forum.christogenea.org

Perhaps this has been posted before... Not sure.

This forum has often discussed the blackout period early on that occurred just after the time of the events described in the New Testament. Basically, we can't locate the continuity between the apostles and the early church fathers to any degree of historical certainty.

I've wondered myself how early on the church misaligned the identity of the jews as Israelites and I stumbled upon this quote today from Irenaeus, which sheds serious light on it.

10. Ialdabaoth, again, being incensed with men, because they did not worship or honour him as
father and God, sent forth a deluge upon them, that he might at once destroy them all. But Sophia
opposed him in this point also, and Noah and his family were saved in the ark by means of the
besprinkling of that light which proceeded from her, and through it the world was again filled
with mankind. Ialdabaoth himself chose a certain man named Abraham from among these, and
made a covenant with him, to the effect that, if his seed continued to serve him, he would give to
them the earth for an inheritance. Afterwards, by means of Moses, he brought forth Abraham's
descendants from Egypt, and gave them the law, and made them the Jews.Among that people he
chose seven days, which they also call the holy Hebdomad. Each of these receives his own
herald for the purpose of glorifying and proclaiming God; so that, when the rest hear these
praises, they too may serve those who are announced as gods by the prophets.

I should point out that Irenaeus is actually detailing doctrines from the Ophites and Sethians, as this is from Book I, CH. 30. Nevertheless, whether it was to the misunderstanding of Irenaeus to describe them as jews or if it was simply the way this particular sect described it, the identity question was challenged from the beginning.

Hmmm...and he's considered an early christian "church-father"? No wonder it's been long, hard road...

matthewott wrote:Hmmm...and he's considered an early christian "church-father"? No wonder it's been long, hard road...

Right. Again, I can't say with certainty whether Irenaeus is confused about "jews" or if he's just giving us a summary of this sect's tenants. Either way, it opens up lots of questions.

For the sake of continuity, our previous discussion of this issue can be found here:

When Did The Church Go Wrong
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7896&hilit=martyr+trypho

This is a subject that greatly interests me, as we watch, in retrospect, the transition from the true race-based theology of the Apostles into the universalism embraced by the apostate Catholic Church.

From what I've read so far of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Christian writers, they clearly were grappling of the racial/spiritual identity of the jews. There were many in the Catholic Church who did not believe that jews, because of their race, could be converted. In fact, I believe it wasn't until the late 15th Century that the Pope issued an encyclical officially claiming that race was not a factor in conversion.

Interestingly, during the Battle of the Books during the Reformation Period, the humanists and supporters of Luther mocked the papists for believing they could convert racial jews.

I've been wading through Origen's Contra Celsum, which also wrestles with these same issues that MichaelAllen is alluding to...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

MichaelAllen wrote:I've wondered myself how early on the church misaligned the identity of the jews as Israelites and I stumbled upon this quote today from Irenaeus, which sheds serious light on it.

.......Afterwards, by means of Moses, he brought forth Abraham's
descendants from Egypt, and gave them the law, and made them the Jews.Among that people he
chose seven days, which they also call the holy Hebdomad.

Isn't it possible that the problem here lies with the English translation "jew" rather than what Irenaeus actually wrote or meant?

Josephus talks about edomites becoming "jews" but what he means is "Judeans". A Judean isn't necessarily an edomite.

Staropramen wrote:

MichaelAllen wrote:Isn't it possible that the problem here lies with the English translation "jew" rather than what Irenaeus actually wrote or meant?

Josephus talks about edomites becoming "jews" but what he means is "Judeans". A Judean isn't necessarily an edomite.

Of course Irenaeus would have written Ioidaios, not j-e-w, but nonetheless, the Old Testament Israelites are not called Ioidaios in Hebrew scripture for obvious reasons. But neither are any of them ever called Yahudim, but for one tribe, and perhaps by extension some of Benjamin and Levi in later history, (post 932 BC and the secession of the North).

Staropramen wrote:Isn't it possible that the problem here lies with the English translation "jew" rather than what Irenaeus actually wrote or meant?

Josephus talks about edomites becoming "jews" but what he means is "Judeans". A Judean isn't necessarily an edomite.

I'm pretty sure that the modern 'jewish' translation of Josephus' works into english is the main reason for his use of the word 'jew' and not 'judaean', but that doesn't seem to explain Irenaeus' usage. His statement would be incredibly 'naive' for a 'learned christian' to state that Abraham's descendants of the Exodus could only be considered 'Judaeans'.