The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Also there are chronological difficulties in Hegesippus Jerusalem list:
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. According to Hegesippus, Simeon prevailed against Thebutis, whom the church fathers deemed a Judaizing heresiarch,[6] and led most of the Christians to Pella before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 and the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70. According to Church historian Eusebius, Simeon was executed about the year 107 or 117 under the reign of emperor Trajan by the proconsul Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes in Jerusalem or the vicinity. However,this must be a mistake by Eusebius because the Roman province of Judea the Roman administrator (Legate) of the day at the time of the crucifixion was a Quintus Pompeius Falco (between 105-107 AD) and Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes was there much earlier from 99-102 AD
“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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:24 pm The desire to 'pin' something on to Atticus extends to the chronological list appropriated by Epiphanius:

The list follows (Panarion 20,1)
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:29 pm Also there are chronological difficulties in Hegesippus Jerusalem list:
There are also question marks in the list -
List of Patriarchs of Jerusalem

James the Just (to 62)
Simeon I (62-107)
Justus I (107-112)
Zacchaeus (112-116)
Tobias (?)
Benjamin I (?-117)
John I (117-119)
Matthew I (119-120)
Philip (?-124)
Senecas (?)
Justus II (?)
Levi (?)
Ephraim I (?)
Joseph I (?)
Judas (?-134)
Mark (134-156)
Cassianos (?)
Pouplios (?)
Maximos I (?)
Julian I (?)
Gaius I (?)
Gaius II (?)
Symmachos (?)
Julian II or Valens (?)
Capion (?)
Maximos II (?)
Antonios (?)
Valens (?)
Dolichianos (?--185)
Narcissus (185-212)
Dios (?)
Germanion (?)
Gordios (?)
Alexander (213-251)
Mozabanus (251-266)
Hymeneus (266-298)
Zambdas (298-300)
Hermon (300-314)
Macarius I (314-334)
Maximus III (334-348)
Cyril I (350-386)
John II (386-417)

continued ... )

https://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patria ... _Jerusalem
Also http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/F ... usalem.htm
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Well, if Soter was his baptismal name, what would be the issue?
It doesn't seem to be a common Greek name of that era.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:56 am Sure, but a baptismal name would not have to be a common name, or even really a name at all in the traditional sense. And it was your suggestion. You brought up the problem of Soter's name only to immediately solve the problem. :cheers:
Yes, I found it somewhere (wikipedia, I think) and posted it, partly for fairness; partly b/c it seems to have been a speculative reason why he wasn't appointed; and, to emphasis his lifetime predates the tradition of adopting papal names and probably precedes the time of appointing popes -
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:39 pm It is said that the name given to 'Pope Soter', said to have been the Bishop of Rome from c. 167 to his death c. 174, would have been a baptismal name, as his lifetime predates the tradition of adopting papal names.
_________________________

MrMacSon wrote:Some of these are likely to be duplicates. Some are likely to be legends -
  • Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenian judge who was converted by Paul of Tarsus and became 'Bishop of Athens'
  • Dionysius of Vienne, d. 193, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 2nd-century bishop
  • Faustus, Abibus and Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 250, three Christian martyrs
  • Dionysius, 3rd-century Christian martyr and saint, noted in Theodore, Philippa and companions
  • Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, 3rd-century Egyptian bishop
  • Pope Dionysius [of Rome], 259–268
    • said to have demanded from the bishop of Alexandria, also called Dionysius, on the protest of some of 'the faithful' at Alexandria, explanations concerning his doctrine regarding the relation of God to the Logos, which 'was satisfied'.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Which ones do you think are duplicates [or legends], and why?
MrMacSon wrote: a. one [or both] of the Popes: all these Popes seems unlikely, and the fact little is ascribed to each of them in a supposedly fast developing church. They don't seem to be associated with many people.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:56 am "Little is ascribed to them." They are names on a list, without much fleshing out, right? Kind of like the list of US Presidents, of whom most people today know precisely nothing? What is ascribed to Zachary Taylor? To James K. Polk? And so on. That is kind of the nature of lists preserved solely for the names, is it not? The list can easily outlive any details about the items on that list. ETA: I myself actually know quite a few details about the Presidents, but I am not the norm. Also, no more than a couple of centuries have passed for most of them. Still, the point stands: the details can easily be lost while the names are preserved. This is not unusual.
Sure, but the US President analogy has a difference: the US Presidents began in Washington in 1789 (though, in November 1781, John Hanson had become the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation). What we are discussing in relation to the earliest alleged bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and probably Alexandria is more analogous to the pre-President period.
  • My ex-wife's family has a knife in it's possession that is said to have been given by Abraham Lincoln to Garibaldi when the latter visited Lincoln when Lincoln was seeking to engage Garibaldi's services in the Civil War. Garibaldi is said to have given the knife to a son who gave it to his godson, my ex's great-great-great grandfather. The knife has seven number of stars inscribed on it (and a few words, I think): after Lincoln's election in 1860, initially seven States (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana) formed the Confederate States of America (four more joined soon after). Had it been a Confederate knife? Can the story and the provenance of the knife be determined? Unlikely.
____________________________________
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:56 am
c. one or both of Dionysius of Vienne, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul and/or Dionysius, 2nd C. Bishop of Corinth: both places seem to be outliers in a scant 2nd C church
Calling Corinth an outlier seems weird to me. Can you explain that?
For much the same reason I pointed out with Pope Soter - he would have preceded a structured church that appointed regional bishops. He may have been a presbyter-bishop as referred to in this wikipedia article -
.
Position within the Church

[Early] Christian communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of their local churches. Gradually, episcopacies were established in metropolitan areas.[42] ...

Some writers claim that the emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not occur until the middle of the 2nd century. In their view, Linus, Cletus and Clement were possibly prominent presbyter-bishops, but not necessarily monarchical bishops.[29] ...


Early Christianity (c. 30–325)
.
It seems that at first the terms "episcopos" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably.[46] The consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.[47] Some say that there was probably "no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century...and likely later."[48] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#History

29 O'Grady, John. The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature. p. 146. ISBN 0-8091-3740-2.
42 ibid p.140.
46 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edn, rev. 2005, p.211: "It seems that at first the terms 'episcopos' and 'presbyter' were used interchangeably".
47 Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1, 2006, "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable."
48 Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1, 2006, p.418
.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_of_Corinth
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

I think this seems to be a fairly well nuanced outline of many of the things we have been contemplating & discussing [underlining etc mine] -

History

Position within the Church
The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus personally appointed Peter as leader of the Church, and the Catholic Church's dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium makes a clear distinction between apostles and bishops, presenting the latter as the successors of the former, with the pope as successor of Peter, in that he is head of the bishops as Peter was head of the apostles.[28] Some historians argue against the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, noting that the episcopal see in Rome can be traced back no earlier than the third century.[29] The writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around AD 180 reflect a belief that Peter "founded and organized" the Church at Rome.[30] Moreover, Irenaeus was not the first to write of Peter's presence in the early Roman Church. Clement of Rome wrote in a letter to the Corinthians, c. 96,[31] about the persecution of Christians in Rome as the "struggles in our time" and presented to the Corinthians its heroes, "first, the greatest and most just columns", the "good apostles" Peter and Paul.[32] St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote shortly after Clement and in his letter from the city of Smyrna to the Romans he said he would not command them as Peter and Paul did.[33] Given this and other evidence, such as Emperor Constantine's erection of the "Old St. Peter's Basilica" on the location of St. Peter's tomb, as held and given to him by Rome's Christian community, many scholars agree that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero, although some scholars argue that he may have been martyred in Palestine.[34][35][36]

The New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy, nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome.[37] Some theologians argue, using Peter's own words, that Christ intended himself—and not Peter—as the foundation of the church.[38][39] Others have argued that the church is indeed built upon Jesus and faith, but also on the disciples as the roots and foundations of the church on the basis of Paul's teaching in Romans and Ephesians, though not primarily Peter.[40][41]

Early Christian communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of their local churches. Gradually, episcopacies were established in metropolitan areas.[42] Antioch may have developed such a structure before Rome.[42] In Rome, there were many who claimed to be the rightful bishop, though again Irenaeus stressed 'the validity' of one line of bishops from the time of St. Peter up to his contemporary Pope Victor I and listed them.[43] Some writers claim that the emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not occur until the middle of the 2nd century. In their view, Linus, Cletus and Clement were possibly prominent presbyter-bishops, but not necessarily monarchical bishops.[29]

Documents of the 1st century [?} and early 2nd century [?] indicate that the bishop of Rome had some kind of pre-eminence and prominence in the Church as a whole, as even a letter from the bishop, or patriarch, of Antioch acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as "a first among equals",[44] though the detail of what this meant is unclear.[45]


Early Christianity (c. 30–325)

It seems that at first the terms "episcopos" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably.[46] The consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.[47] Some say that there was probably "no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century...and likely later."[48] ...

... In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, theologians chosen by the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches stated: "41. Both sides agree ... that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch,[51] occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. Translated into English, the statement means "first among equals".

What form that should take is still a matter of disagreement, just as it was when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches split in the Great East-West Schism. They also disagree on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.

In the late 2nd century AD, there were more manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree ... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

In AD 195, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover, a tradition handed down by John the Evangelist (see Easter controversy). Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the pope, is the system that has prevailed (see computus).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#History

29 O'Grady, John. The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature. p. 146. ISBN 0-8091-3740-2.
30 Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius. p. 114. ISBN 0-281-00802-7.
31 "Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)". Catholic Encyclopedia: The Fathers of the Church. New Advent. Retrieved 14 April 2013.
32 Gröber, 510
33 "Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans". Crossroads Initiative.
34 O'Connor, Daniel William (2013). "Saint Peter the Apostle". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. p. 5. [M]any scholars… accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.
35 Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. (in German), 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.
36 The Secrets of the 12 Disciples, Channel 4, transmitted on 23 March 2008.
37 O'Grady, John. The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature. p. 143.
38 Was Peter in Rome, Catholic Answers. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 9 November 2014.
39 Scofield. "Scofield Reference Notes on Matthew 16". Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition). Retrieved 1 August 2011.
40 Proof and Reason for the Papal Office, About Catholics. http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/p ... al_office/
41 "Matthew 16:18 – Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible – Commentaries". StudyLight.org. retrieved 18 February 2013.
42 O'Grady, John. The Roman Catholic church: its origins and nature. p. 140.
43 Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius. pp. 114–115.
44 Template:The Early Christian Church by Chadwick
45 "From an historical perspective, there is no conclusive documentary evidence from the 1st century or the early decades of the second of the exercise of, or even the claim to, a primacy of the Roman bishop or to a connection with Peter, although documents from this period accord the church at Rome some kind of pre‑eminence" (Emmanuel Clapsis, Papal Primacy, extract from Orthodoxy in Conversation (2000), p. 110); and "The see of Rome, whose prominence was associated with the deaths of Peter and Paul, became the principle center in matters concerning the universal Church" (Clapsis, p. 102). The same writer quotes with approval the words of Joseph Ratzinger: "In Phanar, on 25 July 1976, when Patriarch Athenegoras addressed the visiting pope as Peter's successor, the first in honor among us, and the presider over charity, this great church leader was expressing the essential content of the declarations of the primacy of the first millennium" (Clapsis, p. 113).
46 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edn, rev. 2005, p.211: "It seems that at first the terms 'episcopos' and 'presbyter' were used interchangeably".
47 Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1, 2006, "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable."
48 Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1, 2006, p.418
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:22 am
6. Polycarp's meeting with Anicetus. This story - now relegated to the fragments of Irenaeus - clearly has its origin in Hegesippus. Look closely and see the reference to the episcopal list in a letter to Victor the (new) bishop of Rome:
For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them].

And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter.

On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp1 in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect;1 so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.
1 Why was a Pope conceding to Polycarp ??

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:22 am What makes this so fascinating is that the immediate context is the Roman bishop's relationship with churches beyond Rome and Italy - in this case Asia Minor. Whether it be individual 'heretics' or in this case other churches in the Empire, there is a strange pattern playing out. Irenaeus becomes 'the interpreter' (his nickname) of a seeming relic from the distant past, that verdammten Roman episcopal list in Hegesippus, again. Do you see how many time we keep coming back to it?!
Sure. 'Irenaeus' is key, beyond just being an interpreter.

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:22 am Sure one way of looking at it, your way of looking at it would be to say 'It's fake! It's all fake! Myth, myth, myth!' But that isn't the fullest, best way of interpreting the data.
I don't think it's all fake. I think a reasonable amount of it is embellished. If so, key questions are when? how? why?

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:22 am Yes, the episcopal list might be fake. It might be true but the pattern of contextualizing contemporary (in this case late second century) history according to this 'map' essentially is consistent. How bizarre, but how utterly consistent. How could a single document stuck in the back pages of an otherwise garbage history text be so utterly influential? And why does it take one man, Irenaeus, to consistently tease out or frame all historical knowledge according to this 'list'? Why doesn't Victor just act the way he wants? Why is he bound by this stupid book originally written in 147 CE as late as perhaps 195 CE?
Yes, why isn't this done by the likes of Victor? Why are the Popes consistently secondary or lower level players in all this??

7. Acts attempts to make Antioch the starting point of Christianity (where Peter and Paul meet) out of the condemnation found in Galatians. This document was probably IMHO written by Theophilus of Antioch c. 160 - 180 CE. But again the pattern is still the same. You have Galatians come before this (if Acts was composed in its present form 160 - 180 CE) then Galatians is before 160 CE.
That's interesting: has anyone else concurred?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:23 amSure, but the US President analogy has a difference: the US Presidents began in Washington in 1789 (though, in November 1781, John Hanson had become the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation). What we are discussing in relation to the earliest alleged bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and probably Alexandria is more analogous to the pre-President period.
I agree with this for the early part of the list (Clement and Linus and some of those names), at least. Those early "bishops" probably predate the very idea of monepiscopacy. But, by definition, by the time the list was compiled that idea was firmly entrenched, so the later names were probably genuine bishops (albeit not yet "popes").
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:56 amCalling Corinth an outlier seems weird to me. Can you explain that?
For much the same reason I pointed out with Pope Soter - he would have preceded a structured church that appointed regional bishops.

That is certainly not what I think of when I hear "outlier."
Why was a Pope conceding to Polycarp ??
Probably so as not to lose the entire Asian contingent of Christian churches. Popes make compromises, you know. But I do not think that Victor was actually a "pope" yet: not in the modern sense. He was the bishop of Rome, which is the very definition of the Pope now, but that idea was still developing. Doubtless Rome was an extremely important and influential seat at the time, even though it was not yet actually papal.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

MrMacson

If you are going to try and draw reasonable conclusions from ancient testimonials you are going to have to at least 'go with' the evidence at least to the degree it 'interacts' with actual history. For instance, you don't need to 'believe' that the Roman episcopal list is true in the sense that it lists 'real history.' It's ok in my estimation to doubt the authenticity of the list. Nevertheless it does interact with history. It shows up in Irenaeus's letter to Victor for instance. It shows up in Book Three of Irenaeus Against Heresies. Both in direct reference to Polycarp. Thus giving the list a 'real historical date' of end of the second century at the very least. In other words, at the end of the second century people were being brought into acquaintance with this list as 'the list of Roman bishops.'

You don't have to go beyond that. But you have to accept that. You have to have enough mental discipline to say to yourself - 'this much is true.' The alternative is to assume that someone in a laboratory somewhere had much more mental discipline than you - i.e. created an alternative universe by (a) establishing a falsified history with Hegesippus's work which originally ended at Anicetus (b) planting the new list which goes to Eleutherius in Hegesippus and then (c) replanting the list and always associating the list with Polycarp in known works of Irenaeus and then (d) replanting again the traces of Hegesippus and Irenaeus in third and fourth century writers.

So given the two alternatives accepting the episcopal list was actually 'alive' as a historical phenomenon in the late second century is the better approach. Once you do that, you stop wasting your time supporting your own pet theories and plunge yourself, immerse yourself in the unselfish attempt at reconstructing history. It's like dropping acid and becoming a phantom - a being without a self, a will, any sort of desire - and trying to reconstruct in your own consciousness at least how the fuck late second century came to be defined or refracted through a strange episcopal list that really only appeared as a late addition to an original work by Hegesippus or Josephus (the names are related) that was published in Rome in 147 CE.

When scholars say that Hegesippus must have published his work 160 - 170 CE what they are really doing is mistaking the later addition as an authentic 'piece' of the original work. The 147 CE date is confirmed by two (and a half) pieces of information - Clement of Alexandria's reference to 'Josephus' the reference to Anicetus and the last bishop in the Jerusalem bishops list. So someone came along sometime after 147 CE and tacked on the extended Roman bishops list down to Eleutherius. Why we don't know. But this had an effect on the Jerusalem bishop's list because it wasn't extended. Eusebius and Epiphanius (perhaps because of Eusebius) assumes the circumcision Church ended and a Gentile church under Marcus began at that point this signalling that the line of Davidic whateverthefuck they were 'ended' - in other words, the list ended because the line ended.

But that's not likely what the original author - whether identified as Hegesippus or Josephus intended. He was likely merely taking a 'snapshot' of a vibrant worldwide Church (which is explicitly referenced in the main work) where multiple lines of bishops existed 'everywhere.' He is saying 'here is the list for Rome' and 'here is the list for Jerusalem' - there is even a hint that he compiled a list for Corinth too. But the effect of not filling in the details for Jerusalem but doing so for Rome had the implication at least it seems to imply the original circumcision Church 'died' or ended in 147 CE.

Now think about that for a moment. This Hegesippus or Josephus doesn't go back to Jerusalem. In the context of the extended work (i.e. the version of the text that added the episcopal list down to Eleutherius) the implication seems to be that Jerusalem ended but Rome continued and thrived. Irenaeus while mentioning the existing of other succession lists (in a manner that closely parallels Hegesippus/Josephus) cites the 'extended episcopal list - as Brent rightly points out - as the tonic against the heresies. The episcopal list is the path to truth and 'right belief.' In other words, this episcopal list, the list of bishops at Rome which starts with Peter and Paul in Hegesippus (cf. Irenaeus, Epiphanius) becomes in this context new 'council of Jerusalem' (i.e. the other episcopal list that ended in 147 CE in ur-Hegesippus/Josephus). In other words, the new extended work is itself the ultimate testimonial for Roman supremacy.

Let me try to rephrase that another way. In the ur-work from 147 CE you have bishops and an episcopal line from Rome, those of Jerusalem, those of Corinth and perhaps others. Clearly if the 'family of Jesus' were in charge of Jerusalem they would have precedent or superiority to all the other bishops. It would be like certain sects of Islam like the Ismailis who claim to be descendants of the family of Muhammad. But once you add the extended episcopal list for Rome in a work which now mentions the Jerusalem church in the past tense and - by implication of Eusebius's 'new' Gentile succession list starting with Marcus in Jerusalem - a disappearance of this alleged 'family lineage' back to Christ and David, you necessarily start to understand why Irenaeus used the succession list at Rome as a document for Roman-centered Christianity. This is important. It is something you have to accept at least insofar as (a) there was a Roman Church dating back to the late second century and (b) it, through the succession list added to Hegesippus after its original publication, had principal authority over the other churches in the world at that time.
“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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Another aspect to consider. The heresiological list in Book One appears on the surface to be a list of heresies 'in the worldwide Church.' But this isn't exactly true. If you were to identify a POV for the list it is clearly Roman and the Roman episcopal list in Hegesippus forms the backdrop - almost the spine for the work. Think of all the heretics that are dated by the list. Carpocrates (or Carpocras) and Marcellina clearly comes from Hegesippus and ends up in Celsus too (so the list's influence went outside of the Church). But also Cerdo, Marcion, Valentinus are explicitly 'hung' on the episcopal list like ornaments on a Xmas tree. The Valentinians mentions in the Valentinian section are very much 'Italic' or Roman Valentinians (there were apparently others but they are ignored by the author). Moreover as the OP states Cerinthus is a repackaging of details originally pertaining to Carpocrates who again begins life on the list. It should also be noted that a lot of people suspect that the Ebionites - the third of three heresies which always follow in order each other - also derives from that list. The story about the Jewish Christians escaping to Pella comes from Hegesippus. That group is sometimes identified as the Nazoraeans. The point is that this list of 'heresies' is very much a Roman Church list or at least tied to Roman-centered Christianity. It testifies to a Roman perspective on what is and isn't a heresy. You can't ignore this even though it doesn't 'help' your mythicist agenda. You have to acknowledge the facts and develop your theories to suit the facts or at least demonstrate that you've considered the facts.
“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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Even more on the Roman-ness of Irenaeus from Smith and Wace:
Photius tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus Against all the Heresies professed to be a synopsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The simplest supposition seems to be that Hippolytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Eusebius tells of one visit of Irenaeus to Rome c. 178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyrdom of Polycarp (Zahn's Ignatius, p. 167) represents him as teaching at Rome several years before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus came again to Rome and there delivered lectures against heresies. The time could not have been long after the beginning of the last decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn that the author of the cycle engraved on the chair must also have been the author of a chronicle, a Latin translation of which is extant, the last event in which is the death of the emperor Alexander (235)
The structure of Against Heresies again points to a Roman POV. The work develops initially as a commentary on the Valentinians who were centered in Rome. Ptolemy - a Valentinian who is explicitly identified as 'Italian' in Hippolytus - is explicitly referenced in the preface and the account which follows all the way down to chapter the end of chapter 8 makes clear the entire account references this Italian heretic "Such are the views of Ptolemaeus." The next chapter references the development of cento poems - a specific art form intimately associated with Virgil in Latin. In chapter 10 there is another clear Roman-centric reference:
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the middle of the world (κατά μέσα του κόσμου).
When Rome was at its height as a city and as an empire, it called itself the center of the world and even marked the spot with a tower and a plaque. The Romans installed the marker dubbed "navel of the city of Rome" (Umbilicus Urbis Romaen) in the Forum, from which all distances to the ends of the civilized world were marked. It was mile zero. This marker was one of the first things I had wanted to see when I visited Rome, because my travels around Italy, even over obscure and distant dirt back roads, invariably led to a road sign pointing to Rome. It is true, in Italy, all roads lead to Rome.

Chapter 12 references the Italian Valentinians again: " But the followers of Ptolemy say ..." Chapter 25 is developed from Hegesippus's reporting about Rome. Chapter 26 is a recycling of parts of the aforementioned account (cf. the OP). Chapter 26 comes from Hegesippus's succession list in Rome "Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards." The same use of the succession list is evidenced in book 3 "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.(5) 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(6) from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate."
“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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:41 am I think there can be no doubt whatsoever that we see a Roman-centered Church by at least the end of the second century.
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:04 am And with the Roman-centric argument.
Perhaps the focus on Rome was an attempt to get in the face of the rulers: the emperors and the Senate, and maybe b/c of emperor worship (a feature since Augustus in the mid-late 1st C BCE)? -
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am It is worth noting a few other 'Roman centric' details ... The Romans-first ordering of the Pauline epistles (we see evidence of a Galatians first and Corinthians first canon ordering. Given that Roman centered Pauline ordering likely took place IMHO by someone trying to emphasize Roman superiority in the Church ...)
DCHindley wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:07 pm I am aware that Paul's Christology is often seen as a response to emperor worship and their claim to divinity.
Post Reply