Iskander

74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.205 For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified.207 For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this208 than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.
206. 1 Pilate was procurator of Judaea for ten years (27-37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2ff., that our Lord reached aetatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? " For these words seemed to Irenaeus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner's art. "Chronology" in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1231/_P4.HTM#$5Z

aa5874

Now that you have quoted the passage where Irenaeus claimed Pilate was the governor of Claudius Caesar you have shown that the writings of Irenaeus was NOT seen or heard by HERETICS or secular historians and perhaps even by many so-called Church writers.

Irenaeus would have been a LAUGHING STOCK, a CLOWN, once it was known that he claimed Pilate was the governor of Claudius Caesar.

For over 100 years it was known that Pilate was governor during Tiberius.

It would appear that NO-ONE in the Church, no Church writers, saw the writings or heard that Jesus was at least 50 years in "Against Heresies" or else they would have told Irenaeus of his MASSIVE historical ERRORS.

And when Irenaeus wrote "Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" he still continued to make HORRENDOUS historical errors and NO extant Church writings identified these DISASTROUS ERRORS.

How could Irenaeus argue AGAINST Heretics who claimed Jesus suffered at about 30 years by stating that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old since he was 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate the governor of Cladius Caesar?

What non-sense from Irenaeus and NOT once but twice. It is claimed Irenaeus was a BISHOP of the Chuch.

Justin MARTYR, who was NOT even a bishop and lived in the very same 2nd century and BEFORE the supposed Irenaeus, the BISHOP, wrote that Jesus was crucified under Pilate during the time of Tiberius.

"First Apology" CHAPTER XIIL . Philo of Alexandria c 50 CE wrote that Pilate was governor under Tiberius.

Embassy to Gaius Which HERETIC, secular historian, or Church writer read "Against Heresies" and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" when Irenaeus claimed Jesus died at about 50 years old and that Pilate was the governor of Cladius Caesar?

Irenaeus appeared NOT to know:

1. The date, authorship and chronology of the Gospels.

2. Who wrote ALL the Pauline Epistles.

3. The governor of Judea under Claudius Caesar.

4. The age of Jesus when he was supposedly crucified by Pilate.

It would seem to me that the writings of Irenaeus were internal documents that were fabricated for the Church and were not seen or heard of by any Heretics or secular historians of the 2nd century.

And the writer using the name Irenaeus does NOT appear to have been a Bishop.

stephan huller

These are all wonderful questions. Seriously. And they are asked by far too few scholars. Where did Irenaeus get his authority? This is never even because almost everyone studying his writings BELIEVES IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. That's their explanatory tool essentially. Everyone knew Irenaeus had the Holy Spirit. Seriously.

But he wasn't. Isn't that peculiar? He was one of the greatest authorities in the history of Christianity. How is that possible? What was the source of his authority? This is the million dollar question which no one can answer reasonably.

Here is another important question - did Irenaeus know and use Josephus. Some people think so. Roger Pearse at his wonderful site notes that some point to the fragments from the lost writings of Irenaeus: XXXII.53 attributed to Irenaeus

Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him.

But even Pearse himself writes "Note: Whealey says this is derived from Antiquities 2.238-253. But Irenaeus can hardly have read book 18 of Antiquities, and in particular Ant. 18:89 which specifies that Pilate was removed in the closing years of Tiberius, as he asserts that Pilate crucified Jesus under Claudius (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 74)." So did Irenaeus know and use Josephus? Probably not which has all sorts of implications on his opinions about the date of the Passion.

Irenaeus's principle function in early Christianity was to attack the heresies. This is what he was made him famous. But he is also one of the earliest voices for 'orthodoxy.' I can't help but see that he was more of a reactionary ATTACKING and attempting to DESTROY older traditions he didn't like than someone who preserved the real truth of earliest Christianity. But that's just me.

Doug Shaver

No kidding? Almost no atheists study Irenaeus?

stephan huller

When you read critical monographs which study Irenaeus's writings the love and indebtedness seems to drip off each page.

aa5874

Irenaeus was NOT arguing about the AGE of the Holy Spirit in "Against Heresies" 2.

Irenaeus supposedly wrote AH 2 to destroy the arguments of HERETICS that Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered..

Irenaeus was supposed to be making a PUBLICLY circulated "water-tight" HISTORICAL CASE for his Jesus.

Irenaeus supposedly CONFRONTED the HERETICS with his books "Against Heresies" and "Proof of Apostolic Preaching".

And all of "Against HERESIES" and "Proof of Apostolic Preaching" should have been PUBLICLY circulated among the so-called Heretics of the time of Irenaeus.

But, what has been discovered is that Irenaeus was writing and PREACHING that Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar even though he claimed to be AWARE of gLuke.

So, even before his writings Irenaeus should have been a LAUGHING STOCK, a CLOWN, not only of HERETICS but of historians and Church writers since even Justin Martyr knew or wrote that Pilate was the governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Irenaeus would himself have been a HERETIC.

Irenaeus could NOT have been a BISHOP of the Church and NOT know that Pilate was the governor of Judea under Tiberius.

The question can be answered. And VERY EASILY once EVIDENCE of antiquity is used.

It was the Church who needed the so-called historical information found in "Against Heresies".

But, "Irenaeus the so-called Bishop" who did NOT even know the most basic of historical fact with respect to the AGE of Jesus and the governorship of Pilate became "one of the greatest authorities in the history of Christianity.

It was ALREADY taught that Jesus was crucified under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology"13

How is it that Irenaeus was ABLE to PUBLICLY Preach that Jesus was 50 years old and that Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar?

It is because it SIMPLY DID NOT HAPPEN.

"IRENAEUS" WAS A FAKE AUTHOR and BISHOP.

The question has been answered.

Please send me my million dollars.

darstec

You leave out one other obvious conclusion, that it was pointed out by numerous "heretics" and contemporaneous historians. Those works most likely would have been destroyed. But that would be the case even if Irenaeus' works were crafted a century or two removed from the second century.

We know that Eusebius discarded orthodoxy in later years. We don't however have a scintilla of notes on what he thought then. If he wrote anything, and it is difficult that someone who wrote so profusely didn't, all of his later writings were destroyed. Likewise all of the writings of any heretics were destroyed. We only know what Orthodoxy said they said.

darstec

Are you forgetting that originally Tiberius was known as Tiberius Claudius Nero and later assumed the name Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus? So IF Irenaeus wrote at the end of the second century, it was almost 250 years removed from Tiberius' birth. If Irenaeus was invented a century or so later, the actual history may well have been vague to his author.

I think what we have in the early Christian writers are their inventors proselytizing but not historians. By the time they got around to inventing Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc. that history and even earlier history was unknown to them. The remembered or had learned only bits and pieces.

While I agree with you that any such historical faux pas would have been pointed out, on this point it could have been an easy mistake to make. It is a straw, but not the haystack.

aa5874

Have you forgotten ALREADY that Justin Marty wrote that Jesus was crucified UNDER Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

And have you forgotten that "Irenaeus" appear to be aware of Justin Martyr?

Before "Irenaeus" wrote that Pilate was governor under Claudius Caesar and that Jesus was fifty years BEFORE he suffered, it is expected that he would have PUBLICLY PREACHED the very same thing to the HERETICS and any one who heard him.

Surely it is expected that "Irenaeus as a BISHOP would have discussed with others in the church, including other bishops, deacons and presbyters, that Jesus was fifty years old since Pilate was governor of Cladius.

But, this MASSIVE error was allowed to continue from book to book.

And it is simply because there was NO bishop named Irenaeus who PUBLICLY PREACHED that Jesus was fifty years since Pilate was a Governor of Claudius Caesar.

The fraud has been uncovered.

Irenaeus was a FAKE BISHOP and WRITER of the 2nd century.

But, you must remember that Irenaeus was supposedly PREACHING that Pilate was the governor of Claudius Caesar even though he claimed he was AWARE of gLuke and Justin and even fragments show he was aware of Josephus.

Which Heretic who claimed Jesus was 30 years old heard Irenaeus with his HORRIBLE historical bunder?

"Irenaeus" would have been the LAUGHING STOCK of Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus was a FAKE BISHOP and WRITER of the 2nd century and it was the Roman Church who directly GAINED from the FRAUD.

The Church historians used Irenaeus to claim that Peter, a fictitious character, was the first actual bishop of Rome.

The Church historians used Irenaeus to claim Polycarp knew people who actually knew people who knew another fictitious character called Jesus the Messiah.

darstec

As I wrote, I agree with you about Irenaeus being fraudulent. But the Tiberius/Claudius dichotomy is not something one can hang their hat on. Tiberius had both Claudius and Nero as part of his name and someone only casually acquainted with first century BCE history might make such a mistake.

All those guys (and probably gals too) had names two miles long concocted from all their ancestors and a few aunts and uncles.