Gospel According to Irenaeus
“τετράμορφον εὐανγγελιον” (fourfold or four-form good news)
Irenaeus did not so much abstract a short-hand definition of the Gospel, as point to the four books— Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — as being the Gospel.
In other words, the question, “What is the Gospel?” would be answered in this way: “These four books”. So, answering the question for someone would entail sitting down and reading aloud the four accounts. How revolutionary. Just read and interact with the text.
Paul, of course, gives us many instances of the shorthand version— but these are derived from the accounts of the four.
2 comments
Interesting post on Irenaeus –
Is that from Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter XI ?
Are there any other places this is found in Irenaeus?
I found you by clicking on your “Topher” designation from your comments at “Between Two Worlds” (Justin Taylor’s blog). On the Beckwith-Timothy George discussion.
Here is part of my response. Thanks for helping me be more clear. From you comments, I can see that I was not clear at all.
Topher – you are right; I should have worded it differently; when Evangelicals are ignorant of the ECFs, then they read them for the first time after years of being shallowly discipled in a typical evangelical church; that is what shocks them; and the lack of knowing them “messes them up”. True; that is what I meant.
As for the other stuff, I included more than just things that started before Nicea, that’s right; you are correct. I started in the early church and just kept going and went right on through history and kept going to Trent and beyond to 1854; 1870 and 1950.
ex opere operato – you are right again – I knew that but my fingers typed English rather than the proper Latin. Thanks for the corrections.
Not that I know of. This is the section with his famous quote about the gospels and the four animals. He mentions the “quadriform” Gospel twice.
I was sharp on Taylor’s blog, but please don’t take it personally. I felt that you were making a sweeping statement about the fathers. It is true of course that we need to make corrections to their teaching in light of Scripture, but they are more of an aid to understanding than a hindrance in my opinion. I have been helped immensely by their writings, which seem fresh and new to this day. They are not the problem.
By the way, Origen has much to offer. Henri de Lubac’s excellent study on Origen puts to rest many of the misconceptions and rumors surrounding him and his teaching. In my opinion he has been dealt a bad hand by the church. He is often accused of Hellenistic tendencies, when in fact he opposed them vehemently.
Thanks for writing. All blessings in Christ to you.
Chris
Leave a Comment