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.
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 »

  • 'Pope' St. Theonas of Alexandria (fl. 282-300)
    He baptized, in the first year of his papacy St. Peter who [is said to have] succeeded him on 'the apostolic throne of St. Mark' [lol] and was [supposedly] the 17th Pope. It was said that he ordained 'Saint Peter the "Seal of the Martyrs"a'as a reader at the age of five, then he promoted him to be a deacon at the age of twelve, then as a priest at sixteen.

    At the time of this saint, a man by the name of Sabellius appeared in Alexandria who was teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person. St. Theonas excommunicated him and he invalidated his heresy by convincing proof.
    a The commentary around that St Peter, aka 'Pope Peter 1 of Alexandria', are vague

    The contradiction and reverse order of the following may reflect who wrote this, but it seems typical of commentary of these times -
    Until his time, the faithful were praying and performing their services in homes and in caves for fear of the unbelievers. Pope Theonas dealt with them wisely and gently to achieve what he wanted to do[?]. He [supposedly] converted many of them to believe in the Lord Christ and baptized them.
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: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:40 am Given the politics of the Council of Nicaea and like councils there already existed deep divisions in Christianity by the early fourth century which means they existed in some form in the third century. Given the controversial nature of Origen these divisions or similar divisions or at least 'divisions' existed at the time of Origen which was at least a century to half a century before Eusebius.
It's possible that none of the versions of Christianity that existed before the start of the 4th century were Orthodox, or, if there was an orthodox Christianity, it was a small component of the total of the versions that there were

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:40 am ... Celsus is prominent in the writings of Eusebius but Celsus was first addressed in the writings of Origen. So Celsus was a problem for the Origenist tradition at least. From the extracts cited by Origen in his Against Celsus mention is made of many Christian factions of which 'the great Church' escaped censure by Celsus. Given that Origen and Eusebius take great pains to tackle Celsus it is unlikely that they were members of this 'great Church' tradition and so Origen's tradition was either one of the sects condemned by Celsus or related to one of them. This means that Christianity as such must have been older than Origen.
lol, aspects of that relate what I said above in the post. I wonder if Celsus is a literary device; a sock puppet.

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:40 am Given that Celsus must have written before Origen (as Origen is responding to his writings) and more interestingly enough time had to have passed for Origen to attempt a second draft of his original Against Celsus an early date (relative to Origen) seems likely. Of course Eusebius could have or perhaps likely wrote the second draft of Against Celsus. Perhaps all the works which explicitly mention Ambrosius's patronage of Origen were adulterated and the narrative with Ambrose employing dozens of scribes and copyists was a myth designed to explain or hide Eusebius's tampering with Origenist material. Even then the date for Against Celsus can't be very late. While we know very little about Origen's life, there were more pressing concerns than the things referenced by Celsus in the True Word. It seems a very 'bookish' academic work which suggests relative stability on the part of Origen to write eight books going line by line through a pagan work. Let's assign the composition to some time in the first half of the third century.

The fact that Celsus makes reference to 'something like' Irenaeus's compendium against the heresies in a book written at such a date that Origen could respond to it in the first half of the third century means that someone like Irenaeus, wrote a heresiological compendium around the time that Irenaeus is alleged to have composed Against Heresies. Moreover the fact that so many versions of this work survive in the name of people who lived after Irenaeus - Hippolytus (in Photius), Tertullian (pseudo), Origen (the Philosophumena common identified as 'Hippolytus's Refutation) and Cyril of Jerusalem identifies another text the Prescription Against all Heresies authored by 'Irenaeus' and Tertullian has a number of anti-heretical works which seem to related to this Irenaean productivity all point to the same bottom line - viz. that a heresiological compendium written in the second century continued to be copied in the third and fourth centuries. Whether or not Irenaeus is a historical person or multiple sources lay behind Against Heresies is beside the point. The basic portrait that we gain from ancient chronologists is basically sound.
or not sound: just embellished sock-puppetry.

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:40 am Some other points arguing for Against Heresies being written in the late second century. No mention of the Montanists as heretics. By the third century the Montanists were increasingly a fringe group even a heresy.
Yet the Montanists were a group that Tertullian allegedly left supposed 'orthodox Christian' for.

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:40 am Moreover there is no mention [in Against Heresies] of prominent third century schismatics like Noetus, Novatus, Hippolytus or Callistus (a heresiologist writing post-first generation of the third century would have had to have listed one of the two as a heresy). Moreover Gaius's rejection of the Johannine material is mildly referenced. The denial of the 'aspect' of the Paraclete, along with John's rejection of 'Cerinthus' all point to a composition contemporary with the prominent critics of the Johannine literature - i.e. at the time of Gaius and the Little Labyrinth. No mention of Theodotos and the adoptionists. In fact, interestingly their doctrines are lumped together with the opponents of John. Again, all this points to a composition late second century.
As with the books of the NT, it would have been easy for someone to date these works to a certain period or limit the references in them to a certain period. Stuart's points above would seem to be pertinent, viz. -
Stuart wrote: Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:21 am
... [Irenaeus] makes a showing of all the lead heretics having been rejected by Rome first, a concern of a much later era than the supposed Irenaeus is said to have written the volume. The issue of Roman episcopacy primacy came to a fore starting at [Nicea] (particularly the Athanasius excommunication controversy ... ) ...

There is a serious timeline anomaly here. Either Irenaeus' works are a unity and (based on traditional time line) he wrote about matters 150 years into the future (that is lent support to the eventual winner), or the works are not a unity and those elements are from a much later time than the "authentic core" of Irenaeus' work ...

My view leans toward the latter, and not just with Irenaeus, but many of the church father writings. But I also think, like the NT "authentic cores", these original elements are pseudonymous and probably later than legend places them (some just a few decades, others as much as a century or two).

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 »

But is it necessarily a later concern? This is what bothers me with anyone (including myself) who has - what we should generously call 'a minority position.' Yes we can all cheat and say 'the evidence can be read in a way to support my position.' This forum would be most useful in fact to study bad argumentation. But the reality is - in this case at least - we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with a 'later period.' In fact, let us ask ourselves - in what period would 'Roman centric' argumentation naturally be assigned? In what period was Rome the center of the Christian world? I don't see any reason to think the fourth century is that period. In fact there are strong arguments to the contrary.

Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius. Whether or not the Roman episcopal list originally existed in Hegesippus it was clearly put into MS before Irenaeus's Against Heresies which 're-used' the new information. Similarly the interest in Clement of Rome seems to come from the same period - i.e. the end of the second century. Clement of Alexandria knows of 'Clement the apostle' who is Clement of Rome. The material behind the fictional romance the pseudo-Clementia was written at this time. The Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp says that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's death and presumably this is where and when the martyrdom was first composed. Irenaeus draws from the episcopal list of Hegesippus (strangely) in a discussion of how the same Christian was used all over the world - including Rome.

I think that we can see the influence of Rome reflected in the letter between the two Dionysius's (Rome and Alexandria). Origen seems to have been on the run from a powerful synergy of Roman political and episcopal forces (early to mid-third century). There are signs that the Imperial court had many Christians in the period from the time of Irenaeus down to Mamaea's interest in Rome with mention of an Emperor who had a picture of Christ in his library in between. To me the natural period to place a Roman-centered Christianity would be late second century to mid third century. But then again I draw from evidence.
“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: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am But is it necessarily a later concern? This is what bothers me with anyone (including myself) who has - what we should generously call 'a minority position.' Yes we can all cheat and say 'the evidence can be read in a way to support my position.' This forum would be most useful in fact to study bad argumentation. But the reality is - in this case at least - we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with a 'later period.' In fact, let us ask ourselves - in what period would 'Roman centric' argumentation naturally be assigned? In what period was Rome the center of the Christian world? I don't see any reason to think the fourth century is that period. In fact there are strong arguments to the contrary.

Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius.
Agreed. The list evinces a break after Anicetus. So somebody (let us call him Hegesippus) listed bishops down to Anicetus, and somebody else (let us call him Irenaeus) added Soter and Eleutherus. The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus. That Tertullian, writing in North Africa, knows of Irenaeus in Against the Valentinians 5.1 speaks to the feasibility of copies of Against Heresies reaching African shores in decent time. I was going to add a bit about Dionysius of Rome, but then I noticed you already mentioned him. Everything seems to fit fairly well; I am wondering what data would be considered anomalous enough to call the entire picture into question.
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 »

I am not sure there is any 'real' supporting evidence - that is a collective group of 'stuff' that makes it reasonable to assume X. It's just a desire to see Christianity and the Christian tradition a way that makes the advocate 'happy' that gives him/her satisfaction and in this case - a desire to discredit the tradition beyond what the evidence reasonably supports. It's a parallel to the way mythicists take the argument that there is very little evidence to suggest there was a historical Jesus to make it 'obvious' he was just a myth. The same type of logic makes it 'obvious' the gospel was written in the second century, fourth century - whatever century you want really. Simply because, again, there isn't an abundance of evidence. The reality is that there isn't a lot of good evidence. But that doesn't justify a lot of these crazy leaps of logic.
“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 »

And with the Roman-centric argument. Aurelian seems to have had some interaction with the Roman Church around 260 which had wide reaching implication for the Church. The Apostle's Creed of Hippolytus (and the credal work laid down by Irenaeus before him) seems to have had wide-ranging implications for the religion too. Perhaps even the Canons of Hippolytus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_Hippolytus, the tables for calculating Easter (often split between Hippolytus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus and Demetrius https://books.google.com/books?id=0umDq ... on&f=false but Demetrius wasn't likely a native Egyptian). I think we can see Rome as the center of 'orthodox' Christian worship from 180 CE onward with Alexandria effectively becoming Rome's rival in the period. To be honest the situation with Trump and Putin today mirrors how I think Alexandria functioned in the period. There was a deep history in Alexandria. Demetrius was a foreigner who was somehow placed in charge of the Alexandrian church (a Roman plant?). The calculation of Easter probably was established there first but Hippolytus represents an attempt at Roman appropriation https://books.google.com/books?id=0umDq ... 22&f=false. I think Arianism in some respects is the last vestige of that 'demonization' of Alexandria. As the fourth century continued after Nicaea I am not sure that Rome held the same level of influence. Perhaps this was owing eventually to the influence of Constantine's Byzantium. But it would be wrong to look to the fourth century as a time of strong Roman-centric Christianity.
“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: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am But is it necessarily a later concern? This is what bothers me with anyone (including myself) who has - what we should generously call 'a minority position.'
argumentum ad numerum/ argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Yes we can all cheat and say 'the evidence can be read in a way to support my position.'
One would hope bare assertion is not used.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am But the reality is - in this case at least - we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with a 'later period.'
But the reality is we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with the period we are said to be dealing with.

But the reality is we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with Rome the city.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am To me the natural period to place a Roman-centered Christianity would be late second century to mid third century. But then again I draw from evidence.
You're drawing from narratives, not evidence. There is no definitive archaeology and no concrete third person accounts.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am In fact, let us ask ourselves - in what period would 'Roman centric' argumentation naturally be assigned? In what period was Rome the center of the Christian world? I don't see any reason to think the fourth century is that period. In fact there are strong arguments to the contrary.
In what period were we dealing with the Christian world? Did Christianity feature at all in or with respect to the Roman Empire before the mid-late 4th century? No? The empire was in crisis in the 3rd century. The capital moved east mid-late century.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Clement of Alexandria knows of 'Clement the apostle' who is Clement of Rome. The material behind the fictional romance the pseudo-Clementia was written at this time.
Telling(?)

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am The Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp says that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's death,1 and presumably this is where and when the martyrdom was first composed. Irenaeus [supposedly] draws from the episcopal list of Hegesippus (strangely) in a discussion of how the same Christian was used all over the world - including Rome.
1 = mere apologetic narrative

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am I think that we can see the influence of Rome reflected in the letter between the two Dionysius's (Rome and Alexandria). Origen seems to have been on the run from a powerful synergy of Roman political and episcopal forces (early to mid-third century). There are 'signs' that the Imperial court had many Christians in the period from the time of Irenaeus down to Mamaea's interest in Rome with mention of an Emperor who had a picture of Christ in his library in between.
Hardly convincing.
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius.
Agreed. The list evinces a break after Anicetus. So somebody (let us call him Hegesippus) listed bishops down to Anicetus, and somebody else (let us call him Irenaeus) added Soter and Eleutherus.
The name Soter makes me suspicious. It would seem to be out of place.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
I think you're drawing some long bows, Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am That Tertullian, writing in North Africa, knows of Irenaeus in Against the Valentinians 5.1 speaks to the feasibility of copies of Against Heresies reaching African shores in decent time. I was going to add a bit about Dionysius of Rome, but then I noticed you already mentioned him. Everything seems to fit fairly well; I am wondering what data would be considered anomalous enough to call the entire picture into question.
How many Christian Dionysiuses are duplicates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius#Before_1000_AD

Key Christian 'witnesses' like Tertullian and Irenaeus being on the other side or the far end of the Mediterranean seems anomalous
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: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:48 am The same type of logic makes it 'obvious' the gospel was written in the second century, fourth century - whatever century you want really. Simply because, again, there isn't an abundance of evidence. The reality is that there isn't a lot of good evidence. But that doesn't justify a lot of these crazy leaps of logic.
A few scholars have, in the last five years, independently published books about the gospels being written in the mid second century ...
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: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am But is it necessarily a later concern? This is what bothers me with anyone (including myself) who has - what we should generously call 'a minority position.'
argumentum ad numerum/ argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Yes we can all cheat and say 'the evidence can be read in a way to support my position.'
One would hope bare assertion is not used.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am But the reality is - in this case at least - we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with a 'later period.'
But the reality is we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with the period we are said to be dealing with.

But the reality is we don't know that the mention of Rome is in fact a sign that we are dealing with Rome the city.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am To me the natural period to place a Roman-centered Christianity would be late second century to mid third century. But then again I draw from evidence.
You're drawing from narratives, not evidence. There is no definitive archaeology and no concrete third person accounts.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am In fact, let us ask ourselves - in what period would 'Roman centric' argumentation naturally be assigned? In what period was Rome the center of the Christian world? I don't see any reason to think the fourth century is that period. In fact there are strong arguments to the contrary.
In what period were we dealing with the Christian world? Did Christianity feature at all in or with respect to the Roman Empire before the mid-late 4th century? No? The empire was in crisis in the 3rd century. The capital moved east mid-late century.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Clement of Alexandria knows of 'Clement the apostle' who is Clement of Rome. The material behind the fictional romance the pseudo-Clementia was written at this time.
Telling(?)

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am The Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp says that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's death,1 and presumably this is where and when the martyrdom was first composed. Irenaeus [supposedly] draws from the episcopal list of Hegesippus (strangely) in a discussion of how the same Christian was used all over the world - including Rome.
1 = mere apologetic narrative

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am I think that we can see the influence of Rome reflected in the letter between the two Dionysius's (Rome and Alexandria). Origen seems to have been on the run from a powerful synergy of Roman political and episcopal forces (early to mid-third century). There are 'signs' that the Imperial court had many Christians in the period from the time of Irenaeus down to Mamaea's interest in Rome with mention of an Emperor who had a picture of Christ in his library in between.
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:04 am And with the Roman-centric argument. Aurelian seems to have had some interaction with the Roman Church around 260 which had wide reaching implication for the Church. The Apostle's Creed of Hippolytus (and the credal work laid down by Irenaeus before him) seems to have had wide-ranging implications for the religion too.
Hardly convincing.
Post Reply