Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I'd like to discuss the possibility that a substantial portion of what we read as the original Greek works of the
heresiologist Irenaeus (2nd century) were instead the products of one or more Latin authors during the rule of Pontifex
Maximus Damasus (d.382 CE) in Rome.

There are a number of reasons for suspecting Irenaeus may have been either forged or completely overhauled or heavily
interpolated in the later 4th century. Here are a few:


1) The earliest manuscripts are Latin and dated c.380 CE

Aside from a few fragments, the earliest manuscripts for the writings of Irenaeus are in Latin and dated to c.380 CE. An
Armenian manuscript recently (1920?) published is dated to the 6th century and thought to be provenance from Constantinople.


2) Rome and Apostolic Succession

Damasus was the first to start promoting "PETER WAS HERE" for the Roman tourism industry in the later 4th century.
Consequently the primacy of Rome and the legitimacy of the Apostolic Succession (at Rome) was very important to his
conception of history.

Consider this quote:

• “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,
  we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by
  blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition
  derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at
  Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes
  down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should
  agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
  apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
  
  Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

This fits well with the dogma of Damasus.

Additionally there is absolutely nothing about Peter and Paul getting snuffed out in Rome in the NT Bible. The substance
of this claim is advertised in the writings of the heretics, in a number of works. These include

a) the Clementine literature (dated c.330 CE)
b) the Acts of Linus
c) others?


3) Irenaeus's polemic is against heretical writings very similar to the NHC

In his first book Against Heresies, Book I after introducing himself as a Keltae he gets stuck into his opponents (the
heretics) as follows:

• Chapter I.-Absurd Ideas of the Disciples of Valentinus as to the Origin, Name, Order, and Conjugal Productions of Their
  Fancied Aeons, with the Passages of Scripture Which They Adapt to Their Opinions.
  
  1. They maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent
  Aeon, whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and
  unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along
  with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige. At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the
  beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige,
  even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous,
  who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's
  greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also
  produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also
  denominate the root of all things.

The texts of the Nag Hammadi Codices (dated to the mid 4th century) are full of this sort of stuff. The mainstream
thinking is that because the 2nd century source Irenaeus is considered legitimate, then these heretics were operative in
the 2nd century. However what if Irenaeus is corrupt, and that the corruption was authored in the later 4th century in
Latin as a reaction against the heretics of the 4th century, who are represented in Coptic within the NHC. The Greek
originals of the NHC need not necessarily be any earlier than the 4th century.


(4) Patristic Textual Criticism

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Gt ... 22&f=false
Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead ...
By J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace

"in his "Patristic Textual Criticism", Miroslav Marcovich complains that the surviving copies of some of the early
patristic writers are "lacunose [filled with gaps], corrupt, dislocated and interpolated".

The Latin manuscripts particularly are often recognised to be very corrupt.



So there are four issues to start any discussion. There may be others.


MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNIY


The Roman papacy under Damasus was very innovative and one of the main agendas was to bolster the Roman apostolic
succession. The propaganda we find in Irenaeus (supposedly writing from Lyons) is very much in line with what Damasus
wanted to establish. Damasus was responsible, with the assistance of his "pupil" Jerome, for commissioning the Latin
Vulgate and as such would have had a good Latin scriptorium.

The heresiological writings of Irenaeus (supposedly 2nd century) and Epiphanius (4th century) are of much the same type
of content. The heretics are bad people, the orthodox are good people. Damasus just lasted to see the Decrees of
Theodosius concerning the Nicene orthodoxy and the political denouncement of heretics:

• 'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our
  judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.'
  
  - Emperor Theodosius

LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:1) The earliest manuscripts are Latin and dated c.380 CE

Aside from a few fragments, the earliest manuscripts for the writings of Irenaeus are in Latin and dated to c.380 CE.

This is just so stupid. So except for the earliest manuscripts that are from the second/third century and in Greek ("aside from a few fragments"), the earliest manuscripts are in Latin and fourth century. And that's supposed to be horribly meaningful. That's just stupid, but it's very you at the same time.

You have no integrity or competence. Your primary interest in the subject is to see how you can molest it to promote your idiocy. You're banned (again).