have a very full weekend ahead of me. If no one else wants to, I can do it sometime next week.

Cheers to all.

Ben.

hatsoff

Thanks for the link, but I can't find the Titus preface on that page or anywhere else on that site. Some keywords in Google with the "site:tertullian.org" tag similarly fails to find the text.

If it's not there, thanks anyway for trying. If it is, can you point me to the exact page? Thanks, man!

Roger Pearse

It's always easiest if someone has a go first, and then we can all improve it. So here's a first attempt (I'm on the run also!) -- correct my blunders please:

Let them not be deserving of trust, they who made their first faith void -- I mean Marcion, and Basilides, and all the heretics, who rip up the Old Testament; however we might consider them to some extent, if at least they hold their hands on the New, and don't dare to dishonour either the gospels of Christ the good son of God (as they call him), or the apostle.

At the moment (=nunc vero) (+quum? *) they will have thrown aside both His gospels, and made out that the letters of the apostles are not by (lit. of) the apostles of Christ, but that their own (are), I am amazed to say, just as they dare to claim the name of Christians for themselves.

For while I am silent about the other letters, of which they erased whatever had seemed contrary to their teaching, some they thought necessary to reject entirely, namely both those to Timothy, and that to Titus.

And if they should seek some reasons, why they should not be by the apostle, let them try to reply somehow, and perhaps to satisfy the readers.

At the moment (+quum *) they pronounce and speak by heretical authority -- this is a letter of Paul, that is not -- let them understand that they have refuted themselves by the authority on behalf of truth *, at which they do not blush to simulate with the false.

* I'm not happy with this last bit. Should we render the subjunctives as 'let'?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

hatsoff

Thankyou! Until you get around to it, I'd like to offer a transcription:

Sed Tatianus, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, h. e. ad Titum, Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit; parvipendeus Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt, assertionem.

And here's my piss-poor translation, based on online Latin-to-English dictionaries:

But Tatian, who himself repudiated some Pauline epistles, especially Titus, at first believed the Apostolic pronouncements; but then Marcion and the others, when they brought him into their faction, convinced him of their beliefs.

I wonder how close I am. Probably not very.