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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
TedM
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

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

Post by TedM » Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:32 pm

Secret Alias wrote: Irenaeus's tactic is to demonstrate from his gospel that Jesus appeared after the resurrection to Peter, Philip and others. But clearly the Marcionites did not believe this.
I am not aware that the Marcionites did not believe that others witnessed the resurrection. Is there evidence of that in Irenaeus' writings?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:36 pm

I don't think that's the context. Instead they believed that Jesus only appeared to Paul, no one else, and from this revelation the gospel was received
“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: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

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

Post by TedM » Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:52 pm

Secret Alias wrote:I don't think that's the context. Instead they believed that Jesus only appeared to Paul, no one else, and from this revelation the gospel was received
Maybe you have in mind a different writing by Irenaeus because it seems pretty clear to me as the chapter just before it is talking about the 2 Gods issue, ending with this:
so that even Peter, fearing also lest he might incur their reproof, although formerly eating with the Gentiles, because of the vision, and of the Spirit who had rested upon them, yet, when certain persons came from James, withdrew himself, and did not eat with them. And Paul said that Barnabas likewise did the same thing. Galatians 2:12-13 Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine— for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him— scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God; which they certainly never would have done, as I have already said, if they had learned from the Lord [that there existed] another Father besides Him who appointed the dispensation of the law.
And the rest of the verse you are referring to is simply a continuation of the same concepts:
1. 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. Galatians 2:8
Seems to me the theme is an argument for why not only Paul but the disciples too all believed in one God, and the same one.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:12 pm

it seems pretty clear to me as the chapter just before it is talking about the 2 Gods issue
Yes this does come up. But Irenaeus is a lot like the Elder Cato with his Carthago delenda est. Irenaeus is always bringing up monarchian concerns. There is no doubt about that. In this section however there are two ideas - (a) the claim that Paul had revealed to him - undoubtedly from his heavenly ascent in the third heaven - a superior gospel to that of Peter and (b) that this revelation was attached to a superior god than that of the Jews, Peter and the rest of the apostles. The fact that Irenaeus is so dogged in his repetition of the concern that there can only be one God who is ruler of this world throughout Adv Haer and related works (what is now Tertullian's Latin translation of Irenaeus's Adv Marc) tells us one of two things - (1) the two gods claim was prominent in the heretics and Marcionism in particular or (2) Irenaeus was obsessive about monarchian concerns and exaggerated or distorted his portrait of the sects owing to his obsessive concerns.

For instance if 'Joe' is obsessive about homosexuality and says that 'everyone in Hollywood is gay' and develops list after list of gay actors, producers, critics etc one of two things can be true - everyone in Hollywood is gay or 'Joe' is just obsessed with homosexuality. The idea that because Irenaeus repeats over and over again the 'two gods' concern that this 'must necessarily' have been a prominent feature of Marcionism is downright silly. Again he begins with the exact opposite proposition - i.e. that the heretical Pauline tradition is secretive and hides their true doctrines:
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.
So if the heretics said that Paul had a different god than Peter they didn't repeat it over and over again like Irenaeus. They kept this belief hidden. The fact that Irenaeus made this a prominent feature of his attack against the heretics is in no way indicative of how important the doctrine was for the heretics. All that we know for certain is that in an age where the Imperial cultus was reshaping all religions to reflect an open acceptance of the 'ruler of the world' (cosmocrator) Irenaeus embraced the Emperor's reforms and the Marcionites resisted them. The greatest proof that the Marcionites venerated two gods is the fact that they would not accept Jesus as cosmocrator. But is that proof of their dualistic tendencies when 'cosmocrator' was at once a title of Caesar? Surely there were political and cultural undercurrents which may better explain the Marcionite resistance to monarchianism.

In any event the passage continues:
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. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace," he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth.


Clearly the purpose of this section has little or nothing to do with 'two gods.' Instead Irenaeus is arguing that Paul himself recognized that the heretical claim that he was the only apostle and only evangelist was false. For Paul (in the Catholic version of his scriptures) makes reference to a (loose) citation of Isaiah 52:7 which - Irenaeus claims - proves that he accepted many evangelists rather than one (= himself) and many gospels not only his own gospel (on Isa 52:7 being about exactly this https://books.google.com/books?id=qoJd- ... ns&f=false).

So all that follows has more to do with 'Paul accepting many evangelists/many gospels' rather than the heretical claim that he was the only apostle/only evangelist and the right number of gospels is one:
And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed, " acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.
The citation of the monarchian material from John (i.e. Philip being told that Jesus and his Father are one') represent not the 'main theme' but even something approaching a digression from the main theme of the section:
And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to behold the Father, "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." To these men, therefore, did the Lord bear witness, that in Himself they had both known and seen the Father (and the Father is truth).
I have always argued for reading the surviving Patristic material as containing layers of additions. The material in this section of Adv Haer resembles very closely the arguments now attributed to Tertullian in Prescription Against the Heretics. But Cyril of Jerusalem knew of a similarly entitled work attributed to Irenaeus. Again I think the reason Tertullian's work so reflects the theme of this section is Irenaeus was the original author of Prescription Against the Heretics.

In any event to demonstrate again that the 'two god theme' is not essential to the section let's see what immediately follows:
To allege, then, that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses, and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if these men did not know the truth? How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached? Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven?
Indeed to this argument we see appended as a means of continuing the discussion another monarchian sentence:
Just, then, as" Paul [was] an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father," [so with the rest;] the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to them the Son.
But in what immediately follows again we see that we return to the main theme I identified earlier - i.e. that Paul recognized that there were many evangelists and many gospels rather than promoting the acceptance of only one evangelist/apostle (himself) and one gospel:
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, 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.
Clearly what is in dispute here is heretical belief that Paul did not subject himself to the Jerusalem Church, that he rejected their authority and told his followers he was the only evangelist/only apostle and that there was only one true gospel - his own.

So it is that from here forward the 'deciding factor' for Irenaeus is the fact that Luke was the accurate witness to the true Paul of history and all we need to do is look at Luke's literary production to see what Paul really believed:
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;" 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." 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, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; 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 proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth.
Again it is recognized that Luke has a contrary understanding of Paul's beliefs on whether there should be (a) many evangelists/apostles/gospels vs one evangelist/apostle/gospel and in some way Luke wrote Paul's gospel for him:
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." 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." 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?
So now we return full circle to our opening words - Paul's revelation in heaven is not the point 'the written gospel of Paul' was composed. Instead I still think Irenaeus hints (in the context of a parallel Catholic myth hidden from the world) that Paul dictated his gospel to Luke at Rome in the period which corresponds to the 'two years' at the end of chapter 28 of Acts and 2 Timothy 4. It is not explicitly and openly 'declared' by Irenaeus because this gospel writing represents a great secret in the Church.
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:34 pm

Interestingly the Hebrew and Greek of Isa 52:7 do not differ on the question of whether there was one or many 'evangelists.' The Hebrew:
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the evangelist (מְבַשֵּׂר), that announceth peace, the evangelist (מְבַשֵּׂר) of good, that announceth salvation (יְשׁוּעָה)
The interesting thing is that our text of Paul's Letter to the Romans corrupts the actual text of Isa 52:7 with the transformation of the single 'evangelist' to 'evangelists.' Isn't that suspicious!
Finally, Paul transforms the lone herald of the LXX (ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου) into multiple preachers of the good news (οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων). This variant, without support in the Hebrew and Greek text traditions (or in the Targum, Peshitta, or Vulgate).
I know it is taken for granted that this remarkable corruption is 'authentically Pauline.' However the fact that we see Irenaeus appeal to this as the correct reading raises suspicions. Couldn't the heretical text of Romans have had the original reading and it was used to argue for Paul as the only evangelist, the one foretold by Isaiah. It would read in full:
“'How beautiful are the feet of the evangelist.' But not all the Israelites accepted the gospel."
Could the heretics have used Isaiah 52:7 as a proof text that Paul was the awaited mevasser. The idea of many 'evangelists' contradicts the sense of the material in Isaiah.
“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

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:55 am

Isaiah 52:7 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible is the approach of the ruler.


Isa 52.7-12 the approach of the ruler. The basic metaphor is of the approach of a king to a subject kingdom. His coming is announced by lookouts on mountains along the route and eventually by sentinels on the walls of Jerusalem (cf.2 Sam 18.25-27;Nah 1.15).

Romans 10.15...How timely are the feet of those who bring good news.

TedM
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

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

Post by TedM » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:28 am

Secret Alias wrote: The idea that because Irenaeus repeats over and over again the 'two gods' concern that this 'must necessarily' have been a prominent feature of Marcionism is downright silly.
Maybe not 'must necessarily' but certainly a viable and reasonable idea.

Again he begins with the exact opposite proposition - i.e. that the heretical Pauline tradition is secretive and hides their true doctrines:
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.
No, I"m not reading that the same way as you. Mysteries? Yes. The notion of 2 gods hidden to the outside world? There is no reason to conclude that Irenaeus didn't know what the Marcionites were preaching. In fact, that would be quite strange don't you think? There was some 40 years for this very large sect to become known by the outside world. Do you really believe Irenaeus didn't have a clue as to what their central theme was? I don't. Not for a second. What evidence do you have to support that?

Irenaeus was saying that the Marcionite's claimed hidden knowledge from Paul, yes. But that doesn't mean it was hidden from Irenaeus or the rest of the world -- how else are they to evangelize? A competing religion HAS to get the word out as to what their secrets/revelations are.
In any event the passage continues:
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. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace," he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth.


Clearly the purpose of this section has little or nothing to do with 'two gods.'
He is disputing the claim to hidden knowledge for Paul alone.

The citation of the monarchian material from John (i.e. Philip being told that Jesus and his Father are one') represent not the 'main theme' but even something approaching a digression from the main theme of the section:
Not at all if you consider that the 'hidden knowledge' being claimed was that of 2 Gods. Irenaeus is implying that the hidden knowledge that the Marcionites claimed they got from Paul was that there were 2 Gods.

The rest of your post does nothing to argue against the theme Irenaeus is presenting. Basically you seem to be saying that there Irenaeus really didn't know what the hidden truth was, but you are giving no evidence as far as I see for that. Nothing I see in what you have quoted contradicts the idea that Irenaeus was arguing against the idea that Paul believed in 2 Gods and that the Maricionites discovered that 'hidden truth'. IMO there is no evidence for any other view so far presented, and common sense to me dictates that if a man spends so much time refuting a heresy because it had become so strong over time, that he likely had a pretty good idea of what their claim to revelation was.

I don't see any of the quotes about Luke's or Paul's gospel to be helpful to supporting the idea that Marcionites held some other hidden truth so well that it wasn't known to Irenaeus. What is that secret and where is your evidence for it?
Last edited by TedM on Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:44 am

But I've just gone through the text and demonstrated that the 2 gods controversy is not the main subject of the section. Again, let's number of the sentences if we have to and look at how many sections which deal with the issue of two gods and how many have 'the gospel of Paul' as the subject. It's not even close, especially if we look at the section as a whole (if we go further on in fact the gospel theme continues too):
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son.

4. And again, when Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace," he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth.

5. And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed, " acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.

6. And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to behold the Father, "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him."

7. To these men, therefore, did the Lord bear witness, that in Himself they had both known and seen the Father (and the Father is truth).

8. To allege, then, that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses, and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ.

9. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if these men did not know the truth?

10. How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached?

11. Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven?

12. Just, then, as" Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father," [so with the rest;]

13. the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to them the Son.

14. 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."

15. And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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;" 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."

19. 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;" and certain believed, even a great many.

20. 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."

21. 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, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; 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.

22. 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."

23. 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."

24. 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?

25. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: "I know that ye shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." Then, referring to the evil teachers who should arise, he said: "I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves come to you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." "I have not shunned," he says, "to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord.

26. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word."

27. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple.

28. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation;" and "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; and ye who laugh now, for ye shall weep;" and, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets." All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets; the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath-day; the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity;(9) how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, "In this night they shall demand thy soul from thee; whose then shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, "Increase our faith;" also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause; and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit.

29. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus.

30. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread.

31. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth.

32. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains].

33. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
I think once we continue to read the section there can be no doubt that 'the gospel which Luke (allegedly) wrote for Paul' is the real context - not the 'two god' doctrine you speak of. Certainly the heretics develop their claims about 'secret' gods and doctrines from the gospel. But the gospel, and the gospel of Paul used by the heretics, is the ultimate context. No doubt about that.

The 'mystery' is the mystery (remember 'mystery' also means 'secret') associated with Paul's reception of the gospel as revelation undoubtedly (according to the heretics) after his ascent to the third heaven.
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11756
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:36 am

The way I would reconstruct the context of the passage is as follows (adhering to the sentence order just listed):

1. Paul did not claim that he had a superior gospel claim which he kept secret (= as a 'mystery') to the rest of the Church

2. Acts and the Catholic edition edition of the Pauline letters prove that Paul and Peter held the same doctrines to two different groups of people (against the heretical notion that the Pauline Church was a secret community within Christianity that knew the 'real truth' through Paul's revelation and subsequent 'gospel' text.

3. the heretics claim that Paul was the only apostle; none of the other witnesses to Jesus were apostles appointed by God. Jesus came to Paul alone to establish him as 'the apostle,' the ONLY apostle.

4. the heretics cited Isa 52:7 to bolster the claim that there was only one evangelist - Jesus - who dictated to Paul the true evangel which was subsequently copied and corrupted by Judaizing Christians at Jerusalem and this becomes the context of the controversy in Galatians.

5. Irenaeus not only cites the Catholic version of Romans (with its falsified reading of Isa 52:7) as proof that Paul denied that he was the only apostle (itself a very suspicious 'proof' given that Isaiah does not say 'evangelists' but evangelist) but also sections of 1 Corinthians that did not appear in the Marcionite Apostolikon (again suspicious).

6, 7. Irenaeus goes on now to cite the gospel of John against the Marcionites with a section of the text that was clearly controversial (did the Arians really accept this section for instance?). The Marcionites clearly did not have this material. Another strange 'proof' but again it has to be noted that the immediate context is not 'two gods' but other apostles having legitimate experiences seeing Jesus after the resurrection. The implication for me at least would be that the Marcionite gospel ended very much like those texts of Mark which came to a close at Mark 16.8 for again, the point seems to be - no man saw Jesus after the resurrection save for Paul.

8. 9. 10. 11. Again the same topic is found in Prescription. This is a common and very important argument that took place repeatedly in the early days of the Catholic Church. The heretics were wrong for arguing that only Paul knew the truth, that only Paul saw Jesus after the resurrection, that only Paul received the true gnosis from his revelation in the third heaven and Paul's 'secret gospel' (undoubtedly a 'secret written gospel') was distinct from the teachings of the rest of the Church (which was by nature inferior).

12. 13. In some way which I can't exactly determine the relationship of 'Father' and 'Son' and the un-monarchian understanding of their relationship (i.e. that there was some sort of distinction between the two) among the heretics (undoubtedly that one was superior to the other and that Paul's gnosis comes from that superior god) leads them to 'err.' Irenaeus declares however that there was absolute unity in heaven, that the Son and Father were wholly One. One was not superior to the other. So it is that absolute unity of Son and Father makes it impossible for their to be different 'levels' to the revelations received by the apostles during Jesus's initial ministry and Paul's reception of a superior gnosis after the resurrection. Obviously the underlying idea seems to be that the Son was repenting for his mistakes (mistakes which he had to die on the Cross) and then only after his 'death' he became one with the Father and thus attained the 'superior gnosis' which is available to all who die and are baptized in his death like Paul.

14.15. The theme of the gospel is revisited again quite explicitly. Irenaeus tries to show by means of the Catholic text of the apostles and another textual corruption (i.e. which says that Paul DID subject himself to the authorities at Jerusalem) that the heretics claim that Paul's superior gnosis IN THE GOSPEL was distinct from the rest of the Church is a lie. A suspicious argument again because it is based on textual manipulation (as the one developed from Isa 52.7 earlier)

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The person of Luke is introduced into the discussion BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF WRITTEN GOSPEL is the real subject throughout. By tracing Luke's steadfast devotion to Paul from the point in Acts where Luke 'joins' Paul until the very death of Paul at Rome (by implication) Luke demonstrates that he was 'inseparable' from Paul. This provides the clearest evidence - according to Irenaeus - that the claims of the heretics are false ABOUT THE WRITTEN GOSPEL IN THEIR POSSESSION WHICH THEY SAY CAME TO PAUL THROUGH A SUPERIOR REVELATION FROM THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON once the Son died on the Cross and became one with the Father as all who are baptized into His death become one with the Father.

25. Another appeal to Acts to prove that Paul did not claim what the heretics claim he claimed. Of course the fact that the heretics said that Acts was a fraud is ignored.

26. The story in Acts is used to demonstrate that Luke's methodology in writing the gospel (notice the citation of Luke 1:4 the introduction to Luke's composition for Paul) is exactly the same as Paul's in Acts. Thus again Luke's written gospel is the true gospel and the heretics 'gospel of the Lord' dictated to Paul and written out by the one and only apostle is false.

27. Anyone who denies Luke's composition of the written gospel in preference for the false heretical gospel of Paul makes clear he is not a true follower of Paul.

28. the contents of Luke's written gospel is listed in order and identified as 'things which only appear in Luke.' I read this section as a list of things which differed in the Marcionite gospel. In short this is a reinforcement of the idea that Luke preserved which the Marcionites and Valentinians disputed owing to the fact that their written gospel of Paul from the superior revelation of the Son who died and (only then) became one with the Father had it differently.

29. there is an allusion to a list of other details in Luke which are also found pretty much in agreement with the written gospel of Paul from the superior revelation of the Son who died and (only then) became one with the Father.

30. again the written gospel of Paul from the superior revelation of the Son who died and (only then) became one with the Father did not have any post-resurrectional appearances to any of the apostles so Irenaeus makes explicit reference only to disagreements between the two purported 'gospels of Paul' (one via Luke and the other Paul's superior revelation).

31. 32. 33. All of the foregoing 'proves' that only the Catholic Church has the true gospel of Paul, which Luke wrote on behalf of Paul after becoming 'inseparable' from him. Notice at once that Luke's relationship with Paul is remarkably identical with the heretical assumptions (as I reconstruct them) with respect to the Son and the Father after the resurrection. At one time Luke was without Paul, then he becomes 'inseparable' from him. So too according to the heretics, the Law was created by angels led by the Jewish god who was/were estranged from the Father until at some point the Son realizes he is not the only God, that a superior Father existed before him. At that point (according to my reconstruction of the heretical understanding) the Son repented from his sins came down to earth and was crucified in order to die and be reborn as 'inseparable' from the Father.

I think that helps put the doctrine of 'two gods' within the context of the greater interest in the section regarding a 'secret' written gospel delivered to the one and only apostle from the risen Son who is now 'one with the Father.' The reference to Jesus's appearance in John 14:9 to Philip - which is used by you to demonstrate that the real subject (and only subject ?) of the passage in Irenaeus - is the doctrine of two gods is a little misleading. The reason this text is brought forward is to deny the heretical claim that Jesus only became 'one with the Father' after the resurrection. By having this passage inserted into John before the resurrection a twofold rejection of heretical doctrine:

that Jesus appeared to Paul and told him that he had ONLY NOW become one with the Father i.e. after his resurrection.

This denies (a) that Paul received a special revelation, the only revelation after the resurrection and (b) that the Son was only one with the Father after he died on the Cross. This, my friend, is the superior 'mystery' that Paul was purported to have received according to the heretics. All things make sense IMO once this is accepted. Before the resurrection the Son was never in absolute unity with the Father. Now with the resurrection we too can attain absolute united with the Father by becoming his sons.
“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: 849
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

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

Post by TedM » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:40 am

Secret Alias wrote:But I've just gone through the text and demonstrated that the 2 gods controversy is not the main subject of the section.

.....

I think once we continue to read the section there can be no doubt that 'the gospel which Luke (allegedly) wrote for Paul' is the real context - not the 'two god' doctrine you speak of. Certainly the heretics develop their claims about 'secret' gods and doctrines from the gospel. But the gospel, and the gospel of Paul used by the heretics, is the ultimate context. No doubt about that.
The 2 God's issue is clearly an important issue to Irenaeus. But obviously in addition to that he was concerned with differences between his Gluke and theirs as pertaining to how Jesus was portrayed and some of his doings.

Why do you choose to believe that Irenaeus perverted Gluke and that the Marcionites didn't? It seems to me that if Marcion rejected the Hebrew scriptures and the God it portrayed (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) he was apt to reject whatever part of Paul's/Lukes 'gospel' that didn't suit him too, while hanging onto the parts that did suit him (Jesus as loving God and Savior of all Gentiles -- you know -->Paul's Jesus) Doesnt' that seem reasonable to you?

Wow, I just saw you wrote more. I'm spending too much time on this but will attempt to read more as time permits over the next day or two.

Post Reply