The principle that Irenaeus himself uses – to substantiate his own position by textual evidence, in particular from his own collection, and to conclude that anyone who recognises these truths also adheres to the canonical Paul (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 32,1),[1] obviously also applies to the anonymous presbyter, from whom Irenaeus seems to have adopted this argument. Irenaeus's circular argument reads: ‘After that, the whole doctrine will be established for him if he also reads the scriptures carefully according to those presbyters in the church with whom the apostolic teaching is, as I have shown.’[2] (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 32,1).
What is crucial for our context is that he speaks of the ‘writings’ that can be read ‘according to the presbyters in the church’. He does not call these writings ‘New Testament’, indeed, he does not even speak of a collection of writings, but obviously still has individual writings in mind. He identifies the authorities for these writings with presbyters ‘in the church’, not with Apostles. They are presbyters ‘with whom’ only the apostolic teaching is.
In my opinion, Irenaeus thus precisely outlines the circle of those who, since Trobisch, are to be addressed as the editors of the canonical redaction.[3] He then also makes it clear that this redaction was directed against Marcion and uses 1 Cor 2:15 to authorise the presbyter and to self-immunise the redaction:
‘A disciple like this, truly spiritual, because he receives God's Spirit, who from the beginning assisted man in all of God's arrangements, has announced the future, points out the present and reports the past, who ‘judges all, but is himself judged by no one’ (1 Cor 2:15) ... he will also judge the teaching of Marcion’ (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV 33,1-2).
[1] Here John 1,3; Eph 4,5-6 are taken as starting points – whoever adheres to these canonical passages will also ‘adhere to the head...’ (Eph 4,16), which is another canonical passage.
[2] Post deinde et omnis sermo ei constabit, si et scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos qui in ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina, quemadmodum demonstravimus. Both German translations (Brox, FC, and Emenegger, BKV) are inaccurate here. Brox translates the important passage as: ‘if he has carefully read the scriptures with the presbyters in the church’, Emenegger: ‘if he also carefully reads the scriptures with the priests of the church’.
[3] D. Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, 1996.
Irenaeus cites the presbyter referenced in chapter 32 in the previous chapters - see 31, 30 and 27. The description of that certain presbyter makes me think it is most likely either Polycarp:
ReplyDelete"... who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples,"
This fragment of Irenaeus makes the identification with Polycarp plausible (though not beyond dispute):
"These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things?" And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them."
Why not assume that it was Polycarp? It would certainly make sense, and nothing known to me speaks against it.
Charles E Hill has argued in a book from 2006 that the elder referenced by Irenaeus through chapters 27-32 is none other than Polycarp, whom Hill also takes to be the author of the Letter to Diognetus.
Have you engaged seriously with Hill's proposal in writing?
The argument of Irenaeus referenced in 32.1 is arguably not circular. A brief look at book IV chapter 27 reveals this.
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus here emphasizes an agreement between the presbyter (Polycarp) the apostolic teaching, and uses and Paul's writings to that effect. I grant that Ireneaus creates a composite quotye from Romans 11.21+24, which is a passage that Marcion was accused of having eliminated, but he also cites Corinthians 10.1ff, which is part of your Apostolos. From 1 Corinthians 5.11 which is also cited by Irenaeus, you have chosen to preserve a mere fragment in your Apostolos, but 1 Corinthians 5.6 has been preserved quite well by you. Finally, Irenaeus cites 2 Thessalonians 1.6-10, which is almost preserved fully intact in your edition of Marcion's Apostolos.
I do not detect a pattern of preference for a 'canonical redaction' of Paul here, in linking the teachings of the presbyter (I think Polycarp) to authentic Pauline teaching. Much of it was in Marcion's edition of Paul
Irenaeus could not possibly have known your preferred redaction of Paul's letters, and yet he manages to cite texts in chapter 27 that you yourself have approved of as dating long before Irenaeus and likely before Marcion.
Why do you claim circularity on behalf of Irenaeus in chapter 32?
Kind regards, Christian Michael
In relation to ch. 27 where the teaching of the presbyter is directly linked to 1 Cor 10.1ff, I forgot to mention that Irenaeus cites the same presbyter at the beginning of ch 30 as once again referencing 1 Corinthians 10:1ff (the typological function of the exodus).
ReplyDeleteI emphasize again that the passage is in the Apostolos. It cannot be ascribed to 'canonical redaction': It matters little that you decided to leave out the word 'typologically' from your reconstruction of 1 Cor 10:11 since the sense of 1 Cor.10:9-11 is clearly typological. I will add that Beduhn chose to preserve 'typologically' in his reconstruction of 1 Cor 10:11 in 'The First New Testament'.
And also .. are you not passing over the argument that could be made for Irenaeus is talking about two divinely ordained covenants possibly more so than about two testaments understood as two bodies of texts?
kind regards, Christian
I would like to draw your attention to the solution based on Harnack's claim that Marcion shortened GLuke. The problem is that Harnack was wrong about Marcion's motivations.
ReplyDeleteThe shortening of the Gospel of Luke was intended to prepare material directed at missionaries. Content subordinated to one goal - effective acquisition of new believers. *Ev is the content of the first contact with pagans. Acquisition content that is later replaced by maintenance content. Kerygma for outsiders vs didache for the faithful.
The point was to make the greatest impression possible in the first contact.
For years I was of the opinion that Marcion used the Gospel of Luke in the first version, the "limited edition" as Bart Ehrman once said during his lectures on Luke (Shaffer lectures). I was rooting for all the reenactors of Marcion's gospel.
But recently I read B. Ward Powers' book Progressive Publication of Matthew's and I was enlightened. Powers writes in it about Mark's gospel as kerygma.
Marcion wanted to build a large congregational structure with a large number of believers. He focused on missionary work because only that guaranteed the success of his project. So the proper formation of ascetic missionaries (no wives and no children) fully devoted to the project. The right acquisition content.
The rest of the data about Marcion is black PR. He sold exactly what the orthodox sold, used the same NT texts and apocrypha. For a long time he had a better sales network.
He wanted to buy Rome - it didn't work out for him.
It seems that *Ev as kerygma is the simplest solution that does not require any hypothetical sources or subsequent ghostwriters.