DCHindley

:deadhorse:

DCHindley

:hobbyhorse:

Toto

Our next smilie: beating a dead hobby horse.

DCHindley

Jay,

The final post on the raw data.

Riley points out that:

Greek AH 1, 2, 2. (Epiphanius) PROHLATO DE POLU hO TELEUTAIOS KAI NEWTATOS THS DWDEKADOS, THS hUPO TOU ANQRWPOU KAI THS EKKLHSIAS, PROBEBLHMENOS AIWN, TOUTESTIN hH SWFIA, KAI EPAQE PAQOS ANEU THS EPIPLOKHS TOU ZUGOU TOU QELHTOU; hO ENHRXATO MEN EV TOIS PERI TON NOUN KAI THN ALHQEIAN, APESKHYE [by infection] DE [but] EIS [into] TOUTON [this] TON [the (one) = the Aeon] PARATRAPENTA [diverted]

Latin AH 1, 2, 2. Praesiliit autem valde ultimus et junior de duodecade ea, quae ab Anthropo et Ecclesia emissa fuerat, Aeon hoc est, Sophia: et passa est passionem sine complexu conjugis Theleti: quae exorsa quidem fuerat in iis, quae sunt erga Nun et Alethiam; derivavit [diverting] autem [indeed] in hunc [in this] AEonem [Aeon], id [that] est [is], Sophiam [Sophia] demutatam [changed/deteriorated]

ANF AH 1, 2, 2. But there rushed forth in advance of the rest that AEon who was much the latest of them, and was the youngest of the Duodecad which sprang from Anthropos and Ecclesia, namely Sophia, and suffered passion apart from the embrace of her consort Theletos. This passion, indeed, first arose among those who were connected with Nous and Aletheia, but passed as by contagion to this degenerate AEon, [that is, Sophia (this was omitted from ANF in deference to the Greek, although present in the Latin)]

Tert. Adv. Val. IX. namque ex illis duodecim Aeonibus quos Homo et Ecclesia ediderant novissima natu Aeon -- viderit soloecismus, Sophia nomen est --incontinentia sui sine coniugis Theleti societate prorumpit in patrem inquirere et genus contrahit vitii quod exorsum quidem fuerat in illis aliis, qui circa Nun, in hunc [in this (Aeon)] autem [indeed], id [that] est [is] in Sophiam [in Sophia], derivarat [diverted (such as the course of a stream of water)].

ANF Against the Valentinians 9. For of the twelve AEons which Homo and Ecclesia had produced, the youngest by birth (never mind the solecism, since Sophia (Wisdom) is her name), unable to restrain herself, breaks away without the society of her husband Theletus, in quest of the Father and contracts that kind of sin which had indeed arisen amongst the others who were conversant with Nus but had flowed on to this AEon, that is, to Sophia

Riley argues that "the latter passages [IL & Tertullian Ad.Val.] both add Sophia's name in the Latin because of the difference in genders: after "in hunc" one would not expect a feminine noun unless expressed. Note T's comment, "viderit soloecismus" (Adv. Val. 9)." [ A solescism is "something deviating from the proper, normal, or accepted order" per Merriam Webster Dictionary]

My comments are as follows: That "solecism" that Tertullian calls attention to in the first mention of the name Sophia seems to exist to call attention to the inconsistency of the Aeon Sophia, meaning Wisdom, falling into error. The second instance in these passages seems intended to identify "this (Aeon)" in the Greek AH as Sophia, to distinguish it from the other Aeons mentioned: Anthropos, Ekklesia, Theletus, Nous and Aletheia.

The Greek says the sins of those who associated with Nous (Mind) like an infection into this (Aeon – supplied by context) was diverted, referring to the Aeon Sophia without saying it by name.

The Latin translator says the sin of the circles about Nous diverted indeed into this Aeon, that is, the deteriorated Sophia.

Tertullian says the sins of those in the circles around Nous (Nus) were into this (Aeon) indeed, that is Sophia, diverted

Tertullian by implying the term Aeon rather than stating it, is actually closer to the Greek than the Latin translation of Irenaeus. Even so, both the Latin translator and Tertullian still manage to miss the concept of infection moving through a body that is present in the Greek word APESKHYE* Again, it is easier to see the Latin translator of Irenaeus missing this, with Tertullian going by what he found in Latin Irenaeus and not having access to Greek AH, than for Tertullian to have ALSO missed the point made in the Greek.

*See Dillon & Unger's book (or via: amazon.co.uk), which discusses the word on pages 136 & 137.

Lipsius noted that:

Greek AH 1, 2, 4. (Epiphanius) DIA DE TOU hOROU TOUTOU FASI KEKAQARQAI KAI ESTHRICQAI THN SOFIAN, KAI APOKATASTAQHNAI TH SUZUGIA; XWRISQEISHS GAR THS ENQUMHSEWS AP' AUTHS SUN TW EPIGINOMENW [overcoming/impending] PAQEI [passion], AUTHN MEN ENTOS PLHRWMATOS EINAI [or MEINAI per IL]; THN DE ENQUMHSIN AUTHS SUN TW PAQEI hUPO TOU hOROU AFORISQHNAI KAI APOSTERHQHNAI ["was deprived", or APOSTAURWQHNAI "to fence off" per IL & Tert], KAI EKTOS AUTOU GENOMENHN

Latin AH 1, 2, 4. Per Horon autem hunc dicunt mundatam et confirmatam Sophiam, et restitutam conjugi. Separata enim intentione ab ea cum appendice [an addition to something] passione, ipsam quidem infra Pleroma perseverasse. Concupiscentiam vero ejus cum passione ab Horo separatam et crucifixam, et extra eum factam

ANF AH 1, 2, 4. And by this Horus they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced off, and expelled from that circle.

Tert Adv. Val. X. [4] huius praedicant opera et repressam ab inlicitis et purgatam a malis et dienceps confirmatam Sophiam et coniugio restitutam, et ipsam quidem in Pleromatis censu remansisse, Enthymesin vero eius et illam appendicem [an addition to something] passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam et extra eum factam –

ANF Against The Valentinians 10. By his assistance they declare that Sophia was checked in her illicit courses, and purified from all evils, and henceforth strengthened (in virtue), and restored to the conjugal state: (they add) that she indeed remained within the bounds of the Pleroma, but that her Enthymesis, with the accruing Passion, was banished by Horos, and crucified and cast out from the Pleroma,

In response to this, Riley argues that "the … word, 'appendicem,' is a technical medical term which exactly fits here" and thus the agreement could be an independent use of a technical term that fits the context.

My comments: How does he know this is a technical term, and if so, for what? Lewis & Short does not show any technical meanings for the latin word "Appendix." My guess is that Latin Appendix "fits" because in Greek 1.2.2. Irenaeus uses the bona-fide Greek medical technical term APESKHYE (apeskEpse) which refers to the way illness moves from one part of the body to another, which we would call infection. However, see my comment on that passage above in which both the Latin translator and Tertullian completely ignore this sense of the word (Latin translator mistakes it for an attribute of Sophia -demutatem, Tertullian ignores this term completely)

Riley also argues that the latter "expression [i.e., crucified] comes from Paul, 'to have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires,' Gal. 5:24." [qui autem sunt Christi carnem crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis, And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.]

My comments: That is not an explanation for why the Latin translator and Tertullian would both independently mistranslate the Greek word for "fence out" as "crucifixion." It is more like an excuse. This matter, in fact, is the strongest evidence we have for assuming that Tertullian must have used the Latin translation of AH, and did not independently translate from a copy of Greek AH. Tertullian, working from the original Greek, would be very unlikely to have made this translation. If he had read "crucifixam" in a copy of Latin AH, and did not have a copy of Greek AH, then he might well assume that Irenaeus did in fact say such a thing.

Lipsius says:

Greek AH 1.11.3 (Hippolytus) ALLOS DE TIS EPIFANHE DIDASKALOS AUTWN … HOUTOS LEGEI … [But another, a certain Epiphanes, a teacher of them … this one says …]

Latin AH 1.11.3. Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum, in majus sublime, et quasi in majorem agnitionem extensus, primam quaternationem dixit sic: est quidem ante omnes Proarche, Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis, quam ego Monotetem voco. Cum hac Monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.

ANF AH 1.11.3. There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness).

Tert Adv. Val. XXXVII. [1] accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit: "est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche inexcogitabile et inenarrabile innominabile quod ego nomino Monoteta. cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.

ANF Against the Valentinians 37. Now listen to some other buffooneries of a master who is a great swell among them, and who has pronounced his dict with an even priestly authority. They run thus: There comes, says he, before all things Proarche, the inconceivable, and indescribable, and nameless, which I for my own part call Monotes (Solitude). With this was associated another power, to which also I give the name of Henotes (Unity).

My comment: Riley has no comment to this. This one doesn't swing things either way. However, if I am not mistaken, TIS in Greek usually introduces a name, not an attribute. Maybe the Latin translator of AH might miss this, but would Tertullian?

Wrapping up, I would appreciate it if our resident Greek and Latin experts could offer their illuminations. This means you, Mr Criddle and Mr Pearse, as well as any one else who can add their commentary to the language and style issues. I corresponded with Ben Smith, but he had to "politely decline" an invitation to discuss this on account of some personal challenges he is facing at this time.

Although I put a couple days effort into this series of posts, I am in no way an expert in Greek or especially Latin, and I am happy to admit I can have made mistakes in spelling or interpretation caused by unfamiliarity with Latin. My Greek transliteration uses C for Chi (which looks like an X in Greek) and X for Xi (ksee, which looks like the letter E without the vertical stroke), and Y for Psi (which looks like a saguaro cactus with two "arms").

DCH

aa5874

But, that is the summary of your own posts.

Examine an excerpt from your own post.

You knew IN ADVANCE that you were beating YOUR own DEAD horse.

Please don't beat yourself to death. It is not worth it.

Irenaeus was a FAKE bishop and an incompetent liar and HERETIC.

It is CLEAR that Irenaeus did NOT know what was Heresy in the 2nd century.

In the 2nd century it was HERETICAL and FALSE to claim in any language, LATIN or GREEK, that it was preached and teached in the Church that:

1. Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 years.

2. The Gospels show that Jesus was crucified at around 50 years of age.

3. A supposed apostle John preached and teached in Ephesus that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified.

4. There were people who heard the supposed apostle John preach and teach in Ephesus that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered.

5. Jesus was born in 41st year of Augustus.

6. Jesus was crucified under the Emperor CLAUDIUS.

It is all over. The fraud of the history of the Church has been EXPOSED.

This is a partial list of some of the writers or writings under the names of these writers, in Greek, or Latin, that have been DELIBERATELY "historize" using non-historical events for "Church History":

1. Ignatius
2. Clement of Rome.
3. Papias
4. Polycarp.
5. IRENAEUS
6. Tertullian.
7. Clement of Alexandria.
8. Origen
9. Acts of the Apostles
10. The Pauline writings.
11. Eusebius.

avi

Yes, I am certainly not an expert in anything, but perhaps least of all, Greek and Latin, so I appreciate that you sought a response from a learned person, rather than from a curious onlooker.

As one whose inexpertise is legendary, allow me, nevertheless, to ask this question, again:

How can you claim to be quoting from "Irenaeus", while using quote, after quote, after quote, from Hippolytus' Greek texts, or rather, copies therefrom, dating from the 14th century?

avi

aa5874

But, you knew in ADVANCE that you were NOT an expert in Greek and Latin but you continue to beat YOUR :deadhorse:

DCHindley

Because it is easier than saying "Greek Irenaeus Bk.ch.vs as preserved by Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in his Medicine Chest against All Heresies bk.ch.vs, according to the editio princeps of Basle, 1544, edited by Johannes Oporinus, as preserved in Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus haereses, edited by W Wigan Harvey STB, Cantabrigiae: Typis Academics, 1857" every time I cite the Greek. Epiphanius cited almost the entirety of book I. Hippolytus occasionally preserves snatches of all 5 books, sometimes slightly different than Epiphanius, as Epiphanius says he at times condensed the Greek text and Hippolytus paraphrased it.

I know, I know, that is not your issue. Everyone is aware that the surviving texts attributed to Irenaeus by Epiphanius, and Hippolytus (through citations in Eusebius' works), were copied in later ages. Copies were not produced in the numbers that biblical manuscripts were, and unfortunately very early copies simply did not survive the harsher conditions of the West. Most biblical manuscripts from the early centuries were preserved in hot dry environments such as Egypt and the Middle East.

These different manuscripts and fragments can be compared and contrasted. Yes they are not the same word for word, but the differences can be reconciled through principle of textual criticism that came into vogue among humanists in the 14th century and later, and when compared to other texts that preserve this or that about events and persons of earlier ages, some relative order and sense can be made of them. If there was any suspicion that any of this was pious fiction, the humanists would have pounced on it like they did the The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore Mercador.*

Even though every single manuscript of the bible or church father was copied by Christians, there were all sorts of Christian sects throughout the ages. To think that the Roman Catholic church somehow managed to carefully control every single copy to conform to some standard set by Constantine just seems unreasonable to me. Even in the 10th to 15th centuries, when the earliest manuscripts of the church fathers were copied, there were copies being made by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, who certainly did not see eye to eye.

DCH

*The name "False Decretals" is sometimes extended to cover not only the papal letters forged by Isidore, and contained in his collection, but the whole collection, although it contains other documents, authentic or apocryphal, written before Isidore's time. The Collection of Isidore Mercador falls under three headings:

(1) A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. This correspondence was meant to give an air of truth to the false decretals, and was the work of Isidore.

(2) A treatise on the Primitive Church and on the Council of Nicæa, written by Isidore, and followed by the authentic canons of fifty-four councils. It should be remarked, however, that among the canons of the second Council of Seville (page 438) canon vii is an interpolation aimed against chorepiscopi.

(3) The letters mainly of thirty-three popes, from Silvester (314-335) to Gregory II (715-731). Of these about thirty letters are forgeries, while all the others are authentic. This is but a very rough description of their contents and touches only on the more salient points of a most intricate literary question.

The earliest manuscripts date to the 9th century, probably between 847 and 852. Nobody cited them before that period, even though some of the letters it contains purport to originate centuries earlier. They seem to have been written to support Isadore's peculiar ideas about Canon law, with the aims of protecting the authority of bishops against abuses at the hands of regional political leaders as they established feudal society from the crumbling Roman empire.

If you want an bona-fide case of forgery in the Catholic Church, there you go. The forger created a hundred documents and mixed them up with genuine sources, editing them into a whole intended to give a comprehensive collection of cannon law (although it omits issues of no interest to the compiler/forger).

Take a look at this very thorough and rather objective article about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. In it it describes the process by which the forgery was confirmed, and which documents were the forgeries. This is how one finds out whether some corpus of documents are forgeries. The article was written by a member of the Catholic Church itself, showing not all of them are hard liners!

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Thanks for this.

I wish I had more time to research this. Hopefully, this week I'll have some time. I have just one quick comment.

I think the problem with the translation "APOSTAURWQHNAI" (fenced off) is not that Latin AH and Tertullian both translate it wrongly as "crucifixam." This is a correct translation from Greek to Latin of the term. The problem is that the text of Epiphanius has "APOSTERHQHNAI" (was deprived) rather than "APOSTAURWQHNAI" (fenced off). Instead of assuming that Tertullian was copying from Latin AH, we may assume that Epiphanius or a previous scribe misread the original word APOSTAURWQHNAI and substituted the similar word APOSTERHQHNAI. This would be an equally or more plausible explanation for why the word is translated the way it is in both Latin documents, but a different word appears in the Later Greek document.

Warmly,

Jay

aa5874

Again, it is just a case of futility trying to compare parts of a LATIN text with a Greek text in order to date them when the dates of composition for each one is NOT secured.

This is basic.

The "TF", "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 was not deemed to be a forgery by ONLY comparing texts.

"Against Heresies" contains numerous blatant errors and heresies that could NOT possibly have been known to the Church writers AFTER the supposed time of Irenaeus.

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 1.10.1-2.. So, Eusebius claimed Jesus was NO MORE than 34 years old when he was crucified and NOT 50 years like Irenaeus.

But, this is the very Eusebius claiming that Irenaeus MAINTAINED orthodoxy of the Church in Church History 3.23.1-2

But, it was the very Irenaeus who claimed the apostle John preached that Jesus was fifty old when he was crucified.

How could ALL the Church writers NOT see or hear about "Against Heresies" 2.22 when Irenaeus made his HERETICAL and FALSE claims that the apostle John, the ELDERS and the Gospel show that Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered?

How could ALL the Church writers not see or hear that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius?

Eusebius mentioned Irenaeus about FORTY times in Church History and still did not write about the HERETICAL and False claims of Irenaeus.

It is very likely that NO Church writer SAW or heard today's version of "Against Heresies".