Page 13 of 21

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:33 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote:The segue to Polycarp doesn't really make any sense in the context. It isn't even introduced.
The segue is not from the succession list to Polycarp; it is from Clement to Polycarp. Not only had Clement "seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them," and "might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes, but also Polycarp "was... instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ." And, just as Clement bequeathed a letter to the church, so Polycarp also bequeathed a letter to the church. This is the connection; this is why Irenaeus mentions Polycarp at this stage. Both he and Clement serve as guarantors of the apostolic tradition being passed down, which is the real topic in this section, and of which the episcopal succession is only an important element.

Ben.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:03 pm
by Secret Alias
The segue is not from the succession list to Polycarp; it is from Clement to Polycarp.
Sorry I am not seeing this:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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. Sorer 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,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.(2) There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."(3) There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles
But what Polycarp? It is true that Clement and Polycarp are identified as conversant with the apostles the introduction of Polycarp is sudden. Yes you can argue to a point that both Clement and Polycarp are similar to one another. The thing you aren't seeing (I think) is that Irenaeus is not telling us that Clement is this or that. He's citing it from a pre-existent document. So the fact that Clement might be this or that is a side point. Irenaeus is citing a document which did not identify Marcion or Valentinus as heretics and now makes Marcion and Valentinus heretics by means of that document which says that Clement was a witness to the apostles. The succession list is the 'thing.' It's the thing he puts up against the heretics who presumably did not consider themselves heretics and likely cited the original succession list to prove that they were 'on the list.' The succession is the point of the argument not the question of individual witnesses to the apostles.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:04 pm
by Secret Alias
Clement is not the subject of the previous paragraph to the 'But Polycarp' - the succession list is the subject. Clement is incidental.

Re: Polycarp? It's more likely than you think.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:18 pm
by Peter Kirby
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Mark 4:7–8

7 καὶ ἄλλο ἔπεσεν εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας, καὶ ἀνέβησαν αἱ ἄκανθαι καὶ συνέπνιξαν αὐτό, καὶ καρπὸν οὐκ ἔδωκεν. 8 καὶ ἄλλα ἔπεσεν εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν καλήν, καὶ ἐδίδου καρπὸν ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανόμενα, καὶ ἔφερεν εἰς τριάκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑκατόν.

7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

John 15:5

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Huh. I always thought Polycarp was a female name for a fish. ;)
If anything I think we can conclude that Stephan is at least borderline Polycarp-curious.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:20 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote:It is true that Clement and Polycarp are identified as conversant with the apostles the introduction of Polycarp is sudden. Yes you can argue to a point that both Clement and Polycarp are similar to one another. The thing you aren't seeing (I think) is that Irenaeus is not telling us that Clement is this or that. He's citing it from a pre-existent document.
Whatever he is doing, he is definitely not citing. He may be plagiarizing, but he is not citing; and I doubt he is even plagiarizing verbatim or mindlessly. The introduction to Polycarp unmistakably hearkens back to Clement.
Secret Alias wrote:The succession list is the 'thing.'
As an important means to transmit the apostolic tradition, yes.
Secret Alias wrote:Clement is not the subject of the previous paragraph to the 'But Polycarp' - the succession list is the subject. Clement is incidental.
You may be letting the formatting influence you.

Polycarp is an additional topic, very true; but his parallels to Clement (as well as nostalgia) make it easy to see why Irenaeus would bring him up as an additional example of the transmission of apostolic traditions.

Ben.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:31 pm
by Secret Alias
I cited the parallels with the fragment from Irenaeus to show that this text is likely concerned with making Valentinians (like Florinus) heretics. That's why there is that odd argument in the other text 'Florinus spent most of his time with Polycarp but I saw him once when I was about thirty ...' Polycarp must also have been key to Irenaeus's argument that people like Florinus were heretics even though - oddly - Florinus was known to have much, much more time with Polycarp.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm
by Secret Alias
Florinus was a Roman priest too who was in Victor's favor for the beginning of his tenure. So it is hard to understand how Irenaeus got the upper hand. That's why you have to think that Irenaeus must have had some connection to the library or a public library. He seems to have gotten his advantage by producing falsified versions of ancient texts which again oddly were believed at the expense of other texts which circulated widely and you'd think would again have the advantage because of people's familiarity with those texts. Christians must have been deemed to be unreliable scribes prior to the end of the second century. Then the texts became standardized according to Irenaeus's reckoning but in the process 'Valentinians' and 'Marcionites' and all the groups (or alleged groups) which appeared in his tome were demonstrated to be deviants from the truth. Poor Florinus. Seems to have been outfoxed by a brilliant tactician.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:37 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote:I cited the parallels with the fragment from Irenaeus to show that this text is likely concerned with making Valentinians (like Florinus) heretics.
It is not clear to me how those parallels impact my reading of Irenaeus outlined above.

ETA: Maybe you were not responding to me, however....

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:53 pm
by Secret Alias
Well I am just stepping out the door but look at the 'stopping the ears' and the 'not writing down things but keeping them in your heart' reference in the fragment. They apply to Polycarp and the heretics and Irenaeus's relationship with Polycarp. Now immediately after the Polycarp section in Adv Haer:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth (= the episcopal list which was the subject of the preceding few paragraphs before mention of Polycarp): so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse (the secondary point you mention), and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (Peter is apparently specifically meant here and thus the Roman Church so back to the episcopal list)

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom (in the other fragment Irenaeus says he never wrote anything down from his time with Polycarp). If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address (again echoes the other fragment in that Irenaeus says virtually the same thing about Polycarp). Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (I think Florinus is again meant here).

For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence (Florinus is said to have been a Valentinian); nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Irenaeus strangely in the fragment takes the position (or the 'point of view') of the barbarians (i.e. he doesn't write down things). Doesn't this mean that Florinus did write down things for Polycarp (i.e. acted as his secretary)? I think so:
These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to you. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing yourself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: O good God, for what times have You reserved me, that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he dispatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.
The same business about Irenaeus being a 'barbarian' appears at the beginning of Adversus Haereses where he says he only speaks in a barbaric dialect (or tongue) and that he isn't as sophisticated as some. I tend to think that Florinus disputed Irenaeus's edition of things (or 'something') Polycarp wrote. What that is exactly I don't know. But the argument in Adv Haer 3.1 - 5 is odd - and I have always though it is odd.

On the one hand Irenaeus is making a succession list a massive deal. But on the other hand he is speaking about barbarians who don't use writings and only know things in their heart. It is a strange segue if your point is that everything is basically decided by a succession list which was after all written down.

So what is the point here? I think this section and all sections of Adversus Haereses came from a collection of homilies or lectures given by Irenaeus (mentioned by Photius as surviving to his day) and we've lost the original context of much of what is said. I think the argument for Adversus Haereses was originally made against Florinus and Florinus's argument that Valentinians weren't heretics because they weren't mentioned in the original succession list. Irenaeus however fixed that ...

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:30 pm
by MrMacSon
Ben makes an important point - (paragraphed by me without changing any words)
Ben C. Smith wrote: The segue is not from the succession list to Polycarp; it is from Clement to Polycarp.

Not only had Clement "seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them," and "might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes", but also Polycarp "was... instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ." And, just as Clement bequeathed a letter to the church, so Polycarp also bequeathed a letter to the church.

This is the connection; this is why Irenaeus mentions Polycarp at this stage. Both he and Clement serve as guarantors of the apostolic tradition being passed down, which is the real topic in this section, and of which the episcopal succession is only an important element.
though I don't quite fully follow the last bit ie. "of which the episcopal succession is only an important element" ...