aa5874

Much of the supposed historical information in "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus has been either deduced to be erroneous or contradicted by Church writers.

It is hardly likely that the extremely flawed argument used by "Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies" about the age of Jesus could have been presented "LIVE" to so-called heretics who were claiming that Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered.

"Against Heresies" is not compatible at all with the writings of Justin Martyr believed to have been written in the middle of the 2nd century.

Based on Justin Martyr the Jesus story was found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and he did NOT mention any NT Canon at all.

Justin Martyr did NOT write about :

1. gMatthew

2. gMark

3. gLuke

4. gJohn

5. Acts of the Apostles.

6. the Epistle to Romans.

7. the Epistles to Corinthians.

8. the Epistle to Galatians.

8. the Epistle to Ephesians.

9. the Epistle to Philippians.

10. the Epistles to Thessalonians.

11. the Epistle to Colossians.

12. the Epistle to Hebrews.

13. the Epistle by James.

14. the Epistle by John.

15. the Epistle by Peter.

16. the Epistle by Jude.

17. The Epistles to Timothy.

18. The epistle to Philemon.

19. The Epistles to Ttitus.

The claim by Irenaeus that there were gospels BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and the authors were KNOWN by NAME has been ALREADY deduced to be in ERROR.

The deduction that the gospels were originally ANONYMOUS is more compatible with the writings of Justin Martyr and further, Justin Martyr IDENTIFIED the "Memoirs of the Apostles" was used in the churches up to the middle of the 2nd century.

"Against Heresies" does NOT appear to represent the 2nd century with respect to the authorship of Gospels.

"Against Heresies" does NOT appear to have been SEEN or HEARD by so-called Heretics when Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered.

Tertullian who supposedly wrote AFTER Irenaeus did NOT use the List of Bishops of Rome as found in "Against Heresies".

Church writers BEFORE and AFTER contradict Irenaeus and wrote that Christians were NOT united in the their BELIEFS about Jesus.

"Against Heresies" appears to be Anachronistic and COMPATIBLE with the 4th century when the Roman Church was under control of the Emperor of Rome.

aa5874

The more I examine the writings of the Church writers the more clearer it becomes that the writings of the Church are not fundamentally historical with respect to the history of Jesus believers and Christians in many cases and were not circulated publicly at the proposed date of writing.

The contradictions and errors are so blatant among Church writers that so-called Heretics would have made them look like laughing stocks and fiction writers.

In "Against Heresies" Irenaeus claimed Marcion RETAINED parts of gLuke and the Pauline writings in "Against Heresies" 3.12.12

But another Church writer will contradict Irenaeus.

According to Hippolytus, Marcion's doctrine was NOT from the Gospels or the Pauline writings.

This is found in "Refutation of All Heresies" 7.18 Irenaeus is CONTRADICTED again by an apologetic source, Hippolytus.

1. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered.

Clement of Alexander CONTRADICTS . Jesus was 30 years old.

2. Irenaeus wrote about Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Justin Martyr wrote about the "Memoirs of the Apostles.

3. Irenaeus made reference to a passage in John 21.

Tertullian claimed gJohn terminated with a verse in John 20.31.

4. Irenaeus wrote that John the apostle claimed Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered.

In gJohn, the author contradicts. Jesus was crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was the high priest.

5. Irenaeus wrote that Pilate was a governor for CLAUDIUS.

No other Church writer made such a claim.

6. Irenaeus claimed LINUS was the bishop after Peter.

Tertullian contradicts. CLEMENT was ordained bishop by Peter.

7. Irenaeus claimed CLEMENT was the bishop AFTER ANACLETUS.

St. Augustine contradicts. CLEMENT was the bishop BEFORE ANACLETUS.

8. Irenaeus implied the Church was unified in its BELIEF about Jesus.

Origen contradicts.[ Many BELIEVERS were NOT unified in virtually EVERY ASPECT of Jesus.

9. Irenaeus claimed Marcion used parts of gLuke and the PAULINE writings.

Hippolytus contradicts. Marcion used the doctrine of Empedocles.

10. Irenaeus claimed Papias heard the apostle John.

Eusebius contradicts. Papias only heard from the apostles' friends.

The writings of Irenaeus has been EXPOSED as FULL of errors and contradictions and NOT by so-called Heretics, but by the Church writers.

"Against Heresies" is NOT credible and was NOT seen or heard by the Heretics of the 2nd century.

Irenaeus was a FAKE bishop and it would appear "Against Heresies" was an INVENTION for "the history of the Church".

mountainman

The Church writer Eusebius however did not specifically mention the name of any of his contemporary heretics who wrote the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". I found this to be most unusual, especially since the church writer starts his ambitious "Church History" with the claim ....

But Eusebius does not provide any names of the heretic Gnostics which in his time were authoring tracts like "The Acts of Pilate". bThese were taken around and read to the school children. Eusebius must have known who authored this text, but the name of the author of this, and other 4th century texts, are nowhere provided.

Why not?

grog225

In reviewing this interesting exchange, I believe aa missed an important point. Maybe he addresses it at some point, but he becomes engaged in a frivolous charge about DCH's notation [here in constantinople]. I agree that DCH's addition of the notation alters the meaning by contrasting the two statements as Antioch vs. Constantinople, an intent that may not have been in the author's mind. However, DCH is still wrong in his main contention since the Antioch passage says (and I've edited out everything but the parts I need):

I highlighted the editorial comment that DCH inserted and which aa focused his response on. I do think that this insertion unfairly contrasts Antioch vs. Constantinople. In fact, we should infer that the author is making a general comment that Acts is unknown to many people, not just the people of Constantinople. These statements actually reinforce the notion that Acts was little known will into the 4th century.

DCHindley

That line "peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end" tells you it was read 'from year's end to year's end', i.e., liturgically.

The word(s) translated into English as "peradventure" seem to me to have been intended to suggest that some simply ignore it when it is read ("to some their ignorance"). Others "think it so plain, that they slight it" ("to some men their knowledge").

A Those who do not hear (ie, don't pay attention to) the book of Acts when it is read throughout the year. (Note: "[from time to time]" was in the footnote of the N&PNF volume, I did not add that, so I am simply agreeing with their reasonable assesment of this passage) = A' Those who neglect it on account of ignorance.

B Those who slight the book of Acts for being "plain" = B' Those who neglect it because they know it is not written in literary (Attic) Greek, and thus beneath their notice.

Basically, that forms a chiastic structure (A B B' A'), which was a pretty common way to contrast things in discourse of the day. Paraphrased: "Whether you neglect to learn lessons from the book of Acts because you are a bumpkin or a snob, listen up, and I will lay out them for you now ..."

I'd be curious to know whether the verb AKOUW ("hear") takes a noun in the accusative or the genitive case. Classically, this verb takes a noun in the accusative to indicate "hearing with understanding the thing being communicated" as opposed to "hearing the person's voice", but this is not an absolute rule.

DCH

PS: And what's even more amazing about ABBA is that those Swedes sang those songs in English without understanding a word of it. Well, that's what I once heard, but I did think their canned music sounded kinda fishy.

grog225

I think you are being quick to make an inference that is not there. I read this to mean that the book is not read most of the year, only during the festival mentioned. It seems more reasonable to read it in this light considering the rest of the context of the passage:

"and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end"

I read this as saying, "It is read now, not during the rest of the year." The word "peradventure" is an odd choice. Like "Possibly you do not hear this Book read..."? I would like to know what word was translated into "peradventure."

Your chiastic reading seems forced to me, by the way. Too much of trying to fit what is there into what you want to be there. It seems like that was a structure used in short rhetorical witticisms and doesn't fit this genre, but I'm not a classicist so I am probably wrong on that. Maybe you can school me on this point.

I would like to know more about the attestation of Against Heresies, though, and other Irenaeus works. As I understand, Eusebius is our attestion for nearly all outside some Syriac fragments. But I don't know much about the Syriac fragments, such as dating. Hopefully, you can fill in some of my ignorance.

It doesn't really make sense then, does it? "You don't listen to this when it is read throughout the year, so we'll make you listen to it one more time and maybe you'll get it then?" I think it makes more sense to read this passage as: We read this at this festival because it isn't read throughout the year (thus it isn't heard). It just makes more sense this way.

Is there any evidence outside of this Chrysostum reference that Against Heresies was read liturgically throughout the year? Any evidence anywhere? I've never seen that, but as I've said this isn't my area of expertise.

No, ABBA was totally legit. And they knew very little English. Well, that's what I heard, too, anyway. There is something strangely catchy about their songs. You find yourself liking them and then really feeling embarrassed for yourself about it.

Toto

The Chrysostum reference is to Acts of the Apostles being read liturgically, not Against Heresies.

grog225

Yes, excuse me. I do want to know about the attestation for Against Heresies. I crossed my wires there when I asked about Against heresies. Again, anyone have that data? I'm especially interested in the syriac fragments on this.

As for Acts, I want to know more about evidence of Acts being used liturgically. I, for one, believe this to be a very late work...well into the second century. I think Knox argued for 125 or so and I would argue later than that. I know that the en vogue argument is that Luke/Acts was published as a single volume by the same author. I think this does not rule out that Luke/Acts is the work of a synthesizing editor/author who built on an older work (possibly the work cited by Marcion). I also think there are convincing arguments that the author of Luke/Acts is aware of the Pauline epistles.

aa5874

Apologetic sources, at least the historian of the Church, claimed there was a tradition that the Pauline writers were AWARE of gLuke.

It is just not true or most unlikely that the Pauline writers got their gospel from a resurrected dead. The Pauline writers most likely used written sources for their information about JESUS who he called the MESSIAH.

The Pauline writings were AFTER the Jesus story. No gospel writer used a single verse from the Pauline writings.

The author of gMark appears to be completely UNAWARE of the meaning of the resurrection. It is NOT likely that he had ever heard that the Pauline writers TEACH and PREACH all over the Roman Empire that "without the resurrection mankind would REMAIN IN SIN".

Ro 10:9 - 1Co 15:17 - It would appear that the author of gMark did NOT know of the significance of the resurrection. He most likely did NOT see the Pauline writings.

Mark 16.6-8The resurrection of Jesus was the Pauline gospel.


The author of gMark seemed like he Never heard or seen the Pauline resurrection gospel which was supposed to be PREACHED ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

Justin too.