stephan huller

Photius tells us that Irenaeus wrote a number of treatises or 'lectures' over the course of his life. I believe many of these unrelated original lectures which were later assembled into his five volume work commonly known as Against All Heresies, likely by a close disciple. Throughout these treatises there is a systematic assault against those claiming to be gnostikoi however Irenaeus seems unwilling or unable to define the term in terms of its original Platonic context. Instead he seems to expand its meaning to include any Christian who claims to have any direct knowledge of God beyond what has been established in the canonical scriptures as a liar or a disreputable cheat and argues instead that only the understanding of those same sacred writings developed by authoritative commentators WITHIN the established apostolic Church should be recognized.

In other words, Irenaeus essentially plays with the term gnostikos for a specific purpose. There may be many claiming to be gnostokoi - i.e. claiming to have been in contact with a superior power - but the gnosis each of them claims to have received from this divine source is easily discredited because it is "absurd and confused and cannot be reconciled with the truth." So it is that the Christian use of the Platonic term gnostikoi is dispensed with - the conflicting claims of the various teachers disproves the whole 'gnostic tradition.'

What is often overlooked in any discussion of Irenaeus's treatise is the obvious influence of Celsus on his argumentation. Celsus repeatedly argues that Christianity originally developed as a misunderstanding of Plato within certain circles of Jewish believers. The original gnostic 'misunderstanding' was further complicated by an effort to take this sublime doctrine and make it available to the masses. To this end, by the middle of the second century a situation arose where a great number of Christians preaching a great number of contradictory things settled upon every street corner in Rome - "if these (Christians) bring forward this person, and others, again, a different individual while the common and ready cry of all parties is, 'Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,' what shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall join?"

In other words, Celsus and Irenaeus point to the same proof that the system was broken - i.e. there are too many Christians preaching too many conflicting understandings of salvation. The situation was making Christianity look completely foolish. Indeed it can be demonstrated also that both men appealed to the same source - the Emperor himself - to straighten out the problem, make Christian belief conform to the principles of good citizenship in the Empire, make them embrace world-affirming principles.

Of course this is a most unusual development. Why did a Christian and a pagan come to develop two very similar arguments aimed at rejecting over a century of Christian gnosis? Indeed when you really think about it is very difficult to believe that the two treatises were developed entirely independent of one another. I mean why should it be so 'self-evident' that merely because there are disagreements within the various teachings of the self-described 'gnostics' within the contemporary religion.

As we just noted this is a most curious argument for Celsus to have originally made given - as Origen rightly notes - the great plurality of sects which developed within Greek philosophy from a figure like Socrates. Surely Plato was no more 'disproved' by the example of Diogenes the Cynic than Marcion was by Valentinus? Nevertheless we are left with the strange situation where two important treatises were developed along the very same lines in the second half of the second century.

Again why was this argument so persuasive? Why was the existence of a great plurality of gnostikoi a line of attack shared by pagan detractors and Christian reformers alike? Part of the answer might lie in the age in which Celsus and Irenaeus wrote. Internal evidence from what we know of Celsus's treatise show that he wrote at a time when Christianity was being actively persecuted and when there seems to have been more than one emperor. This would point to either Marcus Aurelius with Lucius Verus (161-9), or the aftermath of the revolt of Avidius Cassius (175 - 180) when Aurelius's son young son was actively being groomed to replacing his ailing father on the throne. Henry Chadwick reviewed the evidence and preferred the latter period.

There is little doubt about the period Irenaeus was active - the rule of Commodus - and the city from which both men wrote is undoubtedly also the same - Rome. Irenaeus makes explicit mention of a number of Catholics serving in the court of Commodus and the apparent resentment of at least some of the traditional gnostikoi for their influence over the Emperor apparently through their association with his beloved concubine Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias. Yet there is another specifically Roman 'thing' which connects Celsus to Irenaeus - a historical chronicle called the υπομνηματα and certainly written in Rome in the year 147 CE.

There is an interesting passage which Eusebius the author of the fourth century History of the Church thankfully cites from the second century υπομνηματα. It apparently came from a letter attached to the front of the book purporting to be from the same author written over a generation later. During a discussion of the list of bishops of Jerusalem the author mentions a certain candidate who was overlooked for the episcopal chair who went on to become a heretic. A list of heretical schools including "Simon, from whom came the Simonians" as well the "Μαρκιανισταί, and Carpocratians ... each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.”

It is impossible not to begin to suspect that Celsus's testimony is somehow connected with this letter as both documents must have been written at the same time in the same city reporting on the same Christian sects in contemporary Rome and sharing the very same anti-gnostic polemic just mentioned. The unfortunate part of course is that again our information about Celsus's original work comes from a hostile and ultimately fragmentary source. But this much is clear - Celsus's reference to 'Simonians,' the 'Carpocratians' and the 'Marcionites' in the context of a discussion which appears - on the surface at least - to be of very similar nature from what appears in the υπομνηματα.

Celsus begins his discussion of the contemporary disputes of Christian sects at Rome by rhetorically accepting the gnostic view that Jesus was an angel. All of this serves as a set up for his next argument that reported to us by Origen witness that:

"the Jews accordingly, and these [Christians] have the same God" and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: "It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh" on which ... as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God "rested," [ἀναπαυσάμενος] - a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the "rest" [σαββατισμοῦ] which is reserved after it for the people of God," the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation.

This is a very important passage and one which gets typically glossed over by studies of the period. In yet another remarkable turn of events Celsus, who is generally described to be an 'anti-Christian' pagan writer, demonstrates quite clearly that he is not so hostile against the tradition associated with the so-called 'great Church' (μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας) - i.e. the tradition Origen identifies with the surviving orthodoxy. Indeed Irenaeus while citing the very same source identifies his own tradition with "the very great, the very ancient, [maximae et antiquissimae] and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Celsus and Irenaeus are clearly drawing from the same document and more importantly their shared anti-gnostic polemic is undoubtedly appropriated from this same υπομνηματα. Both Irenaeus and Celsus use this text to argue that Christianity can only be accepted as a tolerated religious tradition if it goes back to its Jewish religious roots. The self-described 'gnostikoi' who think they stand above the sacred laws owing to their communion with some super-celestial source must be officially condemned and the religion as a whole be brought 'back to earth' so to speak and its antinomian tendencies extirpated.

That Celsus is citing this same υπομνηματα known to Irenaeus and later Church Fathers is clear when we follow the preservation of his original argument through the sections which follow Origen's work. Celsus again emphasizes that all Christians "give the same account [logos] as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do" - highlighting the tendency of Jews to fight against one another. This is typified by the shared interest of Christians in the same descent into Egypt as [the Jews], and of their return thence" described by Celsus as a 'flight.'

Celsus again reinforces his knowledge of the υπομνηματα in a statement which apparently followed here - i.e. "after the above remarks he proceeds as follows: "Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came" and then we hear that Celsus clearly "imagines that the existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against Christianity."

This is unmistakably the very point at which Celsus cites directly or perhaps paraphrases loosely the contents of the original υπομνηματα which we can only glean the most general references from Origen's summary. I will cite all of the references here in full so that we can go on to prove - with absolutely certainty that Celsus had the υπομνηματα in front of him. Origen notes in order that:

Let it be admitted, then, that there are amongst us some who deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews ... And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class who call certain persons "carnal," and others "spiritual," ... And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus.

Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law ... [and] who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings,--what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled "those of the multitude?"

He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists [Σιβυλλιστάς].

He next pours down Upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians ... But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things.

Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.

In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that there are others "who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous."

... "Moreover," he continues, "these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred." Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects ... and we would not utter "all manner of things shameful to be spoken" against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone ... [and] would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.

Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle [viz. 1 Tim 4:2] and to have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that "certain among the Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears" and also that some are termed "enigmas,"--a term which we have never met. The expression "stumbling-block" is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings ... but neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. [Origen Against Celsus 5.61 - 64]

It will be argued here for the first time that Celsus's arguments were drawn from the now lost υπομνηματα dated to the very period he was active. Irenaeus also knew and cited from this text as did later Church Fathers and - it shall be argued - that with this discovery we have effectively uncovered a missing link which ties the development of the so-called 'great Church to an officially sanctioned Christian tradition, incubated and coddled by Roman authorities to effectively replace the original gnostikoi of Alexandria.

Early in the last century Hugh Jackson Lawlor developed a convincing argument that a well known fourth century Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis was actually bypassing Irenaeus's description of the so-called Carpocratian sect and actually getting his information from our υπομνηματα. Now when we compare Celsus's citation of material common to Irenaeus and Epiphanius we see that his use of the υπομνηματα was actually earlier than the rest. We see for instance in our side by side comparison of sources regarding the heretics who:

... deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews

Carpocrates says in his turn that there is one first principle on high, and he introduces an unknowable, unnameable Father of all, like the others. But he says that the world, and everything in the world, were produced by angels far inferior to the unknowable Father [Epiphanius Panarion 27.2.1]

... give themselves out as Gnostics

During Anicetus's episcopate then, as I said, Marcellina appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruptions of Carpocrates teachings, and destroyed many there of her corruption of them. And that made the beginning of the so-called Gnostics. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.6.8]

... boast that they are Christians and would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law

And what is more, the souls like his pursue the same ends can be freed in the same way and soar aloft to the unknowable Father, once they are finally freed by performing all the acts, similarly finishing with them all. But though it had been reared in Jewish customs Jesus' soul despised them [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.3]

[the Roman Church is divided into those] who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings

But these people will be shamed again, from their other words as well. For if Jesus is not the offspring of a virgin, Mary, but of Joseph's seed and the same Mary, and yet Jesus is saved, then the persons whose offspring he is will also be saved. And if Mary and Joseph are of the demiurge, then they have said that the demiurge is the creator ; and the maker of Mary and Joseph, by whose agency Jesus has come from the unknowable Father on high, cannot be defective. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.8]

or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings

But he says that Jesus our Lord is begotten of Joseph, just as all men were generated from a man's seed and a woman. He is like anyone else, but is different in life — in prudence, virtue and a life of righteousness. Because he received a more vigorous soul than other men's, and he remembered what it had seen on high when it was on the unknowable Father's carousel, powers were sent to his soul by the Father so that it would be able to recall what it had seen and gain power to escape the angels who made the world by progressing through every act there is and everything man can do, even strange, unlawful deeds done in secret —and so this same soul of Jesus, once freed by all he acts, could ascend to the same unknowable Father who had sent it the powers from above in order that it could win through to him on on high by progressing through all the acts and being released. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.2]

He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. He makes mention also of the Marcionites.

... among the people, like Simon from whom came the Simonians ... and Μαρκιανισταί and Carpocratians.[Eusebius citing directly from the υπομνηματα AH 4.22.2]

I have now heard in some connection of a dupe of theirs, a Marcellina, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, successor of Pius and the bishops before him [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.6]

... who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.

The members of this unlawful school put all sorts of horrid, pernicious deeds into practice. They have thought up magic devices and invented various incantations—love charms and spells—for every purpose. What is more, they summon familiar spirits too, in order to great power over everyone with the aid of much magic , they say, each of them can be master of anyone he wishes, and in any activity he may venture to undertake. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.3]

The plain fact is that these people perform everything unspeakable and unlawful, which is not right to mention, and every kind of homosexual act and carnal intercourse with women, with every member of the body. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.4]

Moreover, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred.

regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.

Celsus reflecting on the general tone of the υπομνηματα and its enmity toward supposedly 'fellow Christians.' As Origen notes to the first citation above "now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects ... and we would not utter "all manner of things shameful to be spoken" against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone ..."

... are called cauterized in the ears

And this school of Carpocrates mark their dupes' right ear-lobes with a burning iron, or using a razor or needle. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.5]

... [called] "stumbling-block"

But they have been prepared by Satan, and put forward as a reproach and stumbling-block for God's church [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.3]

... styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude.

They perform all magic, sorcery and idolatry, and say that this is the discharge of their debts in the body, so that they will not be charged any more or required to do anything else, and for this reason the soul will not be turned back after its departure and go on to another incarnation and transmigration.

Their literature is such that the intelligent reader will be astounded and shocked, and doubt that human beings can do such things — not only civilized people like ourselves, but even those who wild beasts and bestial, brutish men, and all but venture to behave like dogs and swine. For they say they absolutely must make every use of these things, or their souls may depart shy some work, and so be returned to bodies, to do all over again what they have not done. [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.4,5]

continued in the next post ...

stephan huller

As Celsus pulls away from his source he goes back to using the υπομνηματα to demonstrate how hostile the tone of contemporary Roman Christian dialogue really was:

And yet this man, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: "You may hear," he says, "all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'"

Celsus's real interest of course was to extract the admission that Christians identified themselves as gnostikoi from Plato and so 'stole all their ideas' from Plato. As our Christian source summarizes the contents of what follows in Celsus's work the discussion is so extensive he decides to devote an entire book to the argument of Christian appropriation of Plato:

He then continues: "Although they have no foundation for the doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in the first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd manner on things which they do not understand, such as the following." And then, to certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others from the writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it appear that the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have been expressed in better and clearer language by the philosophers, in order that he might drag away to the study of philosophy those who are caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble and religious character.

It is worth noting that the idea that the gnostikoi venerated Plato once again comes directly from the υπομνηματα:

They possess images like these in secret, and of certain philosophers besides — Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest — and also place other reliefs of Jesus with these philosophers. And having erected them, they worship them and celebrate heathen mysteries. For once they have set these images up, they then follow the customs of heathen; yet what are customs of the heathen but sacrifices and the rest? [Epiphanius Panarion 1.27.6]

Indeed if we look closely at Epiphanius's citation of the υπομνηματα it is clear that he is aware that this material was indeed cited in a hostile pagan work against Christianity for he writes:

But they have been prepared by Satan, and put forward as a reproach and stumbling-block for God's church For they have adopted the name of “Christian,” though Satan has arranged this so that the heathen will be scandalized by them and reject the benefit of God's holy church and its real message, because of their wickedness and their intolerable evil deeds— so that the heathen, observing the continual behavior of the evildoers themselves and supposing that the members of God's holy church are of the same kind, will refuse the hearing of God's real teaching, as I said, or even, seeing certain (of us) , blaspheme us all alike. And so, wherever they see such people, most of the heathen will not come near us for conversation or an exchange of views, or to listen to sacred discourse, and will not give us a hearing, since they are frightened by the unholy deeds of the wicked people [Epiphanius 1.27.3]

I think it is impossible to argue that Celsus was not aware of the contents of the υπομνηματα known to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius. He most certainly employed this text as his source for contemporary controversies in the Roman Church. It was moreover central to the purpose of a work as a whole. As we noted earlier both he and Irenaeus had a vested interest in demonizing the gnostikoi. The question of course is whether the υπομνηματα was established for the specific purpose of discrediting rival traditions to the newly emergent Roman Church.

mountainman

An alternative and possible permutation is that Irenaeus and Celsus Used the Same υπομνηματα as Eusebius and Epiphanius simply inherited these.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Excellent exposition of this interesting subject.

I think it is important that as you say, "Celsus repeatedly argues that Christianity originally developed as a misunderstanding of Plato within certain circles of Jewish believers."

It seems to me that this answers the question, "whether the υπομνηματα was established for the specific purpose of discrediting rival traditions to the newly emergent Roman Church."

The answer is "No." I think it is clear that Celsus is simply getting his information from the only available encyclopeida on Chrisitanity at the time or υπομνηματα as you call it. There is no reason to believe that the υπομνηματα was doing anything more than reporting on the variety of beliefs among Christians in Rome.

This υπομνηματα plays an important and perhaps decisive role in the creation of proto-orthodox Christianity. It allows the Christians post 180 to create Christianity 2.0. They can pick and choose among the doctrines to create an entirely new doctrine that makes Jesus an appealing hero to the Greco-Romans living in the post 180's. Older holy texts like the gospel of Barnabus, Sheperd of Hermas, and the Didache can be discarded and a new holy text - Luke - can be written, Mark, Matthew and John can be edited to be in line with Luke and letters of Paul and the other apostles can be edited to match the new orthodoxy, or at least not directly promote gnostic doctrines.

I think your statement "I believe many of these unrelated original lectures which were later assembled into his five volume work commonly known as Against All Heresies, likely by a close disciple" is an absolutely brilliant hypothesis.

This allows us to move "Against All heresies" to the early 200's, which puts it in line with the works of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin (Philosopher jay)

aa5874

The early 200's is a bit too early I would think. Perhaps the early 300's.

Eusebius used the writings of Irenaeus extensively for his "history" of the Church. It would appear that the "history" of the Church was invented in the early 300's.

Once "Against Heresies" is properly examined it would be seen that it is ANACHRONISTIC.

There was NO UNIVERSALLY accepted doctrine by so-called Christians even up to the time of the so-called Origen who supposedly wrote AFTER Irenaeus.

Origen is EXTREMELY clear. People who BELIEVE in Christ had NO UNIVERSALLY accepted belief.

This is the preface to "De Principiis"

It was sometime in the early 300's that under Constantine that a UNIVERSALLY accepted doctrine was put in place or initiated. Before Constantine there was really NO heresies, NO unorthodox beliefs, just DIFFERENCES.


Please NOTE the words in the preface of the De Principiis.

There was NO universal belief about Jesus among those who profess to believe in Christ up to the writing of "De Principiis" or the early 200's.

"Against Heresies" or parts thereof may have been written in the early 300's.

stephan huller

I was avoiding weighing into this discussion but a date of 300+ is silly. Why on earth would someone have 'invented' a text like Against Celsus which features (a) a third century Church Father refuting (b) a second century pagan anti-Christian treatise which (c) employed a lost contemporary Christian υπομνηματα which is (d) indirectly cited by other second century Christians.

Only whack jobs posited the essentially crazy idea that the Patristic texts were invented in the fourth century merely because Eusebius SEEMED to be the first to cite the earlier material. But now we have clear and unmistakable evidence that a second century υπομνηματα was cited by Christian and non-Christian witnesses from the second century.

Because AA thinks that Justin Martyr is one of the only surviving 'pure' texts (why I remember this is beyond me) here is checkmate.

There is an undeniable relationship between this lost υπομνηματα cited in writings of Christian authors like Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius and Celsus's report on contemporary controversies in the Christian community in Rome. So what was the reason why all these different individuals employed this historical text? It was certainly the earliest Christian chronicle. Yet I think it was also the first 'expose' as it were - a remarkable piece of journalism where one Christian was accusing an entire Church of engaging in absolutely abominable acts. This is certainly one very strong reason why Celsus's was attracted to the text. His attack against those calling themselves gnostikoi immediately became all the more credible as he was citing from Christian sources.

It is difficult to determine how accurate the original information in this υπομνηματα really was. There are some important differences between Origen's report about Celsus's use of the material and what was known to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius. While Celsus mentions the existence of the 'Harpocratians of Salome' he does not seem to explicitly connect all the reports originally associated with the Carpocratians in the original text. Origen never makes the connection between Celsus's report and the material in the υπομνηματα and neither again Irenaeus's five volume work, nor to Hippolytus's Refutation of All Heresies nor with any other syntagma which might have mentioned this sect. Origen interestingly doesn't even correct Celsus with regards to his identification of the sect as 'Harpocratians' instead of Carpocratians.

There are other curiosities in Origen's reporting as well. The actual name of the sect in the original text cited by Eusebius is Μαρκιανισταί. Origen produces instead Μαρκιωνιστων but adds clearly the name Marcion to explain the original reading. Yet the original source Celsus was producing must have read very much like Eusebius's υπομνηματα - a list of names of sects without much in the way of explanation:

From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Μαρκιανισταί, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion.

It is interesting to note that an almost identical list of names appears in our surviving copies of Justin Martyr's Apology:

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites. Some are called Μαρκιανοί, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine [Apology 35]

The passage has been recognized by Marcovich and Otto to derive from the υπομνηματα. So if all the manuscripts likely read 'those of Mark' why did Origen effectively go out of his way to provide another reading entirely that had nothing to do with Mark? I think it has everything to do with the υπομνηματα being the original source for Clement's discussion in To Theodore about the relationship of the Carpocratians to the secret gospel of St. Mark.

But let's not get distracted here. We have TWO second century Christian witnesses to the υπομνηματα (Justin, Irenaeus and possibly a third Clement of Alexandria) and one pagan (Celsus). This should be the end of the whole 'Christianity was invented in the fourth century' theory but I know pride is difficult to control.

aa5874

Well please explain how the BISHOP Irenaeus could TEACH and WRITE that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered and that John the apostle taught the very same nonsense when in gJohn Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was the high priest.

And please explain how, according to you, the Church writers INVENTED Marcion who was really Agrippa.

And please explain how more than one person has been deduced to have written under the name of Paul.

Please explain how the TF was found in a 1st century writing by Josephus.

Do you even remember that you have put forward the notion that the Church writings may have been heavily interpolated and distorted?

It is not a secret that any writings or parts of any writing from the Church writers may have been forged.

Who was the first to claim Marcion was Agrippa? Not even Eusebius.

stephan huller

The idea that St Mark might have been Marcus Julius Agrippa is an unprovable thesis. The idea that all or most of the writings of the Church Father were invented in the fourth century and projected back to the first, second and third century is an incredible thesis. There is an important difference.

As you reference the idea that the Marcionite tradition might well be a surviving remnant of a cult devoted to St. Mark developed before the influence of Roman ideas over Alexandria in my mind the υπομνηματα revolutionizes our understanding of where 'Marcion' developed.

It all develops from that side by side comparison we just did which shows that the υπομνηματα was preserved in the writings of Justin.

The obvious question which SHOULD emerge from the discovery of this influential υπομνηματα in the late second century is why the 'Carpocratians' don't appear in the parallel list in Justin's Dialogue. This is a very important omission. The two lists appear to be virtually identical save for the reference to the one sect. How is this to be explained? The answer must be that a Catholic editor in the late second century added the allusion to the heretical lists of the υπομνηματα and that it was recognized that whoever the 'Carpocratians' were they had no existence before the coming of Marcellina to Rome. This is a very important realization and indeed if we look at the original context of this addition to the Dialogue it becomes clear WHY a later editor added this information from the υπομνηματα at this very point in his discussion with Trypho.

Justin is in the process of developing a very familiar Samaritan argument - namely that Solomon was not a messianic ruler. We read at the end of chapter 34 Justin's declaration that:

And at the close of this Psalm which I have quoted, it is written, 'The hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended.' Moreover, that Solomon was a renowned and great king, by whom the temple called that at Jerusalem was built, I know; but that none of those things mentioned in the Psalm happened to him, is evident. For neither did all kings worship him; nor did he reign to the ends of the earth; nor did his enemies, failing before him, lick the dust. Nay, also, I venture to repeat what is written in the book of Kings as committed by him, how through a woman's influence he worshipped the idols of Sidon ..."[Dialogue 34]

The original reference clearly ended here with Justin developing a typically Samaritan polemic against Solomon. The Catholic editor wanted to distract us from what was clearly originally a debate over the status of Solomon which again continues among Samaritans and Jews to this very day. So it was that the reference to women leading Solomon into idolatry naturally reminded the editor of the famous passage in the υπομνηματα which dealt with Marcellina, the 'Carpocratians' and the leading astray of the contemporary Church to the worship of idols.

So it is that we see inserted into the original text a discussion which dealing with contemporary Christian idolatry. The following words are added onto the last sentence in Justin "through a woman's influence he worshipped the idols of Sidon, which those of the Gentiles who know God, the Maker of all things through Jesus the crucified, do not venture to do, but abide every torture and vengeance even to the extremity of death, rather than worship idols, or eat meat offered to idols." At this point a discussion is continued which brings in themes from the υπομνηματα again as a distraction:

And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him. For what things He predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." And, 'There shall be schisms and heresies.' And, 'Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites. Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine. So that, in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after Him, as well as in consequence of many other events which He foretold would befall those who believed on and confessed Him, the Christ. For all that we suffer, even when killed by friends, He foretold would take place; so that it is manifest no word or act of His can be found fault with. Wherefore we pray for you and for all other men who hate us; in order that you, having repented along with us, may not blaspheme Him who, by His works, by the mighty deeds even now wrought through His name, by the words He taught, by the prophecies announced concerning Him, is the blameless, and in all things irreproachable, Christ Jesus; but, believing on Him, may be saved in His second glorious advent, and may not be condemned to fire by Him."

As we shall see this formula of a specific judgement by fire is absolutely typical of Irenaeus's apostolic creed and thus we must begin to suspect - owing not only to this reference but the incorporation of material from the beloved υπομνηματα - that Irenaeus was ultimately responsible for this addition to the text. This excursus abruptly ends here and chapter 36 goes back to the original discussion of prophetic proofs for the messiahood of Jesus.

The important point to remember here is that Irenaeus must have been restricted in his employment of the υπομνηματα otherwise he would have included the reference to the Carpocratians. The reason they have to be left off the new list in Justin is the fact that the original reference in the υπομνηματα tied their advent with the appearance of Marcellina in Rome during the reign of Anicetus. While later Church accounts place Justin's martyrdom during the reign of Antoninus Pius's sons Eusebius's discussion of Justin gives us no evidence that he wrote anything this late.

To this end, the only logical inference for why the Catholic editor of the Dialogue removed the Carpocratians from the list appropriated from the υπομνηματα was that Marcellina's appearance in the city was deemed to be subsequent to Justin's martyrdom as such Justin couldn't have written about the sect (it is worth noting that all early sources on Justin's death connect it with a certain Cynic named Crescens who doesn't appear in the later Martyrdom narrative which dates his death to the reign of Rusticus the prefect).

The interesting discovery out of all of this of course is that the origin of the Carpocratians has to be tied with the appearance of the shadowy figure of Marcellina in the latter part of the reign of Anicetus. Marcellina is a diminutive of the feminine form of the name 'Marcus.' Interestingly we see in the very same period a parallel story about the coming of another heretic to Rome who bore what amounts to the Greek equivalent of the diminutive of Marcus in Greek - i.e. Marcion.

The late Latin poem 'Against Marcion' features an episcopal list ending in Anicestus like the original υπομνηματα but now references the coming of 'little Mark' (Marcion) rather than the coming of 'little Marcia' (Marcellina):

And Anicetus the allotted post in pious order undertook.'
Neath whom Marcion here coming, the new Pontic pest,
The secret daring deed in his own heart not yet disclosed,
went, speaking commonly, in all directions, in his perfidy,
With lurking art. But after he began his deadly arrows to produce,
cast off deservedly (as author of a crime so savage),
reprobated by the saints, he burst, a wondrous monster! on our view.

The five volume work in Irenaeus's name places Marcion at Rome under Anicetus - "invaluit sub Aniceto"(AH 3.4.3). Tertullian only adds that Marcion and Valentinus "lived not so long ago — in the reign of Antoninus for the most part, — and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled."[Prescr. 30]

Yet there is a clear problem now reconciling this information with Irenaeus's use of the υπομνηματα. The υπομνηματα only mentions the Μαρκιανισταί 'those of Mark.' Dialogue's appropriation of Μαρκιανοί strengthens this original reading. It is important to note that Origen attempt at explanation - i.e. that Μαρκιανισταί MUST mean 'those of Marcion' is NOT a mediation on the original text of the υπομνηματα but Celsus's citation of that text. The rest of Origen's citation of the section makes clear that Celsus's was very loose in his employment of the original material - and Origen says as much on a number of occasions.

The difficulty then that is clearly before is that not a single contemporary witness to the period which actually says that a person named 'Marcion' came to Rome during the reign of Anicetus. These references come subsequent to the υπομνηματα and specifically with Irenaeus's claims regarding his master Polycarp's encounter with a man of this name. This reference to 'Marcion' actually brackets Irenaeus's citation of the same original υπομνηματα for we read in Book Three the following explanation of Marcion's arrival in Rome:

And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if per- chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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. Sorer 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 which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth. [AH 3.2.1 - 3.4]

The implication clearly is now that Irenaeus - or a later editor who assembled the Five Books Against All Heresies - is deliberately modifying the contents of the original υπομνηματα. Instead of a heretical sect associated with 'Mark' a deliberate attempt is made to explain the heresy as being associated with 'Marcion.' Indeed no less an authority than Polycarp himself, the author of the υπομνηματα is brought forward to argue that there was a figure named 'Marcion' at this time. Tertullian's claim that 'little Mark' continued to stay in Rome until the reign of Eleutherius is paralleled by the report in the original υπομνηματα that 'little Marcia' came during the reign of Anicetus and stayed until Eleutherius.

The idea is already assumed by the Wikipedia entry on the subject of the υπομνηματα http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler) which notes that it is related to "a list which has some curious agreements with Epiphanius in that it extends only to Anicetus, is found in the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion; apparently Epiphanius has mistaken Marcion for "Marcellina." But the fact that Celsus explicitly references Marcellina and not 'Marcion' turns the tables.

Suddenly there is very little historical evidence for the existence of 'Marcion' and his supposed visit to Rome during the reign of Anicetus ...

mountainman

You have also been avoiding any discussion of the "Historia Augusta", a very relevant and comparable text known to have been fabricated 300 + since it clearly falls within the bounds of a similar pattern of FORGED HISTORICAL evidence.

Why on earth would someone have invented a text like the "Historia Augusta" which features (a) superficially four separate authors whom modern scholars seem to assess as just one author playing games, (b) the inclusion of at least 160 fake bogus documents, (c) sources which are obviously invented, and (d) other invented sources which were invented for the explicit purpose of disagreeing with the earlier invented sources.

Until you address the nature and the existence of this "bogus mockumentary" known as the "Historia Augusta" you are not dealing with the evidence available from that specific epoch. Your question "Why on earth ... " above clearly shows that you think it is inconceivable that someone would fabricate such a mixed hodge podge of literature as the "Church History". But the evidence tells us very clearly that SOMEONE in the 4th century most assuredly did engage in the open fabrication of "Historical Accounts".

aa5874

You may be distracted. Not me.

My position is that the "HISTORY" of the ROMAN CHURCH was INVENTED when the writer under the name of Eusebius wrote "CHURCH HISTORY".

The writer did CONFESS that he had NOTHING but some fragments at the start.

This would imply that from the day the writer was born to the very day he started to write he ONLY knew of or had some fragments. No-one had told him about any LIBRARIES full of books that were easily accessible . He could NOT have had the letter from Jesus to Agbar NOR have Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings, just some fragment

For his ENTIRE supposed Christian life up to the day he wrote he admitted he had ONLY some fragments.

Examine excerpts of the CONFESSION from the "FIRST historian" of the Church.

"Church History" 1.1 Now the "FIRST historian" did NAME some of the writers that he used to INVENT the "History of the Church" and Irenaeus is on the list.

Irenaeus supposedly supplied the list of the FIRST 12 Bishops of Rome and it is almost certain that any list which contains a character called the apostle Peter as a Bishop of Rome is a bogus list.

And it was the ROMAN CHURCH in the 4th century that NEEDED a list that could show that the apostle Peter was the so-called FIRST bishop of the Roman Church.

But the apostle Peter did NOT exist.

Parts of or ALL of the writings of Irenaeus were INVENTED for the 4th century ROMAN CHURCH under control by the Emperor of Rome.