Vinnie

Useful to the topic under consideration.

Vinnie

Hello Philosopher Jay.

Interesting point on Irenaeus. If I were attempting to locate Irenaeus chronologically without knowing whether he came before or after Tertullian I would certainly include your point. I would mention it and say is it possible this author was referencing the work of Tertullian who specifically wanted to show how Marcion's own gospel refuted his own views and published a detailed exposition of it? The first thing I do if I am unfamiliar with the rationale for dating a text is go to Peter Kirby's site. You will find this quote from the ABD:

"Irenaeus' major extant writing is the Adversus Haereses (the full title of which is the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called). Its composition is dated ca. 180 from the succession lists in which the author names Eleutherus (ca. 174 - ca. 189) as current bishop of Rome (Haer. 3.3.3), although it seems from remarks Irenaeus makes in the prefaces to Haer. 3 and 4 that he followed the practice of sending on the separate books of the work as they were completed."

Of course this opens up the question of dating Eleutherus, something that should be done in order to be thorough. But this may provide a solid confirmation of the tradition date. As for other insights, we know he comes after Polycarp but reports to have heard him in his youth. This can narrow our limits but probably not as much as the succession of lists mentioned above. He post-dates Marcion, et al. Then there is Eusebius's comments on Irenaeus and other insights possibly gleaned through reading AH itself (who is still alive, what gospels are being used where, etc, how does this compare with other writings from the time period?).

New advent lists a number of potentially datable facts about Irenaeus: "During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. "

We would have to analyze all the relevant literature to see if any of this holds water.

First let it be noted, I have no issues with the possibility of Irenaeus writing in 205 after Tertullians anti-Marcion work. It is a simple question of what the evidence tells us. It seems that there are some sound reasons for placing the work in the late 2nd century, however.

At any rate, on to your example:

This does not indicate Irenaeus knew Tertullian's work when he wrote what he did. Marcion started a church which rivaled the "orthodox" Christian church for a long time. By the time Justin Martyr wrote Marcion already had a substantial following. What has to be noted is that Marcion did not completely truncate the gospel. All references to the Old Testament were not removed. Tertullian even mentions this and claims he left them there so that others would not think he removed the ones he did! He was, in other words, according to Tertullian, a master truncator-forger who tried to quietly excise the gospel. I think there was then a common stream of thought that the gospel refuted itself since many of the elements it tried to excise were still plainly contained in it.

Irenaeus simply made a comment about it. Tertullian probably exists within this stream of thought and wants to demonstrate it conclusively. The more logical connection would have been Irenaeus mntioning Tertullian's work, not vice versa. For exmple, he could have said, "the gospel refutes itself as demonstrated thoroughly by Tertullian". This seems more likely, since Tertullian left behind a whole work aimed precisely at this goal as compared to an expectation that Tertullian would cite the one passage mentioned by Irenaeus noted above--which may have been a common view to begin with.

The nature of Marcions sloppy editing, which still retained many Jewish and Old Testament elements would be known to all reading it. It seems more likely this idea originated shortly after Marcion's gospel was scrutinezed and discussed by the "orthodox" crowd.

Its possible but there does not seem to be any solid data for this. Can you point to any studies on the too coincidental similarities of writing, vocabulary style, etc, of Irenaeus and Tertullian indicating they are the same person? All you have is motive for one ancient author to do something but that is not an argument. Some solid textual arguments would enhance your suggestion. I see no reason on the basis of present evidence and examination of Ireneaus to accept this claim, however.

At any rate, I mentioned specifics of Marcion's gospel and there are notorious difficulties with reconstructing it. I recommend:

Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel, David Salter Williams, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 477-496.

Vinnie

Vinnie

In the preface: 'I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them)'

Marcus mentioned in present tense.

Post Tatian and Justin:

A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin’s, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible Æons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication.

1. Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that “he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

It almost looks like Marcion is given in the present tense but that would probably be too early and going back to the original language would be required....

aa5874

With all due respect, you must be joking.

My post is extremely relevant.

The information found in Against Heresies about the canon including the Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was written after the death of Irenaeus, if he ever lived, or after 170 CE. All the characters, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are 1st century fiction. They wrote nothing as disciples of Jesus, or as followers of Peter and Paul.

There is no corroborative evidence to support the claim that there were characters called Matthew and John who were disiples of Jesus. There is no external source to support the claim that Matthew or John, supposed disciples, witnessed any event written in the Gospels attributed to them.

And, it is totally unrealistic that Matthew and John could have been disciples of Jesus and still produce two fundamentally different characters.

There was no need for a canon with four different Gospel stories until the Roman Church was being established around the 4th century.

It is not feasible, theologically and for historical purposes, for a sect of Jesus believers to have in their possession four contradictoty and non-harmonised stories about Jesus and still use all four versions simultaneously.

Even the writer Irenaeus showed that a sect would invariably have a single version of the Jesus story. According to Irenaeus, The Ebionites used gMatthew, the Valetinians used John, another used gLuke and some other sect used gMark.

Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 3.11.7 There were over 15 sects mentioned in Irenaeus "Against Heresies" and there is no indication that any of these sects used mutiple versions of the Jesus stories.

Chaucer

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, although I'm not positive as to how central this may be: Isn't it striking that Irenaeus here lists the Gospels in precisely the inverse order of the modern scholarly chronology? Coincidence? Or could it be that he's consciously adopting a listing that prioritizes what he knows to be the latest first rather than prioritizing the earliest like most?

Just a thought,

Chaucer

Vinnie

Interesting thought but it looks anachronistic.

Irenaeus's stated order is: [ AH Book 3 Chapter 1]

Matthew -- Mark -- Luke -- John.

If Irenaeus was going with latest to earliest in his view we would have
John, Luke, Mark Matthew, not
John -- Luke -- Matthew--Mark.

I think one of two solutions is probable here. Irenaeus was not concerned with the order or Skeat is correct in that it comes from another source.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

I am sorry guys, but this argument for an earlier date for the quadraform gospel does not support the conclusion. It should be obvious that Ireneus is the innovator from all the other dubious fourfold "proofs."

Neither the Apocalyspe nor Ezekiel links the four "living creatures" to the four evagelists. And if Irenaeus, for sake of argument, did use an intermediate text that "starting from the vision of Ezekiel, went on to discuss the Apocalypse, with verbal quotations, and perhaps offering some explanation for the differing order there," that hypothetical intermediate text did not necessarily discuss the four evangelists either.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

Vinnie

Irenaeus provides the terminus ad quem of the four-fold gospel. Using Stark's numbers there may have been over 100,000 Christians by 180 C.E. Irenaeus certainly represents the views and beliefs of many of them but he is only one writer. It is by no means clear or obvious to me that he is the originator of four-fold gospel. Don't think that a paucity of written material and a paucity of surviving written material from this era indicates there was not a growing, diverse, widespread and vibrant Christian population in existence.

[Stark, Cities of God, pg. 67 utilizing 3.4% rate of growth with 1,000 in 40 C.E. a a starting point]

Vinnie

spamandham

There are 24 possible sequences of the 4 gospels. The probability that Ireneaus would get it exactly backward from the chronological order is 1 in 23...not completely implausible, but low odds indeed.

Vinnie

I just caught this, you might want to revise the statement that Ezekial does not link the four "living creatures" with the four evangelists since it is quite obvious to virtually everyone that they did not exist when Ezekial was written and no one argues that.

The point you appear to miss is that if there is an intermediate text is it necessitated on the basis of the Western Order apparent in Irenaeus alleged garbling along with some peculiar textual elements. Its existence is argued on the basis that it does link the evangelists in an apparently meaningful order.

I don't agree with Skeat on this being demonstrated "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The order has me thinking maybe more probable than not.

The connection between Daniel and Apocalypse is obvious but why both are used in Irenaeus's account when the details of the Apocalypse don't fit, when coupled with the linguistic order and the emergence of the Western order found in the Chester Beatty Papyrus I, seem to push me towards favoring this proposition. I am not sure what it is, or if Skeat figured it out, it just looks like something is wrong here. I suppose it equally likely Irenaeus just conflated details of the Apocalypse with Ezekial from which it was drawn...