Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relics destroyed?[edit]

Catholic apologist Steve Ray in "The Footprints of God: St. Paul" documentary, reported that the relics of St. Irenaeus were destroyed by Calvinists, with only a few fragments escaping the destruction today which are on display at his shrine. Is this accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This says his head is at the Lyons Cathedral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Age of Jesus[edit]

Irenaeus placed the Baptism of Jesus when he was 30 years of age and his ministry between the ages of 40 and 50.

The argument that this means that Jesus was 50 years old at the time of the crucifixion fails to take into account the idiom of the 2nd Century AD.

Decades, like centuries and millenia still today, are counted in reference to the LAST year of the decade not the FIRST. So, for example, the TWENTIETH century consisted of the years 1901-2000.

In the mindset of the 2nd Century (AD 101-200) a person "50 years of age" was in his FIFTH decade of life, in other words, between his 41st and 50th birthday, what we would today call "the 40's".

Irenaeus placed the Baptism of Jesus in his third decade of life, namely between his 21st and 30th birthdays and his ministry in his fourth decade of life, namely between his 31st and 40th birthday.

Using modern idiom Irenaues is really saying that Jesus was in his 20s when he was baptized and in his 30's during his public ministry.

Uhm... Can you actually support any of that attempt at retconning the text? – B.Bryant 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ireneous was not saying Jesus was at least 40. see I have removed that section. It is an attempt to introduce controversy and undermine his credibility or that of the Gospel.

I believe the consensus opinion is that Irenaeus thought that Jesus was around 50 when he died. That article doesn't make sense, as Jesus would have been in "old age" (31-50) even if his ministry was only 1 year, assuming a baptism at 30. And, do you have any evidence of person who is say, 31-34 being referred to as "about 40" in the 2nd century? --Blkgardner (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to point out that in Demonstration (74) Irenaeus clearly states "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." Now only two Herods had the formal title "king of the Jews": Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I (Herod Antipas was tetrarch or "ruler of a quarter"). Herod Agrippa I was given the title "king of the Jews" as a reward for his support of his good friend Claudius to became 42 CE. So by two of these rulers Irenaeus is clearly saying Jesus was a minimum of 45 years old when he was crucified (As there is no year 0 it is only 45 years between 4 BCE and 42 CE) Mark J. Bonocore's article ignores this important fact and being self-published don't amount to a hill of beans anyhow.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC
Although the above comment is four years old, it is still listed here for anyone to read and actually mistake for something approaching common sense. Therefore please note: Pilate served under Tiberius Claudius Nero as procurator until 36 AD. The Herod referred to is clearly Antipas who was tetrarch of Galilee until 39 AD. The above "analysis" seems (1) OR, and (2) a bit disingenuous. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Demonstration 74 may be read here:

Irenaeus clearly says Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The user BruceGrubb mistakenly infers that because Irenaeus referred to Herod Antipater as "king of the Jews" that this reference connotates meanings it never was meant to connotate. In retrospect, Irenaeus remembers Herod as king of the Jews, which he was called by the Judeans basically all of his life. Additionally Irenaeus does not convey an official title and one would have to research the extant copies for language concordance. Since Irenaeus is in the habit of describing particular people in the manner of which they were remembered, not in specific years of their lives when titles changed, he also remembers Claudius as Caesar but this does not mean Claudius was Caesar when Jesus died. After the death of Tiberius' son Drusus, Claudius, being nephew of Tiberius rose in power and was considered next to the throne ahead of Caligula by many. When the Caligula faction won out after the death of Tiberius, Caligula was forced to make him co-consul. Seeing that Tiberius was a very old man at the time of his death (77), it is very possible that Claudius had some official or operative role in the government, so perhaps Irenaeus is referring Claudius not as Caesar which he later became officially but as performing a role for Tiberius as liason to Pilate. These people were related and we do not know all the details of how their governments worked, especially in the final years of Tiberius when he was quite possibly incapacitated and delegated authority on a functional level.

For members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Caesar was typically part of their family name. Claudius added it to his official name in AD 41, probably to signify himself as the legitimate heir of the previous Caesars. His full name was "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus". Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tried to add in the template at the beginning the section of "influence" but I don't know how to do it, that someone be kind to help me I was going to add that Ireneo has influences from: Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Polycarp Tuxzos22 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation 43[edit]

In the section "Theology and contrast with Gnosticism" it says

"Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle." with a reference to page 368 of The Canon Debate. But checking this source it does not seem to comment on the tutoring of either Irenaeus or Polycarp. In fact, using ctrl+f I cannot find anywhere in the book that comments on Irenaeus' relationship to Polycarp or Polycarp's to John. Have I missed something or is this a mistaken citation? NoahTheAnimator (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]