Either Bernard or I must be misinterpreting the intent of #4 on your list.
i.e. the Acts of Pilate tradition (and Josephus's implicit dating of Pilate) versus Luke.
With regards to Irenaeus. All we have is the prologue to Book One (where he references his strange tongue/dialect), the address to Marcianus in his other work, the implicit reference to his being a contemporary of Florinus in another work. But there is really surprisingly little biographical references in his work. Odd to have a stranger define the future of the religion with very little biographical information.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:39 pmWith regards to Irenaeus. All we have is the prologue to Book One (where he references his strange tongue/dialect), the address to Marcianus in his other work, the implicit reference to his being a contemporary of Florinus in another work. But there is really surprisingly little biographical references in his work. Odd to have a stranger define the future of the religion with very little biographical information.
Switch out "very little biographical information" for "absolutely zero biographical information," and does that sentence not describe pretty much all of the gospel writers?
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:34 pm
It could be argued that Irenaeus's significance eclipses that of the evangelists and to be shrouded at the dawn of Origen's life is quite bizarre.
I do not "get" you on this whole Irenaeus take at all, I guess.
Irenaeus dresses himself up as a conservative. But the landscape he paints seems to contradict that understanding. There are allegedly a plethora of schools with little order. Moreover the four gospels as a unit speaking as one gospel is a revolution rather than established orthodoxy. It is like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Irenaeus the Beatles. The idea that all the sects that produced the gospels were at each other's throats but Irenaeus just picked up their gospels and found they just 'happened' to 'fit together' is laughable. Irenaeus forged a version of the heretical gospels that just 'happened' to 'fit together.' So Irenaeus is more artist than scribe. There can be no other way. How did an innovator rise to don the cloak of guardian? And how did he get everyone to buy into this myth?
Given the choice between Irenaeus leading a revolution and Irenaeus leading an established orthodoxy, I would choose neither. Much of what you wrote there does not resonate with me as "what probably really happened." I presume our assumptions differ. But I am off to bed for the night, and my brain is too fuzzy at the moment to try to figure it out. I will see what I think of it tomorrow.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:34 pm
It could be argued that Irenaeus's significance eclipses that of the evangelists
I could too. But if so, he was drawing on the works of the evangelicals.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:34 pm
It could be argued that Irenaeus's significance...[was] shrouded at the dawn of Origen's life [and this would be] quite bizarre.
A dimension to this would be the proposition that some [or even a lot] that is attributed to Origen was added later (as could be the case for Irenaeus and others).
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:33 pm
Irenaeus dresses himself up as a conservative.
Irenaeus dresses himself up -or is dressed up- as a gatekeeper.
The idea that all the sects that produced the gospels were at each other's throats but Irenaeus just picked up their gospels and found they just 'happened' to 'fit together' is laughable.
b/c they may not have been at each other's throats. They or one of them, or even someone else, may have just been at Marcion's throat (or a Marcionite's throat).
