Was Irenaeus wrong?
A while ago, I had a chap called Roscoe commenting on my blog, denying the Catholic claims concerning St. Peter and the See of Rome. In response, I quoted St. Irenaeus, one of the most important witnesses concerning the Church at Rome:
“…that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; …which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…
…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [of Rome]. Of this Linus…Anacletus…Clement…[and] Eleutherius does now…hold the inheritance of the episcopate.
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth
– Against Heresies III.3.3 (c. AD 180)
Not founded by Peter and Paul
In reply to my quotation of Irenaeus, Roscoe wrote the following:
There are no historical facts to support the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. Rome was over 1000 miles away from where they were. We can see what Peter was doing in Acts and he was not in Rome at this time. Most likely the faith was brought there by pilgrims who were converted in the early chapters of Acts.
Roscoe’s main argument seems to be:
1. Irenaeus says Peter and Paul “founded” the church at Rome.
2. Jews from Rome were present at Pentecost and converted to Christianity. It would have most likely been these Christians who would have brought the faith to Rome.
3. Irenaeus is proven demonstrably wrong and therefore his testimony concerning Rome should be regarded as extremely dubious.
I’ve heard this kind of argument a few times in the comment section of other blogs, so today I’d like to respond to it…
What’s the reason?
I asked Roscoe why he thinks Irenaeus gets this issue of the founding of Rome wrong. Was it through ignorance? Or was it through malice? Or…could it be that Roscoe is misinterpreting Irenaeus’ words? I received no answer to these questions, but I would now like to look at each of these possibilities…
Option #1: Ignorance?
Nobody doubts that Christians were in Rome from a very early date. We have two pieces of Scriptural testimony to support this idea:
1. Acts of the Apostles
In his account of Pentecost, Luke explicitly mentions that pilgrims from Rome were in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10).
2. Epistle to the Romans
St. Paul wrote a letter to them! In this magnum opus Paul even specifically says that he generally prefers to preach in areas where the Gospel has yet to reach (Romans 15:20).
So, was Irenaeus just ignorant of these facts? Had he never read Acts of the Apostles or Paul’s Epistle to the Romans? Well, that seems rather unlikely, particularly given the popularity of the Roman epistle. Not only that, it’s also rather unlikely because Irenaeus quotes both of these books in his own masterwork, “Against Heresies”!
1. Acts of the Apostles
Quoted in Adversus Haereses, Book 3, Chapter 14.
2. Epistle to the Romans
Quoted in Adversus Haereses, Book 3, Chapter 16.
Once we recognize this, we can no longer accuse Irenaeus of ignorance.
Option #2: Maliciousness?
However, could we charge Irenaeus with maliciousness? Was he purposefully subverting the truth? Well, if we were to attempt to demonstrate that, we’d first at least to establish a motive, the reason Irenaeus would lie. Personally, I can’t think of one, so we have to discount this option.
Option #3: Misinterpretation?
This brings us to the third option and the one with the simplest explanation. Could it be that Roscoe simply be misinterpreting Irenaeus’ words? Could it be that when Irenaeus is talking about the “found[ing]” of Rome, he’s not talking about when Christians first arrived in Rome?
Analogy: The founding of a city
I live in the western portion of the United States and, as I drive through California, I’m often reminded of the pioneer days when settlers moved across the land beginning farms, towns and cities. Consider for a moment, the process of founding a city:
1. Scouting Party
There is a preliminary scouting party which goes ahead. These are the first people on the ground in that territory.
2. Early Community
When a good spot is found, a few people start to settle. A community is established.
3. Rubber Stamped
There comes a moment when a city becomes “official”. This could be marked by a number of different events:
(a) The community reaches a certain size
(b) The construction of a certain feature or building e.g. cathedral, pub, town hall, clock tower etc.
(c) The community receives certain recognition or honour by the ruling government or monarch.
We might consider for a moment, the “founding” of the United States. The land of North America has been around for a long time and people have lived here for a significant period of time, but there was a definitive moment in history when the United States became an official country.
Now let’s look at the sequence of events in the early years of Christianity:
1. Scouting Party
Jews from across the Empire were in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Some were converted and received baptism in response to Peter’s preaching. This handful of Christians returned to Rome.
2. Early Community
Over the next few years, the Church in Rome began to grow through evangelization efforts of these Pentecostal Catholics 😉
3. Rubber Stamped
The community then became “official”. This idea is found in earliest Church Fathers. For example, in AD 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the necessity of having a bishop:
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church
– Letter to the Smyrnaeans
So, at a later point in time, Peter and Paul go to Rome, bringing to it prestige and making it the focal point of Christian activity. I would submit that it is to this that Irenaeus refers as the “founding” of the Church.
Hopefully this makes sense of Irenaeus’ comments about Rome. We don’t have to accuse him of either ignorance or malice, but we have to simply interpret his words carefully and to understand that, while Romans looked back to Romulus and Remus for the founding of the city of Rome, the first Christians looked back to Peter and Paul for the founding of the Church in the Eternal City.
Excellent!
Sound like lot of tap dancing to keep an imperious, isolated scholar on top as the status quo arbiter of gospel truth. You seriously throw out the corruption of a church leader, because your imagination doesn’t allow it? Oh wait, that’s been happening in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. Well…carry on.
It’s also a little ironic that you set up Irenaeus in opposition to Scripture, since he is actually our earliest witness to the Gospels being four-fold (Adversus Haereses 3.11.8). But what exactly are you suggesting here? Are you saying that Irenaeus hadn’t read Acts of the Apostles and that he was ignorant of Paul’s letter to the Church in Rome? I’ve presented documentary evidence to show that he was well-aware of both, so it can’t possibly be from ignorance.
You use the word “corruption” – are you saying that Irenaeus was purposefully trying to deceive people? To what end? What could he have to gained? If you regard Irenaeus as corrupted, can you name any early figures whom you would identify as “real” Christians?
In every respect Irenaeus is shown to be a man of great holiness and learning, his words are consistent with that of his contemporaries (Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch), so I think it makes far more sense to interpret his words in the way I suggest, rather than assuming he’s either evil or stupid.
The great majority of Roman Catholic scholars don’t believe that Peter ever was Bishop of Rome. I recommend “Saints and Sinners; A History of the Popes” by Eamon Duffy, a well known Roman Catholic scholar. Also , the writings of Iranaeus or any “Church Father” is not “Word of God”. I don’t know why the Roman Catholic Church treats these writings as though they were. They are full of errors and contradictions and written by imperfect humans. Not so with the Bible. The Bible IS the perfect infallible Word of God. It’s the only thing that is perfect that we can hold in our hands and understand, not by the power of the Roman Catholic Church, but by the power of the Holy Spirit.
“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
John 14:16-17
Hey Alberto, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
Okay, there are several problems with this. Firstly, it is asserted, but not substantiated. Secondly, even if it was shown to be true, it is an argument from authority. When Jesus asked the Apostles in Matthew 16 what people think about His identity, all but Peter were wrong. Thirdly, this appeal to authority doesn’t actually deal with the positive evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome.
Do you recommend this because it just happens to assert something you already agree with?
I’ve read the opening pages of that book where he talks about Rome and Irenaeus. Notice that he doesn’t actually offer an argument. While conceding much of the evidence, he simply dismisses the testimony of one of the greatest Church Fathers out-of-hand without saying *why*.
No Catholic would claim that they are the Word of God. However, we treat them with great respect as they are successors to the Apostles and much closer to them in time, geography and culture to the Apostles. They show us how generations subsequent to the Apostles understood the Faith.
When you examine the Early Church, you find it looks very Catholic. To explain this you either need to say that Jesus and the Apostles were terrible teachers and that the Church went off-the-rails immediately (despite the Lord’s promises)…or concede that the Early Church was Catholic.
Firstly, an atheist could make a similar bald assertion like this about the Bible. For it be credible it would need to be substantiated. Secondly, and more importantly, nobody claims that the writings of the Fathers are inerrant, so you’re fighting a Straw Man!
How do you think you got that Bible in your hands? Its contents were discerned by Catholic bishops and Councils of the Early Church…whose theological opinions on most other matters I’m sure you’d reject. It was then copied and re-copied by Catholic monks and scholars down through the centuries.
If you wish to content that the canon was discerned by Catholic bishops and councils, please tell me when the canon was discerned and by whom.
“…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” – 1 Tim 3:14
Scripture may not say Peter founded a Christian community in Rome – but equally it nowhere indicates he didn’t… and Irenaeus, well he knew and wasn’t the only one to know
Paul writes to the church at Rome but sends no greetings to Peter, an odd omission if Peter was Pope.
Roman’s 15:20 tells why. Paul makes it clear he will not go where another Apostle has been and we all agree that he went to Rome.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and Jesus told the others, Apostles to the Jews, to stay in Jerusalem, Luke 24:49.
Born about 100 years after the Resurrection and 60+ years after Peter/Paul died, he had only 2nd or 3rd hand information.
Hey Richard, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
Paul’s epistle to the Romans is dated AD 57–59. Why do you think that Peter was already there? He was bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome.
Paul does not say “he will not go where another Apostle has been”. Firstly, there’s no mention of Apostle. He is speaking here about his desire to go to places where the Gospel has not yet been preached and he identifies the location he has in mind just a few verses later – Spain.
In that verse, Jesus says “stay here in the city UNTIL you have been clothed with power from on high”. He doesn’t say to stay there indefinitely! After all, what was the Great Commission, but fulfilling the words
“…YOU will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ENDS OF THE EARTH”?
Paul may have the title as “Apostle to the Gentiles”, but which Apostle first brought them into the Church? Peter.
Other Fathers backup Ireaeus’ claims. If you’re going to disregard their testimony, I’m curious as to what sources you could point to in order to know ANYTHING about their deaths.
Not only that, if you disregard his testimony about Peter and Paul, do you also disregard his testimony about the four-fold Gospel? He is the first writer to do that…