tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4599835890123866980..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Debunking an over-used Irenaeus quote on “Papal Succession”Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61706337526077170292017-01-07T22:00:48.511-05:002017-01-07T22:00:48.511-05:00According to Dominic J. Unger, in his introduction...According to Dominic J. Unger, in his introduction to his translation of book one of Against Heresies, for ACW there are 9 extant Latin manuscripts of Against Heresies (page 12) plus 3 non-extant manuscripts that Erasmus used for his first edition (page 13). He also affirms with good evidence that the Latin translation was pre-Nicene (pages 14-15).<br /><br />Sorry John, there is no manuscript dating to 380. That is simply a speculative date that a few scholars claim, including Osborn, for the Latin translation. Considering Tertullian used the Latin version of Against Heresies in his Against Valentinius it is hard to justify a later date for the translation. As for Damasus's connection with Irenaeus, I'm still waiting for evidence! Even Osborn doesn't make this claim.<br /><br />Also, Patriarch Photius reviewed Against Heresies in the 9th century in his Bibliotheca. So not only were Greek manuscripts of Against Heresies around in the 9th century but it was being read. Is this too much scholarship for you?<br /><br />Byzashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07386398139477635913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50381341024278736312017-01-06T21:08:46.766-05:002017-01-06T21:08:46.766-05:00The textual history of 'Against Heresies'?...The textual history of 'Against Heresies'? Well, it was translated into Latin in the pre-Nicene period - one of the first theological works of the Fathers to be translated. It was also translated into Syriac and Armenian. It was used by Hippolytus, Eusebius and Epiphanius. <br /><br />Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 proves that Irenaeus was being read in a obscure provincial town in Egypt very soon after he wrote. It certainly implies a wide distribution. Numerous quotes from Irenaeus, including 'Against Heresies' are included in Greek theological florilegium.<br /><br />As far as I am aware there is no dispute over the text of Against Heresies. As the Latin version was translated 100 years before Damasus I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. Can you point me to the page in Osborn where he says Damasus tinkered with the text to promote the Papacy?Byzashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07386398139477635913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73582055948831380622017-01-06T15:26:29.101-05:002017-01-06T15:26:29.101-05:00"Fables that Peter was the first bishop of Ro..."Fables that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and ruled there for 25 years have also been found to be contradictory to accounts in Acts. That story first made its appearance in the third century, but it sounded good to later bishops of Rome, and so therefore it was repeated ad nauseam."<br />--------yeah, the story that Peter lived in Rome for 25 years might be a fable, but the story that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome did not make its first appearance in the 3rd century, but, if we can trust Eusebius, in the 2nd century. <br /><br />In H.E. 6:14, Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying:<br /><br />"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome..."<br /><br />And Clement goes on to say this preaching had succeeded in founding a church, which later had to repeatedly ask Mark for a written account of Peter's preaching, a thing Mark persistently denied but finally acquiesced to.<br /><br />Assuming Clement was correct, does it make historical sense to say that all Clement is implying here is that Peter came to Rome, preached a sermon in public, then took the next flight out of town? <br /><br />No. If Peter really did preach the gospel in Rome, to the point that his preaching created enough believers to form a church, it is highly likely that Peter would have known there's more to his duties as an apostle than just talking out loud about Jesus as he walks from one location to the next. <br /><br />He would have found it necessary to interact with new converts and groups of them in a way that would fall under the duties of "bishop".<br /><br />That much would reasonably follow from Clement's statement, even if other patristic accounts give a different name for the first bishop of Rome, and even if Peter's engaging in bishop-duties there was more on the order of a temporary leader than a permanent resident. <br /><br />Peter does not have to "move to Rome", in order for all activities historically and reasonably implied from his "preaching in Rome" to qualify him as the first "Bishop of Rome".barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46109083984780808152017-01-06T06:29:43.919-05:002017-01-06T06:29:43.919-05:00What do you think I want this to accomplish? There...What do you think I want this to accomplish? There is a paragraph about Rome being important (no kidding, it was the capital of the empire, and had been for as long as anyone could remember. There are no Greek manuscripts (and Irenaeus wrote in Greek). There is a bad Latin translation dating from, surprise, surprise, the fourth century. There are two more copies written after 1000. All of this screams "this is not important in the first millennium". A "20th century scholar" can wrangle about "interpretation", but if there is only one manuscript, you can rest assured that for the first 1000 years no one thought that document was important. <br />John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66228668041813783062017-01-05T18:56:30.597-05:002017-01-05T18:56:30.597-05:00Your post doesn't really accomplish what you t...Your post doesn't really accomplish what you think. A 20th century scholar examined sources from the early church, but apparently ignored Irenaeus as a source probably because he had a conclusion he wanted to reach. And asserting that the "fable" that Peter served as bishop of Rome "first made its appearance in the third century" also skips right over Ireneaus. Oh well.MontJoiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16193368987531074641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58894023633564018802017-01-05T14:49:29.234-05:002017-01-05T14:49:29.234-05:00Thanks Corey -- you are correct, there is not an &...Thanks Corey -- you are correct, there is not an "infallible" interpretation of Matt 16:18 although as Loomis and Shotwell ("See of Peter", 1927) wrote, "that doctrine is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure" and it is "on the border line between history and dogmatic theology". Since that time, Rome has had to deal with eroding history. Here's a link that gives an overview of the history of the interpretation of that verse:<br /><br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-interpretation-of.html" rel="nofollow">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-interpretation-of.html</a><br /><br /><br />One of the challenges with "ex cathedra" statements (there is only one, officially -- the 1950 pronouncement on the assumption of Mary) -- Akin is wrong about "only when needed". He is referring to a time when the bishop of Rome sort of played "9th vote on the Supreme Court" among the five patriarchates. There was no need for the "assumption of Mary" dogma. <br /><br />"Papal Infallibility" was first conceived as a way of preventing one pope from undoing another pope's authoritative statements (sort of what Trump is going to do to all of Obama's "executive orders") -- here's a little about that:<br /><br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/04/before-infallibility-was-twinkling-in.html" rel="nofollow">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/04/before-infallibility-was-twinkling-in.html</a><br /> John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12548876414416922072017-01-05T14:29:32.587-05:002017-01-05T14:29:32.587-05:00John - Well done good friend! I just finished read...John - Well done good friend! I just finished reading Lampe, so I can attest to your accurate references. I had a thought for you: it seems to me that there are no "ex cathedra" pronouncements on Matt. 16:18. If that's true, then not even Rome is willing to commit to the actual interpretation. Do I understand that correctly? I just listened a bit to Jimmy Akin talk about how ex cathedra statements are classified as a go to "only when needed" in his words. I've not heard that before. In any case, without ex cathedra, isn't the whole issue still open?cfleighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437447205017185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50209503010828329322017-01-05T10:54:25.850-05:002017-01-05T10:54:25.850-05:00Thanks Federico. This is a fairly good summary of ...Thanks Federico. This is a fairly good summary of issues on both sides:<br /><br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-2-apostolic.html" rel="nofollow">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-2-apostolic.html</a><br /> John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79233360540698092662017-01-05T10:45:50.242-05:002017-01-05T10:45:50.242-05:00Great post John. What is the best a Catholic can o...Great post John. What is the best a Catholic can offer in defense of apostolic succession? And what would be the counter argument for it?Federico Alvarezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08516572479160032049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72725800927866467592017-01-05T09:36:11.670-05:002017-01-05T09:36:11.670-05:00Thanks Alex. Two things: First, Roman Catholic sch...Thanks Alex. Two things: First, Roman Catholic scholars never use this passage to defend the papacy. They already know it's debunked. Second, uninformed "Catholic Converts", in their enthusiasm, always seem to trot it out. So I found over the years that I've needed to compile such information as this whenever I see it. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76244317584607493522017-01-05T09:33:38.361-05:002017-01-05T09:33:38.361-05:00I'd say the response was akin boxing with thre...I'd say the response was akin boxing with three devastating blows to the body, a straight right to the chin, left hook to the temple and a right upper cut. KO. Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.com