Εἰρηναῖος ὁ ἐξηγητὴς

[Secret Alias]

I happened to stumble on to the discovery that Irenaeus may have been the first Christian to posit that the apostles or disciples wrote gospels. Irenaeus noted (if his authorship of the Prescription now preserved in Latin is acknowledged) that the apostles at first spoke viva voce and then (appealing to the testimony of others) that they wrote epistles, but no mention of gospels. The discussion in the Prescription seems to be limited to an oral gospel in keeping with his dependence on Papias which was promulgated viva voce. At some point Irenaeus presented the world with four gospels, two written by apostles, two by 'apostolics.' Curious how these texts that were unknown to Papias suddenly appeared under Irenaeus.

In any event I have always been puzzled by the title ἐξηγητὴς. We take it for granted that Cyril is saying that he was called 'the exegete' but it is worth noting that this was a sacred office in the Greek speaking world which extended to the fourth century CE. What caught my eye was that the terminology originally applied to the interpretation of specifically oral law in ancient Greece:

(ἐξηγηταί/exēgētaí, from the Greek ἐξηγέομαι/exēgéomai, ‘interpret, expound’). In general terms, the advisors, interpreters, and leaders; specifically the expounders of the originally oral tradition of sacred law in Athens.

Apparently Jacoby successfully argued that oral law - rather than written text - was the basis to Attic society and the exegetai were charged with 'interpreting' and applying this oral religious law to everyday life. https://books.google.com/books?id=BjrDj ... by&f=false What I find so striking is that the exegetai were intimately associated with the god Apollo and his temple at Delphi where the Sybils were also influential. That there were Christians called 'Sybillists' is well known:

τί τοῦτο φέρει ἔγκλημα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, οὓς ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους ὠνόμασεν ὁ Κέλσος; Εἶπε δέ τινας εἶναι καὶ Σιβυλλιστάς, τάχα παρακούσας τινῶν ἐγκαλούντων τοῖς οἰομένοις προφῆτιν γεγονέναι τὴν Σίβυλλαν καὶ Σιβυλλιστὰς τοὺς τοιούτους καλεσάντων. [C. Cels. 5.61]

This group is presumably the same as those Celsus mentions at 7.53 as "using" (and adulterating) the Sibyl:

Ὑμεῖς δὲ κἂν Σίβυλλαν, ᾗ χρῶνταί τινες ὑμῶν, εἰκότως ἂν μᾶλλον προεστήσασθε ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παῖδα· νῦν δὲ παρεγγράφειν μὲν εἰς τὰ ἐκείνης πολλὰ καὶ βλάσφημα εἰκῇ δύνασθε, τὸν δὲ βίῳ μὲν ἐπιρρητοτάτῳ θανάτῳ δὲ οἰκτίστῳ χρησάμενον θεὸν τίθεσθε. [C. Cels. 7.53]

Origen replies to this charge as follows:

Εἶτ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον Σίβυλλαν ἀναγορεῦσαι παῖδα θεοῦ ἢ Ἰησοῦν, ἀποφηνάμενος ὅτι παρενεγράψαμεν εἰς τὰ ἐκείνης πολλὰ καὶ βλάσφημα καὶ μὴ ἀποδείξας μηδ' ὅ τι παρενεγράψαμεν Απέδειξε δ' ἄν, εἰ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα καθαρώτερα ἐδείκνυε καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντα ἅπερ οἴεται παρεγγεγράφθαι· μὴ ἀποδείξας δὲ μηδ' ὅτι βλάσφημά ἐστι ταῦτα, εἶτα πάλιν οὐ δὶς οὐδὲ τρὶς ἀλλὰ δὴ πολλάκις ἐπιρρη τότατον εἶπε τὸν Ἰησοῦ βίον, οὐ στὰς καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ αὐτοῦ πεπραγμένων καὶ νομιζομένων εἶναι ἐπιρρητοτάτων... [C. Cels. 7.56]

Origen denies any knowledge of a sect of Sibyllistae, but does not deny that some Christians had a fondness for Sibylline oracles. He suggests that Celsus got the term from someone who was censuring those who "consider the Sibyl a prophetess"—and presumably such critics would themselves be Christians.

There is a certain glee in Origen's writing insofar as he recognizes that Celsus has obviously misunderstood the original reference. Could 'Σίβυλλαν' is a mistake on Celsus's part for an original reading of 'Σαβελλίῳ' (Sabellius) or vice versa?

But most important of all is Irenaeus allusion in the Preface to Adversus Haereses to his having "lived among the Delphians" a term explicitly used for the cult at Delphi (cf Euripides "But come, you Delphians, Apollo's devout ..." Of the three classes of exegetai one was specifically chosen at Delphi. Could an exegete from pagan tradition have come along to 'straighten out' the oral tradition associated with Papias and his tradition? Just musing out loud about Peregrinus's association with the Greek cultic places, Polycarp's resemblance to Peregrinus and Irenaeus's title 'the exegete.'

Here is the reference in Irenaeus:

You will not expect from me, who am resident among the Delphoi and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But you will accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to you simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; while you yourself (as being more capable than I am) will expand those ideas of which I send you, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of your understanding, will develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before your companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify your long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to you, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shall you, according to the grace given to you by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe.

[Peter Kirby]

I happened to stumble on to the discovery that Irenaeus may have been the first Christian to posit that the apostles or disciples wrote gospels.

Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder whether the big step was crowning the first gospel in the orthodox canon "Matthew."

It is the favored text of the church, we're so often told, to the exclusion especially of Mark and to a lesser extent Luke.

If you look at John, there is a tradition that John did not write it, but rather that it is just like the Gospel of Mark, written from Peter's preaching. The tradition is that his friends wrote it, or a specific person, and that he was just the witness behind it. And this is directly based on the text (19:35, 21:24).

So the apostolic authority thing has the secondary effect of making Matthew the most important. Why depend on hearsay?

Further, honoring a four-fold canon very subtly tightens the noose further, since your opponents can't argue that you don't have all the important stories and that you have a much less complete version, essentially establishing parity again by gainsaying Matthew. It perpetually subordinates Mark and Luke, to Matthew, and the interpretations of Matthew come to dominate the interpretation of the other gospels also.

Lastly, we can of course note that Matthew alone has the famous "keys" being handed to Peter, a definite power grab.

[Secret Alias]

Odd that a Moscow MS says Irenaeus wrote a Commentary on Mark. That would be something if it were true

[Peter Kirby]

Note that Irenaeus puts the chronological order of the Gospels in the same as the canonical order (with the possible exception of Luke, for whom there is no chronological indication), but still puts the earliest of them (Matthew) apparently after the writing of most or all of Paul's epistles (presumably in the reign of Nero, when "Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome").

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Later church fathers would try to push the authorship of the Gospels earlier than this.

[Secret Alias]

But remember the Marcionites didn't have this separation between 'Pauline epistles ... and then the gospel.' Paul wrote the first gospel. The letters (or whatever shape this material took originally) are likely commentaries on the gospel. So pushing the gap between the letters (and Paul) and the gospels is likely to separate Paul from the gospel. The orthodox wanted Paul's gospel.