aa5874

Irenaeus invented early bishopry for the orthodox community?

The same Irenaeus who made a most unorthodox claim that Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 years after being baptized at the age of about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius??

Please, examine "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian.

Tertullian a Roman writer Rejected or did NOT know of Irenaeus' claims about Clement and Tertullian wrote just after Irenaeus.

Tertullian claimed Clement was bishop about 30 years earlier c 66 CE--Not 95 CE.

In fact, based on the Seven sources, it was Irenaeus who was Unorthodox.

Five of the Seven Apologetic sources Contradict Irenaeus.

Five of the Seven Apologetic sources place Clement about 30 years earlier than Irenaeus.

Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine of Hippo, Rufinus and the Chronograph of 354 all contradict Irenaeus.

The evidence has exposed that Irenaeus was himself a Heretic whose writings were forged or heavily manipulated.

1. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age---ORTHODOX claimed he was crucified at about 30 years of age.

2. Irenaeus claimed Clement was bishop c 95 CE--ORTHODOX claimed Clement was bishop c 66 -80 CE.

The so-called Clement Epistle and writings attributed to Irenaeus were unknown up to 400 CE or later.

It is virtually impossible for orthodox to have known that Clement was bishop c 95 CE and still publicly declared he was bishop of Rome c 66-80 CE.

Examine the list.

Irenaeus	Tertullian	Eusebius	Optatus	Chronagraphy of 354	Rufinus	Augustine
-	-	-	-	-	Linus/Cletus	-
Linus	Clement	Linus	Linus	Linus	Clement	Linus
Anacletus	-	Anacletus	Clement	Clement	-	Clement
-Clement	-	Clement	Anacletus	-Cletus	-	Anacletus
-Evaristus	-	Evaristus	Evaristus	-Anaclitus	-	Evaristus
-Alexander	-	Alexander	Sixtus	-Aristus	-	Alexander
-Sixtus	-	Sixtus	Telesphorus	-Alexander	-	Sixtus
-Telesphorus	-	Telesphorus	Hyginus	-Sixtus	-	Telesphorus
-Hyginus	-	Hyginus	Anacetus	-Telesphorus	-	Iginus
-Pius	-	Pius	Pius	Hyginus	-	Anacetus
-Sorer	-	Soter	Soter	-Pius	-	Pius
-Anicetus	-	Anicetus	Alexander	-Soter	-	Soter
-Eleutherius	-	Eleutherius	Victor	-Victor	-	Eleutherius

[/

stephan huller

the point again is that despite the 'weak' evidence (= Catholic written tradition) for Paul and the dating for various figures in the early Church, it (= the 'weak' oral or lost written tradition) is all we have. So what are the real alternatives? The perspective of radicals at the forum who try to make the date copies of first century documents survive as the earliest possible date for the text (= idiotic). So what else is there? I have yet to see ANY evidence or reason to think that Christianity was established in the second century other than the fact that this is when Orthodoxy seems to have clustered most of its witnesses. It is worth considering the parallel in Judaism. There is a similar cluster of historical witnesses in that period (= mid second century and later) and we really know EVEN LESS about the shape of Judaism in the period before 150 CE and after the destruction of the temple. I don't know why this is. But to argue that Judaism was 'invented' in the second century merely because this is the effective start of the rabbinic tradition, the exegetical tradition that defined 'Judaism' thereafter is an incredibly stupid argument. I don't see why the parallel claims about Christianity being so established aren't to be similarly regarded.

aa5874

You are merely making unsubstantiated claims and assertions without a shred of support.

Please, you are obligated to show the sources for your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

You need urgently to show that the canonical gospels made reference to groups whom Paul opposed.

Please, this is extremely important. I need to see the passages in the Canonised Gospels.

stephan huller

canonical New Testament texts

stephan huller

Another question. Is the Samaritan story of Levi the nephew of the High Priest and 'first martyr' of the Dositheans the basis for the Paul story of Acts (I posted this in another thread just now):

It is generally agreed that (a) the story of Dositheus is a parody of the empty tomb (cf. the dog's consuming the body, Joseph's field etc) and (b) Levi is somehow related to Stephen. I also think the story of Levi resembles the core of the Saul to Paul transformation.

As Birger Olson notes the location of the story here shows many signs of overlap with the gospel narrative especially the gospel of John "The events narrated take place at the Samaritans' holy centre at Gerizim, at Sychar (Askar), in Joseph's field, at Jacob's well (3.2.3). Important Samaritan traditions emerge in the description of the external scene: the claim to be sons of Jacob etc"

aa5874

The chronology of the list of Bishops of Rome in the Cronograph has been changed from my last post to correctly show that it is in agreement with Tertullian and Rufinus that Clement was Bishop immediatedly after the supposed Peter.

The author of the Chronograph specifically claimed Linus was Bishop for 12 years, 4 months and 12 days from c 56-67 CE and Clement was bishop for 9 years, 11 months and 12 days from c 68-76 CE.

It is clear that the author of the Chronograph 354 knew Nothing of the list of Irenaeus and not not only the author but the audience of the author.

It is virtually impossible for the author of the Chronograph 354 and his audience to have known that Eusebius claimed Clement was bishop c 92-101 CE.

The same applies to Rufinus when he wrote that Clement was bishop immediately After Peter--his readers and audience could NOT have known he was bishop c 92-101 CE.

It is the same with Augustine of Hippo and Optatus when he argued against the Donatists.

The Donatists did NOT know that Clement was bishop c 92-101 CE and after Anacletus or else they would have Exposed Optatus as a Liar when he argued that Clement was bishop immediately after Linus.

Where did Ireaneus get his list?

Where did Optatus, Rufinus, Augustine, and the author of the Chronograph 354 get their list?

Tertullian claimed he got his list from the Registers of the Church of Rome. See "Prescription Against Heresies"

Where did Irenaeus get his list of Bishops?

When did the people of Rome actually see all the Seven lists of the Roman Bishops?

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ch...ps_of_rome.htm

Irenaeus	Tertullian	Eusebius	Optatus	Chronagraphy of 354	Rufinus	Augustine
-	-	-	-	Linus c56-67 CE	Linus/Cletus	-
Linus	Clement	Linus	Linus	Clement 68-76 CE	Clement	Linus
Anacletus	-	Anacletus	Clement	Cletus	-	Clement
-Clement	-	Clement 92-101 CE	Anacletus	-Anacletus	-	Anacletus
-Evaristus	-	Evaristus	Evaristus	-Aristus	-	Evaristus
-Alexander	-	Alexander	Sixtus	-Alexander	-	Alexander
-Sixtus	-	Sixtus	Telesphorus	-Sixtus	-	Sixtus
-Telesphorus	-	Telesphorus	Hyginus	-Telesphorus	-	Telesphorus
-Hyginus	-	Hyginus	Anacetus	-Hyginus	-	Iginus
-Pius	-	Pius	Pius	---c 150-153 CE	-	Anacetus
-Sorer	-	Soter	Soter	-Pius	-	Pius
-Anicetus	-	Anicetus	Alexander	Soter	-	Soter
-Eleutherius	-	Eleutherius	Victor	--c 171-184 CE	-	Eleutherius

stephan huller

Some small details. The name Yedo (=Yahdu) is a diminutive of Ye'daaya like the Masoretic יַדוּעַ (the letter ח a vowel-letter, and not etymological). This Yedo is the last High Priest of the Jewish line before the Persian period and the last mentioned in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and therefore the last High Priest of the era of the Jewish prophets.

What Dositheus queries is the eating of the meat of a firstborn animal by Yedo in the state of holiness required for eating of sacrificial offerings, when the blood has not been sprinkled on the altar; which could obviously not be done because there was no Sanctuary and no altar. Yedo replies with the reasonable analogy of the eating of bread. Lv 23:14 says no bread is to be eaten but it is known that bread can be eaten these days even though there is no Sanctuary. The debate on this question has survived the legendary embellishment. We knew from Abu'l-Fath 82:15-16 that the Dositheans did not accept this solution.

One wonders whether Yedo, that is, Yedaaya, "God knows" is a symbolic name that original belonged to Dositheus as the second Moses. See Deut 34:10 with Numbers 12:6 - 8. But also Paul "we will know because we are known." In the previous account introducing Dositheus he is said to be the most learned person of his time. So too this Yedaaya. In the story of Dositheus is guilty on evidence duly verified. In this account of Yedo is innocent and the accusation fraudulent.

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately it is the usual problem you have of taking things too literally and producing a shallow, formulaic analysis. In no way do the mentions of pharisees in Matt restrict the gospel to the first century. There is no logical basis for this "analysis". This is especially true since GMark is almost certainly second century and Matt depends on Mark.

The Mark 13 apocalypse probably refers to the period around 135 CE, not 70. Again, you simply take the text literally and do not reflect on how it is a literary fiction working on several different levels.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This is another case of you reading only the surfaces of things. 1 Clem is very obviously from the late second century. Parvus pointed that out on a thread from a while ago:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....ghlight=bishop

• I consider 1 Clement to be a providential letter; and perhaps the word “inspired” is not too strong a descriptive for it. It is easy to see why it was included in some early codices of the Bible. For, as Irenaeus noted very early on, it constitutes an effective refutation of those who deny that the Creator was the Father of Jesus Christ “since this epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating the existence of another God beyond the Creator and Maker of all existing things” (Against Heresies 3,3,3).
  
  Think of it: this letter gives us a sub-apostolic window into two prominent churches associated with Peter and Paul. And its author is careful to point out that—until the difficulties he addresses in the letter had arisen—the church of Corinth had maintained such “virtuous and steadfast faith… sober and forbearing piety… perfect and sound knowledge…” that its name was “revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men” (ch. 1). That is great news, for this letter lets us see what the faith of this admirable church was. That’s right. We can see from this letter not only the faith of the Roman church in the sub-apostolic period, but that of the Corinthian church too; for the author makes a point of not only letting us know what he believes, but also of telling us what the Corinthians believe:
  
  “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; and you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them” (ch. 45);
  
  “For you know, and know well, the Sacred Scriptures, dearly beloved, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance” (ch. 53);
  
  “We knew well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God” (ch. 62, my emphases).
  
  This is all very reassuring, for we can see that both these churches fully accept the authority of the Old Testament. From it the author quotes copiously throughout the letter, and time and again holds up its heroes as examples to be imitated. Already this attitude viz a viz Scripture allows us to conclude that there was not the least trace of Marcionesque beliefs in these early churches.
  
  But even more remarkable is that, although the author often seems to be wandering aimlessly in his choice of subjects, it turns out—again, providentially—that he takes up one after another doctrines that Marcion was later to deny, e.g., the creation of the world by the Father of Jesus, the goodness of the created world, the true bodily nature of Christ, that he was descended from Jacob according to the flesh, his bodily resurrection, the goodness of marriage, the future bodily resurrection of Christians, that the Creator is both good and yet to be feared, that ecclesiastical authority goes through the apostles (plural). So, in effect, this letter rules out in advance not just Marcionism in general, but even specific Marcionite beliefs!
  
  But—believe it or not—there is something even more wonderful in 1 Clement. It is as if the Holy Spirit was inspiring Clement in his very choice of words. For he chose to describe the schism of the Corinthian troublemakers with the words: “so alien and strange to the church of God” (ch. 1, my emphases). Those just happen to be the words that Marcion was later to use for his God! And when the author again makes reference to the troublemakers (in chapter 14), he uses an unusual form of one of these words. Robert M. Grant, in his commentary on 1 Clement, noticed it:
  
  “He (Clement) warns his readers against recklessly yielding to the ringleaders, who plunge into strife and sedition to alienate them from what is right. The words italicized are fairly unusual and occur in 1 Clement only here (except alienate, used of wives and husbands in 6:3)…” (The Apostolic Fathers, A Translation and Commentary, vol. II, p. 37).
  
  The word that Grant translates as “plunge into” is translated as “launch out” by Lightfoot. To me these have a nautical ring to them. Which leads me to wonder: Was there any shipmaster in the early church who alienated (or estranged) from correct doctrine those who recklessly followed him? And if so, was there anything in his alien teaching that was inimical to marriage? That might alienate wives from their husbands?
  
  Something else that is curious: immediately after warning his readers about recklessly yielding to the ringleaders, Clement gives a piece of positive advice: “Let us show kindness to one another in accordance with the compassion and tenderness of him who made us.” What does that have to do with anything? Why mention the compassion and tenderness of the Creator right after warning about the alienators? It’s all very confusing.
  
  In any case, I’m glad I’m not cynical or I would be tempted to think that the classicist Elmer Truesdell Merrill was right after all to assign 1 Clement “to the neighborhood of A.D. 140” (Essays in Early Christian History, p. 241). If I was cynical I might be tempted to suspect a Roman proto-orthodox Christian composed 1 Clement at that time with the intent of passing it off as belonging to sub-apostolic times. But what would the proto-orthodox have stood to gain by such deception? And besides, God’s truth doesn’t need the lies of men to prop it up. No doubt the proto-orthodox church felt the same way. Why should we not take 1 Clement at face value, as a clear proof that in the Petrine and Pauline churches proto-orthodoxy was in calm and uncontested possession long before the errors of Marcion saw the light of day. Why should we not embrace this providential window into the Pauline church at Corinth which effectively undercuts in advance Marcion’s later claims about Paul and Pauline Christianity?
  
  [But if by chance there are any cynical types out there who can read French and have access to a well-stocked library, they may find interesting an article written by Henri Delafosse (pseudonym of Joseph Turmel) proposing an anti-Marcionite purpose for 1 Clement: “L’Epitre de Clement Romain aux Corinthiens” in the January 1928 issue of Revue d’Histoire des Religions]

The advanced structure of Christianity 1 Clem is trying to uphold also signals a second century time when the quasi-Leninists were working out the whole political commissar (bishop) / house cell (house church) / cell leader (presbyter-pastor) structure that would carry the Church forward for another 19 centuries.

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller

to Vorkosigan:
In my analysis, there is a lot more than the mentions of Pharisees.

What is your logical basis for your analysis?
My dating of gMark is here.

"literary fiction working on several different levels" sounds rather very complicated. I wonder if "Mark" was expecting his readers/listeners to comprehend all of that, whatever it is.

Could Mk 13:5-23 refer to the 70-135 period, ending by the second Jewish war and the defeat of Bar Kokhba?
That's rather out-of-question because:

a) the later events (at least one hundred after Jesus' crucifixion) can hardly fit into the time frame of the verse quoted in A) and also the one in Mk 13:30 (which also appears in gMatthew (24:34) and gLuke (21:32) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation [the one of Jesus] will by no means pass away till all things [among them, Jerusalem's destruction (21:20-24) and the second coming (21:25, 28)] take place."

b) Mk 13:3-4 specifies Jesus' alleged answer (Mk 13:5-23) is an explanation related to the prophesied destruction, stone by stone, of great buildings in Jerusalem (Mk 13:1-2) (and not to events which will happen in the following 65 years (up to 135)!):
Mk 13:1-5a "Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down ." Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign [Mk 13:14; before: endure and do not be alarmed] when all these things will be fulfilled?" And Jesus, answering them, began to say: ... [the mini-apocalypse monologue 13:5-37 starts here]"

Also, the destruction related in Mk 13:1-2 happened in 70:
From Josephus' Wars (Josephus was an eyewitness to Jerusalem demise!):
VII, I, 1 "Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple"
VII, I, 1 "there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to"
VII, VII, 7 "It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins; some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach"
Epiphanius, On weights and measures 14-15 "Hadrian [in 129-130] found the temple of God throdden down and the whole city devastated, save for a few houses"
but not in 135: there is no evidence of reconstruction (after 70) of large buildings (and therefore subsequent destruction) on the site of Jerusalem before the defeat of Bar Kokhba.

c) "Luke" included, in his/her version of the mini-apocalypse of gMark, evidenced historical details pertaining to the events of 70, such as Lk 21:21b, 24 and:
Lk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.", corresponding to Mk 13:14 "abomination of desolation".
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jerusalem was besieged by Roman armies in 135. Also, the rebel Jews were unlikely to make a stand at Jerusalem, then an unwalled fully destroyed city with no natural defence on the northern side. Besides, the "desolation is near", that is not inflicted yet (in 135, it would be 65 years old!).
See also Lk 21:21b & 24.

Cordially, Bernard