FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-12-2013, 09:54 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default Is Irenaeus's Reference to 'the Longer Ending of Mark' a Later Addition?

I've been reading Irenaeus's Against Heresies with a great deal of interest over the last few weeks, scrutinizing the patterns that exist within the various books of the series, and I am starting to wonder if the reference to the longer ending of Mark is a later addition. Here is the section:

Quote:
Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way.(10) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"(1)"Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and mother God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "(3) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."(4) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.
There are two things that have my attention. The first is that Irenaeus tends to place references to other books in the series at the end of sections. The reason for this may be that these are editors notes (i.e. someone other than Irenaeus) or indeed Irenaeus editing pre-existent writings. So:

Quote:
For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work
would by this logic have been the end of the section. All that follows:

Quote:
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein
is unusual for one big reason. I can't remember Irenaeus having to go out of his way to say that 'God' and 'the Father' are one before. It is generally assumed throughout that 'God' is 'the Father.' The place Irenaeus puts most of his effort is demonstrating that the Son and the Father are one.

Yet when you really think about it, saying that Jesus sat on the right hand of 'God' is the strongest argument against Irenaeus's proposition because it implies that Jesus was not God. You can't say 'sit beside Ted' to Ted, or follow Peter to Peter. You would expect that Irenaeus of all people would have needed to explain that the Son is still God even though he is sitting beside God. The fact that no effort is made to clarify this adds to my suspicion that the text is a later addition.

One more thing. If you look at the section as a whole, it is apparent that Irenaeus is only dealing with the introductions of each gospel. What is often missed (owing to our preconditioning to accept Matthew as the first gospel, is the fact that Irenaeus actually begins the discussion of gospel introductions with John as a long tangential argument about whether the gospels witness another God beside the Father:

Quote:
For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."
Irenaeus goes on to cite the Psalms or 'David' to prove that the introduction of John agrees with them and then proceeds to discuss the introduction of Matthew:

Quote:
This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; -- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven,(2) and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved(3) -- declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, "O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
Notice again that in the section on the introduction of John, Matthew and later Luke - (a) the question is whether 'the Lord' and 'God' are one and the same not 'the Father' and 'God' and (b) only the introduction is discussed.

The section on Matthew ends with the baptism by John (to agree with Mark later):

Quote:
Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon Him, [the Spirit] of Him who had promised by the prophets that He would anoint Him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of His unction, might be saved. Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.
The very next line transitions to Luke:

Quote:
Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born, says: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
and the section concludes with Jesus birth:

Quote:
And "Anna" also, "the prophetess," he says, in like manner glorified God when she saw Christ, "and spake of Him to all them who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem." Now by all these one God is shown forth, revealing to men the new dispensation of liberty, the covenant, through the new advent of His Son.
The section on Mark's introduction immediately follows:

Quote:
Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way."
and concluded originally, as I propose with the words:

Quote:
Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias," "Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work.
The point here is that the mention of the longer ending to Mark is out of place in this long section which exclusively deals with the introductions to gospels going John to Matthew, Matthew to Luke and Luke to Mark.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:56 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Indeed Irenaeus recapitulates his argument in the very next line by going back to the beginning of John:

Quote:
John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WOrd was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.(5) What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."(6) "All things," he says, "were made by Him;" therefore in "all things" this creation of ours is [included], for we cannot concede to these men that [the words] "all things" are spoken in reference to those within their Pleroma. For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book;(7) but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be "all things:" therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma].

2. John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not."(8) But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(9)

3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(1)

4. And that we may not have to ask, Of what God was the Word made flesh ? he does himself previously teach us, saying, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but [came] that he might testify of the Light."(2) By what God, then, was John, the forerunner, who testifies of the Light, sent [into the world]? Truly it was by Him, of whom Gabriel is the angel, who also announced the glad tidings of his birth: [that God] who also had promised by the prophets that He would send His messenger before the face of His Son,(3) who should prepare His way, that is, that he should bear witness of that Light in the spirit and power of Elias.(4) But, again, of what God was Elias the servant and the prophet? Of Him who made heaven and earth,(5) as he does himself confess. John, therefore, having been sent by the founder and maker of this world, how could he testify of that Light, which came down from things unspeakable and invisible? For all the heretics have decided that the Demiurge was ignorant of that Power above him, whose witness and herald John is found to be. Wherefore the Lord said that He deemed him "more than a prophet."(6) For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing Him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw Him when He came, and pointed Him out, and persuaded many to believe on Him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. For this is to be more than a prophet, because, "first apostles, secondarily prophets; "(7) but all things from one and the same God Himself.

5. That wine,(8) which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None(9) of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage. For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks,(10) and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining [at table], and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.

6. For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]."(11) For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible. Wherefore they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him; and again, the Father, by means of the Son, gives knowledge of His Son to those who love Him. By whom also Nathanael, being taught, recognised [Him], he to whom also the Lord bare witness, that he was "an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile."(12) The Israelite recognised his King, therefore did he cry out to Him, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel." By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognised Christ as the Son of the living God, when [God] said, "Behold My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He send forth judgment into contention ;(1) and in His name shall the Gentiles trust."(2)

7. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,--[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel(3) only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. 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. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

8. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds,(4) while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground"(5) of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth."(6) 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,"(7) 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. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. 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."(8) 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.(9) 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(10) 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;"(11) and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;(12) 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. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.(1) Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel.(2) For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race3) one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon heavenly kingdom.its wings into the

9. These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean,] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel.(4) Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;(5) but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo- prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae)(6) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,(7) he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,(8) they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us proceed also to the remaining apostles, and inquire into their doctrine with regard to God; then, in due course we shall listen to the very words of the Lord.
Indeed through several chapters of this book of Against Heresies, it would appear that Irenaeus only deals with the beginning of the gospels - not any other section of the the material.

The only argument I can come up with against my assertion is that the reason the ending of Mark is cited alone from the gospels is that Mark properly stood at the end of the series so in effect we have - the beginning and end of 'the gospel' divided in four - which in itself would be a revelation because it contradicts the inherited notion of Irenaeus establishing the existing order of the gospels which appears elsewhere in the same Book.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 05:05 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi Stephan,

I do not believe for a minute that anybody before the Fourth Century would write this:

Quote:
3:2. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
In my opinion, this is Eusebius, or somebody close to him in time, writing to please Constantine and his super Church in Rome. Otherwise, it would only make sense to argue against the heretics by citing the continuity of the Jerusalem church. The idea that the Roman Church had doctrinal supremacy in 200 C.E. is absurd.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 07:44 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

BTW - Aeon Bytes Gnostic Radio is rerunning an interview with Stephan Huller entitled "Irenaeus and the Heresy Hunters."

It's not clear when this was first run. Are those still your views?

Quote:
Our rebroadcast is Irenaeus & The Heresy Hunters. Before Orthodox Christianity, married to the Roman State, began to crush the Gnostic movement, it laid the groundwork with the Heresiologists-- powerful, influential men who were more obsessed with the Gnostics than the Gnostics themselves. The greatest of these Heresy Hunters was Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons. Not only did he twist and smear the Gnostic worldview in his writings, he was the architect behind the foundation of Catholic Church and The Bible itself. We dare enter the perverse yet genius mind of Irenaeus and some of the other Heresiologists in order to find yet more amazing truths about the real Christianity. Our astral guest was Stephan Huller, author of The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 08:02 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Be very careful stephan huller. We don't know where this thinking could conceivably lead ....

Maybe Irenaeus could look into the future long ending of Mark?
“He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.”


― George Orwell, 1984


εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
... I am starting to wonder if the reference to the longer ending of Mark is a later addition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Stephan,

I do not believe for a minute that anybody before the Fourth Century would write this:

Quote:
3:2. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
In my opinion, this is Eusebius, or somebody close to him in time, writing to please Constantine and his super Church in Rome. Otherwise, it would only make sense to argue against the heretics by citing the continuity of the Jerusalem church. The idea that the Roman Church had doctrinal supremacy in 200 C.E. is absurd.
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:37 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Stephan,

I do not believe for a minute that anybody before the Fourth Century would write this:

Quote:
3:2. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
In my opinion, this is Eusebius, or somebody close to him in time, writing to please Constantine and his super Church in Rome. Otherwise, it would only make sense to argue against the heretics by citing the continuity of the Jerusalem church. The idea that the Roman Church had doctrinal supremacy in 200 C.E. is absurd.
Dead giveaway!! Once "Against Heresies" is examined it will be found to be a MASSIVE forgery.

"Against Heresies" is a compilation by more than one author.

There was NO Catholic [Universal] Church in the 2nd century.

The Catholic [Universal] Church is a product of the 4th century or later.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 05:01 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Thanks Stephen, I think your observation in the OP is correct.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 06:58 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Stephan,

I do not believe for a minute that anybody before the Fourth Century would write this:

Quote:
3:2. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
In my opinion, this is Eusebius, or somebody close to him in time, writing to please Constantine and his super Church in Rome. Otherwise, it would only make sense to argue against the heretics by citing the continuity of the Jerusalem church. The idea that the Roman Church had doctrinal supremacy in 200 C.E. is absurd.
Why can't it be Irenaeus writing in the 2nd century to please the Emperor Commodus? A non-apologetic source, Cassius Dio, said that Commodus had a christian mistress named Marcia and later Eusebius wrote: "in the reign of Commodus, our condition became more favorable." It makes perfect sense that someone would try his utmost to take advantage of this christian influence upon the Emperor and that someone was Irenaeus.

Irenaeus did not say that his church was the established one. He said: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church." He admitted that there were rivals to Rome at this time, but he was determined to establish his church as the universal one. He wasn't the least interested in emphasizing a connection with the Jerusalem church because he wanted his church in Rome to be the most glorious one.

This was the time when the four-fold gospel was established. This was also the time of the attacks upon "heretics" such as Marcion, Valentinus and others, clear evidence that it was during the late 2nd century that the Roman church was becoming a power to be reckoned with. The faked list of bishops going back to Peter and Paul was Irenaeus way of establishing a tradition where Rome was said to be the oldest church of them all, oldest in such a sense that it owned the rights to the new covenant. It wasn't the oldest church but he succeeded because he had the backing of Commodus. The significant (and faked?) arrival of Peter and Paul in Rome had erased the importance of the Jerusalem church.

If I'm not mistaken, Irenaeus had in his earlier writings tried to establish Antioch as this church of the new covenant but threw that away when the opportunity arrived in Rome.
Kent F is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 07:48 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

For those interest, since the topic was raised by someone else and I hate drawing any attention to the fourth century conspiracy theory, here are the latest installments in my blog series on Commodus and Irenaeus

http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...seventeen.html
http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...-eighteen.html

The last post and my next one will be on Hercules and Jesus.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.