avi

Hi Dave, thanks for the reference and link.

I apologize if my question, below, has already been asked and answered....

In your link, in the previous post, earlier today, D.M. Murdoch writes, in her article entitled "When were the Gospels written":
She's probably correct, along with the 99.9% of the world that agrees with that notion.

I am in the 0.01% group that doubts everything about Christianity, and I certainly do not accept the idea that "Irenaeus" is even a real person.

When I search for evidence of his supposed writings, in Greek, I am informed by the search engine, that
In other words, we don't have any idea when "Irenaeus" wrote his text..... Where is this infamous, wooden, "latin" translation? When was it written? How does someone know that it was written "shortly after" (whatever that means?) the original Greek? Since Lyon, in those days, was a Roman colony, presumably inhabited by Latin speaking citizens, why not assume that the original was written in Latin, and that the "fragments" in Greek, represent copies of the original Latin? How do we know that the "Armenian translation" was based upon the original Greek, and not the original Latin? Where is this Armenian copy? When was it discovered?

These questions are not meant to discredit D.M. Murdoch, but rather to discredit the idea that we know anything at all about this fellow Irenaeus....Why not assume, until evidence to the contrary emerges, that he is a fake? Why should anyone accept at face value the writings of a guy who was supposed to be the student of the guy (Polycarp) who was supposed to be the student of John the apostle? Oh, yeah, Irenaeus just happened to be away on business, when the Gladiator crew came around looking for fresh meat to feed the lions, so the Bishop of Lyon somehow "escaped" the fate of his predecessor..... hmm. Were the Romans so completely incompetent, that they could not locate the second guy in the chain of command of the nascent Christian church in Lyon???? Somehow that story doesn't sound like the Roman soldiers we grew to love, respect and obey.....They killed, without mercy, whole cities, yet, somehow, they overlooked Irenaeus??? Makes no sense at all, except as part of a tall tale....

avi

aa5874

I don't think it should first be assumed Irenaeus is fake.

It is the claims made by Irenaeus that should be investigated and if they turn out to be false, not credible, or anachronistic then it can be reasonably considered that Irenaeus was a fake and a fiction writer.

1. Virtually all the claims made by Irenaeus about the authorship, dating, chronology and contents of the Gospels appear to be erroneous.

2. Virtually all the claims about the authorship, dating, chronology of Acts of the Apostles by Irenaeus appears to be in ERROR.

3. Virtually all the claims about the PAULINE writings with respect to dating, authorship, chronology and contents are erroneous.

4. The claims by Irenaeus of the age of Jesus when he suffered was COMPLETELY wrong based on the very texts that Irenaeus claimed he was AWARE of.

5. Irenaeus did not appear to even know when he was ALIVE, when he was writing, or when Paul was converted or Stephen was stoned, since he appears to have NO idea what year it was. Irenaeus thought, and for years, that Pontius Pilate was a governor of Cladius or that Tiberius was Cladius.

One can now safely and within reason claim Irenaeus was fake. His claims have turned out to be virtually all false.

Dave31

The questioning of the existence of Irenaeus seems misguided. I've seen nothing from serious historians who question his existence. The point of my post and link to the article I shared was regarding the dating of the Gospels. And the historical and literary evidence suggests that the first time all four gospels were mentioned by name altogether was in the book Against All Heresies (III, 11.8) by Irenaeus around 180 ce.

Irenaeus could very well have made it all up but the point still remains that he may have been the first to mention all four gospels. Whether he was wrong or right is irrelevant and a distraction. Again, the point here is that Irenaeus was apparently the first to mention all four gospels by name. After that, those titles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John became popular and accepted.

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

In over 20 passages claiming Jesus was famed far and wide, not a single one has ever been substantiated with credible evidence.

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition?

aa5874

Please NAME all the SERIOUS historians?

You MUST know ALL the SERIOUS historians.

Now NAME ALL those who are NOT.

Can you see and hear everything that SERIOUS historians write and talk about?

It simply cannot be misguided to investigate whether "Against Heresies" was written in the 2nd century or was simply a forgery or heavily interpolated.

It is true that the four gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be found in "Against Heresies" but the dating, chronology, authorship and contents have been deduced to be in ERROR.

Well once you admit the he could have very well made it ALL UP then the point remains that it is NOT mis-guided to investigate the possibility that both the author and contents of "Against Heresies" were made up.

The claim by "Irenaeus" that John the apostle taught people in Ephesus that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was CRUCIFIED was MADE up.

According to the very Canon, John wrote that Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was the high priest.

Whether he was wrong or right is the fundamental ISSUE.

Another apologetic source, Justin Martyr, WROTE in the 2nd century and did NOT write about the four gospels and WROTE ZERO about an NT Canon.

Justin Martyr claimed that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were read in the Churches on SUNDAYS when he was alive.

It is imperative that it is known whether Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" is really credible.


But, the dates you have given for the Gospels were NOT provided by IRENAEUS in "Against Heresies"

Let's NOT get distracted.

Irenaeus' dates for the Gospels were REJECTED by YOUR sources.

This is in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1 So, "Irenaeus" claimed ALL the four Gospels were written in the 1st century or BEFORE the apostle John died and that at least gMatthew was written BEFORE 70 CE.



Based on your own sources Irenaeus was DEAD WRONG and REJECTED.

Why was he DEAD WRONG?

Irenaeus was DEAD WRONG about the age of Jesus according to Clement of Alexander and the so-called Heretics.

Irenaeus was DEAD WRONG about the Gospels according to your own sources.

Irenaeus was DEAD WRONG with his list of bishops of Rome according to Tertullian.

And there is more.

It is NOT at all UNUSUAL for Irenaeus to be DEAD WRONG.

You may be DEAD WRONG if you assume "Irenaeus" was credible and did write in the 2nd century.

I hope you NOW realize that Irenaeus himself appear to be MIS-GUIDED and that ultimately "Against Heresies" was IRRELEVANT to the dates provided by your own sources.

avi

Thank you Dave, "misguided" is one of the kindest descriptors ever applied to my aimless wanderings on this forum.

I may be completely in error, rather than simply misguided. Please do not worry about writing frankly, especially where your elaboration concerns some detail, which had originally been expressed by me....

My feelings are not injured upon learning that I have erred, most egregiously, as revealed by the following evidence:

abc,
xyz,
etc....

What I am looking for, in other words, is not a succinct summary asserting my error, but rather, a list of two or more references from "scholars" who can repudiate my contention, by some simple DATA.

I have raised the question, and thus far received NO REPLY, and perhaps I never will....WHERE is this Latin version, the sole extant copy of Irenaeus, from ancient times?

It is supposed to be a book copied onto wood. I would like to know the location of this book. When was it discovered? Where was it found? How was it dated?

There is also supposed to be an Armenian translation (from Greek???), where was it discovered? When? What is its current location?

In my opinion, for the author Irenaeus to be regarded as credible, one must identify the location of these two primary sources, including the dates of their discovery, and the methods used to establish the approximate date of authorship.

For both copies, one would like to know the evidence supporting the notion that Irenaeus himself wrote his original version in Greek.

Dave, the fact that countless scholars, or even countless Forum members, oppose my point of view, is irrelevant to me.

I don't pay any attention to quantity of scholars, who believe xyz.....

The fact that ten million scholars proclaim the veracity of the xyz element of the ABC doctrine, means nothing to me.

I am only a simple scientist, Dave. Show me the data. end of story.

No data, no credibility. If you want to use the writings of "Irenaeus" to promote perspective one or two or three or n, then, you need to verify his existence as a genuine scholar and learned Christian Bishop. The best way to convince me, at least, that Irenaeus was a real person, is to provide some documentary evidence of his existence.

Where are located, the two extant copies of his principal texts?

avi

spamandham

This question piqued my interest, so I've spent about 20 minutes googling and searching every site I thought would have this, and though there are claims of a wooden latin translation from 380 all over the place, as best I can tell, it is no longer extant, but was supposedly used by Erasmus. How anyone could possibly have dated it to the 4th century when it is not even extant is beyond me.

As far as extant manuscripts go, they are late enough that we aught not rule out fraud.

avi

Thanks for the confirmation S&H, very good work. sorry for having wasted your time in futility.

I have spent HOURS trying to find it, unsuccessfully.

It seems to me that some of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL aspects of Christianity are simply myths, and some of those myths are accepted as truth, even by senior members of this forum....

As far as I am concerned, "Irenaeus" is one of the biggest fish in Pete's arsenal....

avi

Dave31

I thought I was clear in my previous post, guess not. The article link I cited about 2nd century gospels didn't quote Irenaeus' "errors" - Acharya knows about Irenaeus and his claims (as do many here at this forum) but, again, the point she is making is that the historical and literary records demonstrate that the book Against All Heresies (III, 11.8) by Irenaeus (or whoever) around 180 ce may be the first time the gospels were mentioned by the titles Mark, Matthew, Luke & John. It's completely irrelevant if those titles are in "error" - they may have been. However, this may be how these titles came to down to us and Acharya is simply pointing that out. Get it?

That doesn't change the fact that the book Against All Heresies (III, 11.8) by Irenaeus around 180 ce may be the first time the gospels were mentioned by the titles Mark, Matthew, Luke & John. I'm not arguing with you about the "errors" by Irenaeus nor is Acharya, understand? Again, most here at this forum are already fully aware of the discrepancies by Irenaeus but that's not the point.

Not here in this thread it isn't. You keep missing the point because you're obsessing over Irenaeus' existence and his claims in his works - I am not, nor is the article I linked to. Two simple points:

1. Against All Heresies by Irenaeus around 180 ce

2. That book may be the first mention of the gospel titles Mark, Mathew, Luke & John. After that, those titles became popular and accepted, regardless of "errors."

Beyond that, all this discussion about Irenaeus' existence and whether he was wrong or right belongs in your own thread, which you've already started. It does nothing to change the two points I've just explained. It doesn't appear that anyone has been able to credibly offer any other date for the book in your thread.

When Was "Against Heresies" written?

Something else to consider is Irenaeus wrote passionate defenses of the gospel of John around that same time period - that's a really neat trick when you're "fake." Read WWJ pages 79 through 82:

Justin Martyr's hay-day seems to have been 150 ish which is 30 years short of 180ce. And the "Memoirs of the Apostles" are not the same as the gospels.

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition?

mountainman

You can be sure there is a story around somewhere.
Thanks for digging up this explicit search for evidence avi.
I'll have a look around too.
Where is Jeffrey Gibson when he is most useful?



I am suspicious of anyone who by ignoring the evidence already in our possession rules out the historical possibility of piously forged manuscripts.

spamandham

I think your hypothesis is certainly possible. It just isn't the simplest explanation of the evidence as far as I'm concerned. However, I do believe you are right that there was (and still is) quite a bit of pious fraud going on, which makes it more difficult to figure out the real story.