Irenaeus

[Guest]

By Regan Ewing"

"evertheless, there remains another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claims? Caird (no doubt overstating the case), remarks that, “… second-century traditions about the apostles are demonstrably unreliable.”32 Whether or not this generalization is fair, in Irenaeus’ case there is legitimate reason for us to remain skeptical. In one place he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord,33 and in another, he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old!34 Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,”35 as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.”36 Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have?"

Irenaeus was not consistent in his writings.

[Guest]

Irenaeus was not consistent in his writings.

Amen to that...

[Guest]

When original manuscripts do not exist, or even manuscripts in the original language of a work, and translation is dubious at best, it is not wise to castigate the author of ancient writings. Part of the introductory notice in the Antenicene Fathers to the work of Irenaeus "Against Heresies" follows and may be informative:


The INTRODUCTORY NOTICE of the learned translators is as follows: —

The work of Irenaeus Against Heresies is one of the most precious remainsof early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an accountand refutation of those multiform Gnostic heresies which prevailed in thelatter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an expositionand defense of the Catholic faith.

In the prosecution of this plan, the author divides his work into five
books. The first of these contains a minute description of the tenets of the
various heretical sects, with occasional brief remarks in illustration of their
absurdity, and in confirmation of the truth to which they were opposed. In
his second book, Irenaeus proceeds to a more complete demolition of those heresies which he has already explained, and argues at great length against them, on grounds principally of reason. The three remaining books set forth more directly the true doctrines of revelation, as being in utter antagonism to the views held by the Gnostic teachers. In the course of this argument, many passages of Scripture are quoted and commented on; many interesting statements are made, bearing on the rule of faith; and much important light is shed on the doctrines held, as well as the practicesobserved, by the Church of the second century.

It may be made matter of regret, that so large a portion of the work of
Irenaeus is given to an exposition of the manifold Gnostic speculations.
Nothing more absurd than these had probably ever been imagined by
rational beings. Some ingenious and learned men have indeed endeavored to reconcile the wild theories of these heretics with the principles of reason;but, as Bishop Kaye remarks (Eccl. Hist. of the Second and Third Centuries, p. 524), “a more arduous or unpromising undertaking cannot well be conceived.” The fundamental object of the Gnostic speculations was doubtless to solve the two grand problems of all religious philosophy, viz., How to account for the existence of evil; and, How to reconcile the finite with the infinite. But these ancient theorists were not more successful in grappling with such questions than have been their successors in modern times. And by giving loose reins to their imagination, they built up the most incongruous and ridiculous systems; while, by deserting the guidance of Scripture they were betrayed into the most pernicious and extravagant errors.Accordingly, the patience of the reader is sorely tried, in following our author though those mazes of absurdity which he treads, in explaining and refuting these Gnostic speculations. This is especially felt in the perusal of the first two books, which, as has been said, are principally devoted to an exposition and subversion of the various heretical systems. But the vagaries of the human mind, however melancholy in themselves, are never altogether destitute of instruction. And in dealing with those set before us in this work, we have not only the satisfaction of becoming acquainted with the currents of thought prevalent in these early times, but we obtain
much valuable information regarding the primitive Church, which, had it
not been for these heretical schemes, might never have reached our day.
Not a little of what is contained in the following pages will seem almost
unintelligible to the English reader. And it is scarcely more comprehensible
to those who have pondered long on the original. We have inserted brief
notes of explanation where these seemed specially necessary. But we have not thought it worth while to devote a great deal of space to the elucidation of those obscure Gnostic views which, in so many varying forms, are set forth in this work. For the same reason, we give here no account of the origin, history, and successive phases of Gnosticism. Those who wish to know the views of the learned on these points, may consult the writings of Neander, Baur, and others, among the Germans, or the lectures of Dr. Burton in English; while a succinct description of the whole matter will be found in the “Preliminary Observations on the Gnostic System,” prefixed to Harvey’s edition of Irenaeus.

The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English,
is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us
only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of the greater part of
the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through
means of copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The
text, both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain. Only three MSS. of
the work Against Heresies are at present known to exist. Others, however,
617 were used in the earliest printed editions put forth by Erasmus. And as
these codices were more ancient than any now available, it is greatly to be
regretted that they have disappeared or perished. One of our difficulties
throughout, has been to fix the readings we should adopt, especially in the
first book. Varieties of reading, actual or conjectural, have been noted only when some point of special importance seemed to be involved.
After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can
be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a
matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable
clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavored to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.

Irenaeus had manifestly taken great pains to make himself acquainted with the various heretical systems which he describes. His mode of exposing and refuting these is generally very effective. It is plain that he possessed a good share of learning, and that he had a firm grasp of the doctrines of Scripture. Not unfrequently he indulges in a kind of sarcastic humor, while inveighing against the folly and impiety of the heretics. But at times he gives expression to very strange opinions. He is, for example, quite peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten years. But though, on these and some other points, the judgment of Irenaeus is clearly at fault, his work contains a vast deal of sound and valuable exposition of Scripture, in opposition to the fanciful systems of interpretation which prevailed in his day.