Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by John T »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:15 pm
John T wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:19 am
DCHindley wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:35 pm
Don't deny that there are historical allusions in the commentaries. But no dates like you'd see in tax and financial documents. Unfortunately, there is such a diverse collection of documents written by literally hundreds of scribes, most of which are undatable, to *accurately* determine scribal schools.
DCH
DCH,
Granted this is going on a tangent but since you brought it up,what paleography evidence do you have that the Dead Sea Scrolls were inked by hundreds of different scribes?

I would guess that less than a few dozens scribes were employed at the Qumran scriptorium.

Professor Charlotte Hempel of the University of Birmingham, says; "I have suggested recently that the majority of members of the movement based at Qumran were probably illiterate..." Biblical Archaeology Review, Jul/Aug 2018 pg. 70.
Hi John,

I believe I read it in one of the English translations I've been used to reading. Not sure if you were around during the period when Norman Golb's son Raphael, was posting here (maybe even FRDB days) under the name "anonymous" (this was required by the Judge that was overseeing his parole), but a lot of interesting things were thrown out for discussion.

As you probably know, Norman Golb thinks that the books were not from a "sect" but representative of a wide range of Judaisms active in the province of Judea. Sort of how we today box up our old print records, after scanning them of course, to store them in abandoned salt mines. They were sort of communal repositories for any scroll that contained the divine name. One of the reasons I heard he gave for this conclusion was the great number of scribal hands, more than might be expected from a relatively small sect, whether they be Essene or not.

I will have to look into this closer, but I bet if you were to search for "scribal hands" with "DSS" you'd get the result. It has been over 10-15 years since I have looked at these things, so my brain may be a wee rusty.

DCH
Yes, I know about Golb and posted here many times challenging his library theory and how it was finally debunked by modern science(DNA). No, I'm not going through the archives to pull-up the posts.
If my memory serves me right, even Professor Jodi Magness has given up on the Golb library theory.


v/r

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed

Post by Leucius Charinus »

PROBABLY PREPARED IN REPSONSE TO:
Sanday, William ——— (1876).
The Gospels in the Second Century: an examination of the critical part
of a work entitled "Supernatural religion".
ISBN 9780837050409. OCLC 551689940.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S ... heologian)

*****

CONTRIBUTIONS TO A SERIES OF CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS
ISSUED BY THE LATE MR THOMAS SCOTT, OF UPPER NORWOOD.
BY
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE.


LONDON :
TRÜBNER & CO. >, LUDGATE HILL.
1881 .


Controversial Writings Issued by the Late Mr. Thomas

The Christian Evidences. 7

p.170


Before occupying ourselves with those who are commonly considered to be the earliest Christian it will be well to examine the pretensions of those on whom dependence is placed for the existence and times of the supposed primitive writers.

The first who claims attention is necessarily the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius. In his day, it is apparent, Christianity was an established circumstance, and our task, consequently, is to endeavour to discern its earliest traces in the period anterior to him. Writing about the year A.D. 315, Eusebius admits that in prosecuting his investigations, he was " the first ” who had engaged in such an attempt, and that he had entered upon his researches on a kind of trackless and unbeaten path ," totally unable to find even the bare'vestiges of those who may have travelled the way before him ," unless “ in partial narratives,” and with a dubious light to guide him as that of “ torches at a distance .” The result is, with these imperfect means, he presents us with a volume, purporting to be an exhibition of multitudinous facts, but at the same time shows himself to be one not qualified to act as a pioneer whom we may safely follow in the difficult field before him.

The age he had to deal with, was one abounding in literary forgeries, especially on the part of Christian writers, who justified themselves, by supposing that the importance of the cause they sought to promote, warranted the means they took to advance it. Eusebius has vouched for, and given currency to, such forgeries, not having detected them ; he was personally credulous ; and he has been guilty of historical inconsistencies and uncritical representations.* Dr Donaldson says of him , “ Like all the rest of his age, he was utterly uncritical in his estimate of evidence, and where he, as it were, translates the language of others into his own, not giving their words but his own idea of their meaning, he is almost invariably wrong.

Every statement therefore which he makes himself, is to be received with caution " ; and yet the learned doctor, in endeavouring to place Christianity on an historical basis, has to add, “ my first, my best, and almost my only authority is Eusebius. . . . All subsequent writers have simply repeated his statements, sometimes ' indeed misrepresenting them , Eusebius therefore stands as my first and almost only authority ” ( “ Hist. of Christ. Lit.” I. 13, 14) .

For whatever relates to the first two centuries of the alleged Christian era, in respect of its facts and dates, we have to look to this writer, and no impartial mind can rest satisfied with the statements of one circumstanced as he was, and shown to be what he is, unless these may be found reasonably supported with such corroborative materials as should naturally belong to them.


The next name of importance to the Christian cause is that of Irenaeus, an authority constantly cited by Eusebius, and to whom is traceable the first notice we have that the received gospels are four in number. In treating of this supposed person, I am under deep obligations to an article in this series entitled “ Primitive Church History," and a forthcoming one by the same learned writer on “ Irenaeus, ” which I have been privileged to see in the manuscript.

Beyond being frequently cited by Eusebius, Irenaeus is mentioned by Tertullian, but no others of the alleged early writers, not even Hippolytus who is said to have been his pupil, show any knowledge of him. There is a treatise Against Heresies " bearing his name of which some fragments in the original Greek remain, and a version in barbarous Latin.

There is no certainty as to the date of his birth ; he is said by some to have been of Greece, by others of Smyrna or elsewhere in Asia Minor ; Mr Sanday speaks of " his well- known visit to Rome in 178 A.D. ( 199 ), not however citing his authority, who is probably Eusebius; Tertullian is reported to say that he was made bishop of Gaul, it is supposed about A.D. 180 ; otherwise we have no particulars of his life. We hear of his martyrdom in A.D. 202 from Eusebius, but there being no other authority for the circumstance ,
we may consider the date of his death to be as uncertain as that of his birth .

Mr Sanday holds that the treatise " Against Heresies ” must have been written between the years A.D. 180 and 190 ( 326) . This production shows an acquaintance with the various branches of Gnostic heretics, and the writer assumes an ascendancy over them as belonging to the orthodox party in the church, denouncing all “ unauthorized meetings ” as opposed to apostolic traditions and the “ pre-eminent authority " of " the very ancient ” church of Rome. To have lived at a time when orthodoxy had raised itself above surrounding heresies, and when supremacy and a lengthened measure of antiquity could be ascribed to the church at Rome, necessarily places the writer at a period much nearer the time of Eusebius than is supposed, unless, indeed , his writings have been tampered with at a later day.

That he belongs to an era not so remote as is assigned to him, appears also from other indications. He speaks of “ good and ancient copies ” of the book of Revelation ( 329 ), and of the existence of many ancient copies of the “ Shepherd ” of Hermas (“ Against Heresies " V., c. 30) ; moreover Saturninus, writing it is thought in the beginning of the fourth century, says, scattered churches of a few Christians arose in some cities of Gaul in the 3rd century, ” from which we may judge that no bishopric could have been erected
there in the second century.

Tertullian is quite as questionable an authority as Eusebius, and the collateral and internal evidence certainly points to the time of the writer of the treatise in question , being of a considerably later date than is assigned to him . But we may even doubt whether the name of Irenaeus, which figures so prominently in the ecclesiastical history, attaches to a real personage.

p.11 (p.174)


The word Ειρηναίοςas observed by Eusebius, and dwelt upon by the learned writer I have before referred to, signifies " peaceful, ” and affixed to a treatise designed to put down heresies and induce concord of religious sentiment, it may very well have been adopted by the writer as a designation appropriate to the purpose of his work, so that we may be entitled to end our examination with the supposition that it is quite possible we have nothing before us, under the heading of Irenaeus, but an anonymous production, written when or by whom we know not, saving that it came out at some time antecedent to Tertullian and Eusebius.


Tertullian is known of from Eusebius and the writings he has left behind him. He is said to have been of about the period of the supposed Irenaeus, can only say that he preceded Eusebius. He is described to have been a bishop of Carthage, but we have no incidents of his life or death. He wrote against Valentinus, Marcion, and other " heretics, ” which places him beyond the earliest times of Christianity. He was of an age when the sacred text had become extensively corrupted by various readings, and had his part therein.

Mr Sanday is engaged with this subject in connection with Tertullian from page 332 to 343. He says, “ The phenomena that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that ; another comes in at a further stage, and vitiates succeeding copies there ; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in ; re course is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text is recovered by comparison with these.

p.12 (175)

In Latin Codex F. which we find accordingly shows a maximum difference from Tertullian ! ” Then assuming that we have the real time of Tertullian, he observes, “ To bring the text into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow . In fact I doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made.”

Now it is apparent that the argument can be turned quite another way. If nothing is known of the appearance of the received scriptures till a late time, say the latter part of the second century, as a large class of critics maintain, then the condition of the text and Tertullian's part in it, according to this reasoning, would place him a century later, or far on in the third century. The fact is, throughout this investigation we are left to the operation of the merest guesses. We know not when the text came out, or when it was interfered with by Tertullian and others. The end is that of the actual time of Tertullian we remain ignorant, but see that there may be grounds for placing it considerably nearer that of Eusebius than has been currently asserted.

Whatever was the period filled by Tertullian, as an authority to be appealed to he proves himself to be utterly unreliable. In the first place he was very credulous. He recognized in certain osseous remains the bones of the giants. He believed in the agency of
good and evil angels, and that most people had a demon attached to them, who could rule their destinies. He says, “ There is hardly a human being who is unattended by a demon ; and it is well known to many that premature and violent deaths, which men ascribe to accidents, are in fact brought about (P.13) by demons. ” He makes use of the fable of the Phoenix as an actuality illustrating the resurrection . He says, as if coming within his personal knowledge,
" I am acquainted with the case of a woman, the daughter of Christian parents, who in the very flower of her age and beauty slept peaceably in Jesus), after a singularly happy though brief married life. Before they laid her in her grave, and when the priest began the appointed office, at the first breath of his prayer she withdrew her hands from her sides, placed them in an attitude of devotion, and after the holy service was concluded, restored them to their lateral position.

Then again, there is that well known story among our own people, that a body voluntarily made way in a certain cemetery, to afford room for another body to be placed near it ” (“ On the Resurrection of the Flesh ," c. xlii. ; “ On the Soul,” c. xxxix. , li . ,
lvii. ) . If we are reading Tertullian, and not introduced monkish fables, the writer is shown to be positively untruthful, as well as possessed of an inordinate love of the marvellous.

That Tertullian in his aim to support the Christian cause was little restrained by scruples in making his statements, is very apparent. He is Eusebius' warrant for the fact that Pontius Pilate transmitted to the emperor Tiberius an account of the miracles
of Jesus, and of his resurrection from the dead, re presenting that the mass of the people believed him to be a god, on which Tiberius proposed to admit Jesus into the Roman pantheon ; so that knowledge from Rome reaches Carthage, of a character to establish the incidents of Christianity , after a lapse of say nearly two centuries, which had escaped the notice of all others occupying the intervening space and time.

In respect of the tale of the Thundering Legion , when me of extremity the Christian sold in the ranks of Marcus Aurelius are said to have called down rain by their prayers, and so saved the army from a perishing of thirst, Eusebius likewise received the statement Tertullian has had the assurance to make, that there were letters by the emperor still extant recounting the occurrence, Carthage again standing alone in supplying us with information from Rome. And in his tract Against the Jews, ” he boasts, with little attention to truth , of the vast spread of the Christian faith, saying—

“ In whom but the Christ now come have all nations believed ? For in whom do all other nations (except the Jews) confide ? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and inhabitants of Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia ; the dwellers in Egypt,and inhabitants of the region beyond Cyrene ; Romans and strangers ; and in Jerusalem, both ' Jews and Proselytes ; so that the various tribes of the Getuli and the numerous hordes of the Moors, all the Spanish clans, and the different nations of Gaul, and those regions of the Britons inaccessible to the Romans, but subject to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and the Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and many unexplored nations and provinces, and islands unknown to us, and which we cannot enumerate : in all which places the name of Christ, who has already come, now reigns ."

This wonderful observer was not only able, in the behalf of Christianity, to draw upon records in the archives of Rome unseen by any other eye, but, as Mosheim points out, he can give us intelligence of “ what was done in unexplored regions and unknown islands and provinces ; 'and, as observed upon by the author of “ Primitive Church History ," from whom I have the passage, he can people Jerusalem with Jews at a time when under the ban of Hadrian not one of that race could revisit the land without incurring death .


Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus are the next authorities relied on by Mr Sanday , as by Christian advocates in general. They are mentioned by (p.178) Eusebius, and having left writings behind them , it may be conceded that there were such persons, but the notice of them by Eusebius is too meagre to afford satisfaction. They are said to have been about the time of Tertullian, but the end is that we know no more of their true age than we do of his. The last of those who are now in question as authorities cited by Mr Sanday, is Origen. Eusebius says that this writer suffered persecution in the reign of Decius ( A.D. 249-251). Niebuhr, while con sidering the earlier alleged persecutions to have been highly exaggerated, accepts that by Decius as the first “ vehement” one suffered by the Christians, because mentioned by Pagan as well as Christian writers, the Pagan authorities being the “ Historia Augusta ” and Zosimus ( “ Prim . Ch. Hist.,” 67) . We may thus with apparent safety admit Origen as of the period attributed to him, namely, as having lived somewhere towards the middle of the third century.

We have now to consider the circumstances of the earlier Christians, standing as it thought nearest to the time alleged for Christianity, in view of judging what testimony is to be had from this source . I take the namesinthe order in which Mr Sanday has arranged them .


CLEMENT OF ROME (58-70). Mr Sanday says that the learned place this individual at from A.D. 95-100, but that some put him back to A.D. 70. The dates depend upon purely ideal considerations. There are many writings attributed to this Clement, the whole of which are rejected by Eusebius and the modern critics, with the exception of an epistle addressed to the Corinthians. Mr Sanday cannot satisfy himself that this epistle makes use of the canonical gospels which is the point of his inquiries. The state of the case is this. Eusebius considers Clement to have been the third bishop of Rome on the word of the doubtful Irenaeus, who says that “ the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” founded this church and appointed Linus to be the first bishop, that after him came Anencletus, and then Clement. According to the epistle to the Romans, the church of Rome was flourishing before Paul had visited it. He consequently,
pursuant to Christian authority, was not instrumental in founding this church . Peter, according to the epistle to the Galatians, was to confine his labours to
the Jews, and the Protestants universally disallow that he set up the church at Rome. There is even room to doubt that there were Christians in Rome, during the so - called apostolic days, it appearing, notwithstanding what is said of the world -wide fame of this church in the epistle to the Romans, that when Paul is represented to have gone to Rome, his inquiring Jewish brethren there knew nothing of the circumstances of the Christian faith (Acts xxviii. 22). Josephus, moreover, who was at Rome from A.D. 70 to 93, when he wrote his “ Antiquities,”mmakes no mention of Christianity prevailing there or elsewhere. Wrong as to the foundations of this church, the so - called Irenaeus may be equally wrong as to its third successional bishop.. Tertullian has it that Clement was the first bishop of Rome, so that such statements as have been made on the subject are contradictory. Of the epistle attributed to this Clement, on which his existence may be considered to depend, we have really no evidence . In 1628 the Patriarch of Constantinople presented our Charles I. with an ancient MS. as derived from Alexandria, and therefore styled the Alexandrine Codex, but its further history is unknown. Attached thereto is an epistle to the Corinthians, the writer of which is unnamed. Hence it becomes a bold statement, after alleging with Eusebius, on the very questionable grounds before him, that there was a Clement bishop of Rome, to declare this epistle to be his work .


BARNABAS ( 71-76). The time of this person is given as A.D. 130. For this conclusion Mr Sanday has nothing to offer, but that he has arrived at it by “ arguing entirely from authority .” He allows that there is no certainty that the epistle attributed to this individual has any citation from the received scriptures, though he thinks it probable that such has been the case. All therefore connected with this name rests upon the merest surmise. An epistle by Barnabas is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria . Eusebius knew of such a production but considered it spurious. The Sinaitic Codex, itself a document of doubtful origin , has an epistle appended
to it which it is supposed may be the work of this Barnabas, but as it does not bear its author's name, or show to whom it is addressed, or from whence it was written, it requires the utmost hardihood to accept such a production as evidence for Barnabas.

IGNATIUS ( 76-82). To this person many spurious writings have been attributed. Mr Sanday relies on the criticisms of Dr Lightfoot for such of his ascribed works as may be genuine. Dr Lightfoot does not appear to acknowledge the seven epistles in the shorter Greek recension as from the pen of Ignatius, but says they may be “ accepted as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second century ," the grounds for which conclusion are not stated . The three Syriac epistles Dr Lightfoot looks upon as “ the work of the genuine Ignatius," while Mr Sanday cautiously observes that they may “ probably ” be such . There are two dates for the martrydom of Ignatius, namely A.D. 107 and 115, to one or other of which Mr Sanday supposes these Syriac epistles may be attached , but as respects any testimony to be derived therefrom , in support of the canonical scriptures, he is unable to come to a
satisfactory conclusion. Of fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius, eight, being unmentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, are universally disallowed . There are two Greek editions of the seven others, a longer and a shorter one, but the learned have been divided as to which to accept. The tendency has (p.181) been to relinquish the longer edition, which Mr Sanday has not deemed it necessary even to notice. Dr Cureton has brought to light three epistles in Syriac to which critics now preferably lean, thus abandoning the Greek versions altogether. According to Eusebius Ignatius wrote his alleged seven epistles when he was on his way to suffer martyrdom , but as he describes himself as then bound to ten men guarding him on the way, of such ferocity as to be referred to as “ wild beasts ” and
“ leopards,” opportunity for such effusions is not properly conceivable. Not only the date but the place of the asserted martyrdom is uncertain, some saying it occurred at Rome, and some at Antioch. This Ignatius is spoken of by the dubious Irenaeus, whose testimony meets us at every turn, and by Polycarp whose personality is also most questionable. The statement offered in the name of Polycarp is also weakened by its acknowledging the whole of the fifteen epistles attributed to Ignatius, when, according to Eusebius, there were but seven.

POLYCARP ( 82-87). We hear of him and his epistle to the Philippians from Irenaeus, which, believing in this name, Mr Sanday considers to be “ external evidence ” of unanswerable weight. Polycarp is said to have been martyred about A.v. 167 or 168, but Mr Sanday prefers Mr Waddington's surmise that it was in A.D. 155 or 156. ' He considers it not clear that Polycarp drew from the canonical scriptures. The statement imputed to Irenaeus is that Polycarp had held “ familiar intercourse with John ” and others “ that had seen the Lord , ” and had often recounted their discourses in his hearing. Judging by the ordinary limits of human life, these contemporaries of the Lord may have survived to A.D. 80 or 90. If Polycarp were martyred in A.D. 155, sixty - five or seventy - five years had then passed away from their time ; if in A.D. 168, seventy -eight or eighty -eight years had gone by. We may reasonably ask of what age Polycarp could have been when he listened to and profited by the said discourses ? Assuming that he lived to be ninety, he was possibly then from two to twelve years of age, or from fifteen to twenty- five, but the whole is a matter of uncertainty and depending upon the seemingly fictitious Irenaeus. Mr Sanday has not ventured to touch upon the particulars associated with the martyrdom of Polycarp, which are of a fabulous order. The saint, it is said, was taken to the stadium there to be put an end to ;" a voice from heaven greeted him ; he was bound to a stake to be burnt alive, but the flames arched round his sacred person and refused to invade it ; then he was stabbed to death, and the blood gushing out from his body extinguished the flames. He was thus dealt with simply because he was a Christian , and yet a body of his fellow Christians were allowed to witness the spectacle themselves unscathed. They are stated to have written an account of what they had seen, and the same has been transmitted to us through the never failing Irenaeus. MrSanday sums up his examination of the writings of the above parties with the supposition that they either employed the accepted gospels, or some other writings closely resembling them, so that they thereby establish “ the essential unity and homogeneity of the evangelical tradition ," a verdict which will ill satisfy those who are looking for early traces of the inspired record . And thus ends this little band of “ Apostolic Fathers, " the imperceptible links to the undiscernible Apostles.


Justin Martyr ( 88-137 ) . “ No one," observes Mr Sanday further back ( 59) , “ doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon” attributed to Justin Martyr. “ Modern critics, ” he says, “ seem . pretty generally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and the Dialogue against Tryphon a little latter. ” Following Mr Hort, Mr Sanday considers that these productions were put forth from A.D. 145-147, and that in the next year Justin died. It appears that Justin had a substantial knowledge of the Christian narratives and doctrines, but what text he followed is all matter of doubt. Mr Sanday's conclusion is that “ either Justin used our Gospels, or else he used a document later than our Gospels, and pre-supposing them” ( 102). “ If Justin did not use our Gospels in heir present shape, as they have come down to us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. " 66 Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary .” “ This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well” ( 128, 129).

He followed a corrupted text, which Mr Sanday argues “ is a proof of the antiquity of originals so corrupted ” (136 ), an argument however not helping us to understand when these Gospels were written and corrupted . Justin and his works have hitherto been accepted upon trust, while being clearly open to question. I am thus more concerned in testing the authenticity of these works than in judging of the acquaintance they exhibit with the Christian scriptures. “ The best part of the information which we have with regard to Justin Martyr,” says Dr Donaldson, “ is derived from his own writings. The few particulars which we gather from others relate almost exclusively. to his death. ” He is spoken of as having been a martyr by Irenaeus, Tertullian , Hippolytus, and Eusebius, " the circumstances of his death, however, are involved in doubt. " “ There is no clue to exact dates in the history of Justin . ” “ The Chronicon Paschale ' places ” his martyrdom in A.D. 165, a probable date ; but there is no reason to suppose that it is anything more than a guess. " “ If we cannot trust Eusebius, our only authority for placing Justin's martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, we know nothing in regard to the date of Justin's death. The value of Eusebius' opinion is not great, but it is infinitely to be preferred to the utterly uncritical statements of Epiphanius or Cedrenus,” who suggest that he died in the reign of Hadrian, or onwards to the year A.D. 148 (“ Hist. of Christ. Lit.” II. 62-74, 85). I think it is apparent that whatever is to be known of Justin, must be gathered from his imputed works, and should these prove not genuine, that we shall have to part with this long cherished name as that of an evidence for early Christianity.

“ Probably," says Mr Sanday, “ not one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine” ( 59). This should induce caution as to the remaining works assigned to the same name. Of the two “ Apologies ” ascribed to Justin, the second, if not incorporated in the first, which is a matter of doubt, has been lost. The “ Apology” we possess is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, his adopted sons Verissimus and Lucius, the holy Senate, and the whole people of the Romans, and its asserted object was to obtain for the Christians a fair trial, to ascertain in what they might have offended the laws of the state, in lieu of subjecting them to death , simply because they were Christians. On such a subject an appeal to the Emperor as the Chief Magistrate, responsible for the due administration of the laws, would be all that would be required, and it would be an indignity to him to make it appear that his authority had to be supported by that of his sons, the Senate, and the Roman nation at large. The one referred to by his familiar cognomen of Verissimus, who was the heir to the empire, would assuredly in a public document have been addressed by his proper designa tion of Marcus Ælius Aurelius Verus Cæsar. The other son, Lucius, was at the asserted time a child , and could not have been thus appealed to. The so -called “ Apology” transgresses its required ends in entering upon the tenets of Christian heretics, discussions which could have been only irksome to Roman authorities It is also contentious and provocatory, in lieu of being deferential and conciliatory, as such an appeal, if a real instrument, would naturally be. The gods of the Romans are described as sensual and false -hearted demons who had imitated the circumstances associated with Christ in the Jewish prophetic scriptures in order to defeat the mission of Christ when he should come,and the rulers addressed are adverted to as possibly no better than robbers. And if Christians suffered death in the time of Antoninus Pius, merely because known as such, Justin exposed himself to that fate in openly putting forth this “ Apology, " and is yet said to have survived to address a second Apology to Marcus Aurelius. Melito is represented to have offered an Apology to this latter Emperor, in which , to urge his case, he said, “ For now the race of the pious is persecuted, an event that never took place before " (Donaldson, ' Hist. of Christ. Lit.” III. 230), a statement giving the assurance that no persecution of Christians occurred under Antoninus Pius, and thus putting an end to the " Apology ” of Justin .

The genuineness of the “ Dialogue with Tryphon ” has been questioned by some, and not without very sufficient It begins with an apparently fanciful representation after the method of the fictitious dialogues in Lucian and Plato — “ While I was walking in the morning in the walks of the Xystus, some one, accompanied by others, met me with the words Hail, Philosopher ! " and so induced the discussion. Justin describes the course of his own studies. At first, in pursuit of the “ knowledge of God, " he “ surrendered himself to a certain Stoic.” Then, leaving him, he “ betook himself to another, who was called a Peripatetic .” After this he “ came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated — a man who thought much of his own wisdom ," but was dismissed by him because ignorant of music, astronomy, and geometry. In his helplessness “ it occurred to him to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great, " and he fell in with " a sagacious man, holding a high position " in this school. Finally, when meditating in a “ certain field not far from the sea, ” he was followed by “ a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners,” who made a convert of him to Christianity. All is here vague and unreal. We are not told who were these celebrities
the Stoic, the Peripatetic, the Pythagorean, the Platonist, and above all the venerable Christian teacher who might have been an intimate of those of the apostolic age. Tryphon, with whom the dialogue is conducted, is unknown, as is Marcus Pompeius to whom the production is dedicated. A Jew is represented as courting discussion on religious subjects with a Gentile philosopher, whose opinions to him would be valueless, and with facile complaisance habitually yields the victory to his opponent; and every word that passed between them is reported over a space covering in the translation above a hundred and eighty pages of the Antenicene Christian Library.. The circumstances have only to be set forth to expose the true character of this composition.


HEGISIPPUS ( 138-145). Mr Sanday supposes this author to have written in the time of the alleged Irenaeus, or about A.D. 177. He thinks he must have made use of the canonical Gospels, but this is only problematical. We hear of this person from Eusebius who says he wrote an ecclesiastical history, no part of which is extant. He is stated to have been of the period of Hadrian ( A.D. 117-138) and to have “ lived during the time of the first succession of the apostles.” Knowing of him only from Eusebius we can have no assurance of the age he belonged to, saving that he preceded Eusebius.


PAPIAS (145-160 ). This individual Mr Sanday observes is reported to have suffered as a martyr about the same time that Polycarp was martyred. A commentary on the Oracles of the Lord is attributed to him, from which Eusebius presents statements. After discussing these extracts Mr Sanday says : “ Every where we meet with difficulties and complexities. The testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved — if ever it is solved—by close and detailed investigations. " He concludes that as far as he can see “ the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their present form. " We derive our knowledge of Papias from the so -called Irenaeus, upon whom no dependence is to be placed.


THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND RECOGNITIONS (161 187 ). “ It is unfortunate," says Mr Sanday, “ that there are not sufficient materials for determining the date of the Clementine Homilies." " Whether the Recognitions or the Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. ” These writings Mr Sanday believes draw upon the Synoptic Gospels. Clement of Rome purports to be the author of these productions, but they are universally allowed to be spurious. The editor of the Antenicene Christian Library looks upon the ““ Recognitions " as " a kind of philosophical and theological romance . "


BASILIDES (188-196 ). This person was a Gnostic who is said to have taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-137 ). He is spoken of by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius, as also by Epiphanius who is said to be of A.D. 367. There is a gospel attributed to him, but what it contained appears to be subject of doubt. Mr Sanday thinks he or his followers may have served themselves of the first and third accepted gospels. The authorities cited are too far removed from the time alleged for Basilides to be satisfactory as to his date, nor does it appear that the facts or doctrines of Christianity are properly traceable to him. “ Practically,” says Mr Sanday, “ the statements in regard to the Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing."


VALENTINUS ( 196-203). Our knowledge of this Gnostic teacher is derivable chiefly from the supposed and ever-ready Irenaeus, but Mr Sanday allows that “ it cannot be alleged positively that any of the quotations or allusions," ascribed to this person, “ were really made" by him, it being possible that they come from his school. The acceptance of the four gospels in this quarter he observes, “ rests upon the statement of Irenaeus as well as upon that of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian." A passage associated with the third gospel is given by Hippolytus, but “ it is not certain that the quotation is made from the master and not from his scholars. ” Mr Sanday claims for this teacher and his followers a time spreading from A.D. 140 to 180, but the dates must be taken as merely supposititious.


MARCION (204-237). Mr Sanday places this person at about A.D. 139-142, but allows that in connection with him “ there is some confusion in the chronological data .” “ The most important evidence is that of Justin ,” but who is to answer for Justin himself ? Mr Sanday also seeks to support himself with the shadowy and never-failing Irenaeus, the untrustworthy Tertullian, and Epiphanius, himself an ignorant uncritical man, * and standing too far removed from the time spoken of to be an authority on that head. “ A certain Gospel ” is attributed to Marcion , but “ the exact contents and character of that Gospel are not quite so clear. " In judging thereof, Mr Sanday points out, that a critic of “ the nineteenth century should be able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an Ebionite in the second ." The question is did Marcion mutilate our third Gospel, " or is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated version ? ” At this date of time it is not possible to decide such a question, though Mr Sanday and others have their opinions on the subject.

***
CONTENTS.
PREFACE .
HOW I BECAME AND CEASED TO BE A CHRISTIAN .
A CRITICAL CATECHISM , CRITICISED AND DEFENDED,ETC.
THE BENNETT JUDGMENT.
CLERICAL INTEGRITY .
COMMUNION WITH GOD .
THE EXERCISE OF PRAYER ,
THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY .
AN ADDRESS TO ALL EARNEST CHRISTIANS.
THE PORTRAITURE AND MISSION OF JESUS.
THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. <<<===================
THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE .
THE SUPREME POWER IN THE UNIVERSE .

ECW: Threads on Irenaeus

Irenaeus and Damasus (Banned)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1433


Irenaeus. 7 Firsts @ the XXX Olympiads. The Conversion of Speculation to Historical Evidence
viewtopic.php?p=110838#p110838


P. Oxy 405 as a fragment of Irenaeus A.H.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4392


Thomas Scott - Irenaeus Never Existed (SA)
viewtopic.php?p=89529#p89529


Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"). TransMission E-Missions
viewtopic.php?p=34815#p34815
Post Reply