I Don't See Any Substantial Evidence that 'Irenaeus' and 'Pope Victor' Were Separate People

Almost any handbook to early Christianity will tell you that Irenaeus sent a letter to Pope Victor where he encouraged 'peace' and moderation. They will tell you that this 'understanding' was gleaned from 'the evidence' - a fragmentary reference that emerges in Book V of Eusebius' Church History where the author describes the development of a schism at the end of the second century.

The bishops of Asia followed a custom of celebrating Easter in the manner associated with Polycarp - i.e. on the fourteenth of Nisan. Polycrates sent a letter defending the practice to 'Victor' whereupon the bishop of Rome 'immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.' Eusebius tells us that Victor's actions 'did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.'

Here is where Eusebius introduces Irenaeus sending Victor a letter and trying to make 'peace.'

Eusebius writes that 'among [these bishops] was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which you now rule— I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus— did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.

I see no reason to deny that Irenaeus wrote this material cited. But I find something about the letter which makes it impossible to assign the text to the time of Victor - the complete absence of any reference to Victor's predecessor Eleutherius.

There is a constant contrasting of 'today' with 'yesterday' without any mention of the bishop that governed the Church in the period immediately following Polycarp. So Irenaeus writes:

this variety in its observance has not originated in our time but long before in that of our ancestors ... the presbyters which preceded Soter, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus ... the presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

It seems utterly forced to assign Irenaeus' composition of the letter to the period of Victor. If that were so, one would have expected Irenaeus to have written:

this variety in its observance has not originated in our time but long before in that of our ancestors ... the presbyters which preceded Eleutherius, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Soter, Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus ... the presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

The omission of Eleutherius is the smoking gun connecting the letter to the period BEFORE he became Pope, the period when he was still a 'peacemaker' and Tertullian's Montanists saw him as open to allowing them to maintain their cultural differences. As Tertullian notes in Praxeas, the minute the Pope who ruled in the 'Victorian' era sat on the throne he transformed himself from a peaceable individual famous for seeking compromise to a rabid inflexible despot who governed the Church with an iron hand.

Irenaeus certainly fits this bill given what we know of his change in policy toward the Montanists.

The Liber Pontificalis essentially agrees with Irenaeus' testimony that the Roman Church had acknowledged that Easter Sunday was always the day to celebrate the Resurrection. It only differs insofar as it ascribes the contemporary peacemaking efforts to 'Victor' with no mention of a separate figure named 'Irenaeus.'

We read that Victor:

summoned a council and an inquiry was made of Theophilus bishop of Caesarea (correcting 'Alexandria' in the text) concerning Easter, the first day of the week and the moon.

Or in the alternative version of the same testimony that Victor:

instituted an inquiry among the clergy concerning the cycle of Easter and the Lord's Day for Easter and he gathered together the priests and bishops. Then Theophilus bishop of Caesarea (see above) was questioned and in the assembly it was decided that the Lord's Day between the 14th of the moon in the first moon and the 21st day of the moon should be kept as the holy feast of Easter.

Compare this to the scenario which sets up Eusebius reporting of the Quartodeciman controversy:

Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

Of course it is easy to see that Irenaeus' addition here after 'the parishes in Gaul' is Eusebius' addition just as he managed to bring out one of Irenaeus' old letters from the previous age when he was just a mere deacon under Eleutherius to gloss over the fact that the Asian Churches were never reconciled in the period.

I should also mention that the parallels between Irenaeus and Victor are quite staggering when you stand them side by side:

(1) If we let the incorrect reading of 'Theophilus of Alexandria' stand, Victor's efforts are paralleled by a Syriac fragment which identifies Irenaeus as having "to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with respect to the feast of the Resurrection, that we should celebrate it upon the first day of the week.” [fragment 50]
(2) Both Irenaeus and Victor are identified as the first to have corresponded in Latin in the Roman Church.
(3) Both Irenaeus and Victor are said to have favored the Alexandrian custom of celebrating the Passover on Sunday (an odd thing for Irenaeus if he was a student of Polycarp as he claims).
(4) Both Irenaeus and Victor wrote works entitled On Easter or on the subject of Easter which delved into various other matters.
(5) Both seem to be authoritarians who had very strong ideas about orthodoxy and the authority of the Roman Episcopal throne

We should also address the late Syriac fragment also which is introduced as being directed by Irenaeus to Victor undoubtedly developed in a parallel way to what we discussed above. We read in the Syriac introduction:

And Irenæus Bp. of Lyons, to Victor Bp. of Rome, concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and published an abominable book, thus wrote

The problem as has been noted many times over is that the time line is difficult to establish if indeed - as is suggested by the scribe - that Irenaeus wrote this to Victor (c. 190) if as the text suggests that Florinus was still living. Irenaeus says elsewhere that he was a young child when he and Florinus 'sat at the royal court' with Polycarp.

As Hill notes:

At the time of Irenaeus' acquaintance with Polycarp, the elder was already advanced in age (AH 3.3.4). Irenaeus says at that time that he was in his 'early youth' or 'first age' (ibid). Sometime in this period he saw Florinus flourishing in the royal court. Irenaeus says that he was then yet a pais (HE 5.20.5 cf. ek paidon HE 5.20.6). It is on the basis of this self-testimony that many have concluded that Irenaeus' age was quite tender at the time his contact with Polycarp ended.

If Polycarp was 83 in 152 and Florinus was 'flourishing' in this period one would have to imagine that Florinus was already in his eighties when Irenaeus addressed these words to a Roman bishop:

Now, however, inasmuch as the books of these men may possibly have escaped your observation, but have come under our notice, I call your attention to them, that for the sake of your reputation you may expel these writings from among you, as bringing disgrace upon you, since their author boasts himself as being one of your company. For they constitute a stumbling-block to many, who simply and unreservedly receive, as coming from a presbyter, the blasphemy which they utter against God. Just [consider] the writer of these things, how by means of them he does not injure assistants [in divine service] only, who happen to be prepared in mind for blasphemies against God, but also damages those among us, since by his books he imbues their minds with false doctrines concerning God.

The point is of course that it makes very little sense to me to imagine that Florinus was still an active threat in the court of a Pope of the early third century. It makes much more sense again to ascribe the text to the period when Irenaeus came to Rome from Lyons under Eleutherius when (a) Florinus had already established himself as an authority on Polycarp's teaching in Rome and (b) Irenaeus had yet to prove himself. Again it is amazing enough to think a man who flourished at the middle of the second century was still alive at the time of Victor, let alone still battling with Irenaeus after he had managed to write Against the Heresies and had that work circulate into almost every Christian urban center in the Empire. The Syriac writer has been influenced by Eusebius.