On what basis do you say that (a Roman-centered Christianity existed c. 170 CE/another 'primitive' Christianity existed before that time).
1. the effort to turn the order of the Pauline letters on its head and make Rome first (came from a Roman source)
2. the Roman episcopal list in Hegesippus which further contextualizes:
a) Marcellina as something (not orthodox)
b) Marcion as something (not orthodox)
c) Valentinus and the other heretics in Irenaeus
each of (b) and (c) further 'break out' into points of their own
3. the story of Marcion bribing the Church of Rome from Tertullian which goes back to an earlier (second century) source. The only reason Marcion would bribe the Church (a non-Roman the Roman Church) is because Rome was central to the rival orthodoxy. That doesn't mean the story is true. It could be a myth. But myths and stories tell us a lot.
4. Lampe's interpretation of the manner in which Valentinus becomes a heretic. Valentinus was tolerated by Justin but by the time of Victor he becomes a heretic and because of this judgment in Rome he and 'Valentinianism' became heretics as such. Valentinus is described as a 'priest' somewhere. A priest in Rome. That was one church, one Roman community. But later in the second century there seems to be a new assertiveness and people who had relationships with 'the Roman Church' in one generation become 'heretics' or condemned in another generation.
so that results from breaking out (b) and (c) in 3. But let's look further at that Roman episcopal list again.
5. there is something related between Marcellina and Marcion. Yes they are heretics but the judgement comes from a common 'positioning' in relation to Hegesippus's episcopal list. As Smith and Wace note "A list which has some curious agreements with Epiphanius, and extends only to Anicetus, is found in the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion; the author has mistaken Marcellina for Marcion. "
https://books.google.com/books?id=RwYjA ... us&f=false Again think of how influential and important this specifically
Roman episcopal list was.
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 Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; 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.
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 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. Yes there the episcopal list might be fake. It might be true but the consistent 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? Hegesippus almost becomes the equivalent of the constitution of the United States for the Christianity - indeed Roman-centered Christianity? Yes something fake and artificial is in evidence here but only in so far as Christianity before the middle of the second century. The list is real and engaging directly
with the history or living phenomena of late second century Christianity certainly.
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. But also given the historical truthfulness of Lucian's basic account you have Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus (henceforth PIP)'s imprisonment in Antioch very, very early. If you deconstruct Lucian you likely have a death c. 161 CE and (a) two or three Olympic games before that = - 8 - 12 years (= 149 - 153 CE as PIP's first appearance at Olympia and (b) some time in Greece before that = "Coming at last to Greece under these circumstances, at one moment he abused the Eleans, at another he counselled the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans" and a visit to Rome - "From there, thus equipped, he set sail for Italy and immediately after disembarking he fell to abusing. everyone, and in particular the Emperor" - suspiciously similar to composition of Hegesippus's publication of his work
at Rome in 147 CE under Anicetus. Before that there is a trip to Egypt (145 CE?) "Thereafter he went away a third time to Egypt .." and several 'wandering' trips in the world between visits to Parium which sandwich an elusive imprisonment in Antioch "However, Peregrinus was freed by the then governor of Syria, a man who was fond of philosophy ..." I think there is a direct relationship between (i) this imprisonment the large following of Christians who tended to him in jail (ii) the letters of Ignatius referencing 'Ignatius's' imprisonment and his 'dramatic' trip to Rome and (iii) Acts (Theophilus's) attempt to make Antioch the center of the Christian world. The commonality is something essentially embarrassing (Paul condemning Peter/PIP being put in jail) being turned around as something holy and worthy of being considered a cornerstone. Knowing that Theophilus did this we can see Irenaeus carry out a similar effort more than a generation after him. Now PIP and Anicetus essentially fighting with one another like Paul and Peter becomes 'exemplary' behavior for the bishop of Rome to follow with respect to his greater flock around the world. Notice the consistent pattern of turning actual history or recorded history on its head! But this is what is happening. The difficulty for me is determining given that Irenaeus is using the episcopal list in his letter to Victor where is the story about PIP and Anicetus actually coming from? Surely it too is a written source. What other source could this other than Hegesippus again? Indeed it has always struck me that immediately after citing from the episcopal list Irenaeus says:
... 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. Soter 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, departed this life, having always taught the things
In reality we see two examples of an association between Polycarp and Anicetus which develops in the context of Hegesippus's episcopal list. Coincidence? That is possible of course. But could there really be two separate references to Hegesippus's list which result in stories about Polycarp when for all intents and purposes Polycarp is never mentioned as explicitly being 'in' the episcopal list? I don't think so. In the case of the parallels between Marcion/Marcellina and Anicetus in the episcopal list it is argued by many scholars that Marcion is a mistake for Marcellina who certainly does appear in the episcopal list. But what about Irenaeus's repeated mention of Polycarp in association with the list? I think if you look at the letter to Victor you will see that Victor doesn't seem to know the details of the episcopal list (why cite it to him with such detail?). Similarly the story about Polycarp's encounter with Anicetus, why go into such detail unless the story is unknown to him. To this end I think that on some level Polycarp must be equated with Hegesippus (Joseph the 'fruitful' bough/son). Irenaeus never identifies Ignatius as 'Ignatius' he is unnamed. Similarly with respect to Hegesippus he is never named but whenever the episcopal list is referenced 'Polycarp' is immediately thereafter. He had a version of the text identified as being authored by Polycarp and Hegesippus's visit to Rome included an encounter with Anicetus where Anicetus 'agreed to disagree' with Polycarp/Hegesippus which is used as a lesson for Victor's conduct with the Asian churches.
8. outside of the episcopal list there are other examples. Clement's story about a gospel of Mark written in Rome by Mark for Peter. There is no need for an Alexandrian Christian to place the gospel of Mark, Peter and Mark in Rome. If for instance there was no Christianity before 150 CE why not argue or create a story about the gospel being created at Alexandria for Egyptians? Instead there seems to be some 'Roman gravity' placing the story here. Perhaps it is a Roman story that Clement has adapted. Perhaps. But the gravity is still there.
9. the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas is taken to be a Roman Christian. The Shepherd of Hermas is a Roman Christian work which again is connected to the episcopal list. Irenaeus cites from the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas is a document used by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor to justify Roman primacy -
https://books.google.com/books?id=_6H3X ... st&f=false. It is also connected with the Clement of Rome myth which is unlikely to have been historically true (i.e. that Peter converted a senator named Clement from Rome who became the head of the Church at the earliest period.
10. the Clementia. Of course we recognize that the Clementia is devoid of any historical truth outside of misunderstanding. Nevertheless Clement appears on the episcopal list and is part of Irenaeus's conversation with Victor contextualizing the Roman supremacy.
“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