Page 9 of 21

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

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:28 am
by Secret Alias
I mean Hegesippus had a gospel which wasn't Mark. The story goes he comes to Rome and finds a specifically Roman gnosis associated with a woman whose name is a subform of the Roman pronomen 'Marcus' who was later identified as a member of a community which had a gospel (Philosophumena 6) which represented an expanded form of Mark with mystical bits added. Moreover as a close second parallel Irenaeus original developed a refutation of Hegesippus's claim that this was first gnostic group arguing extensively that Valentinus came before this 'second' group and specifically identified 'Marcus' (later changed to 'clarus' and epiphanes) holding to the same Roman gnosis (hundred on the right hand).

In the same way that 'Mark' is no longer 'Mark' in Adversus Haereses 1.11.2 (another 'accident'!) the snosis of this Mark (mystical bits/Roman numerical counting etc) is no longer found in our gospel of Mark. Morton Smith finds a letter from Clement which says that the evangelist Mark wrote a mystical gospel by adding things to what Peter originally wrote (or dictated). There's something necessarily here. The canon as an implicit reaction against a Markan Roman gnosis at the very start of Christianity. And the fact that Clement's story in to Theodore necessarily features this same intertwining of Hegesippus's original chronology - i.e. is the gospel Carpocratian or is it Markan? Clearly 'Theodore' has stumbled onto something 'mystical' written in 'the gospel of Mark' and Clement says 'oh no, no, no' what you heard is Carpocratian.' This is the Markan truth. But all of this assumes the 'clarus/epiphanes' substitution at the beginning of Irenaeus (where the 'mystical' tradition of Mark bears some relationship with the Carpocratian gnosis).

Indeed isn't it odd how little interest Irenaeus shows to Carpocrates while Clement is obsessed with him. Now that we have shown that Irenaeus is merely copying out some older report which was also known to Epiphanius in fuller form. Irenaeus if anything wants to down play the significance of Carpocrates originally only crediting him as 'the second' in his model for the origin of gnostics. Mark even gets more of a mention by Irenaeus. Hegesippus's link identifying a 'Markan woman' as a Carpocratian is - if anything - a problem for Irenaeus. For Clement it is a convenient way of shifting attention away from the importance of kabbalah in Mark the evangelist.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:31 pm
by John2
I'm not only convinced now that Irenaeus did not know or use Hegesippus, I'm doubting that he wrote anything to refute him either because Eusebius mentions his plan to refute Marcion using his writings (in addition to listing the writings that Irenaeus was familiar with):

"Moreover, he promises to refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work" (EH 5.8).

So if Irenaeus did write anything to refute Hegesippus (or even planned to do so), why doesn't Eusebius likewise mention this?

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

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:26 am
by Secret Alias
Well if the thread was about your disbelief then I would need to respond. But you haven't provided anything in the way of a counter-argument and I don't plan on spending my afternoon teasing an argument out of you. The fact is that the succession lists are very similar but not identical. Irenaeus has added to the succession list. Made it apparently longer. The reference to Marcion can only be an adaptation of Marcellina. I wish I had something to argue about with you. But my job is not to perform cunnilingus on your brain. Where's the substance to your rejection of a common text? How can one text say Marcellina came in the reign of Anicetus and then another succession list has most of the same data but say 'Marcion came under Anicetus.

So what if Eusebius says that quote? I don't see how that has any bearing on the discussion.

Against Heresies starts with the premise that Valentinus was the first gnostic in Rome. This is flatly contradicted by Hegesippus's chronology which Irenaeus possessed (and likely amended) which says that Marcellina was the first gnostic in the second half of the second century. The implication of this statement then is that Florinus who clearly knew Polycarp and was active in the 'royal court' presumably in Rome was not a heretic. What don't you get about that? How was Irenaeus going to sabotage Florinus's influence in the 'court' of Victor of Rome if Hegesippus could be cited by Florinus to the effect that he was a 'good Christian' (because he was prominent in Rome long before Marcellina and thus not a heretic by Hegesippus's standards).

Oh I forgot. You didn't know that Irenaeus was engaged in 'mortal combat' with a prominent 'Valentinian' named Florinus and arranged Against Heresies undoubtedly to isolate Florinus from influence with Victor of Rome. Read a book on all of this and then come back to the discussion.

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

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:23 am
by andrewcriddle
Secret Alias wrote:I notice that one internet blogger connects the report in Clement about 'Epiphanes' with a surviving 'semi-pagan' practice on Cephalonia. I wouldn't have even paid any attention to the report if it wasn't for the fact that the village is named 'son of Mark' Μαρκόπουλος:
I recently became aware of a tradition in action Greece that takes place around the octave of this curious solemnity. Near the 15th of August in the Greek village of Markopoulo on the island Cephaloniaat the Church of the Panagia, one can see snakes slither towards a particular church, the island has many churches but the snakes only go to this church, on the actual day, the 15th they slither on the icon of the Virgin Mary as the church becomes filled with people. In spite of the priest, clergy and people holding the service the snakes show no sign of fear.

According to pious legend, as the island was under the assault of pirates, the nuns at this particular church begged to the Virgin Mary to be saved from what presumably evil fate would befall them at which she turned them all into serpents. Conversely, one thing I may suggest, is that this tradition may also be reflective of an earlier tradition pre-dating the formation of what would become orthodoxy: https://youtu.be/F5Za9-uX4b8

“This fellow Epiphanes, whose writings I have at hand, was a son of Carpocrates and his mother was named Alexandria. On his father’s side he was an Alexandrine, on his mother’s a Cephallenian. He lived in all only seventeen years, and at Same in Cephallonia was honoured as a god. There a temple of vast blocks of stone was erected and dedicated to him, with altars, sacred precincts, and a museon, The Cephallenians gather at the temple every new moon and celebrate with sacrifices the day when Epiphanes became a god as his birthday; they pour libations to him, feast in his honour, and sing his praises. He was educated by his father in the general education and in Platonism, and he was instructed in the knowledge of the Monad, which is the root-origin of the Carpocratians’ heresy.” Clement, Stromata.

“And thus, if ungodly, unlawful, and forbidden actions are committed among them, I can no longer find ground for believing them to be such. And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men–some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature.” Iranaeus. Ad. Haer.

The cult of the snake as a familiar spirit would have been very common in ancient Greece as in Rome, interestingly, there also appears to have been some continuation of this in other Gnostic sects, most notably the Ophites and Nassene gnostic communities. While we know very little from the Carpocration literature beyond the Mar Saba letter and Clement’s Stromata, it is known that the Carpocrations were a dominant force on this very island in the Second Century of the Common Era and it may be possible that even to this day some element of their presence may remain on the island.
More on this - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Snakes
The appearance of the Holy Snakes of the Panagia has reportedly occurred for hundreds of years during the celebrations to the Theotokos between August 5 and August 15 in the village of Markopoulo on the island of Kefalonia, Greece. The small black snakes appear at the church of Panagia of Langouvarda on the site of a monastery, established as a nunnery and dedicated to Our Lady of Langouvarda.

The myth about these snakes is attached to the year the monastery was attacked by pirates in 1705. The nuns prayed fervently to the Virgin Mary for protection and were then transformed into the snakes to avoid being taken as prisoners.

The snakes have a small cross on their head and their tongues are also in the shape of a cross. They are known to belong to the Telescopus fallax species, also known as the European Cat Snake, and they appear in and around the courtyard of the church, on the walls and on the bell tower. The snakes show no fear while the services are held and are harmless during the festivities. As soon as the Liturgy concludes on the 15th of August, they become hostile and aggressive and disappear back into the wilderness of the area. The snakes cannot be found until the following year.

The people of the villages consider them to be holy, collecting them and setting them on the silver icon of the Virgin of the Snakes (Panagia Fidoussa). It has been recorded by the locals that during World War II and the year of the island's destructive 1953 earthquake in August, the snakes failed to appear. The locals now use this as a sign that if the snakes do not show just before the 15th of August that something bad is imminent.
What I find particularly interesting is the connection with the 'fourteenth' or 'fifteenth' of the month. In lunar calendars this the number of days between the 'new moon' (i.e. first of the month) to 'full moon.' In Clement's report though 'Epiphanes' dies after seventeen. But seventeen days is also the number of days it takes to begin to see the moon 'shrink' in the sky (from the 'full moon' on the fifteenth') - https://books.google.com/books?id=GOMRm ... 22&f=false

The idea here is very similar to why December 25th was chosen as the 'birth of the sun' rather than the equinox. Volkmar has worked this out in detail, showing that the festival at Samē was in honour of the moon-god, and accompanied with licentious rites. It was called the Epiphany (τὰ Ἐπιφάνια) in honour of Epiphanes (ὁ Ἐπιφανής), the "newly-appearing one," the new moon. This moon lasted some seventeen days.

But the fact that the village is called 'son of Mark' is particularly interesting - http://anunfamiliarsky.com/2012/08/16/h ... ad-people/
Markopoulo from Μαρκόπουλος (son or descendant of Mark) is apparently a medieval and later Greek usage see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_name
-opoulos (-όπουλος): this suffix, meaning "descendant of", originated from the Peloponnese in the 10th century, but has become very widespread throughout the whole Greece, and due to diaspora in the whole world.
Examples may include: "Stamatelopoulos", "Papadopoulos", "Gianopoulos" and "Anagnostopoulos" among many others.
The history of Cephalonia is rather unclear but it was under Venetian rule after 1500 and Markos is a common name in the Venetian ruled Greek islands (Mark being patron saint of Venice) The first known reference to the name Markopoulo as a place in Cephalonia is AFAIK and IIUC in 1632 (Loucatos Religion populaire a Cephalonie p 153)
I doubt if the place name is pre-medieval or even early medieval.

Andrew Criddle

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:11 am
by John2
Stephan wrote:

"Oh I forgot. You didn't know that Irenaeus was engaged in 'mortal combat' with a prominent 'Valentinian' named Florinus and arranged Against Heresies undoubtedly to isolate Florinus from influence with Victor of Rome. Read a book on all of this and then come back to the discussion."

All I've been concerned with thus far is the idea that Irenaeus got or amended a list of Roman bishops from Hegesippus, because that is the subject of this thread and something that I'm familiar with. And I said that this idea seems unlikely to me because the lack of explicit references to Hegesippus in Irenaeus, the latter's antipathy towards Jewish Christians and those who used less than four gospels (like Hegesippus), and Eusebius' reference to the existence of local succession lists (in the case of the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem).

And there are scholars (old and modern) who agree with this, such as Livius (pg. 409):

"We have, then, for the succession of the first Roman bishops two independent and accordant witnesses, Hegesippus and Irenaeus. The latter certainly did not know Hegesippus' book, or he would have appealed to it against the heretics."

https://books.google.com/books?id=10pDA ... us&f=false

I differ with this only in thinking that Irenaeus would not have used Hegesippus because he would have perceived him as a heretic for being a Jewish Christian who used less than four gospels (and none from the NT).

And Bruce says that Irenaeus could have been independently aware of a local succession list of Roman bishops (pg. 454-455):

"Irenaeus' informant may have been Hegesippus, although Irenaeus himself was in sufficiently close touch with the Roman church to know directly what its local tradition was."

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

These are the only points I've been trying to make thus far.

As for whether or not Irenaeus' list of heretics could have come from Hegesippus, I am less familiar with this subject and am taking up your suggestion to "Read a book on all of this and then come back to the discussion."

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:16 am
by Secret Alias
All I've been concerned with thus far is the idea that Irenaeus got or amended a list of Roman bishops from Hegesippus, because that is the subject of this thread and something that I'm familiar with. And I said that this idea seems unlikely to me because the lack of explicit references to Hegesippus in Irenaeus
I am sorry but this is a stupid statement. As I said the Papias reference in the same chapter of the same book (same section) in Irenaeus Against Heresies is not explicit so yours is not a valid objection. And I keep saying this and saying this and it doesn't get into your head. It's very frustrating and I don't have time to deal with people who can't see the obvious parallel. If I am thief and break into a house in the same way that an unsolved break in occurred across the street I am a likely candidate for the other break in. Please stop wasting my time with stupid arguments. I am a busy man.

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:19 am
by Secret Alias
And please read some books about Irenaeus's UNATTRIBUTED use of Papias in the statement about the gospel of Matthew at the beginning of Book Three. Getting up to speed with scholarship is an important part of making meaningful contributions at the forum. I can see telling you things ONE TIME. But to keep coming back with the same fucking objection when I've already provided the appropriate answer is annoying and makes me want to slap you back to alertness.

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:21 am
by Secret Alias
One more time for the professor that plays dumb. BECAUSE Irenaeus makes UNATTRIBUTED appropriation of Papias at the beginning of Book Three it makes A SIMILAR UNATTRIBUTED misappropriation of ANOTHER EARLIER PATRISTIC SOURCE a few lines later in the same section completely expected. Understood? Let's move on.

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:35 am
by John2
Irenaues Against Heresies 5.33.4:

"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."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm

Jurgens:

"According to Irenaeus ... he [Papias] was not only a friend of Polycarp of Smyrna but also a hearer of the Apostle John."

https://books.google.com/books?id=l62q- ... as&f=false

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

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:36 am
by John2
This what I'm saying, that Irenaeus never mentions knowing Hegesippus, ever (unlike Papias).