The discussion reverted a bit to the question of what we know about Irenaeus (and his life, or even existence):
stephan huller wrote:But the question has to arise - what do we know about Irenaeus to contradict? As far as I can see - outside of Eusebius - there is only:
1. the reference in the Philosophumena to the 'blessed Irenaeus' twice I think
2. Cyprian and Tertullian's use of Irenaeus probably from the public library in Carthage
3. the tradition that Hypolytus was a disciple
4. the letter to Victor
5. his opposition to Florinus of Rome
6. his interest in Roman episcopal succession
7. his reporting on events in Lugdunum and Vienne (twice) but I take these two to be two different reports of the same persecution in 177 CE
8. Cyril of Jerusalem's allusion to the "Prescriptionem" of Irenaeus which I take to be preserved in Tertullian's Latin translation
9. the Martyrdom of Polycarp's reference to him being at Rome (Moscow)
10. his own statement in the fragments that he knew Polycarp when he was young
Am I missing anything? Maybe Hall's identification of Irenaeus as Praxeas in the treatise of Tertullian by the same name.
This is an interesting list, Stephan, thank you.
I'd say this is as good as we're going to get for anything about our subject. If we don't like to postulate the "historical Irenaeus," what would we like to postulate that has any better support in the evidence?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Of course this can still be considered superfluous since there is no evidence for the existence of this Iranaeus anyway in the second century UNLESS one simply accepts official church claims at face value, which would certainly not make sense in this regard or in others that have been debated and discussed elsewhere.
At least if people accept the claims of the church apologists and historians with faith rather than to examine them critically, they should say so. There is nothing wrong with being honest. Especially in the absence of data provided by mutually antagonistic sources (i.e. a Roman source and a Jewish source and a Christian source) attesting to the existence of a fellow named Iranaeus in the second century.
there is evidence you just don't want to see it. Irenaeus is referenced in 3rd century authors and 4th century authors exactly what you would expect from an author that wrote at the end of the 2nd century. you don't want to see that owing to your pathological hatred for and desire to discredit Christianity. There is also manuscript evidence from the beginning of the 3rd century in Egypt. This is a fact.
The fact that you are Jewish and accept the existence of a host of "fathers" only known to us through writings from centuries later but you deny the existence of these Christian fathers who are known through their own writings (ie as opposed to a later compiler as in the Jewish fathers and Christian manuscripts which date from a much earlier period than the earliest manuscripts of the rabbinic compilation effort) only demonstrate your hate filled agenda all the more clearly
Please Mr. Huller, get hold of yourself. This is not about hatred. This is about analyzing the roots of a religion that had some sort of relationship to the pre-existing religion called Judaism. Of course people will reference Irenaeus after the document exists. But it still is very very fishy how Mr. Irenaeus allegedly had something to with Lyons in the 2nd century which is rather hard to believe, much less prove. And here he is suddenly a couple of decades after "Justin" with a full-fledged canon and information that was not identified by the other fellow just 30 years earlier ostensibly in the same town. It is all too neat. But if you want to accept the Church claims, go right ahead, it's a free country.
It's rather funny that you hold me to a standard different from that of posters who accept Christian beliefs based on faith rather than on empirical evidence without question.
I hold you to a different standard because of the obvious double standard in your approach. The preservation of Christian writers from the 1st - 3rd centuries is far better than the parallel Jewish sources but you single out the former and blindly accept the latter. this is hypocrisy of the highest order
"The 'preservation' of [the works of] Christian writers from the 1st - 3rd centuries" is a separate issue to the preservation of works of contemporary Jewish writers other than where a topic of interest is discussed by both groups of writers.
It is intriguing how many of their alleged works are known through other, often subsequent, early writers' interpretations of them;
and, how often those subsequent 'interpretations' are only preserved in documents or versions made centuries later.
There is a giant difference if this guy doubts the existence of Christianity in the first through third century including the Christian sources (i.e. the Church Fathers):
as opposed to this guy:
The basis for this distinction is that the first guy is dependent on a group of first through third century sources in his own tradition that are preserved in a far more unreliable manner than the Christian sources.
The second guy is only wondering whether McDonald's is still selling Mighty Wings today.
stephan happy huller wrote: ... the first guy is dependent on a group of first through third century sources in his own tradition that are preserved in a far more unreliable manner than the Christian sources.
This seems to be a strawman red-herring.
"dependent on a group of first through third century 'sources'" ... a common scenario
"in his own tradition" ... a common scenario
"sources ... that are preserved" ... possibly; but have they been preserved unadulterated?
I am not saying that you can't argue against Irenaeus's honesty, his reliability or that he might have gone by another name etc. I am strictly saying that you have to accept that for instance Book One of Against Heresies was written in the late second century by someone. The same applies for his other writings. Of course you can make up any argument you want. You can argue the world is flat or that we are all already dead and what we think is 'life' is really the dream of that already dead person. Making up arguments is at the heart of scholarship. I am just saying that someone who is devoutly religious as duvduv is can also be fairly accused of a double standard when for instance he accepts the existence of the opinions of the tannaim as preserved in much later sources but not actually documents associated with Justin, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. This is incredible. He can believe in whomever he wants. He can hate whomever he wants. But to argue that the Christian sources are wholly unreliable but the Jewish ones are wholly reliable is a double standard. But to even go another step and argue that a massive conspiracy is responsible for inventing the gospels, the New Testament and the Church Fathers but that the Jewish sources are wholly pristine - sources which we must note aren't the actual writings of the tannaim but a series of thread bare 'legal opinions' and stories, many wholly fictitious and mythological - is going way beyond the pale. How can you explain something this ridiculous?
I actually don't think that they are wholly worthless. I think there is some reliable information here too. I am not interested in getting people to agree with my point of view only to call out hypocrisy and double standards.
You are clearly not following......I have repeatedly said that acceptance of the church narrative is a matter of FAITH NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, NO different that the acceptance of the traditional Jewish narrative.
stephan happy huller wrote:I hold you to a different standard because of the obvious double standard in your approach. The preservation of Christian writers from the 1st - 3rd centuries is far better than the parallel Jewish sources but you single out the former and blindly accept the latter. this is hypocrisy of the highest order