I happen think one of things that is most sorely lacking in scholarship in the field of the Patristic writings is a critical re-evaluation of Irenaeus' so-called work 'Five Books Against Heresies' or 'Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called.' I have already begun this process in many of my previous posts. I have argued that Irenaeus never published a five volume work of this name in his lifetime. What we have instead is a collection of various treatises by the author artificially arranged by Hippolytus to support various of his claims about the heresies.
I think that the introduction to each of the four subsequent books in the 'series' were written by Hippolytus and developed to make it seem like they all followed Book One. Yet when you look at each of those books you see that there was some other purpose at work originally. I have disentangled an anti-Alexandrian polemic at the heart of Book Four. However Book Three is a much more difficult challenge.
Indeed when you look at the order of material which appears in the work it is ever so tempting to read the text in the manner of modern lazy scholars - i.e. as a kind of rambling pastoral argument for orthodoxy and against the heresies.
Let's do a brief sketch of all of the chapters with some of the highlights to give the reader some context.
CHAPTER ONE
After ignoring the preface - which again we have determined was written by a later hand - we touch upon what I have argued was a reaction to an Alexandrian formulation of the Gospel According to Mark as a 'more perfect' gospel written after Peter formulated a psychic work in Rome (cf Clement To Theodore I.15 - 28; Origen De Principiis iv.9 - 12). Here in Chapter One Irenaeus emphasizes an inversion of what I see as the original Alexandrian formula in the Letter to Theodore. Firstly he says:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
The Letter to Theodore argues that a written gospel which was publicly preached to essentially build the faith of the psychics was established first, followed by a 'more perfect' text whose announcement was reserved for the safety and security of private readings in the inner sanctum of the Church of St. Mark. So it is that Irenaeus immediately goes on argue AGAINST TO THEODORE (or a parallel argument in antiquity) that:
it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, they were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.[AH i.1.1]
I can't shake the feeling that Irenaeus is reacting against the contemporary Alexandrian Church positing that they possessed ONE gospel superior to all the other gospels which was written AFTER 'Peter's gospel' was established at Rome.
I also want to notify the readers of another parallel which I never noticed before in what immediately follows again. Irenaeus writes:
If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
Isn't it curious that Clement also speaks of a process by which members of the Alexandrian tradition were forced to swear oaths to acknowledge some other version of the Gospel According to Mark as the true gospel of Mark?
CHAPTER TWO
I have just dealt with this chapter in a recent post. The upshot of matters here are that Clement of Alexandria says that "writing and living voice are only different ways of preaching the Word." [Stromata i.11] While Irenaeus writes that "when, however, they [the heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but living voice: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." [AH iii.2]
While Clement doesn't cite 1 Corinthians 2:6 in To Theodore, he does reference the concept of the 'true philosophy' which I have demonstrated is a concept used in the Stromata to argue essentially the same underlying heretical concept.
The wisdom of this world is the revelation to psychics; the 'wisdom spoken among the perfect' is the secret Gospel According to Mark.
Yet it is important to note that against Clement's positing of an 'Alexandrian formulation' that Mark was the only one of the disciples to know 'the perfect truth' Irenaeus posits a Roman 'system of truth' which I have argued is David Trobisch's interpretation of the New Testament canon as a system of various supposed ancient voices witnessing the one same 'apostolic truth.'
Irenaeus also argues that:
when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery[AH iii.2.2]
While Clement never says anything about the mixing of Gospel with 'things of the Law' the letter to Theodore does accuse the so-called Carpocratians of 'mixing lies' and 'pollution' with the spotless words of the original Gospel According to Mark (To Theodore II.8 - 9). Irenaeus may have confronted a heretic with similar ideas to Clement, notice especially the emphasis on a 'hidden mystery' which reveals 'the unadulterated truth.'
CHAPTER THREE
if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
As I have often argued most scholars ignore the clear reference to a reinforcement of the significance of the Episcopal seat of Alexandria in the Letter to Theodore. Whether or not you buy my argument that 'the truth hidden by seven veils' is a reference to the throne of St. Mark being hidden in the inner sanctum of the apostle's Church in Alexandria, there is a clear sense in Clement's language towards the end of the section which clearly implies that the only place the 'secret' Gospel According to Mark is read is in this closed off inner room where the Episcopal throne would certainly have been placed (i.e. behind the veils or curtains which separated the uninitiated from the 'full members' of the community.
CHAPTER FOUR
Irenaeus continues his attack against the main presumption of the Letter to Theodore - namely that St. Mark "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." I don't know if scholars have properly thought through the implications of this statement. Well, let me clarify that. I think that most of those who argue that the letter is a fake recognize the implications of this statement and it is the principle reason why they oppose the authenticity of the find. What Clement is saying ultimately is that ONLY the Alexandrian Church knew the truth about the original gospel. This overturns almost everything we have inherited from Irenaeus who, I believe was reacting to To Theodore or a parallel Alexandrian statement of faith when he declares that 'the apostles' (the fact that there is more than one witness makes it 'truer' I guess) all their writings in Rome. He writes in this chapter that:
it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
CHAPTER FIVE
Irenaeus begins Chapter Five criticizing the idea implicit in the Letter to Theodore that Mark was the ultimate arbiter of the truth. Irenaeus writes:
since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him ... The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood ... as these most vain sophists affirm that the apostles did with hypocrisy frame their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, and gave answers after the opinions of their questioners,--fabling blind things for the blind, according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dulness; for those in error according to their error. And to those who imagined that the Demiurge alone was God, they preached him; but to those who are capable of comprehending the unnameable Father, they did declare the unspeakable mystery through parables and enigmas: so that the Lord and the apostles exercised the office of teacher not to further the cause of truth, but even in hypocrisy, and as each individual was able to receive it![AH iii.5.1]
All of these words seem to be reflections on the Alexandrian doctrine framed in documents like To Theodore and the Fourth Book of Origen's De Principiis.
I especially think that Clement's dictum in To Theodore that "'not all true things are to be said to all men.' For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, 'Answer the fool from his folly,' teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, 'From him who has not shall be taken away,' and 'Let the fool walk in darkness' is being referenced when Irenaeus goes on to say:
such belongs not to those who heal, or who give life: it is rather that of those bringing on diseases, and increasing ignorance; and much more true than these men shall the law be found, which pronounces every one accursed who sends the blind man astray in the way. For the apostles, who were commissioned to find out the wanderers, and to be for sight to those who saw not, and medicine to the weak, certainly did not address them in accordance with their opinion at the time, but according to revealed truth. For no persons of any kind would act properly, if they should advise blind men, just about to fall over a precipice, to continue their most dangerous path, as if it were the right one, and as if they might go on in safety. Or what medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient's whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare saying, "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" ... He therefore did not address them in accordance with their pristine notions, nor did He reply to them in harmony with the opinion of His questioners, but according to the doctrine leading to salvation, without hypocrisy or respect of person.[AH iii.5.2]
CHAPTER SIX
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He [the Father] who gave Him [the Son, Jesus] the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord ... And this does declare the same truth: "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee." [AH iii.6.1]
For the uninformed reader there seems to be no logical connection between Chapter Five and Chapter Six. They almost seem to represent two different arguments being drawn together into one book.
Yet the reader should recall my theory that Hippolytus actually edited a series of original works by Irenaeus to make them seem 'less' like an attack against Alexandria and its Episcopal line and more like general assault against 'the heresies who denied that Christians and Jews shared the same God.' I think Hippolytus' editorial corrections weren't limited to the first lines of each book. I think he had a practice of diluting the original anti-Alexandrian polemic with ultimately meaningless statements about the heretics positing 'another God beside the Creator,' but that's another argument entirely.
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.[AH iii.10.5]
CHAPTER SEVEN AND EIGHT
It is interesting then that Chapter Seven immediately continues this line of reasoning, referencing what we would call a 'Marcionite' interpretation of 2 Cor 4:4:
As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not," and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul.
This calumny, then, of these men, having been quashed, it is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God. Much more the Lord Himself, who did also direct us to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's;" naming indeed Caesar as Caesar, but confessing God as God. In like manner also, that [text] which says, "Ye cannot serve two masters," He does Himself interpret, saying, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon;" acknowledging God indeed as God, but mentioning mammon, a thing having also an existence. He does not call mammon Lord when He says, "Ye cannot serve two masters;" but He teaches His disciples who serve God, not to be subject to mammon, nor to be ruled by it. For He says, "He that committeth sin is the slave of sin."[AH iii.8.1]
I want to emphasize to my readers that there DEFINITELY WAS a contemporary Alexandrian interpretation of the 'You cannot serve two masters' in terms of rejecting the authority of Caesar in order to be a proper devotee of Christ. Celsus makes this absolutely clear in his True Account. I am now starting to wonder whether Irenaeus is continuing to develop a parallel ROMAN CATHOLIC (if you take this term in its most generic sense) reaction to the same understanding.
the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.[AH iii.8.5]
The problem of course is that there isn't a living Patristic scholar alive who is aware that the Alexandrian tradition venerates its Patriarch as a living man-God or as we see Peter I pray to St. Mark in the Martyrium of the Evangelist in Alexandria "I commend also to your glorious patronage the flock of Christ's worshippers which was committed to my pastoral care; to you, I say, I with prayers commend it, who are approved as the author and guardian of all preceding and subsequent occupiers of this pontifical chair, and who, holding its first honours, art the successor not of man, but of the God-man, Christ Jesus."
CHAPTER NINE - THIRTEEN
The argument continues throughout Book Three from here. Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen demonstrate that the Roman New Testament proves the true identity of the author of the so-called 'Pauline epistles' is, against unspecified heretical claims to the contrary (all that Chapter Fifteen makes clear is that the apostle was known by another name).
Yet I don't want to get ahead of myself here. I think I am the first person to ever attempt to identify what the subject of Book Three is (beyond the generic description that it is a 'refutation of heresy' and a reinforcement of orthodoxy. I think we should demonstrate, in as brief a form as possible, what the underlying heretical understanding is, which eventually leads Irenaeus to introduce his quaternion.
For we must make absolutely certain to say that Irenaeus isn't just bringing forward our fourfold gospel ex nihilo. It is worth noting that it immediately follows the eight refutations of a rival understanding of 'the gospel' which include, as we have just seen:
- the gospel in the hands of Irenaeus' opponents was said to be written 'according to perfect spiritual knowledge.' [AH iii.1.1]
- this gospel of 'perfect knowledge' which only came AFTER an original 'psychic' account of the Lord's doings was developed from the authority of Peter or the Twelve. [ibid]
- the rival tradition rejected the authority of the canonical texts of Rome accusing them of 'not being correct,' of not being authoritative [ibid iii.2.1]
- they emphasized that the gospel was written with an intentional ambiguity which could only be explained through cleaving to a 'living voice' which knew the true meaning of the text [ibid]
- the rival tradition saw its authority as superior to the authority of the Roman Church. [ibid iii 2.2]
- the rival tradition saw itself as preserving something superior to the understanding of Peter and the twelve [ibid]
- the rival tradition initiated its membership with a hidden gnostic mystery developed from the aforementioned 'unadulterated gospel' which was still in their possession [ibid]
I have argued that these arguments sound suspiciously similar to the understanding developed in To Theodore where Clement says that not only is there a "divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark" in Alexandria, but a rival text claiming to be the true Gospel of Mark but represents rather the corruption of "the true things" of that gospel "being mixed with inventions" and thus a totally "falsified" text. I have argued on many occasions that our canonical gospel of Mark might well be one and the same with this polluted Gospel of Mark.
Other parallels between the material and to Theodore include Clement's description of Mark writing his gospel AFTER "an account of the Lord's doings" was written for Peter in Rome. This gospel associated with Peter is identified as just being 'useful for increasing the faith.' The true gospel, the one Mark wrote in Alexandria is understood to involve the transferring of 'secret sayings' unknown to Peter and the disciples, a text whose arrangement is now suitable for the "progress toward knowledge."
I find everything that follows completely encapsulates the spirit of that rival gospel from the rival tradition referenced in the first two chapters of Irenaeus's book. So Clement says that Mark:
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.
In order to see how these two reports come together we have to recognize that Clement's report specifically references 'the church in Alexandria' a building which like other early churches would have had a large room where an inner sanctum was separated from the larger area where the uninitiated sat by a series of curtains or veils.
I have long argued that because most academics are unfamiliar with the manner in which CONTEMPORARY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY functions, the text has been largely misunderstood. Clement is essentially saying that the 'secret' Gospel According to Mark was developed to lay people who attended the Church of St. Mark to want to undergo initiation and see what was on the other side of the curtain - i.e. the inner sanctum where we know its most prominent feature would be an Episcopal chair where St. Mark's living representative and 'living voice' sat enthroned.
Other parallels between the material and to Theodore include Clement's description of Mark writing his gospel AFTER "an account of the Lord's doings" was written for Peter in Rome. This gospel associated with Peter is identified as just being 'useful for increasing the faith.' The true gospel, the one Mark wrote in Alexandria is understood to involve the transferring of 'secret sayings' unknown to Peter and the disciples, a text whose arrangement is now suitable for the "progress toward knowledge."
I find everything that follows completely encapsulates the spirit of that rival gospel from the rival tradition referenced in the first two chapters of Irenaeus's book. So Clement says that Mark:
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.
In order to see how these two reports come together we have to recognize that Clement's report specifically references 'the church in Alexandria' a building which like other early churches would have had a large room where an inner sanctum was separated from the larger area where the uninitiated sat by a series of curtains or veils.
I have long argued that because most academics are unfamiliar with the manner in which CONTEMPORARY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY functions, the text has been largely misunderstood. Clement is essentially saying that the 'secret' Gospel According to Mark was developed to lay people who attended the Church of St. Mark to want to undergo initiation and see what was on the other side of the curtain - i.e. the inner sanctum where we know its most prominent feature would be an Episcopal chair where St. Mark's living representative and 'living voice' sat enthroned.
I know this is difficult for Protestant scholars or people with no knowledge of the surviving Alexandrian tradition to understand, but Clement is putting forward a religious system which ultimately GOES BEYOND JESUS AND HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY. The Christianity of Alexandria was not and is not 'stuck' in the first century. It is understood that Jesus came to the world to set in motion a mystery religion which allowed for the transformation of mankind into divine beings or angels.
The living example or living proof of the success of that mystical formulation is the Patriarch who function is to sit in a replica of the divine throne, essentially advertising that he is the God-man. The Patriarch is only one in a long line of God-men to receive the Christ-soul from the sacraments of the religion. It also naturally follows that the first God-man to undergo the transformational experience was St. Mark, the head of the Episcopal line.
While none of these are EXPLICITLY referenced in the letter, the obvious implication of having Jesus initiate this neaniskos in one of two examples of the added material in the text, is that the neaniskos HAS TO BE St. Mark. Again, while it is unsaid, there is no other reason why Clement would mention the initiation ceremonies going on in the inner sanctum WHERE THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN A THRONE OF ST. MARK. The implications are clear that it is HIS church where HIS secret Gospel from which HIS mysteries were developed.
When Irenaeus is at the same time attacking a tradition which claims to be superior to Peter and the apostles, it is obvious that he is referencing the exact same system. All we have to do is notice the way that Peter and his knowledge is clearly SUBORDINATED in the first part of the account just cited.
So it is that Irenaeus immediately goes on to turn around this very same argument and say:
if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. [AH iii.3.1]
The point of course is that Irenaeus is saying that ANY CLAIM that Mark knew something which was not known to Peter should be rejected because it doesn't make intuitive sense. Indeed I am always struck how this kind of logic seems to be behind the rejection of To Theodore by the 'hoaxers' who are mostly conservative scholars who believe in the authority in Peter and are driven to distraction by the idea that a new document should be discovered which challenges the 'system of truth' that Irenaeus delivered to us almost two thousand years ago.
Yet here we have Irenaeus witness that this 'abominable system' was in existence when he was establishing the very truths that the hoaxers take for granted today!
The point now is that we should see that EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS from this point in Book Three to Chapter 9 - 15 IS ROOTED IN THE IDEA THAT IRENAEUS' ENEMIES PARTICIPATE IN A MYSTERY RELIGION ROOTED IN ST. MARK'S SECRET GOSPEL PRESERVED IN THE INNER SANCTUM OF HIS CHURCH IN ALEXANDRIA AND WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE US SUPERIOR TO ADAM WHO WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE CREATOR .
If all of this is understood the statements which follow in Book Three suddenly all make sense like when Irenaeus attacks all those who:
- "assemble in unauthorized meetings" [iii.3.2]- that is those of the Alexandrian tradition (notice neither Clement nor Origen are ever identified as 'Patriarchs' or governors of Alexandria (until Severus of al'Ashmunein) because the original tradition let's not forget was 'unauthorized' and effectively made illegal through Irenaeus' connection with the Imperial court. As people will say to this day 'there was no tradition of St. Mark in Alexandria at this time.' Of course not, it was deemed an 'unauthorized' assembly
- Irenaeus only spends the time going through the whole Roman Episcopal succession in the same chapter [iii.3.3] because his enemies point to a much better known and better respected Episcopal succession from St. Mark.
- "all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth" [iii.4.1] is clearly a reaction to Clement's claim that Mark "brought in certain sayings ]to the gospel written for Peter] of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."
- "such [doctrines] belongs not to those who heal, or who give life: it is rather that of those bringing on diseases, and increasing ignorance; and much more true than these men shall the law be found, which pronounces every one accursed who sends the blind man astray in the way. For the apostles, who were commissioned to find out the wanderers, and to be for sight to those who saw not, and medicine to the weak, certainly did not address them in accordance with their opinion at the time, but according to revealed truth. For no persons of any kind would act properly, if they should advise blind men, just about to fall over a precipice, to continue their most dangerous path, as if it were the right one, and as if they might go on in safety." [iii.5.2] is clearly a reaction to what is said in To Theodore regarding "'not all true things are to be said to all men.' For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, 'Answer the fool from his folly,' teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, 'From him who has not shall be taken away,' and 'Let the fool walk in darkness'
All of this bears an uncanny resemblance to the material in the Mar Saba document. Yet the most critical single piece of evidence which specifically connects the original material in Book Three to the argument in To Theodore is which is found in the next chapter, even though it references words are not found in our present manuscript.
There can be no doubt that the ultimate CONTEXT in which the 'other God' manifests himself is sitting in a throne. We came across that ignored passage in Book Four which spells it out quite simply - "they [the heretics] do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain" [AH iv.3.1] Now in our analysis of Book Three we discover that the ultimate context for this man sitting as God enthroned is connected somehow to a variant text of the Gospel According to Mark for we read:
[the disciples] have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He [the Father] who gave Him [the Son, Jesus] the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies[iii.6.1]
Again there is an unmistakable sense that the heretics opposed throughout this section worship an enthroned man as God the Father. The fact that the Alexandrian Church has always been governed by a figure with the title 'Patriarch' (cf. Historia Augusta entry for Hadrian) or 'Papa' should be enough to encourage others to at least consider the possibility. It would also be wonderful if a greater number of the people who study the Patristic literature familiarized themselves with traditional Coptic mysticism related to their Patriarch.
All of this is relatively straightforward. What is more important now that we immediately move on to Irenaeus'z clear and unmistakable connection of the revelation of the enthroned figure as God-man at the end of the Alexandrian mysteries and the enthronement of SOMEONE OTHER THAN JESUS at conclusion of the original Gospel According to Mark.
This is not the place to rehash old investigations at this site but months ago we noted that in the earliest citations of the Diatessaron, the Marcionite gospel and other non-canonical gospel texts which concluded with parallel versions of Mark 16:9 - 20, there seemed to be a well established sense that not only did someone else other than Jesus emerge physically resurrected from the tomb, but this other individual was understood to end the narrative enthroned on the divine chariot. Indeed it is Irenaeus whole purpose over the next eight chapters of Book Three to develop a whole system for denying this very understanding.
Who was this mysteries individual who is depicted enthroned at the end of the original Gospel of Mark? I have long argued that the gospel subtly reinforced the Alexandrian cultus associated with the Apostle. So it is that various enigmatic sayings of the Lord have been consistently been demonstrated to have been interpreted by Alexandrians to point to their Evangelist, the building associated with his Alexandrian ministry in the Boucolia and - as we have just demonstrated from the Letter to Theodore, the mysteries he established in its inner sanctum centered around a living God-man enthroned on his Episcopal chair.
Now we see that the original treatise behind Book Three of Irenaeus' Against Heresies demonstrates in no uncertain terms that Irenaeus arranged the present canon AGAINST a pre-existent Alexandrian collection of writings built around the 'secret' Gospel According to Mark and the conclusion of its narrative which revealed Mark as the enthroned messianic God-man who established a living chain of successors at Alexandria.
Irenaeus of course was actively seeking to move the center of the Christian universe to Rome (where presumably it could be kept under closer tabs by the watchful eye of the Imperial palace).. So by the time we finally get to the often quoted material in Chapters 9 - 11 what we have to begin to recognize is that this is just a continuation of the arguments against the traditional manner that Christians HAD UNTIL NOW taken the enthroned Patriarch of Alexandria to be a living incarnation of God the Father.
So we have to remember that Irenaeus isn't just introducing his readers to the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the first time but rather introducing these texts AS A MEANS OF DISPROVING THE MYSTERIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH.
So he introduces the testimony of Matthew in Chapter Nine with the words:
This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; -- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself.. [AH iii.9.1]
And again:
There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner [i.e. John the Baptist]; and His salvation [i.e. Jesus] -- that is, His Word -- He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.[ibid]
And again:
For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ [AH iii.9.2]
And the chapter concludes with the words:
Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon Him, [the Spirit] of Him who had promised by the prophets that He would anoint Him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of His unction, might be saved. Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.[ibid]
The point of all of this is clearly that scholars have always read this 'reinforcement of the Catholic faith' that Irenaeus develops without taking into account the material that precedes it in Book Three. Clearly Irenaeus has been talking before this of a heretical tradition that he opposes which viewed Jesus to be God and the Messiah to be someone else, even St. Mark.
So now we see in Chapter Ten a parallel analysis of the witnesses of Luke and Mark in order to similarly 'debunk' the claims of the Alexandrian Church that the 'true Gospel of Mark' reinforced the particular mysteries of their community, focused as they were around the throne of St. Mark. Strangely, the natural order of the gospels is inverted. Luke is brought forward to disprove the Alexandrian position that St. Mark and his enthroned representatives were the Messiah in a parallel manner to what we saw before with Matthew, namely:
For he knew of none other above Him; since, if he had been in possession of the knowledge of any other more perfect God and Lord besides Him, he surely would never--as I have already shown--have confessed Him, whom he knew to be ... absolutely and altogether God and Lord.
Notice also that the words of the angel Gabriel at the beginning of Luke are also referenced to disprove the idea that someone other than Jesus was destined to sit on the divine throne:
[the disciples] have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He [the Father] who gave Him [the Son, Jesus] the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies[iii.6.1]
Again there is an unmistakable sense that the heretics opposed throughout this section worship an enthroned man as God the Father. The fact that the Alexandrian Church has always been governed by a figure with the title 'Patriarch' (cf. Historia Augusta entry for Hadrian) or 'Papa' should be enough to encourage others to at least consider the possibility. It would also be wonderful if a greater number of the people who study the Patristic literature familiarized themselves with traditional Coptic mysticism related to their Patriarch.
All of this is relatively straightforward. What is more important now that we immediately move on to Irenaeus'z clear and unmistakable connection of the revelation of the enthroned figure as God-man at the end of the Alexandrian mysteries and the enthronement of SOMEONE OTHER THAN JESUS at conclusion of the original Gospel According to Mark.
This is not the place to rehash old investigations at this site but months ago we noted that in the earliest citations of the Diatessaron, the Marcionite gospel and other non-canonical gospel texts which concluded with parallel versions of Mark 16:9 - 20, there seemed to be a well established sense that not only did someone else other than Jesus emerge physically resurrected from the tomb, but this other individual was understood to end the narrative enthroned on the divine chariot. Indeed it is Irenaeus whole purpose over the next eight chapters of Book Three to develop a whole system for denying this very understanding.
Who was this mysteries individual who is depicted enthroned at the end of the original Gospel of Mark? I have long argued that the gospel subtly reinforced the Alexandrian cultus associated with the Apostle. So it is that various enigmatic sayings of the Lord have been consistently been demonstrated to have been interpreted by Alexandrians to point to their Evangelist, the building associated with his Alexandrian ministry in the Boucolia and - as we have just demonstrated from the Letter to Theodore, the mysteries he established in its inner sanctum centered around a living God-man enthroned on his Episcopal chair.
Now we see that the original treatise behind Book Three of Irenaeus' Against Heresies demonstrates in no uncertain terms that Irenaeus arranged the present canon AGAINST a pre-existent Alexandrian collection of writings built around the 'secret' Gospel According to Mark and the conclusion of its narrative which revealed Mark as the enthroned messianic God-man who established a living chain of successors at Alexandria.
Irenaeus of course was actively seeking to move the center of the Christian universe to Rome (where presumably it could be kept under closer tabs by the watchful eye of the Imperial palace).. So by the time we finally get to the often quoted material in Chapters 9 - 11 what we have to begin to recognize is that this is just a continuation of the arguments against the traditional manner that Christians HAD UNTIL NOW taken the enthroned Patriarch of Alexandria to be a living incarnation of God the Father.
So we have to remember that Irenaeus isn't just introducing his readers to the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the first time but rather introducing these texts AS A MEANS OF DISPROVING THE MYSTERIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH.
So he introduces the testimony of Matthew in Chapter Nine with the words:
This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; -- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself.. [AH iii.9.1]
And again:
There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner [i.e. John the Baptist]; and His salvation [i.e. Jesus] -- that is, His Word -- He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.[ibid]
And again:
For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ [AH iii.9.2]
And the chapter concludes with the words:
Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon Him, [the Spirit] of Him who had promised by the prophets that He would anoint Him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of His unction, might be saved. Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.[ibid]
The point of all of this is clearly that scholars have always read this 'reinforcement of the Catholic faith' that Irenaeus develops without taking into account the material that precedes it in Book Three. Clearly Irenaeus has been talking before this of a heretical tradition that he opposes which viewed Jesus to be God and the Messiah to be someone else, even St. Mark.
So now we see in Chapter Ten a parallel analysis of the witnesses of Luke and Mark in order to similarly 'debunk' the claims of the Alexandrian Church that the 'true Gospel of Mark' reinforced the particular mysteries of their community, focused as they were around the throne of St. Mark. Strangely, the natural order of the gospels is inverted. Luke is brought forward to disprove the Alexandrian position that St. Mark and his enthroned representatives were the Messiah in a parallel manner to what we saw before with Matthew, namely:
For he knew of none other above Him; since, if he had been in possession of the knowledge of any other more perfect God and Lord besides Him, he surely would never--as I have already shown--have confessed Him, whom he knew to be ... absolutely and altogether God and Lord.
Notice also that the words of the angel Gabriel at the beginning of Luke are also referenced to disprove the idea that someone other than Jesus was destined to sit on the divine throne:
And he says concerning the Lord: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." For who else is there who can reign uninterruptedly over the house of Jacob for ever, except Jesus Christ our Lord, the Son of the Most High God, who promised by the law and the prophets that He would make His salvation visible to all flesh; so that He would become the Son of man for this purpose, that man also might become the son of God [AH iii.10.1]
A careful examination will reveal that ALL the material cited from Luke in this section is used to the same effect as what we just saw in the previous chapter regarding Matthew - viz. to dispute the central idea in the Alexandrian tradition witnessed by Severus of Al'Ashmunein and Copts ever since namely that "St. Mark the apostle and servant of Jesus Christ has appeared among all creatures like the mustard seed (which speaks the Gospel), which grows and becomes a huge tree, so that the birds come to rest on its branches and get away from his shadow, because, although our Lord Jesus Christ (may he be glorified!) have wanted to nominate himself for this comparison, however, can also apply the meaning to St. Mark, this shining light, for those who follow Christ are themselves Christs and other members of Christ." [Severus of Al'Ashmunein, Homily on St. Mark]
So it is that when we finally get to Irenaeus employment of the Gospel of Mark to disprove the aforementioned Alexandrian tradition based on a longer and ultimately 'secret' Gospel According to Mark there should no doubt about Irenaeus' methodology. He begins with the reinforcement of the Evangelist's subordinate role with the Roman tradition identifying him as "Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter" [AH iii.10.3] and goes on to attempt to prove AGAINST THE ALEXANDRIAN TRADITION that a deliberate pairing exists throughout the gospel - i.e. Jesus the Lord from heaven, Mark his Messiah on earth.
Irenaeus points to prove that in the beginning of the narrative of the canonical Gospel According to Mark the allusion to the 'prophets' was developed to disprove that there were two different Lords in the gospel:
or the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.[AH iii.10.3]
The point of course is that the entire of Book Three was written with THIS ONE PASSAGE in mind - i.e. the conclusion of the original 'secret' Gospel According to Mark. Irenaeus is here reinforcing that the prophets understood that Jesus and only Jesus was supposed to end up enthroned on the divine chariot at the end of the gospel narrative. Yet we have come up with a number of allusions to non-canonical gospels which could certainly have been read as if Mark intended someone else other than Jesus to end up seated on the throne. Indeed the question of Salome in chapter ten of the Gospel of Mark makes clear that this was to be the case. As Chekhov wrote, you don't introduce a gun into the first act of the play if it is not supposed to go off sometime later.
I don't feel the need (or have the time) to go through the manner in which the witness of John is used to disprove the conclusions of the original Gospel of Mark. It is enough to say that the same pattern is demonstrated there in Chapter Eleven with what we see in Irenaeus' treatment of the other canonical gospels. It is enough I think to cite the conclusion of Irenaeus' treatment of John to the development of the fourfold gospel as a united witness against 'the heresy of the Alexandrian Church.' To this end Irenaeus writes:
The Israelite recognised his King, therefore did he cry out to Him, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel." By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognised Christ as the Son of the living God, when [God] said, "Behold My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He send forth judgment into contention and in His name shall the Gentiles trust."
Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,--[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"--an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon heavenly kingdom.its wings into the heavenly kingdom [AH iii.11.6 - 8]
This may seem like an unnecessarily long citation on my part by some of my readers, but in my mind it reinforces Irenaeus' underlying methodology, and specifically that he was reacting to a ALREADY EXTANT CHRISTIAN VENERATION OF THE THRONE OF ST. MARK in his age.
In my book the Real Messiah, I demonstrate that Irenaeus' description of the four cherubim goes well beyond anything written in Isaiah or the Book of Revelations. Irenaeus must have seen the object which Venetians stole from the Church of St. Mark and which - I have argued in my paper for the Journal of Coptic Studies - originally functioned as the Episcopal Chair of the Alexandrian tradition. The parallels are too exact to be explained any other way. Here are photos of the throne for those who haven't seen it (the top piece has almost universally been determined to have been removed with a clean break and re-carved).
In fact, I would argue that Irenaeus saw the throne, knew the role that it had in the Christian community of his day AND THEN PROCEEDED TO DEVELOP HIS FOURFOLD GOSPEL modeled after the images which appeared on this holiest of objects in early Christianity. .
In any event, it is impossible for me not to believe that Alexandrian Christianity and the contemporary understanding of the Gospel According to Mark as the original gospel from which all others were mere forgeries is at the heart of Irenaeus' writing. I think Irenaeus developed our Roman tradition AS A REACTION against the original Alexandrian understanding of the Patriarch as the living representative of God incarnate in man. The entire Roman theology we take for granted is a reaction against this.
It is worth noting that in the chapter that follows Peter is cited - through the Acts of the Apostles - as supporting Irenaeus' rejection of the Alexandrian 'heresy' regarding the throne of God. Irenaeus writes:
[Peter] proceeds to speak confidently to them concerning the patriarch David, that he was dead and buried, and that his sepulchre is with them to this day. He said, "But since he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his body one should sit in his throne; foreseeing this, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, that He was not left in hell, neither did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus," he said, "hath God raised up, of which we all are witnesses: who, being exalted by the right hand of God, receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this gift which ye now see and hear. For David has not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My fight hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made [that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." ... Thus the apostles did not preach another God, or another Fulness; nor, that the Christ who suffered and rose again was one, while he who flew off on high was another, and remained impossible; but that there was one and the same God the Father, and Christ Jesus who rose from the dead; and they preached faith in Him, to those who did not believe on the Son of God, and exhorted them out of the prophets, that the Christ whom God promised to send, He sent in Jesus, whom they crucified and God raised up.[AH iii.12.2]
The point of course, my friends, is that it is not as if Irenaeus just 'miraculously' found a bunch of texts lying around or being used by the Roman Church which disproved the Alexandrian tradition. Irenaeus clearly MANIPULATED the material, assembled it as a RIVAL CANON to that of Alexandria and proceeded to develop this argument NOT ONLY to disprove the beliefs of his enemies BUT MOREOVER to establish Rome as the new center of Christianity.
More work has to be developed to prove all of these things but there should be enough material here for people to at least consider that Book Three of Against Heresies was developed against an Alexandrian tradition which already preserved the ideas found in the Letter to Theodore. More to follow ...
