spamandham

If the gospels were the result of a catholicizing movement, and if they congealed by the latter 2nd century at the latest, then proto-orthodoxy would have existed by the early 3rd century.

But, I find this idea specious in light of the Nag Hammadi. The idea that orthodoxy existed prior to Constantine is anachronistic, and so it does indeed seem odd that an early 3rd century Christian would discuss Christian heresy.

mountainman

One viable explanation is that the orthodox post Nicaean reporters retrojected the heretics into their accounts of the past in order to downplay the religious, social and political controversy that the Nicaean implementation of orthodoxy immediately precipitated. Logic and evidence both mitigate to the appearance of heretics after the Nicaean orthodoxy. In fact there appears to be an explosion of evidence confirming the turbulent appearance of all forms of anti-orthodox heretics under the banner of the Arian controversy. The problem again is that the 5th century continuators of the Ecclesiastical history commenced by Eusebius harmonized and misrepresented and DOWNPLAYED the Arian controversy, by removing the social and political ingedients (eg: via damnatio memoriae) and making a show piece of the religious or theological aspects.

If we examine the Arian controversy carefully and impartially we will see that it was also related to the preservation of various heretical books, by various sects --- as asserted by the orthodox accounts. The Nag Hammadi haul is critical here. The simple explanation is that these "heretical books" were in fact the Greek versions of the scattered "Gnostic Gospels and Acts", which were written in seditious competition for popularity over and against those books Constantine published as "orthodox".

The classic and most recent archaeological find - the Gospel of Judas - is an example of 4th century anti-orthodox "heretical" literature. It is dated by C14 within bounds to the epoch immediately after Nicaea, yet the insidious mention of it by "Irenaeus" is being used as "evidence" to conjecture that gJudas was authored well before Nicaea. In this sense, I believe the mainstream world is being led astray by the attestations of orthodox heresiologists, and that the true history of the "Heretical and Gnostic resistance" to orthodox christianity immediately following Nicaea is not being recognised, even though this is the precise time any logical person would expect the "heresies" to commence in rebellious earnestness, against the "orthodox revolution".

avi

Thanks to both of you, excellent points.
I am slightly familiar with Nag Hammadi texts, emphasis on slight, as in, ok, I don't know anything at all, except the name of the place in Egypt, plus this reference to books I haven't read:
http://www.gnostic-jesus.com/
by scholars of some renown.

So then, wholly in ignorance, I humbly request a two line clarification of this idea: Orthodoxy could not have existed prior to Nicea, because the texts excavated at Nag Hammadi reveal that ............

Thanks again for these very instructive posts, MM and S&H.
fascinating, at least to me....
Well, what about the other possibility? Maybe the tampering with "Irenaeus" did not stop with the death of Constantine/Eusebius.....
What if Eusebius' works also were "interpolated"? Or, what if fifth and sixth century guys decided that there was no justification for only fourth century folks having all the fun, and decided to make some changes to "Irenaeus" themselves? Again, same problem:
which text does one point to, for clarity on the issue of the original writings by "Irenaeus"?

In other words, how do we know, with confidence, that AH as it exists today, (including the text that Jesus was 50 years old at the time of his death) reflects "Irenaeus" ' original penmanship?

Do you mean that the same incorrect statement about Jesus' age being in his 50's at the time of his death is also found in Epiphanius' and Hippolytus' and Tertullian's account of AH? In other words, is it only Eusebius who fails to mention this discrepancy? What about Jerome and Augustine?

Quite a few words to look up, here, DCH!!!

haha.

Wow.

Umm, may I humbly suggest that it appears to me, that you, Jay, and Andrew are discussing AH, as though some edition, of our extant writings, (from which you gathered up this mythological nonsense about pleroma's and aeons, as if discussing quarks, hadrons and mesons) represented "Irenaeus" ' actual thinking, and not some 4th, 5th, or 6th century forger's writing....

avi

spamandham

I wouldn't say a proto-orthodoxy *couldn't* have existed in the early 3rd century, it just seems like an anachronism. What's revealed by the Nag Hammadi, generally dated to the 3rd/4th century, is that Christian ideas were extremely diverse in that time period.

Further, it is generally accepted that though the manuscripts date to the 3rd/4th century, that the original texts probably date to the 1st/2nd century. If so, then these diverse ideas existed since the dawn of Christianity and still existed at least 100 years later than Irenaeus. That doesn't automatically preclude a gradually dominating orthodoxy in parallel, but it does strike a blow to the traditional idea that orthodoxy had been established by the 2nd century.

For example, Wicca has been around for about 80 years now. We are starting to see a kind of proto-orthodoxy via lineaged Wiccans and several how-to books, but the concept of Wiccan heretics is absurd. For orthodoxy to take root, you need a central authority to enforce it. It's possible that Christian leaders did have political power, and if so, then orthodoxy could have risen. But I don't see how you can have orthodoxy without a means of enforcing it - and without that, the kind of intolerance to "heresy" we see in Irenaeus just doesn't exist.

avi

Thank you for this post, S&H, well done. informative.

Here's a quote:

It's that word "probably" (which I highlighted, above), that causes concern here.

I am looking for EVIDENCE that the manuscripts date from the 3rd/4th centuries, and I appreciate that there has been some C14 analysis, which puts them in that approximate time frame. I also understand, and do not dispute the notion, that these manuscripts were buried, to conceal them from the furnaces of Athanasius (late 4th century).

However, I find it impossible to accept, on mere hearsay, that the manuscripts of Nag Hammadi, represent duplicate copies of documents originally penned in the 1st and 2nd centuries....

I require something more than "according to the experts...".

Instead of writing "probably", one can imagine, a more neutral term such as "possibly", in which case, I will still protest, where's the evidence?

More to the point: you cite the evidence from Nag Hammadi, to illustrate the absence of central Roman authority dictating Heretical passages, ideas, and constructs.

There is also the work of Celsus, known today only by the writings of Origen, attempting to refute Celsus. Celsus' claim was that Christianity at that time, the same era as "Irenaeus", was filled with fractitious sects.

So, then, the question arises: was AH written to consolidate those sects? Was it successful?

avi

aa5874

But, based on "Church History", Eusebius used or mentioned "Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" OVER forty times and ACTUALLY quoted a part of the VERY chapter 22 of BOOK 2 where "Irenaeus" claimed Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion.

It is EXTREMELY important to recognise that FACT.

It would appear that Eusebius was AWARE of the 22nd Chapter of BOOK 2 of "Against Heresies".

But, what does one tend to BELIEVE when they read "Against Heresies"?

They tend to BELIEVE it was NOT written by Eusebius.

Well, perhaps that is EXACTLY what Eusebius wanted PEOPLE to believe.

Can anyone name Irenaeus' sources for his "HISTORY" of the Church up to the BISHOP called ELEUTHERIUS, the bishop of the time of Irenaeus.

I can't find ONE single source BEFORE Irenaeus who had a list of bishops of the Church of Rome.

Eusebius needed the list of Bishops of Rome to PROVE without doubt that the Church under CONSTANTINE was the TRUE CHURCH of GOD.

It was NOT by coincidence, by chance, that Eusebius found the list of Bishops of Rome that started with a FICTITIOUS character called the apostle Peter, the ROCK of the Church.

Eusebius could NOT have made it known that it he HIMSELF wrote the LIST of Bishops of Rome.

And Eusebius found the list in "Against Heresies"2.22 that was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have written.

No way could Eusebius have written "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Never ever. Impossible, Impossible, Impossible.......

Eusebius could NEVER EVER write Jesus was fifty years old at crucifixion

Well, that was what Eusebius would have liked people to believe if he himself did INVENT the list of Bishops of Rome in "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Now, Eusebius, the "HISTORIAN" of the Church under Constantine, was a PRIMARY benefactor of the list of the Bishop of Rome.

"Tertullian" before and Augustine after Eusebius did NOT use the ORDER provided by Eusebius even though he had what appears to be exact period of the bishopric for ALL the BISHOPS mentioned by "Irenaeus".

aa5874

The more one reads "Against Heresies" and "Church History" the more it becomes clear that Eusebius NEEDED the so-called "historical facts" by "Irenaeus to prove the Roman Church under Constantine was the TRUE Church of God.

Eusebius made FORTY references to Irenaeus and quoted Many passages from ALL FIVE BOOKS of "Against Heresies" in his "Church History".

In comparison, Eusebius only made FOUR references to Tertullian in all of "Church History".

Now, Tertullian claimed Clement was ordained by an apostle called Peter, a fictitious character, and based on Esebius this very fictitious apostle Peter was executed during the time of Nero.

So Tertullian is claiming that since the time of Nero, around 66 CE, the Church of Rome records show that Clement was ordained the Bishop of Rome.

But, Eusebius claimed that Clement was the THIRD bishop after the Apostles about 24 years later or about 90 CE

And to show that Tertullian did NOT make any ERROR about Clement as bishop of Rome ordained by Peter we can examine Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus"15.

BUT, How could the Latins think that Clement was the second and NOT the fourth if there was a letter from Clement as the Bishop of Rome ADDRESSED to the church in Corinthians written during the time of the Emperor Domitian.

Surely the LATINS should be familiar with the records of the Church of Rome. Surely it must or should have been known to the LATINS when A LATIN BISHOP wrote to the Corinthians.

The Clement letter to the Corinthians should have ONLY been written and CIRCULATED under the time of the Emperor Domitian.

How did the LATINS NOT know about the Clement letter?

How did the LATINS NOT know when the Corinthian Church had serious problems and the time Clement wrote to the Church?

"Letter to the Corinthians" by "Clement of Rome"

Tertullian did NOT know about the letter from Clement to the Corinthians or else he should not have made such an ENORMOUS error.

Tertullian did NOT know about the great dissension of the Church of Corinth in c 90 CE.

Now, this is Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 It must be OBVIOUS that the LATINS, including Tertullian, did NOT SEE or hear about "Against Heresies3.3.3 " or else they would NOT claim Clement was bishop AFTER Peter or about 66 CE, when the Church of Rome DISPATCHED A letter to the Corinthians at around 90 CE.

Who used Irenaeus" Against Heresies" FORTY times and quoted from every single book?

Irenaeus did NOT get his list of the Bishops of Rome from the LATINS.

Who? What, Where, Where.

Who really made the list?

Roger Pearse

DCH has asked me to contribute. Unfortunately I really lack the time to focus on all the stuff here, since I am busy with other things and rather absorbed reading and writing about ancient chapter titles and divisions. Comparing the text of Tertullian and the Latin Irenaeus is obviously the right thing to do.

The other thing I thought I might contribute would be some stuff from the Sources Chretiennes editions (which interestingly talk about lists of subjects at the start of the books of the Latin, and the later introduction of them as chapter titles, albeit sometimes in the wrong places -- see SC34, p.77f.).

I trust that people have remembered the existence of an Armenian translation of part of Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses", and indeed the preservation in Armenian alone of his "Proof of the apostolic preaching". In Syriac some of his letters are preserved.

The original Greek title is preserved in Eusebius, Severus of Antioch (in a Vatopedi ms), John Damascene (Sacra Parallela), Anastasius the Sinaite (Quaestiones 44) and Photius (codex 120, which is online at my site). The title preserved in those Latin mss least damaged at the start is only a partial title. The colophon of the Armenian ms, which is very literal, is the same as that in the Greek witnesses. In fact the Latin text is damaged at the end in all our Latin manuscripts, and the colophon of Irenaeus is not now preserved. The Armenian version has kept it, tho. What does remain in Latin of the title suggests a rather free attitude to the Greek text. At the start of book 4 in the Armenian is an identical list of chapter titles to that found in the Latin, which tells us that the titles were part of the Greek text by that period. However the titles for chapters 35 and 36 of book 4 are reversed in one family of the Latin mss, as we can tell by looking at the content. This is true also in the Armenian text, which tells us that the error was committed in a ms. of the Greek, and copied to both versions. SC263, p.32f. Apparently SC 100, p.283-5 gives reasons for the translation into Latin of the AH to be at the end of the 4th century.

Looking at this, it is to do with how the Latin translator renders a Christological passage on the two natures of the Son, in p.985, 1 (book 4, ch. 41, 1, towards the end). The Armenian text is very clear; but the Latin is obscure.

"In the Armenian the process of thought is of perfect clarity and coherence. Irenaeus is dealing with a specific problem: if all beings are created by God, how can the scripture say that some are "children of the devil"? The response of Irenaeus is this: to distinguish filiation by nature and by education. According to nature, all are sons of God because all are created by him. But according to education they are either sons of God, or sons of the devil, depending on who they follow." ... In the Latin this gets confused, into natural filiation vs adoptive filiation, so as to mess up the argument. This can't be accounted for by confusion in the Greek, but by some doctrinal concern, probably that of the late 4th century authors confronted with the risk of Arianism. All the anti-Arian authors incessantly repeat that the divine filiation by nature belongs only to the Logos consubstantial with the Father. Ears accustomed to this language would throw a fit at the words of Irenaeus of people being sons of God by nature because they were created. In other words, the text has been rendered more orthodox, if less comprehensible, under the influence of the urgency of the late 4th century. There are a number of other divergences from the Armenian of a similar kind (unspecified!).

The Armenian version of books 4-5 was discovered in 1904 by Ter-Mekerttschian at the church of the Mother of God in Yerevan. It was written between 1270-1289. The translation dates from the first or last part of the 6th century. It belongs to the "hellenistic" school of Armenian translations, current in the 6-7th centuries, which produced extremely literal "translations" which made for very bad Armenian. They may be cribs for Armenians studying at Constantinople, as they translate word for word.

There are also fragments in Armenian. One from book 1, quoted from a work of Timothy Aelurus, and one from book 2, from a work by Evagrius Ponticus. Both were probably translated from the Greek of those authors. There are also small fragments in Armenian centos.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

Thanks to DCH, for his very successful efforts to recruit Roger to assist us in this sticky endeavor.

And, I am not quarreling with you, on this point, Roger, but, I do think it is appropriate to point out, that there were also third century authors confronted with Lucianism, antecedent of Arianism, in other words, doctrinal issues could well have induced changes to manuscripts before, during, and well after, Constantine.

Here is where I disagree with your analysis:
Sorry, Roger, I am not in agreement here.

You don't know the original anything about this person, "Irenaeus". Everything, even his name, could have been changed by subsequent generations, due to political or sectarian influence.

Severus of Antioch: 6th century;
John Damascene: 7th and 8th century;
Anastasius the Sinaite: 7th century;
Photius: 9th century;

These "witnesses" no more possessed "the original" Greek manuscript, (or even a duplicate copy thereof) than you or I do of the Magna Charta.

Five centuries of political turmoil, not the least of which involved the main Heresy, Arius, much beloved of the Emperor who succeeded Constantine, caused chaos and ruination, not only of monuments, but also of all documents of any adversary.

The central problem is that almost without exception, but there are some exceptions, I am sure, all extant copies of manuscripts are tainted by forgery, most of it political in nature, as folks struggled with the Trinitarian doctrine. I believe that we underestimate, badly, the extent to which those first three centuries post Constantine, led to bloodshed over the Trinitarian business. Islam, in my view, is the logical consequence of the triumph of the opponents of Trinitarian doctrine--in essence Islam represents the heritage of Arius. That so much violence followed the rise of Islam, we readily appreciate, but for whatever reason, we seem unable to fathom how serious this accusation of Heresy was, in those early days, the first four centuries CE.

Fifteen hundred years ago, Roger, your ancestors routinely beheaded folks who thought as I do. No one blinked an eye. Heretics must die. It is in the Bible. It is in the Quran. "Irenaeus"' writings, as we regard them today, in the Latin versions, form the theoretical basis for this chaos, and consequently, are deemed crucially important for understanding the early history of the Christian church. So, obtaining a bona fide copy of the original text of "Irenaeus" is a worthy goal.

But, as you have acknowledged, the texts have been so manipulated, and so redacted/forged over time, that we really don't know what this guy actually believed. It is amazing to read that some folks, even half a century ago, were still debating whether or not Tertullian copied from "Irenaeus", or was himself copied by "Irenaeus".

While it may, or may not, have been in accord with DCH's desire, in asking you to participate on this thread, I hope you would answer these two questions, by one, much less well informed, than DCHindley...

1.)When Andrew wrote this, I said ho hum, and went on to his next paragraph....
Then, however, as I began reviewing this entire thread, from the outset, with a view towards analyzing myself, the two volumes of W. Wigan Harvey, representing the five volumes of AH attributed to "Irenaeus", in Latin, plus Greek from Epiphanius and Hippolytus, I realized that while DCH and Philosopher Jay had both done really great work, in trying to sort out the situation there, they really had ONLY JUST SCRATCHED the surface, because those excellent charts of DCH, cover only a tiny fraction of volume 1/5.

So, I went back and reread everything, the whole thread, and this time, when I came to Andrew's statement, I decided to go have a look for myself:

Wow.
Roger, this is truly a fragment. Now, here's my question: I have struggled, looking at this fragment, to identify the verse in Matthew 3, supposedly portrayed in this handful of Greek alphabetical characters.

Roger, can you please identify, looking at this fragment, to which verse of Matthew 3, these few Greek letters belong?

Here's the original text of Matthew 3 from Codex Sinaiticus.

I have no idea how anyone can claim that this fragment, cited by Andrew, belongs to the third century (and not the fourth or fifth, or nth century, instead). Nor do I understand how or why these few characters should be attributed to "Irenaeus". I hope it is not because one observes precisely the same sequence of symbols, i.e. words, in Epiphanius or Hippolytus.....

2.) In yet another of his many provocative, creative, and fascinating submissions to this thread, aa5874 has highlighted the apparent fact that "Irenaeus", in volume two of AH (contained in volume I of W. Wigan Harvey), which, thus far has escaped scrutiny by the forum's distinguished luminati, identifies, quite emphatically, the notion that JC lived into his 50's....It appears to be not simply a whimsical side note, but rather, looks as if it constitutes an entire chapter of volume II.....

The numbering employed by the publication cited by DCHindley, the two volumes of W. Wigan Harvey, does not correspond to the numbering used by
Peter Kirby's excellent web site:

Consequently, it is not easy to locate the specific reference, in Latin (and Greek of Epiphanius/Hippolytus, supposedly) from professor Harvey's book. I must have missed it, the quote that is, cited by aa5874.
Can you identify where this infamous passage is to be found, in Harvey's book, a page number, so that I may read both the Latin, and the footnotes to this controversial passage?

Many thanks again, Roger, for your patience, and your skill. Your presence here is much valued by all....

avi

aa5874

It is OBVIOUS, even to the blind who can hear or read, that the writer called Tertullian in " The Prescription Against Heretics" 32 was NOT aware of "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

It is OBVIOUS, even to the blind who can hear or read, that the writer called Tertullian in "The Prescription Against Heresies" 32 was NOT aware of a LETTER to the Corinthians supposedly written by CLEMENT the BISHOP of Rome around 25 years or more AFTER the alleged death of Peter or sometime around 90 CE.

This is "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 And this is Tertullian BOASTING about the RECORDS of the Church in "The Prescription Against Heretics" 32 And Jerome would claim it was MOST of the LATINS, not ONLY Tertullian, who also did NOT use the list or order of Bishops found in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

This is Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" 15 Based on Jerome, it would appear that most LATINS and Tertullian did NOT know of a LETTER from a bishop called CLEMENT 25 years or more after the supposed death of the so-called Peter.

Based on Jerome, it would appear that most LATINS and Tertullian was NOT aware of "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

Most LATINS and Tertullian did NOT know this about CLEMENT.

"Against Heresies" Most LATINS and Tertullian did NOT see or hear of the Powerful Letter.

"Epistle to the Corinthians" 1 Why were most Latins and Tertullian NOT aware of "Against Heresies" 3.3.3?

This is NOT rocket science.

This is basic stuff.

It is OBVIOUS "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 was NOT known, NOT written or NOT circulated when the writer using the name Tertullian wrote "The Prescription Against Heresies" 32.