Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well but that's no pertinent to the discussion. 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. Sorry.

I mean the only conceivable objection is that THESE BISHOPS WERE REAL, the list was an accurate reflection of reality but that might be CONCEIVABLY TRUE if it wasn't for the Marcion/Marcellina mistake. How do both people reference the same chronology but disagree on the subform of the name Marcus who visited Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus? It's beyond the likely limits of 'coincidence' especially when the Hegesippus document makes explicit that the Carpocratians and 'Marcellina' were the first gnostics and the point of Irenaeus's efforts in Adversus Haereses is to show that - effectively - the Carpocratians WEREN'T the first gnostics a number of other heretics were 'pre-Carpocratian gnostics' including the sect of his arch enemy Florinus (the Valentinians). Again this is where reading pertinent studies in this field are so useful given that Lampe has already noted that Justin was not originally hostile to the Valentinians - i.e. that they were not deemed 'gnostics' or heretics before Irenaeus deemed them so. Why is this significant? Because it opens the door to understanding Adversus Haereses as an expansion of 'the gnostics' or heresies beyond traditional understandings in Rome (governed it would seem by Hegesippus). That's undoubtedly why the Carpocratians (the sect of Marcus/Epiphanes) are merely referenced as 'second' in the same list and why Justin's Syntagma didn't originally have information about the Valentinians (i.e. they were considered to be heretics).

John2 wrote: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).

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).

(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.")

An example of how "deviant" views may escape Irenaeus' censure may be seen in Justin Martyr. In Against Heresies 1.26.2 Irenaeus condemns the Ebionites for using only the gospel according to Matthew and for repudiate the apostle Paul, but also because they practice circumcision and remain Judaic in their style of life. Yet this is what Justin had to say about Christian Jews who keep Jewish laws in Dialogue With Trypho 47: "But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren." (Trypho had just asked about those who recognize Christ yet still wish to observe Jewish institutions, and Justin had responded, "In my opinion, Trypho, such a one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men... to observe the same things as himself.")

I think Hegesippus may well have passed under Irenaeus' radar, too, at least partly because of his strong interest in heresiology. Also, Hegesippus seems to have regarded 1 Clement highly, and that epistle esteems the apostle Paul highly, so it seems unlikely to me (and doubtless would have seemed unlikely to Irenaeus) that Hegesippus repudiated Paul.

Secret Alias wrote:I mean the only conceivable objection is that THESE BISHOPS WERE REAL....

Actually, it seems to me that a better objection (assuming that the argument for Hegesippus having a bishop list of his own is strong enough) would be that the list of bishops actually existed as its own entity, able to be accessed both by Hegesippus and by Irenaeus. It does not really matter whether all the bishops on the list existed.

Secret Alias wrote:Well but that's no pertinent to the discussion. 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. Sorry.

John2's objection is easy to understand, and your examples (Ignatius, whom he explicitly cites but merely does not name; Polycarp, whom he explicitly and approvingly cites at least once elsewhere; Papias, whom he also explicitly and approvingly cites at least once elsewhere) are not truly parallel (to Hegesippus, whom he never names, cites, or shows any explicit knowledge of); therefore, they are doomed to fail to persuade someone making these objections.

Even clearing away all the objections is not the same as making a positive case for Irenaeus knowing and using Hegesippus. Your argument regarding Marcellina (inspired by Lawlor?) is subtle and complicated; it can take a while to get a full grip on.

That said, I want to offer a bit more possible evidence that Irenaeus knew and used Hegesippus. I argued in the OP that Eusebius may have made his chronological mistake concerning Hegesippus, placing him in Rome at the time of Eleutherus, because he confused a passage in Hegesippus (about the bishop Anicetus) with a passage in Irenaeus (naming bishops up to Eleutherus). There is actually a bit more correspondence between the two passages than that. Here is the text from Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3; I have added inline section titles to the text for later convenience:


Now here is Eusebius' description of Hegesippus' writings in History of the Church 4.22.1-3:


Eusebius explicitly says that the mention of Hegesippus staying in Rome until Anicetus came after his remarks on 1 Clement. And we have just seen how Irenaeus also mentions and describes 1 Clement before continuing his list of bishops. If both texts spoke of 1 Clement and then said something about bishops, including Anicetus, then it is all the more understandable how Eusebius may have confused the two.

Not only that, however, but it may also suggest that Irenaeus was indeed relying on Hegesippus for this section of Against Heresies. Both authors, after all, appear to mention bishops, including Anicetus, right after commenting on 1 Clement.

Thoughts?

Ben.

Yes you do a better job explaining matters. You should have been a teacher. My wife says I would be the WORST TEACHER in the history of teaching. Probably true.

FWIW I think the reference in Adv Haer 3 implies (at least circumstantially) that Irenaeus got the list from Polycarp.

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 ...

The segue to Polycarp doesn't really make any sense in the context. It isn't even introduced. It's just here is this succession list. The succession list is introduced to refute the heretics at the beginning of chapter 3:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

But the context would seem to suggest that Polycarp is Irenaeus's source. He doesn't appear before that in the discussion.

There are a lot of parallels between the things said here and in the other Polycarp fragment:

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 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 section which immediately follows Polycarp in Adv Haer 3 (where the episcopal list is cited):

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: 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, 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?

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. 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. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

There is an uncanny similarity of language throughout.

I admit it's not immediately clear why the succession list is connected to Polycarp. But the important thing is to see that the 'Polycarp section' continues FOR A LONG TIME AFTER THE SUCCESSION LIST and immediately following the succession list (succession list emboldened; Polycarp section in red):

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where- fore they must be opposed at all points, if per- chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

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, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

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.

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 [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.(1) 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(2) among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, 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, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

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,(3) 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,(4) 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. 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. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; 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 (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.

The only way I can explain this section is if Irenaeus copied out Hegesippus's succession list and transformed it into an anti-Valentinian treatise claiming that it came from Polycarp (and thus 'proved' that Florinus was not a faithful adherent of Polycarp's original message ... which probably was true i.e. Polycarp was really more like Florinus than Irenaeus).

And isn't Ephrem (= polykarpou) a rank in the Syria Church? That would change everything wouldn't it (notice the "court" reference above). If Polycarp was a title like bishop or metropolitan then "Polycarp" might even have been Hegesippus/Joseph (Genesis 49:22). The verse almost lends itself to an honorific title בן פרת יוסף בן פרת

I think we found our "Josephus"