Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 12-03-2007, 02:24 AM

Has there been an investigation into any possibility that Ireneaus of Lyons may have been the author of Luke/Acts?

Maybe that in addition to some editorial work/literary expansion on the Pauline corpus?

Is such a thing even possible? Is there an historical chain of custody for these works that can be identified prior to Ireneaus?

Just wondering...

Solitary Man · 12-03-2007, 02:29 AM

If I recall, Peter Kirby designed a program to check these sorts of things out, and it returned a negative for the identification. This was done at Ebla, so I don't know if it ever happened here or not.

dog-on · 12-03-2007, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

If I recall, Peter Kirby designed a program to check these sorts of things out, and it returned a negative for the identification. This was done at Ebla, so I don't know if it ever happened here or not.

Interesting. Did Mr. Kirby's program look at this question specifically, or did it look at other possibilities as well? Do you have any more information on this work?

Thanks in advance.

Solitary Man · 12-03-2007, 03:17 AM

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t...+kirby+program

He did more, but now I suppose its all lost.

Freethinkaluva · 12-03-2007, 11:16 AM

I've heard of Kirby's program to check these things. There's reason to believe Irenaeus had a hand in the Gospels somewhere - even if not Luke or Acts, maybe John. We'd have to test the writing styles etc.

Here's a fantastic new book on biblical criticism I think a lot here would enjoy - Xians can learn a lot from it too.

Quote:

"The argument for this assertion that Irenaeus himself authored John includes the fact that the Church father was provoked passionately to defend the gospel, which he does with a fervor that often accompanies a "pet project." Even if John were composed by another's hand, this abundance of defense suggests that the gospel had not been in existence for a long time, as has been claimed, but had only recently emerged in the literary and historical record, leading to the gospel immediately being attacked and dismissed."

page 79 - "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Toto · 12-03-2007, 11:29 AM

Randal Helms suggests that the gospel of John was originally a gnostic gospel written by Cerinthus, and revised later by someone of Irenaeus' era. From earlychristianwritings

Quote:

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

Solitary Man · 12-03-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

I've heard of Kirby's program to check these things. There's reason to believe Irenaeus had a hand in the Gospels somewhere - even if not Luke or Acts, maybe John. We'd have to test the writing styles etc.

Here's a fantastic new book on biblical criticism I think a lot here would enjoy - Xians can learn a lot from it too.

Modern Christians zealously defend the Bible...that doesn't mean they wrote it. :banghead:

Freethinkaluva · 12-03-2007, 11:37 AM

Good point toto

Quote:

"In his defense, Irenaeus claims that John was written against the heretic Cerinthus, who was spreading the error of "gnosis," but it seems as if John was also written in order to combat the "heresy" of Christ not coming in the flesh, which was called "Docetism." In fact, Irenaeus fairly foams at the mouth when going after these heretics who did not confess Christ had come in the flesh. In other words, Jesus's very incarnation was at stake, and Irenaeus's goal was to wipe out two Gnostic birds with one stone."

"Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Clivedurdle · 12-03-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century"

Is this not evidence for a literary mythical Christ who later acreeted human characteristics?

dog-on · 12-04-2007, 12:59 AM

Interesting stuff!

Isn't it fairly non-controversial within modern scholarship to view Gospel John as a multi-layered work?

I suppose the best tactic to use against an opponent would be, in such a case, to turn their own scriptures against them, (perhaps with some simple edits...).

What appears to be certain is that, by Irenaeus, the lines were definitely drawn. Also, it seems that there was a very serious issue with regards to whether or not the Jewish god was indeed the Supreme Being. This issue appears in Justin, in the 150's and is still being argued in the 3rd century, by Tertullian.

Hell maybe circumcision/uncircumcision are simply code words for Jewish God/Hidden God...

I just can't accept the notion that these apologists spent all that ink for all that time on just some small subsection of "heretical" Christianity.

In Irenaeus, we actually get the first clear acknowledgement of the writings that are to become part of the NT. He seems to decide on the number of Gospels, ascribe authors to them, has a clear knowledge of the epistles and of course, knows Acts.

Quite a long way from Martyr...

Something just doesn't sit right, imo...

12-03-2007, 02:24 AM	#1
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Could Ireneaus have done it? Has there been an investigation into any possibility that Ireneaus of Lyons may have been the author of Luke/Acts? Maybe that in addition to some editorial work/literary expansion on the Pauline corpus? Is such a thing even possible? Is there an historical chain of custody for these works that can be identified prior to Ireneaus? Just wondering...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-03-2007, 02:29 AM	#2
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	If I recall, Peter Kirby designed a program to check these sorts of things out, and it returned a negative for the identification. This was done at Ebla, so I don't know if it ever happened here or not.

12-03-2007, 03:17 AM	#4
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t...+kirby+program He did more, but now I suppose its all lost.

12-04-2007, 12:59 AM	#10
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Interesting stuff! Isn't it fairly non-controversial within modern scholarship to view Gospel John as a multi-layered work? I suppose the best tactic to use against an opponent would be, in such a case, to turn their own scriptures against them, (perhaps with some simple edits...). What appears to be certain is that, by Irenaeus, the lines were definitely drawn. Also, it seems that there was a very serious issue with regards to whether or not the Jewish god was indeed the Supreme Being. This issue appears in Justin, in the 150's and is still being argued in the 3rd century, by Tertullian. Hell maybe circumcision/uncircumcision are simply code words for Jewish God/Hidden God... I just can't accept the notion that these apologists spent all that ink for all that time on just some small subsection of "heretical" Christianity. In Irenaeus, we actually get the first clear acknowledgement of the writings that are to become part of the NT. He seems to decide on the number of Gospels, ascribe authors to them, has a clear knowledge of the epistles and of course, knows Acts. Quite a long way from Martyr... Something just doesn't sit right, imo...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.