avi

Dave, I am unsure whether or not you have understood my point.

I did not argue whether or not "Irenaeus" wrote about the four gospels.

I inquired from you, and am still awaiting your reply:

where is your source for this claim you have made:
i.e. "the historical and literary records demonstrate..." that "Irenaeus" was the first to name the Gospels? Which historical record? Which literary record? All I observe is one person after another repeating the same "fact", since the time of Eusebius, in the fourth century.

You may be absolutely correct, in harmony with 99.99% of the world's population. I am asking for the SOURCE of this assertion which has been mentioned and written so often, that the notion has become axiomatic. Ask anyone, they will affirm the existence of "Irenaeus" and his famous book, "Against Heresies".

I am only asking, you, Dave, where is this famous book? Where's the book? Or, if this book no longer exists, then, who is the authority claiming to have seen it, read it, and copied it?

I guess that "Irenaeus" is a creation of Eusebius.

All you have to do, to prove me in error, is show me where the primary source is located, once that is found, and properly dated, prior to the fourth century CE, my hypothesis will have been easily refuted.

I am unable to locate any document by "Irenaeus". The best I could come up with was a wooden transcription of a Latin version, (location unknown), and rumors of an Armenian version, though, whether that was translated from the Latin, or the supposed original language, Greek, is unclear, as is the date of the Armenian copy itself, its location at present, and the location and circumstances of its discovery.

In brief, I cannot find anything resembling a primary source for the writings of "Irenaeus". Absent a reliable primary source of his/her writings, it makes little sense, to my way of thinking, to devote bandwidth discussing this, that, or the other interpretation of his/her philosophy, ideology, theology, or whatever.

First, let us locate the source, then we can argue about what's correct, or incorrect about the myth. Where we err, in my opinion, is to argue passionately about topic abc, absent a primary source to arbitrate.

If you like, I will accept, in the alternative, (if like me, you are unable to locate a primary source), a statement something like this:

According to smbltz, who lived in the third century, and whose own primary sources have been both dated to that century, and have also been shown to be unredacted, (non-interpolated), the first person to name the four gospels was "Irenaeus".

avi

aa5874

When you say that "Irenaeus (or whoever) around 180 CE MAY BE the first time the gospels were mentioned by the titles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John" you imply that you really DON'T know if Irenaeus was the first and if he actually wrote around 180 CE.

You must remember that it was you who claimed "the questioning of the existence of Irenaeus seems misguided. I've seen nothing from serious historians who question his existence", but the dates from YOUR OWN sources do cause DOUBT about "Irenaeus".

Irenaenus claimed ALL four Gospels were written since the 1 century and some BEFORE 70 CE.

These are the dates from your sources.
1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

Now, if the dates YOUR source provided is correct, then it would OBVIOUS to those ALIVE, to the HERETICS, in 180 CE that Irenaeus was a BLATANT fiction writer.

It is very likely that "Irenaeus" did NOT present the arguments in "Against Heresies" to Heretics around 180 CE.

Not even people who LIVE 1600 years after Irenaeus accept his dating of the four gospels.

But, that does not change the fact that it is NOT misguided to DOUBT that "Against Heresies" was actually written at around 180 CE when the ERRORS in "Against Heresies" are BLATANT and should have been EASILY contradicted by a LIVE audience of Heretics.


But, exactly. Why did NOT Irenaeus acknowledge that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" did exist and was READ in the Churches on Sundays as stated by Justin Martyr?

Based on Justin Martyr people in the CITY and in the Country used the "Memoirs of the Apostles" around the middle of the 2nd century.

Irenaeus supposedly lived in the 2nd century and did NOT once mention a very popular "Memoirs of the Apostles"

How could that be?

I DOUBT that "Against Heresies" was written in the 2nd century.

Now, the written statements in "Against Heresies" are RELEVANT to the history of Jesus. Irenaeus did make claims about Jesus the Messiah and if true or credible could help to determine the existence of Jesus as just a man or just a myth.

Dave31

You really don't have a point, you've just ranted endlessly over the "errors" and existence of Irenaeus to the point of obsession here in a thread where that discussion is completely off topic. And, most people here at this forum are already familiar with the "errors" you think you've just discovered - it's very OLD NEWS. Continuing to obsess over this here makes you look like a rank amateur who has no idea what the hell you're talking about.

You are creating an un-necessary and irrelevant argument here in this thread. I understand that this may be a sort of pet theory you've got going on - and more power to ya, but, you'll need more than opinion to demonstrate that Irenaeus was fake and just because he was wrong (or right) doesn't mean he was fake nor does it challenge the time-frame for the book.

That was the only point raised in the article regarding a 2nd century gospel composition. Thank you for admitting that the rest of your arguments are off topic in this thread.

I'm not interested in pet theory projects that are already debunked with credible evidence. If you knew what you were talking about you'd already have the answers and you'd already have understood the very elementary points I've been trying to get across here. Pointing out the obvious isn't working.

That should give you some sort of clue, shouldn't it? There's a very good reason for that and it's due to the fact that the primary sources exist as well as a mountain of corroborating primary sources at the very time period in question. Credible evidence confirms Irenaeus' existence as well as his book at that time period and it took me about 10 minutes to find it. I would share it but, I think in this case the journey is as valuable as the source itself.

Dave31

No, you assume too much - I say "may" because it's appears to be the first mention at this time until something else MAY be found to challenge that - I doubt it. Primary source credible evidence confirms the existence of Irenaeus and his book at the correct time period.

I confidently stand by my comment that "the questioning of the existence of Irenaeus seems misguided. I've seen nothing from serious historians who question his existence" primary sources and corroborating evidence strongly confirms otherwise.

You guys are all really confused about those dates - those are not the dates given by Irenaeus, they are the dates according to the historical and literary records.

The evidence does not support that. The article I linked to does not hold Irenaeus up as a credible source for anything. You're still confusing whether he was right or wrong with the fact that he appears to be the first to mention Mark, Matthew, Luke & John as the gospel authors - again, he may have been wrong about that, he may have completely made it up, the point is, right or wrong Irenaeus was the first to mention them as the canonical gospel authors. After that, those titles became popular and accepted as fact. And that may be how we ended up with THOSE SAME TITLES USED TODAY. Understand? Nobody said he was right or wrong in naming them, just that he was the first to do so. Now, why can't you guys understand that very basic explanation?

No, it just means he was either wrong or just made it up.

Nope, primary source evidence and a mountain of corroborating primary source evidence proves otherwise.

Completely irrelevant as I stated, "the Memoirs of the Apostles are not the same thing as the gospels."

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition?

aa5874

Once you use the word "MAY" you express doubt.

Well, I stand confidently by my claim that it is NOT at all misguided to question the credibilty and actual existence of the author of "Against Heresies".

The writer called "Irenaeus" made statements that are BLATANTLY and historically in error and were NOT likely to have been used to argue against Heretics.

No, you are confused. The dates from YOUR sources cannot be found in the records of the Church.

But, if you don't really know if Irenaeus was lying or when he wrote you can't really claim he was the first to mention the canonical gospels.

After all, Irenaeus did not make such a claim in "Against Heresies".

Your claims about Irenaeus may be mis-guided.

You are NOT providing any external corroborative source for your assertions. You are simply assuming Irenaeus was first. Your assumption is NOT an explanation.

I doubt that Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century and any Heretic read or saw the claim by Irenaeus that gMatthew was written before the Fall of the Temple.


Please NAME the sources EXTERNAL of the Church that corroborate a single thing about Jesus, the disciples, and the Canon as written by Irenaeus.

There is NO moutain of primary EVIDENCE for Irenaeus.

There is NO mountain of corroborating sources for Irenaeus.

But, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexander, Augustine, and Josephus CONTRADICT Irenaeus.

Well based on Justin Martyr if one lived in the 2nd century then he should be aware of the "Memoirs of the Apostles". Based on Justin, if you lived in the city or the country and went to church on sundays you were likely to hear readings from the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Irenaeus should have known about the "Memoirs of the Apostles" if he had lived in the 2nd century.

DCHindley

You might try this link, to page 11ff of St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies (or via: amazon.co.uk), Volume 1 (Issue 55 of Ancient Christian writers series, The Newman Press, 1992. This volume translates Book I).

It took about 10 minutes.

For those who cannot bring themselves to click the link and look for themselves, I will summarize:

Irenaeus wrote in Greek. His work was so popular, though, that sections of it were often quoted or epitomized by a large number of Greek writers. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis quotes in a condensed manner almost the entirety of book I. Anti-pope Hippolytus of Rome cites him extensively. Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus. Theodoret of Cyprus quoted him copiously. This is why it is said the Greek of his work is only preserved in fragments. These folks, though, must have had Greek manuscripts to copy from.

Unfortunately, all Greek manuscripts are currently lost, although there are a couple Greek manuscript fragments: P Oxy. 405 & a corrupt form of the text in the Jena papyrus. Complete manuscripts must have existed, as there is a Latin translation (variously dated to ca 200-220 in Gaul, or 350-400 in N. Africa), an Armenian translation (6th century, incomplete), and it was exerpted from by John of Damascus to create his Sacra Parallela (8th century) and Photius read a Greek manuscript in Baghdad (9th century).

As it is, the complete work Against Heresies exists in the Latin translation. There are 9 existing manuscripts, not all of which are complete (Clermont-9th century, Voss-1494, Stockholm Holmiensis A 140-late 15th century, Arundel-1166, and four manuscripts in the Vatican Library-15th & 16th centuries, and Salamanca Latin 202-before 1457). Erasmus had three additional ones at his disposal, but none of these have survived. Like in the case of the Greek original, Latin writers also cite Irenaeus. Tertullian quotes Irenaeus in his Adversus Valentinianos (ca. 207-212), as does Augustine.

There is debate over whether the Clermont family of Latin mss (Clermont-Voss-Stockholm) is closer to the Greek than the Arundel family (which includes most of the others mentioned above). This is because the Armenian translation, is closer to the Arundel family than to the Clermont family. However, the Clermont family just seems to make better sense overall, so is still preferred by many unless a reading is unsure, when they take recourse to Arundel.

The Greek fragments are in relatively good Greek. When compared to the Greek fragments, this Latin translation, which was the only one in circulation, was slavishly literal to the Greek ("wooden" means "slavish", not that it was written on wood tablets). The Latin is of a "corrupt" kind, abounding in barbarisms and solecisms, and seems to have been influenced by Celtic. Sometimes it is so literal that you cannot understand the meaning of the Latin unless it is back-translated into Greek. While it is generally agreed that the translator knew Greek better than Latin, there is evidence that sometimes he did not understand what was being communicated by the Greek. This is why it is not thought that the Greek fragments are translations from the Latin.

Because it seems the Latin translation had Celtic influence, it has been suggested that Irenaeus translated it himself, although this would make the cases where the Latin misunderstands the Greek rather odd - yes? Tertullian's quotations are very close to the extant Latin translation, and even includes some of its mistranslations of the Greek, making it more likely that he was drawing from the existing Latin translation than making a free translation of the Greek. The barbaric Latin of the translation makes it unlikely that Tertullian created the existing Latin translation, as Tertullian's Latin was, how you say, "good".

Since Tertullian was writing in the early decades of the 3rd century (200-220+ CE) and Irenaeus wrote in the last 2 decades of the 2nd (180-200 CE at latest), the Latin translation is usually dated to the early 3rd century (200-220). Based on above, I'd say before Tertullian's Adversus Valentinianos (plus go back a few years for it to have made its way down the military supply routes to Rome and then by ship to N. Africa, all the while on the QT). My guess would be 200-205 CE. A date in the late 4th century, as noted above, has been proposed by an interpretation that Tertullian made a free translation of the Greek, and Augustine was the 1st to quotes a translation made at a later date. The authors of the book cited above think the barbaric Latin does not lend itself to a later date of composition, as Latin was much more prevalent in the 4th century than the 3rd and should thus be of better quality.

Believe it or not, the Roman empire was not a police state. There were numerous private societies that flourished more or less illegally.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Good stuff. Thanks.

The only argument of importance here is this one:

It is the relationship of the Tertullian text Adversus Valentinianos to Against Heresies that sets its date.

The assumption here is that Tertullian used a bad Latin translation of Irenaeus' Against Heresies for his work Ad Val. Why would a Latin speaker use a translation that he knew was in bad Latin without correcting it? This is especially preposterous when we consider that Tertullian never acknowledges that he is quoting Irenaeus, but is writing as if he is making up the text himself. We must believe that Tertullian, one of the greatest writers of rhetoric in the ancient world, wanted people to believe that he was an inept writer of Latin. Why would he write in "Barbaric Latin." Once we see the ridiculousness of this hypothesis that Tertullian copied a bad Latin translation, we can examine the actual evidence:

The earliest Latin manuscript of Ad Val. comes from the 10th or 11 century from Cluny. See Roger Pearse' Tertullian Site.. This leaves us about eight centuries for anybody to take the bad Latin writings from "Against Heresies" and turn it into Ad. Val and assign its authorship to Tertullian.

It is also possible that someone took Tertullian's "Ad Val" which was originally in Greek and turned it into bad Latin. The same person might have taken The Greek "Against Heresies" which was based partially on Tertullian's "Ad Val" and translated it into the same bad Latin.

Ligthfoot notes this in regards to Eusebius, "With the Latin language indeed he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents." Since he is the first person to tie Against Heresies to Irenaeus, he is the most likely suspect for the bad Latin apparently found in both ad Val and Against Heresies.

Since a speaker of Latin is unlikely to write bad Latin, while a Greek speaker with little knowledge of Latin is likely to do a bad translation, we must suggest that Eusebius is more likely to be responsible for the "Wooden" Latin than Tertullian. Once we see this the only evidence for Against heresies coming from before the 3rd Century disappears.

I would move it into the early 200's based on the similarity to Tertullian's work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

Thanks for finding that DC. If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like the oldest extant manuscript is the 9th century Clermont manuscript. Aside from that, we only know of Against Heresies via secondary quotes.

andrewcriddle

This is the oldest extant manuscript.
P. Oxy 405 is only a small fragment but is dated c 200 CE.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Well, actually, the article says that Tertullian did seem to correct some obvious translation errors. It is mentioned in passing by the editor that one unnamed critic thinks Tertullian had a Greek manuscript as well as the Latin. I don't know, really, what he had in front of him. I am curious to know what professional critics think about his proficiency in Greek. Many Roman citizens, especially among the upper crust, knew Greek as well as Latin. However, in North Africa, excepting Egypt, Greek was probably not spoken very much except at seaports along the coast. He obviously had familiarity with the NT, but was it in the form of some sort of Old Latin translation?

Latin was not always spoken in its literary form. I once browsed some online article or something that referenced the discovery of some letters and military correspondence found at an archeological dig. It may have been the tablets found at Vindolanda in Britain, or the military papyri from Egypt. In short, there is a wide variety of latin represented, seemingly reflecting the geographical and educational level of the writers/scribes. Some were in rough, phonetically spelled Latin (e.g., orders being passed down chains of command by centurions etc), and others were of an almost literary quality (certain high level Roman officers at Vindolanda). You can find a detailed discussion of the matter in an article entitled The non-literary Latin letters here.

DCH