Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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?

Because the list is probably bullshit and more importantly there are structural similarities in the way information is cited (the Clement citation, Marcion/Marcellina at the time of Anicetus) that suggest a common origin. I don't think you realize how these texts expand and expand and expand. This isn't an isolated case. Look at the Ignatian corpus for a parallel.

Ben wrote:

"I doubt that the exact number of gospels that Hegesippus used would matter much to Irenaeus... unless he had made an issue of it. The Marcionites, for example, made a point of using only one gospel; that is what Irenaeus would have objected to. Unless Hegesippus actually wrote something like, "I use only the gospel to the Hebrews," or some such, I doubt Irenaeus would have assumed that he did not use anything else. Also, we have reason at least to suspect that Papias did not know or use the gospels of Luke or John, yet Irenaeus respected him. This makes sense because Papias almost certainly did not openly reject Luke and John (he probably was not aware of their existence; if this example is too controversial, just ignore it; no need to bog down the thread)."

The difference is that Papias' only mentions Mark and Matthew, as you point out. This may be because Luke and John did not exist yet, as you point out (and MacDonald in Two Shipwrecked Gospels). So it would have been impossible for Papias (or any other Christian of or before his time) to know the four gospels. I assume Irenaeus also respected other early Christians (such as Paul) who could not have known or used the four gospels.

But Hegesippus was Irenaeus' contemporary, when there were four gospels, during the time when the latter was combatting heresies, including Jewish Christians who used only one gospel (like Hegesippus). It wasn't an issue until Irenaeus time.

Ben also wrote:

"(Eusebius, at any rate, does not say that Hegesippus used only the gospel of the Hebrews; he says that "he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue" from that gospel, which is not really any different than what he says about Papias: "He set out also another record about a woman who was charged for many sins before the Lord, which the gospel according to the Hebrews has.")"

But it's the only gospel that Eusebius mentions him using (if the "Syriac" reference isn't a gospel). In any event, Hegesippus is not said to have used (and does not ever cite) any of the NT gospels, and this would have been an issue in Irenaeus' time.

And Papias knew Mark and Matthew, unlike Hegesippus, and given that he also knew about the original Hebrew Matthew I assume this is where the citation of the sinful woman came from and that this is the meaning of "the gospel according to the Hebrews" here.

John2 wrote:So is Irenaeus clearly citing Hegesippus in his list of Roman bishops in AH 3.3.3?

Clearly? No. The conclusion requires some argumentation. In the OP I pointed out that Irenaeus' list evinces a syntactic break, not only at Clement (in order to introduce the stuff about 1 Clement), but also at Anicetus (for no such discernible reason). I hypothesized that Irenaeus was working with a list that ended with Anicetus, and to which he added Soter and Eleutherus.

I also made note of Lawlor's argument that Epiphanius knew and used Hegesippus. Now, Epiphanius happens to have a list of bishops nearly identical to Irenaeus' list, but his ends with Anicetus. It seems possible, then, that Epiphanius and Irenaeus were using the same list, which ended at Anicetus, who happens to be the bishop during whose episcopate Hegesippus left Rome.

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).

I agreed, at least provisionally, in the OP with Peter's argument that Soter and Eleutherus are additions by Eusebius to a quotation of Hegesippus.

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?

Yes, Irenaeus may well have done this. However, the syntactic break in his list right at Anicetus, compared to the list that Epiphanius offers, is interesting, right? Also, is it not interesting that Irenaeus connects his bishop list with 1 Clement, and according to Eusebius Hegesippus discusses bishops right after commenting on 1 Clement?

Nothing here is a lock, except that I do think that the passage in Irenaeus explains pretty neatly how Eusebius came to make his mistake about Hegesippus (adding Soter and Eleutherus into the mix where they were absent from Hegesippus). But the similarity of Ireneaus' work to how Eusebius describes Hegesippus' work may also mean that Irenaeus cribbed from Hegesippus. (Ancient authors, I have found, even if they may have had access to independent information, such as episcopal lists, often chose to quote or plagiarize other authors for convenience. Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak?) At least, that is what I am interested in exploring in this thread.

Ben.

But Hegesippus was Irenaeus' contemporary

No he was not a contemporary if the succession list was subsequently expanded. The list originally stopped at Anicetus. Then it was expanded from 10 to 12. You have an idée fixe in your head and can't see evidence to the contrary. Hegesippus only lists 10, Irenaeus 12. Eusebius IMO uses the expanded version of the chronology. Another thing to consider too is that the dates for Anicetus may have moved once Irenaeus got a hold of the chronology because it would seem that Epiphanius's chronology has Clement as a commissioned bishop before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. You have to go back to that wonderful article that Ben cited which got these other discussions going. There seems to have been a fundamental error in the original chronologies which caused a wrong dating of the crucifixion or perhaps even a series of wrong dates. The information is very unreliable. It would seem to make sense to suppose that the reign of Anicetus originally (i.e. according to the original succession list) corresponded with the 10th year of Antoninus Pius but somehow in due course the whole thing became unstable (perhaps owing to Clement's period being pushed out to after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul or this too was a consequence of some other error).

John2 wrote:The difference is that Papias' only mentions Mark and Matthew, as you point out. This may be because Luke and John did not exist yet, as you point out (and MacDonald in Two Shipwrecked Gospels). So it would have been impossible for Papias (or any other Christian of or before his time) to know the four gospels. I assume Irenaeus also respected other early Christians (such as Paul) who could not have known or used the four gospels.

But there is no way Irenaeus would have thought Papias had no access to John or Luke. Irenaeus argues that all four gospels were composed in apostolic times. We can cut Papias some slack, but Irenaeus cannot.

Ben.

But the first thing that has to go here is that dates and names here mean anything. You can't start acting like 'real history' was in any of this. The starting point was a published document by Hegesippus (or 'Joseph') which seemed to have been originally dated to 147 CE. This must have been during 'the reign of Anicetus' but notice that the modern dating for Anicetus is much later. If this was 'real history' this kind of movement wouldn't be possible. It is almost certainly fiction or at least a very amateurist attempt at history which could not have met with any independent corroboration (i.e. that Irenaeus and Hegesippus ended up with the same list independently). Not a remote chance of that.

Reread that article that Ben put up in another thread. It really speaks volumes about how unstable this 'historical' information' really is. If even the date of Jesus's crucifixion couldn't be fixed. And then you go into the question of THE DAY of the crucifixion, even the month. All of this was 'up for grabs' in the early Church. It is really quite shocking. Sheesh.

Ben wrote:

"Clearly? No. The conclusion requires some argumentation."

Right, and I appreciate this. To me it all seems unnecessary though when there could be a simpler explanation, that there was a succession list of bishops that Irenaeus and Hegesippus were independently aware of. If the latter was able to do this all the more so the former, since he was a bishop himself. And it would be nice, and helpful to the argument, if there was a clear reference to Hegesippus somewhere in Irenaeus like there is to Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin, and it's at least worth mentioning that there isn't.

John2 wrote:Ben wrote:

"Clearly? No. The conclusion requires some argumentation."

Right, and I appreciate this. To me it all seems unnecessary though when there could be a simpler explanation, that there was a succession list of bishops that Irenaeus and Hegesippus were independently aware of.

Where did Epiphanius (century IV) find a list of bishops ending with Anicetus (century II), do you think?

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'

I think one has to distinguish.
It is IMO highly unlikely that people like Clement at the end of the 1st century were bishops in the sense that Victor at the end of the 2nd century was a bishop.
However it is (again IMO) entirely plausible that the church of Rome had from early times an elder who dealt with relations between Christians at Rome and Christians from other places, (what my tradition calls or called a corresponding brother), and that such elders were appointed to their role for life.
I.E. the succession may be a genuine succession but not a succession of bishops in the later sense of bishop.

Andrew Criddle