spamandham

I understand this, and don't automatically doubt everything. However, we can not also simply assume that a 9th century copy is a faithful replica of a 2nd century work. Noise gets added along the way, as does intentional interference.

aa5874

In "Against Heresies" the author under the name Irenaeus made claims about the Church in the 2nd century that was FALSE or was contradicted by other writers who supposedly wrote during the 2nd century and AFTER the 2nd century.

The writer under the name Irenaeus claimed that the Church was CATHOLIC in its BELIEF throughout the WORLD.

"Against Heresies" 1.9 There was NO such a thing as UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED BELIEFS in Christianity during the 2ND century or BEFORE the 4th century under the Emperor Constantine.

This is Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century in "Dialogue with Trypho".

This is Origen writing in the 3rd century in "De Principiis".

So there was NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BELIEFS from the 2nd to the 3rd century based on Justin and Origen.

NOW, Justin wrote that those who were called Heretics Styled themselves Christians so the list of Heretics by Irenaeus was REALLY a list of CHRISTIAN cults which in turn CONTRTADICTS Irenaeus.

There was a MULTIPLICITY of BELIEFS and NO Catholic (no universal) ACCEPTED beliefs throughout the world.

And to show that there was NO Catholic belief about Jesus, Irenaeus himself would make an HERETICAL claim that Jesus was fifty years old when he suffered when NO other Church writer PREACHED or TEACHED such HERESY.

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor of Tiberius.

Clement of Alexander claimed Jesus was 30 years old when he died.

Irenaeus is NOT credible. He was an incompetent fiction writer and FAKE bishop who did NOT know when Tiberius or Claudius were Emperors and when Pilate was a governor in Judea.

Virtually all the information about the NT supplied by Irenaeus has been dis-credited either by apologetic sources or scholars.

His order of the line of bishops has been dis-credited by Tertullian and St. Augustine.

The dating, chronology, and authorship of the books of the NT Canon have been discredited by scholars.

Irenaeus accepted Acts of the Apostles as historically accurate. Acts of the Apostles is REJECTED due its fictional nature.

It is CLEAR that "Against Heresies" is a work of fiction was was NOT seen by the Heretics of the 2nd century.

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Good stuff, thanks.

Assuming that Mark Timithy Riley is correct that Tertullian did not use the Latin translation of Adversus Haereses, then we may date Adv. Haer. anywhere from circa 180-210.

This is important for the dating of the Gospels because this is the first document that talks about there being four gospels and names them.

When we reflect on this, it makes the standard datings of the gospels from 70-90 C.E. seem wishful thinking. We simply have no writings by Christians or their opponents that we can with certainty date to the Second Century which even mentions the names of the four gospels, let alone talks about and connects them in any meaningful way.

The legendary Diastessaron likewise cannot be traced positively to the Second Century.

In this case, the absence of evidence for the four gospels does present a good case for the absence of both them and a unified Roman Catholic Church. It is hard to imagine that issues involving the difference between the documents would not have developed and been written about in the Second Century if we accept the traditional dating. These differences do apparently start to be discussed in the beginning of the Third Century. This is strong evidence for the hypothesis that both the gospels are not written/edited till the late Second century and a Church using all of them does not exist until the late Second Century.

Also important about Mark Timithy Riley's dissertation is this:

If Irenaeus was writing in 180, it seems strange that 25 or 30 years should pass and Tertullian learns absolutely nothing more about the Valentinians, either through other anti-Valentinian or Valentinian writings. If he were using a work that was 25-30 years old, how could Tertullian be sure that the situation with Valentinians had not changed and he was not giving out-of-date or misinformation about them?

Since he could not be sure that the information was out-of-date or wrong, one would expect him to at least name Irenaeus as the source, so that he does not get disgraced if the information does turn out to be erroneous. He never mentions Irenaeus.

One hypothesis that would explain this same fact would be that Adversus Haereses was actually written by Tertullian. Writers do often write first rather objective works about a subject and then use the information they have gathered to write rhetorically on the same subject.

Barring this, the only other likely scenario I can suggest is that Adversus Haereses had only been circulated among a small group of people and was published anonymously and recently. In this case, Tertullian would not feel it necessary to name his source or to check if it was out-of-date.

In either case, it seems we may suppose an early 200's date for the document and according push back the four gospels and the existence of a church using four gospels to the last quarter, if not the last decade of the Second Century. Even the first few years of the Third Century cannot be discounted.

Warmly

Philosopher Jay (AKA Jay Raskin)

avi

It was sucked into the vortex by your suggestion, that we consult with the fifth century writer, Theodoret to verify details about the writings of the presumed second century author, "Irenaeus":

n.b. "defective". i.e. not believable. Theodoret strikes me as an unacceptable reference for anything. Are you certain, that Theodoret was writing about "Irenaeus" of Lyon, dead two centuries before him, and not Theodoret's contemporary, Irenaeus of Tyre? How do you know this?

I am not the one grasping at straws. I am trying to find a credible reference on the writings of this guy Irenaeus. I am unwilling, at this point, to accept Theodoret as credible.

Well, which is it? What manuscripts is this guy, Ungar, using? Don't you think that is an important consideration? Do you suppose that all the extant manuscripts, earliest dated from 9th century CE, are identical, so that Ungar could use whichever happened to be convenient, and derive the same English text?

Sorry, I am not buying it.
Nothing is "clear" to me.
"...seems to have been..."
just speculation, rumors, gossip, innuendo,
"parenthetically"....

nonsense. This is not proper history. For all I know, "Tertullian" is the creator of "Irenaeus". Was, or was not, "Tertullian" expelled from the Catholic sect? If he had been expelled, on which grounds was he tossed? Are you not even a tiny bit apprehensive about the fact that the little we know of the third century writer, "Tertullian" is based primarily upon the writings of two guys:

Eusebius,
Jerome.

The relationship between "Tertullian", and "Irenaeus" is certainly worthy of clarification.
However, the method of achieving that clarity is not accomplished by Dr. Riley's approach, in my opinion.

Show me the evidence, that the unredacted writings of "Tertullian" confirm his possession of a Greek manuscript (and whether the document in "Tertullian's" possession, was an original, or a copy, itself) of the writings of "Irenaeus" of Lyon.

Was it not "Tertullian" himself, who claimed that there were already numerous forgeries of his own writings, falsely presenting his perspective, during his own lifetime?

I apologize, Jay, but, really, I cannot accept this notion, at all.
Why should we assume that "Tertullian", a native Latin speaker, and the most prolific writer in Latin, of the ancient world, would use a Greek source, when our only extant copy, is Latin?

What is our basis for accepting such an hypothesis?

Is Dr. Riley's approach not simply a compendium of his opinions, ideas, suppositions, and hypotheses?

Yes, he may be very learned, very bright, very talented, and very thoughtful. All of those qualities are wonderful, but, I will trade them all, for a mundane, run of the mill, ordinary soup kitchen guy with some DATA.

avi

Dave31

The over-reliance on errors (or lies) by Irenaeus held up as evidence that he was "fake" and that his books were a much later forgery may have more to do with pseudoskepticism than anything else. You'll notice no scholar questions the existence of Irenaeus nor do they question the existence of his most famous book Against Hereies. That is due to the fact that primary source fragments exist as well as corroborating primary source fragments which date to the proper time periods and that is where the focus should've been from the start. For example, the P. Oxy 405 fragment is dated to around c 200 CE.

Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies 3.11.8) by Irenaeus in around 180ce appears to be the first mention of the gospels with the titles of Mark, Matthew, Luke & John. And, Irenaeus makes an argument for why there must be four and only four gospels as well. Right or wrong his argument won in the end and that's why it's so significant.

You are correct about his errors but errors do not determine whether or not someone existed nor the date of their existence. If I really thought Irenaeus was "fake" or that his writings were a later forgery I'd be on-board as it would just push the first mention of all four gospel titles back even further than 180 but it just does not hold water. This argument was a losing battle right out of the gate.

Something else to consider is Irenaeus wrote passionate defenses of the gospel of John around that same time period - that's a really neat trick when you're "fake." Read WWJ pages 79 through 82:

"Irenaeus, from whose pen it has been suspected the gospel originally emanated ...... The argument for this assertion that Irenaeus himself authored John includes the fact that the Church father was provoked passionately to defend the gospel, which he does with a fervor that often accompanies a "pet project." Even if John were composed by another's hand, this abundance of defense suggests that the gospel had not been in existence for a long time, as has been claimed, but had only recently emerged in the literary and historical record, leading to the gospel immediately being attacked and dismissed."

I'll waste no more time on this issue.

aa5874

The author under the name Irenaeus is NOT a credible writer and his writings appear to be non-historical.

In "Against Heresies" the writer claimed the Church was UNIFIED throughout the world yet wrote "Against Heresies" which is a document that DEMONSTRATES the complete OPPOSITE, that there was NO UNIVERSAL UNITY in Christian cults.

The writer under the name Irenaeus was an INCOMPETENT fiction writer and FAKE bishop.

Irenaeus appeared NOT to know that his so-called HERETICS were actually called CHRISTIANS.

In Book 1 of "Against Heresies" the author described in details the doctrine of the Valentinians which has virtually ZERO in common with gJohn but in another book would claim that the Valentinians used gJohn.

This is an excerpt of the doctrine of the Valentinians in the very "Against Heresies" 1.1 And then in book 3.11.7 of "Against Heresies"

The writer using the name Irenaeus was an INCOMPETENT fiction writer and FAKE bishop.

He FIRST demonstrated that the Valentinians were HERETICS by introducing doctrines NOT found in the Gospels and then later claimed they used gJohn COPIOUSLY when there is virtually ZERO in gJohn about AEons, Proarche, Propator, Bythus, Ennoea, Charis, Sige, the Pythagorean Tetrad, Aletheia. Pleroma, Anthropos and Ecclesia, Ogdoad, Nous, Aletheia, Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes Hedone, Acinetos Syncrasis, Monogenes, Macari, Logos, Zoe, Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos, Elpis, Metricos, Agape, Ainos, Synesis, Ecclesiasticus, Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia.


The fiction writer Irenaeus has confounded himself. The Valentinians did NOT use gJohn. NO Christian cult used ALL four CONTRADICTORY gospels simultaneously in the 2nd century and there was NO such thing as CATHOLIC DOCTRINES throughout the whole world.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century SOME Christians used the "Memoirs of the Apostles and there were MULTIPLE Christian cults and doctrines all over based on Justin Martyr.

This is Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVIII
Origen and Tertullian appears to agree with Justin Martyr that Christian cults were NOT in agreement about the NATURE of Jesus.

Irenaeus was an INCOMPETENT fiction write and a FAKE bishop who himself CONFIRMED that there was NO UNIVERSAL accepted belief about Jesus when he TEACHED and PREACHED the HERESY that Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered.

aa5874

But, you claim is FALSE. There is NO primary source that confirms "Against Heresies" was actually written by a person whose actual name was Irenaeus who was a bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century.

A suggested date of writing of P. Oxy 405 around c 200 CE is NOT a confirmation of the actual date.

This is basic stuff.

You seem not to understand that PALEOGRAPHIC dating has a very wide margin of ERROR.

andrewcriddle

We can probably make use of Refutation of All Heresies without needing to explore the intricacies of the Hippolytean problem.

Refutation of All Heresies, a Greek work, cites Irenaeus extensively. The work is anonymous but generally supposed to be by Hippolytus.

The author, whoever he is, was a church leader at Rome involved in controversy during the period when Zephyrinus and Callistus were the bishops of Rome. Zephyrinus was bishope of Rome from c 199 to 217 CE and Callistus bishop from c 217 to 222. Since the author was already a recognised church leader during the period when Zephyrinus was bishop, he is unlikely (on actuarial grounds) to have written Refutation of All Heresies after 250 CE.

Hence Refutation of All Heresies is evidence that a Greek version of Irenaeus' work was known well before 250 CE. (Refutation of All Heresies not only cites Adversus Haereses but attributes it to Irenaeus.)

Andrew Criddle

avi

Thank you Andrew, always a pleasure to read your comments, on any topic. I cannot however, share your enthusiasm for this guy Hippolytus:

Does it bother no one else on this friendly forum, that Hippolytus apparently lived to the ripe old age of 66, in the pre-antibiotic era when Christians were supposedly just lion food? Oops:

This was not some run of the mill Christian passerby. He was the The single most important guy in an outlawed religion, and the Roman soldiers couldn't find him????

How believable is that?

So, an anonymous author, possibly Hippolytus, writes a manuscript, which we possess, today? Yes? A Greek manuscript, dated from third century CE???
And, this Greek manuscript, quotes from "Irenaeus". We possess this manuscript, right?

Andrew, WHERE IS THIS Greek manuscript that quotes from "Irenaeus"? How do we know that this extant Greek manuscript, written by an unknown author, is quoting from "Irenaeus", and not from Eusebius, using the pseudonym "Irenaeus"? In fact, how do we know that the author of this Greek manuscript, "Refutation of all Heresies" is not Eusebius?

Oh. You have lost me, Andrew. I am completely lost here.

How do we know that the author lived at the same time as Zephyrinus and Callistus?

If I write about controversies involving Ibn Sina, does that mean that I must have lived a thousand years ago? Perhaps I have returned from the dead....

Did the Romans and Greeks never write about historical figures, people who lived a century or more, prior to the date when they put quill to papyrus?

Andrew, is it not theoretically possible, (perhaps VERY improbable, depending upon one's point of view), but, possible, that Eusebius, rather than Hippolytus, wrote Refutation of All Heresies?

Let us consider a simple example, from our own lifetimes.

Here's the reference:
Richard A. Posner's The Little Book of Plagiarism Richard A. Posner is not some banker or bookkeeper or beekeeper either. He is a federal Appellate Court justice in the USA, and a faculty member at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Yet, this guy, Posner, baldly asserts that Copernicus independently discovered heliocentrism, when in fact, Copernicus, as a student in Italy, in the fifteenth century read Aristarchus' famous manuscript, and simply committed plagiarism, repeating Aristarchus' bold assertion, and then deleting all references to Aristarchus, in order to save his family from the ravages of the Spanish Inquisition. Posner, Andrew, is not stupid. He has not committed some kind of error, here. Posner is engaged in the same process of deception, and dishonesty, that we are writing about, on this forum, daily, regarding ancient documents, which have been "interpolated".

Andrew, even in our lifetimes, forgery, fraud, and plagiarism abound. Even our legal scholars engage in deception, dishonesty, and distortion.

What hope is there that a political subject of such enormous importance as third century Christian theology, could escape untrodden, unbesmirched, and unredacted?

An unknown author cites "Irenaeus" in an unavailable Greek manuscript--it is unavailable, I suppose, Andrew?

Too much mythicism, insufficient history....

avi, aka ibn sina

Toto

Quite believeable. Ancient societies had high infant mortality, but once a person survived the age of 5, surviving to the age of 66 was not unheard of.

And we know that the persecution of Christians was localized and ineffective, and later exaggerated for political effect.


All Posner says is that "Aristarchus of Samos discovered that the earth revolves around the sun more than a thousand years before Copernicus, who gets all of the credit, rediscovered it."

Posner is not a historian. He is a lawyer who picked a common idea out of the conventional wisdom that floats around him to illustrate the point that there is nothing new. Why do you think he is engaged in actual deception? Is he a secret agent of the Copernican Society? Are they providing kickbacks to shore up Copernicus' reputation?