stephan huller

I know that this question will inevitably bring comments like 'the writings of the Church are all forged' but I ask anyway with the hope that someone might have some insight I don't possess. The reference comes from Irenaeus's Proof of the Apostolic Preaching which is only completely preserved in Armenian. It preserves the passage as:

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified. For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king ... Again He says in the Twelve Prophets: And they bound him and brought him as a present to the king. For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king.[Proof 74, 77]

Every commentator has noted that this fits with Irenaeus statement in Book Two of Against the Heresies that Jesus was almost fifty when crucified. Since Irenaeus knows that Jesus was thirty in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (29 CE) the last possible year of the reign of Claudius that Irenaeus could have thought that Jesus was crucified would be 49 CE (assuming his birthday was later that same year).

Yet there is another wrinkle - the reign of Herod. It is difficult enough to imagine that Pilate was governor for Claudius but how did he reconcile the idea that Herod remained king of Judea for so long too?

A possible clue - Irenaeus's language sounds eerily reminiscent of Acts throughout especially:

For of a truth in this city, against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate were gathered together with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass. [Acts chapter 4]

We take it for granted that the 'Herod' of Acts was 'Agrippa I.' But did Irenaeus believe that? I don't think so.

As such could Acts chapter twelve's description of Herod's death have been thought by Irenaeus to be a description of the end of the king who persecuted Jesus?

Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church in Judaea. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And when he saw that his laying hands upon the faithful pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread. And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in the prison: but much prayer in earnestness about him was made by the church to God about him. And when Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with |66 two chains, and guards before the door were keeping the prison. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by Peter, and a light shined in the cell; and he nudged Peter on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And he did so. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee and follow me. And he went out and followed; and he wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; for he thought he saw a vision. And when they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city, which opened to them of its own accord, and they went out, and went down the seven steps, and passed on through one street; and straightway the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a truth, that the Lord hath sent forth his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark: where many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid came to answer, named Rhoda. And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for joy, and ran in and told that Peter stood before the gate. And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she confidently affirmed that it was even so. And they said Perchance it is his angel. But Peter continued knocking. And when they had opened and saw him, they were astonished. But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, came in and declared unto them how that the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed and went to another place. Now as soon as it was day, there was a |67 [no small] stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and tarried there.

For he was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they with one accord from both the cities came to the king, and having persuaded Blastus the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country was fed from the king's country. And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, and sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them, after being reconciled with the Tyrians. And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory. And he came down from the throne, and while he was still living he was eaten of worms, and thus gave up the ghost.

I guess Irenaeus couldn't have used our received copies of Josephus (even though there is a catena reference that claims he knew Josephus). His timeline seems out of whack. But what's the solution? How could Irenaeus have thought that Pilate and Herod were ruling Judea during the reign of Claudius?

aa5874

It is claimed that Irenaeus was a BISHOP so he must have known the Church's position on the age of Jesus when he supposedly suffered.

There is no Church writer BEFORE of AFTER Irenaeus who claimed Jesus was about 50 years old before he died and even so-called Heretics claimed Jesus was about 30 years old.

If "Against Heresies" is itself fundamentally historical, then Irenaeus should have KNOWN and READ the FOUR Gospels, ACTS of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline writings and Revelation.

The NT Canon does NOT show that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius.

Irenaeus wrote about Justin Martyr and Justin did clearly state that Jesus was crucified under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

"First Apology" It would appear that "Against Heresies" was written in a VACUUM. It is just NOT conceivable or realistic that people of antiquity including heretics read and saw "Against Heresies". Irenaeus was a FAKE bishop

DCHindley

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus was born Tiberius Claudius Nero

The Herod in question is Herod Antipas. Antipatros issued coins under the name Herod, and Josephus frequently calls him this as well. Refer to Nikkos Kokkinos on this.

I'm kind of surprised that you did not know these things.

DCH

stephan huller

DC

I am obviously aware of what is considered normative history. Irenaeus however has a completely different understanding of the Christian chronology and I am trying to reconstruct what his sources might have been.

One of them was certainly Acts and I am merely noting here that Irenaeus doesn't just think that Pilate was governor for CLAUDIUS but that Herod - i.e. the Herod that tried Jesus - was also STILL king of Judea into the reign of CLAUDIUS.

The question I am asking is 'how could this be?' It doesn't matter to me again what is historically accurate necessarily but rather what are the sources Irenaeus was using.

Perhaps I would have been better ask - how can the catena claim that Irenaeus used Josephus when he thinks that Pilate and Herod could have ruled Judea until a date as late as 49 CE.

You see it has always struck as strange that Acts supposedly calls 'Agrippa I' Herod when this would obviously confuse him with the person Josephus calls 'Herod' - i.e. Antipas. It also struck me as odd that 'Agrippa II' is simply called 'Agrippa' when Eusebius consistently references him as 'Agrippa the son of Agrippa' or some other name like that.

Did Irenaeus use Josephus? Did Irenaeus know there were two Agrippas? How did Irenaeus think that Pilate and the Herod who killed Jesus lived until a date of 49 CE?

These are the questions which a proper study of Irenaeus demands, not which arise as a result of my alleged 'ignorance' of the facts.

stephan huller

AA,

The same thing applies to your question:

That isn't exactly accurate. Smith in his translation for the Ancient Christian Writers Series published by Newman asks the questions you and DC fail to ask. He writes:

Pontius Pilate was in fact governor from 27 - 37 AD under Tiberius and so was recalled before the accession of Claudius (41 AD). Irenaeus, however maintained that Christ died at the beginning of the reign of Claudius, and so makes Pilate "the procurator of Claudius." In AH 2.22.5 Irenaeus says that this dating of Christ's death was the witness of all the 'elders' who knew John in Asia, as being St. John's own account, and that others gave the same account as being that of other apostles; and in the following section (2.22.6) alleges as confirmation John 8:57 - the Jews therefore said to Him: thou art not yet fifty years old; from this Irenaeus concludes that He must have been at least forty. He supposed, therefore, that about ten years of teaching elapsed between Christ's death and His baptism (in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius at the age of about thirty cf. Luke 3.1 and 23). As Irenaeus had had personal knowledge of at least one 'elder' who had known John in Asia - namely, Polycarp - his evidence is not without weight, and it is not easy to explain how he could have fallen into this error of dating; for error it certainly is, though supported by a 'proof from tradition' of greater weight than most such proofs [p. 205]

This is as far as Smith will go - which is a relatively reasonable assessment (at least as far as assessments from people who always capitalize 'he' when referencing Jesus go).

The question however has a number of hidden alleyways that few people have considered. The most obvious is whether 'Luke' the author of the gospel and Acts thought the 'Herod' of Luke - i.e. "That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies." [Luke 23:12] was the same 'Herod' of Acts i.e. - "It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them." [Acts 12:1]

It doesn't matter what the real historical chronology is. If as Smith notes Irenaeus was only faithfully reporting what Polycarp believed and Polycarp stood closer to the author of Acts than any of us - the author of Acts might have thought the same Herod lived on for two years after the Passion and persecuted the Church.

In other words, the 'skeptics' at this site sometimes act in the same manner as the pious who can't get around assuming that 'Herod' has to be 'Agrippa I' because 'real history' demands it.

The reality might be that the author of Luke-Acts, Polycarp (assuming he is not the author of Luke-Acts) and Irenaeus all might have shared some bizarre historical chronology based on a variant source. Hence the question of whether Luke-Acts is based on a variant copy of Josephus (as 'Luke' clearly is developing his chronology based on information from some kind of Josephan text).

So the question boils down to (a) if Irenaeus used Acts and (b) the author of Luke-Acts used some variant copy of Josephus - is it reasonable to assume that Irenaeus didn't have access to Luke's variant copy of Josephus.

I don't think so especially as we have references to Irenaeus using Josephus in the (admittedly unreliable) catena.

The question then (if there are no objections so far) is why the editor of the Josephan chronology had all this misinformation.

stephan huller

Some observations about the earliest manuscripts of Josephus and their chronology. Pseudo-Hegesippus, like Slavonic Josephus, intimates that Jesus was crucified at the last possible moment of the reign of Tiberius (37 CE interesting being the only date which allows for a Passover with Sunday March 25th as Easter Sunday as I have noted elsewhere). The Latin narrative has the following information after the incident of the statue of Isis sinking into the Tiber:

This wantonness therefore which occurred with Tiberius reigning I thought ought not to be passed over, so that from it the impropriety of the emperor might be assessed. For indeed the life of uprightness of a good leader is a certain rule and pattern of living for all, so the filth of an emperor is a law for scoundrels. Pilatus was sent by him into Judaea, a wicked man and putting falsehoods in unimportant matters, he encircled the Samaritans as they were going to the mountain which has the name Gadir (Gerizim) --for it was sacred to them--for the reason that he wished to learn their mysteries. And going up he outstripped the people with cavalry and infantry, he spread abroad with a contrived charge, that they had prepared to withdraw from the Romans and were seeking a place of assembly for themselves. What indeed did he not dare, who had put even Christ the lord on the cross, coming for the salvation of the human race, pouring forth upon men with many and divine works the grace of his mercy and teaching nothing other, unless that he should make peoples obedient first to god, and then to emperors? A raving man who was the servant of the madness of sacrilege, and who killed the author of salvation. And so through him the the state of the Jews as destroyed, through him there was ruin for the nation and a hastened destruction for the temple. For if Herod, who handed over John to be killed, paid the price for his treachery and cruelty (by being) thrown out from the royal power and given into exile, by how much more headlong fury is the action to be understood given (against) him who killed Christ? What was the cause of death for John I shall set forth briefly. Philippus and Herod who was previously called Antipas we showed above to have been brothers; the wife of Philippus (had been) Herodias whom Herodes unlawfully and wickedly associated to himself by right of marriage. John did not tolerate this and said to him: "it is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother." Then the former provoked threw John into prison. And not much later he killed the just man and immovable executor of divine law. For not only as a preacher of the gospel had he blamed the incest of the brother's marriage bed, but even as an executor of the law he censured the transgressor of the law who had taken by force the wife of a living brother, especially having seed of him. Aroused by this the hatred and retribution of almost all Jews was hastened against Herod. The supporter of whom Herodias, seeing Agrippa to have had much influence with Caesar, drove him to go to Rome, where he should win over the favor of the emperor to himself, putting before him the affront of idleness, because shunning work, while he stayed at home, he allowed indignities to be brought forward against himself. For since from being a private citizen Agrippa had been made a king, how much more therefore should Caesar not hesitate that he should confer a kingdom upon him who had already long been a tetrarch. And so by no means sustaining the reproaches of his wife, he proceeded to Rome, while he was seeking the friendship of Gaius, impugned by Agrippa he lost even the tetrarchy, which he had received from Julius Augustus, and going into exile in Spain together with his wife Herodias he died from grief of mind. Tiberius having died also Gaius succeeded, who, wishing himself as the ruler both to be seen as and to be called a god, gave causes to the Jews of a very serious rebellion, and lest he should destroy the empire with a quick end, made a quicker end of the nation of the Jews. For not only did he not call his men back from illegal acts, but he even threatened those sent into Judaea with the ultimate punishment, unless they accomplished with their arms everything against justice and the dictates of religion. Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.[Pseudo-Hegesippus 2.5]

Interestingly the MSS of Slavonic Josephus preserve the last line in a strikingly different way "he [Agrippa] himself having at Caesarea after a reign of three years having no son." One edition goes on to cite (i) Acts 12:1 - 2 (the reference to 'Herod' killing James) (ii) the end of 'Herod' at Caesarea (Acts 12:21 - 23) and then (iii) Malalas X.17.

Indeed Slavonic Josephus has a parallel chronology albeit with different material components (a) Philip has a dream where Agrippa the eagle takes over his kingdom before dying and Agrippa receiving his kingdom, (b) John the Baptist's accusation of Herod (c) 'Caesar' takes away Herod's domain and gives it to Agrippa banishing Herod and Herodias to Spain (d) Pilate's placing of the 'semaia' of Caesar in the temple (e) the crucifixion of Jesus (f) Pilate's taking money from the temple to build an aqueduct.

This arrangement is shared by all Slavonic texts however some MSS place the banishment of Herod IMMEDIATELY AFTER these events:

A short while afterward Herod went to Tiberius (begging him) so that he might honour his domain with a royal title. And Caesar was furious because of his insatiability. He took away his domain and added it to Agrippa's and banished him to Spain.

It is also interesting to quote the exact language of the narrative that follows in all MSS because of its inexactness as to the name of the Caesar in Rome.

and (Caesar) extended his wantonness against the Jews and sent Petronius <his commander> with troops against Jerusalem ...

Only towards the end of the narrative does the name 'Gaius' appear. I wonder whether there was ever a Josephan narrative that supported the idea that Jesus was crucified under Claudius. It certainly doesn't exist now. But did it at one time? And was it subsequently corrected for its inaccuracies which caused Irenaeus to err? All good questions.

DCHindley

You need to phrase your question differently, then.

So, it doesn't matter that there are perfectly good and highly likely explanations for Claudius for Tiberius (calling him by the given family name to suggest Tiberius was not worthy of his adoption), or simply "Herod" for Herod Antipas (it is, after all, the name he called himself), what counts are the alternative theories?

What exactly do you think this exercise demonstrates? That early Christians did not seem to have a firm grasp of the exact events of their origins, and flip flopped and backpeddled like politicians? This doesn't prove the Jesus story a myth or a calculated attempt to deceive, or even a worthless pile.

Why can't Christians redefine themselves like every other group, including the Hebrew people (Persian return, then after Maccabean revolt, then the Rabbinic response to the destruction to temple cultus)? Each of these three Hebrew/Jewish rdefinitions include written records with crazy and seemingly contradictory or erroneous chronologies: Ezra/Nehemiah, Daniel, the Talmuds.

CAULACAU, SAULASU, ZEESAR (sic, Isa 28:10).

DCH

stephan huller

DC

I was trying to be polite and start a conversation. This statement is unworkable:

'Tiberius' changed his name to 'Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus' after he took office. He is never referenced as 'Claudius' and that explains why Smith doesn't even consider the possibility nor has anyone else when referencing the difficulty. And it is a difficulty. That's why I cited Smith in the critical edition.

The idea that Irenaeus called Tiberius 'Claudius' is untenable. To simply gloss over the citation like this is unfortunate. The rest of your comment:

I am not a mythicist nor do I think the Jesus story is a 'worthless pile.' To answer your question - I think what we are attempting to do here is nothing short of the essence of scholarship.

I read this story over at Timo Paananen's blog about Morton Smith:

Smith was having dinner at Theodore Gaster's house when Gaster's son asked Smith why he was interested in history. Smith supposedly replied that history fascinated him because it had so many interesting puzzles for him to solve. Gaster's son then responded, "Prof. Smith, the puzzles are yours, not history's"

In my opinion Irenaeus's citation of 'Claudius' as the Emperor during the Passion is one of those 'puzzles of history.' Smith is dead. It is our job to pick up the slack.

stephan huller

Indeed Irenaeus is IMO by far the most interesting Church Father. I have been noting that many scholars when reconstructing Hegesippus's lost Hypomnemata fail to include Irenaeus as a source for this five volume historical chronology (which Eusebius's Church History largely appropriated its core material).

I have cited the scholarship that demonstrates that Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius are all referencing its chronology of the Roman episcopal line. Indeed Eusebius makes EXPLICIT that the context of this citation of the Roman episcopal line in 'Hegesippus' is a discussion in the original source of 1Clement.

I was just reading this morning that one of my favorite scholars - Robert McQueen Grant- raises other questions about the parallel passage in Irenaeus which I didn't even consider. Grant cites the same section I have repeatedly referenced:

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. 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.

Grant notes that what appears here in red DOES NOT represent a summary of the actual contents of 1Clement. He writes "This does not accurately reflect the content of 1 Clement, although B, Botte argued that Irenaeus is combining 1 Clement with 2 Clement, where fire is mentioned." [Irenaeus of Lyons p. 7] He struggles with this 'problem of history' and ultimately puts forward someone else's solution which he admits in the footnotes leaves more questions than answers.

I am starting to wonder if Grant has overlooked the possibility that Irenaeus is citing Hegesippus's summary of the letter to the Corinthians. In other words, yet another Irenaean citation of the Hegesippus-Josephus tradition which might be related to his strange idea that Jesus was crucified by Pilate and Herod under Claudius. The material common to Eusebius and Epiphanius's citation of Hegesippus is referenced in blue.

stephan huller

Some parallel statements in Irenaeus to 'written documents' which contain parts of the formulation that puzzled Grant. In Book I of Against the Heresies a very similar formulation is developed:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. [AH i.10.1,2]

In Book 2 another parallel to the puzzling formulation in Book 3 cited by Grant manifests itself:

Since, therefore, we know but in part, we ought to leave all sorts of [difficult] questions in the hands of Him who in some measure, [and that only,] bestows grace on us. That eternal fire, [for instance,] is prepared for sinners, both the Lord has plainly declared, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate. And that God fore-knew that this would happen, the Scriptures do in like manner demonstrate, since He prepared eternal fire from the beginning for those who were [afterwards] to transgress [His commandments]; but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God, even as the Lord does of the day and hour [of judgment], and not to rush to such an extreme of danger, that we will leave nothing in the hands of God, even though we have received only a measure of grace [from Him in this world]. But when we investigate points which are above us, and with respect to which we cannot reach satisfaction, that we should display such an extreme of presumption as to lay open God, and things which are not yet discovered, as if already we had found out, by the vain talk about emissions, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He derived His substance from apostasy and ignorance, so as to frame an impious hypothesis in opposition to God.[ibid ii.27.7]

Lawlor has drawn our attention to the fact that in the very place in Hegesippus where the Roman succession manifests itself there is also a lengthy discussion of the Carpocratians which becomes the source of the slightly different reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius on the sect. Interestingly another possible allusion to Grant's puzzling formulation appears at the end of Book II also in relation to the Carpocratians:

The fact indeed is, that they [Carpocratians] endeavour to learn none of these, although they maintain that it is incumbent on them to have experience of every kind of work; but, turning aside to voluptuousness, and lust, and abominable actions, they stand self-condemned when they are tried by their own doctrine. For, since they are destitute of all those [virtues] which have been mentioned, they will [of necessity] pass into the destruction of fire. These men, while they boast of Jesus as being their Master, do in fact emulate the philosophy of Epicurus and the indifference of the Cynics, [calling Jesus their Master,] who not only turned His disciples away from evil deeds, but even from [wicked] words and thoughts, as I have already shown. Again, while they assert that they possess souls from the same sphere as Jesus, and that they are like to Him, sometimes even maintaining that they are superior; while [they affirm that they were] produced, like Him, for the performance of works tending to the benefit and establishment of mankind, they are found doing nothing of the same or a like kind [with His actions], nor what can in any respect be brought into comparison with them [AH ii.32.2,3]

We will now cite Grant's puzzling formulation again as it appears next in our study of the contents of Against the Heresies:

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. 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. [AH iii.3.3]

A little later in Book Three almost immediately after this reference Irenaeus again writes:

Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. [AH iii.4.1,2]

Notice the inclusion of the reference to Jesus crucified under Pilate. Could Irenaeus be drawing from an original reference in Hegesippus which added the words 'under Claudius'?

I mentioned in another thread dealing with Irenaeus's use of 1 Clement that Irenaeus made the point that heretics SHOULD be killed by fire:

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?...37#post6485237

The connection between the killing of heretics and the puzzling formulation associated with 1 Clement in his writings makes it very likely he is actually citing Hegesippus again.

In Book 4 there is another possible allusion to same material:

If, however, it were truly one Father who confers rest, and another God who has prepared the fire, their sons would have been equally different; one, indeed, sending [men] into the Father's kingdom, but the other into eternal fire. But inasmuch as one and the same Lord has pointed out that the whole human race shall be divided at the judgment, "as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats," and that to some He will say, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you," but to others, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which My Father has prepared for the devil and his angels,"one and the same Father is manifestly declared "making peace and creating evil things," preparing fit things for both; as also there is one Judge sending both into a fit place, as the Lord sets forth in the parable of the tares and the wheat, where He says, "As therefore the tares are gathered together, and burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send His angels, and they shall gather from His kingdom everything that offendeth, and those who work iniquity, and shall send them into a furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The Father, therefore, who has prepared the kingdom for the righteous, into which the Son has received those worthy of it, is He who has also prepared the furnace of fire, into which these angels commissioned by the Son of man shall send those persons who deserve it, according to God's command.

... Inasmuch as the Lord has said that there are certain angels of the devil, for whom eternal fire is prepared; and as, again, He declares with regard to the tares, "The tares are the children of the wicked one," it must be affirmed that He has ascribed all who are of the apostasy to him who is the ringleader of this transgression. But He made neither angels nor men so by nature. For we do not find that the devil created anything whatsoever, since indeed he is himself a creature of God, like the other angels. For God made all things, as also David says with regard to all things of the kind: "For He spake the word, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created."

Since, therefore, all things were made by God, and since the devil has become the cause of apostasy to himself and others, justly does the Scripture always term those who remain in a state of apostasy "sons of the devil" and "angels of the wicked one" (maligni). For [the word] "son," as one before me has observed, has a twofold meaning: one [is a son] in the order of nature, because he was born a son; the other, in that he was made so, is reputed a son, although there be a difference between being born so and being made so. For the first is indeed born from the person referred to; but the second is made so by him, whether as respects his creation or by the teaching of his doctrine. For when any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father. According to nature, then -that is, according to creation, so to speak--we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God. But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. And that such is the case He has declared in Isaiah: "I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rebelled against Me." And again, where He says that these children are aliens: "Strange children have lied unto Me." According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children. [AH iv.40.2; 41.2]

Finally in Book V we read yet another possible allusion to this formulation:

Let those persons, therefore, who blaspheme the Creator, either by openly expressed words, such as the disciples of Marcion, or by a perversion of the sense [of Scripture], as those of Valentinus and all the Gnostics falsely so called, be recognised as agents of Satan by all those who worship God; through whose agency Satan now, and not before, has been seen to speak against God, even Him who has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy. For he did not venture to blaspheme his Lord openly of himself; as also in the beginning he led man astray through the instrumentality of the serpent, concealing himself as it were from God. Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition. Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of all sins.

If the Father, then, does not exercise judgment, [it follows] that judgment does not belong to Him, or that He consents to all those actions which take place; and if He does not judge, all persons will be equal, and accounted in the same condition. The advent of Christ will therefore be without an object, yea, absurd, inasmuch as [in that case] He exercises no judicial power. For "He came to divide a man against his father, and the daughter against the mother, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law;" and when two are in one bed, to take the one, and to leave the other; and of two women grinding at the mill, to take one and leave the other: [also] at the time of the end, to order the reapers to collect first the tares together, and bind them in bundles, and burn them with unquenchable fire, but to gather up the wheat into the barn; and to call the lambs into the kingdom prepared for them, but to send the goats into everlasting fire, which has been prepared by His Father for the devil and his angels. And why is this? Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven. If then the advent of the Son comes indeed alike to all, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving, since, as those who believe do His will agreeably to their own choice, and as, [also] agreeably to their own choice, the disobedient do not consent to His doctrine; it is manifest that His Father has made all in a like condition, each person having a choice of his own, and a free understanding; and that He has regard to all things, and exercises a providence over all, "making His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and unjust."

And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God. He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, "He that believeth in Me is not condemned," that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;" that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. "For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God." [AH v.26,2 - 27,2]

In short, I am spending the day puzzling whether Hegesippus might be the source of a reference which (a) included a reference to Jesus being crucified under Pilate the governor of Claudius and (b) all the rest of the formulation which puzzled Grant.