aa5874

You have CONFESSED that you have made errors. Why are you continuing to make more errors.

I am the one who have made you ADMIT that what you write have ERRORS and that you DON'T even accept what Irenaeus wrote about Marcion.

You think that the information in "Against Heresies" is filled with ERRORS about Marcion.

Why do you think it is UNREASONABLE that "Against Heresies" made ERRORS of history about Jesus Christ or POLYCARP?

Why do you think that you can reason?

But, I FORGOT.

Pardon me!!!

You have CONFESSED that what you write have CONTAINED ERRORS.

Well, your COFESSION is TRUE.

avi

Palpably obvious?

Really?

You have some documents from the two men to compare? I think you intend to write here something about "according to Eusebius..."

I do believe that I agree with you. There is no reason to believe anything attributed to Irenaeus.

Oops, maybe I do not agree with you:

Hmm. What does Trobisch argue, in explaining why he cites Polycarp, rather than Irenaeus, as publisher of the four gospels as a collection of texts?

Philosopher Jay has proposed that "Irenaeus" represented a nom de plume of Tertullian. I am not sure how one could refute that hypothesis.

So, who was the first to assemble the four texts, into a single publication?
One reason for disliking the idea that the publisher was "Irenaeus" concerns Trobisch's points numbered 1 and 2.

How would anyone outside of Lugdunum have the slightest notion of the bishop of that provincial town? He was so little known, that the Roman soldiers ostensibly sent to capture him, could not find him. Why would anyone expect that his authority extended to Rome and beyond? Is it not strange that for someone so renowned, i.e. first person to publish, ostensibly, the canon, no one had commented on this accomplishment, until Eusebius, a century after the fact? Why are there no extant writings of this great hero? We possess writings from far less influential Greek poets, who lived two, three, even four or more centuries before "Irenaeus". Their works survive. Why not even ONE copy of the original Greek text of Irenaeus' most famous volume.

Alternative hypothesis: "Irenaeus" was created by Eusebius, and placed in the most obscure town possible, to avoid undue questioning of his credentials.

avi

stephan huller

No there is no possibility that Irenaeus was created by Eusebius. I don't want to keep insulting people so I will stop there. In order to make sense of the Patristic testimonies you have to read all of them many times (or at least as many as are available to you) go off into the desert for many years WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVEN'T PROPERLY 'DIGESTED' IN YOUR SOUL and then start to piece them together.

The most important testimony about Polycarp in the writings of Irenaeus is this one from a lost text preserved only in a fragment by Eusebius:

from textexcavation

Why on earth would Eusebius go to such lengths to introduce 'Florinus' as a rival to Irenaeus's understanding of Polycarp? Florinus is a real person who apparently spent more time Polycarp than Irenaeus (see testimony above). All of this would be counter productive for the authority of this supposedly 'invented' passage. I don't want to address further conspiratorial claims. They are insane and are only a product of unfamiliarity with the material.

The bottom line is that Florinus was a heretic and must have identified his teachings as being a faithful preservation of the beliefs of Polycarp from the many years he spent associating with him. There is no reason to believe that Florinus would have acted in any way different than Irenaeus in this respect. Tatian would have acted similarly with respect to his time with Justin (and once again questions are raised with respect to the reliability of the orthodox account of each man).

I have strong suspicions that the term 'Valentinian' is a corruption of the Aramaic 'Falatinian' (itself a corruption of the Latin palatinus). The meaning of the Aramaic term is basically an appropriation of the the meaning of the Latin (= Palatine viz. 'those of the palace'). This description forms the basis to the whole description of Florinus's association with Polycarp (i.e. they hung around the Imperial court (= βασιλικη). No one has ever been able to figure out whether Irenaeus is speaking metaphorically or literally. I think it doesn't matter ultimately but we should notice that 'Valentinus' has only one historical report associated with him directly (i.e. that he came to Rome in the middle of the second century.

Many scholars have noticed a heretical undercurrent to his Epistle to the Philippians where interesting another heretic named 'Valens' (= the root of the name Valentinus = 'healthy' in Latin) is introduced. I would argue that this is a pattern in the editorial efforts of Irenaeus and it was developed to distinguish Polycarp from Valentinus. I think they were one and the same person.

For more on Florinus here is Charles Hill's work on Irenaeus (or via: amazon.co.uk)*:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rpO...lycarp&f=false

* From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus' Apostolic Presbyter & the Author of Ad Diognetum (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) by Charles E. Hill (May 30, 2006)

aa5874

"Church History" is DIRECTLY dependent upon "Against Heresies" since there is NO other known source for the supposed "early history" of the "Church".

"Church History" could NOT use Justin Martyr since he made NO mention at all of FOUR named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, all the Epistles (Pauline and Non-Pauline).

But, what is also remarkable is that Irenaeus supplied BOGUS information about the dating, authorship and chronology of NT and many Church writers USED the very same BOGUS information EXCEPT Justin Martyr.

Scholars have REJECTED the dating, chronology and authorship of the NT as provided by Irenaeus.

Alternative hypothesis: Justin Martyr's writings REFLECT the history of the Church and NOT the writings of Irenaeus.

There was NO NT Canon up to the middle of the 2nd century and it was the Gospel called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was USED in the Churches on Sundays.

"First Apology" LXVII The author of "Against Heresies" and the "Proof of Apostolic preaching" has been found, not assumed, to be NOT credible and provided BOGUS.

I will USE Justin Martyr, Aristides, Municius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagoras, as the PRIMARY sources for the history of the Church UNLESS those writings can be found to BOGUS or full of ERRORS of history like "Against Heresies" and the "Proof of Apostolic Preaching".

The character called POLYCARP in "Against Heresies" cannot be found outside of the Church writings.

mountainman

You have no evidence for such a conclusion other than the defence of the received tradition. This is a blind defence from perceived authority.

The reaction to the questioning of authority has always been insult. You should examine your motives, and you should examine the vacuum of evidence by which the authority of Eusebius is placed in such high esteem. The Jesus Industry is constructed by appeal to Eusebius. Take Eusebius away and the historical Jesus makes his entrance to planet Earth as a centurion in Constantine's army.

aa5874

Absolute NONSENSE.

You KNOW that writings have been wrongly and even FALSELY ATTRIBUTED to authors.

Even you are NOW claiming that writings by other authors have been WRONGLY included in the writings of Irenaeus.

I have NOT come across someone who BLATANTLY ADMITS they make ERRORS and still MAKE ERRORS as they are CONFESSING.

You are EVEN claiming that information by Church writers about Marcion is BOGUS yet still REFUSE to accept that writings UNDER the name Irenaeus may have been ERRONEOUSLY attributed to a 2nd century character to give the FALSE impression that the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles were known in the 2nd century when they were NOT known.

You know that there are FORGERIES of Christian texts and that even the Church writers claimed that there were FORGERIES so it is an INSULT to people intellect to suggest that there is "NO possibility that Irenaeus was created by Eusebius", when Eusebius only has to FABRICATE writings and attribute them to Irenaeus which was RAMPANT in antiquity.

Please tell us who CREATED the authors called MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE and JOHN?

Toto

:hijack:

Please examine your own motives in sticking to your theory.

It would be radical enough to say that there is no evidence of Christianity before the second century, and that Constantine made a signficant change in the function and structure of the church.

stephan huller

It looks like all the crazies are stirred up. I don't have time to deal with this idiocy. There are three courses to take here with respect to Eusebius's relationship with the material associated with Irenaeus:

1. to accept that Eusebius was utterly faithful to the original text
2. to assume that he manipulated the original material
3. to posit that there was no original material before Eusebius and he invented it from scratch

I don't think I need much in the way of a discussion for most sane observers that (3) is a radical departure from anything reasonable. The fact that Eusebius flattered authority does not prove the ridiculous allegations thrown at him. Every living soul on this earth can be argued to flatter authority each day of his life. That does not make everyone disreputable or a forger.

As the burden of proof for (3) hasn't been met we have to chose between (1) and (2). I think (2) is the most reasonable path given the fact that Tertullian knows of material from Irenaeus's Against Heresies in an earlier form as well as the testimony of the Philosophumena among other texts. Using (3) to explain these phenomena is only reserved for the insane. It requires positing a conspiracy theory of the highest order for something relatively straightforward - the original material associated with Irenaeus was manipulated by successive generations of Christian apologists. It's that simple and we see this with respect to other documents (Ignatius, the NT etc.)

To argue that I am a 'dupe' for not subscribing to your conspiracy theory is insulting. I still engage in my fair share of speculation with respect to Eusebius as you can see with respect to the latest post at my blog http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...n-of-pope.html

I think it represents a more reasonable and cautious evaluation of the material even though many conservatives will feel it is outlandish too.

mountainman

The statement that ... "there is no possibility that Irenaeus was created by Eusebius" is a statement of blind faith. There is in fact some positive valued possibility that Irenaeus was created by Eusebius. My suggestion is that this possibility is at least 99%.

This statement is also false:

"Constantine was a mocker, not a flatterer'

I prefer Robert M. Grant's "Early Alexandrian Christianity - Eusebius and the Life of Origen". Grant mentions Eusebius over thirty times and has nothing nice to say about him on every single occasion.

stephan huller

Pete find someone else to play this idiotic game