Tertullian's Praescriptione = Irenaeus's προστάγμασι

[davidbrainerd]

I had this same suspicion or thought when I saw Tertullian's name.

In the early twentieth century there was actually a controversy about whether Florinus was in fact Florens Tertullianus of Carthage. See A. Baumstark, "Die Baumstark, A.: "Die Lehre des romischen Presbyter Florinus." ZNTW(1912): 306-319. https://books.google.com/books?id=rpOMa ... 22&f=false

It is a very curious development given the relationship between Irenaeus and Florinus on the one hand and Irenaeus and Tertullian on the other.

Supposedly Florinus' theology was Marcionite-like, so what would this mean? In Adversus Marcionem instead of Tert vs Marcion its Irenaeus vs Florinus? Something obvious that alludes you: Irenaeus is not as entertaining of a writer as Tert, lacks the sarcastic capacity.

[Secret Alias]

So Tertullian added that. What is so complicated here? Do you even understand that concept that is being discussed here? Purity is like this: I was born a beautiful flower and no man defiled me. Corruption is like: I was born a beautiful flower and a man corrupted me. Why can you only operate in terms of absolute purity and absolute verbatim copying? I keep saying that the situation is like Against the Valentinians and nothing sinks in. Is Against the Valentinians a verbatim fucking copy of Irenaeus? Life is like that. You don't get absolute certainty. Tertullian added things to Irenaeus's fucking original text. But do we know whether he used Adversus Haereses 1 or a text that was layered on top of an already existing heretical compendium as Lampe and others suspect. But these are discussions that can only 'work' with interested parties all trying to work together to create a better understanding of antiquity. Do you understand any of this? No and you never will. This too much a waste of my time. I live in a stupid country but I don't have to participate in a stupid forum. Bye.

[Secret Alias]

I will be taking this discussion to my blog for those interested in the near future. No point trying to create art sitting down in the middle of a heavily trafficked way. Thanks.

[davidbrainerd]

So Tertullian added that. ... Tertullian added things to Irenaeus's fucking original text.

Which is precisely what you've been arguining AGAINST up to this point. You said Tertullian verbatim copied texts from Irenaeus. You even said Tertullian = Irenaeus.

But do we know whether he used Adversus Haereses 1 or a text that was layered on top of an already existing heretical compendium as Lampe and others suspect. But these are discussions that can only 'work' with interested parties all trying to work together to create a better understanding of antiquity. Do you understand any of this? No and you never will. This too much a waste of my time.

You don't have to change accepted authorship to "create a better understanding of antiquity." Its pretty obvious. You had Marcionites, Valrntinians, etc. Irenaeus comes along and builds something in response to them. Tert builds on Irenaeus. You get Catholicism. You don't have to make Tert into Irenaeus to make this work.

I live in a stupid country but I don't have to participate in a stupid forum. Bye.

Regardless where you live or which party is in power you'll see Irenaeus in them, thus always will be unhappy. Hilary, Obama, Trump, Theresa May, Merkel, Kim jon Un = Irenaeus per Huller logic, so every country is stupid.

[andrewcriddle]

One of the reasons why no one else has explicitly stated that Tertullian copied Irenaeus's προστάγμασι is that no one takes Cyril seriously. They take the reference as a corrupt reference to Against the Heresies (ignoring the προστάγμασι).

The full title of his work was A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. V. c. 7). Cyril’s expression (ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασι) is sufficiently appropriate to the hortatory purpose professed by Irenæus in his preface. But the Benedictine Editor thinks that the word προστάγμασι may be an interpolation arising from the following words πρὸς τὰς.…The meaning would then be “in his writings Against Heresies,” the usual short title of the work.

One problem here is that Cyril is using Irenaeus' work as evidence of false teachings about the Holy Spirit by heretics. This would work for Against Heresies which does contain such material but not for an original version of the Prescription which does not discuss this issue.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2017/ ... naeus.html

[Secret Alias]

This would work for Against Heresies which does contain such material but not for an original version of the Prescription which does not discuss this issue.

As noted above I do not find this argument in Book One of Against Heresies. Perhaps you are a better locator of these things than I. The beginning of arguments on behalf of Cyril's copy of Irenaeus's Prescriptions Against Heresies being related to Tertullian's Prescription Against Heresies:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2017/ ... aeuss.html

[Secret Alias]

This from Catechetical Lecture 5:

Wait a little, and you will be shocked at his impiety; for he asserts that of this Bythus were begotten eight Æons; and of them, ten; and of them, other twelve, male and female. But whence is the proof of these things? See their silliness from their fabrications. Whence have you the proof of the thirty Æons? Because, says he, it is written, that Jesus was baptized, being thirty years old. Luke 3:23 But even if He was baptized when thirty years old, what sort of demonstration is this from the thirty years? Are there then five gods, because He broke five loaves among five thousand? Or because he had twelve Disciples, must there also be twelve gods?

is from Book Two of Against Heresies.

[Secret Alias]

Another argument that Cyril can't be referencing Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2017/ ... rence.html

[davidbrainerd]

"Was Tertullian's Prescription Against Heresies Derived from Irenaeus's Prescriptions Against Heresies?"

Is Catholic doctrine on the local level derived from the doctrine of the Vatican hierarchy?

You're trying to prove the obvious (which requires little to no proof), and then press it to support something absurd (and beyond proof). Its stupid.

For instance: Because Catholic doctrine on the local level IS derived from the doctrine of the Vatican hierarchy, THEREFORE the local priest added/changed nothing.

Really?