stephan huller

Since Irenaeus invokes his loyalty to Justin at every turn and Justin doesn't know Paul or his writings Irenaeus must be regarded as a prime suspect whenever the question of alterations to the Pauline corpus is raised as Paul was unknown to Irenaeus's tradition and thus not sacred writ. He was free to "help establish" Paul's orthodoxy

tanya

This is a very interesting thread, in my opinion, and one that gets to the heart of early Christianity.

The main trouble, discussing the OP, in my opinion, is the paucity of reliable manuscript evidence. Justin's work, as I understand, perhaps in error, exists in only a single example, from a cave in Italy.

Ireneaeus' writings are worse, for they exist only in Latin translation, as I know, and perhaps this is completely wrong.

But, the biggest problem, I think, in relation to the OP, is the notion that we know something about the letters of Paul.

Here's what I know about them: P46, often claimed to have been authored in the second, or third century, contains Hebrews, a letter, the authorship of which by Paul, has been disputed by a number of authorities. So, then, where does that leave P45?

How can we claim that this ancient text represents an accurate and complete compendium of "Paul's" epistles, knowing that included among the bona fide documents, is one which has been falsely attributed to Paul? To my way of thinking, this suggests a later date for P45, 4th century most typically.

Until we know better something about the source material all we can do, in my opinion, is ramble, speculate, and engage in name calling.

andrewcriddle

Is there a typing error here between P45 an early text of the Gospels and P46 an early text of Paul ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is completely erroneous that "Irenaeus invokes his loyalty to Justin at every turn"

Actually there is hardly any mention of Justin by Irenaeus. In the Five Books of "Against Heresies", Justin Martyr is mentioned ONLY three times.

Irenaeus mentioned Justin in passing when he wrote of Tatian.

"Against Heresies" 1. 28 Again, Irenaeus mentioned Justin in passing when he mentioned Marcion and other Heretics.

[u]Against Heresies 4.6.2 In the Last of the five books Irenaeus mentioned a passage of Justin from some other book.

[u]Against Heresies 5.26.2 Irenaeus mentioned Justin a mere three times to corroborate the existence of Heretics not to corroborate Irenaeus' "history" of the Jesus cult up to 150 CE.

Irenaeus used Polycarp and others to fabricate the 1st century history of the Jesus cult.

At every turn in Irenaeus' history of the Jesus cult Justin is MISSING.

stephan huller

There are mentions than Polycarp and Polycarp is assumed to be his "blessed teacher"

aa5874

It is clear that "Against Heresies" does NOT have one author. "Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

It must be noted that "Against Heresies" is the 1st source to mention the Four Gospels by name , Acts of the Apostles, and all the Pauline writings to the Churches and the Epistle to Timothy.

Irenaeus pays NO loyalty to Justin and does NOT mention the Memoirs of the Apostles even once.

1. It seems that Irenaeus never heard of the Memoirs in Justin's writings.

But, it is the very claims by Irenaeus that have been universally REJECTED. The authorship, dated of composition and chronology of the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline writings and the Epistles to Timothy have been found to be erroneous.

Scholars even today claim the Gospels were really anonymous which is compatible with the writings of Justin. He never identified any specific author of the Gospel but believed it was composed by the Apostles and those that followed Jesus.

2. It appears that Irenaeus did NOT know that Justin claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

Justin's First Apology[Irenaeus' Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching There is virtually NO loyalty to his predecesor Justin Martyr by Irenaeus.

Irenaeus appears to contradict Justin's history of the Jesus movement at every turn. Even the time of death of Jesus is NOT corroborated.

However, the writings attributed to Irenaeus utterly destroy the history of the Church. Based on Against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching up to or around c 180 CE, there was NO actual documented records of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

There were NO Gospels which stated Jesus was about 30 years when he was baptised, NO Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings which claimed or implied Paul and Peter preached Christ Crucified since the time of Tiberius and King Aretas.

It is almost certain that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings did NOT exist or were unknown as soon as it was claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50.

gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters do NOT show that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and do NOT Show that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years.

1. In gLuke 3, Jesus was crucified within one Passover of the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

2. In Acts 1, Jesus ASCENDED to heaven within 40 days of the crucifixion after the Passover in the reign of Tiberius.

3. In Acts, Peter and the Apostles preached Christ Crucified on the Day of Pentecost or about 50 days AFTER Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

4. In 2 Cor. Paul preached Christ Crucified since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus are a complete disaster. They have effectively erased the historicity of Paul as a 1st century character.

stephan huller

Leaving aside your obvious impairment it is clear from Irenaeus's references to Justin that he considers himself to be a part of the same Catholic Church, to be fighting the same war against Marcion and the heretics - in short one and the same tradition

aa5874

My arguments are extremely solid and not based on rhetoric.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus destroy any argument for early Pauline writings.

If Paul preached Christ Crucified since the time of King Aretas then Irenaeus could NOT have argue that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and was about 50 years old.

That is basic and cannot be overturned by rhetoric.

Examine 2 Cor 11. If Irenaeus was a presbyter or soon to be Bishop of Lyons then it indicates that in the 2nd century up to c 180 CE it was Taught in Lyons that Jesus was crucified under Claudius during the time of Irenaeus.

If it was Taught that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age in Churches of Lyons they did NOT have the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles or gLuke.

Acts of the Apostles is supposed to be the history of the Activities of the Apostles of Jesus AFTER the Ascension.

Early Christian, especially elders of the Church, are NOT expected to Forget when Jesus was crucified and NOT expected to forget the Day of Pentecost.

It is clear that Irenaeus was NOT Loyal to Justin or the true history of the Jesus cult.

stephan huller

What does any of this have to do with the obvious difficulty of Irenaeus championing someone who didn't consider the Pauline writings sacred?

aa5874

Again, you expose that your OP is utterly erroneous. Irenaeus was NOT loyal at all to Justin.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus have no historical value except that they document massive forgeries where the writings of one who had NO knowledge of the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles and the Fourc Gospels were interpolated.

The mere fact that it is claimed that Paul was a Persecutor of the Faith should have been known by Irenaeus if he was an elder, Presbyter, or Bishop of Lyons.

When was Paul persecuting the Faith??

How is it possible that a supposed Bishop of the Church does NOT even know the chronology of the Pauline conversion in Acts and the Pauline letters.,

The answer is rather simply.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus were heavily interpolated or redacted to give the false impression that the Four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were known in the 2nd century.

The Pauline writings are completely historically bogus.

The Pauline writings are so distorted that it was NOT even realize by their inventors that by claiming Paul was a Persecutor of the Faith AFTER Jesus ascended that Paul could NOT have been seen by Jesus UNTIL the second coming.

The Pauline writings are essentialy theological and historical garbage where they are NOT even Loyal to Jesus in the Gospels.

The Jesus of the very Synoptic Gospels called gMark Contradicted Paul and claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted but to remain in Sin.

Who gave Paul the authority to preach Christ crucified to the outsiders??? Why wasn't Paul Loyal to the author of gMark??

Mark 4