Toto

Chili digression and resulting conversation split here

Solo

So if you don't (or didn't) why do (or did) you argue with Doug that it is not a "belief" ?

Jiri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I think you are absoultely right. Vague talk about traditions gets us nowhere. We need to look at the actual text.

I counted 84 references to Peter in the works we now attitribute to Tertullian.
79 of these references are to words or actions easily found in the New Testament. Only five references are to things associated with Peter from outside the NT. Four references are to Peter's death and there is one reference to Mark being the disciple of Peter. These five non-new testament reference are contained in three works: The Prescription Against Heretics, Against Marcion and Scorpiace

Here are the five non-NT reference to Peter.

1. Reference to Peter’s Death: The Prescription Against Heretics (24)

I have not the good fortune, or, as I must rather say, I have not the unenviable task, of setting apostles by the ears. [2] But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavillers obtrude the rebuke in question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier doctrine into suspicion, I will put in a defence, as it were, for Peter, to the effect that even Paul said that he was "made all things to all men—to the Jews a Jew," to those who were not Jews as one who was not a Jew—"that he might gain all."[3] Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too had censured Paul, because, whilst forbidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. [4] Never mind those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom.

2. Reference to Peter’s Death: The Prescription Against Heretics (36)

[1] Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones381 of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,382 in which their own authentic writings383 are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. [2] Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy,384 you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).385 [3] How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!

3. Reference to Peter’s Death: Scorpiace (15)

Now, then, the epistles of the apostles also are well known. And do we, (you say), in all respects guileless souls and doves merely, love to go astray? I should think from eagerness to live. But let it be so, that meaning departs from their epistles. And yet, that the apostles endured such sufferings, we know: the teaching is clear. This only I perceive in running through the Acts. I am not at all on the search. The prisons there, and the bonds, and the scourges, and the big stones, and the swords, and the onsets by the Jews, and the assemblies of the heathen, and the indictments by tribunes, and the hearing of causes by kings, and the judgment-seats of proconsuls and the name of Caesar, do not need an interpreter. That Peter is struck, that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones, that James is slain as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom. Wherever I read of these occurrencer so soon as I do so, I learn to suffer; nor does it signify to me which I follow as teachers of martyrdom, whether the declarations or the deaths of the apostles, save that in their deaths I recall their declarations also. For they would not have suffered ought of a kind they had not previously known they had to suffer. When Agabus, making use of corresponding action too, had foretold that bonds awaited Paul, the disciples, weeping and entreating that he would not venture upon going to Jerusalem, entreated in vain. As for him, having a mind to illustrate what he had always taught, he says, "Why weep ye, and grieve my heart? But for my part, I could wish not only to suffer bonds, but also to die at Jerusalem, for the name of my Lord Jesus Christ."

4. Reference to Peter’s Death:Against Marcion (IV.5)

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. [2] We have also St. John's foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.


5. Reference to Peter’s Disciple Mark: Against Marcion (4.5.1)

It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own----as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage----I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew----whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul

What is striking to me is that their is nothing said in the entire extensive oeuvre of Tertullian that is not orthodox. The two hypostheses to explain this is that 1) the orthodox church was established by the early 200's when Tertullian wrote and he followed the teachings of the orthodox church very closely or 2) All of Tertullian's works were subject to censorship where sentences that did not present an orthodox interpretation of Peter were exorcised or corrected.

Perhaps the first thing to notice is that all five references are really parenthetical to the arguments being made. In each case, the same argument can stand exacting as it is without the Peter references. This is only partially true of the reference to Mark being the interpreter of Peter. If we cut this out, the text appears to tell us that the Church has only three gospels, John, Matthew and Luke.

One may hyposthesize that this was the original text. It mentioned only the three gospels of John, Matthew and Luke. In order to maintain the idea that the Church always had four Gospels, it was necessary to mention Mark and to link Mark to Peter. It should be noted that except for a brief reference earlier in the same book, there is no mention of the Gospel author Mark in any other book by Tertullian.

I would suggest that the reference to Peter here is an interpolation to hide the fact that Tertullian only knew of three gospels.

The next thing to notice is that Peter's death is always mentioned alongside Paul's death. In the four remaining non-NT references, their deaths are links. This suggests that there is no independent story of Peter dying.

The word "blood" is used in all three texts and associated with the deaths of Peter and Paul:

1. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John'
2. Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship
3. what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.

The fourth reference uses the term "glory" It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom.

The use of the terms "blood" and "glory" would associate the martyrdoms with a rhetorical tradition as opposed to an historical or narrative tradition. Although it does not exclude the possibility of an historical or narrative tradition.

The first blood reference in Against Marcion is interesting:

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), [B]to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.

The beginning of the sentence mentions only the works of Paul and not the epistles of Peter. This suggests that the orginal sentence may have only mentioned Paul. Here is what I conjecture the original sentence by Tertullian read:

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near to whom Paul bequeathed the epistle even sealed with his own blood.

The original term "his own blood," did not refer to his own death, but simply to the blood spilt in the various punishment he suffers which Paul reminds us of in his epistle to the Romans. The orthodox editor saw the term blood and saw a chance to link Peter and Paul and Rome and changed the term "epistle" which referred to the Epistle to the Romans to gospels, although obviously one would seal an epistle and not a gospel.

The most interesting reference tis the one in Scorpiace.

And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom. Wherever I read of these occurrencer so soon as I do so, I learn to suffer; nor does it signify to me which I follow as teachers of martyrdom, whether the declarations or the deaths of the apostles, save that in their deaths I recall their declarations also. For they would not have suffered ought of a kind they had not previously known they had to suffer. When Agabus, making use of corresponding action too, had foretold that bonds awaited Paul, the disciples, weeping and entreating that he would not venture upon going to Jerusalem, entreated in vain.

Here is the only place where we are dealing with something more than a parenthetical expression. (It is the last paragraph of Scorpiace, so it could have easily been added). The paragraph refers us to a "public record" probably Suetonius' the Lives of the Caesars' However, we know that there are presently no references to Paul and Peter's deaths in that work. It is possible that the editor was planning on adding it those works, but, for some reason, it never happened.

But even here there are only references to the gospel of john 21.10 and Acts (21). There is no reference to traditions outside the New Testament. We would expect that if Tertullian had actually read something in Suetonius, he would not be deriving it from the New Testament.

All in all, I believe these passages support the hypothesis that Tertullian's works have undergone strict orthodox censorship and the present state of the text does not support the existence of an independent tradition regarding the death of Peter.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Since, it seems that the text of Tertullian has been censored so that it only says about Peter: 1) words and actions from the New Testament, 2) Mark was the interpreter and follower of Peter and 3) Peter died in Rome with Paul, we might compare this to what the author of "Against Heresies", alledgedly a Bishop Irenaeus living in Lyon, Gaul has to say about Peter.

The text contains 50 references to Peter. Of the 50, 47 concern words and actions found in the New Testament. The following three references concern information from outside the New Testament. All are from Book III:

(III.1.1)
For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, 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. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.


(III.3.2.)
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.


(III.10.5)

5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way.


Thus, outside of the New Testament, this text tells us only 1) Peter died in Rome and 2) Mark was the interpreter and follower of Peter when he wrote his gospel.

Notice also the remarkable coincidence of the use of words and phrase between those found in Tertullian and those found in this work.

Against Heretics (24) It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom.
Against Heresies (III.3.2) universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

Against Marcion (4.5.1) that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was
Against Heresies (III.1.1) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

The claim that these two works were published by two different authors, one living in North Africa and the other living in France and that both independently and accidentally would make such identical statement and only such identical statements regarding Peter is quite incredible.

What this demonstrates is that the same editor edited/censored both texts supposedly by Tertullian and Irenaeus to provide us with these extra-New Testament traditions about Peter.

Neither the text we have by Tertullian nor Irenaeus provide us with any evidence that there was ever a tradition independent of the Roman Catholic Church of Eusebius' time regarding the death of Peter in Rome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Who makes this claim? That is, who claims that Tertullian wrote these things independently of Irenaeus, or indeed that the agreement is accidental?

It seems likely to me that Tertullian got them from Irenaeus in the first place.

M. T. Riley writes in his dissertation:

Parenthetically, it is clear that T[ertullian] had a detailed knowledge of Irenaeus' work, for he also cites or quotes Irenaeus in Adv. Marc. 1 and often in De an. Irenaeus seems to have been practically the entire source of T[ertullian]'s knowledge of the various heretical schools.

How do you eliminate the obvious option that Tertullian simply got these traditions from Irenaeus in the first place?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

seems to indicate that Paul was put to death by the authorities.

The passage about Peter immediately before is vaguer but probably should be interpreted in the same sense particularly since the statements about Peter and Paul are followed by an account of other Christians being tortured for their faith presumably by the authorities.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Excellent question. It was a pleasure looking at Riley's excellent dissertation which I have not read in five or six years since I first starting researching the question of the relationship of Tertullian to the Against Heresies text. It is a difficult problem which can only be solved really with an examination of all texts attributed to Tertullian and Irenenaeus, not to mention all texts by Eusebius' as well.

First, we should note that Riley's hypothesis regarding the relationship of Irenaeus and Tertullian is based primary on the relationships he finds betweenAgainst Heresies and Tertullian's work adversus Valentiniainos. Because he is primary interested in translating Adversus Valentinianos His conclusions are primarily limited to what he finds in the relationship between these two texts. In fact, note that most of his examples come just from book 1 of Against Heresies.

The quote you give is extremely relevant to the issue at hand.

Parenthetically, it is clear that T[ertullian] had a detailed knowledge of Irenaeus' work, for he also cites or quotes Irenaeus in Adv. Marc. 1 and often in De an. Irenaeus seems to have been practically the entire source of T[ertullian]'s knowledge of the various heretical schools.

In fact, Riley appears to be basing the idea that Tertullian "cites or quotes" Irenaeus on something he read in Waszink, De Anima, pp. 45*-46. This is the evidence he gives for the statement in footnote 24. Actually, this is incorrect, Tertullian never cites Irenaeus.

There is only one mention of Irenaeus throughout Tertullian's massive corpus. It is, in fact from ad Valetinianos.

My exposition will be limited to the original teachings of
their chief teachers; it will not include the high-flying
leaders of the mass of followers. I hope no one will say
(because of this limitation) that I have invented this mater-
ial for the occasion. No indeed, many men who were renowned
for their holiness and their leadership, who were not only
our predecessors but also contemporaries of those very her-
esiarchs, have exposed and refuted them in learned volumes.
I refer to Justin, philosopher and martyr, Miltiades, that
churchly sage, Irenaeus, an eager discoverer of all doc-
trines, and our own Proculus, the living exemplar of a chaste
old age and of Christian eloquence. In their footsteps I
might hope to follow in all works of faith, just as I do in
this work.
Now if in reality there are no heresies at all (as you must
believe if you assume those who refuted them invented them),
the apostle who predicted them lied. But if in fact they do
exist, they were none other than those which were examined
by these men; no one can be considered to have enough leisure
to invent material for his pen when he already has it at hand.

Note that Irenaeus is not given the title of Bishop, nor does it say that he is writing from Gaul. One would expect that the title of Bishop would be important to mention. This is the only place where Tertullian mentions Irenaeus. More curious still about this passage is that it is the only place that Tertullian (that Martyr lover) mentions Justin Martyr. How strange is it that apparently Tertullian is praising and claiming to copy the works of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and yet in all Tertullian's 31 attributed works where we find thousands of citations, there is not one citation of either of them. nor is there a single citation of that "Saintly Sage" Militiades.
There is a single mention of a Christian named Proculus in Tertullian's to Scapula
(IV) where he says,"Even Severus himself, the father of Antonine, was graciously mindful of the Christians; for he sought out the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euhodias, and in gratitude for his having once cured him by anointing, he kept him in his palace till the day of his death." Note that he does not mention here that this Proculus ever wrote anything, let alone quote from him.

So we have to ask again why Tertullian who cites constantly in his works, never cites anything from the four Christian authors whom this passage tells us he has read and wants to "follow in their footsteps?"

We then get something quite strange in this passage, a protestation against the charge of forgery:

Now if in reality there are no heresies at all (as you must believe if you assume those who refuted them invented them),
the apostle who predicted them lied. But if in fact they do exist, they were none other than those which were examined
by these men; no one can be considered to have enough leisure to invent material for his pen when he already has it at hand.

Shades of Mountain Man! The suggestion has been made that the heresies have been forged. The strange answer is 1) This would make the apostle who predicted them a liar and 2) I don't have that much leisure time to invent them, so I use what I find at hand.

Now, for a number of years I held the position that Tertullian had forged the works of Irenaeus. It was only after I started understanding the extensive nature of Eusebean's forgeries that I felt that I had been mistaken. Tertullian was a brilliant rhetorician and never had need to resort to forgeries.

Nor did he plagiarize Irenaeus' work as Riley hypothesizes. The relationship of Tertullian to Ireneaus is explained by the hypothesis that the original parts of the work that we now call Against Heresies are simply an early draft of Tertullian's Greek works. When Tertullian puts these identical words into later works like adversus Valentinianos, he is simply reproducing his own words. Therefore he has no need or reason to cite Ireneaus. He could not have know that about 100 years later, Eusebius would take these Tertullian Greek texts and rewrite them and attach the name of the imaginary Bishop Irenaeus to them.

Since this passage talks about forgery and I believe that forgery is never far from the work or thoughts of Eusebius, I wondered if this passage naming Miliades, Justin Martyr, Proculus and Irenaeus could be a forgery too.


How Eusebius uses the works of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus is too well known and obvious to go into. Militiades just happens to be the name of the Pope who ruled from 311-314, the time of Eusebius. Eusebius does not mention Proculus as a contemporary of Tertullian, but does mention Proclus as being a famous contemporary of Tertullian. When we turn to that passage we see amazingly directly before it, a passage relating to Peter and Paul's death. And even more amazingly we find one of Eusebius' most well known interpolated passages from Tertullian. Here is the text:

4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows:
“Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.”

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church who arose under Zepherynus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy...

The Phrygian heresy is the Montanist heresy. Tertullian was a Montanist. It makes sense for Tertullian to be mentioning Proclus/Proculus as the "living exemplar of a chaste old age and of Christian eloquence." But it does not make sense for him to be mentioning Irenaeus and Justin Martyr (and never quote them in any of his works). I would suggest that most probably the passage contained Tertullian debt to his fellow Montanist Proculus and therefore Eusebius felt it needed to be changed. Here is a reconstruction of the original passage, followed by Eusebius' additions.

My exposition will be limited to the original teachings of their chief teachers; it will not include the high-flying
leaders of the mass of followers. I hope no one will say (because of this limitation) that I have invented this mater-
ial for the occasion. I have used the works of our own Proculus, the living exemplar of a chaste old age and of Christian eloquence. In his footsteps I might hope to follow in all works of faith, just as I do in this work...

Eusebius is responsble for:

No indeed, many men who were renowned for their holiness and their leadership, who were not only
our predecessors but also contemporaries of those very heresiarchs, have exposed and refuted them in learned volumes.
I refer to Justin, philosopher and martyr, Miltiades, that churchly sage, Irenaeus, an eager discoverer of all doctrines,

Now if in reality there are no heresies at all (as you must believe if you assume those who refuted them invented them),
the apostle who predicted them lied. But if in fact they do exist, they were none other than those which were examined
by these men; no one can be considered to have enough leisure to invent material for his pen when he already has it at hand.

So in answer to the question of why cannot simply accept that Tertullian copied Irenaeus, we have to say that the immediate objection is that Tertullian never quotes his esteemed colleague and we can find no reason for him to practice plagiarism in this case, especially when these words cited as coming from an esteemed Bishop would have reinforced his own authority.
The long answer is that all pre-Eusebean Christian text has to be seen in the light of Eusebean forgery and Roman Catholic preservation/censorship. Only this gives us an accurate picture of the transmission of the text.

As far as who says that Irenaeus and Tertullian are independent sources for the death of Peter, the article on Peter in Wikipedia, for one, cites Irenaeus and Tertullian as independent sources for his death. Dozens of other Christian websites that I have visited also do this.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

How so? What do you think Clement would probably have written if Paul had died of natural causes after testifying before the rulers?

Solo

IIUC, in both instances the interpretation hinges on what the writer understood marturia of the apostles to convey. Is it "witness" in the sense of giving a true account of Christ regardless of consequences, or is it "martyrdom" in the later sense of voluntarily suffering (or even seeking) death for one's beliefs ?
It may seem like hair-splitting but I don't think it is. I have the distinct impression that for the earliest Christians "the imitatio" of Christ's suffering did not include death since Christ's death was hugely symbolical, singular, preemptive act of atonement. Paul was already crucified to the world, and dead to sin in Christ. No need for him to recast his existential metaphor into terms of extreme literalism !

I have also noted the legend of Peter's request to be crucified upside down. Wherever this tradition originated, it seems to know that the death of Jesus was a unique act of God's will and leery of trespass on that score.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

I think the passage implies that Paul's death followed rapidly his testimony and/or was related to it.

In the context of the passage as a whole this appears suspicious.

Andrew Criddle