Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Secret Alias »

My own feelings about Polycarp, having spent some time thinking about matters from a crazy perspective.

I think it is highly unlikely that Polycarp was ever a 'bishop.' I think this is where the clash between Irenaeus's worldview and that of the historical Polycarp is most evident. I think Irenaeus likely forged or altered a number of documents from the early Church. The Ignatian correspondences is the obvious set and the overlap with the Peregrinus narrative of Lucian of Samosata is the clincher. One some level Lucian witnessed Polycarp and called him 'Peregrinus.' His obsession with being burned alive as a martyr fueled the creation of a separate figure named Ignatius (quite literally the 'fiery one'). If Lucian of Samosata takes the snap shot just as Irenaeus is getting to work falsifying original material associated with the man whom we call 'Polycarp' to conform to two distinct individuals now - 'Ignatius' who lived before Polycarp and 'Polycarp' who was associated with Ignatius.

The overarching concern of the Ignatian correspondences (and we will have to note Trobisch's and others observation that the 'letters' really form a set and were intended (and were composed as forgeries) to be read one after the other as the appear in the canon) is the status of the bishop - and specifically with the 'bishopric' of Antioch. This was not in the original material which I believe is more faithfully preserved in the shorter Syriac but was added in the long (i.e. as distinguished from the 'longer' or 'longest' recension which was the subject of much dispute between Catholics and Protestants). Whoever lengthened the material from the short Syriac to the long Greek did so for the sake of the bishopric. Ignatius becomes a spokesman for the importance of bishops and obedience to the bishopric.

The interesting thing is that the methodology of the forgery or lengthening of the short letters was to have Ignatius claim (openly) that he is sending the letters by someone (usually Polycarp) and that Polycarp himself in his letter to the Philippians 'confirms' that he is actively sending the Ignatian canon to churches. Of course as Koester notes the letter to the Philippians is really two letters - or as I would have it, was reworked a second time.

I think Lucian's attestation of 'letters being sent from the underworld' associated with Polycarp/Peregrinus explains the entire process. Irenaeus is at Rome while Polycarp was martyred and takes an active role (according to the martyrdom of Polycarp) in the editing of his martyrdom. But clearly part of this process of 'editing' was to take the short letters originally written by Polycarp 'the fiery one' and distributed in conjunction with his famous visit to Rome (where later Irenaeus dismisses any talk of division and says that he and Anicetus 'agreed to disagree') and turn that into a controversy which had nothing to do with Polycarp but rather his predecessor Ignatius. In other words, Irenaeus 'wrote in' the obsession with the bishopric and specifically the bishopric of Antioch.

There are two lengths of the Greek letters of Ignatius. The first length (long) are now understood to be 'the true letters' (with the short Syriac 'subtracting' and the longer Greek 'adding' to that original length). I chose to see it as a successive lengthening in light of Irenaeus's expanding influence. The matter seems very similar to the Acts of Paul. The Acts of Paul are really an extension of the Acts of the Apostles where the specific character of Paul is given greater focus and attention. In these letters the original appeal of the 'long' letters that every church should have and obey 'a bishop' may well have led to the establishment of bishops in every see. Mission accomplished. Then in due course when Irenaeus realized that having all these bishops established in major sees wasn't enough he added to the letters with another running subtext - viz. Ignatius knows he's going to die and he wants all the bishops (who had formerly been just a pipe dream) to know gather together as a synod and vote for his successor, who turns out to be Hero of Antioch.

Why did Irenaeus add the subplot about Hero? I think the nascent idea of a proto-papacy is already at work here (which is why the Protestants opposed the longer version of the Ignatian letters). Hero is going to sit as the bishop of the bishops (I forget what the terminology was in the Ignatian letters but was very similar to the idea in the Greek orthodox church where all bishops are equal but nevertheless the bishop of Constantinople was the head bishop).

The point of course without getting too deeply into my understanding of the relationship between all the layers of evidence is that the situation perfectly exemplifies my resistance of mythicism with respect to Jesus. There was a historical Polycarp. He might not (and probably was not) actually called Polycarp. But we can flesh out that his visit to Rome was historical and the basis to Ignatian business about being 'thrown to the lions' which then becomes the (very strange) death of the 'fiery one' by means other than fire. Polycarp was likely just using the Tacitus story about Nero throwing Christians to the beasts to illustrate his own fate as he went to Rome.

The point of course is that we also learn a lot about Irenaeus. I think that somehow beneath all the mechanisations in the Ignatian canon the end game changed. The fact that Rome was not the center of the Christian world but hostile to it likely means that Irenaeus forged even the last state of the Ignatian epistles while he was still an outsider in Rome and Florinus an insider. So it is that he builds up a church at Antioch and he does it not merely through the subplot in the expansion of the Greek layers but also by means of Acts which is clearly part of the effort. Acts is itself a rewrite of Paul's statement that he opposed Peter at Antioch now as the starting point to an ecumenical union of the Church. Of course this is bullshit. You can't get from what is written in Galatians to Acts by honesty.

But the last clue here is Theophilus. I like many others think that the text was sent to Theophilus of Antioch along with Luke as part of an effort set up Theophilus as a counter balance against the influence of other Christian centers (Rome, Alexandria). The long subplot in the longer Greek Ignatian text with Ignatian organizing the rise of his successor Hero was all a subterfuge to get Theophilus established as Hero's replacement and the head of all the churches at Antioch. But the point is that the real Polycarp was never a bishop. He only became one as part of an evil plan on the part of Irenaeus to take over the Christian religion and reshape its destiny.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:13 am My own feelings about Polycarp, having spent some time thinking about matters from a crazy perspective.
This was a great post. Agree or disagree, it was pretty clear and fun to read.

I do have a question for you. If Irenaeus was spending all that time and energy on getting Theophilus installed in Antioch as a sort of superbishop in the name of Ignatius/Polycarp and Hero, who was it who orchestrated Rome's rise to papal power in the name of Peter and Paul?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by perseusomega9 »

Secret Alias is blatantly stealing ideas from a Stephan Huller found here
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/ ... t-one.html
:popcorn:
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Secret Alias »

Ben,
You know the truth is that as I was writing the post I was thinking about that and decided not to discuss it (a) because it would weaken the focus and 'readability' of the post and (b) that it is the obvious counterargument to the thesis. I don't know. If I have spent the most time reading and thinking about Polycarp and the Ignatian situation the thing that has attracted my attention is the episcopal list in book 3 of AH. What is that long citation of bishops of Rome that appears there.
The short answer is that yes I acknowledge that the reference to the Roman episcopal list in Irenaeus AH 3 is a problem. It does not help to support the effort to establish Theophilus in Antioch. But I will say in my defense that I've struggled with this passage for some time and all the material that extends from the beginning of Book 3 down to the unveiling of the fourfold gospel.

I resisted discussing this topic as it comes down to source criticism which is ultimately very subjective. It puts me in a position that I often criticize people at this forum for doing - reading or ignoring evidence which contradicts a thesis. But here goes anyway.

If we take the introduction of the four gospels at the beginning of Book 3 as a contradiction of the viva voce of the heretics (equated by those outside of the Church with the 'secret wisdom' mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians after he in turn juxtaposes this 'secret wisdom' with a primitive gospel that only knows the Passion of Christ) I would argue that on the surface it forms a bracket or bookend with the statement in chapter 11 of the same book which unveils the fourfold gospel to the readers against four principle heretical groups viz. Matthew/JewishChristianity, Mark/strange sect which divides Jesus from Christ, Luke/Marcion and John/Valentinus.

There seems to be some consistency of ideas namely that the four written gospels are a source of comfort and security against the many gospels of the heretics. The four 'agree' with each other, the many gospels of the heretics say many things.

Watson has effectively argued that the first mention of Matthew (and the fact Matthew is mentioned first) comes from a conscious lifting of ideas from Papias which is very odd because the very terminology 'viva voce' which Irenaeus is essentially at war against is a Papian terminology. There appears to be no middle ground for Irenaeus. Written texts are to be preferred against viva voce which makes the Christian message watered down and convoluted (and ultimately heretical).

The difficulties inherent in borrowing from Papias to argue for the fourfold gospel is problematic in other respects too. Papias ultimately argues that Mark 'got it wrong' when it came to the ordering of the gospel. He only 'did as well as he could' - hardly a ringing endorsement of his creation, let alone canonizing this particular gospel alongside the gospel of Matthew (assuming, as it is not at all clear, that the logia of Matthew = the canonical gospel of Matthew).

By the time the episcopal list of Rome is inserted (a written list which is surely lifted from Hegesippus albeit once again without crediting the author as in the case of Papias) we have the beginnings of a more nuanced argument. It is not merely the written gospel which should be preferred over the gospel spread by word of mouth (thus contradictorily using Papias's preference for the gospel of Matthew to silence his own preference for viva voce) but now - more generally - all written apostolic records (such an episcopal list) are more useful and comforting than information that gets passed on by word of mouth.

Not only is this an evolution of the running argument that stretches from the introduction of Book 3 to the chapter 11 where explicit arguments for the fourfold gospel emerge, it is strangely an argument which has no place in the entire book. Mark is the Roman gospel. Yet Mark gives way its authority to a foreign gospel. Polycarp is suddenly introduced immediately after the Roman episcopal list (with a mere ' ... but Polycarp' again out of nowhere. In many ways he is the embodiment of the viva voce approach (i.e. 'a hearer of apostles') and he comes to Rome and conflicts with the Roman authorities as we learn from Irenaeus elsewhere.

If the episcopal list was not there you'd get the distinct impression that Polycarp might have sided with the heretics who prefer viva voce. It is worth noting that at the end of the Polycarp reference reference is made to John's physical presence in Ephesus for many years but nothing about him leaving a gospel behind for posterity which would perfectly fit the overarching theme of the need for written words to found tradition. Instead the idea seems to be that Polycarp heard John who resided in Ephesus for many years and transmitted his knowledge to the churches of Asia Minor without written text.

Yes certainly the letter of Polycarp is referenced in passing. But the entire section with Polycarp references physical encounters between people and individuals hearing what others say and say about them. In other words, Polycarp should be the embodiment of the very heretics who Book 3 assaults as preferring viva voce to written texts. Even after a brief segue where Book 3 drops from the discussion of Polycarp to embrace again the importance of written texts it inevitably returns to praise the way viva voce preserves holy truth:
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,<e>[/b]</e></B>(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. <B><s></s>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<e></e></B>. 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.
The strange schizophrenia that weaves its way through the text is actually quite remarkable. It is only amplified when you consider that the heretics clearly had many gospels, but many written gospels. The underlying contrast with Polycarp is clearly to the preference of oral tradition to written documents - despite what Book 3 now says:

Irenaeus says that Polycarp:
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 stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics
If you really look at what Irenaeus is saying here he is basically presenting a Christian community which has no written written texts or prefers or values the 'speaking' of truths - the continuous speaking of truths in Asia which was a region swept up in Montanism.

Even when Irenaeus cites his own relationship with Polycarp it seems nothing short of a continuation of transmission viva voce. Indeed the fact that Papias is unnamed and Polycarp's interest in these 'face to face' encounters is also remarkably Papian is worth noting:
instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ
This is nothing short of Papias's MO and it is utterly bizarre when you bring this type of person - a person who personifies or embodies a hundred years of apostolic viva voce into Rome it is hard to believe that Polycarp was ever meant to embody the preference for written text over viva voce. So why is he mentioned at all?

This is the million dollar question. The encounter between Polycarp and Anicetus bears a striking resemblance to Peter and Paul in Antioch albeit set in Rome (especially the Acts version of the encounter). Is the original encounter between Peter and Paul in Syrian Antioch at all? Yes our book of Acts makes the distinction. But was it there originally? Perhaps the distinction was made later to foster the importance of Syrian Antioch and Theophilus. But I wonder - given the proximity to Phrygia - whether there was a version of Acts which mentioned the founding of Christianity in or near Phrygia. Could explain a lot of the strangeness regarding the juxtaposition between 'the churches of Asia Minor' and 'Rome' if Antioch was in Asia Minor.

The long and the short of it is that the episcopal list might not have originally been there.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Secret Alias »

In short I think Irenaeus was kind of like an ancient precursor to Trump. One day he knew nothing, the next day he knew something but didn't do anything, then later in the week he both knew and did something but those heretics are a lot worse. I think there were constantly evolving positions.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:29 pm In short I think Irenaeus was kind of like an ancient precursor to Trump. One day he knew nothing, the next day he knew something but didn't do anything, then later in the week he both knew and did something but those heretics are a lot worse. I think there were constantly evolving positions.
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for expanding.

We have mentioned before how suspicious it is that Sextus happens to be the sixth name on the episcopal list for Rome. And you have discussed Ignatius' name in terms of Peregrinus'/Polycarp's death by fire. But does Irenaeus' (literally irenic) name strike similar chords of suspicion with you?

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.24.18: 18 Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Secret Alias »

Yes it does as does his career as ὁ ἐξηγητής (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem). I've always found it curious that Alexander of Aphrodisias - a contemporary - was called by the same epithet - viz. "the commentator" (ὁ ἐξηγητής) - and the Samaritan community remembers Alexander as leading a holocaust against their community with respect to their 'unorthodoxy' with respect to the monarchia. Commodus hired Alexander to combat the Samaritan 'heretics.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:13 am .
.
... There was a historical Polycarp. He might not (and probably was not) actually called Polycarp. But we can flesh out that his visit to Rome was [portrayed as] historical and the basis to Ignatian business about being 'thrown to the lions' which then becomes the (very strange) death of the 'fiery one' by means other than fire. Polycarp was likely just using the Tacitus story about Nero throwing Christians to the beasts to illustrate his own fate as he went to Rome ...
.
.
That post is a very good read and overview.

But whether Tacitus Annals 15.44 is genuine - and thus whether Nero really was throwing Christians to the dogs, had them 'fastened on crosses', or 'burned to serve as lamps by night' [Annals 15.44, see below] - remains doubtful to me while there are, as Stephan have indicated, so many overlaps or possible other scenarios, beyond what he has outlined above.

I think so much of this is tied to the then Nero legends, as are other texts such as the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, etc.

The 'Acts of Pseudo-Linus' ('Martyrdom of the Blessed Apostle Peter', which appears to be based on the Acts of Peter, in turn known primarily via a Latin version (the so-called Actus Vercellenses), has several references to Nero as the AntiChrist - Peter is narrated as interacting with Nero the AntiChrist at the beginning; and the end, as a vision. See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 456#p72456


Passages in Tertuallian's Scorpiace refer to fire or persecution, as if putting it all together, or to bed, or both -
Chapter 1
This among Christians is a season of persecution. When, therefore, faith is greatly agitated, and the Church burning, as represented by the bush [Exodus 3:2], then the Gnostics break out, then the Valentinians creep forth, then all the opponents of martyrdom bubble up, being themselves also hot to strike, penetrate, kill.

And now the present state of matters is such, that we are in the midst of an intense heat, the very dog-star of persecution —a state originating doubtless with the 'dog-headed one' himself. Of some Christians the fire, of others the sword, of others the beasts, have made trial; others are hungering in prison for the martyrdoms of which they have had a taste in the meantime by being subjected to clubs and claws besides. We ourselves, having been appointed for pursuit, are like hares being hemmed in from a distance; and heretics go about according to their wont.

Chapter 11
...How would Christ speak, but in accordance with the treatment to which the Christian would be subjected? But when He forbids thinking about what answer to make at a judgment-seat, He is preparing His own servants for what awaited them, He gives the assurance that the Holy Spirit will answer by them; and when He wishes a brother to be visited in prison, He is commanding that those about to confess be the object of solicitude; and He is soothing their sufferings when He asserts that God will avenge His own elect. In the parable also of the withering of the word after the green blade had sprung up, He is drawing a picture with reference to the burning heat of persecutions.

For posterity: the end of Annals 15.44

... First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /15B*.html


I also wonder about the role of Marcus Claudius Tacitus, Roman Emperor briefly from 275 to 276, who apparently claimed descent from the better known late 1st - early 2nd century historian by the same name, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, and who is also said to have circulated copies of Gaius Cornelius Tacitus' work, which was barely known or read at the time.

.
User avatar
Lev
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:12 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Lev »

Very interesting responses - although quite a lot of this is going over my head - I'm grateful for the engagement.

I've been trying to find where the tradition is found of Polycarp's appointment as Bishop by John.

Irenaeus makes the claim he was appointed "by apostles in Asia", but doesn't name John. (Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3, v 4)

Eusebius also repeats Irenaeus' claim "by apostles in Asia" without mentioning John. (Church History, bk 4, ch 14, v 3)

I'm grateful to SA for finding the manuscript, but sadly I can't read Greek, so I can't make out what the Paris manuscript (cod. Gr. 1468) says about the matter, and I'm not sure, but it seems people are saying this section of the Acts of John did not exist before the 11th Century (is that correct?)

So the earliest source I can find where someone claims John appointed Polycarp is Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (ch 17).

Does anyone know where I can find an earlier source of the 'John appointing Polycarp' tradition?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Need help finding a list of early Smyrna Bishops

Post by Secret Alias »

But I think when you put all the pieces together in Irenaeus it's clear that Irenaeus claimed that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna and John appointed him. The one thing I will say is that - and I always come back to this - the situation between Irenaeus isn't as clear cut as it might appear. Florinus was also a disciple of Polycarp and one whom Irenaeus had to admit was physically closer (meaning spent more time with) to Polycarp than himself and for more time. Perhaps if there is a reason why Irenaeus hesitates to identify John as being the one who established Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna is because Florinus might have known better.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply