Page 14 of 21

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:45 pm
by Ben C. Smith
MrMacSon wrote: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" ...
What I mean is that Irenaeus is arguing for teachings that he alleges derive from the apostles. The episcopal succession is one important way to transmit these teachings. Another is face-to-face instruction, as he claims from Polycarp to some extent (this can overlap with the succession, but is not identical to it; for example, in this case Polycarp and Irenaeus are both bishops, but not of the same diocese). Yet another would be apostolic writings, such as the gospels, and subapostolic writings, such as the epistles of Polycarp and Clement.

Ben.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:47 pm
by MrMacSon
Secret Alias wrote:
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.
An embellished succession list? to shore up the narrative viz. -
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'.
lol.

I [still] wonder if the references to churches in Corinth & Asia Minor (eg. Ephesus, Smyrna, etc) are references to pre-Christian religions* that were converted or being converted, but were vacillating, much like seems to be the case with Paul in Galatians 1:6-7 -
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel —

7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
* as are references to out of Egypt and bath-houses, etc.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:01 pm
by MrMacSon
MrMacSon wrote: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" ...
Ben C. Smith wrote: What I mean is that Irenaeus is arguing for teachings that he alleges derive from the apostles. The episcopal succession is one important way to transmit these teachings. Another is face-to-face instruction, as he claims from Polycarp to some extent (this can overlap with the succession, but is not identical to it; for example, in this case Polycarp and Irenaeus are both bishops, but not of the same diocese). Yet another would be apostolic writings, such as the gospels, and subapostolic writings, such as the epistles of Polycarp and Clement.
Cheers, Ben.

I came across the issue of the alleged episcopal structure, and thus 'episcopal succession', as being highly unlikely at that stage of the church (when I was looking at some stuff about Ignatius (which I posted yesterday http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2123 )) -
" ...the episcopal form of Church government was impossible in the first decade of the second century ... [the Ignatius texts] place a much greater emphasis on the role of bishop than do the other authors we are considering."

Clark Carlton (1997) The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church; p 158)
Baur declares it impossible that any writer of so early an age could have uttered such high episcopal notions as appear in the so-called Ignatian Epistles."

Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, Vol 1; p 147
and Clement and Polycarp are situated in the same time-period as Ignatius.

It has been proposed that the concepts of episcopal structure are later issues ie. 3rd - 5th century issues -
"The first 8 'letters of Ignatius' do provide insights into what the 4th-5th century author wished Ignatius had said in support of the [then] authors' current setting. The seven letters of Ignatius being written probably around 250 AD, likewise give an insight into what was going on in 250 AD."

http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-fo ... -250AD.htm

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:46 pm
by MrMacSon
It would seem that the notion of 'episcopal succession', & hence an 'episcopal structure', in the Christian church in the early to mid 2nd century, is either later embellishment, or a concept borrowed from a more established 'church'

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:05 pm
by Ben C. Smith
MrMacSon wrote:It would seem that the notion of 'episcopal succession', & hence an 'episcopal structure', in the Christian church in the early to mid 2nd century, is either later embellishment, or a concept borrowed from a more established 'church'
It may well be. The entire subject, however, has been driven by opposing agenda for many, many years, with Catholics tending to defend both an early concept of the episcopal succession and the Ignatian epistles along with it and Protestants tending to attack both the succession and the Ignatian epistles. One of the links you provided, for example, was to a page firmly driven by the latter motivation: a very Protestant page attacking some very Catholic views. Use with caution... and that goes for both sides of the debate.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:54 pm
by MrMacSon
Ben C. Smith wrote:The entire subject, however, has been driven by opposing agenda for many, many years, with Catholics tending to defend both an early concept of the episcopal succession, and the Ignatian epistles along with it; and Protestants tending to attack both the succession and the Ignatian epistles. One of the links you provided, for example, was to a page firmly driven by the latter motivation: a very Protestant page attacking some very Catholic views. Use with caution... and that goes for both sides of the debate.
Sure. Though the points about the paucity of structure in the early church, and embellishment to cover that paucity, could stand or* fall outside such an oppositional agenda. It also - somewhat, at least - damages the Protestant side, too.

* edited to correct spelling [of -> or]

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:48 pm
by Ben C. Smith
MrMacSon wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:The entire subject, however, has been driven by opposing agenda for many, many years, with Catholics tending to defend both an early concept of the episcopal succession, and the Ignatian epistles along with it; and Protestants tending to attack both the succession and the Ignatian epistles. One of the links you provided, for example, was to a page firmly driven by the latter motivation: a very Protestant page attacking some very Catholic views. Use with caution... and that goes for both sides of the debate.
Sure. Though the points about the paucity of structure in the early church, and embellishment to cover that paucity, could stand of fall outside such an oppositional agenda. It also - somewhat, at least - damages the Protestant side, too.
Yes, we ought to be able to push past the historical dogfights surrounding the Ignatiana and come to some informed conclusions. I do not yet know what mine will be.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:16 pm
by Peter Kirby
Secret Alias wrote: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.
Some strange stuff here, I suppose, but recall (it should be easy) the history of religions parallel to the claim of the rabbis to have passed down their tradition from teacher to student. What am I saying? Simply that a succession list is not necessarily written down (until it is, of course). In which case perhaps the thrust of the "oral beats written" argument is plain. Oral beats written, or so it goes.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:31 pm
by Peter Kirby
Ben C. Smith wrote:Yes, we ought to be able to push past the historical dogfights surrounding the Ignatiana and come to some informed conclusions. I do not yet know what mine will be.
IMO (and please do not read this as implying that you disagree), the dogfights are where all the fun is at! Of course, only if understood as aerial combat, not plebeian spectator sport. Allow me to digress! Not only that, but I find that wars are resolved just a single battle at a time. Attempting to dodge the bullet there is simply to admit defeat. Richard Carrier attempted to run a campaign from 10,000 feet in the air, and in my opinion he failed spectacularly, in no small part because of this failure to engage. In his blog he cowered at the Ignatian challenge, and in his book and subsequently he retreated from the subject entirely. But we will make progress only by the tactic of playing the evidence hard against itself, critically discerning the lay of the land inch by inch, yard by yard. We have no hope of winning knowledge of the big questions if we forfeit the smaller ones.

Gentlemen...


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

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:37 pm
by Secret Alias
Simply that a succession list is not necessarily written down
But surely Irenaeus's point wasn't that barbarians were memorizing the succession list