The St. Irenaeus "erred" crutch

[Psalm45_9]

I have read on this forum that supposedly St. Irenaeus makes a blunder about how long Jesus lived, thus making Apostolic Tradition unreliable. I have read on poster quoting an article explaining away that St. Irenaeus did not commit and error. Are there any articles by Catholic Apologists about this issue and other “errors” of the Church Fathers in general?

 

[CATHOLICHEAD]

tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

Gives a great explanation of the Irenaeus quote. I dealt with some of the quotes in an article I posted earlier, I took them from this site, definitely not a Catholic site.

As far as Church Father errors, well I bet there’d be numerous ones. The Fathers were human and were in no means infallible or inspired like the authors of holy scripture. They had their own personal opinions and thoughts on subjects of the day, such as we all do nowadays. But as far as a Church Father(not a heretic or Father that later fell into heresy) that was against Catholic teaching or one that denied the Eucharist, Tradition, Purgatory, etc. you’d be hard pressed to find one father. The Fathers were Catholic.

CH

 

[Psalm45_9]

As far as Church Father errors, well I bet there’d be numerous ones. The Fathers were human and were in no means infallible or inspired like the authors of holy scripture. They had their own personal opinions and thoughts on subjects of the day, such as we all do nowadays. But as far as a Church Father(not a heretic or Father that later fell into heresy) that was against Catholic teaching or one that denied the Eucharist, Tradition, Purgatory, etc. you’d be hard pressed to find one father. The Fathers were Catholic.

CH

Well, this is a new area of apologetics I have to get into for my RCIA class, defending the Fathers. I know many anti-Catholics like to bring up St. Jerome when it comes to subjects of the OT canon. (Looking over the fact where he used the Deuterocanonicals to defend Christian teachings.) But they also look over that he was a strong believer in Mary’s perpetual virginity who defends that dogma from all of those scriptural passages that are still being brought up today.

 

[Contarini]

tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

Gives a great explanation of the Irenaeus quote.

I don’t find the explanation to be “great” or even relevant. In fact the explanation itself makes the problem worse. If Irenaeus, who lived relatively close to Jesus’ day, could “force the evidence” to suit his theological agenda, what does this say about later claims of apostolic tradition? Why should we believe Augustine when he says infant baptism is an apostolic tradition? The article actually strengthens the reasons for being skeptical about any such claim, and it strengthens the case for the Protestant position that the only traditions we can confidently claim as apostolic are those that found their way into canonical Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Penitant]

I don’t find the explanation to be “great” or even relevant. In fact the explanation itself makes the problem worse. If Irenaeus, who lived relatively close to Jesus’ day, could “force the evidence” to suit his theological agenda, what does this say about later claims of apostolic tradition? Why should we believe Augustine when he says infant baptism is an apostolic tradition? The article actually strengthens the reasons for being skeptical about any such claim, and it strengthens the case for the Protestant position that the only traditions we can confidently claim as apostolic are those that found their way into canonical Scripture.

Edwin

Actually, I think he meant it was a “great explanation of the quote” as in it was a great explanation of the argument that will be made against Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The issue with Irenaeus is very simple.

First, he provides the apostolic tradition and the Gospel as evidence for his claim, so that right there should eliminate any use of the arguement against Tradition, as it also stands against the Gospel. Some may argue with this point, but I think it stands up.

My main point, however, is simply that Irenaeus’ writings were not inspired. He was a human being. Let me preface this by asking if anyone has ever studied how human memory works. It’s nuts. There is an incredible amount of the things we remember vividly that actually never really happened. There are different reasons for this, but I’ll give one example. When an event happens, it gets stored away in a person’s brain. The next time he goes to describe that event to someone, his brain “opens the file” and starts reading from it. All this time, other stuff is going through his brain too as his senses take in things that are happening while he is telling the story. When that story gets “filed away” again, some of that stuff gets filed away with it. This is why witnesses to crimes are instructed very strictly not to discuss what they saw with anyone until they have first given the report to an officer - if they tell it to a friend or something, it can really mess up the story. For example, a crime witness may be telling the story while a dog is barking, and the next time he tells it he will be absolutely convinced that there was a dog barking during ther murder, but it never really happened; the dog was barking while he was retelling the story.

I say this as just one example of the problems with out memories to make my point. The Scriptures are inspired. What they say is guaranteed to be correct. The writings of the fathers are not. Irenaeus may have really, truly thought that St. John told him that Jesus lived to a certain age, when in fact it may have been some old man or something. This is why the Church speaks of the unanimous consent of the fathers, not of one father here or there. When the vast majority of the fathers make a point, it is extremely likely to be correct, because it is unlikely that all of them erred in the same way. When one father makes a point, it is not meaningless, and it is still an important historical reference that has a great deal of weight, but it is also not beyond reproach.

The Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that every father or bishop is infallible. The Church has taught that all of the bishops speaking together are infallible, and this is based upon the protection of the Holy Spirit. We trust that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church as a whole, just as we trust that the Holy Spirit has guarded the Scriptures so that they didn’t get filled with nonsense as they were copied by Scribes. When we look back and see the fathers speaking together on an issue, we see the fact that a consensus is strong evidence for accuracy, and we see the Holy Spirit. When we look back on one father, we see something worth considering, and worth putting great weight in, but something that needs corroboration from other sources and ultimately the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The fathers could have committed human error easily. Imagine St. Clement sending off a letter to someone and then a week later saying to himself, “Ooops, I wrote that Peter said that, but it was actually that centaurion.” People make mistakes like that. We all have. I made a statement just the other night that I realized after I was just wrong on. My memory had erred momentarily. Of course Irenaeus’ citation on this point comes from something he wrote over decades, but the point stands that he may simply have attributed to an apostle what no apostle ever said. It’s also possible he was correct in what he said, and that an apostle misspoke or was mistaken, or that the age of Jesus has nothing to do with faith or morals and was not something given to the apostles to teach authoritatively. It’s also possible that Jesus was over forty. I had a friend make a decent case for that last night. I don’t think he proved it, but I think he proved it’s not entirely implausible. We trust the Holy Spirit. That is what Christianity is - trust of God.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

Does the catholic church believe Jesus lived for 33 years?

AFH

 

[Ziggy]

I have read on this forum that supposedly St. Irenaeus makes a blunder about how long Jesus lived, thus making Apostolic Tradition unreliable. I have read on poster quoting an article explaining away that St. Irenaeus did not commit and error. Are there any articles by Catholic Apologists about this issue and other “errors” of the Church Fathers in general?

This is a good article about it… bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm which concludes

So, Irenaeus’ point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.

Read the whole thing, it isn’t too long

 

[batteddy]

Well, firstly…Jesus’s age is not really a doctrine. If Iraeneus thought Jesus could somehow be 50 at the time of his passion…even though the gospels say he started at thirty and preached for three years…its really not a big deal for me. Iraeneus wasn’t Pope.

Tradition is not so much a human passing down through the generations, but a divine passing down. Those things always preserved supernaturally, not necessarily those things preserved naturally. It’s a bit more nuanced than this “word of mouth” definition people give for Tradition. It is much more about divine protection of the deposit of faith in the life of the Church (for example…the sacraments were being practiced even BEFORE the gospels were written)

 

[Psalm45_9]

This is a good article about it… bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm which concludes Read the whole thing, it isn’t too long

THANK YOU! I see this as simple case of taking a verse out of context ie Matthew 23:9.

 

[Psalm45_9]

From reading the paragraphs 4-6:

newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

I see that St. Irenaeus percieves that the Pharisees mentioned in St. John’s Gospel took Christ to be at least 40 years old or close to it, meaning that age of a teacher. St. Ireaeus does not specify that Jesus was really 40 or not, but only proves that Jesus was over the age of 30 and below the age of 50; making him indeed not a youth and close enough to be considered a teacher/rabbi and at the same time destorying the gnostics opinion that he was only 30 years old when he was baptized and suffered.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< This is a good article about it… bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm >>

Thanks, that’s the article from my site by Bonocore replying to White. Know that White has responded, and the Tektonics.org apologetics site discusses it and comes to similar conclusions about what Irenaeus thought about Jesus’ age.

Bonocore’s defense could very well be wrong. It’s something I said earlier I should look into. I left it on my site since it is an interesting response to a common objection that James White brings up many times in his debates about the “unreliability” of tradition.

The question is what is meant by “Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but 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…” (from Against Heresies 2:22)

By all means, print out Bonocore’s article, White’s response, the Tektonics article, other scholarly commentaries on St. Irenaeus, and look into this yourself.

Phil P

 

[Psalm45_9]

<< This is a good article about it… bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm >>

Thanks, that’s the article from my site by Bonocore replying to White. Know that White has responded, and the Tektonics.org apologetics site discusses it and comes to similar conclusions about what Irenaeus thought about Jesus’ age.

Bonocore’s defense could very well be wrong. It’s something I said earlier I should look into. I left it on my site since it is an interesting response to a common objection that James White brings up many times in his debates about the “unreliability” of tradition.

The question is what is meant by “Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but 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…” (from Against Heresies 2:22)

By all means, print out Bonocore’s article, White’s response, the Tektonics article, other scholarly commentaries on St. Irenaeus, and look into this yourself.

Phil P

Thank you Phil, I do not see this as big of an issue as anti-Catholics are making it out to be. First of all, I don’t see St. Ireaneus stating that Jesus was in his fifties, he proves that he isn’t.

Let’s think about it, the Synoptic Gospels say that Passover was on Maundy Thursday Evening, while St. John’s Gospel says it was on Good Friday evening. Does that invalidate either three or one of the Gospels? Those who hold fast to Sola Scriptura will come up with all types of theories reconcilling the two, but when St. Irenaeus makes an “error”, it’s “Ha, in your face!” and no theories about St. Irenaeus will change their opinons once they have it set that tradition is wrong, but when atheists say the two stories of creation don’t match in Genisis, all sorts of theories will pop up defending creationism.

It’s a matter of what you believe, St. Irenaeus was defending the faith from Gnosticism and was connecting the dots. I stick to that the Pharisees took Jesus to be older then he really was, based on his teachings and that his ministry made him physically age in apperance. Also, St. John’s Gospel gives a testimony of Jesus’ last three years of life. Jesus was baptized at 30 as the gospels record, but what’s to say that there aren’t years in between his baptism and the last three years recorded in St. John’s Gospel. I hold to the first theory.

 

[Contarini]

From reading the paragraphs 4-6:

newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

I see that St. Irenaeus percieves that the Pharisees mentioned in St. John’s Gospel took Christ to be at least 40 years old or close to it, meaning that age of a teacher. St. Ireaeus does not specify that Jesus was really 40 or not, but only proves that Jesus was over the age of 30 and below the age of 50; making him indeed not a youth and close enough to be considered a teacher/rabbi and at the same time destorying the gnostics opinion that he was only 30 years old when he was baptized and suffered.

I’m not sure how you get this from the text you cite. Paragraph 5 (the bit PhilVaz quoted) says that a person can be said to be young until 30 or 40, that old age begins around 40-50, and that Jesus already possessed this “old age” during the time when he was teaching. Paragraph 6 says explicitly that Jesus wasn’t much younger than 50 at the time of John 8, and hints that he may have been at least fifty by the time He died.

I’ll grant you that Irenaeaus doesn’t say clearly that Jesus was over fifty when He died, but he does say clearly that he was over forty and didn’t lack much of fifty by the time recorded in John 8. How you get “over 30 and under 50” from that is beyond me.

And we haven’t even gotten onto the subject of millenialism. . . .

In both cases the valid Protestant point is that if you think there was an oral tradition passed down, these two points would obviously be high on the list. Since you do not think these are dogmas, the entire argument for an authoritative oral tradition is highly shaky at best.

As I’ve tried to suggest elsewhere, the whole problem with most of the arguments about Sola Scriptura is that they presuppose a dogmatic commitment to SS and then use logical arguments to break this down. Protestants have asked for this treatment by the way they have defended SS. But the real case for SS is simply one by default. We know that the canonical books were accepted as apostolic, and we do not know of any books that clearly have a better claim to be apostolic than the canonical books. The Gospel of Thomas is the only possible case, and only some scholars think that it’s possible that Thomas is earlier than some of the later canonical books. But in the case of oral tradition, we have claims of apostolic tradition from the fourth century that are accepted (though not all even of those are), and at the same time we have clear claims of apostolic tradition from the second century that are rejected or trivialized. Something is fishy. It isn’t that there couldn’t be authoritative apostolic oral tradition on general principles (obviously there was at one time). It’s that the evidence for actual such traditions is shaky at best.

Edwin

 

[John_Henry]

But in the case of oral tradition, we have claims of apostolic tradition from the fourth century that are accepted (though not all even of those are), and at the same time we have clear claims of apostolic tradition from the second century that are rejected or trivialized. Something is fishy.

I must be having a “whale omelette” kind of day. I am having a hard time following the import of this Irenaeus quote. He cites a supposed apostolic tradition that Jesus was 50 or so when he died. But we know from scripture that that wasn’t the case. So, taking the worst possible interpretation of the facts, Irenaeus was mistaken about the apostolic nature of a tradition. This is where my “thickness” comes in. What’s the commotion about? Are people under the impression the Church is bound to some view of Patristic Infallibility? I’m pretty sure the Church readily admits that certain Fathers made errors as to the content of apostolic tradition. It’s to the Church that infallibility is granted. One doesn’t see bishops these days going around preaching that Jesus died an old man. Why? Because the Church has sifted the various claims of apostolic authority associated with various traditions over the last 2000 years. And some of those claims have been found wanting.

Here’s a quote from Eusebius (forgive the bold and underlining and capitalization…I am copy and pasting from a letter I received from an anti-Catholic):

11 The same writer [Papias] gives also other accounts WHICH HE SAYS CAME TO HIM THROUGH UNWRITTEN TRADITION, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.394 12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.395 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. 13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding,396 as one can see from his discourses. BUT IT WAS DUE TO HIM THAT SO MANY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS AFTER HIM ADOPTED A LIKE OPINION, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.397

Same deal as with Irenaeus. A supposed apostolic tradition that was passed down through Papias to several of the Church Fathers, but wasn’t apparently apostolic. The quote itself, though, is also the demonstration that the Church is able to sift the wheat from the chaff (so to speak) when it comes to traditions.

 

[Psalm45_9]

he may have been at least fifty by the time He died…I’ll grant you that Irenaeaus doesn’t say clearly that Jesus was over fifty when He died, but he does say clearly that he was over forty and didn’t lack much of fifty by the time recorded in John 8. How you get “over 30 and under 50” from that is beyond me.

May have been at least 50 doesn’t mean that he was, Ireaneus implies that the Pharisees took him to be in his 40s, thus making him between 30 and 50. It does not mean that he was. John has explained things well, I do not see Irenaeus as an issue at all.

As I stated before anti-Catholics have no problems accepting scriptures as apostolic truth, even when there are some tricky parts ie the passover mentioned in the synoptics vs John’s account, in those cases they come up with theories to reconcile the texts. But when it comes any outside source, such as the Fathers, it’s “See! He made an ‘error’, that means it doesn’t hold any weight.” An atheist would say the same thing about scripture.