The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by John2 »

Thanks Ben. And I see where it's mentioned in Lawlor's book now too. Apparently Epiphanius uses this word twice (and sorry for overlooking if you've already pointed this out. This is a confusing subject and I'm not finding a lot of discussion of it in the literature; in fact, this thread comes up near the top of the first results page when I search under the "all" function on Google).

Pan. 6.4: "I am not quite clear as to whether he received the episcopal appointment from Peter while they were still alive, and he declined and would not exercise the office—for in one of his Epistles he says, giving this counsel to someone, 'I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God be tranquil' (I have found this in certain historical works [or memoirs]) ..."

The second refererence is in Pan. 29.4.4: "He was allowed to wear the priestly tablet besides, as the trustworthy authors I mentioned have testified in those same historical writings [or memoirs]."

And in this case he applies the word memoirs to more than three people, these "trustworthy authors," i.e., "Eusebius, Clement and others" mentioned in 29.4.3, so the word apparently applies to their writings as well.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote:Thanks Ben. And I see where it's mentioned in Lawlor's book now too. Apparently Epiphanius uses this word twice (and sorry for overlooking if you've already pointed this out. This is a confusing subject and I'm not finding a lot of discussion of it in the literature; in fact, this thread comes up near the top of the first results page when I search under the "all" function on Google).
I agree. It is pretty dense, and not all that commonly addressed.
And in this case he applies the word memoirs to more than three people, these "trustworthy authors," i.e., "Eusebius, Clement and others" mentioned in 29.4.3, so the word apparently applies to their writings as well.
Yes, it would seem so.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I am continuing this discussion on the thread that it is actually talking about....
davidlau17 wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:47 pmAccording to your theory (which oddly pays attention to 4.11.7, while completely disregarding 4.22.3)....
Again, the theory does not disregard 4.22.2-3. That is the quotation that Peter suggests has been incorrectly delimited. I quote it in full in the OP, but the OP also takes for granted Peter's argument on his blog, so it does not go over that ground very much again.
...Hegessipus never mentioned Eleutherus as being a bishop. That part was incorrectly interpolated by Eusebius. Hegessipus did, however, fleetingly mention a point of Eleutherus' life, when he was a deacon.
Actually, according to Peter's delimitation of the quotation, that bit about Eleutherus being a deacon under Anicetus is also Eusebius, not Hegesippus. I am willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that it was Hegesippus who mentioned Eleutherus' diaconate, and my quotation included that bit as being from Hegesippus. But in my OP I followed Peter's way of marking the quotation. I apologize for this confusion. I am trying to remember the state of a debate that was on the table some three years ago.

(This division, making "his/whose deacon was Eleutherus" come from Eusebius, works in the Greek, in which clear and marked sentences can begin with a relative pronoun.)
To my knowledge, every translation of Eusebius' "History of the Church" available has the entirety of passages 4.22.2-3 as being in the words of Hegessipus.
That is quite possible. The suggestion on the table is that those translations are punctuated incorrectly.
Eusebius is not paraphrasing him. He is directly quoting.
It is very confusing keeping up with which passage is being referred to at any given moment. I think I was referring to this passage when I said that Eusebius was paraphrasing:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11.7: And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus.

This paraphrase is in tension with a quotation of Hegesippus elsewhere:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.2-3: 2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. 3 And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus." His deacon was Eleutherus, and Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

Forget the rest for a moment. The argument here, regarding these two passages, is that Eusebius misremembered Hegesippus saying he had remained until Eleutherus because he was overly familiar with the list (from Irenaeus) that ended with Eleutherus. This list from Irenaeus was, ex hypothesi, an updated version of the list actually found in Hegesippus, which ended with Anicetus and either did not mention Soter and Eleutherus at all or (at most) said that Eleutherus was Anicetus' deacon.
Even if you are correct, and the translators didn't realize that second sentence of passage 3 was not in the words of Hegesippus, it would still be a mistranslation.
More like a mispunctuation, but the semantics of it do not interest me much.
The point is that, according to all extant translations, Eusebius claims that it was Hegessipus himself who wrote the underlined text above.
Again, quite possibly true. And, again, the suggestion under consideration is that all of these extant translations are incorrectly punctuated.
Whether or not Hegesippus remained in Rome until Anicetus is beside the point. Why would it be necessary for Hegesippus to be in Rome to write?
Hegesippus was not in Rome when he wrote. He wrote after having left Rome. He could hypothetically have updated his own list (which I have argued, based on the syntax and on Epiphanius, originally ended with Anicetus) to include Soter and Eleutherus, and published his work in the time of Eleutherus. But Peter has argued in his blog post that Clement of Alexandria was actually referring to Hegesippus when he wrote of Josephus sometimes, including that chronological notice leading up to the tenth year of Antoninus (and such chronological notices, unless they are referring to an explicitly famous event like the crucifixion of Christ, generally lie close in time to the actual date of authorship). And Eusebius elsewhere, as Peter also points out, says that Hegesippus flourished at the same time as Justin Martyr (History of the Church 4.7.15–4.8.3), quoting a passage from Justin which dates itself to the reign of Antoninus.

The purpose of discussing whether Hegesippus stayed in Rome until the episcopate of Eleutherus is, not to pinpoint Hegesippus' date vis-à-vis Eleutherus, but rather to disarm the usual method of dating Hegesippus. It is a negative argument, not a positive one. Just because Hegesippus may not have mentioned the episcopate of Eleutherus does not mean that he did not write during (or after) the episcopate of Eleutherus. However, once one realizes that Eusebius has confused matters, one is free to seek Hegesippus' dates from other considerations, and IMHO they seem to converge on the Antonine period.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by davidlau17 »

That's fair. I agree with you that Hegesippus wrote during the Antonine Dynasty; however, considering that this era is usually marked as extending from 138-192 CE (Antoninus to Commodus), it allows for a rather extensive range for dating.

Or do you mean that evidence suggests that he wrote while Antoninus Pius was emperor (138-161 CE)? If so, I still agree, but far more hesistantly. Peter's strongest point of evidence (IMO) is that Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus flourished at the time of Justin Martyr. That said, unless we take this passage absolutely literally (and we shouldn't), it doesn't pinpoint any precise range for dating. It simply suggests that he wrote during the latter half of Antoninus' reign, plus or minus a decade or two.

Less compelling is the argument that Clement of Alexandria was (sometimes) referring to Hegesippus when he wrote of Josephus. While it's true that it would be improbable for Josephus to have lived up to the tenth year of Antoninus, it by no means necessitates Hegesippus to have been the actual author. Origen informs us that Josephus had written that the destruction of Jerusalem was a consequence of the Jews' killing James the Just; this is found in no surving text of Josephus. Hegesippus mentions it. Does this mean that Origen had mistakenly written the name 'Josephus' in place of 'Hegesippus'?

Maybe - but the fact that Jerome and Eusebius also mention this passage in which Josephus' links the conquest of Jerusalem to James' death would suggest otherwise. Eusebius actually quotes this passage from Josephus, and it is not identical to the passages he cites from Hegesippus.
Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.25: And indeed Josephus did not hesistate to write this down in so many words: "These things happened to the Jews in recquital for James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, for though he was the most righteous of men, the Jews put him to death."
It is more likely that this passage was simply dropped out of Josephus' Wars by later Christians, upset that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James, rather than the death of Jesus. Both Origen and Eusebius expressed such frustration after citing it.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:04 am That's fair. I agree with you that Hegesippus wrote during the Antonine Dynasty; however, considering that this era is usually marked as extending from 138-192 CE (Antoninus to Commodus), it allows for a rather extensive range for dating.

Or do you mean that evidence suggests that he wrote while Antoninus Pius was emperor (138-161 CE)?
Yes, that is what both Peter and I meant: during the actual reign of Antoninus (and probably either during or not long after his tenth year).
Less compelling is the argument that Clement of Alexandria was (sometimes) referring to Hegesippus when he wrote of Josephus. While it's true that it would be improbable for Josephus to have lived up to the tenth year of Antoninus; it by no means necessitates Hegesippus to have been the actual author.
Well, there is a whole Alexandrian nexus of weird interplay between Josephus and Hegesippus, and this chronological note from "Josephus" actually belonging to Hegesippus would fall right into the overall pattern.
Origen informs us that Josephus had written that the destruction of Jerusalem was a consequence of the Jews' killing James the Just; this is found in no surving text of Josephus. Hegesippus mentions it. Does this mean that Origen had mistakenly written the name 'Josephus' in place of 'Hegesippus'?
Not necessarily Origen himself, but yes: somebody in Alexandria confused Josephus with Hegesippus (and/or vice versa); Peter's hypothesis is that a manuscript of Hegesippus in Alexandria was labeled as belonging to Josephus instead; that would explain a lot, and that has been my working hypothesis ever since reading his blog post... until a better one comes along, at any rate.
Maybe - but the fact that Jerome and Eusebius also mention this passage in which Josephus' links the conquest of Jerusalem to James' death would suggest otherwise. Eusebius actually quotes this passage from Josephus, and it is not identical to the passages he cites from Hegesippus.
Jerome probably depended completely upon Eusebius, as he did so often in other matters (especially in On Illustrious Men). As for Eusebius, it turns out that this passage from Josephus is the only one that I can find for which Eusebius does not let us know where in Josephus to find the quotation:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:39 amIt seems rather unlikely that Eusebius read any such interpolation in Josephus. Elsewhere in the History of the Church he never leaves us in much doubt as to which work he is quoting Josephus from:

1.5.4-6: 4 The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in agreement with these words, adds the following, which we quote exactly: "Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had held other offices and had passed through them all to the consulship, a man also of great dignity in other respects, came to Syria with a small retinue, being sent by Caear to be a judge of the nation and to make an assessment of their property." 5 And after a little he says: "But Judas, a Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking with him Sadduchus, a Pharisee, urged the people to revolt, both of them saying that the taxation meant nothing else than downright slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend their liberty." 6 And in the second book of his History of the Jewish War, he writes as follows concerning the same man: "At this time a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, persuaded his countrymen to revolt, declaring that they were cowards if they submitted to pay tribute to the Romans, and if they endured, besides God, masters who were mortal." These things are recorded by Josephus.

1.8.4-5: 4 It is not possible to relate here how he tarnished the supposed felicity of his reign by successive calamities in his family, by the murder of wife and children, and others of his nearest relatives and dearest friends. The account, which casts every other tragic drama into the shade, is detailed at length in the histories of Josephus. 5 How, immediately after his crime against our Savior and the other infants, the punishment sent by God drove him on to his death, we can best learn from the words of that historian who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writes as follows concerning his end: [Here follows a long quotation.]

1.8.9: 9 The writer mentioned above recounts these things in the work referred to. And in the second book of his History he gives a similar account of the same Herod, which runs as follows: "The disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by various torments. For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his whole body was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous pains in his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could breathe only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that his diseases were a punishment." .... [This quotation continues at some length.]

1.8.14: 14 And after a little [this comes after the previous quote, so belongs to book 2 of the History] Josephus says, "And again he was so tortured by want of food and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to anticipate his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a knife, for he was accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then looking round to see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab himself."

1.10.4a: 4a Josephus relates that there were four high priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus in the same book of the Antiquities [this follows after a summary from book 18 of the Antiquities] he writes as follows: "Valerius Gratus having put an end to the priesthood of Ananus appoints Ishmael, the son of Fabi, high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer, the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas, succeeded him."

1.11.4: 4 He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: "It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist." [This quotation continues for a while.]

2.5.2: 2 Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the following words: "A sedition having arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks, three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius."

2.6.4: Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns, to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city."

2.10.2-3: 2 We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following words: 3 "He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea when he came to Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower. There he held games in honor of Caesar, learning that this was a festival observed in behalf of Caesar's safety. At this festival was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men in the province." [This quotation continues.]

2.11.1b-2.12.1: 11.1b Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances: 2 "While Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain impostor called Theudas persuaded a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and afford them an easy passage. 3 And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes mention of the famine [this quotation comes from the same book of the Antiquities as the one about Theudas], which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following words: 12.1 "And at this time it came to pass that the great famine took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the needy."

2.20.1-2: 1 Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, relates the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea. 2 His words are as follows: "There arose a quarrel between the high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other. And each of them collected a body of the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other. And there was no one that would interpose; but these things were done at will as if in a city destitute of a ruler." [This quotation continues.]

2.23.21: 21 And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: "But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown." [This quotation continues.]

3.6.1: Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred. [Here follows some brief quotations and paraphrases from the Wars, which Eusebius calls the History (of the War).]

3.6.13: To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the following [still in the above mentioned book 5]: "The possibility of going out of the city being brought to an end, all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off. And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the lanes of the city with the corpses of old men."

3.6.19: 19 After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows [still in book 5]: "I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as destroyed Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much more godless than were those that suffered such punishment. By their madness indeed was the whole people brought to destruction."

3.6.20: 20 And in the sixth book he writes as follows: "Of those that perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow of food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from each other the most wretched supports of life." [This quotation continues.]

3.9.1: 1 After all this it is fitting that we should know something in regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so much to the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this point [still in the Wars, though now back in book 1, as implied by Eusebius' wording here and choice of quotation] in the following words: "Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the beginning and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward."

3.10.7-11: 7 And at the end of the twentieth book of his Antiquities Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in four books concerning God and his existence, according to the traditional opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it is that they permit some things while prohibiting others. And the same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by himself. 8 In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words that are found at the close of his Antiquities, in confirmation of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place he attacks Justus of Tiberias, who, like himself, had attempted to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had not written truthfully. Having brought many other accusations against the man, he continues in these words: 9 "I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were, but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes. For I was conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was not disappointed in my expectation of obtaining their attestation. 10 And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa and some of his relatives. 11 For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he endorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two. But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with our history.

I have included only direct quotations here, not obvious paraphrases or summaries. Eusebius habitually tells us which work he is quoting from, and usually even which book of that work. If he does not, it is because it is from the same work as his previous quotation. But now, what about the passage in question?

2.23.20: 20 Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony to this as follows: "And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness."

If Eusebius is quoting from one of the extant works of Josephus here, why does he not tell us, as is his custom, which book of which work he is quoting from in this case? The answer is obvious: he did not know where in Josephus to find this quotation. He simply trusted Origen.
It is more likely that this passage was simply dropped out of Josephus' Wars by later Christians, upset that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James, rather than the death of Jesus. Both Origen and Eusebius expressed such frustration after citing it.
I disagree. If Eusebius had found this passage in Josephus, he would probably have let us know in which Josephan work he found it, as he habitually does elsewhere.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by davidlau17 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:23 am I disagree. If Eusebius had found this passage in Josephus, he would probably have let us know in which Josephan work he found it, as he habitually does elsewhere.
It's odd, true. But if we are forced to assume that Eusebius forged the passage in question, simply taking Origen's word for it, we are left with some difficult questions. First, why would Eusebius feel the need to do this? Why not simply paraphrase what Origen had said? Furthermore, why should we trust any passage that Eusebius cites to be legitimate?

I realize many people, myself included, take EH with a grain of salt while reading it. But wouldn't we now have to take each of Eusebius supposed 'direct quotations' with a mountain of salt?
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:48 amIt's odd, true. But if we are forced to assume that Eusebius forged the passage in question, simply taking Origen's word for it, we are left with some difficult questions. First, why would Eusebius feel the need to do this? Why not simply paraphrase what Origen had said? Furthermore, why should we trust any passage that Eusebius cites to be legitimate?
Eusebius did not forge the passage. Had he added it (from Origen) to some physical manuscript of Josephus, that would be forgery. It is not forgery to pass on erroneous information from someone whom one respects or trusts; that is simply credulity. (It is not the semantics here that matter so much as it is the very real distinction between misquoting a manuscript based on erroneous information and actually adding something to a manuscript.)
I realize many people, myself included, take EH with a grain of salt while reading it. But wouldn't we now have to take each of Eusebius supposed 'direct quotations' with a mountain of salt?
I think we have to be careful of any information passed on at second hand; we should look for indicators, as I have done in this case (the lack of information about where to find the snippet, in stark distinction from Eusebius' usual custom).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Stuart »

Why are we fascinated with lists?

And yet we never ask the most pertinent question about the lists. Why do they even exist? What were they compiled for, what was the motive? When you start to understand the motivations for making a particular list, you can begin to figure out when they might have been made.

Lists of bishops of Rome come about due to credential fights. This is no different than fights over credentials as "founders" of churches we see reflected in the Pauline letters and Acts. Get you family member mentioned as being greeted or addressed or better yet baptized by Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:14-15) and you have status. We are not dealing with real history, rather with legendary patron saints and the first followers.

The same is true with Roman bishops. When did Rome gain primacy? We know this was after Nicene, that the Church skewed east, dominated by what today is Turkey, but then would have been considered Greece. Rome started to weigh in, maybe even before this. The list in Eusubius serves to give Rome the prominence, the leadership before it established it, and give a list of Petrine succession.

But we have to ask would Eusubius, who is supposedly the loyal historian of Constantine, have promoted a Roman "Holy See" as the authority over the authority of Constantine and the East where he resided? Does this make any sense? The answer is no, this makes no sense. The list and commentary is much more comfortably placed later by the compendium collector of Eusubius' work, when Rome was the dominant See.

History is written, or rather rewritten, by the winners. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that while the NT letters and books are multi-layered and many authored, that somehow the Patristic writings, and especially that which is the repository of church history (really lore), somehow escaped the process. There is no more and probably considerably less reality in these lists of bishops than in the names of those claiming to have been the first converts of Paul or John in Asia Minor.

Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if some of the names on these lists are inside jokes by monks who compiled them, honoring their favorite teacher they like to tease (like the band Lynard Skynard taking the name from a particular over the top straight teacher in High School) or some buddy of theirs in the monastery, sticking their name on the list. But hey feel free to consider these actual people and to have actually been appointed by the illiterate fisherman from Galilee.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:44 amThe same is true with Roman bishops. When did Rome gain primacy? We know this was after Nicene, that the Church skewed east, dominated by what today is Turkey, but then would have been considered Greece. Rome started to weigh in, maybe even before this. The list in Eusubius serves to give Rome the prominence, the leadership before it established it, and give a list of Petrine succession.

But we have to ask would Eusubius, who is supposedly the loyal historian of Constantine, have promoted a Roman "Holy See" as the authority over the authority of Constantine and the East where he resided? Does this make any sense? The answer is no, this makes no sense. The list and commentary is much more comfortably placed later by the compendium collector of Eusubius' work, when Rome was the dominant See.
I may regret asking this, but where does Eusebius promote Rome as the authority over Constantine and the East? The Roman episcopal list itself does not do that; Eusebius traces the first bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus, too.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

Post by MrMacSon »

Lists of bishops of Rome come about due to credential fights. This is no different than fights over credentials as "founders" of churches we see reflected in the Pauline letters and Acts. Get you family member mentioned as being greeted or addressed or better yet baptized by Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:14-15) and you have status. We are not dealing with real history, rather with legendary patron saints and the first followers. [/quote]
I don't doubt that.

Re, -
Stuart wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:44 amFrankly it wouldn't surprise me if some of the names on these lists are inside jokes by monks who compiled them, honoring their favorite teacher they like to tease (like the band Lynard Skynard taking the name from a particular over the top straight teacher in High School) or some buddy of theirs in the monastery, sticking their name on the list
- I don't doubt some names might have been elevated later due to honouring a favourite figure 'of history', but I'm not sure if there was enough of an early Christian community to be elevating buddy's names.

Stuart wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:44 am When did Rome gain primacy? We know this was after Nicene, that the Church skewed east, dominated by what today is Turkey, but then would have been considered Greece. Rome started to weigh in, maybe even before this. The list in Eusubius serves to give Rome the prominence, the leadership before it established it, and give a list of Petrine succession.

But we have to ask would Eusubius, who is supposedly the loyal historian of Constantine, have promoted a Roman "Holy See" as the authority over the authority of Constantine and the East where he resided? Does this make any sense? The answer is no, this makes no sense. The list and commentary is much more comfortably placed later by the compendium collector of Eusubius' work, when Rome was the dominant See.
A key thing I think is often overlooked (at least) is that 'Rome' - as the centre of the late Roman Empire - had been moved to and centred in the east, and in Byzantium/Constantinople by the time Constantine's reign had ended (the subsequent Byzantine Empire was essentially just a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire).
Post Reply