The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops.

[John2]

"Where did Epiphanius (century IV) find a list of bishops ending with Anicetus (century II), do you think?"

I'm on the fence about whether Epiphnius knew Hegesippus too (at least directly). As this book puts it:

"Yet the question of the textual relationship between Hegesippus, Eusebius and Epiphanius has not been solved. Did Epiphanius know of Hegesippus only indirectly, via Eusebius, or did he read him directly? Most scholars tend to adopt the first option and discard Epiphanius. However, decisive arguments have not been put forward."

https://books.google.com/books?id=9bbWb ... us&f=false

[MrMacSon]

As many people have implied here, in this thread, and elsewhere, many if not all of these so-called 2nd century texts show signs of later editing.

Ignatius is a questionable character with questionable texts; as is Hegesippus; as is Irenaeus.

It would seems a useful thing to would be to determine what information we have for each of these 'bishops'.

Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus. Where did all these other names come from? Why assume they came from Hegesippus when they are not mentioned in any of the writings we have of him?

Add Victor and others (eg. Papias) to that list of 'bishops' to be investigated.

I tend to think most of the texts of these first few centuries of Christianity reflect 3rd to 5th century Christianity (and later in some instances), and that various characters have been retrofitted into the 1st century and various characters have been retrofitted into the 2nd century.

Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, & others (such as some of these 'bishops') seem to me to be more mythical/fictional than legendary, and narratives about them, and 'their texts', have been written to create the impression of legend.

It also seems various characters that may have existed may have been co-opted into the early-Christianity 'legend'

[MrMacSon]

Reread that article that Ben put up in another thread. It really speaks volumes about how unstable this 'historical' information' really is. ...

Link please?

[Ben C. Smith]

It would seems a useful thing to would be to determine what information we have for each of these 'bishops'.

Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus. Where did all these other names come from? Why assume they came from Hegesippus when they are not mentioned in any of the writings we have of him?

The name "Sixtus/Sextus" seems especially suspicious, it being the sixth name on the list and all. I suppose it could be due to a lacuna: "Evaristus, Alexander, the sixth one (I forget his name), Telephorus...." I suppose it could also be simply an invented name to fill in a perceived gap in the chronology.

[Ben C. Smith]

Reread that article that Ben put up in another thread. It really speaks volumes about how unstable this 'historical' information' really is. ...

Link please?

It sounds like he may mean this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2103. There is a link to an article by Chapman.

Mind you, Chapman himself coddles no doubts about the approximate timeframe of Jesus' life and career. I think the instability of which Stephan speaks will be due to the content of the article, not due to its conclusions.

[Secret Alias]

Yes exactly. You start looking at ANY ancient chronology and errors creep in. But even Epiphanius seems to know of some difficulties with regards to the reign of Clement - i.e. was he bishop before or after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

[Secret Alias]

The name "Sixtus/Sextus" seems especially suspicious, it being the sixth name on the list and all. I suppose it could be due to a lacuna: "Evaristus, Alexander, the sixth one (I forget his name), Telephorus...." I suppose it could also be simply an invented name to fill in a perceived gap in the chronology.

Didn't even notice this but this is absolutely brilliant. Also notice that in order for Sextus to be 'sixth' it means Peter wasn't the first bishop. That's why I tend to think that the original list went;

First: Peter and Paul
Second: Linus and Cletus
Third: Clement
Fourth: Evaristus
Fifth: Alexander
Sixth: Sixtus
Seventh: Telephorus
Eighth: Hyginus
Ninth: Pius
Tenth: Anicetus

In this original schema Clement was head of the church before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul which contracts the list a generation and allows for Anicetus to be dated to 147 CE.

[Secret Alias]

And its probably (though not definitively) a decade for each person so roughly:

First: Peter and Paul 47 - 57 CE
Second: Linus and Cletus 57 - 67
Third: Clement 67 - 77 CE
Fourth: Evaristus 77 - 87 CE
Fifth: Alexander 87 - 97 CE
Sixth: Sixtus 97 - 107 CE
Seventh: Telephorus 107 - 117 CE
Eighth: Hyginus 117 - 127 CE
Ninth: Pius 127 - 137 CE
Tenth: Anicetus 137 - 147 CE

None of this was real. It was just sketched out on a pad of paper. I wonder how many Jerusalem bishops there were.

[Secret Alias]

Apparently there were small differences between Eusebius's list (Irenaeus's) and Epiphanius's with regards to the bishops of Jerusalem too.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oCOdB ... 2C&f=false

[Secret Alias]

I think given what we know about corruption in Patristic literature and given the difference in the lists for Rome and Jerusalem it would seem that there were two related but slightly different editions of the same succession lists.