Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 09-19-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Likewise, "Shoulder Arms" which shows American soldiers fighting in World War I could not have been made before 1917 when the United States actually sent troops to fight in World War I.

Thank you very much, Jay, for this very clear explanation.

Well done.

I am rather sure though, that you will agree with me, that "Shoulder Arms", could have been made in 2010. Yes, you are right, it could not have been made BEFORE 1917, absent clairvoyance, however, the fact that the topic described occurred in 1917 does not a priori suggest, at least not to me, that the film itself was also made in that year.

Concretely, in this thread, I have been trying to learn the initial date of appearance for the particular source documents claimed to have represented the original thoughts of "Irenaeus".

DCHindley has put in a LOT of work, creating a comparison chart (Bravo!), but his effort is based upon which original source materials??

The point is, or rather, in my opinion, we possess no extant, original, Greek manuscripts authored by "Irenaeus", at least, none which address this issue of Heresies. Relying upon quotes from fragments by Epiphanius instead, and calling that "Irenaeus", just doesn't ring true to my way of thinking. But, even then, we are employing what? 14th century CE documents....

Film noir often has subjects which may be difficult to elaborate, heroes and villains alike may be less stereotyped, than those found in more typical adventure yarns. The murky, misty, foggy details of the black and white landscape are presented to the viewer as art, rather than documentary.

For "Irenaeus", in my view, we require more documentary, less art.

avi

PhilosopherJay · 09-19-2010, 10:08 AM

Hi DCHindley,

Good research, again. Thanks.

From this research and previous posts on this thread, it seems over the last 140 years, Theodore Zahn, Brook Foss Wescott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, and Mark Timothy Riley have expressed skepticism that Tertullian used a latin version of of Against Heresies, while only R.A. Lipsius supported it. However, from the quote you give from Lipsius, he does not give any reasons for accepting it, but simply states it as a fact. .

Philip Schaff in Ante-Nicene Fathers writes:

Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.

Thus Dodwell may be put into the Tertullian non-use of Latin camp, while Schaff can go into the Latin camp. However, Schaff also gives no reason why he thinks Tertullian used the Latin version.

From the book "St. Ireneaus of Lyon: Against Heresy":ftnote 73, p. 121:

Quote:

A Merk, "Der Texte DEs Neuen Testamentes beim hl. Irenaeus," p. 304 claims that the dependence of Tertullian on the Latin of Irenaeus is not proved.

It seems that while Grabe proposed it first several years earlier, the Benedictine monk Massuet, based on evidence involving the similarity of several words in two passages, first made the case in 1710 that Tertullian copied the Latin Text, but nobody in the last 300 years has added to that case, while at least six scholars (Zahn, Wescott, Hort, Riley, Dodwell, and Merk) have found it unconvincing.

It seems we have a challenge if we are to find Massuet's hypothesis correct.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Hi Jay,

Thanks for taking this in the direction of investigating historical conclusions rather than what normally goes on here.

From what I am gathering from a little Google research, the proposals for the date of the Latin translation are as follows:

Erasmus, the editor of the editio princeps of Latin Irenaeus (1526), apparently expressed no opinion about the date of translation of the Latin version of Irenaeus.

Joannes Ernestus Grabe published an edition of Irenaeus in 1702, which proposed that Tertullian quoted Irenaeus from the Latin translation. This opinion was confirmed by Réné Massuet, who re-edited Grabe's edition in 1710.

Theodore Zahn, in the article "Irenaeus" in Real-Encyklopädie (ed. Herzog. 1854-68), expressed the position that the age of the translation "needs renewed investigation. For the opinion of Grabe and Massuet that Tertullian already used it c. Valentinianos is disputable" (that English translation comes from F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock's book Irenaeus of Lugdunum: a study of his teaching).

Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, in The New Testament in the original Greek, vol 2, Introduction & Appendix (1881/1896), express their opinion as follows:

Were indeed Massuet's commonly accepted theory true, that the Latin version of Irenaeus was used by Tertullian, the biblical text followed by the translator [FWIW, this is the "western text" of codex Bezae] would take precedence of all other Old Latin texts in age. We are convinced however, not only by the internal character of this biblical text but by comparison of all the passages of Irenaeus borrowed in substance by Tertullian, that the Greek text alone of Irenaeus was known to him, and that the true date of the [Latin] translation is the fourth century. The inferior limit is fixed by the quotations made from it by Augustine about 421.

I am a little concerned about this, because W&H's Greek NT did not follow the western text at all, and I wonder if this dating is used to avoid a difficulty in diminishing the possible importance of the western text. For those who don't follow this kind of thing, the "western text" is a somewhat longer version of the Greek text of Acts and some other books, which is controversial for several reasons, because of whether the western text is an expansion of the traditional text, or the traditional text is a contraction of the western text.

R. A. Lipsius, in his article "Irenaeus" in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, (1911), bucks this trend of casting doubt on the possibility that Tertullian used the Latin translation, and says:

We possess it entire in the Latin version only, which, however, must have been made from the Greek original very soon after its composition, since the Latin was used by Tertullian some ten years after, in his tractate adv. Valentinianos. Its translator was a Celt (witness the barbarous Latinity); probably one of the clergy of Lyons. Most of the original work being now lost, the slavish literality of the translator imparts to his version a very high value. Many obscurities of expression, arising in part from a misunderstanding of the Greek idiom, admit an easy solution when translated back into Greek. Beside this Latin version, which appears to have soon superseded the Greek original in the Western church, there was a Syriac translation, of which numerous fragments are extant …

The article also expresses some info about date of composition:

Against Heresies was written in Gaul. (Irenaeus says so expressly, lib. i. praef. 3, cf. i. 13, 7. We follow Massuet's division of chapters.) The date of composition is determined iii. 3, 3, in which he speaks of Eleutherus as then twelfth in succession to the apostles on the episcopal chair of Rome (νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος). According to this, the third book was written at the earliest a.d. 174 or 175, at the latest a.d. 189 (cf. Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, pp. 184 sqq.). The commencement and completion of the work were possibly some years apart, but we cannot put the date of bks. iv. and v. so late as the episcopate of Victor (189–198 or 199). We may tentatively assume 182, the mid-period of Eleutherus's episcopate, or (since the first two books alone appear to have been written immediately after each other—cf. the prefaces to bks. ii. and iii.–v.) we may propose from a.d. 180 to 185 as the date of the whole work. To assign a more exact date is hopeless. That Irenaeus wrote as bishop, and not earlier than 178 as presbyter, is by far most probable, though it cannot be drawn with absolute certainty from the words of the preface to bk. v. to which Massuet appeals.

Hort later wrote an article, "Did Tertullian use the Latin Irenaeus?" in Nouum Testamentum sancti Irenaei episcopi lugdunensis (ed. Wm Sanday, 1923), that defended his early 4th century dating.

DCH (back to work ...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

If Tertullian wrote Against Heresies, it would have been the Greek version that he wrote.

According to Mark Timothy Riley, we know the Greek version of Against Heresies, from some excerpts given by Epiphanius and Hypolytus from the Greek version. The entire version that has survived is in Latin and it appears that it is a bad translation from that original good Greek work. There is no reason to suggest that Tertullian did the bad Latin translation. The question is does Tertullian in his Latin Against Valentinus copy from the Greek or Latin version of Against Heresies.

Riley does not think that Tertullian used the bad Latin translation. Rather he proposes that Tertullian used the Greek original:

Tertullian's Latin copying of Against Heresies in Against Valentinus is adaptive and free while whoever translated Against Heresies into Latin translated it into stilted Latin.

Apparently, previous Scholars had supposed that Tertullian copied the bad Latin translation because at two points the same unusual expressions are used in both. ...

In other words, Riley thinks that the translations done are not so unusual that two independent translators could not have hit on it without one consulting the other.

If Tertullian had done Against Heresies in Greek. We should expect a good "adaptive and free" translation into Latin in his Against Valentinus
That, at least according to Riley, is what we see.

PhilosopherJay · 09-19-2010, 10:38 AM

Hi Avi,

Good point about being able to tell the earliest date for "Shoulder Arms" based on a knowledge of the history of the World War I, but not the latest date for its production. To get a latest date, we might pick out Chaplin's youthful appearance. He was 28 years old when he made the film, and he certainly looks like a man in his 20's. From this, plus knowledge of his birthdate, 1889, we could perhaps set a very likely date between 1917 and 1925. Even not knowing his birthdate, the fact that it is a silent film and synch sound films started in 1927 would also lead us to the same approximate dating.

The more we know about various periods of time and the more changes we can track and use to compare to the contents of a text, the easier it is to find valid reference points. We do have to make sure that we are not using the wrong reference points, otherwise we may imagine rather ridiculous absurdities and anachronisms. For example, Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925) was set in the time of the 1897/98 Alaskan Klondike Gold Rush. Some one not familiar with the date of the actual Gold Rush and just looking at the date of the film's copyright could end up believing that the Alaskan Gold Rush happened in 1925, not in 1897/98.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Likewise, "Shoulder Arms" which shows American soldiers fighting in World War I could not have been made before 1917 when the United States actually sent troops to fight in World War I.

Thank you very much, Jay, for this very clear explanation.

Well done.

I am rather sure though, that you will agree with me, that "Shoulder Arms", could have been made in 2010. Yes, you are right, it could not have been made BEFORE 1917, absent clairvoyance, however, the fact that the topic described occurred in 1917 does not a priori suggest, at least not to me, that the film itself was also made in that year.

Concretely, in this thread, I have been trying to learn the initial date of appearance for the particular source documents claimed to have represented the original thoughts of "Irenaeus".

DCHindley has put in a LOT of work, creating a comparison chart (Bravo!), but his effort is based upon which original source materials??

The point is, or rather, in my opinion, we possess no extant, original, Greek manuscripts authored by "Irenaeus", at least, none which address this issue of Heresies. Relying upon quotes from fragments by Epiphanius instead, and calling that "Irenaeus", just doesn't ring true to my way of thinking. But, even then, we are employing what? 14th century CE documents....

Film noir often has subjects which may be difficult to elaborate, heroes and villains alike may be less stereotyped, than those found in more typical adventure yarns. The murky, misty, foggy details of the black and white landscape are presented to the viewer as art, rather than documentary.

For "Irenaeus", in my view, we require more documentary, less art.

avi

aa5874 · 09-19-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Even as fiction, we should be able to date most early Christian works. They should reflect in some ways some things of the time period that they were constructed.

All of Charlie Chaplin's films are fiction. Some of the copyright dates are missing from the fiilms, probably because projectionists reedited the films while showing them. Also, in cinema history, when synch sound came in, many of his silent films were re-released with sound effects and music, so we cannot always trust the copyright dates on the works themselves. This does not stop us from recognizing their dates from our knowledge of historical customs and events portrayed in the films themselves....

Actually movies can be made very long after the period they depict. If a person were to date the movie "The Ten Commandments" by the historical customs and events then they may be in error by thousands of years.

To tentatively date movies or films it is better to identify the medium, the format, the ratings and most importantly the name of the actors.

So, for example, all movies with Charlton Heston were made between 1923 and 2008. Movies with PG-13 ratings were probably made after 1968. Movies in HD were probably made after 2000.

The fundamental problem with dating writings from the Roman Church is that there appears to have been DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS to conceal the true history of Christian cults.

The Roman Church historian Eusebius gave the FALSE report that the Roman Church under Constantine was DIRECTLY linked to Jesus of the NT through an apostle called Peter both of whom were FICTION characters.

So, the normal methodology of dating written material cannot be used to date Roman Church writings or the NT Canon.

For example, the writings in the NT Canon under the name "Paul" have been deduced to be from several authors.

The writings called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appears NOT to have been written by those named but may have been anonymous.

The writings under the name Peter, James, John and Jude suffer the same fate.

Even the book called Revelation which the Roman Church declared was written by an apostle called John appears to be in ERROR and the Acts of the Apostles appear to have been written at a date that is NOT in agreement with the Roman Church historian.

Unlike the film industry, where the names of the actors in the movies virtually confirm without doubt the time period in which a movie was made, the characters in the NT Canon appears to do the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

It is almost INCREDIBLE but true. The inclusion of characters like King Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas the high priest, the Emperors Tiberius and Claudius, Cyrenius, Agrippa, Aretas, and other figures of history of antiquity still do NOT help to date the NT Canon.

Just give the name of the actor and someone should be able to get an accurate time period for a movie.

Now, can any one get an accurate time period for these events in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1?

Quote:

.. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia...

We FIRST need to get the ACTUAL names of the authors of the NT Canon.

avi · 09-19-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, can any one get an accurate time period for these events in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1?

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenaeus???

.. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia...

We FIRST need to get the ACTUAL names of the authors of the NT Canon.

I disagree.

I think that we FIRST need to identify the SOURCE of this supposed quote from "Irenaeus".

DCHindley's elegant chart, notwithstanding, we need to know from which Greek version, this quotation you have cited above, arises.

For all I know, that quote comes not from "Irenaeus", but from some 14th century Greek text attributed to Epiphanius.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The fundamental problem with dating writings from the Roman Church is that there appears to have been DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS to conceal the true history of Christian cults.

Yes, thank you aa5874, this is the key point of this thread on "Irenaeus": how do we know, with reasonable certainty, (just as we understand with reasonable certainty, the dates of Chaplin's films--thanks Jay!) that the English quotes of the text of "Irenaeus" which we are discussing, examining, comparing, and studying, represent something which was actually penned, in Greek, by a real person, living in Lyon at the end of the 2nd century CE, with the name "Irenaeus"?

One observes in Chaplin's films a keen awareness of political and social injustice. We do not learn in his films, about human engendered global warming, the annihilation of the Ainu people, or the massacre of the Armenians. What we do know, from his films, gives us confidence about our dating of them. What we do not learn from his films, is not helpful, in ascertaining whether or not Chaplin knew of these events, all of which took place during his lifetime.

In this quote above, aa5874 references text, ostensibly by "Irenaeus", that identifies Mark as disciple and interpreter of Peter. Why would "Irenaeus" write that, supposedly in the second century, unless Mark's identity had been unknown to the readers at that time?

Chaplin could have made a movie about Bismarck, or Napolean, or Louis XIV, or Ferdinand of Spain. Instead he made a movie about Hitler.

Did "Irenaeus" write about Mark, because the Gospel of Mark had just emerged--i.e. Mark's gospel was of topical interest back then, just as was Hitler's influence in 1940?

Alternatively, did Eusebius, using the nom de plume "Irenaeus", try to tie together some loose ends, at Constantine's "recommendation", to put some order in the chaos that was Christianity in the early decades of the fourth century?

If there is no evidence of a Greek text by "Irenaeus", is there, alternatively, some evidence from the "fragments" attributed to him, that suggest with high probability, that the writings could NOT have been from the 4th century quill of Eusebius?

avi

aa5874 · 09-19-2010, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, can any one get an accurate time period for these events in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1?

Quote:

We FIRST need to get the ACTUAL names of the authors of the NT Canon.

I disagree.

I think that we FIRST need to identify the SOURCE of this supposed quote from "Irenaeus"....

But, what you want is not really much of a disagreement. I need to get the actual name of the author of "Against Heresies" and you want to get the actual name of the sources for "Irenaeus".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

.....DCHindley's elegant chart, notwithstanding, we need to know from which Greek version, this quotation you have cited above, arises.

For all I know, that quote comes not from "Irenaeus", but from some 14th century Greek text attributed to Epiphanius.....

Well, isn't that puzzling? What is really elegant about charts that are NOT helpful at all?

It has been already deduced that writings made in the 1st century by Josephus were interpolated perhaps 200 years later. Simply comparing passages from today's version of "Antiquities of the Jews" to passages found in "Church History" by Eusebius does very little to determine if "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 was written originally in the 1st century.

But, as soon as we examine ALL the writings of Josephus and the writings of other Church writers BEFORE Eusebius' "Church History" it becomes EXTREMELY CLEAR that today's version of "Antiquities of the Jews" or the version found in "Church History" was UNKNOWN by writers who wrote about Josephus.

A far simpler approach that is extremely helpful is just to examine writings from other writers, even assumed from the same time period, and make notes of the differences in theology or supposed historical events.

An examination of "Against Heresies" reveal that it was NOT known or the sources for "Against Heresies" was unknown to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The fundamental problem with dating writings from the Roman Church is that there appears to have been DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS to conceal the true history of Christian cults.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

..Yes, thank you aa5874, this is the key point of this thread on "Irenaeus": how do we know, with reasonable certainty, (just as we understand with reasonable certainty, the dates of Chaplin's films--thanks Jay!) that the English quotes of the text of "Irenaeus" which we are discussing, examining, comparing, and studying, represent something which was actually penned, in Greek, by a real person, living in Lyon at the end of the 2nd century CE, with the name "Irenaeus"?......

Well, it is NOT really that difficult to deduce that the writer called "Irenaeus" to whom was attributed 5 books called "Against Heresies" was NOT a bishop of the Church.

No other Church writer ever claimed that it was PREACHED and TEACHED for YEARS in the 2nd century that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered under the Emperor Claudius after being born in the 41 st year of the reign of Augustus and about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

It is EXTREMELY CLEAR that the "Ireaneus" of "Against Heresies" was completely incompetent and not credible.

No other Church writer, BEFORE or AFTER "Irenaeus", claimed it was a HERESY to believe that Jesus had been about 30 years old when he was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor of Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

...One observes in Chaplin's films a keen awareness of political and social injustice. We do not learn in his films, about human engendered global warming, the annihilation of the Ainu people, or the massacre of the Armenians. What we do know, from his films, gives us confidence about our dating of them. What we do not learn from his films, is not helpful, in ascertaining whether or not Chaplin knew of these events, all of which took place during his lifetime.

Once Chaplin has been IDENTIFIED in the film then the time period is virtually assured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

..In this quote above, aa5874 references text, ostensibly by "Irenaeus", that identifies Mark as disciple and interpreter of Peter. Why would "Irenaeus" write that, supposedly in the second century, unless Mark's identity had been unknown to the readers at that time?....

Why would someone have to write about "Mark" in the 2nd century when no other Church writer BEFORE "Irenaeus" wrote about "Mark"?

Quote:

...Chaplin could have made a movie about Bismarck, or Napolean, or Louis XIV, or Ferdinand of Spain. Instead he made a movie about Hitler.

Once Chaplin is IDENTIFIED in a movie the time period of the movie is assured. Chaplin could have made a movie about Moses instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

...Did "Irenaeus" write about Mark, because the Gospel of Mark had just emerged--i.e. Mark's gospel was of topical interest back then, just as was Hitler's influence in 1940?...

But, who in the 2nd century was interested in gMark? It was NOT Justin Martyr, he was interested in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and the so-called Heretics had their OWN doctrines.

Who used gMark in the 2nd century?

According to Justin Martyr the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the Churches on Sundays in the cities and in the country. And up to the 2nd century, it was still said that the disciples stole the body of Jesus as found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

...Alternatively, did Eusebius, using the nom de plume "Irenaeus", try to tie together some loose ends, at Constantine's "recommendation", to put some order in the chaos that was Christianity in the early decades of the fourth century?

Well, in "Church History" by Eusebius there is no mention of the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the Churches on Sundays and in the cities and country in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr did NOT claim that there were multiple contradictory genealogies and birth narratives in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" or that "harmonisation" of the Memoirs was needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

...If there is no evidence of a Greek text by "Irenaeus", is there, alternatively, some evidence from the "fragments" attributed to him, that suggest with high probability, that the writings could NOT have been from the 4th century quill of Eusebius?

There could have been been a Greek text under the name of "Irenaeus" before the 4TH century.

There was a Greek text under the name of Josephus who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" SINCE the 1st century but by the 4th century someone made changes to or interpolated "Antiquities of the Jews" 18. 3.

The question is who ACTUALLY wrote the 5 books of "Against Heresies" and when were the 5 books ACTUALLY written.

It should be understood that Tacitus' "Annals" was written since the start of the 2nd century and that AFTER the beginning of the 5th century Tacitus' "Annals" was interpolated.

Ferryman to the Dead · 09-19-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

You will find the complete book here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/0010695.htm

avi · 09-20-2010, 05:00 AM

Thank you, Ferryman to the Dead, for this link:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet Sacred Text Archive

We possess only very scanty accounts of the personal history of Irenæus. It has been generally supposed that he was a native of Smyrna, or some neighbouring city, in Asia Minor. Harvey, however, thinks that he was probably born in Syria, and removed in boyhood to Smyrna. He himself tells us (iii. 3, 4) that he was in early youth acquainted with Polycarp, the illustrious bishop of that city. A sort of clue is thus furnished as to the date of his birth. Dodwell supposes that he was born so early as a.d. 97, but this is clearly a mistake; and the general date assigned to his birth is somewhere between a.d. 120 and a.d. 140.

It is certain that Irenæus was bishop of Lyons, in France, during the latter quarter of the second century. The exact period or circumstances of his ordination cannot be determined. Eusebius states (Hist. Eccl., v. 4) that he was, while yet a presbyter, sent with a letter, from certain members of the Church of Lyons awaiting martyrdom, to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome; and that (v. 5) he succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons, probably about a.d. 177. His great work Against Heresies was, we learn, written during the episcopate of Eleutherus, that is, between a.d. 182 and a.d. 188, for Victor succeeded to the bishopric of Rome in a.d. 189. This new bishop of Rome took very harsh measures for enforcing uniformity throughout the Church as to the observance of the paschal solemnities. On account of the severity thus evinced, Irenæus addressed to him a letter (only a fragment of which remains), warning him that if he persisted in the course on which he had entered, the effect would be to rend the Catholic Church in pieces. This letter had the desired result; and the question was more temperately debated, until finally settled by the Council of Nice.

The full title of the principal work of Irenæus, as given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 7), and p. 313 indicated frequently by the author himself, was A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called, but it is generally referred to under the shorter title, Against Heresies. Several other smaller treatises are ascribed to Irenæus; viz., An Epistle to Florinus, of which a small fragment has been preserved by Eusebius; a treatise On the Valentinian Ogdoad; a work called forth by the paschal controversy, entitled On Schism, and another On Science; all of which that remain will be found in our next volume of his writings. Irenæus is supposed to have died about a.d. 202; but there is probably no real ground for the statement of Jerome, repeated by subsequent writers, that he suffered martyrdom, since neither Tertullian nor Eusebius, nor other early authorities, make any mention of such a fact. my highlighting

I disagree completely with the assertion in this text.

1. We know, or at least I know, nothing about "Irenaeus", EXCEPT what I read in Eusebius.

2. Instead of writing, as the authors at your web site link have done, "only scanty", "clearly", "certain", it would be much better, in my opinion, to write:
"According to ...."

3. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when we rewrite this excerpt about "Irenaeus", using such a format, eliminating the "Clearly", and "Certain" descriptors, and replacing them with the "according to" descriptor, we will see, I propose, but one name:
Eusebius.

I conclude, in view of the generally accepted view, that Eusebius was a forger, that until someone produces a bona fide, third century text, unequivocally NOT interpolated, or redacted, in any way, "Irenaeus" is a fictional character.

I seek a third century Greek text confirming the identity of "Irenaeus". Do you know of one?

avi

PhilosopherJay · 09-20-2010, 06:31 AM

Hi DCHindley,

Good stuff. Thanks.

I am not sure if I understand Massuet's first argument. He says that Latin Against Heresies and Tertullian's "Valentinus" resemble each other in a passage. He does not say how they resemble each other. If two people are translating the same Greek passage, should not we expect them to resemble each other?

Of course, if they resemble each other in an unexpected way, we may say that one copied from another. For example, if the underlying Greek said "Zeus and Hera were married" and two translations resembled each other by saying "Zeus and Aphrodite were married," we could say that one translator probably had access to the other's work.

In this case, Massuet does not tell us in what way the translations resemble each other that makes it obvious that one copied from the other. Perhaps he is suggesting that it is obvious to any Latin reader that the similarities between the two Latin versions are great and cannot be put down to the usual similarities that one expects to find in two translations.

Looking forward to the rest.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jay,

I've been slicing & dicing the texts for a day or so. I earlier mentioned the edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus' AH by Massuet. Per Hitchcock (p 347):

Massuet says, "there are some who believe that Irenaeus himself first wrote in Greek and then translated it into latin. But such have little regard for his credit. For he would at least have followed the sense. It was probably some Greek person little versed in the Latin tongue who made bad Latin out of good Greek, and put a wrong construction on his author more than once. Whoever it was, it is certain that the version is most ancient and was published either during the lefe or shortly after the death of Irenaeus." The reasons given for this opinion are

(1) the resemblences between it [AH] and the Latin of Tertullian's treatis [c. Velentinianos], especially between the passages of the [Irenaeus'] treatis (1.2.3.) (sic, 1,11,3) beginning "ante omnes Proarche" and that in Tertullian beginning "ante omnia Proarche" (c. 37), and

(2) the mistakes common to both works, which originated with the translator of Irenaeus, for where he made a slip Tertullian followed suit. Both writers [the Latin translator of Irenaeus' AH and Tertullian] mistook the name EPIFANHS for an adjective (clarus, Iren., insignior, Tert.); both failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); and both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [a perimeter fence of posts] which means "vallo cingi" [defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

Regarding reason #1 above, I decided to compare the two passages mentioned (Latin AH 1,11,3 and Tertullian Adversus Valentinainos chapter 37). First, here are the English translations from the Ante Nicene Fathers volumes:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies	Tertullian, Adversus Valentinainos
1.11.3 There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows:	1.37 Now listen to some other buffooneries of a master who is a great swell among them, and who has pronounced his dict with an even priestly authority. They run thus:
There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,	There comes, says he, before all things Proarche,
surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,	the inconceivable, and indescribable, and nameless,
whom I call Monotes (unity).	which I for my own part call Monotes (Solitude).
Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness)	With this was associated another power, to which also I give the name of Henotes (Unity).
This Henotes and Monotes, being one,	Now, inasmuch as Monotes and Henotes--that is to say, Solitude and Union--were only one being,
produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]	they produced, and yet not in the way of production,
the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,	the intellectual, innascible, invisible beginning of all things,
which beginning language terms "Monad."	which human language' has called Monad (Solitude).
With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).	This has inherent in itself a consubstantial force, which it calls Unity?
These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen	These powers, accordingly, Solitude or Solitariness, and Unity, or Union,
produced the remaining company of the AEons.	propagated all the other emanations of AEons.

Next, the Latin texts compared. I got Latin Irenaeus from a page at Ben Smith's Text Excavation site, which has PDF images of the edition of W. Wigan Harvey. The Latin text of Tertullian came from Mark T Riley's dissertation page at Roger Pearse's site:

Latin Irenaeus	Tertullian
I.11.3 Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum, in majus sublime, et quasi in majorem agnitionem extensus, primam quaternationem dixit sic:	I.XXXVII accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit:
est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche
Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	inexcogitabile et inenarrabile innominabile
quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

The next table compares the Greek text of Irenaeus' AH 1.11.3 as preserved by Epiphanius (also from Harvey) to the English in the ANF series volume:

Greek Irenaeus (quoted by Epiphanius)	English Irenaeus (ANF volume 1)
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	whom I call Monotes (unity).
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness).
AUTH hH hENOTHSM hH TE MONOTHS,	This Henotes and Monotes, being one,
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	which beginning language terms "Monad."
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	produced the remaining company of the AEons.

Lastly, a table comparing the Greek AH with the Latin AH with the version of it preserved in Tertullian:

Greek Irenaeus (as cited by Epiphanius)	Latin Irenaeus (ed. Massuet)	Tertullian
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche inexcogitabile
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	et inenarrabile innominabile
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
AUTH hH hENOTHS hH TE MONOTHS,	Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

It looks to me like Latin AH transliterates a lot of Greek words, whereas Tertullian give the proper Latin equivalents.

The Latin AH seems to very closely follow the Greek (as preserved by Epiphanius), but the translator's use of transliterations suggests he was not familiar enough with Latin to know the correct equivalents.

Tertullian does appear to be using Irenaeus, as the accounts are much too similar to be chance. He also seems to phrase the matters a little differently than Latin AH. I cannot tell if Tertullian 1) made an independent translation from the Greek AH, or 2) resolved defects he found in the Latin AH.

What I think needs to be resolved is 1) whether the Latin of Tertullian's version is better than Latin AH, and if so 2) whether the Latin of Tertullian's citation from Irenaeus' AH is up to par with his normal style, as it is still possible for Tertullian to have used Latin AH as his source, as poor as it was, and even with improvements still reflects it's defective style.

Where are Andrew Criddle and Ben Smith when you need them? I hope one or both might be willing to comment.

I cannot get into massuet's reason #2 tonight, as it is almost 1:00 am, I'm tired, and I have to go to work tomrrow.

G'night

DCH

PhilosopherJay · 09-20-2010, 12:27 PM

Hi DCH,

I have been thinking about it and I do not now think that argument #1 by Massuet is intended to be an argument for Tertullian's use of Latin AH. It is merely an argument that he must have used a text with the same order as Latin AH. It may have been Latin AH or Greek AH.

I think that the evidence that Tertullian used Latin AH is given entirely in Massuet's argument #2.

Quote:

(2) the mistakes common to both works, which originated with the translator of Irenaeus, for where he made a slip Tertullian followed suit.

Massuet presents three pieces of evidence that Massuet argues proves that Tertullian used Latin AH:

1. Both writers [the Latin translator of Irenaeus' AH and Tertullian] mistook the name EPIFANHS for an adjective (clarus, Iren., insignior, Tert.);

2. both failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); and

3. both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [a perimeter fence of posts] which means "vallo cingi" [defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

These are the translations that we need to look at to determine if two independent translators could have done these translations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Good stuff. Thanks.

I am not sure if I understand Massuet's first argument. He says that Latin Against Heresies and Tertullian's "Valentinus" resemble each other in a passage. He does not say how they resemble each other. If two people are translating the same Greek passage, should not we expect them to resemble each other?

Of course, if they resemble each other in an unexpected way, we may say that one copied from another. For example, if the underlying Greek said "Zeus and Hera were married" and two translations resembled each other by saying "Zeus and Aphrodite were married," we could say that one translator probably had access to the other's work.

In this case, Massuet does not tell us in what way the translations resemble each other that makes it obvious that one copied from the other. Perhaps he is suggesting that it is obvious to any Latin reader that the similarities between the two Latin versions are great and cannot be put down to the usual similarities that one expects to find in two translations.

Looking forward to the rest.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jay,

I've been slicing & dicing the texts for a day or so. I earlier mentioned the edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus' AH by Massuet. Per Hitchcock (p 347):

Massuet says, "there are some who believe that Irenaeus himself first wrote in Greek and then translated it into latin. But such have little regard for his credit. For he would at least have followed the sense. It was probably some Greek person little versed in the Latin tongue who made bad Latin out of good Greek, and put a wrong construction on his author more than once. Whoever it was, it is certain that the version is most ancient and was published either during the lefe or shortly after the death of Irenaeus." The reasons given for this opinion are

(1) the resemblences between it [AH] and the Latin of Tertullian's treatis [c. Velentinianos], especially between the passages of the [Irenaeus'] treatis (1.2.3.) (sic, 1,11,3) beginning "ante omnes Proarche" and that in Tertullian beginning "ante omnia Proarche" (c. 37), and

(2) the mistakes common to both works, which originated with the translator of Irenaeus, for where he made a slip Tertullian followed suit. Both writers [the Latin translator of Irenaeus' AH and Tertullian] mistook the name EPIFANHS for an adjective (clarus, Iren., insignior, Tert.); both failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); and both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [a perimeter fence of posts] which means "vallo cingi" [defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

{table snip}
It looks to me like Latin AH transliterates a lot of Greek words, whereas Tertullian give the proper Latin equivalents.

The Latin AH seems to very closely follow the Greek (as preserved by Epiphanius), but the translator's use of transliterations suggests he was not familiar enough with Latin to know the correct equivalents.

Tertullian does appear to be using Irenaeus, as the accounts are much too similar to be chance. He also seems to phrase the matters a little differently than Latin AH. I cannot tell if Tertullian 1) made an independent translation from the Greek AH, or 2) resolved defects he found in the Latin AH.

What I think needs to be resolved is 1) whether the Latin of Tertullian's version is better than Latin AH, and if so 2) whether the Latin of Tertullian's citation from Irenaeus' AH is up to par with his normal style, as it is still possible for Tertullian to have used Latin AH as his source, as poor as it was, and even with improvements still reflects it's defective style.

Where are Andrew Criddle and Ben Smith when you need them? I hope one or both might be willing to comment.

I cannot get into massuet's reason #2 tonight, as it is almost 1:00 am, I'm tired, and I have to go to work tomrrow.

G'night

DCH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.