"At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priority"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Peter Kirby »

TedM wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
TedM wrote:This (I think) assumes that Irenaeus didn't know -without relying on Acts-when Paul and Peter were preaching in relation to when Matthew wrote. If he did know then Acts and its timing isn't necessary to add in as an assumption that creates the implication. That's why I say I don't see any implication. And since Acts says nothing about Peter preaching in Rome, it is clear Irenaeus was using other information -- rightly or wrongly. Not a big deal, but just explaining my view.
I have no idea what your point is.

I am also not sure about what it is that you think that I am assuming.

:) sorry for being so unclear. I thought you were saying that Irenaeus was implying that Matthew wrote his gospel about the time that Luke wrote BECAUSE the passage implies that Luke wrote Acts around the time Peter and Paul were in Rome. But, I'm saying that linking Acts with Peter&Paul in Rome would be an assumption that generates the implication. Just because Irenaeus mentions Peter and Paul being in Rome it doesn't follow that he thought Luke was written around that time.
Okay.


1) In context, I was replying to the OP and being a little generous.

2) You are using the word 'implication' and 'implies' in a different and more restrictive sense than I am. When I was using the word, it can include things that would follow from joining what is stated with other things nor stated.

For example if I say that I am living in California you can say that I am implying that I live in the USA even though I might not believe ... and have not said ... anything about California being in the USA. Or mentioned the USA.

3) Once again I am not saying anything about the relative or absolute date of Luke's gospel, for Irenaeus or otherwise. Except to assume that the gospel came before Acts... However long before. The statement you first quoted was about Acts, not about the gospel.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote:Does this bit from Irenaeus assume (with the aforementioned scholar's assumptions) that Irenaeus believed (or promoted the idea) that Luke wrote his gospel after Paul's imprisonment at Rome:
The fact that Irenaeus says 'and was entrusted to hand down to us A gospel' -- 'A gospel'. Not "Paul's gospel", suggests strongly - to me - that Irenaeus did not think there was a written "gospel of Paul" by Luke during Paul's lifetime. Otherwise he had every opportunity to say so--and it would have been to his advantage to say to here, but he didn't.

As Trobisch notes (and I think conclusively) this particular passage in 2 Timothy 4 (evasively) references Luke writing a gospel for Paul:
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
All this says is that Paul had writings that he wanted. It doesn't even say that he (or Luke) wrote them. He's saying bring me my books. I could say the same thing but I've never written a book. I don't see any justfication for making any further link as to what those were or whether someone other than Paul wrote them.
Last edited by TedM on Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by TedM »

Peter Kirby wrote: 3) Once again I am not saying anything about the relative or absolute date of Luke's gospel, for Irenaeus or otherwise. Except to assume that the gospel came before Acts... However long before. The statement you first quoted was about Acts, not about the gospel.
Ok, then I may have mistakenly read something into what you wrote. No biggie and not worth further discussion, for me.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Peter Kirby »

I agree.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Secret Alias »

Ted

I know this is difficult but what I was doing in the thread was following the above scholars interpretation of Irenaeus to other parts of Adv Haer. So the question is not limited to 2 Timothy 4 but Irenaeus's application of 2 Timothy 4 to his argument against the heretics that Luke should be recognized as the author of Paul's gospel. There can be no doubt about this IMO.

Look at the context of what is said in Adv Haer 3:
With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles.(7) Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul [declare] also among the Gentiles ... But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection,(9) that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;"(10) and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;"(11) and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, "But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days."(12) And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there,(13) how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge;(14) and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck;(15) and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me."(1) From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you."(2) But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
Indeed the section actually begins with a discussion of what we see concluded here - i.e. that Paul speaks of 'hidden and unspeakable mysteries' so this is a closed 'unit' as it were from Irenaeus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Secret Alias »

So again Paul was alive when Luke wrote his gospel is clearly implied. Not from 2 Timothy 4 alone (but Trobisch makes that argument) but from Irenaeus's use of this text after an explicitly chronological account of Paul's (alleged) ministry. In other words, the point at which Acts ends (= the two year stay in Rome) is the date of the composition of Luke which precedes it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Secret Alias »

And if (as I would allege) the end of Acts and all this nonsense in the Pastorals is a colossal fabrication written by Irenaeus to use against the heretics rather than being texts 'discovered' by Irenaeus, Irenaeus's application of the material is the correct one (as he is the original author).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by TedM »

Stephan, here is the part that I think needs to be explored carefully:

First, Irenaeus is establishing the truthfulness/trustworthiness of Luke:
As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing,
Since we just got quotes from Irenaeus we see that he is talking about the activities in Acts -- ie the 'we' passages in which Luke was present...

Next, Irenaeus shows the strong link to Paul:
so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me."(1) From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you."(2)

NOW to his point against the heretics:
But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
Clearly to me Irenaeus is saying that there are men/heretics falsely claiming they have gotten mysteries from Paul. He says it is false because he basically says their claims are not found in Luke-Acts, and if ANYONE had gotten those great mysteries from Paul it would have Luke. What he doesn't say is that that GLuke was written during Paul's lifetime--rather the 'we' passages in Acts were. It appears Irenaeus thought GLuke to not be in contradiction to anything Paul preached, but that's a long ways from saying that Paul's 'gospel' was GLuke or that there was some original GLuke that was different than the one we have now!

I do not see that 2 Timothy 4 helps anything other than to bolster the idea that Luke was close to Paul, and Paul had some writings, but again there is no reason to conclude that Paul's writings were his 'gospel', or that Luke wrote them, or that Luke's GLuke was Paul's 'gospel' from anything presented so far on this thread.
Indeed the section actually begins with a discussion of what we see concluded here - i.e. that Paul speaks of 'hidden and unspeakable mysteries' so this is a closed 'unit' as it were from Irenaeus.
From what I see Irenaeus was denying the 'hidden mysteries' claimed by heretics to have come from Paul on the grounds that they are not found in GLuke or Acts. Is this, for you, a case of one who protests too much? You have called Irenaeus a liar many times, yet seem to want to find the 'truth' by scrutinizing his words in order to find out if they betray certain truths. That seems a worthy goal, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing in this particular thread.

So again Paul was alive when Luke wrote his gospel is clearly implied. Not from 2 Timothy 4 alone (but Trobisch makes that argument) but from Irenaeus's use of this text after an explicitly chronological account of Paul's (alleged) ministry. In other words, the point at which Acts ends (= the two year stay in Rome) is the date of the composition of Luke which precedes it.
I see no reason to conclude any of that. Acts, yes (or so Irenaeus thought). GLuke? No, nor that Irenaeus was claiming it was Pauls' gospel'. In any case, why would that matter? Irenaeus could have been wrong if he thought that. What he clearly IS saying is that whatever the heretics were claiming as hidden knowledge wasn't in GLuke. So, how does one dispute that? I don't think it is by looking for clues that GLuke was Paul's gospel. Even if Paul were here and said "Luke wrote down my gospel' how would that change anything at all? Would that overturn the orthodox position on anything? NO. It seems to me that only an analysis of what supposedly was in the 'original' Gluke vs what is there now is going to be helpful -- not an analysis about what Irenaeus has to say about which gospel came first and if it was Lukes -- unless I'm missing some nuances there.
And if (as I would allege) the end of Acts and all this nonsense in the Pastorals is a colossal fabrication written by Irenaeus to use against the heretics rather than being texts 'discovered' by Irenaeus, Irenaeus's application of the material is the correct one (as he is the original author).
you lost me on that one..
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by Secret Alias »

And with him (Paul) performed the work of an evangelist (gospel writer)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: "At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priori

Post by TedM »

It seems like every few weeks or so you start a thread by saying you've discovered something profoundly important. They always seem to be oriented towards the idea that Marcionism was the first true Christianity. Would you be able to say there is a 'top 3' pieces of evidence that support your conspiracy theory, or is it just not that simple?

The Jesus Myth theory I think has at least one strong argument: Paul's lack of detail corroborating the gospels. Does your Marcion theory--whatever it is--have anything comparable? You are so intense about it that I'm quite curious as to why you seem so convinced.
Post Reply