Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 08-19-2010, 02:02 PM

What remains even today of the ante-Nicene Fathers fills more than 5,000 double-column pages. In Eusebius' day it must have been many times that volume.

It is certainly possible to suppose that by 20,000 or 30,000 pages he means "fragments", so long as we don't actually think about it too much!

But what is referred to, of course, is *chronology*, a history as a whole, and creating a systematic arrangement of dates and events into which to fit all that information. For that Eusebius probably did find only fragments before his own time, since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle."

Book 1 is here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller · 08-19-2010, 02:53 PM

Roger,

I am not sure that the last statement is exactly accurate:

Quote:

since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle."

I guess if you are saying that modern chronologies only knew Eusebius as the 'first chronicle of Christian history' then we'd all have to agree. But Eusebius's chronicle seems to have had an earlier precursor - the chronology of Hegesippus.

Now we don't know very much about what this work looked like but it is clear that it presented its readers with lists of the bishops of Jerusalem certainly and likely Corinth and Rome also. If - as I suggest - Hegesippus's original work was somehow connected with or an extension of Josephus's original work (which I think is inescapable from Clement's testimony) one might argue that Eusebius's chronology was developed in imitation of Hegesippus.

Hegesippus is our exclusive source of information about the Jerusalem Church and this is clearly demonstrated in the manner in which Eusebius seems to 'attach' a separate list of 'Gentile' bishops after the end of Hegesippu's chronology that seems very unconnected to what comes down as lasting there until 147 CE (the tenth year of Antoninus).

This is especially curious given that you might expect the Jerusalem church might have been wiped out in the bar Kochba revolt and had to start out wholly new c. 138 CE. But 147 CE there is a break and then something else starts later that is of the 'uncircumcision' which is as I said 'grafted on to' a list made by Hegesippus.

I also find it curious how closely related that second Jerusalem Church is to the Alexandrian tradition. They share the same emphasis of Easter falling on a Sunday which is strange because you'd think that 'Jewish Christianity' would be at home in Jerusalem. They also take in Clement and then Origen when they get into trouble with the authorities in Alexandria and then eventually make Origen a priest against the wishes of Demetrius.

In the Passio Petri Sancti tradition from memory some parts of Palestine were understood to fall under the traditional jurisdiction of the Alexandrian See. Eusebius's account is deceptively simplistic. I wonder whether Hegesippus's whole account of a succession of Jerusalem bishops is wholly fictitious. I also wonder how much confidence we can place in Hegesippus's authority when his work is so closely related to Josephus's narrative and his name is a disguise for Josephus.

I should also say that Eusebius never explicitly acknowledges Hegesippus as his source but it can be ascertained by connecting his various statements on the topic of the Jerusalem Church and the parallel chronology in Epiphanius with Clement's identification of a second century 'Josephus the Jew' who calculated the distance of Biblical figure from the year 147 CE (the tenth year of Antoninus).

I would argue too that this Hegesippus is the source of ALL of our information about the succession of bishops in Rome:

Quote:

On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....

I strongly suspect that Irenaeus is citing Hegesippus in AH iii.2.3 where he himself introduces the new figures of Peter and Linus as predecessors of Clement but then moves on to point to the figure formerly identified in Hegesippus as the first bishop of Rome:

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. 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.2.3]

I strongly think that Irenaeus is invoking Hegesippus here and that the list isn't of bishops up to his own day but up to Hegesippus. Just listen to how Hegesippus's opinions echo the EXACT sentiments referenced by

And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith. On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....

Irenaeus is clearly aware of all aspects of Hegesippus's original letter WHICH CAME from the time of Eleutherius as Williams notes:

Hegesippus employed 1 Clement, a second source, in writing of Corinth (4.22.1–2). Succession ideas are absent from what remains of that letter in the Memoirs. What is recorded by Eusebius is that Hegesippus discussed the “dissension” covered in 1 Clement (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.16). We propose that Hegesippus's discussion of this letter marked the stopping point of his succession for Corinth in the Memoirs. Hegesippus wrote, “And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true doctrine until Primus was bishop of Corinth." (4.22.1-2) There is a hint in this information that the succession to the time of Clement's letter. Hegesippus's discussion of the letter was probably of substantial length. Irenaeus discusses the letter in an excursus the length of a paragraph in his Roman bishop list (Haer. 3.3.3). Eusebius does not even mention Irenaeus in connection with the letter but does note that Hegesippus testified of the dissension “adequately” (Hist. eccl. 3.16). This suggests a discussion in Hegesippus more lengthy than the one in Irenaeus [Williams Bishop Lists p. 109]

I think that this suggests that Irenaeus's argument here has been framed by the full reference in Hegesippus's chronology. It also testifies to the importance of Hegesippus as a 'Eusebius before Eusebius' in the second century.

Yellum Notnef · 08-19-2010, 03:09 PM

Eusebius is to some Christians as Justin Beiber is to little girls.

aa5874 · 08-19-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

What remains even today of the ante-Nicene Fathers fills more than 5,000 double-column pages. In Eusebius' day it must have been many times that volume....

What remains today MUST be AFTER Eusebius wrote this in "Church History" 1.

Quote:

... I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments...

It is most fascinating that people will blatantly try to distort the truth even when faced with the written statement of Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...It is certainly possible to suppose that by 20,000 or 30,000 pages he means "fragments", so long as we don't actually think about it too much!..

How can 20, 000-30,000 pages be "brief fragments" and cause Eusebius to feel ALONE when he should have had the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, ALL fourteen Pauline Epistles, the epistles of Peter, Jude , James and John with Revelation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

....But what is referred to, of course, is *chronology*, a history as a whole, and creating a systematic arrangement of dates and events into which to fit all that information. For that Eusebius probably did find only fragments before his own time, since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle."..

1. Each of the four Gospels should have had a chronology BEFORE Eusebius.

2. Acts of the Apostles should have had a chronology Before Eusebius.

3. The Pauline writings should have had a chronology before Eusebius.

4. The writings of Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome should have had chronologies BEFORE Eusebius.

5. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen all should have chronologies BEFORE Eusebius.

Eusebius was, as it were, ALONE on an UNTRODDEN path.

"Church History" 1

Quote:

..I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path...

Now, it must be NOTED that Justin Martyr c 150 CE did NOT write about the bare footsteps of those BEFORE him.

Justin Martyr had NO post-ascension history of the Church at all except that the apostles wrote the Memoirs and John wrote Revelation.

Justin did NOT write about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as gospel writers, Acts of the Apostles, the day of Pentecost, Saul/Paul, Barnabas, Silas, the Pauline letters, letters from Peter, James, Jude, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, the bishops of Rome, the bishops of Antioch, the bishops of Jerusalem, his own bishop or any bishop anywhere, the Pauline churches, and the Pauline teachings.

Where did Eusebius get his history? He admitted he had only brief fragments. The history from Eusebius appears to be FULL of ERRORS in contents, dating, authoship and chronology.

The history of the Church by Eusebius appears to have been invented while the historian was writing since up to Justin Martyr there was NO history of the Church.

stephan huller · 08-19-2010, 04:13 PM

Actually from writing that post I am very intrigued about the possibility that what is being cited in Eusebius is actually a kind of 'introduction' written by Irenaeus and attached to the original copies of the 'chronology of Josephus the Jew' known to Clement of Alexandria.

Just compare the chronology of the Roman Church referenced in Irenaeus:

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

Compare this statement in Irenaeus with what is written as a kind of 'cover letter' or some attachment to an original work written by "Josephus" or "Hegesippus" during the reign of Anicetus which had a chronology:

On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus.

This is uncanny and suggests clearly that this testimony associated with 'Hegesippus' was not found in his original work but 'attached to it' somehow as a clarification. Yet the 'clarification' sounds remarkably similar to Irenaeus's own work, not only in terms of the YEAR it was written and the way the succession is continued down from that original chronology in Hegesippus but in terms of its broader connection with (a) the Letter to Corinth and (b) a dispute that emerged under its 'chief' or leader named 'Primus.'

Did Irenaeus write the preface to Hegesippus? It is hard to think otherwise but the other possibility is that Hegesippus lived until the age of Irenaeus wrote and influenced Irenaeus's material in Book III. For Hegesippus is clearly a lynch pin to the interpretation of 1 Clement as we read again in Eusebius:

He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (Eusebius 3:16)

Clearly the way Eusebius frames the last statement implies that there might have been some who refused to acknowledge that there ever was such a conflict at the beginning of the Church.

Who then was Hegesippus? Couldn't Irenaeus's dependence on 'Hegesippus' suggest that this figure was Polycarp who introduced a variant copy of Josephus? After all like 'Hegesippus' Polycarp came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus:

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him.

The letter to the Corinthians might well have derived not from the mythical figure 'Flavius Clemens' but from Polycarp's hand and then was subsequently edited by Irenaeus in such a way to preclude that possibility. There is a core similarity in terms of a gospel citation from the Diatessaron that extends through both Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and Clement's Letter to the Corinthians.

Interestingly, Eusebius also mentions words attributed to 'Clement of Rome' where he takes on Josephus's old adversary Apion:

And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.

aa5874 · 08-19-2010, 04:52 PM

It is interesting to note that Justin Martyr wrote about people who were called Christians since the days of the Emperor Claudius c. 41-54 CE to the Emperor Antoninus c 150 CE and wrote about Simon Magus, Menader, the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians and Marcion without making mention of any post ascension characters found in the NT Canon.

Justin Martyr's writings tend to corroborate that there was no history of the Church as found in "Church History" by Eusebius.

It would appear that the history of the Church was invented at least up to the time of Justin Martyr c 150 CE.

mountainman · 08-19-2010, 07:59 PM

Eusebius is not a competent chronographer - Arnaldo Momigliano (Ancient Historian)

Readers are warned to immediately make a distinction between the reputation Eusebius enjoys or otherwise as a competent chronographer with respect to the fields of (a) "Ancient History" and (b) "Biblical History". Note that (b) is a subset of (a).

With respect to "Biblical Historians", Eusebius is "the man in whom we trust", and his reputation as a competent chronographer is often held up as some sort of good example.

In stark and utter contrast, with respect to "Ancient Historians", Eusebius does not enjoy at all the reputation of being a competent chronographer. One of the foremost ancient historians of the 20th century writes that to Eusebius, chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

At the beginning of the fourth century Christian chronology had already passed its creative stage. What Eusebius did was to correct and to improve the work of his predecessors, among whom he relied especially on Julius Africanus (14). He corrected details which seemed to him wrong even to the extent of reducing the priority of the Biblical heroes over the pagan ones. Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus, was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years.

Eusebius was not afraid of attacking St Paul’s guesses about the chronology of the Book of Judges. He freely used Jewish and anti-Christian sources such as Porphyrios. He introduced a reckoning from Abraham which allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of a chronology according to the first chapters of Genesis. He seems to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronology of the various nations in parallel columns. None of the earlier chronographers seems to have used this scheme, though it has often been attributed to Castor or to Julius Africanus.

He made many mistakes, but they do not surprise us any longer. Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius.

This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation. Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

What remains even today of the ante-Nicene Fathers fills more than 5,000 double-column pages. In Eusebius' day it must have been many times that volume.

It is certainly possible to suppose that by 20,000 or 30,000 pages he means "fragments", so long as we don't actually think about it too much!

But what is referred to, of course, is *chronology*, a history as a whole, and creating a systematic arrangement of dates and events into which to fit all that information. For that Eusebius probably did find only fragments before his own time, since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle."

Book 1 is here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 08-20-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not sure that the last statement is exactly accurate:

Quote:

since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle."

I guess if you are saying that modern chronologies only knew Eusebius as the 'first chronicle of Christian history' then we'd all have to agree. But Eusebius's chronicle seems to have had an earlier precursor - the chronology of Hegesippus.

Now we don't know very much about what this work looked like but it is clear that it presented its readers with lists of the bishops of Jerusalem certainly and likely Corinth and Rome also. ...

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't referring to ecclesiastical history, but all history in general. There were many chronologers before Eusebius, but the Greek chronographic tradition was in a terrible mess by his time. The lack of a common framework of dates meant that it was impossible to determine who was doing what when except within lists specific to only one kingdom, or one group.

Eusebius integrated all this data, worked out what synchronised with what, and created tables of dates and events for every kingdom back to the birth of Abraham (the earliest event he thought he could actually date). This formed the basis for all subsequent chronology, via the Latin translation of Jerome. The lists of bishops of course went into this, with everything else he had.

Mistakes there were, of course, as there had to be, given the mess in the sources. When all you have is lists of kings, who don't all ascend the throne on 1st January; when there is no agreement when the year starts; when kings rule less than one year; when you have events dated only to Olympiads, which occur every four years; when many of your sources do not even attempt to indicate the year; and you don't have AD or BC, or any universal calendar system; and all your data is in that state, you're not going to get everything right all in one go. Alden Mosshammer discusses all this and more in his excellent book on the "Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic tradition".

Quote:

By the time of Dionysius Exiguus, the Chronicle of Eusebius had become the standard of chronological knowledge. It remained so until the beginnings of modern historical scholarship in the sixteenth century. -- Mosshammer, "The eastern computus and the origins of the Christian era".

Since we're still basically using his chronology now, albeit modified by modern research, it's as well to acknowledge that he did the world a very signal service. The invention of the codex also played a part, making it possible for the tabular format to be used.

Eusebius certainly made use of Hegesippus for the HE, as he tells us. The structure of the HE is based on the Chronicle.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JoeWallack · 08-20-2010, 08:45 AM

JW:
Church History (Socrates Scholasticus) > Book I

Quote:

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Work.

Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, writing the History of the Church in ten books, closed it with that period of the emperor Constantine, when the persecution which Diocletian had begun against the Christians came to an end. Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts. Now, as we propose to write the details of what has taken place in the churches since his time to our own day, we begin with the narration of the particulars which he has left out, and we shall not be solicitous to display a parade of words, but to lay before the reader what we have been able to collect from documents, and what we have heard from those who were familiar with the facts as they told them. And since it has an important bearing on the matter in hand, it will be proper to enter into a brief account of Constantine's conversion to Christianity, making a beginning with this event.

JW:
That's pretty damning when your official successor says you are truth-challenged.

Just know as a Skeptic that Eusebius was an Advocate for Christianity and not a Judge and ironically while his evidence was exponentially superior to ours, his conclusions were exponentially worse.

Joseph

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

aa5874 · 08-20-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...I'm sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't referring to ecclesiastical history, but all history in general. There were many chronologers before Eusebius, but the Greek chronographic tradition was in a terrible mess by his time. The lack of a common framework of dates meant that it was impossible to determine who was doing what when except within lists specific to only one kingdom, or one group...

Eusebius did not write that he had a chronology problem. Eusebius clearly stated that he was UNABLE to find any historical sources of those BEFORE him except for brief fragments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

..Eusebius integrated all this data, worked out what synchronised with what, and created tables of dates and events for every kingdom back to the birth of Abraham (the earliest event he thought he could actually date). This formed the basis for all subsequent chronology, via the Latin translation of Jerome. The lists of bishops of course went into this, with everything else he had...

Eusebius was NOT the one who introduced any new method of dating. It was Dionysus Exiguus.

Eusebius has a VERACITY problem. Virtually all he claimed about the historical contents of the NT, the dating, authorship and chronology has turned out to be in ERROR.

Justin Martyr who wrote almost 200 years before Eusebius did NOT appear to make any fundamental historical errors in his writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...Mistakes there were, of course, as there had to be, given the mess in the sources. When all you have is lists of kings, who don't all ascend the throne on 1st January; when there is no agreement when the year starts; when kings rule less than one year; when you have events dated only to Olympiads, which occur every four years; when many of your sources do not even attempt to indicate the year; and you don't have AD or BC, or any universal calendar system; and all your data is in that state, you're not going to get everything right all in one go. Alden Mosshammer discusses all this and more in his excellent book on the "Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic tradition"....

Eusebius did NOT claim he had a chronology problem since he was using the dating and chronology scheme ALREADY in use.

There is NO church writer BEFORE Eusebius who claimed they had a chronology and dating problem with Jesus, the disciples and "Paul".

Eusebius has a VERACITY problem.

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

08-19-2010, 02:02 PM	#31
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	What remains even today of the ante-Nicene Fathers fills more than 5,000 double-column pages. In Eusebius' day it must have been many times that volume. It is certainly possible to suppose that by 20,000 or 30,000 pages he means "fragments", so long as we don't actually think about it too much! But what is referred to, of course, is chronology, a history as a whole, and creating a systematic arrangement of dates and events into which to fit all that information. For that Eusebius probably did find only fragments before his own time, since he created the basis of all modern chronology of antiquity himself in his "Chronicle." Book 1 is here. All the best, Roger Pearse

08-19-2010, 03:09 PM	#33
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	Eusebius is to some Christians as Justin Beiber is to little girls.

08-19-2010, 04:13 PM	#35
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually from writing that post I am very intrigued about the possibility that what is being cited in Eusebius is actually a kind of 'introduction' written by Irenaeus and attached to the original copies of the 'chronology of Josephus the Jew' known to Clement of Alexandria. Just compare the chronology of the Roman Church referenced in Irenaeus: 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 Compare this statement in Irenaeus with what is written as a kind of 'cover letter' or some attachment to an original work written by "Josephus" or "Hegesippus" during the reign of Anicetus which had a chronology: On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. This is uncanny and suggests clearly that this testimony associated with 'Hegesippus' was not found in his original work but 'attached to it' somehow as a clarification. Yet the 'clarification' sounds remarkably similar to Irenaeus's own work, not only in terms of the YEAR it was written and the way the succession is continued down from that original chronology in Hegesippus but in terms of its broader connection with (a) the Letter to Corinth and (b) a dispute that emerged under its 'chief' or leader named 'Primus.' Did Irenaeus write the preface to Hegesippus? It is hard to think otherwise but the other possibility is that Hegesippus lived until the age of Irenaeus wrote and influenced Irenaeus's material in Book III. For Hegesippus is clearly a lynch pin to the interpretation of 1 Clement as we read again in Eusebius: He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (Eusebius 3:16) Clearly the way Eusebius frames the last statement implies that there might have been some who refused to acknowledge that there ever was such a conflict at the beginning of the Church. Who then was Hegesippus? Couldn't Irenaeus's dependence on 'Hegesippus' suggest that this figure was Polycarp who introduced a variant copy of Josephus? After all like 'Hegesippus' Polycarp came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus: For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. The letter to the Corinthians might well have derived not from the mythical figure 'Flavius Clemens' but from Polycarp's hand and then was subsequently edited by Irenaeus in such a way to preclude that possibility. There is a core similarity in terms of a gospel citation from the Diatessaron that extends through both Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and Clement's Letter to the Corinthians. Interestingly, Eusebius also mentions words attributed to 'Clement of Rome' where he takes on Josephus's old adversary Apion: And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.

08-19-2010, 04:52 PM	#36
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is interesting to note that Justin Martyr wrote about people who were called Christians since the days of the Emperor Claudius c. 41-54 CE to the Emperor Antoninus c 150 CE and wrote about Simon Magus, Menader, the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians and Marcion without making mention of any post ascension characters found in the NT Canon. Justin Martyr's writings tend to corroborate that there was no history of the Church as found in "Church History" by Eusebius. It would appear that the history of the Church was invented at least up to the time of Justin Martyr c 150 CE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.