The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm orthodoxy as we know it seems to have an attachment with 'Rome'
On what basis do you say that. How could it have been when none of the alleged key figures of early Christianity (eg, Irenaeus & Tertualian) were based there? It may have as much attachment to Caesarea Maritima.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm something like the orthodoxy we 'now know existed' from the late second century. Beyond that I don't think that much more is discernible.
I tend to agree, though am surprised there is hardly any concrete evidence of structured Christianity in the third century. If there was an orthodox Christianity at the end of the 2nd century one would think the first ecumenical council (which was the Council of Nicea) would have taken place before ~ 275 ad/CE

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm Irenaeus seems to be the spokesman of this new tradition or at least the texts associated with this name.

The Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp say that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's death (c. 162 CE). The context seems to be that he was writing in Rome the details associated with this martyrdom. I tend to believe this association between Irenaeus and Rome. I am not sure that the Martyrdom of Polycarp was written the minute he died. Perhaps it came from a general knowledge of Irenaeus's whereabouts. Why else and how else would Irenaeus have influenced Victor and had it in for Florinus? I don't believe the worldwide Church was 'off the ground' yet.

What else do we know to be true at this time? Persecutions in southern Gaul. Perhaps Irenaeus's reporting led to the assumption he was there. He seems to have also been a spokesman for the Asian church which might date back to Polycarp. I don't really know what to make of that.
Yet he was allegedly in Gaul in the west (I have previously argued in another post he may have been in Galata in Asia Minor, inhabited by Gauls)

Christian persecution is overstated and over-emphasised.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm The reporting about Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus is the oldest real 'thing' we have about Christianity and a historical Christian personality.

It is difficult to get much color from the account.
Ignatius seems to be later than we have been led to believe.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm
We know there was Christianity in Greece and Asia Minor in the middle of the second century. What it looked like, who knows; beyond the fact that a lunatic like Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus could 'make it' big.
Well, of course Marcion comes into play. And, if Paul was active in the 2nd century, rather than the 1st C. ....

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:08 pm This widespread nature of Christianity c. 150 CE implies an existence at the beginning of the century too ...
Meh ... and you say above "I don't believe the worldwide Church was 'off the ground' yet."
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Well, if Soter was his baptismal name, what would be the issue?
It doesn't seem to be a common Greek name of that era.
Sure, but a baptismal name would not have to be a common name, or even really a name at all in the traditional sense. And it was your suggestion. You brought up the problem of Soter's name only to immediately solve the problem. :cheers:
MrMacSon wrote:Some of these are likely to be duplicates. Some are likely to be legends -
  • Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenian judge who was converted by Paul of Tarsus and became 'Bishop of Athens'
  • Dionysius of Vienne, d. 193, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 2nd-century bishop
  • Faustus, Abibus and Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 250, three Christian martyrs
  • Dionysius, 3rd-century Christian martyr and saint, noted in Theodore, Philippa and companions
  • Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, 3rd-century Egyptian bishop
  • Pope Dionysius [of Rome], 259–268
    • said to have demanded from the bishop of Alexandria, also called Dionysius, on the protest of some of 'the faithful' at Alexandria, explanations concerning his doctrine regarding the relation of God to the Logos, which 'was satisfied'.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Which ones do you think are duplicates [or legends], and why?
a. one [or both] of the Popes: all these Popes seems unlikely, and the fact little is ascribed to each of them in a supposedly fast developing church. They don't seem to be associated with many people.
"Little is ascribed to them." They are names on a list, without much fleshing out, right? Kind of like the list of US Presidents, of whom most people today know precisely nothing? What is ascribed to Zachary Taylor? To James K. Polk? And so on. That is kind of the nature of lists preserved solely for the names, is it not? The list can easily outlive any details about the items on that list. ETA: I myself actually know quite a few details about the Presidents, but I am not the norm. Also, no more than a couple of centuries have passed for most of them. Still, the point stands: the details can easily be lost while the names are preserved. This is not unusual.
b. one [or both] of the martyrs: The martyr thing is overdone as the likes of Candida Moss has argued/shown.
I very much agree that the extent of martyrdom needs to be evaluated carefully. On the other hand, if any Christian were to suffer martyrdom, would it not be most likely to happen to a Christian leader?
c. one or both of Dionysius of Vienne, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul and/or Dionysius, 2nd C. Bishop of Corinth: both places seem to be outliers in a scant 2nd C church
Calling Corinth an outlier seems weird to me. Can you explain that?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

On what basis do you say that (a Roman-centered Christianity existed c. 170 CE/another 'primitive' Christianity existed before that time).
1. the effort to turn the order of the Pauline letters on its head and make Rome first (came from a Roman source)
2. the Roman episcopal list in Hegesippus which further contextualizes:
a) Marcellina as something (not orthodox)
b) Marcion as something (not orthodox)
c) Valentinus and the other heretics in Irenaeus
each of (b) and (c) further 'break out' into points of their own
3. the story of Marcion bribing the Church of Rome from Tertullian which goes back to an earlier (second century) source. The only reason Marcion would bribe the Church (a non-Roman the Roman Church) is because Rome was central to the rival orthodoxy. That doesn't mean the story is true. It could be a myth. But myths and stories tell us a lot.
4. Lampe's interpretation of the manner in which Valentinus becomes a heretic. Valentinus was tolerated by Justin but by the time of Victor he becomes a heretic and because of this judgment in Rome he and 'Valentinianism' became heretics as such. Valentinus is described as a 'priest' somewhere. A priest in Rome. That was one church, one Roman community. But later in the second century there seems to be a new assertiveness and people who had relationships with 'the Roman Church' in one generation become 'heretics' or condemned in another generation.
so that results from breaking out (b) and (c) in 3. But let's look further at that Roman episcopal list again.
5. there is something related between Marcellina and Marcion. Yes they are heretics but the judgement comes from a common 'positioning' in relation to Hegesippus's episcopal list. As Smith and Wace note "A list which has some curious agreements with Epiphanius, and extends only to Anicetus, is found in the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion; the author has mistaken Marcellina for Marcion. " https://books.google.com/books?id=RwYjA ... us&f=false Again think of how influential and important this specifically Roman episcopal list was.
6. Polycarp's meeting with Anicetus. This story - now relegated to the fragments of Irenaeus - clearly has its origin in Hegesippus. Look closely and see the reference to the episcopal list in a letter to Victor the (new) bishop of Rome:
For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.
What makes this so fascinating is that the immediate context is the Roman bishop's relationship with churches beyond Rome and Italy - in this case Asia Minor. Whether it be individual 'heretics' or in this case other churches in the Empire, there is a strange pattern playing out. Irenaeus becomes 'the interpreter' (his nickname) of a seeming relic from the distant past, that verdammten Roman episcopal list in Hegesippus, again. Do you see how many time we keep coming back to it?! Sure one way of looking at it, your way of looking at it would be to say 'It's fake! It's all fake! Myth, myth, myth!' But that isn't the fullest, best way of interpreting the data. Yes there the episcopal list might be fake. It might be true but the consistent pattern of contextualizing contemporary (in this case late second century) history according to this 'map' essentially is consistent. How bizarre, but how utterly consistent. How could a single document stuck in the back pages of an otherwise garbage history text be so utterly influential? And why does it take one man, Irenaeus, to consistently tease out or frame all historical knowledge according to this 'list'? Why doesn't Victor just act the way he wants? Why is he bound by this stupid book originally written in 147 CE as late as perhaps 195 CE? Hegesippus almost becomes the equivalent of the constitution of the United States for the Christianity - indeed Roman-centered Christianity? Yes something fake and artificial is in evidence here but only in so far as Christianity before the middle of the second century. The list is real and engaging directly with the history or living phenomena of late second century Christianity certainly.
7. Acts attempts to make Antioch the starting point of Christianity (where Peter and Paul meet) out of the condemnation found in Galatians. This document was probably IMHO written by Theophilus of Antioch c. 160 - 180 CE. But again the pattern is still the same. You have Galatians come before this (if Acts was composed in its present form 160 - 180 CE) then Galatians is before 160 CE. But also given the historical truthfulness of Lucian's basic account you have Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus (henceforth PIP)'s imprisonment in Antioch very, very early. If you deconstruct Lucian you likely have a death c. 161 CE and (a) two or three Olympic games before that = - 8 - 12 years (= 149 - 153 CE as PIP's first appearance at Olympia and (b) some time in Greece before that = "Coming at last to Greece under these circum­stances, at one moment he abused the Eleans, at another he counselled the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans" and a visit to Rome - "From there, thus equipped, he set sail for Italy and immediately after disembarking he fell to abusing. everyone, and in particular the Emperor" - suspiciously similar to composition of Hegesippus's publication of his work at Rome in 147 CE under Anicetus. Before that there is a trip to Egypt (145 CE?) "Thereafter he went away a third time to Egypt .." and several 'wandering' trips in the world between visits to Parium which sandwich an elusive imprisonment in Antioch "However, Peregrinus was freed by the then governor of Syria, a man who was fond of philosophy ..." I think there is a direct relationship between (i) this imprisonment the large following of Christians who tended to him in jail (ii) the letters of Ignatius referencing 'Ignatius's' imprisonment and his 'dramatic' trip to Rome and (iii) Acts (Theophilus's) attempt to make Antioch the center of the Christian world. The commonality is something essentially embarrassing (Paul condemning Peter/PIP being put in jail) being turned around as something holy and worthy of being considered a cornerstone. Knowing that Theophilus did this we can see Irenaeus carry out a similar effort more than a generation after him. Now PIP and Anicetus essentially fighting with one another like Paul and Peter becomes 'exemplary' behavior for the bishop of Rome to follow with respect to his greater flock around the world. Notice the consistent pattern of turning actual history or recorded history on its head! But this is what is happening. The difficulty for me is determining given that Irenaeus is using the episcopal list in his letter to Victor where is the story about PIP and Anicetus actually coming from? Surely it too is a written source. What other source could this other than Hegesippus again? Indeed it has always struck me that immediately after citing from the episcopal list Irenaeus says:
... To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things
In reality we see two examples of an association between Polycarp and Anicetus which develops in the context of Hegesippus's episcopal list. Coincidence? That is possible of course. But could there really be two separate references to Hegesippus's list which result in stories about Polycarp when for all intents and purposes Polycarp is never mentioned as explicitly being 'in' the episcopal list? I don't think so. In the case of the parallels between Marcion/Marcellina and Anicetus in the episcopal list it is argued by many scholars that Marcion is a mistake for Marcellina who certainly does appear in the episcopal list. But what about Irenaeus's repeated mention of Polycarp in association with the list? I think if you look at the letter to Victor you will see that Victor doesn't seem to know the details of the episcopal list (why cite it to him with such detail?). Similarly the story about Polycarp's encounter with Anicetus, why go into such detail unless the story is unknown to him. To this end I think that on some level Polycarp must be equated with Hegesippus (Joseph the 'fruitful' bough/son). Irenaeus never identifies Ignatius as 'Ignatius' he is unnamed. Similarly with respect to Hegesippus he is never named but whenever the episcopal list is referenced 'Polycarp' is immediately thereafter. He had a version of the text identified as being authored by Polycarp and Hegesippus's visit to Rome included an encounter with Anicetus where Anicetus 'agreed to disagree' with Polycarp/Hegesippus which is used as a lesson for Victor's conduct with the Asian churches.
8. outside of the episcopal list there are other examples. Clement's story about a gospel of Mark written in Rome by Mark for Peter. There is no need for an Alexandrian Christian to place the gospel of Mark, Peter and Mark in Rome. If for instance there was no Christianity before 150 CE why not argue or create a story about the gospel being created at Alexandria for Egyptians? Instead there seems to be some 'Roman gravity' placing the story here. Perhaps it is a Roman story that Clement has adapted. Perhaps. But the gravity is still there.
9. the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas is taken to be a Roman Christian. The Shepherd of Hermas is a Roman Christian work which again is connected to the episcopal list. Irenaeus cites from the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas is a document used by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor to justify Roman primacy - https://books.google.com/books?id=_6H3X ... st&f=false. It is also connected with the Clement of Rome myth which is unlikely to have been historically true (i.e. that Peter converted a senator named Clement from Rome who became the head of the Church at the earliest period.
10. the Clementia. Of course we recognize that the Clementia is devoid of any historical truth outside of misunderstanding. Nevertheless Clement appears on the episcopal list and is part of Irenaeus's conversation with Victor contextualizing the Roman supremacy.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

I think there can be no doubt whatsoever that we see a Roman-centered Church by at least the end of the second century. The odd thing, the interesting thing is the manner in which a piece of paper (the Roman episcopal list) becomes the entire basis to this episcopacy going back throughout history. That is very, very odd. You wouldn't expect an 'exegete' like Irenaeus having to 'explain' the history of the Roman Church from a document to a bishop of Rome (Victor). It reminds me of the way Hollywood movies have a father and son 'just happen' to have a discussion about the history of the family at Xmas for movie which happens to be a Xmas family movie. Why doesn't Victor know all of this? I know the answer is, the explanation is - Irenaeus is 'reminding' Victor. But that's not the way people remind each other. It's too explicit. It clearly sounds as if Victor hasn't heard these stories before.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:41 am I think there can be no doubt whatsoever that we see a Roman-centered Church by at least the end of the second century.
Agreed.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Some interesting notes about Hegesippus and Polycarp. They both seem to have it in for the Atticus family. I think it is plainly evident based on the synthesis of the Death of Peregrinus and the Martyrdom of Polycarp that 'Herod' of the latter = 'Herodes Atticus' of the latter. If that is accepted then note this in Hegesippus:
Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.
Atticus was Claudius Atticus the consular legate in Syria and the father of Herodes Atticus. Claudius Atticus served as a legatus of the Iudaea Province from 99/100 to 102/103 CE. Of course this story is fictional. But notice the attempt to place blame on the Atticus family.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

An Irenaean/Polycarpian gloss in Hegesippus:
then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
The Pastorals were not known in 147 CE. This is a later 'correction' or addition to the text.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

The desire to 'pin' something on to Atticus extends to the chronological list appropriated by Epiphanius:

The list follows (Panarion 20,1)
James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel.
[He lived] until the time of Nero.

Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.

Judah

Zachariah

Tobiah

Benjamin

John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan. 103

Matthias

Philip

Seneca

Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.

Levi

Vaphres

Jose

15. Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius. 104 The above
were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

ˉα. Ἰάκωβος, ὃς ξύλῳ πληγεὶς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐμαρτύρησε, μέχρι Νέρωνος.
ˉβ. Συμεὼν ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ ἐσταυρώθη.
ˉγ. Ἰούδας.
ˉδ. Ζαχαρίας.
ˉε. Τωβίας.
ˉ. Βενιαμίν.
ˉζ. Ἰωάννης ἕως δέκα ἐννέα ἔτους Τραϊανοῦ.
ˉη. Ματθίας.
ˉθ. Φίλιππος.
ˉι. Σενέκας.
ˉιˉα. Ἰοῦστος ἕως Ἀδριανοῦ.
ˉιˉβ. Λευίς.
ˉιˉγ. Οὐάφρης.
ˉιˉδ. Ἰωσής.
ˉιˉε. Ἰούδας μέχρι ἑνδεκάτου Ἀντωνίου. Οὗτοι δὲ ἀπὸ περιτομῆς ἐπεσκόπευσαν τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ.

It is also curious on that list that "Symeon [who] was crucified under Trajan" clearly occupies a much earlier date as a bishop. This means this position was not a lifetime appointment or at least it wasn't conceived as such. This means that we shouldn't understand the end of list - with 'Joses' preceding 'Judas' to signify that 'Joses' is necessarily 'dead' by the time Judas comes to the throne. Could Joses be behind the person of 'Josephus/Hegesippus' the author of the work. Note what happens with Matthew. He reformulates the syntax of the sentence about the relatives, changes the order of two brothers' names to James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, and changes the spelling of Mark's Joses (Ἰωσής) to Joseph (Ἰωσήφ).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Actually that thesis is confirmed by Eusebius:
πρῶτος τοιγαροῦν Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ κυρίου λεγόμενος ἀδελφὸς ἦν· μεθ' ὃν δεύτερος Συμεών· τρίτος Ἰοῦστος· Ζακχαῖος τέταρτος· πέμπτος Τωβίας· ἕκτος Βενιαμίν· Ἰωάννης ἕβδομος· ὄγδοος Ματθίας· ἔνατος Φίλιππος· δέκατος Σενέκας· ἑνδέκατος Ἰοῦστος· Λευὶς δωδέκατος· Ἐφρῆς τρισκαιδέκατος· τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος Ἰωσήφ· ἐπὶ πᾶσι πεντεκαιδέκατος Ἰούδας
I wonder whether the author Hegesippus claimed to be the second last bishop of Jerusalem. Think about it for a moment. Symeon was bishop during the time some of the apostles lived (i.e. in the apostolic age) but he is crucified under Trajan in the next century. What was he doing all the time in between? The answer seems to be wandering the earth, perhaps like Joseph the second last bishop and essentially also like Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus. All three (of this single soul/person) wander the earth. Lucian spies on Peregrinus and he is wandering leader. Polycarp is 'bishop of Smyrna' even though he wanders over to Rome and other places. Ignatius is always traveling and in chains and still 'bishop of Antioch' - very strange pattern that fits the profile established of the Jerusalem bishops of Hegesippus's treatise.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply