andrewcriddle

FWIW there are sources other than the Latin for large portions of Adversus Haereses. eg books 4 and 5 survive in Armenian, and there are substantial quotations in later Greek writers particularly from book 1. These provide some sort of check on the reliability of the Latin which is the only complete surviving version, and for books 2 and 3 is effectively our only source.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Thank you Andrew, much appreciated.

I ask this question now, not to dispute your assertion, but simply for further clarification (i.e. because I don't know the answer!). Are these components of Adversus Haereses, which exist in Armenian and Greek, copies of the original Greek, or copies of some Latin version?

How do we know that the original version was written in Greek, and not Latin?

Why does the Vatican suggest that the extant Latin version exhibits "scrupulous fidelity" to the original Greek manuscript--a document not in their possession? Is this phrase meant to convey the notion that sometimes Vatican issued documents are not reliable?

Assuming that the current folks at the Vatican are well intentioned when they write that this document is an authentic translation, "beyond doubt", why do they believe that this, the only extant copy of Adversus Haereses, is "scrupulously" faithful to the original, especially given the large quantity of redactions, corrections, additions, insertions, and deletions found in the most famous document of their impressive library, Codex Vaticanus?

andrewcriddle

The Armenian is regarded as an independent translation from the Greek. As for Greek being the original language, we have quotations by other Greek writers and Greek papyrus fragments (at least one papyrus being 3rd century).

The last person to read the original Greek of Irenaeus may have been photius Andrew Criddle

avi

Thank you Andrew, for the link to Photius. I looked through the entire catalogue, quite impressive. He seems to have read a lot of books.
The particular topic of interest, Irenaeus, is listed as number 120, for those inclined to scroll down through the entire catalogue.....

I apologize, Andrew, but, I don't see any link at this web site, where there is an explanation of which version, or in which language, Photius is supposed to have studied Adversus Haereses.

I am not seeking to quarrel with you, but, I simply don't know how you have come into possession of the knowledge that the Armenian translation was made from Irenaeus' original Greek manuscript, nor, for that matter, how it is that you know that he wrote this work in Greek, not Latin. In my mind, at least, if nowhere else, there could be an explanation for why the Vatican is so emphatic about the work being authentic, "without doubt". That explanation goes something like this:

Hypothetically, only, of course, I have no data: The Vatican knows that the work, in Latin, is absolutely bona fide, because it is NOT a copy, but the original.

Do you have some evidence that the papyrus fragments, in Greek, represent copies of the original Greek manuscript, rather than Greek copies of an original Latin version? How do you know the dates when these papyrus fragments were written? If I am not badly mistaken, we are assuming, for sake of argument, (correct?), that this chap lived in the latter part of the second century, at a time when Latin, rather than Greek, was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, no? In those turbulent times, would not a well educated man, even one originally from Assyria, Babylon, or the region today called Turkey, write and speak Latin fluently?

As I understand it, Irenaeus was supposed to have lived in Lyons, a city which, so far as I am aware, was not a Greek speaking locale, within the empire....

sschlichter

A passage would be useful. Can you define for me what a hint of interpolation looks like. ie. is support for later christian theology what drives the hunt for interpolations? I have not ever heard this as a defense for the Trinity.

andrewcriddle

A few points (in no particular order)

a/ The earliest (Greek) papyrus fragment of Irenaeus Adversus Haereses (POxy 405) is dated on handwriting grounds to the early 3rd century ie shortly after 200 CE. The Greek of Adversus Haereses is quoted by other Christian writers from Hippolytus (early 200's) onwards

b/ Lyons was in a Celtic area (Irenaeus complains about a barbarous dialect) in the Western Empire Christianity seems to have initially spread among the Greek ethnic minority.

c/ Adversus Haereses contains a lot of discussion of the supposed numerological significance of words in Greek (and sometimes Hebrew) but not AFAIK Latin.

d / Adversus Haereses Book 3 chapter 21 defends the reliability of the Christian version of the OT by appealing to the legend of the Septuagint's miraculous accuracy. There is no mention of Latin translations of the Septuagint, the accuracy of which would have been an issue for Latin speaking Christians.

e/ I'm not sure why an original Latin version of Adversus Haereses translated very early into Greek would actually help your argument for the unreliability of Irenaeus as a witness to late 2nd century Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

rcscwc

Xians must explain why Hindu scriptures cannot be trusted.

gurugeorge

But what are you saying? Christianity is special!!!

Shantanu

Of course Christianity is special, if you strip away all the irrelevant and erroneous components. When included it becomes specially bad.

angelo

Christanity may well be the continuation of Mitharism, only a little more evolved.