Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-09-2010, 06:04 PM

I got the idea for this post from reading Roger Pearse's latest post at his blog. I have been doing a lot of reading lately on this period in history. The original source for these names seems to be the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus. Irenaeus certainly used this source and claimed that these were real people but look at the names after Clement:

Sixtus = Latin 'sixth who happens to be the sixth pope from Peter.
Telesphorus = "bringing to perfection" a title of the god Aesculapius at Pergamum. The term is related to the concept τελεσφορία = "initiation into the mysteries"
Anicetus = 'unconquered' a title of Mithras
Soter = 'savior' a title of Jesus and a number of other deities
Eleutheri(a)s = 'liberty'
Victor = 'victory' a title of Hercules.

Now I am not denying that on their own, anyone of these titles could end up as personal names. The odd thing is clustering of divine names in association with Popes of the Roman Catholic Church in its earliest period. I am not necessarily arguing that the list is made up (although that certainly is a possibility). Perhaps the bishops of Rome took on bombastic titles upon their succession in the period. I don't know. It is just very odd the way that everyone seems to be called by a title of a god/the gods don't you think?

stephan huller · 10-09-2010, 10:13 PM

Haste makes waste - Latin 'victor' = victor not 'victory'

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2010, 07:21 AM

One possibility is that some of them were freedmen, ie ex-slaves, who were given those names by their owners.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 10-10-2010, 02:23 PM

Hi Stephan,

Sixtus was also known as Xystus

From Pausanius: Description of Greece:

Quote:

One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of this enclosure is called Xystus, because an exercise of Heracles, the son of Amphitryo, was to scrape up （anaxuein） each day all the thistles that grew there.

Regarding Telesphoros From Theoi.com:

Quote:

TELESPHOROS was the demi-god of convalescence, who "brought to fulfillment" recuperation from illness or injury He was depicted on ancient coins and reliefs as a boy wearing a wide cloak and low hood or Phrygian cap. Sometimes he held a scroll or tablet in his hands.
Telesphoros had his own temple, the Telesphorion, in the precinct of Asklepios at Pergamon in Anatolia. He was also recognised as one of the healing gods at the Asklepian sanctuary of Epidauros.

From Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 11. 4 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.) :

Quote:

"Alexanor, the son of Makhaon, the son of Asklepios, came to Sikyonia and built the sanctuary of Asklepios at Titane . . . There are images [within the shrine] also of Alexanor and of Euamerion; to the former they give offerings as to a hero after the setting of the sun; to Euamerion, as being a god, they give burnt sacrifices. If I conjecture aright, the Pergamenes, in accordance with an oracle, call this Euamerion Telesphoros (Accomplisher) while the Epidaurians call him Akesis (Cure)."

From a site with Coins of Telesphoros:

Quote:

In Greek mythology Telesphoros was the god of convalescence, meaning he would help fulfill the healing process. His father was Asklepios who was the god of medicine.

Regarding Anicetus from Theoi.com:

Quote:

ANIKETOS & ALEXIARES were two minor Olympian gods who presided over the defence of fortified towns and citadels. Their names mean respectively "the unconquerable one " and "he who wards off war." They were sons of Herakles, born after the hero's ascension to Olympos, and his marriage to the goddess Hebe.

From Roman-Britain.org:

Quote:

Anicetus was a son of Hercules by Hebe, also the name of a notorious freedman advisor of the emperor Nero. His name appears on two British inscriptions, both in conjunction with other deities; on an altarstone from Hadrian's Wall alongside the names of three known sun gods, and at Bath in Gloucestershire with the spa town's patron goddess Sulis. The name of the god also appears on altarstones from the continent as Sol Invictus Mithras Anicetus (ILS 4229; CIL III 1436; Sarmizegetusa, Asia) and as Apollo Anicetus (AE 1987, 880). It would seem likely that Anicetus was a solar deity, but his relationship with Sul/Minerva is uncertain. Anicetus appears also to have been a popular cognomen or last-name, particularly of slaves at Rome, and is mentioned in all sections of the CIL catalogue.

Regarding Eleutherios and Soter, from Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.04

Quote:

"The danger which external domination by the Persian tyrant and internal tyranny presented led to subjugation under a tyrant being linked with unfreedom and the overthrow of a tyrant with freedom. The author sees his view confirmed by the establishment of the cult of Zeus Eleutherios. Raaflaub, against James H. Oliver, urges that Zeus Eleutherios was the successor of Zeus Soter and was not connected with the overthrow of the tyranny of the Peisistratids or the opposition to oligarchic rule. In the change of the name from Zeus Soter to Zeus Eleutherios Raaflaub recognizes the altered conditions of warfare, from survival to freedom."

Regarding Victor from Wikipedia: Temple of Hercules Victor:

Quote:

Though Servius mentions that aedes duae sunt, "there are two sacred temples", the earliest Roman calendars mention but one festival, on 13 August, to Hercules Victor and Hercules Invictus interchangeably.

Thus the names refer to well known Gods or sons of Greek Gods.
Xystus: Heracles (cleaning up a gymnasium filled with thistles)
Telesphorus: son of Aesculapius (Healing God)
Anectitus: son of Heracles (Gatekeeper of Mt. Olympus)/Mitras
Soter: Zeus
Eleutheria: Zeus
Victor: Heracles/Mitras

My guess would be that whoever made up the names of these fictitious bishops took the names from a book or books on Greek Mythology

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I got the idea for this post from reading Roger Pearse's latest post at his blog. I have been doing a lot of reading lately on this period in history. The original source for these names seems to be the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus. Irenaeus certainly used this source and claimed that these were real people but look at the names after Clement:

Sixtus = Latin 'sixth who happens to be the sixth pope from Peter.
Telesphorus = "bringing to perfection" a title of the god Aesculapius at Pergamum. The term is related to the concept τελεσφορία = "initiation into the mysteries"
Anicetus = 'unconquered' a title of Mithras
Soter = 'savior' a title of Jesus and a number of other deities
Eleutheri(a)s = 'liberty'
Victor = 'victory' a title of Hercules.

Now I am not denying that on their own, anyone of these titles could end up as personal names. The odd thing is clustering of divine names in association with Popes of the Roman Catholic Church in its earliest period. I am not necessarily arguing that the list is made up (although that certainly is a possibility). Perhaps the bishops of Rome took on bombastic titles upon their succession in the period. I don't know. It is just very odd the way that everyone seems to be called by a title of a god/the gods don't you think?

mountainman · 10-10-2010, 09:21 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay and Stephan,

I think that Momigliano, writing the following from "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D", agrees with your assessment. The lists of the bishops were added (ie: invented) to the Hellenistic chronography. This invention established an othodoxy and an apostolic succession.

Quote:

..... they transformed Hellenistic chronography into a Christian science and added the lists of the bishops of the most important sees to the lists of kings and magistrates of the pagan world. They presented history in such a way that the scheme of redemption was easy to perceive. They showed with particular care the priority of the Jews over the pagans — in which point their debt to Jewish apologetic is obvious. They established criteria of orthodoxy by the simple device of introducing lists of bishops who represented the apostolic succession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Sixtus was also known as Xystus

From Pausanius: Description of Greece:

Quote:

One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of this enclosure is called Xystus, because an exercise of Heracles, the son of Amphitryo, was to scrape up （anaxuein） each day all the thistles that grew there.

Regarding Telesphoros From Theoi.com:

From Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 11. 4 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.) :

From a site with Coins of Telesphoros:

Regarding Anicetus from Theoi.com:

From Roman-Britain.org:

Regarding Eleutherios and Soter, from Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.04

Regarding Victor from Wikipedia: Temple of Hercules Victor:

Thus the names refer to well known Gods or sons of Greek Gods.
Xystus: Heracles (cleaning up a gymnasium filled with thistles)
Telesphorus: son of Aesculapius (Healing God)
Anectitus: son of Heracles (Gatekeeper of Mt. Olympus)/Mitras
Soter: Zeus
Eleutheria: Zeus
Victor: Heracles/Mitras

My guess would be that whoever made up the names of these fictitious bishops took the names from a book or books on Greek Mythology

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I got the idea for this post from reading Roger Pearse's latest post at his blog. I have been doing a lot of reading lately on this period in history. The original source for these names seems to be the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus. Irenaeus certainly used this source and claimed that these were real people but look at the names after Clement:

Sixtus = Latin 'sixth who happens to be the sixth pope from Peter.
Telesphorus = "bringing to perfection" a title of the god Aesculapius at Pergamum. The term is related to the concept τελεσφορία = "initiation into the mysteries"
Anicetus = 'unconquered' a title of Mithras
Soter = 'savior' a title of Jesus and a number of other deities
Eleutheri(a)s = 'liberty'
Victor = 'victory' a title of Hercules.

Now I am not denying that on their own, anyone of these titles could end up as personal names. The odd thing is clustering of divine names in association with Popes of the Roman Catholic Church in its earliest period. I am not necessarily arguing that the list is made up (although that certainly is a possibility). Perhaps the bishops of Rome took on bombastic titles upon their succession in the period. I don't know. It is just very odd the way that everyone seems to be called by a title of a god/the gods don't you think?

That the lists of the bishops were invented is far more than possible.

stephan huller · 10-10-2010, 09:52 PM

But if the Roman and Jerusalem episcopal traditions were invented this was done at the end of the second century. The ultimate source is a hypomnemata which was employed by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius and possibly Clement of Alexandria as well as the pagan writer Celsus. Having engaged you in something almost resembling an intellectual discussion I have pointed out that it is impossible to see these five authors use of a lost text could have been artificially developed in the fourth century. If you simply put to side the beliefs which you force on to the material you supposedly read for a moment, you would see that there is the Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius at least all employ this same hypomnemata in very different ways. This isn't some organized conspiracy. It is three authors using a single text which says it is from the second century independently of one another.

When Eusebius cites the material from the hypomnemata he makes clear at certain points that it is "the hypomnemata of Hegesippus." When Irenaeus cites the material he intimates that it was written by Polycarp (at least according to my interpretation of the original material). When Epiphanius cites from the same source he never refers to the author by name and uses hypomnemata and related terms as a description of the work not as its title.

The point is that I am not asking you or anyone else to accept that the bishop lists for Rome and Jerusalem are necessarily true. But the hypomnemata that contained this information had to have been written before Eusebius (unless you put forward the idiotic idea that Eusebius anonymously forged the original hypomnemata and then cited it in his book). But then you'd have to argue that Irenaeus was a fourth century forgery which still knew and used this material but attributed it to someone different than Eusebius. How the embedded use of this text in Celsus and Clement (Celsus does not give a name but Clement ascribes it to Josephus) can be explained by your conspiracy theory is beyond me AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S UTTERLY FORCED. You are raping the literary material with your methodology!

But this discussion does bring up the question that even if some of the names on the list are fake - there must have been a Roman tradition before Polycarp. Why would Irenaeus have mentioned the dispute between Anicetus and Polycarp if he was just making up history? There has to be something substantive beneath all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative which brings us back to the curious nature of the name Anicetus.

Eleutherius might be a slaves name as Andrew points out, but Anicetus? Were there slaves called 'unconquerable' or 'savior'? But how could Anicetus be a name appropriated from mythology if - as I noted - Irenaeus has to acknowledge a bit of unflattering history related to Anicetus's conflict with his master Polycarp? It's hard to decide what to make of Anicetus. There is a figure called Nicetes in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. There is a Nicetes the sophist who lived at the time of Nero. Maybe Anicetus is a mistake for Nicetes?

Chili · 10-10-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But if the Roman and Jerusalem episcopal traditions were invented this was done at the end of the second century. The ultimate source is a hypomnemata which was employed by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius and possibly Clement of Alexandria as well as the pagan writer Celsus. Having engaged you in something almost resembling an intellectual discussion I have pointed out that it is impossible to see these five authors use of a lost text could have been artificially developed in the fourth century. If you simply put to side the beliefs which you force on to the material you supposedly read for a moment, you would see that there is the Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius at least all employ this same hypomnemata in very different ways. This isn't some organized conspiracy. It is three authors using a single text which says it is from the second century independently of one another.

When Eusebius cites the material from the hypomnemata he makes clear at certain points that it is "the hypomnemata of Hegesippus." When Irenaeus cites the material he intimates that it was written by Polycarp (at least according to my interpretation of the original material). When Epiphanius cites from the same source he never refers to the author by name and uses hypomnemata and related terms as a description of the work not as its title.

The point is that I am not asking you or anyone else to accept that the bishop lists for Rome and Jerusalem are necessarily true. But the hypomnemata that contained this information had to have been written before Eusebius (unless you put forward the idiotic idea that Eusebius anonymously forged the original hypomnemata and then cited it in his book). But then you'd have to argue that Irenaeus was a fourth century forgery which still knew and used this material but attributed it to someone different than Eusebius. How the embedded use of this text in Celsus and Clement (Celsus does not give a name but Clement ascribes it to Josephus) can be explained by your conspiracy theory is beyond me AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S UTTERLY FORCED. You are raping the literary material with your methodology. Rape is wrong whether it is performed on a human being or a text.

But this discussion does bring up the question that even if some of the names on the list are fake - there must have been a Roman tradition before Polycarp. Why would Irenaeus have mentioned the dispute between Anicetus and Polycarp if he was just making up history? There has to be something substantive beneath all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative which brings us back to the curious nature of the name Anicetus.

Eleutherius might be a slaves name as Andrew points out, but Anicetus? Were there slaves called 'unconquerable' or 'savior'? But how could Anicetus be a name appropriated from mythology if - as I noted - Irenaeus has to acknowledge a bit of unflattering history related to Anicetus's conflict with his master Polycarp? It's hard to decide what to make of Anicetus. There is a figure called Nicetes in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. There is a Nicetes the sophist who lived at the time of Nero. Maybe Anicetus is a mistake for Nicetes?

play on words like Noah ans Naos

mountainman · 10-10-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

When Eusebius cites the material from the hypomnemata he makes clear at certain points that it is "the hypomnemata of Hegesippus." When Irenaeus cites the material he intimates that it was written by Polycarp (at least according to my interpretation of the original material). When Epiphanius cites from the same source he never refers to the author by name and uses hypomnemata and related terms as a description of the work not as its title.

The point is that I am not asking you or anyone else to accept that the bishop lists for Rome and Jerusalem are necessarily true. But the hypomnemata that contained this information had to have been written before Eusebius (unless you put forward the idiotic idea that Eusebius anonymously forged the original hypomnemata and then cited it in his book). But then you'd have to argue that Irenaeus was a fourth century forgery which still knew and used this material but attributed it to someone different than Eusebius. How the embedded use of this text in Celsus and Clement (Celsus does not give a name but Clement ascribes it to Josephus) can be explained by your conspiracy theory is beyond me AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S UTTERLY FORCED. You are raping the literary material with your methodology. Rape is wrong whether it is performed on a human being or a text.

Is reporting a rape wrong? The Greek LXX may have been raped in an imperial scriptorium. There may be an illegitimate child (ie: the canonical new testament) as a result. The evidence suggests (analogously) that the DNA in the NT seems to match the DNA in the Greek LXX. That is, that the Greek canonical New Testament is indeed the textual copy-and-paste offspring of the Greek LXX.

Quote:

But this discussion does bring up the question that even if some of the names on the list are fake - there must have been a Roman tradition before Polycarp. Why would Irenaeus have mentioned the dispute between Anicetus and Polycarp if he was just making up history? There has to be something substantive beneath all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative which brings us back to the curious nature of the name Anicetus.

There does not at all! That there may be nothing substantive to all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative is proven with the evidence of the modern analysis of the 4th century "Historia Augusta".

Attention stephan huller ! Have you read, or are you acquainted with, the above analysis of the "Historia Augusta" as a forgery with not only invented sources, but further invented sources which "agree to disagree" with the first set of invented sources. It contains over 160 forged documents. Do you understand that this evidence indicates that there may be nothing substantive to all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative which is evident between the "Eusebian Universal Church Fathers".

PhilosopherJay · 10-11-2010, 02:28 PM

Hi All,

Just another curiosity, Hyginus is another name on the Pope's list.

From Wiki:

Quote:

GAIUS JULIUS HYGINUS was a Latin writer who flourished in Roman Spain in the C1st AD. Two extant collections of fables were attributed to him: the Fabulae (or Fables) and Astronomica (or Astronomy). The poor quality of these works lead most to believe they are either wrongly attributed to this distinguished scholar or are a later abridgement of his works composed by a C2nd grammarian. In spite of the poor writing style and numerous errors, the works do preserve many myths and alternative versions of myths not found elsewhere...Hyginus' compilation represents in primitive form what every educated Roman in the age of the Antonines was expected to know of Greek myth,

Also note that on the website of coins of Telesphorus, there are two coins with Telesphorus on one side and Antoninus Pius on the other. http://tomross.ancients.info/Emperor...elesphoros.htm

Pius was the name of the Bishop who ruled during the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius, another coincidence. Although, Pius may also be a reference to AsclePIUS, the God of medicine.

Perhaps the creator of the list got his names of God titles and sons of Gods from the works of Hyginus and decided to make him one of the Bishops as a reward.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Thus the names refer to well known Gods or sons of Greek Gods.
Xystus: Heracles (cleaning up a gymnasium filled with thistles)
Telesphorus: son of Aesculapius (Healing God)
Anectitus: son of Heracles (Gatekeeper of Mt. Olympus)/Mitras
Soter: Zeus
Eleutheria: Zeus
Victor: Heracles/Mitras

My guess would be that whoever made up the names of these fictitious bishops took the names from a book or books on Greek Mythology

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I got the idea for this post from reading Roger Pearse's latest post at his blog. I have been doing a lot of reading lately on this period in history. The original source for these names seems to be the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus. Irenaeus certainly used this source and claimed that these were real people but look at the names after Clement:

Sixtus = Latin 'sixth who happens to be the sixth pope from Peter.
Telesphorus = "bringing to perfection" a title of the god Aesculapius at Pergamum. The term is related to the concept τελεσφορία = "initiation into the mysteries"
Anicetus = 'unconquered' a title of Mithras
Soter = 'savior' a title of Jesus and a number of other deities
Eleutheri(a)s = 'liberty'
Victor = 'victory' a title of Hercules.

Now I am not denying that on their own, anyone of these titles could end up as personal names. The odd thing is clustering of divine names in association with Popes of the Roman Catholic Church in its earliest period. I am not necessarily arguing that the list is made up (although that certainly is a possibility). Perhaps the bishops of Rome took on bombastic titles upon their succession in the period. I don't know. It is just very odd the way that everyone seems to be called by a title of a god/the gods don't you think?

mountainman · 10-11-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Regarding Eleutherios and Soter, from Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.04

Also from WIKI Soter

Quote:

Soter derives from the Greek epithet σωτήρ (sōtēr), meaning a saviour, a deliverer; initial capitalised Σωτήρ; fully capitalised ΣΩΤΗΡ. Soter has been used as:

as a title of Gods: Poseidon Soter and Zeus Soter.
any heroized leaders of Hellenistic dynasties, see hero cult:
Ptolemy I Soter
Antiochus I Soter
Demetrius I Soter
Rabbel II Soter
Attalus I
Seleucus III Ceraunus
Ptolemy IX
Diodotus I
Strato II
Strato I
Menander I
as a title of liberators (see also eleutherios)

We are obviously dealing with a fabrication.
It's time to face the music like the pagans did.

The Graeco-Roman priests had had their day.
Their day was over. It was done.
The list of Christian Bishops had arrived in Rome and Alexandria.
A New Rome had been consecrated as the City of Constantine.

One Bishop to rule them all,
One Bishop to find them,
One Bishop to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them

And its still very dark even unto this day.

10-09-2010, 06:04 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Why Do the 'Names' of the Catholic Popes from the Second Century Sound Like Titles? I got the idea for this post from reading Roger Pearse's latest post at his blog. I have been doing a lot of reading lately on this period in history. The original source for these names seems to be the hypomnemata attributed to Hegesippus. Irenaeus certainly used this source and claimed that these were real people but look at the names after Clement: Sixtus = Latin 'sixth who happens to be the sixth pope from Peter. Telesphorus = "bringing to perfection" a title of the god Aesculapius at Pergamum. The term is related to the concept τελεσφορία = "initiation into the mysteries" Anicetus = 'unconquered' a title of Mithras Soter = 'savior' a title of Jesus and a number of other deities Eleutheri(a)s = 'liberty' Victor = 'victory' a title of Hercules. Now I am not denying that on their own, anyone of these titles could end up as personal names. The odd thing is clustering of divine names in association with Popes of the Roman Catholic Church in its earliest period. I am not necessarily arguing that the list is made up (although that certainly is a possibility). Perhaps the bishops of Rome took on bombastic titles upon their succession in the period. I don't know. It is just very odd the way that everyone seems to be called by a title of a god/the gods don't you think?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2010, 10:13 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Haste makes waste - Latin 'victor' = victor not 'victory'

10-10-2010, 07:21 AM	#3
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One possibility is that some of them were freedmen, ie ex-slaves, who were given those names by their owners. Andrew Criddle

10-10-2010, 09:52 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But if the Roman and Jerusalem episcopal traditions were invented this was done at the end of the second century. The ultimate source is a hypomnemata which was employed by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius and possibly Clement of Alexandria as well as the pagan writer Celsus. Having engaged you in something almost resembling an intellectual discussion I have pointed out that it is impossible to see these five authors use of a lost text could have been artificially developed in the fourth century. If you simply put to side the beliefs which you force on to the material you supposedly read for a moment, you would see that there is the Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius at least all employ this same hypomnemata in very different ways. This isn't some organized conspiracy. It is three authors using a single text which says it is from the second century independently of one another. When Eusebius cites the material from the hypomnemata he makes clear at certain points that it is "the hypomnemata of Hegesippus." When Irenaeus cites the material he intimates that it was written by Polycarp (at least according to my interpretation of the original material). When Epiphanius cites from the same source he never refers to the author by name and uses hypomnemata and related terms as a description of the work not as its title. The point is that I am not asking you or anyone else to accept that the bishop lists for Rome and Jerusalem are necessarily true. But the hypomnemata that contained this information had to have been written before Eusebius (unless you put forward the idiotic idea that Eusebius anonymously forged the original hypomnemata and then cited it in his book). But then you'd have to argue that Irenaeus was a fourth century forgery which still knew and used this material but attributed it to someone different than Eusebius. How the embedded use of this text in Celsus and Clement (Celsus does not give a name but Clement ascribes it to Josephus) can be explained by your conspiracy theory is beyond me AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S UTTERLY FORCED. You are raping the literary material with your methodology! But this discussion does bring up the question that even if some of the names on the list are fake - there must have been a Roman tradition before Polycarp. Why would Irenaeus have mentioned the dispute between Anicetus and Polycarp if he was just making up history? There has to be something substantive beneath all of this 'agreeing to disagree' narrative which brings us back to the curious nature of the name Anicetus. Eleutherius might be a slaves name as Andrew points out, but Anicetus? Were there slaves called 'unconquerable' or 'savior'? But how could Anicetus be a name appropriated from mythology if - as I noted - Irenaeus has to acknowledge a bit of unflattering history related to Anicetus's conflict with his master Polycarp? It's hard to decide what to make of Anicetus. There is a figure called Nicetes in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. There is a Nicetes the sophist who lived at the time of Nero. Maybe Anicetus is a mistake for Nicetes?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.