stephan huller

Very little mention is made of the Novatians in all these discussions, yet the problem of who invented or introduced the New Testament canon can hardly be developed without referencing this group. The fact that Hippolytus the student of Irenaeus is identified as one of them is significant no less than the fact that their name means 'novelty' or 'new thing' (= Eusebius 'Novatus' cf. H. E., book viii. chaps. ii., iii, and iv.; and vol. vi.) can hardly be less suggestive.

Here is a little background on the group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatianism. It is worth noting that unlike other writers from the period - even Irenaeus - the texts associated with 'Novatian' cite from all the 'right scriptures' (no odd extra-canonical nonsense) and represent the earliest and purest form of Orthodoxy rooted in Rome.

mountainman

In the mid 3rd century?

What do you mean by "invent"?

gurugeorge

It sounds more like they're an early version of Protestantism (so to speak), and not getting the "message" that the point of Orthodoxy is the Apostolic Succession, the requirement for priestly intermediaries, and the authority of Rome.

IOW, would it not be more correct to say that Orthodoxy is defined less by doctrine per se than by doctrine that shores up Apostolic Succession, the requirement for priestly intermediaries, and the authority of Rome? Novatians hold to the right "orthodox" texts, but (like the later Protestants) they're looking at those texts as the heart of their religion, rather than accepting the contemporary authority of Roman bishops, who are supposedly descended in a straight line from the apostles, as the heart of their religion.

stephan huller

But there is this strange difficulty before 'Novatianism' appears and that is figuring out what to do with Hippolytus. Somehow we know he was taken to be a 'bishop' of some kind but at the same time as other 'Roman bishops.' Take his enemy Callixtus. He seems to have been very close to Zephyrinus and the natural succession in Rome. Yet Hippolytus can only trace his apostolic roots back to outsiders to the tradition. Who the hell is Irenaeus? Legend associates him with Lyons. But there is nothing solid here. Yet he was never in a leadership position in Rome as far as we know. Then Irenaeus doesn't even link himself to any bishop directly. Instead he makes the case that he is the successor of Polycarp, some crazy itinerant prophet who also has this make believe title 'bishop of Smyrna.' There is no evidence for this. Just that he wandered around a lot.

So isn't it strange that Hippolytus (a) has NO direct roots to the natural apostolic succession at Rome (b) heaps vitriol on contemporary bishops that do and (c) is identified as being a Novatian by a future Pope Damascus? To me this argues that the Novatians supplanted the orthodoxy. It is just that we scholars pay too close attention to writings. We have no other choice. It is all that has survived.

How do we explain that fourth and fifth century writers reference the existence of 'Novatians' after Nicea? Well just think about it. If the Novatians argued that Rome should be head of the Church how do you think they reacted when Constantine said that Nicea should take over that role? Just a thought.

gurugeorge

It is very interesting. As I'm quite impressed by Bauer, I think that orthodoxy is a post-Diaspora invention, and that the Christianity before it was varied, philosophico-theurgic, based on magical and mystical practices, etc. (proto-Gnostic), with no human Jesus at the root of it. I see orthodoxy as a post-Diaspora invention by what one might call basically Jewish con-artists (like Polycarp) who run around claiming an Apostolic Succession that never actually existed (there was only really Paul before, and other apostles in his day were other apostles of a other ideas about the Messiah, not of an actual person). IOW, it's the requirement for an Apostolic Succession that firms up the pseudo-historicity of the Jesus story (although I think GMark was not part of this, but it gave the con-artists ideas in that he was the first person to, perhaps innocently, posit that some of the earliest apostles knew the Messiah personally).

This sketch seems to fit the facts, however, the Novatians seem like a later development (once the con-job is entrenched a bit in Rome), already a reaction to orthodoxy itself, almost like a "hyper orthodoxy", but more in relation to taking the texts (that had been created by orthodoxy to support the Apostolic Succession) ultra seriously in and of themselves?

As you say, just batting these thoughts around.