Doug Shaver

That is just a rewording of your claim that the passage
I agree that the passage is consistent with an assumed belief on Clement's part that Paul was put to death by the authorities. What I'm asking is how he would have written it differently if he had had no such belief.
What I find suspicious is that Clement does not actually say anything about how Paul died or who if anyone was responsible for his death. If he was convinced that Paul died as a martyr, why was he so cryptic? Why didn't he come right out and say that Paul was killed on account of his testimony?

andrewcriddle

The Greek is

KAI EPI TO TERMA THS DUSEWS ELThWN KAI MARTURHSAS EPI TWN hHGOUMENWN, hOUTWS APHLLAGH TIU KOSMOU KAI EIS TON hAGION TOPON ANELHMPhThH

hOUTWS, (the connection between the clause about Paul witnessing and the clause about Paul dying) means something like thus or and so . It probably implies that the later statement follows naturally from the earlier statement, and/or is a consequence of the earlier statement.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Because of their extreme similarity, should not this statement found in Clement be compared to what we find in "Against Heresies"

Clement:
Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him...
and when he [Paul] had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

Against Heresies:
(III.1.1)... while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

In both text we have:
1)Peter and Paul giving testimony/preaching, immediately followed by
2) their "departing", a euphemism for dying.

Notice that
1) Peter and Paul are associated together in both text with perfect equality.
2) There is no description of either Peter or Paul's actual death.
3) No source is given in either text. If Irenaeus was relying on Clement, he would certainly have reason to state it as it would give authority to his statement.

In my opinion, what would best explain these facts is that both passages are interpolations done by Eusebius.

I would be curious to see if the Greek is similar in the two passages and if they match the writings of Eusebius. Unfortunately, I do not have time to check this now.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Why?

Also, if you expect Tertullian, had he mentioned Irenaeus, to mention that Irenaeus was a bishop, why do you not expect Eusebius, if he was your forger, to mention that Irenaeus was a bishop?

But I think your expectation may be quite unfounded here to begin with. What is it founded upon? Can you demonstrate that it was customary (at least for Tertullian) to always give the office of the people he mentions?

Why is this not the Miltiades who flourished under Commodus? Why do you not even mention him, even if only to show why he is not the one Tertullian is referring to?

This is par for the course, and not at all strange. Nor did Jerome inform us that Eusebius was his primary source for On Illustrious Men, yet the fact of the matter is plain.

Again we find that the bulk of your argument is your own expectations, not the data themselves.

Also, are you sure that there are thousands of citations in the works of Tertullian? Who counted them? Where are the stats? Thanks.

The relationship of Tertullian to Ireneaus is explained by the hypothesis that Tertullian knew the works of Irenaeus.

The part about not citing Justin and Irenaeus by name has already been dealt with; but it appears to me that you are saying something more here. You seem to be saying that Tertullian mentioning Proclus is natural since they were both Montanists, but that Tertullian mentioning Irenaeus (and Justin) is unnatural... why? Because they were not Montanists? Yet on your view our current Against Heresies in fact belongs to Tertullian! It makes no sense to deny that Tertullian could mention Irenaeus, as author of our extant Against Heresies, in a good light, yet to affirm that he himself authored Against Heresies. If you could perhaps explain your view on this issue a little more clearly, I would appreciate it.

One more item. If Eusebius took an existing Greek work of Tertullian and turned it into a work by Irenaeus, and then called Irenaeus an eager discoverer of all doctrines, why did he make (or keep) chiliasm (as) such a strong feature of the work, when he himself could not stand chiliasm?

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Uh huh. "Somethink like" and "probably."

The wording is consistent with Clement's having no knowledge of the manner of Paul's death, but wanting his readers to think he had been martyred because Christians historically have been fixated on the notion that the world hates them for what they believe and will kill them at every opportunity. Therefore, Clement suggests, without coming right out and saying it, that Paul died on account of his testimony, phrasing it in such a way that if he were challenged with hard evidence to the contrary, he could truthfully reply, "Well, I never actually said he was martyred, so I wasn't really lying."

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the responses. I do not have a lot of time, grading papers as usual, but here briefly are my responses.

1. I would expect Tertullian to name Irenaeus as a Bishop because he is trying to establish the authority and high positions of Christians who have attacked heretics.
2. On the other hand, if Eusebius is interpolating into the passage, he is only interested in adding names of Christians. He knows his readers can find out that Irenaeus was a Bishop from reading his other writings. On the other hand, it is possible that at this point, Eusebiuis had not elected to make Irenaeus a bishop. .

Tertullian noted in the passage before this one, " Valentinus expected to become bishop because he had great abilities of mind and tongue, but another was preferred for the position because he suffered as a martyr. Angry at this, Valentinus broke with the legitimate church." Again, this presents another reason to name Irenaeus as a Bishop, in order to contrast him with Valentinus.
Tertullian would be saying that my source is a real Bishop and not a wanna-be Bishop like Valentinus.

When a person is naming his sources, if a source has something special about him, it is always in the interest of the writer to mention it, if he knows about it. Think of a trial where a lawyer introduces a forensics expert by name without mentioning that the person is a forensics expert. It shows unusual and unexpected incompetancy, and might alert an interested party that something is wrong. The lack of a title for Bishop Irenaeus does that here.

As far as the Miltiades who supposedly lived under Commodus, the only source of information on him is this (presumably interpolated reference) and Eusebius. None of his works have survived. Only Eusebius knows him (or makes him up). The question is where he would get the name from. I've given the easy answer, he takes it from Pope Miltiades who is the Pope probably at the time that he is interpolating this piece. We may see it as a fabulous coincidence that the writer known only to Eusebius named in this passage happens to have the name of the Pope during Eusebius' time. My hypothesis explains the coincidence.

As far as Jerome not informing us that Eusebius was his source for "On Illustrious Men", I am afraid you are mistaken. Jerome tells us this fact in the first paragraph in his book.

Concerning Tertullian's thousands of citations, I was perhaps guilty of hyperbole. I did a quick sample of several of his works and based on that I estimate that Tertullian cites authors about five hundred times in his works. He never cites Irenaeus, Justin or Miltiades. He does reference Proculus once, as I mentioned.

Regarding the issue you raise about Tertullian seeming to portray Irenaeus in a good light in "Against Heresies," I am not sure what you are asking. I think you may be under the impression that Tertullian uses Irenaeus' name in "Against Heresies" In fact, no name appears in the document. It is only on the word of Eusebius that the document is assigned to Irenaeus.

What Eusebius wishes to do is make it seem that Tertullian has named Irenaeus as the author of "Against Heresies." In this way he can use Tertullian as a source for Eusebius' statement that Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies." There is a certain irony here that Eusebius is getting Tertullian to say that Against Heresies is the work of Irenaeus, when in reality it is the work of Tertullian and Eusebius.
Eusebius is robbing Tertullian of the credit and making it seem as if Tertullian is freely giving credit to Eusebius' invented Bishop Irenaeus. Eusebius can be quite clever in his forgeries.

Your last point about chiliasm is an excellent question. Tertullian is a chiliast and one of the ways we can identify him as the author of the original material in Against Heresies is by his Chiliastic visions at the end of the work. It is also noteworthy perhaps that Papias was also a chiliast.

It would be interesting to do a comprehensive survey on Eusebius' actual position on Chiliasm. He reveals that Papias was a Chiliast when he could have easily hidden the fact, so he apparently feels that there is no need to hide the fact that Second century Christians held the doctrine/s.

Only a study of Eusebius' position on Chiliasm would explain why he allows it to be kept unedited in "Against Heresies." I would be interested in seeing one.

Warmly.

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

All I can say is that I do not expect this. Tertullian is allowed to do so, of course, but to expect any author to do so is to introduce our own judgments where only those of the author himself matter in the slightest. Unless you can establish a trend from Tertullian himself.

The situation is not analogous. Tertullian is just listing (some of) those he feels have inspired him in regard to refuting heresies in writing.

Why is it a fabulous coincidence? It is a Greek name.

You are correct. He does.

Could you perhaps give a handful of these 500 or so citations and contrast them with how Tertullian introduces Irenaeus and Justin?

You wrote that it was natural for Tertullian to endorse a Montanist like Proclus, but unnatural for him to endorse Irenaeus and Justin. At the same time, you opined that Tertullian actually wrote the original draft of Against Heresies, the major work attributed to Irenaeus. If Tertullian can so agree with the ideas in Against Heresies that you think he is its author, how is it possible for you to simultaneously hold that he would not have endorsed an Irenaeus who had authored that text?

No, that is not my point at all.

And Justin. And Victorinus.

He detests it. He writes of Papias in History of the Church 3.39:

Σφοδρα γαρ τοι σμικρος ων τον νουν, ως αν εκ των αυτου λογων τεκμηραμενον ειπειν, φαινεται· πλην και τοις μετ αυτον πλειστοις οσοις των εκκλησιαστικων της ομοιας αυτω δοξης παραιτιος γεγονεν, την αρχαιοτητα τανδρος προβεβλημενοις, ωσπερ ουν Ειρηναιω, και ει τις αλλος τα ομοια φρονων αναπεφηνεν.

For indeed, that his mental capacity was very small, as is proven from his words, is apparent. But he also was responsible for so very many of the churchmen after him being of his same opinion, putting forward the antiquity of the man, like Irenaeus then, and any other if he has proclaimed that he thinks the same things.

Here he blames Papias for having led Irenaeus (and others) astray. Odd if Irenaeus is his own invention.

In the same passage Eusebius is at pains to explain that there were two church leaders named John mentioned by Papias, and in the process of explaining this he has to contradict, you guessed it, Irenaeus, who wrote as if Papias had mentioned only one. Again, odd if Eusebius invented Irenaeus.

If Papias existed, and if the other chiliasts of centuries I and II got their chiliasm in any measure from Papias (as Eusebius tells us and literary analyses confirm), there is no way Eusebius could have hidden the fact that Papias was a chiliast.

Your view, quite simply, has Eusebius manufacturing problems (Irenaeus was a chiliast, Irenaeus had only one disciple John instead of two) to solve.

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

Skeptics are not under any obligation to prove how the disciples died. If you have any non-Bibilical evidence how they died, please post it. If you have already posted it, please repost it.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

I am afraid I do not have time to respond to all points now. Let me just respond to two ones I consider most important and add an interesting new hypothesis.

I would be careful about how you label Eusebius' response to Chiliasm. Saying that he "detests" it is not quite what we find in the full section you quoted from. Here it is in another translation: (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm)

11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

Note that he does not say that chiliasm is completely wrong. It is based on a "misinterpretation" of things said by the apostles. He blames Papias for a literal rather than a mystical interpretation of apostolic accounts. So he admits that the chiliastic vision has its basis in the apostles.

I would like to know what else Eusebean says about the issue to see how it relates to the thesis that Eusebeus rewrote a work by Tertullian and gave credit to the ficitonal Bishop Irenaeus for it.

As far as samples of the way that Tertullian cites

To Scapula book II, chapter 1-2.
Add to this the fact that the apostle, with regard to widows and the unmarried, advises them to remain permanently in that state, when he says, "But I desire all to persevere in (imitation of) my example: "5 but touching marrying "in the Lord,"..."I wonder," said I, "whether they flatter themselves on the ground of that passage of the first (Epistle) to the Corinthians, where it is written: If any of the brethren has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to the matrimony, let him not dismiss her; similarly...
Against Hermogenes, chapter 2.
He begins with laying down the premiss,15 that the Lord made all things either out of Himself, or out of nothing, or out of something;...
chapter 19.
But I shall appeal to the original document188 of Moses, by help of which they on the other side vainly endeavour to prop up their conjectures, with the view, of course, of appearing to have the support of that authority which is indispensable in such an inquiry. They have found their opportunity, as is usual with heretics, in wresting the plain meaning of certain words. For instance the very beginning,189 when God made the heaven and the earth, they will construe as if it meant something substantial and embodied,190 to be regarded as Matter. We, however, insist on the proper signification of every word, and say that principium means beginning,
chapter 25
This, as everybody knows, is the name of one of the elements; for so we are taught by nature first, and afterwards by Scripture, except it be that credence must be given to that Silenus who talked so confidently in the presence of king Midas of another world, according to the account of Theopompus. But the same author informs us that there are also several gods.

chapter 29
For to this purport does David say:281 "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein: He hath rounded it upon the seas, and on the streams hath He established it.
chapter 32
Of the wind also Amos says, "He that strengtheneth the thunder334 , and createth the wind, and declareth His Christ unto men; "thus showing that that wind was created which was reckoned with the formation of the earth, which was wafted over the waters, balancing and refreshing and animating all things: not (as some suppose) meaning God Himself by the spirit, on the ground that "God is a Spirit," because the waters would not be able to bear up their Lord; but He speaks of that spirit of which the winds consist, as He says by Isaiah, "Because my spirit went forth from me, and I made every blas
chapter 44
The Stoics maintain that God pervaded Matter, just as honey the honeycomb.
Against Marcion
book 1 chapter 2.
The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to prove, i.e. his own god.

So Tertullian does cite often both the new testament and the old testment and Greek Philosophers, playwrites and heretics. There is simply no citation or reference to Irenaeus, Justin or Miltiades. Since Eusebius does cite and refer to all three, we have to consider that possibility that the singular reference to them in Tertullian's Ad Valentianus is an interpolation by Eusebius,

Now, before I forget, I would like to point out that many of the works of Tertullian follow a unique mirror-structure of argumentation. The second half reverses the first half. Now in "Against Heresies," we again find that mirror-structure, It is contained in the brilliant exposition of the chiliastic vision where the entire Hebrew History of the world is presented in a mirror-structure, where the second half is the exact reverse of the first half. This strongly suggests to me that Papias is either a creation of Tertullian or that Eusebius is again using Tertullian's work to create Papias. There is more I need to say about this, but I unfortunately do not have the time to go into it now.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay