"Against Heresies"

[bml]

Good morning,

While trying to defend the Faith against an attack from a on-the-fence believer, I ran across a anti-Christian website that quoted Irenaeus (properly, which was shocking). According to Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22), newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm he believes that Jesus lived to be at least forty, and that he lived through the time of Trajan, whose reign started in 98 AD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

Are we supposed to take half of these early documents with grains of salt, yet firmly believe the other halves which do conform to our beliefs? Seems kinda like a slippery slope, at least when trying to defend the faith to non-believers (or even Bible Christians). I’m not asking this as an instigation, I’m a devout Catholic who’s trying to reconcile this rather shocking passage…

Thanks for any help!

 

[puppypatrol]

If you read the chapter very carefully, you will observe that Irenaeus was speaking about those who belive Jesus taught for only one year after his Baptism and that he died in the 12th month of the jewish callendar. Irenaeus points out that, in the writings of the apostles, there are records of what Jesus was doing on 3 consecutive Passovers after his Baptism which makes the 1 year erroneous. He also points out that it is those who teach errors that say Jesus was at least 40, not Irenaeus, and why they are mistaken.

It also states that it was John he was speaking of in the statement “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.” not Jesus.

I would have to agree that these writings can be very difficult to read, much less understand. It definitely requires patience and a lot of re-reading. Good luch. Many of the converts I have listened to commented that reading the early church fathers was what pushed them over the edge into the arms of Catholism.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Jews said about Jesus, when he was in his thirties, that he was not yet 50 for a number of reasons. First, because the Jews kept track of time by their religious calendar, which divided sets of years into Jubilees, i.e. every 50th year. Second, because they considered that a man should have lived for the length of this same time period, a Jubilee, in order to be considered a teacher (the idea is that wisdom comes with age). Third, perhaps because they knew that Jesus had been born in a Jubilee year, so they were saying that he had not yet lived to the next Jubilee year.

Iranaeus assumes that the Jews would have chosen the next higher set of ten years, but the Jews orgainized the years into sets of seven years (Sabbatical), and then into seven sets of seven years (Jubilee). So Iranaeus erred on that minor point.

 

[puppypatrol]

The Jews said about Jesus, when he was in his thirties, that he was not yet 50 for a number of reasons. First, because the Jews kept track of time by their religious calendar, which divided sets of years into Jubilees, i.e. every 50th year. Second, because they considered that a man should have lived for the length of this same time period, a Jubilee, in order to be considered a teacher (the idea is that wisdom comes with age). Third, perhaps because they knew that Jesus had been born in a Jubilee year, so they were saying that he had not yet lived to the next Jubilee year.

Iranaeus assumes that the Jews would have chosen the next higher set of ten years, but the Jews orgainized the years into sets of seven years (Sabbatical), and then into seven sets of seven years (Jubilee). So Iranaeus erred on that minor point.

Thank you, I didn’t know that and it is a good piece of information to know.

 

[guanophore]

Good morning,

While trying to defend the Faith against an attack from a on-the-fence believer, I ran across a anti-Christian website that quoted Irenaeus (properly, which was shocking). According to Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22), newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm he believes that Jesus lived to be at least forty, and that he lived through the time of Trajan, whose reign started in 98 AD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

Are we supposed to take half of these early documents with grains of salt, yet firmly believe the other halves which do conform to our beliefs? Seems kinda like a slippery slope, at least when trying to defend the faith to non-believers (or even Bible Christians). I’m not asking this as an instigation, I’m a devout Catholic who’s trying to reconcile this rather shocking passage…

Thanks for any help!

This is an excellent question! We do not consider the writings of the fathers to be inspired/inerrant as we do the scripture. However, they do record some of the infallible teaching of the Church. How do we know which is which? Because when we study the teaching of the Church (catechism is a good source) we can see the threads clearly running through the writings, from the NT to the present.

May God bless your sincere efforts to know and defend the One Faith.