Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The opening words of Book 1:

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," (Tit 1.4) and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation (τα λόγια Κυρίου εξηγηται κακοί των καλώς ειρημένων γινόμενοι). 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.

The first words of Against Heresies is a bold declaration of the abuse of scripture that Irenaeus is about to embark on. First of all, he counters the heresies by a forged letter of Paul. But more significantly he makes explicit his abuse of Papias. In the words τα λόγια Κυρίου εξηγηται κακοί των καλώς ειρημένων γινόμενοι Lightfoot notes "here we have the very title of Papias's work reproduced" - viz. Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις.

Yet Irenaeus has completely turned truth on its head. For Irenaeus τα λόγια Κυρίου is to be identified with the canonical gospel of Matthew. The argument that is being developed at the beginning of Book One comes to its ultimate fruition in Book Three - namely that all gospels emerge as 'versions' or complementary additions or divinely inspired variations of the Gospel of Matthew. But how can this true when Papias does not at all intend this meaning! "It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels, he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated by his own words, and by the title of his work."

The point of course is that Irenaeus completely contradicts Papias's own purpose with the words - τα λόγια Κυρίου. He also misrepresents Papias's relationship with John claiming that he was a hearer of the apostle. Yet as Lightfoot notes Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends." The fact that Papias does not quote the letters of Paul necessarily means that in order to counter the 'heretical' reading of Paul he needs to produce forgeries of Paul also. So what we have right at the outset of Irenaeus's tome is a overt declaration of the Trumpification of Christianity - an explicit manifesto to misrepresent the faith!

How can this situation continue to be ignored by scholars and members of this board? It's not as if these are little lies. These are explicit declarations of falsification. It is as if Irenaeus is saying - the heretics have 'secret gospels' used in their mysteries. They are wrong because Papias used the Gospel of Matthew (lie) which he compared favorably with canonical Mark (lie) and was a hearer of John so he knew the gospel of John too (lie). The heretics make Paul out to be the apostle of their mysteries - but these other letters of Paul deny this explicitly (lie). I would go so far as to say that since the composition of the Pastorals and the introduction of the fourfold gospel was so closely tied to the establishment of the canon that Irenaeus has to be thought to be the author. Indeed the very idea of a fourfold gospel follows naturally and explicitly from Irenaeus's misuse of Papias.

Think about how radical the idea must have been that not only was Matthew Papias's gospel, or that Matthew was the original gospel, but that a system or a scheme was devised whereby Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be arranged together as some sort of 'unity.' This necessitates Irenaeus's involvement in the production and distribution of Ammonius's Diatessaron. Why would Ammonius - a pagan - have just decided to arrange four texts this way? It has to be because Irenaeus already had misrepresented Papias. The two necessarily go hand in hand. But people continue to act as if Irenaeus's 'arrangement' is somehow a 'natural' historical development. How is this possible! They do this because Irenaeus claims a 'supernatural' origin for the fourfold gospel so somehow recasting it as 'natural' demystifies his claims. Such shitty fucking scholarship. Nowhere else but in the humanities.

Again the progression (or corruption if you prefer):

Papias - τα λόγια Κυρίου = collection of sayings
Irenaeus - τα λόγια Κυρίου = the canonical gospel of Matthew and Papias's comparison with Mark and his relationship to John the foundation of the fourfold gospel
Ammonius - the Diatessaron as a function expression of Irenaeus's ideas in Books 1 and 3

And I would argue that Papias's original contrast between the 'oracles' and Mark implies some sort of Markan primacy argument despite his claims to the contrary. Why would juxtapose a collection of sayings against an ordered narrative? Notice Irenaeus's words at the beginning of Book One. He is clearly basing his gospel arguments on whatever Papias wrote (of which we only have a fragment). He literally cites the title of Papias's text. He then goes on to say:

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

Because scholars simply learn to 'categorize' ideas simply in terms of source material, we tend to see the words as simply channeling the Pastorals. But if the Pastorals were recent compositions they are also at once echoes of Papias or at least near contemporary controversies of which Papias was involved.

At bottom you have Papias's contrasting the oracles of the Lord with Mark and him coming away with Mark having the ideas in the wrong order. If the reference to the oracles is NOT an allusion to canonical Matthew, how does Papias gain his certainty the gospel of Mark is in the wrong order? Clearly he had to have cut Mark down to size by another means or methodology. The answer lies in the words " when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory." This implies that Mark took some time to wrote down his gospel. It is interesting to note that the division of 'hearers of the Lord' and those who met the hearers of the word has a remarkable parallel to the distinction which finds its way to Against Marcion, namely 'the apostles' and the 'apostolic' - where the latter means something like 'less than an apostle' or companion of the apostle(s).

The words of Irenaeus bear a striking resemblance to Clement's understanding of the composition of Secret Mark:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

When you take Irenaeus's statement here and elsewhere in Against Heresies as well as preserved in Tertullian's Latin free translations of Irenaeus's material it becomes certain that Irenaeus's expansion of Papias's contrast between the 'oracles of the Lord' (falsely taken to be Matthew) presume Mark as the individual who wrote a secret gospel "under a pretence of knowledge ... as if, forsooth, [he] had something more excellent and sublime to reveal" more than the apostle(s) - i.e. Peter.

And this is the problem with most early Christian scholarship:

1. we need something or 'some things' to be true to start developing hypotheses about the origins of the religion (i.e. writing papers)
2. the easiest and only way to make coherent arguments is to accept the texts and traditions associated with Irenaeus

The problem is however that Irenaeus is a complete fraud. We see this in his use and abuse of Papias and the Pastorals. Surely there must have been some sense that Papias didn't mean τα λόγια Κυρίου in the way Irenaeus takes it. If it was a simple 'misunderstanding' you'd expect an argument somewhere like - 'most people think Papias means X but here's why he means Y.' Instead Papias isn't even named (obviously because this would arouse dissenting interpretations). Papias is used as a building block for Irenaeus's system. The same with the Pastorals, you'd expect a - 'some people think these texts are illegitimate' - but again nothing.

This brings us to the more important discussion - who was Irenaeus's audience? Who would simply take Irenaeus's word that τα λόγια Κυρίου means canonical Matthew, the other gospels all 'fit' with Matthew' and act as 'instruments' of Matthew, the Pastorals are part of the Pauline canon when this POV never existed before Irenaeus? This question is so profoundly disturbing that it is promptly ignored by all scholarship. It's the atom bomb in early Christian scholarship because it necessarily blows up the ancient landscape. In other words, how can Irenaeus simply storm the castle and define Christianity in the way that he saw fit (i.e. with a fourfold canon and a Pauline canon which included a vast number of forgeries and interpolations).

Again the question comes down to his audience? His readers were necessarily ecclesiastical men, presbyters, bishops perhaps priests. The fact that there is a Roman episcopal list at the heart of the discussion shows that not only do these words (i.e. Adversus Haereses) come from Rome but the authority of Rome. Rome is interestingly also associated with the promulgation of Mark's gospel - not Alexandria. This is not accidental either. The Markan gospel is subordinate to τα λόγια Κυρίου - i.e. Matthew according to the authority of Papias. John's gospel is another string in the lyre. Luke is added to complete the harmony with opening words which confess its late origins.

But notice that Paul declares he 'submitted' his gospel to the authority of the 'Hebrew' church. Matthew is the Hebrew gospel. Even though it would be denied that Paul had a written gospel, there is a strange parallel to the situation that emerges with Mark. Mark was written at Rome. Rome should be the capitol of the world. But the Roman gospel necessarily subordinates itself to Matthew in the same way as Paul did. Notice also that the Roman episcopal list emerges from Hegesippus who also wrote a Jerusalem succession list which makes its way to Eusebius and Epiphanius.

While Luke is the fourth string added to the lyre - third in order of 'strings' - but where the two gospels written apostles form an octave (i.e. 1st and 4th). Luke is the latest addition to this developing lie that emerges from Irenaeus's misreading of Papias. When Irenaeus invents his 'gospel lyre'



E-B-A-E

The oldest depictions of the lyres (Minoan/Mycenaean) show instruments with as few as three or four strings, but four or five were more common. By the seventh century BCE the number seems to have grown and gotten pretty fixed at seven strings.

Mark and Luke provide the fourth (diatessaron) and fifth (diapason). Marcion eventually becomes associated with the gospel which is furthest removed from the apostles - Luke. But interestingly Against Heresies existed in a previous version preserved in Refutation of all Heresies where Marcion is associated with Mark. This helps us understand the development from Papias even better.

Initially Irenaeus argued that Marcion used Mark (explicit in Refutation) but also a 'mystic' version of the gospel. It's lateness is wrapped up in the Alexandrian tradition regarding Secret Mark. Mark took a while to rework the original details handed to him from the apostles adding his own 'revelation' (as Clement concurs). This neatly addressed contemporary controversies but eventually when Irenaeus could see his reforms were succeeding he knew that the real solution was to bury the Mark-logic he borrowed from Papias.

Luke is introduced as a means of further distancing Paul from a written gospel. It also serves to obscure any reference to Mark writing a 'more spiritual' gospel, a gospel which came by revelation to him who was not an apostle. The lateness of Against Heresies is also displayed in the focus which now appears on the Valentinian sects. Refutation is not as focused on the followers of Valentinus. Both go back to an syntagma which listed the heresies. Which version of the Marcionites is closer to the original syntagma? Refutation.

That Irenaeus is taking aim at a mystery religion:

By means of specious and plausible words, they [the heretics] 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.

I suspect the original gnostics never had a demiurge at all, and at an intermediate stage it was a man, eg Paul, they didn't like and later it got mythologised into a deity by innovators. This process can be seen in a number of gnostic writings with the earlier ones or earlier redactions omitting a demiurge and the later ones all over it. basically I think the demiurge and Sophia were originally just human beings that got mythologised then the myths got taken literally and the literal meanings got mythologised.
It's like we are turning up late to a party and everyone is drunk and high trying to find out how some thing happened when people were still sober

Irenaeus's problem is he's unwilling to properly quote from his predecessors because they don't back him up very well, nor can he lay out a clear origin of any of the gospels. Its been obvious for centuries that 1 and 2 Peter are not by the real Peter but 'as he would have written it', and the pastorals are clearly not by Paul either, so his side is only doing what he accuses the heretics of doing themselves. Probably there were people that didn't deviate from the original, earlier Christianity but everyone would have ignored them as of no significance, because it didn't fit anymore. Either too Jewish or too Gnostic or too this or too that for the tastes of any group. Like the way they ditched the Shepard of Hermas because it wasn't 'apostolic' when it was obviously the earlier main scripture in use, same for the Didache. Yet these documents didn't 'agree' so had to go

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:38 pm ... Probably there were people that didn't deviate from the original, earlier Christianity but everyone would have ignored them as of no significance, because it didn't fit anymore ...

What do you think the original, earlier Christianity was or would have been?

What texts might represented it (or come close to doing so)?

What do you think the original, earlier Christianity was or would have been?
What texts might represented it (or come close to doing so)?

I'm thinking a continuation of the messiah's church as if he was still with them, in effect, never left

This is very loose/approximate but...
Leaning toward a Gospel of John type gospel, sayings similar to Thomas/Q (but not too much apocalyptic), realised eschatology, salvationary, Odes of Solomon + much found in Paul but not so much his specific theological arguments. No strong dualism framed in a Gnostic fashion, more wisdom tradition but maybe dualistic between light/dark with an emphasis on holiness and so on

With both the Gnostics and what get called 'Judaisers' later developments, but not much later, within a decade or two or even less, but probably the Gnostics proper emerging in late 1st century as the church fathers hint on gentile turf

You seem to have an interest in these "Odes of Solomon." I am favorably disposed to them being the lost Marcionite Psalm book. https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedi ... ms_of.html. For the argument that the Odes are an anti-Marcionite polemic dated ca. 200 C.E., cf. Drijvers, "Die Oden Salomos und die Polemik mit den Markioniten im syrischen Christentum," OCA 205 (1978), 39-55. Harris was open to the possibility of them having Marcionite origins "There are no further references that I know of to the Psalms or Odes of Solomon in the lists of canonical books which have come down to us, unless there should be a cryptic allusion to them in the new book of Psalms written for Marcion, which it (the Muratorian fragment) says Miltiades composed."

With regards to an influential but ambiguous Miltiades in the middle second century "Miltiades (1), an active Christian writer of the 2nd cent. Eusebius tells us (H. E. v. 17) that, besides leaving other records of his diligent study of the divine oracles, he composed a treatise "against the Greeks," another "against the Jews," and an "Apology" addressed to the rulers of this world on behalf of the school of philosophy to which he belonged. It is a natural inference from the plural "rulers" that there were, when Miltiades wrote, two emperors, probably Aurelius and Verus. The Apology may be supposed to have been a learned plea for toleration of Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may have been favourably contrasted with the teaching of heathen philosophy. It is not extant, but seems to have had at the time a high repute. The writer of the "Little Labyrinth" (Eus. v. 28) names Miltiades in company with Justin, Tatian, and Clement among the writers in defence of the truth or against contemporary heretics who, before Victor's episcopate, had distinctly asserted the divinity of Christ. Tertullian (adv. Valentin. 5) names him with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus as a writer against heresy, giving him the appellation, evidently intended in an honourable sense, "Sophista Ecclesiarum." St. Jerome twice mentions him (Catal. 39; Ep. ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427), but gives no clear indication that he knew more of him than he had learned from Eusebius.

Great obscurity hangs over his relation to Montanism, owing to a strange confusion, either on the part of Eusebius or of his copyists, between the names Miltiades and Alcibiades. In H. E. v. 2 Eusebius tells a story about one of the Lyons confessors named Alcibiades, and, going on to speak about Montanism, mentions an Alcibiades as among its leaders. After the death of Montanus, his sect seems to have been known in Phrygia by the name of its leader for the time being; and in an anti-Montanist document preserved by Eusebius, v. 16, the sect is called the party of Miltiades. This is the reading of all the MSS.; yet having regard to the earlier passage, editors are disposed here to substitute Alcibiades for Miltiades. If we are not permitted to think that there might have been Montanists of both names, it would seem more natural to make the opposite correction. In c. 16 there was nothing to lead copyists astray; in c. 2 Eusebius, having named an Alcibiades just before, might easily by a slip of the pen have repeated the same name. This view is strengthened by the fact that at the close of the Muratorian fragment, a name transcribed as "Mitiades" occurs as that of one the ecclesiastical use of whose writings was totally rejected by the church. This would be explained by the supposition that a Miltiades had written records of Montanist prophesyings or some other document, which that sect had regarded as inspired and admitted to church use. But the case is complicated further in c. 17 of Eusebius. He begins by saying that the anti-Montanist document mentioned Miltiades as having written against Montanus; and then, having given extracts from the document, goes on to give the account we have already used of the other works of Miltiades. But the extract, according to the reading of all the MSS., names not Miltiades but Alcibiades as the author of an anti-Montanist treatise, "that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy." Here editors are compelled to correct the Alcibiades of the extract into Miltiades to make Eusebius consistent; yet this leaves it unexplained why transcribers should go so strangely wrong. Cf. Otto, Corpus Apol. ix. 364."

I do SA, i thought i'd be an 'Odes advocate' to see what people thought as they seem kind of overlooked. If Nag Ham and DSS hadn't been found i'm sure they'd be getting a lot of attention. seems a bit unfair!

I mean they look pretty damn early and i enjoy the curve balls when reading them. just when you expect them to start saying something they go off in a different direction. i like texts like that.

A marcionite hymnbook, well maybe they used them not so sure they are pure marcionism though, some think the valentinians used them
wasn't Basilides supposed to have had one as well.. probably they all had hymns

the thing i notice was the odes familiarity with the messiah, definitely they stake out a bold set of claims one of which is potential for a 1st century date which is a pretty limited set of writings