Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

[Secret Alias]

The importance of Rhegium is worth noting in two early Christian documents. The first is of course the Acts of the Apostles with Paul allegedly landing in Rhegium. But also note that in the Ignatian correspondences the following closing words (allegedly) of the saint:

Philo and Agathopus the deacons salute you. I salute the company of virgins, and the order of widows; of whom may I have joy! I salute the people of the Lord, from the least unto the greatest. I have sent you this letter through Euphanius the reader, a man honoured of God, and very faithful, happening to meet with him at Rhegium, just as he was going on board ship. Remember my bonds 1353 that I may be made perfect in Christ. Fare ye well in the flesh, the soul, and the spirit, while ye think of things perfect, and turn yourselves away from the workers of iniquity, who corrupt the word of truth, and are strengthened inwardly by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The importance of this reference is noted by Zahn:

Dass Ignatius über Philippi gereist sei, wusste der Verfasser aus der von Euseb (h. e. III, 36, 13) mitgetheilten Stelle des Polykarpbriefs. Ob der Lector Euphanius, welcher den Brief des Ignatius nach Philippi bringt, der dortigen Gemeinde angehören soll (Philipp. 15), ist mindestens zweifelhaft; so auch der Ort der Abfassung des Briefs. Ignatius will zreg Pyyiova *) mit Euphanius zusammengetroffen sein, wo dieser zu Schiff stieg. Da die Varianten keinen nachweisbaren Ortsnamen an die Hand geben, so wird, wie schon Halloix sah, das « als Verdoppelung des Anfangsbuchstabens des folgenden ävayouévov zu streichen sein. Bei Rhegium also hat Ignatius dem ihm begegnenden Euphanius den wohl auf dem Schiff geschriebenen Brief mitgegeben. Das weist uns dann aber, je befremdlicher es ist, um so sicherer auf das m. vat.-oxon., nach welchem die Reise des Ignatius von Asien aus in Goxyvxa 'Pyov und dann weiter Ex Pyyiov nach Rom ging ). Eine Umkehrung des Abhängigkeitsverhältnisses wird sich hier ebensowenig als in Bezug auf das oben S. 37 f. besprochene Zusammentreffen des Pseudoignatius mit m. Vat. empfehlen.

i haven't had time today to insert the Greek letters into the quote. Maybe that can be later. But it is interesting that in this letter to the Philippians we necessarily have a critical link to long recognized 'editor' of the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the problem of chapter 13 of the latter epistle.

As it stands there is a contradiction between Polycarp saying in chapter 13:

Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled. The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us.

where Ignatius seems to still be alive and what is said in chapter 9 where it is clearly apparent he has already died:

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run Philippians 2:16; Galatians 2:2 in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.

https://books.google.com/books?id=iRk9A ... 22&f=false

[John T]

Just some general comments.

First a disclaimer.

I'm no expert on the Greek language. I struggle mightily with Koine Greek and couldn't tell the difference between that and Pontic, Rhegium, or Calabrian Greek. But as I understand it, Koine Greek was the common language for Christian scholars in Asia, e.g. Ephesus. The early church fathers wrote in Greek to communicate clearly/rapidly between key cities (churches) in the Roman Empire.

With that out of the way: It seems this long thread is about pointing out minor translation/spelling errors in the different Greek dialects that resulted in the transposed listings of Gnostic groups condemned by the early church fathers.

Be as that may, I do not see how this thread impacts the following accepted historical events:

1. Papias and Polycarp knew John while he was still alive and heard him preach about eschatology as taught to him by Jesus (perhaps James the Just as well).
2. Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp is fully aware of the correct sayings/stories of John who passed along the original eschatological teachings of Jesus. There is no evidence Irenaeus change the teachings/letters of John.
3. Irenaeus, travels to Lyons, France and confronts Gnosticism, i.e. Valentinus ( a candidate for bishop of Rome but denied). The followers of Valentinus claim to have secret knowledge regarding eschatology passed down from Jesus. Irenaeus knows better and calls them out as posers/heretics of the teachings of Jesus. In the process, Irenaeus refutes other Gnostic groups and provides a list of heresy groups that is then circulated among church leaders.
4. Irenaeus list of heresy groups (as far as I know) were not intended to be listed in alphabetical or chronological order.

In conclusion: I do not see a problem in having different listings or spellings of Gnostic groups.

What am I missing?

V/R
John T

[Secret Alias]

Be as that may, I do not see how this thread impacts the following accepted historical events:

1. Papias and Polycarp knew John while he was still alive and heard him preach about eschatology as taught to him by Jesus (perhaps James the Just as well).
2. Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp is fully aware of the correct sayings/stories of John who passed along the original eschatological teachings of Jesus. There is no evidence Irenaeus change the teachings/letters of John.
3. Irenaeus, travels to Lyons, France and confronts Gnosticism, i.e. Valentinus ( a candidate for bishop of Rome but denied). The followers of Valentinus claim to have secret knowledge regarding eschatology passed down from Jesus. Irenaeus knows better and calls them out as posers/heretics of the teachings of Jesus. In the process, Irenaeus refutes other Gnostic groups and provides a list of heresy groups that is then circulated among church leaders.
4. Irenaeus list of heresy groups (as far as I know) were not intended to be listed in alphabetical or chronological order.

1. Papias and Polycarp knew John while he was still alive and heard him preach about eschatology as taught to him by Jesus (perhaps James the Just as well).

This is an "accepted historical event"? I think what you can't comprehend is that the source(s) for this "accepted historical event" were books or documents existing in a library somewhere in the Empire. The Ignatian correspondences are a good example of this. Yes the Ignatian correspondences are 'documented evidence' for the transport of a saint from Antioch to Rome purportedly to face some sort of death sentence in the arena. As documents they point to the existence of an event - i.e. the transport of said 'Ignatius.' But this does not mean that Ignatius was a historical person or the event was 'historical' in any sense of the word. Within the surviving collection of Ignatian letters there are acknowledged forgeries and short and long versions of the same letters. I don't want to get into the complexities here but the fact that there are claims of historicity doesn't mean we are dealing with historical events or historical documents.

That Papias knew John is attested. But it is almost universally acknowledged this John was not the apostle as Irenaeus claimed but someone who was Christian and happened to possess the name 'John.' That Polycarp knew John is less certain. Polycarp might have claimed to have known John. Irenaeus claims to uphold Polycarp's legacy and condemning Florinus and presumably his representation of Polycarp's legacy even though it is clear from the same sources of information that Florinus was an intimate of Polycarp while Irenaeus was not. If a man who only casually knew another man can pass himself off as more of an expert on that individual than someone who was an intimate of the same individual it just shows you how easy it was for people to misrepresent their authority or their claims about the teaching of other earlier Christians.

2. Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp is fully aware of the correct sayings/stories of John who passed along the original eschatological teachings of Jesus. There is no evidence Irenaeus change the teachings/letters of John.

See above. Irenaeus's acquaintance with Polycarp is exaggerated. At best it can be described as a passing acquaintance. He may have claimed to be "fully aware" of this or that pertaining to Polycarp but the evidence makes such a claim appear dubious. If Irenaeus could claim authority over Polycarp's legacy based only on passing knowledge of Polycarp over and above the knowledge of Polycarp's intimates anything was possible in Christian antiquity. Nevertheless given Irenaeus's dubious association with Polycarp his laying claim to the true understanding and knowledge of the Johannine tradition based on this dubious association is entirely suspect.

3. Irenaeus, travels to Lyons, France and confronts Gnosticism, i.e. Valentinus ( a candidate for bishop of Rome but denied). The followers of Valentinus claim to have secret knowledge regarding eschatology passed down from Jesus. Irenaeus knows better and calls them out as posers/heretics of the teachings of Jesus. In the process, Irenaeus refutes other Gnostic groups and provides a list of heresy groups that is then circulated among church leaders.

If Irenaeus started out in Rhegium and traveled to Lyons there is no evidence that he 'confronted' these alleged 'heretical' groups there. He almost certainly did not confront Valentinus's followers there. They seemed to have been a Roman or Italian phenomenon. Valentinus was not likely a bishop candidate. These stock charges (Marcion is accused of the same thing) are laughable. You really should read heretical literature in other cultures such as Judaism and Samaritanism or Islamic traditions. In all these traditions the motives of opponents are inevitably debased to ambition, greed, lust or other sins. Many studies of Irenaeus's writings have taken place over the years and the general conclusion is that the audience for Adversus Haereses was Roman. I agree. No one knows how our current text but the consensus of recent scholarship is that Adversus Haereses is not the original product of Irenaeus but a reworked model of something more original (and lost) and which was reformulated in the late second century to confront the Valentinians specifically. Lampe for one tends to see the evidence as arguing for the Valentinians being accepted in the Roman Christian community until rather late in the second century.

4. Irenaeus list of heresy groups (as far as I know) were not intended to be listed in alphabetical or chronological order.

Yes but even further more the current text took apart various sources and rearranged them to reflect concerns of a late second century Roman Church community . The original material wasn't so specifically focused or did not reflect the intentions of the late arrangement.

[Secret Alias]

What is interesting about the linguistic peculiarities of Irenaeus pointing to an origin in Rhegium is that it fits perfectly within a very contentious difficulty in the letter of Polycarp, Irenaeus's alleged associate. To summarize, the Letter to the Philippians has at its core the idea that Ignatius somehow sent a letter to the Philippians on his way to his death. Polycarp says "Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled." There is a conflict between this (which intimates that Ignatius is still alive) and what appears earlier on where it is clear Ignatius is dead.

The community in Philippi obvious has no idea that Ignatius wrote any letters. Polycarp apparently sends not only the one letter but an entire collection of Ignatian correspondences. It has long been recognized that even the accepted Ignatian corpus is artificial. The letters are arranged to be read as a set where one letter follows the next in an artificial manner. Layered on top of this is another or a second set of artificial correspondence where not surprisingly a letter to Philippi is found. In this letter Ignatius says that he handed off the letter to a man from Rhegium. The 'hand off' occurs presumably in Rhegium just as the other Christian was going on board a ship.

Given that (allegedly) years later Polycarp 'uncovers' that the letter never arrived, it seems likely that the explanation was that the letter was never delivered and may have been preserved (allegedly) in Rhegium. Since it is generally acknowledged that the existing letter from Polycarp to the Philippians has at least two parts to it, whoever edited the letter to the Philippians MIGHT have done so after the false epistles of Ignatius was created (alternatively one may argue that the false letters were developed from the reference in Polycarp's letter). Yet this presumes that the 'authentic' letters are really authentic. I don't believe this. I think the original letters were very short. Many people including myself suppose that the Passing of Peregrinus makes reference to an Ignatian 'factory' of spurious epistles. Polycarp's letter to the Philippians should be read as another testimony to the factory of spurious epistles where in fact the letter to the Philippians is itself falsified.

To this end, the question arises - where was the spurious letter writing factory located? While this factory could be located anywhere it makes sense to think that the location was near Rome given that this is where Ignatius is supposed to ended up. The only other clue we have is that Polycarp says that he is sending the collection to Philippi which suggests that it was removed from Philippi (as they are waiting for the letter allegedly sent by Ignatius is the beginning). I have not looked for signs of the Rhegium dialect in the Ignatian correspondences.

[Ben C. Smith]

That Papias knew John is attested.

I dispute this as an established fact. Papias' own words seem to imply that he heard from intermediaries who reported what John (the elder) was saying, not that he himself heard from or even personally knew John (the elder):

But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying.

Later tradents, of course, turned this into Papias knowing John personally, John being the apostle and not just some elder, and even Papias penning the fourth gospel at John's dictation (!).

[Secret Alias]

Thank you Ben. I stand corrected.

[Secret Alias]

No adjectives which end with ώσιο

[John T]

That Papias knew John is attested.

I dispute this as an established fact. Papias' own words seem to imply that he heard from intermediaries who reported what John (the elder) was saying, not that he himself heard from or even personally knew John (the elder):

But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying.

Later tradents, of course, turned this into Papias knowing John personally, John being the apostle and not just some elder, and even Papias penning the fourth gospel at John's dictation (!).

This is where I come in at a disadvantage. I could waste hours trying to case/diagram the Greek words to find out if the phrase, "were saying" is present indicative or aorist participle or something else but why should I?
I think the translation is clear enough: Not only did Papias take care in writing down what others heard from the disciples but he wrote down what he personally heard from Aristion and John.

The writings of Polycarp and Irenaeus do not hint that Papias was a fraud who only pretended to know Aristion and John.

The charge that Papias was plagiarizing notes or hearsay from disciples of disciples of John is attested.

[Secret Alias]

But the testimony doesn't say what you want it to say. If Papias knew John personally this isn't the sort of statement you'd expect. At the very least we can conclude that Papias was acquainted with John in the same way he was Aristion.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think the translation is clear enough: Not only did Papias take care in writing down what others heard from the disciples but he wrote down what he personally heard from Aristion and John.

You must be reading a different translation than I am. The translation I gave (not to mention the original Greek of Eusebius) makes it fairly clear that Papias is inquiring of people who chance by Hierapolis, and the subject of his inquiry is both "what Andrew and Peter and company said" and "what Aristion and John the elder" say. The implication of the Greek tenses is that the latter two are still alive at this time (whereas the former seven are not), but there is not even a hint that Papias knows them personally. He is inquiring after their words, and that is a different thing.