aa5874

Based on the very information found in "Against Heresies" it can be logically deduced that the compilation was heavily Manipulated.
On one hand it is claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old and that the Gospel, John the disciple of the Lord, the other disciples, and the Elders did tell people in Asia the very same thing.

But, on the other, the author claimed that Acts of the Apostles is in Perfect agreement with Galatians where it is claimed Paul went to Jeusalem the second time AFTER FOURTEEN years.

It is virtually impossible to argue that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are in agreement and still argue that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

"Against Heresies" 3.13.3 Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings do NOT show at all that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years.

The death of Herod in 44 CE is found in Acts 13.23 and Paul was ALREADY preaching that Jesus was crucified at least One year earlier in Antioch in Acts 11.26.

And even BEFORE the supposed conversion of Paul, the character called Peter preached Christ Crucified in Acts 2.36.

Acts 2:36 KJV It is virtually impossible for Acts of the Apostles to harmonise with the Pauline writings and that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery--a product of multiple authors.

Bernard Muller

The deemed earliest 'Acts' of that bunch (Peter, Andrew, John, plus Paul & Thecla), written around 150-200, are in the genre of romance, very different of the one of 'Acts of the apostles'. Romance started to appear (or became popular) after 150. The different style and late appearance would explain they were not canonized. In view of the dating, it may be that Irenaeus was not even aware of them. However for the Acts of Paul & Thecla, Above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla

It was a very popular work in antiquity, with many copies of different versions available to us.
If Acts of the apostles was thought as being written by the same author than gLuke (according to the introductions) and known to be existent well before Irenaeus' times (despite its little use so far), that would make it a good candidate for the canon.

'Acts' is not only about Paul. It covers the period from the alleged resurrection to about 62. Paul on its own, without Barnabas, is featured in the last 13 chapters (out of 28). Paul & Barnabas together are in 3 chapters earlier (13,14,15). Finally Paul is also the main character in most of chapter 9. So chapters 1 to 8, then 10 to 12 are not about Paul.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Acts does not say the death of that Herod happened in 44 CE

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles does NOT say Jesus suffered at about 50 years of age but it is found in AH 2.22

Acts of the Apostles does NOT say Jesus was born in 41st year of the reign of Augustus but it is found in AH 3.21.

Acts of the Apostles does NOT say Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius but it is found in Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching.

Acts of the Apostles does NOT SAY that Jesus was about 30 years when supposedly Baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius but it is found in AH 2.22.

Again, if the author of Against Heresies knew what was said in Acts of the Apostles he could NOT have been reasonably expected to argue that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

In Acts of the Apostles chapter 2 it is SAID that Peter preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED BEFORE the Conversion of Paul who preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED at least ONE year BEFORE the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 CE.

Against Heresies was MANIPULATED.

One of the authors did NOT know what was said in Acts of the Apostles about the crucifixion of Jesus.

And NO Canonized NT source SAID Jesus was crucified at 50 years.

Against Heresies is a MAssive forgery.

Duvduv

Here is Acts 13:23, nothing mentioning Herod:

23 “From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 24 Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. 25 As John was completing his work, he said: ‘Who do you suppose I am? I am not the one you are looking for. But there is one coming after me whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’

Bernard Muller

Another error by Irenaeus. Augustus is not known to have succeeded Julius immediately after his death, but Irenaeus thought so.

No, but gLuke says that.

How many times should I tell you 'Acts' does not provide any historical reference dates (on secular markers, such as the death of a Herod, Felix and Gallio as prefects). So knowing 'Acts' by just reading it, does not say Pilate's rule lasted less that 20 years. Furthermore, when writing AH2.22, Irenaeus might not have thought of 'Acts', itself not a place where Pilate's rule duration is specified.

Bernard Muller

It is in 12:23. That's very surprising from aa, who is known not to make error

aa5874

This is exactly what was to be expected if Irenaeus did really argue with Heretics. He would correct his mistakes but we see in another writing "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" that it is claimed that Jesus was crucified under Claudius Caesar.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT really know what was SAID in gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters when he argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age and claimed that John the disciple of the Lord, the other disciples, and the Elders did tell people in Asia the very same thing.

Now, the correct passage is Acts 12.21-23 where Herod died AFTER it is claimed Barnabas and Paul preached Christ for One whole year in Antioch in Acts 11.25-26.

And further Paul was a persecutor of the Church of Jerusalem in Acts 8 .1 before he was converted by a Bright light.

At least one of the authors of Against Heresies did NOT know what is said in Acts of the Apostles when it was claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

Duvduv

Just for clarification's sake, this Herod was known as Agrippa I.
He is discussed in Josephus. He was the grandson of Herod the Great, who died almost 50 years earlier.

In the Talmud Agrippa I he is not identified with having been a bad person at all, although he as a Herodian was not permitted under Jewish law to be a king, which is why the rabbis considered the support of Jews for him as wrong.
See: http://www.halakhah.com/sotah/sotah_41.html
Here is the reference in Josephus: http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-19.htm

Luke 23 describes his uncle Herod Antipas as the ruler in Galilee to whom Pilate sent Jesus for trial.

I am curious how to understand him in the context of both Acts and the Talmud in terms of events in those days, but I haven't gone through it carefully enough.

aa5874

So please tell us where did Irenaeus get his additional 20 years from??? He did NOT get it from gJohn, gLuke , Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.
How many times must it be SHOWN to you that he STATED he got the additional 20 years from the ELDERS and the People of Asia who saw and heard John and the OTHER Apostles.

Against Heresies 2.22 One of the authors of Against Heresies 2.22 used the information from an Oral tradition of the Elders of Asia who saw and heard John and the OTHER Apostles.

Against Heresis is a massive forgery.