Vinnie

A theory new to me that I came across in a journal is highlighte in the topic of this thread. As part of a larger work I have mentioned these views and would like to open them to the firing squad:


Irenaeus Addendum:

It is worth adding one more tidbit about Irenaeus. His mystical defense of the four-fold gospel, while probably fitting in its ancient context, should make modern historians cringe. Irenaeus, in a very famous passage, argued that there must be four and exactly four Gospels just as there are four quarters of the earth, four principle winds and since the church is spread all over the world it requires four columns for its support! (Against Heresis, 3.11.8 CCEL online).

In this same section Irenaeus identifies the four evangelists with the “Living Creatures” of the Apocalypse of John that are mentioned in Ezekial 1. He writes,

“For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church.” (Irenaeus ibid)

We have a Lion, Ox, Man’s Face and Eagle. With these Ireneaus goes on to make the following connection to the evangelists:

1st Living Creature – Lion – John
2nd Living Creature – Ox – Luke
3rd Living Creature – Man’s Face – Matthew
4th Living Creature – Flying Eagle -- Mark

The order here is John, Luke, Matthew and then Mark. Critics have wondered why Irenaeus does not place them in their order of composition. For example, why is Matthew not placed first since Ireneaus believes it to be the first gospel? Many have suggested that Irenaeus simply needed to find an appropriate evangelist for each “Living Creature” and did the best he could. Order of Gospel composition was unimportant. In evidence of this fact is that this order is not Irenaeus’s gospel order and it would be virtually unique. This is Irenaeus’s rationale for affixing each evangelist to its respective “Living Creature”:

“For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;” and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.” (Against Heresies, Ibid)

It is interesting to note that Irenaeus quotes material apparently from the Apocalypse of John here. But there are a number of differences from what is described in Revelation 4:1-8 and Irenaeus’s account:

1) Irenaeus identifies the Living Creatures as Cherubim but this does not occur in the Apocalype of John where Cherubim are not mentioned. 2) The notion of the Deity seated upon the Cherubim does not make sense since in the Apocalypse they are stationed around the throne and cannot serve as its pillars as [the gospels are said to be pillars]. 3) The creatures in the Apocalype were not four-faced, in fact, face was only mentioned in reference to the third creature. 4) T.C. Skeats writes, “Irenaeus quotes the descriptions of the Living Creatures from the Apocalypse, and uses the word ϕησιν to emphasize that he is quoting verbally, he nowhere mentions either the Apocalypse or its author, with the result that ϕησιν is left in the air without a subject, either actual or implied.” (Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon, T. C. Skeat, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 34, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1992), pp 194-199 pp 196)

If we look back to Ezekial 1 where the four living creatures of the Apocalypse obviously derive from, these problems go away (Cherubim, four-faced and pillars). Thus the account in Ireneaus obiosuly draws from Ezekial 1. What is interesting to note is that Ezekial has a different order of the faces. They appear as Man, Lion, Ox and Eagle. If the evangelists are then linked to the Face/Living Creatures that Irenaeus’s account connects them to the order changes!

Apocalypse Order
1st Creature – Lion – John
2nd Creature – Ox – Luke
3rd Creature – Man’s Face – Matt.
4th Living –Eagle -- Mark

Ezekial Order
1st Face – Man – Matthew
2nd Face – Lion – John
3rd Face – Ox – Luke
4th Face – Eagle -- Mark

While the order of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark would be largely unique the order Matthew, John, Luke and Mark is rather common and immediately recognizable as the “Western Order” of the Gospels which may have existed until the time of Jerome before being finally replaced by the canonical order. The most important witness for this order is the Chester Beatty Papyrus 1 that appears to have followed it. This is the earliest manuscript of the four Gospels that survives to us and it dates to the third century. T.C. Skeat writes,

“The foregoing investigation indicates, without a shadow of doubt, that the celebrated exposition of Irenaeus, or at any rate that part of it which related to the "Living Creatures" of the Apocalypse, was taken by him from an earlier source which, starting from the vision of Ezekiel, went on to discuss the Apocalypse, with verbal quotations, and perhaps offering some explanation for the differing order there. Irenaeus, one must conclude, took the quotations from this source and never looked at the Apocalypse himself. He even copied the word ϕησιν from his source, not realising that he himself had not mentioned the Apocalypse. All the inconsistencies and contradictions in his account are thus explained. This defence of the Four-Gospel Canon must have originated at a date early enough to be used as a source by Irenaeus-say, perhaps, not later that 170 or thereabouts.

But there is more than the defence of the Canon involved. As Zahn pointed out a century ago, any question of the order of the Gospels only makes sense when all four have been brought together in a single volume, which must be a codex, since no roll, however economically written, could contain all four Gospels. The source used by Irenaeus must therefore have possessed such a codex, and the Four-Gospel codex can now be traced back to about the year 170. “ (Skeat, ibid pg 198-9)


Thoughts?

Vinnie

Vinnie

Personally, I'm not convinced that "any question of the order of the Gospels only makes sense when all four have been brought together in a single volume, which must be a codex". That is not immediately obvious to me. Maybe I will have to dig up the reference to Zahn. But at any rate, what do you think of the reasoning that leads Skeat to think Irenaeus used a prior source, presumably with the "Western Order"?

Vinnie

I found a critique in:

EYAГГEΛION: ORALITY, TEXTUALITY, AND THE CHRISTIAN TRUTH IN IRENAEUS' ADVERSUS HAERESES.Full Text Available
By: Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Vigiliae Christianae, Feb2002, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p11-46, 36p; DOI: 10.1163/15700720252984819; (AN 6225333)

The critique occurs in several footnotes.

Also, Irenaeus' use of Matthew's gospel in Adversus Haereses By Dwight Jeffrey Bingham is said to have a critique. It occurs on page 81 and it just so happens 80 and 82 are on google book preview. Anyone have this work?

I'd buy it to see what he says in response but it cost $80. Too much for a book on Irenaeus and Matthew....

Vinnie

http://books.google.com/books?id=5vR...age&q=&f=false

There is part of the response....

aa5874

Irenaeus has already been neutralised by Scholars.

It would appear that the information presented by Irenaeus in Against Heresies about the date of writing of the Gospels, the chronology or order of writing and the authorship of the Gospels are all erroneous.

Irenaeus does not therefore appear to be credible, his writings are all fundamentally based on errors. The writer called Irenaeus is a product of propaganda of the Roman Church.

Once Scholars are right, then it is most unlikely that Irenaeus would have written known false information to his audience who would have immediately recognised the errors and discarded him as a liar.

The bogus information about the date of writing, the order, and authorship of the Gospels as supposedly presented Irenaeus must have been written long after he was dead, if he ever lived, or at a much later time than 170 CE.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vinnie,

Good catch that the talk about the Cherubim is not from Revelations of John but from Ezekial 1.

Note this from Tertullian:
Like the writer about the Cherubim, Tertullian uses the book of Ezekiel to make significant arguments.

I still have a problem with the dating of Irenaeus which comes exclusively from Eusebius and finds acceptance without question by all who trust in Eusebius.

In the previous paragraph (3:11.7) to the discussion of the gospels, Ireneaus writes:
"But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains."

He could not have gotten this idea from any other place than Tertullian's work "Against Marcion". Tertullian attempts to prove it. If the idea had been from a source before Tertullian, and if he did not make it up himself, Tertullian would have certainly quoted the source to add authority to his claim.

This work was written in 206. How could a man writing in 170 cite an idea first presented in a work from 206? If we assume that Irenaeus' writing is much later than Eusebius' claims, this mystery is cleared up.

Our biggest clue lies in the following paragraph (3.11.9):

The writer is complaining that someone rejects the New Prophesy (the prophesy of Montanus) and thus does not accept Paul or the Gospel of John as they both speak of the paraclete. It appears that the writer is a follower of Montanus. Based on other writings by Tertullian, we may assume that the someone is the Church in Rome.

This and many other facts leads me to believe that this work is by the Montanist Tertullian and not by anybody named Irenaeus as Eusebius claims. As Tertullian is pointing out that the Church in Rome accepts neither the gospel of John nor the letters of Paul, this would have been a great embarrassment to Eusebius' whole argument that the Roman church always upheld the true doctrine. Is it any wonder that Eusebius would change a work by Tertullian into a work by the unknown Irenaeus?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

I have this passage from Irenaeus and several other passages comparing the four gospels to the cherubim on my four gospels page. See the list of five links to these passages toward the top of the page (Irenaeus, Victorinus, Jerome, pseudo-Athanasius, Augustine).

Ben.

aa5874

In Against Heresies, Irenaeus claimed that Matthew a disciple of Jesus wrote a Gospel and he also claimed that John, another disciple of Jesus wrote another Gospel called the Gospel of John.

Now, of the four Gospel stories, the Synoptics, gMatthew, gMark and gLuke are very similar but gJohn is very noticeably different.

The author of gJohn claimed that Jesus was God, the Creator whereas in the Synoptics he was called[b] the Son of God.[/b[]

Mark 1.1 John 1.1 It is also noticed that after the baptism of Jesus as found in the Synoptics, Jesus went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan for FORTY days, yet in gJohn, after the baptism and on the NEXT day Jesus had already started his preaching and at least two disciples of John the Baptist began to follow him.

Mark 1.12-13 John 1.35-36 It is becoming clear that if Matthew was a disciple of Jesus then John was probably not. Their Jesus stories are very different.

In the Synoptics, Jesus interacted with Satan and the devils that caused people to be sick and diseased, these devils recognised Jesus as the Son of God, but in gJohn, Jesus did not interact with any devils, in fact, there no are devils exorcised in gJohn's Jesus story.

Also, Jesus used many parables in the Synoptics, only one parable can be found in gJohn.

There is a major departure in the message of Jesus from the Synoptics to gJohn. In the Synoptics Jesus warned his disciples about the Fall of the Temple but in gJohn no such warning can be found, instead John's Jesus stresses that people should believe in him.

John's Jesus has become arrogant, he no longer displays humility but asked God his Father to glorify him, but in the Synoptics, Jesus was sweating blood, he was terrified by his crucifixion.

Mark 14.36
But look at the words of Jesus before his arrest and crucifixion in John 17.

John 17:1-5 - If Matthew was a disciple of Jesus then John was not and the reverse is also true

The information found in Against Heresies about the authorship of Matthew and/or John would have been known to be false if it was written when Irenaeus was alive. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" is propaganda of the Roman Church written sometime after his death, if he lived, for the sole purpose of merging the implausible Jesus with the plausible and propagte a fraudulent history of the Roman Church.

Only in the fiction world can implausibility and plausibility seamlessly come together.

Vinnie

Not pertinent to the topic under consideration.

Vinnie

Not pertinent to the topic under consideration.