aa5874

Some time ago a poster pointed out that up to the third century gJohn only had 20 chapters and NOT 21 chapters as found in present day NT Canon.

This is a writer under the name of Tertullian on the termination of the Gospel of John in "Against Praxeas" 25.

And this phrase is indeed found in the last verse of John 20.31.

Now in "Against Praxeas" not a single verse from gJohn chapter 21 can be found and the author made references to about 80 verses found in gJohn.

1. The author implied that gJohn ended at John 20.31.

2. The author did not use John 21.

3. "Against Praxeas" was probably written after 212 CE.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

So, any Church writer that mentioned any passage found in John 21 is probably AFTER 212 CE.

Examine John 21.20 And examine "Against Heresies" 3.1.1 In the whole NT Canon only John 21 contains the phrase "which also leaned on his breast" and John 21 was written AFTER 212 CE and possibly AFTER Irenaeus was dead.

stephan huller

Trobisch says that he thinks the last verse of John to be the editor’s note at the end of the totality, not the note to mark the end of John. He says, rightly in my opinion, that the verse before this is the editor’s note to the end of John. He raises the question of whether the last chapter, which is all from the hand of an editor, might be from the editor of the group of four.

aa5874

The author claimed the Gospel terminated with certain words not the chapter. You must read what is written not what you believe.

And again the author made no reference to chapter 21.

"Against Praxeas" 25

DCHindley

Aa,

But consider that Tertullian (writing between roughly 192 and 215) does use John chapter 21 in the following places:

21:23 Treatis on the Soul ch 50 (ca. 203)

21:20 Prescription Against Heretics ch 22 (after 199)

21:18 Scorpiace ch 15 (ca. 205)

Does this not show that he was indeed aware of chapter 21 from 199 on?

This date is within 50 years of when Trobisch proposes the "1st edition" of the NT was published in Asia Minor (mid 2nd century).

DCH (dates are those in the American edition of the ANF series, which I know are old as mold)

DCHindley

Stephan,

You are correct. Trobisch proposed that the publisher/editor of the "1st edition" of the NT had inserted phrases into various books in the four distinct groupings of books of this edition (e = four gospels; a = acts & general epistles; p = pauline corpus; r = revelation) to "tie" them together into a unified edition. Thus, I assume by "group of four" you mean eapr and not the four gospels?

However, this does not counter Aa's issue, which is that Tertullian does not quote John chapter 21 in Against Praxeas. Still, I have made a separate post to show that Tertullian was aware of chapter 21 and cited it in other works of his.

DCH

stephan huller

This pattern is found across the board in Tertullian's writings. I have a feeling that Tertullian translated older text and added in his own comments to give the originals more 'punch.' I think for instance that Against Hermogenes is a copy of Theophilus's original only now translated into Latin. I think the common text behind Against Marcion III and Against the Jews is some original written by Justin. Books IV and V of Against Marcion were originally written in Syriac by someone who used a Diatessaron. The opening lines of Against Marcion tell of a long sordid history to the original text.

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if the differences between Against Praxeas and other texts preserved under the name 'Tertullian' result from one or the other not really coming from the hand of Tertullian or that he was only translating the original material (with editorial glosses) into Latin.

aa5874

But, does not the statement in "Against Praxeas" show that "Scorpiace" 15, "Prescription Against Heretics" 22 and "Treatise on the Soul" 50 was written AFTER "Against Praxeas" 25?

Once it is implied that the GOSPEL ENDS at ch 20.31 in "Against Praxeas" then the implications are that any writing with John 21 is reasonably expected to be AFTER "Against Praxeas" whether by the same author or another author.

And when one takes into account that the Pauline writings were thought to have been written by one person and now it has been deduced they were not, it is NOT really difficult to understand that the writings under the name "Tertullian" suffered from the very same mistaken identity, mistaken authorship or forgery.

It would appear to me that the writings under the name "Tertullian" are those of multiple authors and from different time periods.

The author under the name "Tertullian" who wrote "Ad Nationes" did NOT write "The Apology" or "Against Marcion" which was attributed to the same writer "Tertullian".

DCHindley

Aa,

My understanding is that authorities are still not settled on the relative dates for most of the works of Tertullian. You used 212 for Against Praxeas, but the ANF editor suggests 208. Assuming the same writer for all, some of the books refrence others so a relative sequence can be suggested for those, but I think only one or two mention a firmly dateable event. A lot of the debate seems to be related to which works appear to be influenced by Montanism, a sect he joined in the latter part of his life. As they come to us, they don't directly refer to the movement at all, if at all.

There was a discussion about relative dating of his works a while back, with the main details coming by means of Andrew Criddle, who is rather well read but more often than not adopts a conservative interpretation. Spin also contributed, I believe.

I do not think scholars have questioned the authenticity of the bulk of the works attributed to Tertullian. They all have that rather stern, sarcastic, "I know better than you" attitude. While it is tempting to propose a plurality of authors and thus leave open all sorts of dates, I feel that "reductio ad absurdum" approach just allows us to confirm our own presuppositions.

Regards,

DCH

aa5874

Well if you knew in advance of posting that dates for Tertullian's writings are NOT yet settled then it is a bit counter-productive to try and argue about the dating of "Tertullian's" writings.


Did you not say that the dates are NOT settled?

But, in any event, using 208 CE as the date for "Against Praxeas" then "Against Heresies" with the John 21.20 passage would likely be AFTER 208 CE and NOT around 175-180 CE.

Are you implying that your assumption MUST be true? The veracity of the Church writers are in doubt.

A Church historian claimed Tertullian became a Montanist yet there is NO writing under the name of Tertullian where the writer admitted that he was a Montanist.

One would imagine that there is a lot of debate about the authenticity and veracity of Church writings when it would appear that the ENTIRE Canon is in ERROR with regards to dating, authorship, chronology and contents.

I am a bit suspicious of Andrew Criddle's interpretation. I think he is claiming to be a Jesus believer so he may feel threatened by the supposed words of Jesus.

I think Jesus was some kind of God in the NT who could save people from their own sins and if you REJECT Jesus you may be tormented eternally.

Well, seeing that you mentioned this "I know better than you attitude" it would appear that the "Tertullian" in "Ad Nationes" did NOT know what he was talking about concerning Tacitus "Histories".

Examine "Ad Nationes"1.11

Examine "The Apology" 16

The "Tertullian" in "Ad Nationes" appears to be wrong. The 4th book of Tacitus' "Histories" does NOT deal with the origin of the Jewish nation.

The "Tertullian" of the "Apology" appears to be correct. It is the 5th book of "Histories" that deals with the origin of the Jewish nation.

It would appear to me that there were more than one writer using the name "Tertullian".

aa5874

The writer called Irenaeus made statements in "Against Heresies" that are so BLATANTLY erroneous that it is hardly conceivable that a LIVE audience did see his writings or heard him PREACH as a BISHOP.

1. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered even though he claimed Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

2. Tertullian, supposedly writing in the 3rd century, implied the the Gospel of John terminated at the 20th chapter but Irenaeus writing in the 2nd century quoted what appears to be part of John 21.20.

And there is more.

In "Prescription Against the Heretics", the author made this statement about the records of the Church.

So according to "Tertullian" the RECORDS of the Church of ROME show that CLEMENT was ordained by PETER.. "Tertullian" has UNFOLDED the roll of the bishops.

It would be expected that The HERETICS must have or was likely to have seen the ORIGINAL Roman Church records where it was stated that CLEMENT was ordained by PETER.

But, Irenaeus had OTHER records and his records did NOT show that Clement was ordained by PETER.

"Against Heresies" 3.3.3 Irenaeus claimed that "Paul" mentioned LINUS in the Epistles to Timothy but "Tertullian" quoted multiple passages from 1 and 2 Timothy and still claimed that CLEMENT was ordained by PETER .

There is not a single mention of LINUS as a disciple, apostle or the bishop of Rome and ordained by PETER in any writing of "Tertullian"..

1.Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered but no other Church writer made such a claim.

2.Irenaeus appears to have made reference to part of John 21.20 but another Church writer implied gJohn ended at the 20th chapter.

3. Irenaeus claimed Clement was the third AFTER the apostles and succeeded Anacletus but another Church writer claimed the apostle Peter ordained Clement bishop of Rome.

It would seem that "Tertullian" was NOT aware of a bishop called LINUS even though he was AWARE of 2 Timothy 4.

It would seem that "Irenaeus" wrote "Against Heresies" AFTER the "Prescription Against Heresies".