stephan huller

I happened to stumble on this in the Textual Criticism Yahoo Group. I thought it would special resonance for those who argue that the writings of the Church Fathers are forged. Irenaeus attributes the same unknown saying to both Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is impossible.

The most logical explanation is that we have YET ANOTHER incorporation of material from Justin Martyr into the collection of lectures of Irenaeus (the Syntagma which takes up much or most of AH i.22 - 31 is the most famous example; other examples can be found in Tertullian). In any event the two different identifications of the same passage in Irenaeus are:

Irenaeus Against Heresies III.XX.4
And that it was not a mere man who died for us, Isaiah says: "And the holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them."

IV.XXII.1
As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved."

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho LXXII also identifies Jeremiah as the author of the passage against the original 'Isaiah' reference in Book Three:

And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: `The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

If we actually look at the flow of the original argument in Irenaeus Book Four it is obvious that this chapter - chapter 22 - breaks the connection between chapters 21 and 23, and DELIBERATELY introduces the idea that Jesus will reappear as a judge at his second advent, which seems to be placed in an indefinite future age.

One could argue that Irenaeus usually argues for a more immediate revelation and that a later editor - having the benefit of hindsight - realizes that Irenaeus's original claims were incorrect. As such, it might be argued that the editor took a passage which reflected Justin's original chiliastic beliefs and modified them slightly and inserted them into Irenaeus's argument AGAINST the Marcosian belief that 'the year of favor' that Jesus came to announce should be identified with his one year ministry.

If we look at Irenaeus's other writings, the Church Father usually combats these 'heretical' claims by saying that NOW - i.e. the time Irenaeus and his contemporaries were living in - was the 'year of favor' and presumably the age in which Christ would return and judge his people. Photius saw more original manuscripts of Irenaeus and identifies that they will filled a great many undefined 'errors.'

I wonder whether chapter 22 represents a later editors attempt (c. mid third century) to correct these errors. Note the original flow in the section:

CHAP. XXI.--ABRAHAM'S FAITH WAS IDENTICAL WITH OURS; THIS FAITH WAS PREFIGURED BY THE WORDS AND ACTIONS OF THE OLD PATRIARCHS.

1. But that our faith was also prefigured in Abraham, and that he was the patriarch of our faith, and, as it were, the prophet of it, the apostle has very fully taught, when he says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, announced beforehand unto Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed. So then they which be of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." For which [reasons the apostle] declared that this man was not only the prophet of faith, but also the father of those who from among the Gentiles believe in Jesus Christ, because his faith and ours are one and the same: for he believed in things future, as if they were already accomplished, because of the promise of God; and in like manner do we also, because of the promise of God, behold through faith that inheritance [laid up for us] in the [future] kingdom.

2. The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the eider shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

3. If any one, again, will look into Jacob's actions, he shall find them not destitute of meaning, but full of import with regard to the dispensations. Thus, in the first place, at his birth, since he laid hold on his brother's heel, he was called Jacob, that is, the supplanter--one who holds, but is not held; binding the feet, but not being bound; striving and conquering; grasping in his hand his adversary's heel, that is, victory. For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer." In the next place, [Jacob] received the rights of the first-born, when his brother looked on them with contempt; even as also the younger nation received Him, Christ, the first- begotten, when the elder nation rejected Him, saying, "We have no king but Caesar." But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people has snatched away the blessings of the former from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessing of this Esau. For which cause his brother suffered the plots and persecutions of a brother, just as the Church suffers this self-same thing from the Jews. In a foreign country were the twelve tribes born, the race of Israel, inasmuch as Christ was also, in a strange country, to generate the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church. Various coloured sheep were allotted to this Jacob as his wages; and the wages of Christ are human beings, who from various and diverse nations come together into one cohort of faith, as the Father promised Him, saying, "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession." And as from the multitude of his sons the prophets of the Lord [afterwards] arose, there was every necessity that Jacob should beget sons from the two sisters, even as Christ did from the two laws of one and the same Father; and in like manner also from the handmaids, indicating that Christ should raise up sons of God, both from freemen and from slaves after the flesh, bestowing upon all, in the same manner, the gift of the Spirit, who vivifies us. But he (Jacob) did all things for the sake of the younger, she who had the handsome eyes, Rachel, who prefigured the Church, for which Christ endured patiently; who at that time, indeed, by means of His patriarchs and prophets, was prefiguring and declaring beforehand future things, fulfilling His part by anticipation in the dispensations of God, and accustoming His inheritance to obey God, and to pass through the world as in a state of pilgrimage, to follow His word, and to indicate beforehand things to come. For with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification.

CHAP. XXII.--CHRIST DID NOT COME FOR THE SAKE OF THE MEN OF ONE AGE ONLY, BUT FOR ALL WHO, LIVING RIGHTEOUSLY AND PIOUSLY, HAD BELIEVED UPON HIM; AND FOR THOSE, TOO, WHO SHALL BELIEVE.

1 Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion," when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands. For this is the end of the human race inheriting God; that as in the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage, by being made subject to death; so at last, by means of the New Man, all who from the beginning [were His] disciples, having been cleansed and washed from things pertaining to death, should come to the life of God. For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean. For this reason, too, He administered food to them in a recumbent posture, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were they to whom He came to impart life. As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved." For this reason also were the eyes of the disciples weighed down when Christ's passion was approaching; and when, in the first instance, the Lord found them sleeping, He let it pass,--thus indicating the patience of God in regard to the state of slumber in which men lay; but coming the second time, He aroused them, and made them stand up, in token that His passion is the arousing of His sleeping disciples, on whose account "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labours, in reference to whom He did also declare to the disciples: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what ye do see and hear."

2. For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom. For it is truly "one God who" directed the patriarchs towards His dispensations, and "has justified the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For as in the first we were prefigured, so, on the other hand, are they represented in us, that is, in the Church, and receive the recompense for those things which they accomplished.

CHAP. XXIII.--THE PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS BY POINTING OUT THE ADVENT OF CHRIST, FORTIFIED THEREBY, AS IT WERE, THE WAY OF POSTERITY TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST; AND SO THE LABOURS OF THE APOSTLES WERE LESSENED INASMUCH AS THEY GATHERED IN THE FRUITS OF THE LABOURS OF OTHERS.

1. For which reason the Lord declared to the disciples: "Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look upon the districts (regiones), for they are white [already] to harvest. For the harvest- man receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal, that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For in this is the saying true, that one soweth and another reapeth. For I have sent you forward to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour; other men have laboured, and ye have entered into their labours." Who, then, are they that have laboured, and have helped forward the dispensations of God? It is clear that they are the patriarchs and prophets, who even prefigured our faith, and disseminated through the earth the advent of the Son of God, who and what He should be: so that posterity, possessing the fear of God, might easily accept the advent of Christ, having been instructed by the prophets. And for this reason it was, that when Joseph became aware that Mary was with child, and was minded to put her away privily, the angel said to him in sleep: "Fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. For she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins." And exhorting him [to this], he added: "Now all this has been done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken from the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel;" thus influencing him by the words of the prophet, and warding off blame from Mary, pointing out that it was she who was the virgin mentioned by Isaiah beforehand, who should give birth to Emmanuel. Wherefore, when Joseph was convinced beyond all doubt, he both did take Mary, and joyfully yielded obedience in regard to all the rest of the education of Christ, undertaking a journey into Egypt and back again, and then a removal to Nazareth. [For this reason,] those who knew not the Scriptures nor the promise of God, nor the dispensation of Christ, at last called him the father of the child. For this reason, too, did the Lord Himself read at Capernaum the prophecies of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me; to preach the Gospel to the poor hath He sent Me, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind." At the same time, showing that it was He Himself who had been foretold by Esaias the prophet, He said to them: "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears."

I think that the beginning of chapter 23 i.e. "For which reason the Lord declared to the disciples: "Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look upon the districts (regiones) ..." originally followed the discussion of the prophets preserving and foreshadowing the Christian message. Read the end of chapter 21 and the beginning of chapter 23 and you will see what I mean.

The more you look at you will see that chapter 22 was jumped dumped there from some external source by a later editor to obscure the idea that the prophets predicted the establishment of the Roman Church in Irenaeus's day (just go down to chapter 30 to see Irenaeus shout that his alliance with Commodus represents the fulfillment of the true Exodus). I am especially intrigued by the deliberate removal of the reference to 'the year of favor' at the end of the section just cited:

For this reason, too, did the Lord Himself read at Capernaum the prophecies of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me; to preach the Gospel to the poor hath He sent Me, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind." At the same time, showing that it was He Himself who had been foretold by Esaias the prophet, He said to them: "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.

But note that "to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor' has been deliberately removed from the passage. This cannot be deemed to be accidental as Irenaeus earlier uses this as a launching pad to say that the 'year of favor' was to be taken figuratively and denoted a period which culminated in Irenaeus's own age:

My guess is that foreign material was added to make chapter 22 to obscure the force of chapter 30 when Irenaeus says effectively that all of Christian history culminated with his alliance with Commodus!

Doug Shaver

Probably. I saw hints in his blog that Richard Carrier is going to have a lot to say about the authenticity of all the patristic writings in his forthcoming book on Jesus' historicity.

Roger Pearse

That's the punishment he gets for being an atheist.

stephan huller

Just to make clear Roger, incorporating Photius's observation that the early 'lectures' of Irenaeus were filled with doctrinal errors into our understanding of the Five Books Against Heresies does not make one an atheist or an enemy of Christianity. The path to truth sometimes means questioning sacred cows.

yalla

Hopefully not too much of a tangent.

Who wrote the Martyrdom of Polycarp/The letter of the Smyrnaeans which seems closely related to matters Irenaeus?



Epistle “the Martyrdom of Polycarp’”

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...arp-intro.html

The following is transcribed from Kirsopp Lake's The Apostolic Fathers (published London 1912), v. II, pp. 309-311

“This obviously genuine and contemporary account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, in the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium, is the earliest known history of a Christian martyrdom, the genuineness of which is unquestionable, and its value is enhanced by the fact that in the extant MSS. a short account is given of the history of the text. From this it appears that Gaius, a contemporary of Irenaeus who had himself seen Polycarp when he was a boy, copied the text from a manuscript in the possession of Irenaeus. Later on Socrates in Corinth copied the text of Gaius, and finally Pionius copied the text of Socrates. Pionius, who is supposed to have lived in the 4th century, says that the existence of the document was revealed to him in a vision by Polcycarp, and that when he found it the MS. was old and in bad condition”.


Compare to this:


Catholic Encyclpopedia
St. Pionius.
Martyred at Smyrna, 12 March, 250. Pionius, with Sabina and Asclepiades, was arrested on 23 February, the anniversary of St. Polycarp's martyrdom…..

For the life of Polycarp by Pionius:
see SAINT POLYCARP


“There is a life of St. Polycarp by pseudo-Pionius, compiled probably in the middle of the fourth century. It is "altogether valueless as a contribution to our knowledge of Polycarp. It does not, so far as we know, rest on any tradition, early or late, and may probably be regarded as a fiction of the author's own brain" (Lightfoot, op. cit., iii, 431). The postscript to the letter to the Smyrneans: "This account Gaius copied from the papers of Irenaeus ... and I, Socrates, wrote it down in Corinth ... and I, Pionius again wrote it down", etc. probably came from the pseudo-Pionius."

From the text of "The Martyrdom of Polycarp as Told in the letter of the Church Of Smyrna etc"
contained in:
"The Library of Christian Classics: Early Christian Fathers" Vol 1 Ed. Richardson C.C., SCM Press London MCMLIII p.158

Polycarp 22:3 From these papers of Irenaeus then, as has been stated already, Gaius made a copy, and from the copy of Gaius Isocrates made another in Corinth.
Polycarp 22:4
And I Pionius again wrote it down from the copy of Isocrates, having searched for it in obedience to a revelation of the holy Polycarp, gathering it together, when it was well nigh worn out by age


Somebody has been mucking around with the text.

andrewcriddle

The problem is that in Irenaeus' Apostolic Preaching we have IE an attribution to Jeremiah as in Book IV chapter XXII of Against Heresies.

This makes the reference to Isaiah in Book III the odd man out. My guess would be that Irenaeus cited the passage anonymously, (as he does in Book IV chapter XXXIII and Book V), and because this comes at the end of a series of quotations from Isaiah not all cited as by Isaiah, some copyist thought the quote was from Isaiah like the preceding ones and glossed it accordingly.


Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

You outdid yourself again Mr. Criddle. Such a pleasure to have someone with your knowledge and grasp of the original sources.

It would seem easier to explain the three Jeremiah references as authentic. I don't quite agree with your explanation of the Isaiah reference. Here is the original reference:

On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, [Isa. vii. 4] is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: “For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing,” [Rom. vii. 18] showing that the “good thing” of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” [Rom. vii. 24] Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying,] “The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.” And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says:] “Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us.” [Isa. xxv. 3] Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved.

Again, that it should not be a mere man who should save us, nor [one] without flesh--for the angels are without flesh--[the same prophet] announced, saying: "Neither an πρέσβυς, nor angel, but the Lord Himself will save them because He loves them, and will spare them He will Himself set them free." (Isa. lxiii. 9) And that He should Himself become very man, visible, when He should be the Word giving salvation, Isaiah again sap: "Behold, city of Zion: thine eyes shall see our salvation." (Isa. xxxiii. 20) And that it was not a mere man who died for us, Isaiah says: "And the holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them."(SPURIOUS ISAIAH QUOTE) And Amos the prophet declares the same: "He will turn again, and will have compassion upon us: He will destroy our iniquities, and will cast our sins into the depths of the sea."(Mic. vii. 9) And again, specifying the place of His advent, he says: "The Lord hath spoken from Zion, and He has uttered His voice from Jerusalem."(Joel iii. 16; Amos i. 2.) And that it is from that region which is towards the south of the inheritance of Judah that the Son of God shall come, who is God, and who was from Bethlehem, where the Lord was born [and] will send out His praise through all the earth, thus says the prophet Habakkuk: "God shall come from the south, and the Holy One from Mount, Effrem. His power covered the heavens over, and the earth is full of His praise. Before His face shall go forth the Word, and His feet shall advance in the plains.” (Hab. iii. 3, 5). Thus he indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was [to take place] in Bethlehem, and from Mount Effrem which is towards the south of the inheritance, and that [He is] man. For he says, “His feet shall advance in the plains:” and this is an indication proper to man. [Irenaeus iii.20.4]

For this last quote the editors remark "This quotation from Habakkuk, here commented on by Irenæus, differs both from the Hebrew and the LXX., and comes nearest to the old Italic version of the passage."

As such we are left with a most curious situation. Your explanation that it was a simple 'mistake' on the part of the scribe can't work either because the citations are clearly laid out - a section of quotes from 'Isaiah,' then 'Amos' and then 'Habakkuk' with SOMETHING VERY STRANGE ABOUT ALL THE REFERENCES.

The point is that the one 'spurious' reference to the passage from Isaiah is in keeping with the character of the whole section. As such it can't be simply ruled a 'scribal error.' This is a very powerful example of material being ADDED to Irenaeus (of course I didn't discover it!) - either this one section, or three sections from Justin presumably over the body of Irenaeus's extant material.

One more thing which I think brings the discussion into a greater perspective.

I think that the mistaken attribution of Amos WHICH FOLLOWS the erroneous Irenaeus reference reminds me of the mistaken attribution of 'Isaiah' at the beginning of most early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark:

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet"

If this is accepted we should notice at once that in the SAME BOOK of Irenaeus (i.e. Against All Heresies III) there are TWO different citations of the opening words of Mark:

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets [AH iii.10.5]

and then immediately again:

This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character[AH iii.11.8]

but then back again later to:

Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets." Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, "'the messenger of great counsel of the Father;"

I noticed this a long time ago and forgot all about it but I think that guy at the Yahoo Discussion Group has found a powerful piece of evidence to compliment that originally discovery.

My suspicions are that the 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet' is the reading that actually comes from Irenaeus. The others represent a later editor 'adjusting' the work of Irenaeus to reflect a corrected NT. Now why wouldn't the editor have corrected the second reference?

Well there are no easy answers here.

The solution of 'believers' is going to be to ignore the evidence and hope it goes away. 'Haters' will see this as proof that the whole writings of Irenaeus were forged so they too can make them go away.

I wonder whether it indicates what Photius implies when he says that the early lectures of Irenaeus were full of doctrinal errors. I even wonder whether Irenaeus actually witnessed the fourfaced gospel or whether the two "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets" references represent the 'painting over' of Irenaeus's original opinion by the new orthodoxy established a generation later in the early Severan period.

There are difficult choices here and as I said partisans on both sides will want to make them go away. I hope at least some people will take them seriously.

charles

An interesting point. I knew there were two readings of Mark 1.1 and I always wondered how someone could have mistaken Isaiah as the author of that citation. While it isn't any clearer at least I see that it happened more than once in Irenaeus. He seemed to use a strange NT!

GakuseiDon

I have read that it was common practice that several prophets could be referred to by the one name, which highlighted their virtue (or vice). I would be interested to hear if this is the case.

The main source for this is Rabbi Chajes's "The Student's Guide Through the Talmud". From here (my emphasis):
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_archive.html

For the reason quoted above, namely that the Rabbis had the definite principle in their homiletic interpretations of praising, so far as possible, the deeds of the virtuous and of disparaging the doings of the wicked in every available way, they further adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities if they found a similarity between any of their actions. Even where there was only some resemblance in the names of different persons, they blended the two in one, as we see in the following cases (Meg. 15a): 'Malachi and Ezra are one and the same person, for, in the prophecy of Malachi, it is written "He hath married the daughter of a strange God", while in the book of Ezra, it is written "We have broken faith with our God and have married strange women!" Similarly, they held that Hathach and Daniel are one; that Pethahiah is the same as Mordecai, and Sheshbazzar the same as Daniel. Again, they said that Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes are all one (R.H 3b)...

De Rossi, in his Me'or `Enayim, chap. xviii, has collected the statements quoted above, showing how the Rabbis identified several different persons with the name of one man who was outstanding either in virtue or vice...

darstec

That was a joke, right? Original sources? We don't have anything remotely close to the originals of any early church father. Everything is about 1000 years removed, and has been passed down through the hands of biased sources with a pony in the race. We can't tell how many times those works have been redacted. And there is no evidence that many of those early church writers even existed.