Amaleq13

That is paragraph 6 of Chapter 22 for those you scoring at home. I wonder why it isn't included in e-Catena?

I also wonder why Irenaeus took John's account over the Synoptics?

andrewcriddle

IIUC Irenaeus is trying to reconcile John and the Synoptics.

He agrees with Luke that Jesus was thirty when his ministry started interprets John 8:57 as him being nearly fifty when he died, and hence credits Jesus with a ministry of well over ten years. (This seems impossible among other reasons because it would prevent Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate who was replaced in disgrace as governor in 36 CE.)

If one is trying to harmonise in detail John and the Synoptics one probably has to give Jesus a longer ministry than the Synoptics suggest. Modern attempts tend to give Jesus a ministry of around three years whereas the Synoptics on their own would probably suggest about a year.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

When Irenaeus is arguing a position (as here) one should accept his argument if his logic seems valid but not otherwise.

Irenaeus as an historical source is a bit different. When quoting or paraphrasing written sources he seems to do so accurately so the question becomes the reliability of the source. When dependent on oral tradition he is probably reliable for the 2nd century and very late 1st century but not before.

There is I suppose another question as to how objective Irenaeus was about current events, eg was Marcus the Gnostic theorist and teacher really a charlatan who sexually and financially exploited vulnerable women ? IMHO Irenaeus is convincing here but others may disagree.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ameleq13,

This is an important question.

It is quite clear that the writer is taking Jesus to be circa 49 years old when talking to the Jews, and that he reached the age of a master: 50 years. when he died.

He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham

If the writer, had even the slightest interest in history, he would have known that Pilate was recalled in 36, making that the last year possible for Jesus' crucifixion under him. Thus the writer believed that Jesus was born in 14 B.C.E. or ealier. This contradicts Matthew (4 B.C.E.) and Luke (6 C.E.). Mark suggests no date of birth.

It seems probable that the writer would not want to contradict these two texts. Therefore we have to assume that the birth narratives had not been added to the gospels of Matthew and Luke at the point that the writer/Irenaeus is writing.

Several years ago I determined that Irenaeus' work is simply the early work of Tertullian renamed by Eusebius. If this is correct than we can pinpoint the time of the additions of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke to around 200 C.E. give or take 10 years. Irenaeus/Tertullian does not know that Jesus was born later than 14 B.C.E. simply because the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew had not been written yet.

In my book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities," I prove that the birth narratives of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke were created from a single birth narrative originally describing the birth of John the Nazarene/Baptist.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

JoeWallack

Hot For Teacher

JW:
I Am mainly interested here in Irenaeus' supposed Non-Gospel Evidence that Jesus was an Alpha Cocker when he died:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7011_1802900

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"


JW:
David Mamet's commentary here was, "Source! Source! Source!". First step is to Identify Ireaneus' relevant Assertions:

Irenaeus' Assertions:

"old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher" -

"all the elders testify;"

"those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan."

"156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement."

Summary of Irenaeus' Assertions Above:

1) Jesus lived to old age.

2) All the Elders assert 1)

3) The Source for some Elders was oral evidence directly from John the Disciple.

4) The Source for some Elders was oral evidence directly from other Apostles.

In trying to evaluate Irenaeus' Assertions the problem is Sources are Incomplete/Unknown:

2) All the Elders assert 1) (Jesus lived to old age)

Who were the Elders?

What is the Source for Irenaeus saying All the Elders?

If Irenaeus possessed answers to these questions this would have been the place to share them. The Skeptic must than wonder here what was the Essence of the Source of Irenaeus' Assertions considering the lack of details:

1) Reliable chain of Witnesses going back to Jesus.

vs.

2) "Tradition".

I suspect it was "Tradition" and in effect Irenaeus was saying that he had a Tradition to support his Assertion of Jesus being an old man as Opposed to his Gnostic opponents who unlike him argued Souly based on Scripture because they had no such Tradition to support their argument. Note especially Irenaeus' closing comment:

"Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

Confusion over what was Tradition verses Solid Historical evidence is a common phenomena in Early Church writings and I for one have Faith that Christian Editors have gradually successfully Converted what was originally Tradition into supposed History.



Joseph

"I was going to pull a hat out of a Rabbi's ass but the Rabbi died." - Simon Markus

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

S.C.Carlson

You are reading him right, but, according to John Chapman, "Papias on the Age of Our Lord," Journal of Theological Studies, old series, 9 (1907): 42-61, Irenaeus misunderstood Papias's term "perfect age" (cf. perfectae aetatis in Victorinus, De Fabrica Mundi 9) as nearing 50 instead of the mid-30s.

Stephen

andrewcriddle

In Book 2 Irenaeus refers in several places to Jesus being baptized at thirty years old.

In Book 3 chapter 14 he says Hence Irenaeus knew Luke 3:1 and 3:23.

Hence Irenaeus believed that Jesus was born c 3 BCE and began his ministry c 28 CE this ministry lasting over ten years. He was not IMO holding an unusually early date for Jesus' birth but an unusually late date for his death.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for pointing this out.

In book II Irenaeus refers to the position that Jesus was baptised at age 30 as the heretic's position. There is only one time in Book II where he appears to state this as his own opinion, however this is apparently an interpolation. The interpolated material is in italics. Note how the passage does not make any sense unless we take out the interpolated material. Once we do the passage makes perfect sense.

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"153 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "157 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year,



I believe It was Eusebius' idea that John lived to the time of Trajan. We may suggest that the interpolated material is his.



Warmly,

Jay Raskin

JoeWallack

JW:
PJ, you need to deal with the following commonly translated portions of Irenaeus:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/de...preaching.html

"74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. (Cf. Acts iv 25 ff.) For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,248 came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7836_2143030

"3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared-for our Lord was bern about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus;"


JW:
The first supposed quote indicates Irenaeus believed Jesus died under Claudius (41-54) and the second indicates Irenaeus believed Jesus was born "about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus;" which, giving Christians the benefit of the doubt that this refers to Consulship and not Emperorship, places Jesus' supposed birth around 2 BCE. Thus and with Apologies to Chapman, Irenaeus' Jesus is Fifty[add ish here for Spin] just as Irenaeus clearly indicates by his X-Uh-Jesus explanation in AH.

Thinking Pilate was under Claudius is Typical of Irenaeus' careless/dishonest recital of History. PJ, why don't you accept the above as evidence that Irenaeus assumed Jesus was born around 2 BCE? If you think the excerpts are Forged why do you think they are Forged? Is it because a complete AH
is only Latin extant? Because supposed fragments of Irenaeus have been proven to be Forged? Because of differences in the Fragments evidence? Because Christianity has a well deserved Reputation for Unintentionally/Intentionally mixing Commentator into the Commentatee?

If you argue here based on what Irenaeus didn't say and ignore what he did supposedly say you sound like John Chapman trying to prove that Irenaeus' source for Jesus being an Alpha Cocker was a misreading of Papias which is based on what Irenaeus didn't say and ignores what he did say.



Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

Good points. I use to know this stuff. I actually wrote an article a few years ago pointing out that the Irenaeus text suggests a 46 date for the crucifixion.
It just goes to show that the field is so vast that its easy to forget what you learned.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay