Roger Pearse

If we're going to discuss the text of Tertullian, the Latin would seem to be necessary.

Roger Pearse

Better than either Betty or Holmes is Greenslade's translation, which I had online until legal issues intervened. However it is still available at archive.org here.

I have added Greenslade below, and inserted the verse nos; also the Latin text of Refoulé, which is pretty much the most up to date. Note that chapter divisions are probably not ancient, although derived from medieval copies; verse numbers certainly are not.

32. ... [2] For this is how the apostolic churches record their origins. The church of Smyrna, for example, reports that Polycarp was placed there by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter.

XXXII. ... [2] Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum est.

[3] In just the same way the other churches produced men who were appointed to the office of bishop by the apostles and so transmitted the apostolic seed to them....

[3] Perinde utique et ceterae exhibent quos ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutos apostolici seminis traduces habeant. ...


36. [1] Come now, if you are ready to exercise your curiosity better in the business of your own salvation, run through the apostolic churches, where the very thrones of the apostles preside to this day over their districts, where the authentic letters of the apostles are still recited, bringing the voice and face of each one of them to mind.

XXXVI. [1] Age iam, qui uoles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur sonantes uocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque .

[2] If Achaea is nearest to you, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi and Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you are close to Italy, you have Rome, the nearest authority for us also.

[2] Proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos; si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum; si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est.

[3] How fortunate is that church upon which the apostles poured their whole teaching together with their blood, where Peter suffered like his Lord, where Paul was crowned with John's death, where the apostle john, after he had been immersed in boiling oil without harm, was banished to an island.

[3] Ista quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus Ioannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus Ioannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur;

Anyone wanting to examine particular words of the Latin, try QuickLatin.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

There is a great deal of tradition added after the event.

Of course, if this is a reconstruction job, we should be aware that "The SHepherd of Hermes" was probably part of the popular early christian literature, as were a host of other writings, some of which are now regarded as forgeries, including the correspondence between Paul and Seneca and The Philopatris, a forgery in the name of Lucian.

There are other Acts of Peter. Like the NHC 6.1 TAOPATTA. The state of the popular early christian literature is not like it is today, since it has evolved with each generation of preservers in some manner.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

This is so. The Shepherd was popular early on. The letters of Paul and Seneca are a 4th century composition (we don't know that this is a forgery). (The Philopatris of ps.Lucian is given as a 9th century text in the 1911 Britannica.)

I seem to recall reading in one or another of the Apocryphal New Testament books by M.R.James or J.K.Elliot that the 4th century saw a string of compositions of orthodox but inauthentic 'gospels' -- novelisations, really, sometimes adapted from older heretical texts by purging obvious heresy -- to fill the gaps left in the NT. Likewise we get the beginnings of hagiography.

The fathers were nervous about all this in late antiquity, considering such things as liable to discredit the church. From the Decretum Gelasianum:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

This is extremely helpful. This seems to be the best translation of the three.
It negates my point about an interpolation of Rome for Jerusalem. It is clear that there was no interpolation in this text. On the other hand, it provides the necessary evidence that Tertullian did not know about Peter being in Rome.

Here is the full translation of the important passage in question.


The text talks about five churches: Ephesus, Phillipi, Thessaloniki, Ephesus and Rome. In the next line, Tertullian refers to "that church". It is natural to think that "that church" is in apposition to "Rome, the nearest authority to us."
However, when Tertullian starts talking about teaching "from which heresies have sprung," it becomes clear that he is talking about the original Apostolic Church in Jerusalem in general and not about the Roman Church in particular. The proof of this is in the final sentences when he writes, "Even from the kernel of the smooth, rich, and useful olive comes the rough wild olive. Even from the seed of the most pleasant and sweetest of figs springs the empty and useless wild fig." The references to wild olives and figs are meant to refer to the earliest Church of Jerusalem. The third confirmation that this is the correct reading comes from the beginning of the very next paragraph:

Here he is not talking about the specific Church in Rome, but the early apostolic church in general.

So, we can say that there has been no later interpolation in this passage. The translations have just missed the mark and made it seem that Tertullian was talking about the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome when he just mentions the deaths of Peter and Paul in connection with the Apostolic Church that began in Jerusalem.

As far as paragraph 32 is concerned:

This merely states that there is a report by the Church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter. It says nothing about Peter ever being in Rome.

The language used in this writing, circa 200 is closely connected to 1 Clement:

This text too knows nothing of Paul or Peter being in Rome. We may suggest that its similarity to Tertullian's writing would suggest that it was composed around Tertullian's time (200 C.E.).

Clement 42: Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

My apologies for not nipping this in the bud.

All posts related to the question of whether a loving God would create such confusion, what is an agnostic, and what Jeffrey Gibson believes, have been split off here. They will remain locked unless someone can give me a good reason to reopen that thread.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I have been thinking about my last post in which I denied that an interpolation had been made of "Rome" for "Jerusalem."

The immediate reason for suggesting that no interpolation took place was because the reference to the early general Church in Jerusalem in paragraph 36 need not have been to the mentioned Roman Church. Thus the author may have simply mentioned the Church at Rome in passing and started referring to the mother Church of Jerusalem. This is true, but when we look at the movement of the author's mentioned churches, it is towards Jerusalem... Corinth, Phillipi, Thessaloniki, and Ephesus... it seems more probable that an interpolation was made. Rome simply does not fit in the pathway of the map that the writing is drawing. If Rome was mentioned as the first city, it would make sense. Mentioning it in the last place does not. Only Jerusalem makes sense. In fact if one were traveling from Jerusalem to Corinth, the likely pathway would be Jerusalem to Ephesus to Phillipi, to Thessaloniki, to Corinth.

When the writer says that he is nearest the fifth location, that would mean that he is nearest to Jerusalem. It is likely that the writer is referring to either Caesarea or Alexandria. The reference to the Churches of Africa in the passage would suggest that the writer is writing from Alexandria.

It is not just that the itinerary makes sense moving from Corinth to Jerusalem, it is that there are so many unmistakeable references to Jerusalem immediately following, "happy Church," "the apostles poured their whole teaching together with their blood," the place where heresies come from, and references to olives and figs.

The author says (7) "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church
with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic?" He does not say, "What has Rome to do with Athens." Thus the author is thinking of his Church as the continuation of the Church that started with Christ at Jerusalem.

Note also that the author never quotes from Paul's epistle to the Romans. However, he does quote from Gal.(11), 1Cor.(8x), 2Cor.(3x), 1Tim.(7x), 2Tim(6x)., 1Thess.(1), Eph.(1), Col.(1).

This suggests that the epistle to the Romans may have been constructed after the Prescription, most likely after 200 C.E.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

What makes you think that this list of where people in various locales can go if they wish to consult with orthodox authorities is an itinerary?

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman.

Here are a few thoughts on Tertullian's De Praesciptione Haereticorum.

The work is traditionally dated between 200-2006¹. Andrew Dunn, a professor at the Catholic University of Australia, writes "Tertullian’s de Praescritone Haereticorum is one of his most important treatises with regard to the exegesis of Scripture².

I would go far beyond this modest assessment. I would say that this work is the foundational work of orthodox Christianity. More important than the gospels or the letters of Paul, or even the Bible as a whole, this document creates a position from which to attack and defend Christianity.

In the same way that Plato's Apology may be considered the founding document of ancient philosophy, Tertullian's de praescriptione may be considered the founding document of Orthodox Christianity. In another sense, they are quite opposites. Whereas the Apology, authorizes free inquiry into truth, the Prescription/Proscription denies free inquiry into truth, it demands faithful obedience to dogmas as established by the Church and forbids any inquiry into that truth. We may see how the classical world begins with the earlier document and the Christian world really begins with the later one.

Arthur Vesluis, professor in the College of Arts & Letters at Michigan State University notes this: It is extremely strange that in the years 200-206, when churches are being persecuted by Roman legal communities, Tertullian should demand a legal remedy to the problem of heresy within the Church. This is so astonishing that one wants to immediately claim that only in the time of Eusebius when Roman power is behind the Church could such a position have been held. Yet, I think we have to attribute it to the great imagination of Tertullian that he can imagine a time when the State legal system can be used to support and help Christianity and not just suppress it. Actually, it is not a miracle of prophesy or a fortunate prediction, but simply a great bit of rhetoric on the part of Tertullian: making the real Roman legal system which suppresses Christianity into its imaginary supporter.

It is true to say that Tertullian expresses the true kerygma of Christianity in this work: Use the repressive legal apparatus of the state to enrich yourself and bring yourself to life from the dead, and use it to kill and impoverish your enemies and bring them from a pleasant life to hell.

I would like to go more into this idea, but since, for the moment I am pressed for time, I will only point out some notes regarding the document's importance to Peter and the Roman Church.

The document criticizes many heretics, but conspicuously ignors Montanus. We know that Tertullian became a supporter of Montanus supposedly around 207. We must take it as an amazing coincidence/mystery that while the orthodox Churches, according to Eusebius, were engaged in a great struggle against Montanus, one of its loyal members, Tertullian, was attacking heresies, and yet never attacks the heretic Montanus.

Another explanation for this phenomenon is that Tertullian is always a Montanus. Orthodoxy does not exist at this time, so Tertullian is simply attacking the enemies of Montanus as heretics, and promoting Montanus as the one true Church of Christianity. A question is why did Tertullian not make positive statements about Montanus in his early works? Probably because there was no need to directly defend Montanus. Nobody was attacking him. The followers of Montanus were busy attacking the dominant churches of the other heretics who came before him.

Note that the Catholic encyclopedia cannot find any evidence that the Roman church at this time considered Montanus as a heretic.
Now note this in Prescription 30:

Quote:

30. Where was Marcion then, the ship-owner of Pontus, the student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Plato? It is well known that they lived not so long ago, about the reign of Antoninus, and at first accepted the doctrine of the catholic Church at Rome under Bishop Eleutherus of blessed memory, until, on account of the ever-restless speculation with which they were infecting the brethren also, they were expelled once and again

Eleutherus, according to the chronology of Eusebius, was head of the Church of Rome around 174-190. Tertullian is reporting that Marcion and Valentinus were both expelled from the Roman church after being part of the Church between 174-190. He is writing between 200-206. That means that the events that he is writing about happened between 10-30 years before he is talking about them. Why does he not mention the grounds of their expulsion (and why does no other writer ever mention the grounds of their expulsion)? Why does he not mention that Montanus was expelled, if, as the Catholic encyclopedia slyly suggests, Eleutherus did say something against him?

Of course, this statement that after 174 Marcion first accepted the Catholic doctrines contradicts Justin Martyr who in 165 died after denouncing Marcion as a contemporary heretic. How could Marcion "at first" accept Catholicism in 174 and become a heretic afterwards and yet Justin Martyr claims him as a renegade heretic ten years before?

I tend to think that the information both here and in Justin Martyr regarding Marcion are Eusebean interpolations. Eusebius would have made this interpolation first and forgotten about it later when he interpolates in Justin Martyr, not realising that he is causing a contradiction between Martyr and Tertullian.

I am of the opinion that all references to Rome in this text are later interpolations. Note this celebrated passage


The church of Smyrna was always associated with the church of Ephesus, a church later mentioned in passage 36 by Tertullian. It is likely that if Tertullian named two bishops, it would be from these two famous churches. Thus the original passage read:


The gospel of John was associated with Montanus, so Tertullian, as a Monanist, would have been demonstrating the equality of John and Paul.

The parallelism between John and Paul was probably present in passage 36 also:

Originally, this too did not contain any mention of Peter:

Again as in passage 32, we may imagine that originally John was paralleled with Paul. Only later, in the time of Eusebius did the notion of a Roman Church started by Peter begin and the appropriate changes were made to Tertullian's text.

There are two other passages where Peter is mentioned. In these Peter and John are connected:
I am not sure if the Peter lines here are interpolations. The statements work just as well with John alone. These statements do not place Peter in Rome, so they may have been in the original.

In any case, to sum up. This work is extremely important, not only because it presents basically the only evidence for Peter being executed in Rome before the time of Eusebius, but because it really sets out the philosophical/rhetoric case for orthodoxy. Knowing the importance of the work, we can understand why Eusebius would select it to interpolate the important information (passage 36) that Peter came to Rome and was executed there.

The alternative to the idea that Eusebius updated this important work with references to Peter in Rome is that Eusebius created the whole thing and backdated it to seem to come from the years around 200-206. While I cannot absolutely dismiss this, I just do not think that this was way that Eusebius worked.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

1. Dunn, Andrew, Tertullian’s Scriptural Exegesis in de Praescriptione Haereticorum, Journal of Early Christian Studies 14 (2006), pp. 141-155.2.
2. Ibid.
3. Versluis, Arthur, The New Inquisitions: Heretic-Hunting and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Totalitarianism, Oxford University Press, 2007, pg. 5.