Curious Statement in the Introduction to Against Heresies

[Secret Alias]

I never noticed before that at the beginning of Adv Haer there are some words which tend to support the idea that the text is an expansion of something Justin wrote. Who wrote these words? Irenaeus or Justin?

But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness.

sed simpliciter et vere et idiotice ea, quae tibi cum dilectione scripta sunt, cum dilectione percipies, et ipse auges ea penes te, ut magis idoneus quam nos, quasi semen et initia accipiens a nobis ; et in latitudine sensus tui multum fructificabis ea, quae in paucis a nobis dicta sunt, et potenter asseres iis, qui tecum sunt, ea quae invalide a nobis relata sunt.

The point is that these words appear at the beginning of Book One and Book One itself is understood to develop from Justin's Syntagma. But the rest of the work (i.e. Books 2, 3, 4) are themselves the very expansion being referenced here. How then could they have been written by Irenaeus? Rather they come from Justin and the rest of the work is an expansion written by others (or Irenaeus).

A syntagma is by definition something written in barest form.

[Secret Alias]

The opening words seem to be at odds with the conclusion of Book One:

For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest. But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.

I think it is easy to see where the first author (= Justin) and the rewrites of the second author (= Irenaeus) start and stop:

For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. [end of Justin's syntagma]

Indeed this follows the tone of the original comment - i.e. this is a brief syntagma and more work is needed by the reader to investigate matters further. This changes as the second author now takes up the gauntlet:

Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest. But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.

It would certainly imply to me at least that the introduction of our present text which cites the Pastorals was written by the second writer:

Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

Also the 'fox' theme is written by the second writer.

[TedM]

I never noticed before that at the beginning of Adv Haer there are some words which tend to support the idea that the text is an expansion of something Justin wrote. Who wrote these words? Irenaeus or Justin?

But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness.

The point is that these words appear at the beginning of Book One and Book One itself is understood to develop from Justin's Syntagma. But the rest of the work (i.e. Books 2, 3, 4) are themselves the very expansion being referenced here. How then could they have been written by Irenaeus?

Why do you say books 2,3,4 are the 'very expansion being referenced here'? Couldn't books 2,3,4 also have been the 'seminal principles' he was referring to, and that he was hoping others would expand upon? I don't see why you are so easily concluding what you conclude here-- is it because he is referring to being 'brief'? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?

The very next sentence is:

In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee 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.

So in this VERY NEXT SENTENCE he covers both books 1 and 2,3,4! Are you proposing that someone wrote the quote in your OP and that someone else wrote the very next sentence that seems to provide the very clarification you are speculating about? What is the problem you are seeing with this second quote?

I won't have time to discuss this further, but thought I'd at least give my reaction based on a 'brief' analysis..

[Secret Alias]

Right and I would assume all of that is the second author. Ted there is little or no doubt that Book One derives from Justin. The question is have I found the "fault line" which divides Justin's text from Irenaeus's

[Secret Alias]

I am at the mall with my family but if you look at the beginning of Book 2 there is a clear sense that the second author (the one who has arranged the material into five books and under various "heads") has just incorporated something that is older (= the Syntagma) in the previous book to ground his interest in the Valentinians and who are a "modern" heresy, the purpose of his efforts. In this sense we learn something about the historical context of the enterprise and a confirmation of things noticed by Lampe and others - namely that Justin may not have been opposed to the Valentinians. Just read it.

[Secret Alias]

Indeed after the first book - developed from Justin's Syntagma - the second book makes clear something already recognized by many modern scholars, namely that Justin did not view the Valentinians as a group:

In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely so called," I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and baseless. I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself.

IN primo quidem libro, qui ante hunc est, arguentes falsi nominis agnitionem ostendimus tibi, dilectissime, omne ab his qui sunt a, Valentino per multos et contrarios modos adiuventum esse falsiloquiumg etiam sententias exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt. discrepantes eos sibimetipsis ostendentes, multo autem prius ipsi ueritati

Who are the 'predecessors' if not the material that he grabbed from the original syntagma? Yet in what follows the second author does not make this explicit:

I further explained (in book one), with all diligence, the doctrine as well as practice of Marcus the magician, since he, too, belongs to these persons; and I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish truth. I have also related how they think and teach that creation at large was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they hold respecting the Demiurge, declaring at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and of all those who succeeded him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who are sprung from him, and noticed the points of difference between them, their several doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all those heresies which have been originated by them. I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and their mysteries. I proved also that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the fruit of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him, or after Him.

Clearly the author of the second book knows the order of book one. He's evasive about whether or not the material came from an earlier source here.

[MrMacSon]

... at the beginning of Adv Haer there are some words which tend to support the idea that the text is an expansion of something Justin wrote. Who wrote these words? Irenaeus or Justin?

"But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness."

sed simpliciter et vere et idiotice ea, quae tibi cum dilectione scripta sunt, cum dilectione percipies, et ipse auges ea penes te, ut magis idoneus quam nos, quasi semen et initia accipiens a nobis ; et in latitudine sensus tui multum fructificabis ea, quae in paucis a nobis dicta sunt, et potenter asseres iis, qui tecum sunt, ea quae invalide a nobis relata sunt.

... these words appear at the beginning of Book One and Book One itself is understood to develop from Justin's Syntagma.

A syntagma is by definition something written in barest form.

Those words are almost like an appeal to expand ideas - "develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch" - like in a sect or scriptorium developing a theology or a philosophy (or a like-minded group) ...

[Peter Kirby]

The influence (= when extensive, usually involving some copying in ancient times) of Justin's "Syntagma" on Irenaeus' Against Heresies is widely known by the relevant scholars.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nqrCA ... &lpg=PA251

But don't put too much weight on the word "Syntagma" as something that will give you a way to know its contours and length.

Like the Latin "Summa," the German "Enleitung," and the English "Introduction," the word can be a trap just meant to say that you start at the beginning and/or present the outline of the subject... not that you really stopped with just the bare basics and bullet points.

[TedM]

Right and I would assume all of that is the second author. Ted there is little or no doubt that Book One derives from Justin. The question is have I found the "fault line" which divides Justin's text from Irenaeus's

I guess that's possible, but that then presupposes that Ireneaus didn't care if he made the words of someone else his own. I don't see any particular reason to conclude that he did that, per my reasoning above, esp if one considers that he may well have been telling the truth--ie he did some research and came up with much of the material. He may well also have used some or much of the information from Justin to supplement what he had learned. It seems reasonable to me that he would not have relied 100% on writings some 40+ years old to learn about things that likely he had faced his entire life in some form or another.

[Secret Alias]

Thomassen argues that "exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt" is part of a systematic citation of the contents of Book One and deals with chapters 10 - 12 - https://books.google.com/books?id=kIs9U ... 22&f=false

But even he admits the order is not exact in all places and I don't see any evidence that chapter 10 - 12 specifically deal with the 'predecessors' of Valentinism which is the subject of the first part of the sentence. Therefore Thomassen is wrong. It is more likely then IMO that "exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt" is a reference to the syntagma of which the material that immediately follows is drawn. This seems to the usual reading of the passage - https://books.google.com/books?id=-kg2A ... 22&f=false

Indeed the English translation does capture the continuous 'and' in what follows the initial mention of 'those that preceded' the Valentinians, but this would imply that Marcus preceded Valentinus.

In primo quidem libro, qui ante hunc est, arguentes falsi nominis agnitionem ostendimus tibi, dilectissime, omne ab his qui sunt a, Valentino per multos et contrarios modos adiuventum esse falsiloquium etiam sententias

In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely so called," I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and baseless.

exposuimus eorum qui priores exstiterunt. discrepantes eos sibimetipsis ostendentes, multo autem prius ipsi ueritati.

I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself

Et Marci quoque magi sententiam, cum sit ex his cum operibus ejus omni diligentia exposuimus

And Marcus also said to be a magician, since he is of them since I further explained, with all diligence

et quanta ex Scripturis eligentes adaptare conantur fictioni suae, diligenter retulimus: diligenter retulimus

and how many passages they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions I carefully noticed

et quonam modo per numeros, et per viginti quatuor elementa zalphabeti veritatem aflirmare conantur et audent, minutatim perexivimus.

Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish truth.

Et quemadmodum conditionem secundum imaginem invisibilis apud eos Pleromatis factam dicunt, et quanta de Demiurgo sentiunt ac decent, renuntiavimus,

And I have also related how they think and teach that creation at large was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they hold respecting the Demiurge,

et progenitoris ipsorum doctrinam Simonis magi Samaritan et omnium eorum qui successerunt ei manifestavimus

and declaring at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and of all those who succeeded him

diximus quoque multitudinem eorum qui sunt ab eo Gnostici; et differentias ipsorum et doctrinas et successiones adnotauimus,

I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who are sprung from him, and noticed the points of difference between them, their several doctrines, and the order of their succession

quaeque ab eis haereses institutae sunt omnes exposuimus,

while I set forth all those heresies which have been originated by them

et quoniam omnes a Simone haeretici initia sumentes impia et irreligiosa dogmata induxerunt in hanc vitam ostendimus

I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life

et redemptionem ipsorum et quomodo initiant eos qui perficiuntur et adfationes ipsorum et mysteria manifestauimus,

and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and their mysteries.

et quia unus Deus Conditor et quia non postremitatis fructus et quia neque super illum neque post eum est aliquid

and I proved also that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the fruit of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him, or after Him.

Why then is it unrealistic to view the 'fault line' between Justin and Irenaeus as the material related to the Valentinians. In this case, even the Marcosian material belonged to the Syntagma.