An Old Man for Old Men
Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, stomper extraordinaire of Gnostic heresies, lived a short hundred years after the last of the apostles. Some report that he was schooled by Polycarp of Smyrna whom some report had seen the apostle John. Whatever the connection, Irenaeus was writing in the latter half of the second century, around 170 or 180.
Ireneaus is famous for his work against the Gnostic heretics and he argues at length against their errors and logical inconsistencies. Bishop Irenaeus is also famous for his odd take on the chronology of Jesus' life. (Book 2.22) He believed that Jesus lived to be an old man, aged fifty or more at his death:
Irenaeus urges this point because of some silly chronology that the Gnostics held. But it is instructive that Irenaeus bolsters his argument by an appeal to apostolic tradition:
Ireneaus is famous for his work against the Gnostic heretics and he argues at length against their errors and logical inconsistencies. Bishop Irenaeus is also famous for his odd take on the chronology of Jesus' life. (Book 2.22) He believed that Jesus lived to be an old man, aged fifty or more at his death:
For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all ...He seems to have this idea at least in part because Jesus was a Master, and would therefore have been of the age of a Master, which in Irenaeus' calculations, pretty much had to be fifty or more, evidently.
Irenaeus urges this point because of some silly chronology that the Gnostics held. But it is instructive that Irenaeus bolsters his argument by an appeal to apostolic tradition:
from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?Granted, you might say that Irenaeus appeals to apostolic tradition only to establish that Jesus was a Teacher/Master, which in Irenaeus' view requires an age of fifty or more. But it hardly seems necessary to make the personal connection appeal to establish a fact which it seems unlikely to have been disputed. Rather, the apostolic appeal seems to be for Jesus living to an old man age. If that's the case, barely 100 years after John's death, the value of appeals to apostolic tradition are severely depreciated.
Labels: early church fathers
posted by Keith | Wednesday, October 19, 2011
11 Comments:
On the trustworthiness of oral tradition.
@Lyka: yes, cultures with strong oral traditions do an amazing job. However, the point is that we have a clear failing of fact by Irenaeus here, and he claims oral tradition for his authority. Thus oral tradition is demonstrably imperfect.
And how do you know that? We don't know the exact date of Christ's birth, or death: the earliest possible date for His birth is 14 BC, and the latest possible date for his death around 35 AD, so to say that the Asian tradition to which Irenaeus bears witness is "a clear failing" or "demonstrably imperfect" is simply false... It's quite possibly that Christ was in His late forties when He was crucified (as opposed to being in His early thirties, as the more wide-spread tradition attests).
wow. if that's what it takes to be Orthodox, i could never do it. are you really saying that Jesus was an old man?
You... honestly never knew what I just wrote? :-\ Or are you just saying that Irenaeus exagerates a bit? If the latter, then we agree.
The Synoptics don't give us any particular reason to think that Jesus' ministry lasted more than one year: this opinion existed, and was the only one that made sense in the Gnostic system. John, on the other hand, seems to convey the distinct impression that His ministry spread over at least four Easters or Passovers. And a third opinion was similar (though not identical) to that which Irenaeus puts forth, namely that He lived to be fourty, maybe even fifty years old. When Dionysius Exiguus calculated the Christian Era in about 500 AD, he opted for the one that satisfied most, though not all, of the given historical and astronomical data. [Unless you were of the opinion that Christ's age was a matter of "dogma": it isn't]. [The duration of three and a half years for His ministry squares quite well with Daniel's prophecy about the "weeks of years", which says that "in the middle of the week, His life will be taken away" -- obviously, if a `week` is seven `days`-years, its middle is three and a half `days`-years].
Back to my original point. Irenaeus says Jesus was an old man and he supports that claim with an appeal to tradition. That speaks against the reliability of tradition unless you really believe that Jesus was an old man. I don't.
And the magical reason for which you "don't" is ALSO because of tradition... (which is what you still don't seem to understand...) There's NO biblical or dogmatic reason to reject ANY of the other possible dates for Christ's birth, other than the fact that in 500 AD a man who lived for a big part of his life in what is now Romanian territory (and I say that with a certain sense of 'pride', being Romanian myself) chose what we NOW call 'year 1 AD' as THE year for Christ's birth... Today, the historical consensus strongly inclines towards 4 BC as being the year of Christ's birth, the other two possible dates being 7 BC and 14 BC... If, on the other hand, Dionysius Exiguus would've chosen, say, what we now call "14 BC" as the date of Christ's birth, you would've exclaimed today: "How could the Gnostics ever even begin to believe that Jesus was so young !? It's absurd !! EVERYBODY KNOWS that he was in His [late] forties when He was crucified !!"
Unless you are prepared to assert with confidence that Jesus was an old man, my point stands: Irenaeus' appeal to tradition depreciates the reliability of tradition.
Even if, as you seem to want, the question of Jesus' age is so difficult to determine that we must allow he *could* have been an old man, you cannot hold that without depreciating the authority of the tradition Irenaeus cites. He says "I knew Polycarp. Polycarp knew John. Jesus was an old man."
Do you accept his testimony or not?
Antiquity is only one aspect of truth: the other is universality. Since other equally-apostolic traditions proposed other values for Christ's age, the matter remains undecided. But when ALL received traditions tell the SAME story, to opposed their COMMON voice is a sign rebellion against Christ and His Holy Spirit.
Now the value of Tradition becomes more complicated, since evidently there are traditions and then there is Tradition. So we can say that Irenaeus' view that Jesus was an old man is only based on tradition, but since it is only a minority tradition it doesn't count as Tradition. Thus we can discount Irenaeus' tradition without discounting Majority, or I guess you would say Universal Tradition. Do I present your view Fairly?
If so, that seems like a way to let the church do some picking and choosing. Though now the problem is how to determine Universal Tradition, because it is not equally obvious to everyone, as witnessed by some Universal Traditions which are not held universally.
And obviously Presbyterians pick and choose tradition, too. Of course a majority tradition has some advantage, but in the end we insist that all traditions be reexamined according to scripture.
The RC's say determinations are made with three considerations: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, and the Magisterium (which cannot err) effectively has the final say. How does the EO church determine a "final say?"
I don't want to sound Calvinistic, but it's not much of a "choice", really... Tradition imposes itself on us, by very objective criteria, such as universality or antiquity. It's not so much a pick, but a vote (and it's not our vote, we're just the ones counting the 'yeas' and the 'nays').
We don't really got a "choice" in the matter, nor can these factors be influenced by our personal or subjective input. We can either receive it, or we can reject it: we can't redefine it, reshape it, reinterpret it, reconstruct it, reform it, change it, modify it, alter it, add to it, or subtract from it.
We're no interested in what we think that the Bible means, but rather how Christianity in its entirety, throughout space and time, understood it.
P.S.: 'Universality' is not the same as 'unanimity'.
___________________________________
One might say that our formula is the same as that of the Catholics (at least the words are the same), but with the not-so-unimportant distinction that for us Scripture and Tradition are a given, and not some wobbly, abstract, jelly-like entity in need constant re-shaping and re-interpreting from a select or elect few (which is a Gnostic or Calvinstic concept): that's not just how we perceive the role of teachers, priests, bishops, and other hierarchs. Their job is to uphold the faith, not to mess with it (that's what heretics are for).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home