Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-21-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

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

I get the impression that you are not really following me at at all. There are MULTIPLE BLATANT contradictions that I have pointed out in the 5 BOOKS called "Against Heresies".

Do really understand that in the 5 BOOKS of "Against Heresies" that the author made an HERETICAL claim that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered, that the Gospels show that Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion, that John PREACHED in Ephesus that Jesus was 50 years old and also that Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...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." ....

You are NOT following me at all. It is NOT just one single contradiction that have made me theorise that ALL or parts of "Against Heresies" was NOT known to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen and the so-called Heretics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

....The talk about the succession of churches in "Against Heresies" book 3 has always seemed odd to me.....

Well, the succession of the bishops of the Roman Church as given in "Against Heresies" is REALLY odd because up to the 5th century, even after "Terullian claimed Clement was first, Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND.

1. Irenaeus supposedly placed Clement third in the 2nd century,

2. Tertullian supposedly placed Clement first in the 3rd century,

3.Eusebius supposedly placed Clement 3rd in the 4th century

4.Augustine supposedly placed Clement second in the 5th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...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...

The WRITTEN evidence shows that the Church writers are MAKING stuff up. And their inventions and fabrications are NOT the product of a SINGLE writer or inventor and under one SINGLE Emperor.

The inventions, forgeries, fabrications, interpolations and fraud of the Roman Church writings COVERED hundreds of years.

The list of bishops of the Roman Church in "Against Heresies" and the list from "Letter 53" of Augustine has a difference of about 200 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...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...

But, I have NOT done what you have ASSUMED.

If you had followed my posts you would have REALIZED that I ALWAYS demonstrate with the WRITTEN records that there are MANY passages that were NOT known to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen and the so-called Heretics.

These are some of the WRITTEN evidence that I have ALREADY MENTIONED the following.

1. Justin Martyr, it would appear, was NOT aware of or did NOT write about any Gospels writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Epistle writers called "Paul" and NOTHING about Acts of the Apostles or Epistles by James, John, Jude and Peter.

2. Clement of Alexandria in "Stromata", it would appear, did NOT write or was AWARE that Irenaeus claimed Jesus MUST have been about 50 years old when he was crucified, when the very Clement claimed or wrote that Jesus MUST have been 30 years old when he suffered.

3. Hippolytus in "Refutation Against ALL Heresies", it would appear, did NOT use or contradict Irenaeus when he showed the the doctrines of Basilides were DERIVED from Aristotle and was based on NoN-Entities and the Sonship. Irenaeus did not write that the doctrines of Balisides was based on the Sonship and Non-Entities.

4. Origen in "Against Celsus", it would appear, wrote that he was NOT AWARE that Marcion himself mutilated any Gospels and contradicted Irenaeus.

5. Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies", it would appear, wrote that Marcion used the doctrines Empedocles, not the Pauline writings and gMark and CONTRADICTED Irenaeus who claimed Marcion used parts of gLuke and the Pauline writings.

6. Origen in "De Principiis", it would appear, wrote that many so-called Christians were in total dis-agreement about the nature of Jesus and CONTRADICTED Irenaeus who claimed that the Church was UNITED in their beliefs about Jesus when he himself was NOT united about the teachings of the Church about the age of Jesus.

7. "Irenaeus", it would appear did NOT even realize that in the 2ND century it was NOT an HERESY to claim Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age and was crucified under Tiberius.

There are SO many FUNDAMENTAL Errors and differences between "Against Heresies" and other Church writings supposedly from BEFORE and AFTER "Irenaeus", and the lack of basic knowledge of 2nd century heresies and state of belief among Christians, that it would appear to be that "Against Heresies", wholly or in PART, was not written between during the 2nd century but at some later date for the historian of the Church.

Again, merely comparing Latin passages with Greek passages CANNOT determine which passage was written first just as ONLY comparing " Church History" 1.11.8 to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 did NOT determine when the "TF" was LIKELY to be interpolated. It was when other Church writings were examined that it was REALIZED that the "TF" was probably written during the 4th century.

Today's version of "Antiquities of the Jews" was probably RE-written and interpolated in the 4th century for "Church History" and likewise today's version of "Against Heresies" was probably, wholly or in PART, RE-written in the 4th century for the historian of the Church called Eusebius.

PhilosopherJay · 09-22-2010, 07:21 AM

Hi aa5874,

I think that we need to notice that two of the main problems or contradictions within "Against Heresies" are of different kinds.

Saying that Jesus was 50 would certainly be unorthodox in the Fourth Century. It would tend to show that the author had not read the gospel/s of Luke/Marcion which place Jesus' preaching in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (circa 28-29 C.E.) It is hard to believe that any orthodox Christian would have written this in the Fourth century.

On the other hand, the idea that all Churches should have the same doctrines as Rome was first enunciated in the Fourth century in the time of the emperor Constantine. It shows that the writer of this section was an orthodox Christian of the Fourth century.

Thus we have material from someone unfamiliar with Marcion/Luke which would suggest end of Second or beginning of Third century and material definitely from the Fourth century.

Since there is a section of the text familiar with Valentinus and his later disciples, we have to place the text after 180, but because he is unfamiliar with the gospels of Luke/Marcian, we have to place this section before 205-210 C.E., after which knowledge of Luke appears to be widespread.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

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

I get the impression that you are not really following me at at all. There are MULTIPLE BLATANT contradictions that I have pointed out in the 5 BOOKS called "Against Heresies".

Do really understand that in the 5 BOOKS of "Against Heresies" that the author made an HERETICAL claim that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered, that the Gospels show that Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion, that John PREACHED in Ephesus that Jesus was 50 years old and also that Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus?

{snip}

7. "Irenaeus", it would appear did NOT even realize that in the 2ND century it was NOT an HERESY to claim Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age and was crucified under Tiberius.

There are SO many FUNDAMENTAL Errors and differences between "Against Heresies" and other Church writings supposedly from BEFORE and AFTER "Irenaeus", and the lack of basic knowledge of 2nd century heresies and state of belief among Christians, that it would appear to be that "Against Heresies", wholly or in PART, was not written between during the 2nd century but at some later date for the historian of the Church.

Again, merely comparing Latin passages with Greek passages CANNOT determine which passage was written first just as ONLY comparing " Church History" 1.11.8 to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 did NOT determine when the "TF" was LIKELY to be interpolated. It was when other Church writings were examined that it was REALIZED that the "TF" was probably written during the 4th century.

Today's version of "Antiquities of the Jews" was probably RE-written and interpolated in the 4th century for "Church History" and likewise today's version of "Against Heresies" was probably, wholly or in PART, RE-written in the 4th century for the historian of the Church called Eusebius.

aa5874 · 09-22-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I think that we need to notice that two of the main problems or contradictions within "Against Heresies" are of different kinds.

Saying that Jesus was 50 would certainly be unorthodox in the Fourth Century. It would tend to show that the author had not read the gospel/s of Luke/Marcion which place Jesus' preaching in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (circa 28-29 C.E.) It is hard to believe that any orthodox Christian would have written this in the Fourth century...

But, do you not realize that the supposed author of "Against Heresies" appeared to have read gLuke?

Examine "Against Heresies" 3.14.3

Quote:

.... 3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple.

For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the [/exclamation of Elisabeuth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.

The author of "Against Heresies" 3.14.3 was Aware of gLuke and further it was the author of "Against Heresies" who ALSO wrote that Marcion mutilated and retained PARTS of gLuke.

It must also be NOTED that "Irenaeus" did write that [U][B]Pilate was a governor of Tiberius

Examine "Against Heresies" 1.27.2..

Quote:

2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine.

In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator.

Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the
Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father....

So the author of "Against Heresies" 1.27.2 and 3.14.3 was AWARE of gLuke, Marcion and that in gLuke Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius when Pilate was governor of Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

..On the other hand, the idea that all Churches should have the same doctrines as Rome was first enunciated in the Fourth century in the time of the emperor Constantine. It shows that the writer of this section was an orthodox Christian of the Fourth century....

And that is EXACTLY my theory.

When the 5 books of "Against Heresies" are examined and compared to other writings BEFORE and AFTER it would appear that ALL or PARTS were NOT written in the 2nd century but for the historian/inventor of the Church called Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...Thus we have material from someone unfamiliar with Marcion/Luke which would suggest end of Second or beginning of Third century and material definitely from the Fourth century...

Well, I have ALREADY SHOWN that the author of "Against Heresies" was FAMILIAR with Marcion and gLuke so you will have to ADD some more time to your suggestion.

You may have to go back to the 4th century.

It could not be argued in the 2nd century that Jesus was about 50 years old when Justin Martyr, SMACK in the middle of the 2nd century, claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius when Pilate was governor and other Christians were also claiming that Jesus was 30 years old at crucifixion and Clement of Alexandria afterwards claimed Jesus MUST have been 30 years old at crucifixion and ONLY preached for about ONE year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Since there is a section of the text familiar with Valentinus and his later disciples, we have to place the text after 180, but because he is unfamiliar with the gospels of Luke/Marcian, we have to place this section before 205-210 C.E., after which knowledge of Luke appears to be widespread.

Do you mean ".....we have to place this section AFTER 205-210CE".......?

It would appear that ALL or PARTS of "Against Heresies" are ANACHRONISTIC and that the author was an INCOMPETENT fiction writer whose writings were NOT known or circulated among the so-called Heretics of the 2nd century and also unknown or not circulated among Church writers like Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

aa5874 · 09-24-2010, 07:46 PM

Once the 5 books called "Against Heresies" are examined it becomes CLEAR that the contents of these books do not reflect the history of the 2nd century when other Church writings are taken into consideration.

This is found in "Against Heresies" 1.10.2-4

Quote:

... 2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.

She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.

For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions(1) of the world.

But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth..........

4....... the Catholic Church pos- sesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said ....

According to the author of "Against Heresies" the Catholic Church had the same teaching throughout the WHOLE world in the 2nd century.

But this is Justin Martyr in the same 2nd centuryin "Dialogue with Trypho" XLVIII

Quote:

...For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men, with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."...

Justin Martyr contradicts Irenaeus. Christians in the 2nd century did NOT all agree that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost but was born a man of men.

There was really NO Catholic doctrine during Justin's time.

And, CELSUS who supposedly LIVED in the 2nd century will also contradict "Against Heresies". There were innumerable heresies among Christians.

"Against Celsus" 12

Quote:

...In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that “when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;” and further, that “being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.”...

Now, Origen will CONTRADICT "Against Heresies" and DECLARE that HERESIES are necessary like MEDICINE.

Not all doctors use the medicine

Not all Christians use the same doctrine.

"Against Celsus" 12.

Quote:

...In reply to which, we say that heresies of different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life.

For since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine.

And, again, since philosophy makes a profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these matters is attended with great differences of opinion, innumerable heresies have consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others.

Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies, in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those of the prophets.

So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits, there necessarily originated heresies—not at all, however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity...

So, it was completely false that there was any Catholic Church and doctrine all over the WHOLE world as found in "Against Heresies" but it was even NECESSARY that there were Heresies.

It is clear that the information about the Catholic Church with UNITY of doctrine in the 2nd century in today's "Against Heresies" was NOT known to Justin Martyr, CELSUS and Origen.

It was in the 4th century that a Catholic doctrine was established under Constantine.

avi · 09-25-2010, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, it was completely false that there was any Catholic Church and doctrine all over the WHOLE world as found in "Against Heresies" but it was even NECESSARY that there were Heresies.

Thank you for this post. Very interesting.

So, if I am not incorrect, there would seem to be, based upon your several helpful posts to the forum, TWO impressive contradictions within the text (but which text, written in which language?) of AH:

(a) age of JC at the date of his supposed crucifixion;
(b) purported unity of christian ideology, when the contrary appears to have been the case, at least during the suggested time frame of "Irenaeus" life.

While I do not quarrel with your conclusion about Constantine, I need to take issue with my own suggestion, i.e. that "Irenaeus" was a pseudonym used by Eusebius.

Clearly, Eusebius, like most forgers, was not stupid. He would not have committed such grotesque blunders, as (a) and (b) above.

Then, we are still left with the unanswered question: Who wrote this work, AH, and when was it written? I don't think we will gain an answer to these questions by studying the extant Greek "fragments", nor by examining the Latin texts of Tertullian, nor the 14th century copies of the Greek texts of Hippolytus.

I suppose that AH represents a compilation of many authors, spread out over a couple of millenia.

This problem is perhaps not unique to "Irenaeus", maybe many Greek authors' texts have been interpolated, redacted, and altered for political reasons.

Here's a book on the manuscripts of Aristophanes, written a century ago, and the author is discussing texts appearing initially, in the 16th century, two thousand years after Aristophanes' death.

avi

2-J · 09-25-2010, 06:06 AM

But if our current version of Against Heresies was compiled at a later date, why include the 'Jesus was 50' claim?

I find it hard to believe that they would leave it in just for a ring of authenticity, since they were so concerned to makes sure the official line was followed in other places (that the church doctrines were followed everywhere, for example).

In fact, given the other 'corrections' that demonstrably were applied to some texts, it's quite remarkable that this 'Jesus was 50' claim has even reached us.

aa5874 · 09-25-2010, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

But if our current version of Against Heresies was compiled at a later date, why include the 'Jesus was 50' claim?

But, the claim Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered is actually found in "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Somebody did write it.

Who in the 2ND century or any century would have benefited from the ERRONEOUS claim in "Against Heresies" that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered?

Who in the 2ND century or any century would have benefited from the ERRONEOUS claim in "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" that Pontius Pilate was a governor of Claudius?

Who in the 2nd century or any century would have benefited from the ERRONEOUS claim in "Against Heresies" that Jesus was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus?

Who in the 2nd century or any century would have benefited from the ERRONEOUS claim in "Against Heresies" that John an apostle preached in Ephesus, and the Gospels show, that Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered?

After all, these claims are ACTUALLY found in "Against Heresies".

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

...I find it hard to believe that they would leave it in just for a ring of authenticity, since they were so concerned to makes sure the official line was followed in other places (that the church doctrines were followed everywhere, for example)....

But, the blatant ERRONEOUS claims are there.

In "Against Heresies' "Irenaeus" claimed Jesus MUST have been 50 years old.

In "Stromata" Clement claimed Jesus MUST have been 30 years.

Who in the Church would have benefited from such an ERROR?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

...In fact, given the other 'corrections' that demonstrably were applied to some texts, it's quite remarkable that this 'Jesus was 50' claim has even reached us.

But, it is NOT only the "Jesus was 50" claim that was left, it was NOT only "Against Heresies" but also in "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" when "Irenaeus" claimed Pilate was a governor of the Emperor of Claudius..

Surely it is extremely unlikely that "Irenaeus" did actually preach and teach these blatant errors for YEARS in the 2nd century. 'Irenaeus' would have been declared to be a liar and incompetent.

BEFORE and AFTER "Irenaeus" wrote "Against Heresies" and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching", he should have made ORAL presentations of his TEACHINGS about the age of Jesus to those whom he wanted to CONVERT and to REFUTE the so-called Heretics.

The so-called Heretics and even the Church of the 2ND century should have known "Irenaeus" was incompetent and was himself an heretic yet NO Church writer mentioned or identified the ERRORS of "Irenaeus".

And Eusebius claimed "Irenaeus" was a Bishop of the Church.

It would NOT appear that today's "Against Heresies" was written and circulated in the 2nd century.

DCHindley · 09-25-2010, 01:48 PM

Jay,

Here is what Riley has this to say about Tertullian's version of material from Irenaeus AH, as compared to the corresponding passages in Latin Irenaeus (IL) , which incidentally confirms my own feeble opinion that Tertullian's version of AH 1, 11, 3 seemed much better than Latin Irenaeus:

[T]here 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 [Greek] Irenaeus while T has used his own expression.

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 [Greek] Irenaeus.

T has "censum proinde eum ab Achamoth . . . animalem a Demiurgo, choicum substantia ARCHS, carnem materia" (Adv. Val. 25). He adds here a "substantia ARCHS" not derived from [Greek] Irenaeus.

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, ... [and n]ote especially the awkward "velut fabulam narrant" for [Greek] MUQOLOGOUSIN [which corresponds to Latin fabulas narro, fabulose narro, fabulose celebre].

Greek AH 1, 2, 3. (Epiphanius) ENIOI [some] DE [but] AUTWN [of them] PWS [in what way or manner?] TO [the] PAQOS [passion] THS [of the] SOFIAS [Sophia] KAI [and] THN [the] EPISTROFHN [return] MUQOLOGOUSIN [to tell as a legend/tale]

IL 1, 2, 3. Quidam auten ipsorum hujusmodi passionem et reversionem Sophiae, velut fabulam narrant ["in the manner of a fabulous narration"]

ANF 1, 2, 3. But others of them fabulously describe the passion and restoration of Sophia as follows …
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 [Greek] "KAI KAQAPER SPERMA . . . EN MHTRA TH . . . SIGH." 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.

I'd have to say I agree with his assesment of relative style. But the question has not been answered by anyone here: "Is Tertullian's Latin version of Irenaeus up to his usual standards, or more like a repaired bad translation?"

The comparative Greek Irenaeus AH, Latin Irenaeus, and ANF Translation are added by me.

The wife is home from work, so I must turn my attention elsewhere, or suffer eternal damnation.

Massuet's Point #2 below, regarding possible dependence of Tertullian's Adv. Val. on Latin Irenaeus, and Riley's response to them, will have to come later tonight.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jay,

I've been slicing & dicing the texts for a day or so. I earlier mentioned the edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus' AH by Massuet. Per Hitchcock (p 347):

Massuet says, "there are some who believe that Irenaeus himself first wrote in Greek and then translated it into latin. But such have little regard for his credit. For he would at least have followed the sense. It was probably some Greek person little versed in the Latin tongue who made bad Latin out of good Greek, and put a wrong construction on his author more than once. Whoever it was, it is certain that the version is most ancient and was published either during the lefe or shortly after the death of Irenaeus." The reasons given for this opinion are

(1) the resemblences between it [AH] and the Latin of Tertullian's treatis [c. Velentinianos], especially between the passages of the [Irenaeus'] treatis (1.2.3.) (sic, 1,11,3) beginning "ante omnes Proarche" and that in Tertullian beginning "ante omnia Proarche" (c. 37), and

(2) the mistakes common to both works, which originated with the translator of Irenaeus, for where he made a slip Tertullian followed suit. Both writers [the Latin translator of Irenaeus' AH and Tertullian] mistook the name EPIFANHS for an adjective (clarus, Iren., insignior, Tert.); both failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); and both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [a perimeter fence of posts] which means "vallo cingi" [defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

Regarding reason #1 above, I decided to compare the two passages mentioned (Latin AH 1,11,3 and Tertullian Adversus Valentinainos chapter 37). First, here are the English translations from the Ante Nicene Fathers volumes:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies	Tertullian, Adversus Valentinainos
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:	1.37 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 is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,	There comes, says he, before all things Proarche,
surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,	the inconceivable, and indescribable, and nameless,
whom I call Monotes (unity).	which I for my own part call Monotes (Solitude).
Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness)	With this was associated another power, to which also I give the name of Henotes (Unity).
This Henotes and Monotes, being one,	Now, inasmuch as Monotes and Henotes--that is to say, Solitude and Union--were only one being,
produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]	they produced, and yet not in the way of production,
the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,	the intellectual, innascible, invisible beginning of all things,
which beginning language terms "Monad."	which human language' has called Monad (Solitude).
With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).	This has inherent in itself a consubstantial force, which it calls Unity?
These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen	These powers, accordingly, Solitude or Solitariness, and Unity, or Union,
produced the remaining company of the AEons.	propagated all the other emanations of AEons.

Next, the Latin texts compared. I got Latin Irenaeus from a page at Ben Smith's Text Excavation site, which has PDF images of the edition of W. Wigan Harvey. The Latin text of Tertullian came from Mark T Riley's dissertation page at Roger Pearse's site:

Latin Irenaeus	Tertullian
I.11.3 Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum, in majus sublime, et quasi in majorem agnitionem extensus, primam quaternationem dixit sic:	I.XXXVII accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit:
est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche
Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	inexcogitabile et inenarrabile innominabile
quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

The next table compares the Greek text of Irenaeus' AH 1.11.3 as preserved by Epiphanius (also from Harvey) to the English in the ANF series volume:

Greek Irenaeus (quoted by Epiphanius)	English Irenaeus (ANF volume 1)
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	whom I call Monotes (unity).
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness).
AUTH hH hENOTHSM hH TE MONOTHS,	This Henotes and Monotes, being one,
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	which beginning language terms "Monad."
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	produced the remaining company of the AEons.

Lastly, a table comparing the Greek AH with the Latin AH with the version of it preserved in Tertullian:

Greek Irenaeus (as cited by Epiphanius)	Latin Irenaeus (ed. Massuet)	Tertullian
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche inexcogitabile
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	et inenarrabile innominabile
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
AUTH hH hENOTHS hH TE MONOTHS,	Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

It looks to me like Latin AH transliterates a lot of Greek words, whereas Tertullian give the proper Latin equivalents.

The Latin AH seems to very closely follow the Greek (as preserved by Epiphanius), but the translator's use of transliterations suggests he was not familiar enough with Latin to know the correct equivalents.

Tertullian does appear to be using Irenaeus, as the accounts are much too similar to be chance. He also seems to phrase the matters a little differently than Latin AH. I cannot tell if Tertullian 1) made an independent translation from the Greek AH, or 2) resolved defects he found in the Latin AH.

What I think needs to be resolved is 1) whether the Latin of Tertullian's version is better than Latin AH, and if so 2) whether the Latin of Tertullian's citation from Irenaeus' AH is up to par with his normal style, as it is still possible for Tertullian to have used Latin AH as his source, as poor as it was, and even with improvements still reflects it's defective style.

Where are Andrew Criddle and Ben Smith when you need them? I hope one or both might be willing to comment.

I cannot get into massuet's reason #2 tonight, as it is almost 1:00 am, I'm tired, and I have to go to work tomrrow.

G'night

DCH

aa5874 · 09-25-2010, 02:24 PM

Again, attempting to compare Greek with Latin texts cannot determine which was written first when none of the texts has been securely dated.

What is true and can be useful is that NO Church writer ADDRESSED or REFUTED the blatant ERRORS in "Against Heresies" which is a good indication that NO Church writer was AWARE of today's version of "Against Heresies".

No Church writer wrote that "Irenaeus" made grave mistakes in "Against Heresies" or the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching".

Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus MUST have been 30 years when he DIED and MUST have preached ONLY one year. See "Stromata" 1

Irenaeus claimed Jesus MUST have been 50 years when he died and MUST have preached for MORE than one year.

Irenaeus claimed it was HERETICAL and CONTRARY to the Church to say that Jesus was 30 years old when he died.

Clement of Alexandria would have been an Heretic.

It is obvious that Clement of Alexandria was NOT AWARE of today's version of "Against Heresies".

aa5874 · 09-25-2010, 07:08 PM

In "Against Heresies" the author claimed to have a list of bishops of the Church of Rome from the apostles to the bishop Eleutherius and that Linus was the first bishop after the apostles followed by Anacletus then Clement.

But, upon further examination the date of writing of "Against Heresies" become even more problematic when Irenaeus stated that LINUS was mentioned in an Epistle to Timothy by "Paul"

"Against Heresies" 3.3.3

Quote:

... 3. The[ blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy......

Examine the ONLY verse which mentions LINUS in 2Timothy 4:21 -

Quote:

Do thy diligence to come before winter.
Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

So, once any Church writer was AWARE of the Epistles to Timothy then they should have known about Linus the first bishop of Rome AFTER the apostles.

Now, Tertullian in "Prescription Against Heretics" will claim that Peter ORDAINED Clement, NOT LINUS which is based on the RECORDS handed down from the Church of Rome.

"Prescription Against Heresies"

Quote:

...For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

But, Tertullian appears to be AWARE of the Epistles to Timothy and in the very "Prescription Against Heretics" mentioned that Paul did write to Timothy.

"Prescription Against Heresies" 25

Quote:

...But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, while they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: "O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to you;" ...

So, how is it Tertullian appears to be AWARE of the Epistles to Timothy and did NOT know that Peter ORDAINED Linus and NOT CLEMENT?

When was it known in the Church of Rome that LINUS was the first Bishop of Rome after the apostles?

Tertullian did NOT know in the third century. He was supposed to have known who LINUS was in 2 Timothy. He was supposed to be AWARE of the list in "Against Heresies".

Tertullian could not have forgotten who was the FIRST bishop AFTER the apostles and he said it was CLEMENT. It was handed down from the registers of the Roman Church.

Who in the 3rd century SAW or HEARD that Tertullian claimed Clement was ordained the bishopric by Peter?

Who in the 2nd century SAW or HEARD that Irenaeus claimed Linus was the first bishop after the apostles?

Who in the 2nd century knew that LINUS in 2 Timothy was the FIRST bishop of the Church of Rome AFTER the apostles?

In which century was LINUS made the First bishop of the Church of Rome?

Tertullian did NOT know.

Eusebius knows that LINUS was the first bishop just like Irenaeus.

Eusebius knows that LINUS was mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy just like Irenaeus.

Tertullian did NOT know about LINUS as the first bishop in the 3rd century. And it has been deduced that 1 and 2 Timothy may not have been written at the time stated by by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius.

It would appear that today's version of "Against Heresies" was not known or heard of in the 2nd century and all or parts of its contents were unknown to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-25-2010, 06:06 AM	#96
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	But if our current version of Against Heresies was compiled at a later date, why include the 'Jesus was 50' claim? I find it hard to believe that they would leave it in just for a ring of authenticity, since they were so concerned to makes sure the official line was followed in other places (that the church doctrines were followed everywhere, for example). In fact, given the other 'corrections' that demonstrably were applied to some texts, it's quite remarkable that this 'Jesus was 50' claim has even reached us.

09-25-2010, 02:24 PM	#99
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Again, attempting to compare Greek with Latin texts cannot determine which was written first when none of the texts has been securely dated. What is true and can be useful is that NO Church writer ADDRESSED or REFUTED the blatant ERRORS in "Against Heresies" which is a good indication that NO Church writer was AWARE of today's version of "Against Heresies". No Church writer wrote that "Irenaeus" made grave mistakes in "Against Heresies" or the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching". Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus MUST have been 30 years when he DIED and MUST have preached ONLY one year. See "Stromata" 1 Irenaeus claimed Jesus MUST have been 50 years when he died and MUST have preached for MORE than one year. Irenaeus claimed it was HERETICAL and CONTRARY to the Church to say that Jesus was 30 years old when he died. Clement of Alexandria would have been an Heretic. It is obvious that Clement of Alexandria was NOT AWARE of today's version of "Against Heresies".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.