Sheshbazzar

Sorry jgreen I composed this while under multiple household distractions and it was not totally error free.
In fact, the section you have quoted above, I had already edited and corrected before reading your post.
Clement did not write 'Adversus Heresies', Irenaeus did.

My premise is the evidence indicates that Irenaeus 'borrowed' from the Clementine Epistles and other sources in the creation of 'Apostle Paul' and those various text associated with this fabricated figure.

Sheshbazzar

I must add that I believe there was a real pre-Christian, Jewish Saul of Tarsus who traveled to the synagogues of the Diaspora teaching that it was unnecessary for Gentiles to be circumcised to be acceptable to, and receive favor with the Elohim of Israel. Much more I could elaborate but would be going far off topic.

aa5874

Please do not get carried away with speculation. Let us deal with the ACTUAL written statements.

We have a 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 where a writer claimed that John the disciple of the Lord did CONVEY to people in Asia up to the time of Trajan, c 98-117 CE, that Jesus was an OLD MAN or about 50 fifty years old when he was crucified.

In the same writing, it is claimed Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius which places the birth of Jesus at 1 BCE-1 CE.

In order for Jesus to have been about fifty years old then he MUST have been crucified in the time of Claudius based on "Against Heresies"


The writer, whomever he was, could NOT have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

In Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings, Jesus was crucified and ALREADY ascended BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

The author of the 2000 word argument that Jesus was about 50 years old at death in "Against Heresies" 2.22 could NOT have known of the character called Paul.

In Acts, and the Pauline writings Paul preached Christ CRUCIFIED since the time of King Aretas BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

jgreen44

But, again, why wouldn't Irenaeus make the life of his Paul character correspond the life of the 50 year old Jesus he wrote about?

In fact, what I don't get about any of this is why any forger or fabricator would contradict what had been written before. Wasn't the whole point of forgery to look like the forged documents belonged with the existing corpus of Christian literature?

Sheshbazzar

Understood and agreed.
Understood and agreed.
Understood and agreed.
Understood and agreed.
Understood and agreed.
Understood and agreed.
What it is presented to us as being history by these Christian writers is simply impossible. Not even miracles could make these contradictory accounts agree.

It is not speculation to note that the themes that are present in Clement, and often entire paragraphs were 'lifted' and incorporated, often virtually word for word into the 'Pauline Epistles'.

Given what you have presented, it is quite evident to me that at the time of the composition of "Against Heresies" circa 180 CE, Irenaeus (and apparently nobody else) knew nothing of any 'Apostle' named 'Paul', yet by the time he published Book 5 the 'Apostle Paul' was second only to Jebus himself.
This indicates to me that Irenaeus- with or without help- was knowingly complicit in the fabrication of a formerly unknown and non-existent 'Apostle Paul', and in the production of multiple forged documents presenting a fabricated 'history' of 'Paul', and 'Epistles' under that name.




.

Sheshbazzar

No man is an island....particularly when it comes to religion.
Obviously Irenaeus who originally held to a tradition of the Crucifixion having taken place at age 50 as expressed in 'Heresies', lost out on that debate and was supplanted by the orthodox view of the Crucifixion having taken place at 30 years of age.
Irregardless of how Irenaeus may have originally thought, believed, or written, The NT texts were written (or revised) so as to 'properly' reflect the prevailing orthodox traditions. 'The life of his Paul character' came about latter and was thus was no factor in the composition of the earliest sections of 'Heresies'.
No wonder then that in these matters the NT texts are so contradictory and confused.





.

aa5874

Understood and agreed.


Incomprehensible.

It does NOT make much sense for a writer to INVENT writings and characters that would have destroyed his own 2000 word argument that John the disciple of the Lord CONVEYED to people in Asia that Jesus was an OLD MAN and died at about fifty years old.

Paul should have been preaching Christ Crucified in Damascus during the time of King Aretas long before the reign of Claudius. See 2 Cor.11.31-32.

There must have been MORE than one author for "Against Heresies".

Sheshbazzar

When I said above that 'No man is an island....particularly when it comes to religion.'
It is implicit that Irenaeus was not isolated, nor would his -unorthodox- views have went unchallenged.
Those were mighty bloody times, and those that strongly resisted conformity to orthodox teachings and traditions had a nasty habit of becoming separated from various essential body parts.

If Irenaeus's late invented 'Paul' had taught what you think he should have taught, based on the early writings of Irenaeus, both Irenaeus and his 'Paul' would have permanently disappeared.
Much better to simply 'adjust' his fictional 'Paul's' 'life', 'history', and 'teachings' to CONFORM to the orthodox traditions.
That way he would get to live to tell about it, and even become a loved Christian writer and saint, rather than just one more dead heretic.

FWIW I am certain that much more than one person was responsible for the final content of "Against Heresies" even if every single word of it came direct from Irenaeus's own hand. (at least he still had that hand to write with)

What he had formerly written, was already well known...that cat was already out of the bag and could not be put back in.
The cure or -penance- was for him to live and write as the orthodoxy dictated; to wit, an entire collection of religious texts and epistles reflecting the orthodox 30s Crucifixion tradition.

aa5874

I really don't understand you now.

We are talking about the 2nd century, not the 4th.

There is NO evidence that Believers were killing one another in the 2nd century. Justin Martyr claimed he was LAUGHED at by the Marcionites.

Sheshbazzar

Really there is little truly historical or documentary evidence at all for what was going down 'on the ground' among these various 'christianities' as they hammered out the content of the texts that the orthodox embraced, canonized, or allowed to survive.
So much is this so that mountainman here has long used this huge void of any accurate knowledge of 1st and 2nd century christianity to support his thesis that Christianity did not even exist until it was invented by Eusebius in the 4th century.
Yes, his theory is regarded as crackpot, but could not even be seriously proposed if there existed that body of genuine 1st and 2nd century literature, and the abundant archaeological remains and contemporary evidences that would have of necessity accompanied such a widespread and 'popular' and powerful religious movement as christianity is presented to be within the surviving Patristic texts.
There should be hundreds if not thousands of easily identifiable 1st and early 2nd CE christian sites, churches, and frescoes.
The 'house church' of Dura Europos circa 250 CE is all we have, and the earliest 'christian' archaeological site ever found-
Which is perfectly consistent with an introduction of the completed 'Gospels', 'Acts of the Apostles' and 'Pauline writings' occurring around 180 CE.

The 'smoking gun' here is aimed directly at Irenaeus, given what as you have pointed out, is out of line in his claims as made in 'Heresies' 2:22
The 'adjustments' made in the Gospel's, and the creation of Acts, and the Pauline Epistles had to have been instituted post 180 CE.
And given the content of the remainder of AH it appears that Irenaeus soon enough fell into line with popular orthodox opinion, in spite of his previous 2000 word argument.
It is not at all inconceivable that his 'reform' came in the form of a sword at his neck, and an obligation to use his skills to produce a body of literature that would turn eyes away from what he had written, and give overwhelming support and attention to the ORTHODOX position of the 30 years of age Crucifixion.
Christians may have 'laughed' at each others claims, but that did not prevent them from being ready and willing to murder one another to establish conformity.