Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Books I–V

Ps. lxxx. 1 .

Rev. iv. 7 .

John i. 1 .

The above is the literal rendering of this very obscure sentence; it is not at all represented in the Greek here preserved.

The Greek is ὑπέρ : the Latin, “pro.”

Matt. i. 1, 18 .

The Greek text of this clause, literally rendered, is, “This Gospel, then, is anthropomorphic.”

Or, “a sacerdotal and liturgical order,” following the fragment of the Greek text recovered here. Harvey thinks that the old Latin “actum” indicates the true reading of the original πρᾶξιν , and that τάξιν is an error. The earlier editors, however, are of a contrary opinion.

That is, the appearance of the Gospel taken as a whole; it being presented under a fourfold aspect.

A portion of the Greek has been preserved here, but it differs materially from the old Latin version, which seems to represent the original with greater exactness, and has therefore been followed. The Greek represents the first covenant as having been given to Noah, at the deluge, under the sign of the rainbow; the second as that given to Abraham, under the sign of circumcision; the third, as being the giving of the law, under Moses; and the fourth, as that of the Gospel, through our Lord Jesus Christ. [Paradise with the tree of life , Adam with Shechinah ( Gen. iii. 24 , Gen. iv. 16 ), Noah with the rainbow , Abraham with circumcision , Moses with the ark , Messiah with the sacraments , and heaven with the river of life , seem the complete system.]

The old Latin reads, “partem gloriatur se habere Evangelii.” Massuet changed partem into pariter , thinking that partem gave a sense inconsistent with the Marcionite curtailment of St. Luke. Harvey, however, observes: “But the Gospel , here means the blessings of the Gospel , in which Marcion certainly claimed a share.”

John xiv. 16 , etc.

Slighting, as did some later heretics, the Pauline Epistles.

1 Cor. xi. 4, 5 .

Matt. xii. 31 .

Acts i. 16 , etc.

Ps. lxix. 25 .

Ps. cix. 8 .

Joel ii. 28 .

Ps. xv. 8 .

Acts ii. 22–27 .

The word δῶρον or δώρημα is supposed by some to have existed in the earliest Greek texts, although not found in any extant now. It is thus quoted by others besides Irenæus.

Acts ii. 30–37 .

Acts ii. 37, 38 .

Acts iii. 6 , etc.

These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.

These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.

These interpolations are also found in the Codex Bezæ.

“Et veniant” in Latin text: ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν in Greek. The translation of these Greek words by “when … come,” is one of the most glaring errors in the authorized English version.

Irenæus, like the majority of the early authorities, manifestly read προκεχειρισμένον instead of προκεκηρυγμένον , as in textus receptus .

Dispositionis.

Acts iii. 12 , etc.

Acts iv. 2 .

Acts iv. 8 , etc.

Acts iv. 22 .

These words, though not in textus receptus , are found in some ancient mss. and versions; but not the words “our father,” which follow.

“In hac civitate” are words not represented in the textus receptus , but have a place in all modern critical editions of the New Testament.

Acts iv. 24 , etc.

Acts iv. 31 .

The Latin is, “ut convertat se unusquisque.”

Acts iv. 33 .

This is following Grabe’s emendation of the text. The old Latin reads “gloria sua,” the translator having evidently mistaken δεξιᾴ for δόξῃ .

Acts v. 30 .

Acts v. 42 .

These words have apparently been omitted through inadvertence.

Acts x. 1–5 .

Acts x. 15 .

Acts x. 34, 35 .

Acts x. 37–44 .

Quemadmodum capiebat ; perhaps, “just as it presented itself to him.”

Acts viii. 32 ; Isa. liii. 7, 8 .

Acts viii. 37 .

Acts ix. 20 .

Phil. ii. 8 .

Latin translation, tractatur ; which Harvey thinks affords a conclusive proof that Irenæus occasionally quotes Scripture by re-translating from the Syriac.

It will be observed that Scripture is here very loosely quoted.

Acts xvii. 24 , etc.

Deut. xxxii. 8 [LXX.].

Deut. xxxii. 9 .

Acts xiv. 15–17 .

Acts vii. 2–8 .

Book ii. ch. xxx. 2.

1 Tim. vi. 4 .

No reference is made to this promised work in the writings of his successors. Probably it never was undertaken.

Most of the mss. read “intolerabiliorem,” but one reads as above, and is followed by all the editors.

Acts vii. 56 .

Hos. xii. 10 .

Acts xv. 15 , etc.

Irenæus manifestly read οὕτως for τούτῳ , and in this he agrees with Codex Bezæ. We may remark, once for all, that in the variations from the received text of the New Testament which occur in our author, his quotations are very often in accordance with the readings of the Cambridge ms.

Amos ix. 11, 12 .

This addition is also found in Codex Bezæ, and in Cyprian and others.

Acts xv. 14 , etc.

Another addition, also found in the Codex Bezæ, and in Tertullian.

Acts x. 28, 29 .

Acts x. 47 .

Gal. ii. 12, 13 .

Gal. ii. 8 .

Rom. x. 15 ; Isa. lii. 7 .

All the previous editors accept the reading Deum without remark, but Harvey argues that it must be regarded as a mistake for Dominum . He scarcely seems, however, to give sufficient weight to the quotation which immediately follows.

1 Cor. xv. 11 .

See note 9, p. 436.

John xiv. 7, 9, 10 .

Matt. x. 6 .

Matt. xvi. 17 .

Gal. i. 1 .

Some such supplement seems necessary, as Grabe suggests, though Harvey contends that no apodosis is requisite.

Gal. ii. 1, 2 .

Latin, “Ad horam cessimus subjectioni” ( Gal. ii. 5 ). Irenæus gives it an altogether different meaning from that which it has in the received text. Jerome says that there was as much variation in the copies of Scripture in his day with regard to the passage,—some retaining, others rejecting the negative ( Adv. Marc. v. 3).

Acts xvi. 8 , etc.

Acts xvi. 13 .

Acts xx. 5, 6 .

Acts xxi.

Acts xxvii.

Acts xxviii. 11 .

2 Tim. iv. 10, 11 .

Col. iv. 14 .

In this very important passage of Scripture, Irenæus manifestly read Κυρίου instead of Θεοῦ , which is found in text. rec . The Codex Bezæ has the same reading; but all the other most ancient mss. agree with the received text.

Acts xx. 25 , etc.

Luke i. 2 .

Luke vi. 24 , etc.

Luke v.

Luke xiii.

Luke xi.

Luke vii.

Luke xii. 20 .

Luke xvi.

Luke xvii. 5 .

Luke xix.

Luke xviii.

Luke xvii.

Luke xviii.

Luke xiii.

Luke xxiv.

Acts xxii. 8 , Acts xxvi. 15 .

Acts ix. 15, 16 .

Latin, “communes et ecclesiasticos:” καθολικούς is translated here “communes,” as for some time after the word catholicus had not been added to the Latin language in its ecclesiastical sense. [The Roman Creed was remarkable for its omission of the word Catholic . See Bingham, Antiquities , book x. cap. iv. sect 11.]

We here follow the text of Harvey, who prints, without remark, quæruntur , instead of queruntur , as in Migne’s edition.

Such is the sense educed by Harvey from the old Latin version, which thus runs: “Decipiuntur autem omnes, qui quod est in verbis verisimile, se putant posse discere a veritate.” For “omnes” he would read “omnino,” and he discards the emendation proposed by the former editors, viz., “discernere” for “discere.”

We here omit since , and insert therefore afterwards, to avoid the extreme length of the sentence as it stands in the Latin version. The apodosis does not occur till the words, “I judge it necessary,” are reached.

See book i. 12, 4.

The Latin text has “Christum.” which is supposed to be an erroneous reading. See also book ii. c. xii. s. 6.

Ps. cxxxii. 11 .

Matt. i. 1 .

Matt. i. 18 . It is to be observed that Irenæus here reads Christ instead of Jesus Christ , as in text. rec. , thus agreeing with the reading of the Vulgate in the passage.

John i. 13, 14 . From this, and also a quotation of the same passage in chap. xix. of this book, it appears that Irenæus must have read ὃς … ἐγεννήθη here, and not οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν . Tertullian quotes the verse to the same effect ( Lib. de Carne Christi , cap. 19 and 24).

Rom. i. 1–4 .

Rom. ix. 5 .

Gal. iv. 4, 5 .

Col. i. 14, 15 .

“Homine.”

Mark i. 1 .

Isa. ix. 6 (LXX.).

Luke i. 69 .

Ps. lxxviii. 5 .

Luke i. 32 .

Ps. cx. 1 .

Luke ii. 29 .

Isa. viii. 3 .

Isa. viii. 4 .

Ex. xvii. 16 (LXX.).

Matt. ii. 16 .

Luke xxiv. 25 .

Luke xxiv. 44 , etc.

Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22 .

John xx. 31 .

1 John ii. 18 , etc., loosely quoted.

The text here followed is that of two Syriac mss. , which prove the loss of several consecutive words in the old Latin version, and clear up the meaning of a confused sentence, showing that the word “autem” is here, as it