[BipolarBob]

Above all, he cites the authoritative tradition of the Church of Rome

If this is actually correct (and who knows for certain?), then Irenaeus was erroneous. All the more reason to stick to the Word of God rather than man.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But the Word of God as existing in the ancient manuscripts, was not all bound up as one Book, nor did it have a Table of Contents or an Index. There was no internal indication of who wrote the most important ones. The Gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author, and likewise the five books of the Torah.

How do we know, or think we know, that Moses was the author of the Torah and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their respective Gospels. None of them are actually signed, nor do they name an author.

You have no (internal) Binblical definition of what the Bible IS. Whuich bnooks. Which authors. Nowhere in the actual manuscripts is there a 66-book or 73-book or 83-book list of what's IN the Bible.

We know only through Oral Tradition, that is, what has come down to us as commentary, scribal notes or interpretation, later of course written down itself.

That's what Irenaeus cited. That's how he refuted the Gnostics, who were pushing their own, spurious set of Scriptures.

Aren't you glad Irenaeus did that? Otherwise you might have been raised a Gnostic!