DCHindley

True, but that is also the state of the matter with regard to a great deal of ancient literature. I am not very comfortable with the idea of doubting everything that preceded the earliest known copy of a work. Manuscripts wear out and decay, especially papyrus, and even vellum is not indestructible.

How about something like a birth certificate? I have several certified copies of my own obtained by my parents and later myself. The earliest ones are probably datable to when I entered school at about 6 years of age, and this one includes even the time of birth. Later ones I obtained for college or maybe my first jobs are shorter and omit things like time of birth. None of them are dated wrt the date the certified copy was made. I learned that the department of vital statistics covering Euclid, Ohio, started to send copies of only the first page of a two page form in the mid 1970s, to discourage folks from using them for astrological horoscopes. The second page contained some medical detail about the birth, including exact time, etc. So, depending on when the certified copy was produced, the level of detail is different.

Now, suppose that I lost the oldest copy, and in the meantime the Department of Vital Statistics were to have burned to the ground during some catastrophe in 1990. Later, the jack booted FBI raids my home because they suspect I am a terrorist after it is reported to them that I was friends with an Iranian student, Muhammed Reza Seyfi, at Huntington College in Indiana between 1977 & 1978. They would seize my copies of my birth certificate along with my other incriminating papers (you know, the crazy has-to-be-wrong stuff I post here). They go to the Dept of Vital Statistics and learn that all records before 1990 were destroyed, but that the form of the surviving copies indicate that they were produced in the late 1970s or early 80s.

"How convenient!" they exclaim, and then proceed to question my birth records. How do they know that anything produced about me prior to 1990 is authentic, and not a clever fabrication to hide the fact that I am an undercover agent for those damn liberals who was colluding with Iranian expatriates hiding from the Shah's secret police (Reza was in fact afraid of them, even in quiet Huntington), no doubt because of a plot to bring Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran and overthrow the Shah (which did indeed happen 3 years later)?

Stephan Huller might then be correct to interject that it is interesting that this association happened in the hometown of Dan Quayle, who was in his freshman year in Congress, and asks the fair question "Were Mr Hindley and Mr Seyfi complicit in setting the stage for the 1992 Potato/Potatoe fiasco during his time as US Vice President under the elder Bush?"

Meanwhile, on the basis of this uncertainty about the fact of my birth, the FBI has the justice department strip me of my US citizenship and deports me to Iran. On the way to the airport, under heavy chains, I meet up with ex president Barak Hussein Obama, similarly deposed, stripped of his citizenship, and on his way to be deported to Kenya. I am sure, though, that my friend Reza will meet me cheerfully at the airport, to offer me asylum in the name of President for life Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When that time comes, Stephan will undoubtedly research the matter and find that Reza left Huntington College in 1978 to enroll at an Engineering school in Fort Wayne, and that this was the same major as that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while at Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), thus quelling any uncertainty about the accuracy of the history created for me.

The "truth" will, I am sure, be so obvious that no academic could be believed if he were to oh-so-erroneously say I was really born in Euclid, Ohio, in 1956, based on my own recollections in web posts on electronic bulletin boards between 1995 and 2010.

DCH

aa5874

I find it extremely amusing that people here are trying to use documents of which there are no originals in an attempt to date the writings of Irenaeus. This is like trying to date the Pauline writings using the very same Pauline writings as the corroborative source of itself.

The contents of the writings of "Against Heresies" clearly show that the author is NOT credible and was CONTRADICTED by many Church writers.

"Against Heresies" shows signs that it was NOT really known among the Church writers at the time period of the 2nd century or that the writer himself was NOT familiar with actual events of that period.

The author of "Against Heresies" implied that the Church was UNIFIED in their BELIEFS about Jesus yet in a most unprecedented and absurd manner demonstrated that his OWN claim was FALSE.

The author of "Against Heresies" wrote and PREACHED that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered under CLAUDIUS. There is NO EVIDENCE from antiquity whatsoever that such a teaching was ORTHODOX or ACCEPTED by any Jesus believers in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr showed that Christians were NOT united in their beliefs in the 2nd century.

Celsus in "Against Celsus" implied that people Christians were NOT united in their beliefs in the 2nd century.

Tertullian implied that people called Christians were NOT united in the beliefs about Jesus.

Origen wrote that people called Christians were NOT united in their beliefs.

And it is EVIDENT just from examining writings from other sources, like Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras, that people called Christians were NOT unified in the 2nd century.

The author of "Against Heresies" seems NOT to know the chronological order of Emperors of Rome and/or governors which was CRITICAL for historical purposes.

No Church writer appeared to be AWARE of or addressed the Massive errors in "Against Heresies" and it is even more extra-ordinarily inexplicable that these Massive errors are found in another writing attributed to Irenaeus.

The author of "Against Heresies" demonstrated that he was completely incompetent and had very little knowledge of the very writings of which he wrote about.

The very fact that NO Church writers addressed the apparent incompetency and massive errors in "Against Heresies" and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" tend to indicate that his writings were NOT circulated among the Heretics and writers of the 2nd century.

avi

Thanks DC. The book you cite in your link, (thank you) is a translation by a guy named Ungar. Translation of what? is the question....Translation from which language, into English?

And we know that Irenaeus wrote in Greek, because of ?? Where's the evidence? To me, it is not OBVIOUS, that a guy with a relatively prominent role in Roman society, living in a Roman colony (Lyon), far from the influence of Greece, necessarily wrote in Greek. Yeah, he certainly could have been a native Greek speaker/author, who emigrated to Lyon. Alternatively, yes, he could have mastered Greek, as a second language. I just don't find any evidence to support the oft-quoted maxim that "Irenaeus" wrote originally in Greek. The fact that other prominent authors, writing in Greek, quote Irenaeus, does not, at least not for me, suggest that the original ink, drying on the papyrus from Irenaeus' quill, represented Greek words, instead of Latin. If an author can be translated from Greek to Latin, then surely, the converse is also possible.....Of course, if the ink had departed from Eusebius' quill, instead, well, then, that's a different kettle of fish....
Here, I must follow in Jay's footsteps, and agree, yes, you have done a great job. Thank you. The comments that follow, are simply my typical naysayer attitude, to be ignored, if at all possible!!! haha...

Epiphanius lived in the 4th century, he was born post Constantine. Anybody after Eusebius, is suspect in my book.

Hippolytus makes Paul Bunyan look like the vice president of R&D for Stihl chain saws:
What about your third source: Theodoret:
Maybe the original Greek manuscripts of Theodoret clarified the distinction between 2nd-3rd century "Irenaeus" and fifth century Irenaeus of Tyre, described above as friend of Nestorius. Since, however, Theodoret's own works are "defective", in my opinion, we err, if we rely upon Theodoret's description as veracious, in trying to learn something about a guy who supposedly lived two centuries before him:

OOPS. Sorry, nope, here we run aground, we are no longer traveling on the same steamship, plying the muddy waters of Lake Erie.

I don't accept, as axiomatic, the notion that so and so MUST have had xyz available to him/her. Two centuries after the fact, they easily could have possessed nothing more than Latin translations. Another two centuries, and they would have possessed only Arabic translations to read!!!!

Nonsense. We cannot assume that anyone had any particular Greek original document.

The whole "Irenaeus" business, as far as I can tell, is utterly mythical, a fabrication of Eusebius, until someone produces a reference with some teeth in it, and not yet another iteration of Larry, Moe and Curly.

Again echoing Philosopher Jay, this is excellent travail, which took a lot more than ten minutes of your time, to generate. THANK YOU.

While, I genuinely appreciate your effort, and I respect your scholarly accomplishments, I simply cannot accept your conclusions, or perhaps they are primarily your opinions, I am not sure:

How do you know the dates for creation of these fragmentary manuscripts? Regarding the papyrus from Egypt, since it is well established that documents from that 1000 year old trash heap were often REUSED, how do we conclude that document xyz from that location was written in 195 CE, or 237 CE, or etc, etc, and NOT eighth century...?? We cannot rely upon the location within the trash heap, if that degree of precision had been applied, during the excavation, for it is clear that folks went rummaging about that trash heap, looking for useful objects, for CENTURIES, nor can we rely upon a date written on the same individual papyrus document, again, because of the re-use problem....

That leaves handwriting analysis...Then, we must ask, who was the source of analysis, and upon which criteria were these (very early) dates elaborated? Were these Christian handwriting experts?

avi

Dave31

"The first two books of Irenæus Against Heresies have been translated by Dr. Roberts. The groundwork of the translation of the third book, and that portion of the fourth book which is continued in this volume, has been furnished by the Rev. W. H. Rambaut. An attempt has been made, in rendering this important author into English, to adhere as closely as possible to the original. It would have been far easier to give a loose and flowing translation of the obscure and involved sentences of Irenæus; but the object has been studiously kept in view, to place the English reader, as much as possible, in the position of one who has immediate access to the Greek or Latin text."

"It is certain that Irenæus was bishop of Lyons, in France, during the latter quarter of the second century." "he succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons, probably about a.d. 177. His great work Against Heresies was, we learn, written during the episcopate of Eleutherus, that is, between a.d. 182 and a.d. 188, for Victor succeeded to the bishopric of Rome in a.d. 189. This new bishop of Rome took very harsh measures for enforcing uniformity throughout the Church as to the observance of the paschal solemnities. On account of the severity thus evinced, Irenæus addressed to him a letter (only a fragment of which remains), warning him that if he persisted in the course on which he had entered, the effect would be to rend the Catholic Church in pieces. This letter had the desired result; and the question was more temperately debated, until finally settled by the Council of Nice."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html

"the Greek text from the recently discovered Philosophoumena of Hippolytus; and the further addition of thirty-two fragments of a Syriac version of the Greek text of Irenæus, culled from the Nitrian collection of Syriac mss. in the British Museum...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome

DCHindley

Update: A Google search found a 1971 Doctoral Dissertation by Mark Timothy Riley (at Roger Pearse's site) which has the following info:

THE DATE OF ADV. VAL.

The date of Adv. Val. cannot be fixed with any certainty. It was written after De Praes., since chapter 44 of that work announces a series of individual works against heretics, presumably including the Valentinians. This is the "terminus post quem." The date of De Praes., however, is uncertain, probably in the early 200's before T had become a Montanist. Adv. Val. was written when T was a Montanist, as is shown by "Proculus noster," Adv. Val. 5. T had become a Montanist by 207/8 as is shown by this date in Adv. Marc. I. 15, which was written in his Montanist period. (Adv. Marc. I. 29 is a discussion of the Paraclete's teachings on marriage.)

De Res. 59 shows a knowledge of Valentinian activity and perhaps this would indicate that De res. is later than Adv. Val., but this cannot be certain. At any rate De Res. was written after 211 (De Res. 22, "Christianos ad leonem," refers to Scapula's persecution, giving a possible "terminus ante quem").

Adv. Val. was written after Adv. Herm. (see Adv. Val. 16), but Adv. Herm. cannot be dated closely.

In sum, this treatise can be dated to the first decade of the third century, but with the available evidence no further accuracy is possible.

TERTULLIAN AND IRENAEUS

This work of T, starting from "hunc substantialiter quidem. . ." (Adv. Val. 6), is a direct translation from Irenaeus' Contra Haereses l.l.l.ff. (I have indicated in the commentary what chapters T is translating.) Irenaeus has been transmitted to us by a Latin version, IL, of the entire work Contra Haereses, and by the Greek original of most of Bk. I quoted by Epiphanius, Haer. XXXI, 9 - 32, XXXII, XXXIII, passim. Some of the Greek text has also been quoted by Hippolytus, Refutatio VI. The nature of T's translation can be illustrated with a few quotations. I also append IL of the passages concerned.

... [Greek & Latin omitted]

Note that T is undoubtedly translating: he tells the same facts in the same order. The tone of T's translation is, however, considerably different from that of the original. (1) He is talking directly to the reader; he asks, "et quem parit?" just as below he asks, "et quale est. . .?" There are no direct questions or addresses to the reader in Irenaeus apart from his Introduction. (2) T takes the part of an adversary to the system about which he is telling: "Sit itaque. . ." implies that he could have more to say about this ridiculous divinity, but that he will press on. He also uses the loaded words, "stupentis divinitatis." (3) As part of his hostile presentation T is sarcastic: note here, "et parit, utique silentio, Sige." Irenaeus on the other hand does not take a stand in his presentation; his refutation is left for the later books.

... [Greek & Latin omitted]

Note here again some of the same characteristics of T's translation: direct address, "miraxis hoc?"; loaded words, "somniaverunt," corresponding to muqologou~sin. We have here 3s well another rhetorical trick of T, the sarcastic parallel, which correlates Sophia with vultures. T employs the same trick in his joke about the rhetor Phosphorus (Adv. Val. 8).

T brings in contemporary references not found in Irenaeus. ... [Greek & Latin omitted]

Thus he refers to contemporary Roman customs, again I presume with sarcastic intent: the doings of these Valentinian gods are of no more value than common Roman street scenes. In Adv. Val. 15, T again makes reference to contemporary life.

... [Latin omitted]

This passage elaborates the following.

... [Greek omitted]

These passages we typical of T's translation. As is evident from them, T has no original material to present about the Valentinians. What material he adds to Irenaeus is occasionally false, as is his comment on the "sacra" or the Eleusinian mysteries (Adv. Val. I). T's originality lies in his treatment of Irenaeus' researches; T set him self to turn these researches into a polemic, employing the rhetorical devices illustrated above. This polemic as a whole is characterized by humor of a leaden sort, humor which T himself said was suited to the subject (Adv. Val. 6). This humor evidences itself in jokes, e.g., Phosphorus family (Adv. Val. 8), the "leges Iuliae" (Adv. Val. 31); sarcastic comparisons, e.g., comparing the Valentinian Jesus to a character in an Oscan farce (Adv. Val. 12); comparing the Valentinian heaven to an apartment house (Adv. Val. 7); and personal insults, e.g., Ptolomy developed his system from children's fairy-tales (Adv. Val. 20). Typical of T's method is the extended joke on the gender of Spiritus Sanctus, which is feminine in the Valentinian system of paired emanations.[16] He says that this union of Christ and the Holy Spirit is "turpissima" (Adv. Val. 11), and that the Spirit, although a female, has all the honors of a male, even--he supposes--a beard (Adv. Val. 21). He even takes the part of a director for a play, treating this drama of the aeons as a comedy and telling the audience how to react to it (Adv. Val. 13). In general, his humor consists of this sort of insult and innuendo directed toward the persons and ideas which he is discussing.

Also original are the many brief references to contemporary life and to other philosophers, as I mentioned above, e.g., "qualem iussit Epicurus" (Adv. Val. 7), and the mention of three specific waters in Adv. Val. 15.

The basis of this style is of course oratory, especially Second Sophistic oratory with its love of colorful style and vitriolic attack. T seems to have been widely read in ancient literature, and he undoubtedly used these handbooks, and would have been skilled in oratory, thanks to his legal training. What we have in his treatise against the Valentinians is the transformation of an expository work, Irenaeus', into a declamation. This transformation, not any original material about the Valentinians, was T's contribution.

TERTULLIAN AND IRENAEUS LATINUS

As I mentioned above, Irenaeus has been transmitted to us in a Latin version, IL. The question has long been debated whether T used IL or vice versa. This question could be settled if we knew the date of IL; unfortunately we do not. If IL antedated T perhaps T may have used him. Occasionally T and IL in common use a rare expression ("appendicem," IL 1, 2, 4, and Adv. Val. 10) or together differ from the Greek text ("in hunc autem vel in Sophiam derivarat," Adv. Val. 9; "in hunc aeonem id est in Sophiam demutatam," IL 1, 2, 2; the Greek omits Sophia's name.); The two preceding examples have been used to show that T used IL. Both of them however can be explained quite easily as having arisen independently; the former, "appen dicem," is a technical medical term which exactly fits here (see commentary, ad loc.). The latter passages 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). Besides there are real substantive differences between T and IL: in Adv. Val. 8, T says "quaternarii et octonarii et duodenarii" where IL has "octonationem et decada et duodecada." IL reproduces Irenaeus while T has used his own expression (see note ad loc.). In a similar fashion T has recast Iren. 1, 5, 6; IL has "animam quidem a Demiurgo, corpus autem a limo, et carneum a materia, spiritalem vero hominem a matre Achamoth," which corresponds to Irenaeus. T has "censum proinde eum ab Achamoth . . . animalem a Demiurgo, choicum substantia a)rxh~j, carnem materia" (Adv. Val. 25). He adds here a "substantia a)rxh~j" not derived from Irenaeus (see note ad loc.). The most cursory glance at IL shows it to be a very literal translation of the Greek. Compare the IL version of Iren. 1, 2, 3, quoted above. Note especially the awkward "velut fabulam narrant" for muqologou~sin. Note also Adv. Val. 7, "hoc vice seminis in Sige sua velut in genitalibus vulvae locis collocat"; IL 1 1.1, "et velut semen prolationem hanc praemitti voluit et eam deposuisse quasi in vulva eius, quae cum eo erat, Sige"; corresponding to "Kai\ kaqa&per spe&pma . . . e)n mh&tra| th~| . . . Si/gh|." Note the conciseness of T's version, the "sua" taking the place of IL's awkward "quae cum eo erat." IL uses the anaphoric "is" very often, as here with "eam," "eius," "eo," while he tries to keep the Greek sentence pattern. The variation between infinitives and finite verbs in IL, "voluit," "deposuisse," is his attempt to reproduce the Greek sequence, where the finite verb comes in a relative clause. Nothing could be more unlike T's version, which is adaptive and free. Because of the demonstrable closeness of IL to Irenaeus' Greek and T's departures from it, it is impossible to believe that IL used T as a source. That T used IL as a source cannot be disproved but I think there is no reason to suppose he did. T wrote treatises in Greek (peri\ eksta&sewj [per Jerome, De viris ill. 40], De spectaculis [Mentioned by T in De Cor. 6]), and I see no reason to suppose his knowledge of Greek to be so scanty as to require the help of IL.

Parenthetically, it is clear that T had a detailed knowledge of Irenaeus' work, for he also cites or quotes Irenaeus in Adv. Marc. 1 and often in De An[ima]. Irenaeus seems to have been practically the entire source of T's knowledge of the various heretical schools.

There you go. This critic thinks Tertullian translated Irenaeus independently of the Latin translation preserved for us, although the earlier resource I linked to thinks there are too many verbatum similarities to make independent translations likely.

DCH

avi

Here's the reference:
Dave's reference

here's the quote from that book:
Yup. VERY uncertain. Where is this "original Greek" manuscript???? Rubbish. It does not exist. This is a hoax. Epiphanius and Hippolytus = Larry and Moe.

Nonsense.

This guy has no idea when anything was written.

He is free to express his opinion. The fact that so and so references event 123, but not event 789, in no way convinces me, that it was written before event 789 took place.

Perhaps.

Or, alternatively, maybe "Tertullian" wrote the whole thing....

"Occasionally false"??? Are you pulling my leg?

Hmm. Then, someone has the original documents to show that Tertullian wrote incorrectly?

Gosh, holy cow. So, someone, somewhere knows enough to proclaim to the heavens that Tertullian confabulated, about specific point ABC, but at the same time, insist that Tertullian did NOT confabulate about point xyz?????

And this critic has no idea what is going on.

I am going out, now, to talk with used car salesmen, to gain a bit more clarity about today's weather forecast predictions.

avi

DCHindley

Latin and/or Greek where available. English.

Because ancient writers said so. Oh right, the conspiricy ... <as I look around in a paranoid manner>. Greece was a Roman "colony" in the sense you mean it too. Irenaeus claims he was from Asia Minor, Smyrna to be exact ... oh yeah, the conspiracy <more nervous looking about for scary men> "If Irenaeus said it, I don't believe it, that settles it." Catchy.

Greek had a significant influence on Gaul. Tribes which tried to operate independently of Rome issued coins with Greek characters. For a good while, the support for the Roman military was staffed by Greek speakers, and the locals got their first exposure to these folks, not the invading soldiers. In time this changed, especially as Rome found these good Celts and Teutons to be damn fine soldiers, and made efforts to offer Roman citizenship to the local leadership and actively recruited for their Legions and Auxiliaries, which led to Roman citizenship. They may have been Barbarians, but they weren't stupid. They saw a good thing coming.

I doubt very sincerely that Irenaeus the writer of Against Heresies was Irenaeus of Tyre, and I am not sure how this got sucked into the discussion. Theodoret of Cyrus [sorry, not Cyprus] wasn't a heresiologist. Now the attestation is working backwards from Irenaeus of Tyre? You guys are grasping at straws.

Then you should not presume that Lake Erie is "muddy", or at least any muddier than any of the other Great Lakes. Maybe I get it now: The Latin translator had before him some other text, which he "translated" exactly like the Greek fragments. AFAIK, there was no Arabic translation of Irenaeus. There is a Syrian one ... why not postulate that is the "original.



Well, I'm no scholar, just an interested bystander. I just pay attention to details - not always making sense of them but aware of them. The only opinion I interjected was a date of 200-205 for the Latin translation.

Yes, paleology, not c-14 or anything like that. Paleography is not an exact science, but for texts produced in certain areas where a lot of fragments have been preserved - many perfectly datable by the way - it is a matter of matching fonts to known examples. In some cases they can estimate with great precision. The vast majority of these fragments are not religious texts at all, much less Christian. Why would Christian interpretation have an effect on dates of contracts or edicts found in the trash?

DCH

aa5874

Again, the claims that there is an abundance of evidence for Irenaeus in the 2nd century has turned out to be erroneous. The date of writing of the LATIN version of "Agaiasnt Heresies" is NOT KNOWN.

We have an abundance of speculation from apologetic sources.

mountainman

It cannot be stressed enough that every single one of the Greek (and also Latin) writers before Eusebius, is presented by Eusebius exclusively on his "lonely and untrodden path". [setting aside for the moment the suspected "early" papyri fragment(s)]. We know Eusebius wrote in Greek, and that those following him had access to the materials collated and researched by Eusebius. He was in charge of at least one imperially sponsored scriptorium.

Heresies go hand in fist with orthodoxies, and while there is a demonstrable lack of evidence such that it cannot be safely established that either orthodoxies or heresies existed before Nicaea, we have an abundance of evidence establishing the existence of orthodoxies and heresies after Nicaea. The war related councils of Antioch and Nicaea heralded in a revolution "from the top" over almost all aspects of the historical Graeco-Roman civilisation.

Examining all the available evidence alone and without preconception, the argument which best explains the patterns of this evidence is that Irenaeus is simply an imperially sponsored forgery, designed (perhaps in retrospect - ie: later 4th or 5th century) to take the heat off and to historically disemble the utterly disharmonious reception of othodoxy of Constantine's Christian cult.

That the writings of Irenaeus (as found for example cited within the "Historia Ecclesiastica") represent a retrojection of the 4th century politics into centuries past is commensurate in modus operandi with the forgeries and false documentation found in the 4th century imperially sponsored "Historia Augusta" - a known forgery.

spamandham

Thanks Andrew!