Introduction
Central to the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the authority of capital-T 'Tradition' as distinct from scripture. Exactly how this manifests may differ, with Orthodoxy firmly holding to material sufficiency (that all matters of faith are fundamentally rooted in scripture), whereas Rome has not definitively settled on a position (many support material sufficiency, but many likewise support a 'partim-partim' position, that divine revelation is found partly in scripture and partly in oral tradition). In either case, this Tradition is necessary for the establishment of certain doctrines and practices which any Orthodox or Roman Catholic could admit is not *explicitly* taught in scripture and which Protestants generally deny, e.g. the papacy, the veneration of dead 'saints', and more.
One problem passage from the Church's earliest days has been raised by Protestant apologists as a defeater of the infallibility of Tradition, that being of Irenaeus in his "Against Heresies", of which the original title was "On the Detection and Overthrow of Falsely-Called Gnosis" {I}. In Book II chapter 22, he asserts that Christ preached through his 30s, 40s, and died around 50. Most significantly, he cites the authority of John, some unnamed Apostles, and others who heard them allegedly give this testimony. Such a testimony, clearly rejected by Rome, the East, and good history, appears to demonstrate the fallibility of so-called "Apostolic tradition"; more precisely, that which is claimed to be "Apostolic" even by early figures. I believe the case is clear and airtight, and at a minimum should compel Roman Catholics and Orthodox to consider the fallibility of their hierarchy's decisions.
But the magnitude of such an arguments means that it has not gone unchallenged; a number of Roman and Eastern apologists have attempted a number of interpretations of Irenaeus that attempt to dampen or nullify the damage that his testimony has wrought on oral tradition. I will attempt to present the argument as precisely and forcefully as possible from the text of Irenaeus, being as faithful to his own words, and then will scrutinise the various responses given by a number of figures.
I - The Problem Passage
To qualify my argument, I am not arguing in the vain of pseudo-scholarly skepticism, that an error by an author makes him totally unreliable in his testimony; I'm not from the Richard Carrier school of history. Irenaeus was indeed careful in his study and is a valuable source in a number of areas; I only intend to demonstrate that a specific error - which is almost universally recognised as such by Christians of all traditions - presents massive problems for proponents of so-called Sacred Tradition.
With that out of the way, we will now look at the text in question. The full passage is long, so I recommend reading the whole thing yourself {II}, but I will paste key snippets here (bold emphasis mine):
There are not, therefore, thirty Æons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Æons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism.
Having described the Gnostic "Christian" claim, he gives a refutation:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. ... So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.
And further down:
For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master?
And finally, the key statement:
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; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
With a crucial appeal to scripture:
But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old. For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age.
So, we have a very clear claim; Jesus possessed old age when he died, that being around 50, and this was necessary in order to truly be a 'master' and to experience all human ages so as to include all people in his saving work.
The problem that arises from this is immediately apparent; Irenaeus appealed to an oral tradition and even gave a strong pedigree; John, some other Apostles, and those who saw them. Even in the earliest fathers who had access to the living memory of the Apostles and their contemporaries we almost never get this kind of explicit reference to the chain of tradition, so on its face this is one of the strongest oral traditions in existence.
And yet, it is wrong.
Even ignoring the scale of the evidence for Christ's death at around 30 years, that such has been universally believed for so long despite being wrong is impossible in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox paradigm, since the whole Church cannot be led into error, let alone for so long. So Irenaeus cannot be correct.
Yet since Irenaeus appeals to oral tradition for this error, oral tradition can be wrong, and spectacularly so. Therefore it is not God-breathed. And if oral tradition is not God-breathed, it must be tested against scripture; hence Sola Scripture.
This is the Protestant argument from Irenaeus, and as said earlier I believe it is airtight. Nonetheless, some have undertaken to reinterpret the passage in order to protect the integrity of "Sacred" Tradition, while others give the standard reply that Irenaeus is just one father and can be wrong, and so doesn't render Sacred Tradition fallible. Both types of responses will now be dealt with.
II - Against Reinterpretations
One source I have had sent to me a couple of times in presenting this argument and which I have seen other online Catholics cite is a short piece by Mark J. Bonocore (biblicalcatholic.com) {III}. There, he responds to James White's own presentation of the argument, and attempts to counter that Irenaeus didn't believe Jesus died at 50 years old, but within the period between 31 and 50. To be perfectly, honest, I am amazed at how blatantly Mr. Bonocore misreads the very texts he quotes and even highlights. For example after quoting a portion of Irenaeus that includes:
So likewise He was an old man for old men
Bonocore retorts:
So, is Irenaeus saying that Jesus became an "old man"???? :-) Nope.
Like, bro, are you serious? Are you actually reading the text you're interpreting?
This snippet alone annihilates his entire argument, but let's continue.
For his central argument, Bonocore quotes part of what I have posted above, specifically this:
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
And Bonocore interprets it as follows (the schizo formatting is all his doing):
Ah! :-) Now what is Irenaeus' point???? It's that Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e. 33 years old, to be precise --"EVEN AS THE GOSPEL ...TESTIFIES" ...that is, the Gospel of John ;-). His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into "old age" (as they saw it in Roman times)
Read the quote, then Bonocore's interpretation, then the quote, then the interpretation. Is the interpretation at all consistent with the quote? Not even close. Bonocore injects a "stage of life between 31 and 50" into the text, despite Irenaeus explicitly providing two stages: the "first stage of early life" which "embraces thirty years" and which "extends onwards to the fortieth year", then "from the fortieth and fiftieth year" is the period of "old age", and this is what Irenaeus says "our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify." With no disrespect intended, the defence given by Bonocore is eisegesis in its purest form. I encourage you to read his piece after having read the full passage by Irenaeus to understand just how far apart they are.
III - Against Downplaying
By far the more common response to this argument from Irenaeus is to acknowledge his error and distance him from the wider Tradition of the Church in this instance. Roman and Eastern writers who tackle this problem are few and far between, but one article in response to James White I found from Orthodox-Reformed Bridge gives the standard reply that individual fathers are fallible, while the consensus of the fathers is infallible{IIII}. I have also engaged in online back-and-forths on this argument with Roman and Eastern believers {V}, so I'll reference some responses I have found there.
In the comment section under the video of footnote V, Orthodox Christian Theology (Craig Truglia) asserted that Irenaeus' doctrinal point was not the number 50 in Christ's age, but in the doctrine of recapitulation, which is otherwise uppercase-O Orthodox, so the historical error of his doesn't affect doctrinal tradition. But as I stated in my reply to his comment, the belief that Christ was specifically around 50 at death was integral to his doctrine of recapitulation, so that "He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise." Additionally, he claimed this specific historical data-point went back to the Apostles. Now, I agree with him that Christ being 50 was Irenaeus' own misinterpretation, but the fact remains that data can corrupt over oral transmission lines; if it can happen with one Irenaeus, why not multiple fathers, or many fathers? And in Roman and Eastern apologetics, a handful of patristic sources is often enough to establish a global consensus of millions of contemporaneous Christians.
But the most common response I have heard is one given to every instance of a Protestant raising a father who contradicts Roman or Eastern theology; they're just one father, they can be wrong, and Tradition is established by consensus.
This is where we need to get into the weeds. First, we ask whether the infallibility of alleged patristic consensus is a theological truth or an historical fact. The former would take the form of arguments like "Christ would not allow His Church to fall into error" and "the gates of hell will not overcome the Church" and "the Church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth". The latter would be something like "Virtually all early Christians came to believe X, so we must listen to them, because they're closer to the Apostles, live in the same context, speak the same language, etc.". Most often, both reasons are raised, but I distinguish them to make the assertion of collective patristic infallibility easier to critique.
On the theological claim, let us first acknowledge that nowhere in scripture is it promised that "The consensus of Bishops throughout the Christian world will never hold to a doctrinal error", we can all acknowledge that. Now, the scriptural texts that are appealed to do not instantly get you there, but require interpretation; everybody agrees with that. So, when Christ says to Peter "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", is this compatible with the idea of an infallible patristic consensus? Sure. Is it evidence for an infallible patristic consensus? No, because there are a number of other plausible (dare I say more likely) interpretations.
For one, Roman and Eastern apologetic uses of the passage assume a defensive posture of the Church, that hell is on the assault, and we will not fall. But it is actually the opposite; the "gates" of hell will not prevail. Hell is on the defensive, and the Church will eventually win. Does this mean the Church will not suffer setbacks and losses, even across the whole body? It does not, and that is okay, because our God is the God of the resurrection, who can raise entire fields of bones to life, and He will correct course when He sees fit. I'm not arguing for this view, but showing that it is perfectly compatible with the passage. Likewise for when Paul says that the "church" is the "pillar and the foundation of the truth"; pillars can be chipped away at, and foundations upturned, but our God, the master-builder, will always restore His house, provided we are faithful. Again, not a necessary interpretation, but a possible one alongside the typical Roman and Eastern interpretation. Thus, their theological claims from scripture (which all agree are at least the core of truth) are neutered. I won't pretend that this is an exhaustive treatment of the topic (I may do so later), but it suffices for my purposes.
So, on theological grounds, there is no reason to grant the distinction between fallible individuals and infallible collectives in the early church fathers; if one can err, so can the lot, in principle. And this ends up answering historical arguments as well; Irenaeus spoke Greek, lived in the ancient Roman world, was less than a century from the death of the last Apostle, and personally knew at least one man who knew an Apostle, and yet he made a significant blunder. Historical proximity certainly counts for something, but it does not render any individual or collective infallible. And all of this without mentioning the problems behind defining "consensus"; some prooftext writeups I see cite 3 or 4 fathers across 3 centuries and declare that a "consensus".
Conclusion
In light of the above, the witness of Irenaeus to a spectacular error with an equally spectacular pedigree is significant. While I don't affirm that multiple Apostles and their followers believed Christ to be 50, Irenaeus attests that they did, and that's all that matters. We don't only search the writings of the fathers in order to derive a consensus, but they are even consulted as to what the consensus of their time was, such as when Orthodox apologists appeal to Epiphanius admitting that most bishops who heard his iconoclastic beliefs laughed him off, allegedly attesting to a pro-icon consensus in the 4th century. Likewise, an alleged early consensus on the real-presence of the Eucharist is established by three sources; Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons, with almost 100 years from the first to the last of their relevant writings. Yet if one can err, why can't merely three?
Don't take this as radical scepticism; a multiplicity of early witnesses does raise the likelihood of a claim's truth, and without compelling reasons to the contrary we should believe them (e.g. the authorship of the Gospels, to which sceptical laymen and scholars respond with sterile conjecture and not a modicum of evidence). But what the error of Irenaeus shows is that one cannot tyrannise the faithful to believe one's preferred doctrine merely because a select handful of ancient writers say so; they can err, and thus should be tested by that which does not err.
~~~
I - Greek: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως
II - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, II.22. From newadvent.org, translation by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut in the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" series.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm
III - Mark Bonocore, How Old is Jesus According to St. Irenaeus?
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm
IIII - Robert Arakaki, Response to James White (3 of 4)
https://orthodoxbridge.com/2017/05/27/response-james-white-3-4
V - For example, under a recent video of mine on this topic. See Greg's comment and the replies under it from him, myself, and Orthodox Christian Theology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO4-R_7VgWI
