Why Didn't Irenaeus Condemn Alexandrian Christianity for Engaging in Ritualized Castrations?

We all know that Irenaeus wrote a long, long, long list of things he didn't like about the heresies coming out of Alexandria. It was getting longer all the time. And then, just as suddenly - around 192 CE - he just stopped making this list and his beliefs came to define the shape of orthodoxy.

I have written about how strange all of this seems to me. One guy writing supposedly in an obscure corner of the Empire (Lyons) just writing a list of things that 'bugged him.' And then - just as miraculous as the Acts of the Apostle narrative he promoted so heavily - his ideas just as wondrously 'caught on' all over the world.

If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people studying early Christianity BELIEVE in this nonsense no one would take any of it seriously. The point is that its not just that everyone accepted the same New Testament canon. What these pseudo-scientists don't seem to catch on to is that everyone who accepts this canon is also a believer in Irenaeus.

Now I have written about this at length at this post. I am certain that Irenaeus never left Rome during the whole reign of Commodus and is reported (by Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to have been already been at Rome at the time of Polycarp's death in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

The point is that Irenaeus managed to get the Christian churches to accept HIS notions of orthodoxy. I think he had help from Commodus. I don't see how it can be any other way. Most people just aren't as familiar with the 'boring parts' of Irenaeus' writings.

For those who haven't read Irenaeus' The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called let me make it clear - it would be boring for most people. There are only two kinds of people who can read it. The vast majority - i.e. almost everyone else besides me - accept the myth that Irenaeus tries to manufacture - i.e. that he represents the 'rescuing' of apostolic Christianity from the influence of the Satanically-inspired heretics.

And then there is me.

I go through Irenaeus' writing like a forensic accountant or an investigator that is keeping an eye out for things that don't smell kosher.

So here is my question for today (or this hour). Why is it that Irenaeus 'nitpicks' about the smallest detail of false knowledge promoted by the heretics from Alexandria but never condemned their ritualized castration rituals.

Now anyone that has ever spent time THINKING ABOUT the early Alexandrian tradition has taken note of the asceticism. Some scholars have even noticed that the Egyptian Church never lost its technical expertise in the art of establishing eunuchs. Almost everyone that gains any prominence in the Christian community in Alexandria can be connected to ritualized castration.

So why doesn't Irenaeus condemn the practice? Could it be that Irenaeus was a eunuch and that's why he leaves the topic alone?

No one has ever claimed that (a) Irenaeus had a wife (b) that Irenaeus ever made love to a woman or (c) had kids. What's stopping Irenaeus from being a eunuch other than the fact that Catholics now think that castrati are 'disgusting' or weird.

Well I know one thing. Irenaeus didn't think that eunuchs were disgusting or weird. He even used an older version of the Acts of the Apostles which show that the Ethiopian eunuch received the Spirit before he was baptized. We read:

Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the month?" "But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken away from the earth." [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him. [ibid 12.8]

It should be obvious why Irenaeus' text 'adds' words to the eunuch's request to be baptized:

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized? "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."[Acts 8:24 - 25]

The point is that Irenaeus text makes the eunuch seem to have been already in a state of grace before descending into the water. The testimony of this faithful and beloved African, the Ethiopian eunuch, does not appear in the critical text. Some have argued that the verse is not genuine because it is found in only a few late manuscripts and was inserted into the Greek text by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. It is true that the passage appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However, the passage also appears in a vast number of other Old Latin manuscripts (such as l, m, e, r, ar, ph, and gig). It also is found in the Greek Codex E (eighth century) and several Greek manuscripts (36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 610, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1678, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others). While there are differences even among these texts as to precise wording, the essence of the testimony still remains where it has been removed from other manuscripts. [1] Additionally, Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD) all cite Acts 8:37.