Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:

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.

It was written down -

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 ... In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth ...

...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.

a significant question is whether the church really was that well established then, or whether these people or their names have been co-opted into a false 'ecclesiastical tradition', or a false 'episcopal succession', or a false apostolic tradition, or a combination of these.

Peter Kirby wrote:

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 ...

IMO ... the dogfights are where all the fun is at! ... 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.

I agree that "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" including looking at or co-opting others' battles, such as the Protestant attacks on the Catholics (such as over Ignatius).

I agree Carrier has made some errors in judgement or strategy (and probably not consciously or cognitively), especially as he does not have a lot of wing-men or lieutenants, and he is rather close-minded on a number of issues, but these issues are increasingly being considered, albeit largely philosophically so far.

MrMacSon wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

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.

It was written down -

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 ... In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth ...

...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.

I don't think you're really following along. "Simply that a succession list is not necessarily written down (until it is, of course)." The statement must be read in the context of the discussion with Stephan above.

The counterexample (if we can call it that) quoted above is trivial and irrelevant. Also, whether it was written down or not wasn't exactly the question, nor was the question that of when it was. The question in the context of the discussion with Stephan regards what Irenaeus was saying about the oral tradition and about the succession from the apostles. Stephan seemed to imply that the oral tradition handed down went along with a written list of the succession, and he followed up with some comment about the value of the "barbarians" analogy in this context (that honestly I'm not sure how exactly to interpret...).

To the point, Irenaeus' argument may allow that the succession list was not written down before the a mid-second century textual source upon which he relied (unless, of course, he had no written source). We might be able to narrow down whether Irenaeus was talking about a list that was written down before him or not. It's not even really under discussion whether the extant text of Irenaeus has this list (we can read, after all). It may be intractable to probe the question of the status of such a list, and whether it was oral or written, and how Irenaeus may have understood it to have been extant, as the timeframe is pushed back into the early second century and the first.

I think the problem was - and it is something that Nietzsche talks about I think somewhere - is that the founding documents of the Christian religion don't make any sense. That's not the part Nietzsche talked about. He said somewhere that not making sense was key to be taken as 'deep' by most people. What I mean is that look at the stuff in Irenaeus about the episcopal succession list. Is Irenaeus trying to make sense here? Yes there is sort of a thread of logic to some of it. But it seems entirely divorced from its original context. What Ben and I have been debating (because I think we both agree or Ben is almost there to agreeing) is that Irenaeus has cited a deliberately corrupt variant of the Hegesippian succession list. All that I have done (and I know my scattered posts speed written in 30 seconds or less don't often help) is noted that the parallels in Adv Haer 3.1 - 4 are so strong with the Irenaeus fragment against Florinus that the original context of Adv Haer 3.1 - 4 must have been developed against Florinus. In other words, the succession list was corrupted so as to make it seem as if it - the succession list - identified Florinus's tradition as heretical, the first gnostics in Rome rather than the Carpocratians which is what originally appeared in Hegesippus. This of course means that 'Polycarp' was Joseph(us) the author of the succession list. If I am correct this finally answers the question - why didn't Irenaeus use Polycarp's name when he refers to the unnamed presbyter in the rest of Adv Haer. Joseph(us) = Polycarp.

Someone subsequent to Irenaeus assembled Adversus Haereses. I've said this many times before. The work as it stands now is a 'headcheese' of things written and not written by Irenaeus pressed into a seamless work that in the end makes very little sense (or at least only makes sense in the barest way possible). This section is a perfect example. Yes Irenaeus 'loves' or champions the succession list. This is the kind of statement that Patristic scholars love to make. But the way the individual arguments hold together in the section make very little sense. In this case why are barbarians not using documents 'like' the succession list. Why is that brought up immediately following the reference to Polycarp? It's hard to say.

Here's another one. At the beginning of the Adv Haer he cites Papias and then proceeds to attack 'heretics' who prefer things delivered viva voce. But wait a minute. Doesn't Papias prefer 'living voices' over written documents? So how does he cite Papias and then attack his position? The same thing occurs with regards to Justin. Irenaeus argues that only one god spoke from the burning bush. However Justin makes clear that the burning bush demonstrates that there were two powers in heaven. How does Irenaeus champion Justin as an exemplar for orthodoxy when his position is completely contrary to his own?

In the same way it makes very little sense citing Hegesippus's succession list against Florinus even if it was written by Polycarp (and Polycarp was the 'Joseph' or 'Hegesippus' ascribed as author). But this is the way Irenaeus proceeds in every case. For instance not only were the 'Valentinians' passed over in silence but Marcellina not Marcion is said to have come to Rome in the reign of Anicetus.

The one consistency throughout Irenaeus's literary activity is forgery, textual manipulations and misrepresentation of the evidence. How did he get away with it? That's the question that all things in early Christianity come down to IMHO.

Oh and I think I abandoned my original thought about being deep and Nietzsche. I think the person who edited Irenaeus's homilies or lectures (along with stuff from Justin, Theophilus etc) into the headcheese that Adversus Haereses just figured IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE. What I mean is that he took sections from the homilies divorced from their original context - things he 'liked' - and threw them into the melting pot. He figured for instance that Irenaeus's misuse of the succession list was a good section. He figured that his attack on those who say that Jesus only preached for one year was another 'good section.' The book is a greatest hits package of things Irenaeus wrote or said. But the context of these things are no longer preserved. It might be possible that Irenaeus so edited his own works but I find that unlikely. Someone put a pot on the stove and threw a bunch of 'stuff' written by Irenaeus into it, cooked it up and served it with a continuous editorial narrative throughout (look at the beginning and end and sometimes middle of each document - the same editor is 'speaking' throughout).

And this ability to 'smooth over' controversies is why Irenaeus was apparently called 'Irenaeus' (which in my mind suggests it wasn't his name either). Notice the bit about 'harmony with the Scriptures' in the Irenaeus fragment:

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 from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures

This is what Irenaeus presents as the 'core teaching' of 'Polycarp' - that all things (i.e. all truth) agreed with the writings (scriptures). Formerly it would seem there were 'heretics' who taught that the truth was two fold - a kind of 'animal' truth that was public and a 'truer truth' that was secret. This was Irenaeus's real message, he was the continuation of 'Polycarp' (not Florinus) because this 'every true teaching was in harmony with scriptures' message was Polycarp's.

It is interesting to note (as a former musician) that if the diatessaron comes from a musical context you have an interval between two notes. I don't get Irenaeus's concept of 'monarchian harmony' - i.e. that you have two of the same notes (i.e. an octave). This is the kind of harmony that Irenaeus was advocating I think. C and C eight whole notes a part. I think the heretics understood harmony to mean C and F. It's an important point.

Secret Alias wrote:I don't get Irenaeus's concept of 'monarchian harmony' - i.e. that you have two of the same notes (i.e. an octave). This is the kind of harmony that Irenaeus was advocating I think. C and C eight whole notes a part. I think the heretics understood harmony to mean C and F. It's an important point.

Well, some descriptions in music theory would make unison a subcategory of harmony. But point taken. There is a difference, and I for one find "true" harmony (involving intervals of less than an octave) one of the most compelling parts of a song.

Stephan wrote:

"He cites Ignatius without mentioning a name. He eithet references Papas or Polycarp anonymously (the presbyter). He used Justin without crediting him. The list goes on and on. Not a valid objection."

Granted, Behr does note that "it is not unusual for Irenaeus to cite ecclesial authorities without mentioning their names, even when he knows their identity" (pg. 62).

https://books.google.com/books?id=aXgQA ... al&f=false

The key though is that even if he doesn't mention their name he clearly citing someone, and Ignatius is a good example of this in AH 5.28.4:

"As a certain man of ours said when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God, 'I am the wheat of Christ ...'"

In this case I think the reason he doesn't mention Ignatius by name is because he may not have even been called Ignatius at this point, as Parvus has argued on Neil Godfrey's blog (http://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-p ... -ignatius/). In any event, he is clearly citing someone who we now call Ignatius.

And I already pointed out that he mentions knowing Papias and his writings in AH 5.33.4 (where he also mentions Polycarp):

"And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him."

He also mentions knowing Polycarp personally in AH 3.3.4:

"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 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 steadfast 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."

He also mentions Justin by name (and his book against Marcion) in AH 4.6.2:

"In his book against Marcion, Justin does say..."

And mentions him again in AH 5.26.2:

"Truly has Justin remarked ..."

So every example you've given me so far is mentioned by their name and/or their writings are clearly cited in Irenaeus (unlike Hegesippus), excepting the anonymous presbyter, but even then he is clearly citing someone.

So is Irenaeus clearly citing Hegesippus in his list of Roman bishops in AH 3.3.3?

Brent notes:

"We note that in this passage [EH 4.22.7] Hegesippus gives no names of Roman bishops other than the three that were his contemporaries" (pg. 227).

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

These are Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus.

Yet Irenaeus names twelve bishops (after Peter and Paul): 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?

If Hegesippus was able to go to Rome and compile a list of Roman bishops, why couldn't Irenaeus do this as well, given that he also spent time in Rome and was a bishop himself?

I don't know why you are harping on this issue. I've advocated recreational drug use before and I will do so again here. You have to open your mind.

Irenaeus was a man. He lived for let's say 60 - 70 years theoretically. He did a lot of things. He got in the morning. He ate. He gave lectures (see Photius). He wrote many, many things. Who knows how many. And now all we are left with this is this odd five volume book and the Preaching of the Apostles.

Ok?

So as it turns out he doesn't mention Hegesippus or Ignatius by name. He cites something verbatim from the surviving Ignatius corpus but does not say it is from 'Ignatius.' He cites something from Hegesippus was has been altered and does not say it is from 'Hegesippus.' He explicitly cites things from Justin and says it is 'Justin' but he also appropriates things from Justin and does not say it is 'Justin.' He explicitly cites things from Papias and says it is 'Papias' but he also appropriates things from Papias and does not say it is 'Papias.' He explicitly cites things from Polycarp and says it is 'Polycarp' but he also appropriates things from Polycarp and does not say it is 'Polycarp.' Most people think that parts of Irenaeus derive from Theophilus but Theophilus isn't named specifically etc. etc.

The wheel of fortune spun round and round and landed on these explicit references (Papias, Polycarp, Justin) IN SOME ISOLATED CASES and not to preserve the names of others ever (Ignatius, Hegesippus). Why does it matter whether the wheel of fortune chose one group of names at the expense of the others?

I don't know why if we preserve perhaps 1% of the things that Irenaeus wrote in his lifetime (and what survives has been 'processed' mostly into the Five Book tome) how the fact that Irenaeus does not say specifically who authored an episcopal list which is obviously based on the one written by Hegesippus that the fact that the list derives ultimately from Hegesippus is ever in doubt.