aa5874

Again, simply comparing passages from questionable sources do not really confirm which source copied the other since it is known that Church writings and other non-apologetic writings to have passed through the hands of the Roman Church have been deduced to have been interpolated.

An example of such problems can be demonstrated in "Refutation Against All Heresies" 6.50


So, "Hippolytus" claimed he was INDEBTED to "Irenaeus" for his knowledge of Heresies and that he would have a look at the statements of Basilides a supposed heretic.

Well let us examine the doctrine of Basilides according to "Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies" 1.24.3. So, according to "Irenaeus" the doctrine of Basilides included NOUS, LOGOS, PHRONESIS, SOPHIA and DYNAMIS as eventual offsprings of the UNBEGOTTEN Father.

But, there is a problem. A big problem.

"Hippolytus" who claimed to have been INDEBTED to "Irenaeus" for his knowledge on Heresies wrote ZERO, NOTHING, about NOUS, LOGOS, PHRONESIS, SOPHIA and DYNAMIS when he wrote about 15 chapters of BOOK 7 about the HERESY of Basilides.

"Refutation Against All Heresies" 7.2 There is ZERO, NOTHING, about NOUS, LOGOS, PHRONESIS, SOPHIA and DYNAMIS in book 7 on Basilides from Hippolytus.

Look at "Refutation Against All Heresies" 7. It is CLEAR that the writer called Hippolytus did NOT use "Against Heresies" 1.24 for his doctrine of Basilides. He was NOT indebted to "Irenaeus" for his knowledge on Heretics.

The author of "Refutation Against ALL Heresies" surely appeared to have had a source that WAS substantially different to and was NOT aware of "Against Heresies"1.24.3 on BASILIDES.

Ferryman to the Dead

Heres another link....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Nice catch. It is another case where we have to suspect something is amiss. If I say that I learned everything I know about the Mississippi River from reading the illustrious Mark Twain and then say that the Mississippi River is in Brazil, it is apparent that something is amiss.

Notice also that Irenaeus is called "blessed presbyter". Eusebius says he was a Bishop. Usually people are named by their highest title. Nobody would call Obama or Bush, "Senator" Obama or "Governor" Bush unless they wanted to insult them.

I think establishing relationships between texts could be helpful even if we can't pinpoint these texts exactly historically. In this case the idea that there was an early Latin text of Irenaeus around 200 is often used to date Irenaeus circa 180. If we prove a reliance by Tertullian on a Latin text, it suggests the date may be correct. If we disprove it, we have more reason to place him later in time. As the first witness to named gospels, this could be significant for our dating of those little ditties.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Once any writing of the Church is questioned then the very writing under scrutiny cannot be the same source to verify its authenticity. Some other external source or sources must be used.

The dating of "Against Heresies" cannot be based on the words of "Irenaeus" in the very same books.

Once "Against Heresies" is examined it would become CLEAR that ALL or parts of its contents was NOT known to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and the supposed Heretics of the 2nd century.

But, how can it be proven that Tertullian depended on a text when the latin text cannot even be securely dated?

I have ALREADY shown that the writer called Tertullian was NOT aware of parts of "Against Heresies".

Examine a writing attributed to Tertullian called "Prescription Against the Heretics" 32
Tertullian implies that he has or knows the ORIGINAL records of the Church and that he can UNFOLD the roll of bishops of the Church of Rome and show that the ORDAINER and PREDECESSOR of CLEMENT was PETER.

Now "Irenaeus" too would claim or imply that he has or knows RECORDS of the Roman Church from since the time of the apostles in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

"Tertullian" claimed Clement was first using records of the Roman Church.

"Irenaeus" claimed Clement was third using records of the Roman Church.

So the writer called "Tertullian" was NOT aware of the ORDER of CLEMENT presented by "Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies" whether it was in LATIN, GREEK, ARAMIC, SYRIAC or ARABIC.

"Against Heresies" 3.3.3 is most likely AFTER the writing called "Prescription Against the Heretics" 32 and/or there were NO records of the Roman Church with the roll of bishops from the time of the apostles.

Now, "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 was used in "Church History" supposedly about 100 years AFTER "Prescription Against Heretics" 32.

andrewcriddle

I agree. The general resemblances between the Latin of Irenaeus and the Latin of Tertullian do not seem sufficient to determine whether Tertullian is working from the Greek of Irenaeus or from a Latin translation.

Only examples of shared translation errors could settle the point.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

This evidence does seem to establish that the Latin text of Irenaeus, (whether or not used by Tertullian), is a translation from Greek and not an original text. I.E. That Irenaeus "Against Heresies" is an originally Greek work.

(I'm making this point about Irenaeus being originally a Greek work because some posts in this thread have IIUC sought to challenge this.)

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

You both are correct in my opinion.

Latin AH is clearly based on Greek AH (the transliterations of Greek terms demonstrates that).

The order of info in Tertullian being the same does not prove dependence on the Latin AH. He could be dependent upon either.

On the other hand, Tertullian's use of Latin words similar in meaning to the Greek terms is not proof that Tert. made an independent translation, as he could have simply translated the transliterated Greek terms in a copy of Latin AH.

I wonder, though, where the terms mentioned in Massuet's point #2 can be found in Latin AH and Tertullian Adv. Val.. The volumes of Harvey's work available online may contain an index, but are images only and not searchable. I am sure Riley's translation can be searched from Roger's Tertullian Project site. Since it contains notes, Riley seems the logical place to start.

DCH (yes sir, boss, just finishing my break before heading out on the dusty road to Columbiana, sir)

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Good pointing out of a major contradiction between "Against Heresies" and "Prescription"

We should not conclude that this means that Tertullian did not know or follow "Against Heresies," only that he did not know or follow all of "Against Heresies." The talk about the succession of churches in "Against Heresies" book 3 has always seemed odd to me. In 3.1, he triumphantly shouts that "we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;". Yet in the very next passage, he says he won't do this because it would be "tedious". How long would it take to list the succession in ten or twelve churches from the Apostles to the 180's? How long does it take to list ten to twenty names of ten to twelve Churches? Ten to twenty minutes? He will instead just list the Roman Bishops because "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church" This Rome-centrist view is supposedly coming from Irenaeus, who, according to Eusebius, wrote and delivered a letter to Rome that each Church should follow its own customs and be allowed to determine when they celebrate Easter and should not be forced to follow the Church in Rome.

This is most probably a Fourth Century position being influenced by the Emperor Constantine's wish that the diverse Christian Church be unified behind his Roman Church.

However, because somebody inserted passages (that appear to be commercials for the Fourth Century Catholic Church in Rome) in Book 3 of the text, we do not need to conclude that other portions of the text were not written earlier and could not have been used as the basis for some of Tertullian's works.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

Because that is not how historians normally do their thing?

I see no more justification for your approach than I do for the apologetic nonsense about assuming all documents to be reliable until evidence to the contrary emerges.

avi

yes, Andrew, you have understood correctly.

I am not buying it.

Let me summarize:

--Hippolytus several volumes, in Greek, dating from 14th century.

--Latin text, ostensibly representing a translation of the no longer extant, original Greek text by "Irenaeus".

--A desire to conform to Eusebius' account of history.

Put those three in a pot, and stir, (or shake as you prefer), and what do you produce?

A conclusion that "Irenaeus" wrote AH originally in Greek.

I appreciate the great effort which Andrew, DCH, and Jay have gone to, in this thread, to convince the forum, that Tertullian serves as a valid third century author, confirming the existence of "Irenaeus", as a second century author, writing in Greek.

All three of you may be correct, and I most probably am completely wrong, for suggesting that "Irenaeus" is a myth created by Eusebius.

In other words, when it is convenient, we acknowledge the existence of forgery.

When it is inconvenient, we put our heads in the sand.

Here's my hypothesis:

The whole of "Irenaeus" AH is a creation by Eusebius, acting upon direct orders of Lord Constantine.

How do I explain the Latin text of Tertullian? Hmm. Errors, and all?

How do I explain Hippolytus? Hmm. 14th century copies?

Too much faith, too little data.

avi