So once we determine that Polycarp was actually promoting the primacy of the Jerusalem Church, the fact that Irenaeus can - within one generation - make successive cases for Antioch and then Rome as its true successor should be viewed as reflecting changing contemporary historical circumstances for the Catholic tradition. Polycarp had no special attachment to Rome. We have already demonstrated that the transformation of his original writings into the Ignatian corpus - first as three short letters, then the middle and then finally the long recension - must have occurred in rapid succession. For the middle Ignatian recension has clearly only one purpose - to make Polycarp the broker for the continuation of Antiochene primacy.
In the letter to Polycarp we read Ignatius announce "I have not been able to write to all the Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as the will [of the emperor] enjoins, [I beg that] thou, as being acquainted with the purpose of God, wilt write to the adjacent Churches." What is Polycarp supposedly writing to the churches to carry out? The answer is clearly spelled out in the accompanying letter to the Smyrnaeans which follows Polycarp in most canons "Your prayer has reached to the Church which is at Antioch in Syria. Coming from that place bound with chains ... I who am not worthy to be styled from thence [declare] .... that your work may be complete both on earth and in heaven, it is fitting that, for the honour of God, your Church should elect some worthy delegate; so that he, journeying into Syria, may congratulate them that they are [now] at peace, and are restored to their proper greatness, and that their proper constitution has been re-established among them. It seems then to me a becoming thing, that you should send some one of your number with an epistle, so that, in company with them, he may rejoice over the tranquility which, according to the will of God, they have obtained, and because that, through your prayers, they have now reached the harbour. As persons who are perfect, ye should also aim at those things which are perfect. For when ye are desirous to do well, God is also ready to assist you."
Detering has correctly demonstrated that the artificiality of the Ignatian canon is most clearly demonstrated by the manner in which we can follow an idea unfold through the exact order the letters appear in the canon. In order to see what the function of the delegate being sent by 'the churches' to Antioch is supposed to carry out we have to pass over to the third epistle in the canon - the letter to the Philadelphians where 'Ignatius' declares:
Since, according to your prayers, and the compassion which ye feel in Christ Jesus, it is reported to me that the Church which is at Antioch in Syria possesses peace, it will become you, as a Church of God, to elect a servant [diakonos] to act as the ambassador of God to [the brethren there], that he may rejoice along with them when they are met together, and glorify the name [of God]. Blessed is he in Jesus Christ, who shall be deemed worthy of such a ministry; and ye too shall be glorified. And if ye are willing, it is not beyond your power to do this, for the sake of God; as also the nearest Churches have sent, in some cases bishops, and in others presbyters and deacons.
It is critical to remember that a diakonos carries out the commands of his master. It is important to see Christ so described in Romans 15:8 and more importantly that the diakonos in Matthew 23:11 represents the highest rank in the Church. Even though Ignatius is often identified as the 'bishop of Antioch' and the title does appear in the Letter to the Romans, Irenaeus's clearly originally understood the throne at Antioch to stand slightly higher than the rest of the bishops. The same is true today in the Orthodox tradition, where all the Patriarchs of the Church have the same title but the Patriarch of Constantinople is nevertheless first in honor among all the same bishops.
We can be certain then that the specific title 'diakonos' was applied to the bishop of Antioch by Irenaeus in order to designate him with as the most 'Christ-like.' To this end, we see in the Letter to Hero the figure who was allegedly 'elected' by the Church through Polycarp's efforts to secure a replacement is called both 'bishop' and 'diakonos.' So the epistle begins with the words "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Hero, the deacon of Christ, and the servant of God, a man honoured by God, and most dearly loved as well as esteemed, who carries Christ and the Spirit within him, and who is my own son in faith and love" and continue to describe the same 'diakonos' Hero as his successor "keep God in remembrance, and you shall never sin. Be not double-minded (James 1:6, 8) in your prayers; for blessed is he who doubts not. For I believe in the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in His only-begotten Son, that God will show me, Hero, upon my throne. Add speed, therefore, to your course. I charge you before the God of the universe, and before Christ, and in the presence of the Holy Spirit, and of the ministering ranks [of angels], keep in safety that deposit which I and Christ have committed to you, and do not judge yourself unworthy of those things which have been shown by God [to me] concerning you. I hand over to you the Church of Antioch. I have commended you to Polycarp in the Lord Jesus Christ."
The fact that scholars like to pretend that the Epistle to Hero is somehow more counterfeit than the rest of the Ignatian canon is of course utterly hilarious. The material was all originally conceived as a kind of jigsaw puzzle designed to establish a precedent for papal elections in the Catholic Church. Of course, the fact that these first elections should have taken place in Antioch rather than Rome is very telling. The See of Antioch was clearly Irenaeus's first attempt to establish a rival throne to that Alexandria, which we should suppose was the real center to Christianity long before the coming of Polycarp.
It is worth noting then that almost all scholars agree that Acts is developed very much with the interest of making Antioch the center of Christianity. So F F Bruce aptly notes:
Luke certainly shows a special interest in Antioch. For example, the only one of the seven Hellenistic leaders in the Jerusalem church whose provenance is specified is "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch" (Ac. 6:5).26 A fuller account is given of the founding of the church of Antioch than of any other Gentile church (Ac. 1:19-26). It is the only Gentile church whose leaders ("prophets and teachers") are listed (13:1).
The point of course is that while it is difficult to prove that the author of Acts already envisioned an Antiochene Papacy, it is very certain that he imagined Antioch should fill the void that resulted from the non-existence of the Jerusalem Church. While the author of Acts is ultimately unknown, one may take a stab in the dark at the idea that its addressee 'Theophilus' was Theophilus of Antioch. This idea has already been argued by Kuhn and it fits perfectly with the idea that the text was written by Irenaeus even before he started work on the Ignatian canon. How it was that Irenaeus within a generation dropped his interest in Antioch and began promoting Rome as the headquarters of the new Church is difficult to say, though the rise of Commodus must certainly be connected with it.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Against Polycarp [Part Eighteen]
The light of day is breaking over the history of the Church in the second century. What was formerly a mere glimmer of light is now transforming into dawn. For far too long scholars have merely echoed Irenaeus's claims about the beliefs and practices of Polycarp. It is for this reason and this reason alone that the study of early Patristic texts seem so lifeless and uninteresting. There is very little real humanity in these books. In order to even read through one of these texts you have to suspend your belief in reality, you have to completely suppress what you know about human nature and human relations. And so it is that only a handful of individuals have trained themselves to wander through this literary desert.
We are beginning to finally connect all the dots with regards to our historical 'Polycarp' - that is to say Lucian's stranger. We can begin to see that his beliefs and practices could not have been the same as Irenaeus for as Lampe notes, he was always an 'outsider,' a stranger in Rome. Polycarp came as something of a romantic balladeer, poetically referencing a Jerusalem Church which likely never existed but which edified his contemporary claims that he could not but help maintain the Passover of the Jews as Easter. Irenaeus must have seen the glint in our stranger's eye when he referenced an 'apostolic succession' in Jerusalem starting with James, the brother of Jesus, and thought 'I can do that too.'
Many cooks are reluctant to allow people to know how that make a beloved dish. Yet Polycarp apparently allowed Irenaeus close enough to see the magic being created right before his eyes. Irenaeus in turn saw Polycarp as a first step, a path leading to something grander than a mere wandering itinerant prophet. Irenaeus likely believed in the myth of a universal Church and thought he could realize that dream, first at Antioch and then finally at Rome. He likely possessed skills that Polycarp lacked, fostering relations with influential people, men of substance in high places. And so the reality of a universal Church being established everywhere and nowhere in particular was finally born at the end of the second century. Irenaeus's word - not merely about our stranger - but the whole of the Christian canon became law in no small part because of his self-confessed 'connections' with the Imperial court.
Yet in order to come to terms with Irenaeus's myth of a universal Roman Church we have to come to terms with Polycarp's infectious ballad about the Jerusalem Church. The 'sheet music' of this tune so to speak was written in the closing words of his five volume hypomnemata. The work as a whole follows the example of Josephus, the ultimately repentant former general in the Jewish resistance movement. As with most of our existing Josephan narrative, the hypomnemata was written in the third person. Yet in Polycarp's original we follow Josephus through the narration of a Christian believer. Josephus fully confess the true faith but nevertheless provides of the truthful of Christ's original prediction that the Jewish religion would eventually be destroyed owing to the inherent wickedness of its people.
Polycarp however, in the voice of Josephus, goes on to explain what was wrong with the Jews of this previous age - they misunderstood the purpose of the religion of Moses and the prophets. The misapplied the original teaching into some radical doctrine which made the nation of Israel hostile to the Roman people. Emerging out of this tragic misunderstanding was James the brother of Jesus, who founded a church in Jerusalem which continued as a church in exile down until the time of the very completion of the hypomnemata in 147 CE, the seventy seventh anniversary of the destruction of the Jewish temple.
Where was this Church? It was embodied in the example of Polycarp as it had in previous generations in the example of John, the brother of James. Yet with Polycarp's death in 165 CE there was a clear dilemma. How would this teaching be perpetuated into the future? We may suppose that the early example of Ignatius, the contents of the Ignatian canon and the canonical Acts of the Apostles formed an early response to this problem. The material came together around 170 CE to argue that Polycarp was commissioned by Ignatius to find a replacement for his empty episcopal chair at Antioch which was the original seat of the Catholic Church. But then something clearly happened by the time Irenaeus got around to correcting the hypomnemata. Historical events likely linked to Commodus's rise to power around 175 CE likely encouraged the idea of a Church centered in the Emperor's backyard - Rome.
It is of course hard to say how such an event became manifest. Perhaps it was a series of 'little things' of which we will never fully comprehend. Yet the historical process is clearly completed by the time Irenaeus quotes Polycarp in Book Four of his Against Heresies as supporting the transfer of the center of Christianity to Rome - "For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus" which as Irenaeus notes means "the (Roman) faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles." Polycarp was apparently a prominent spokesman for the idea that Christianity was completely compatible with the accumulation of wealth, foreshadowed by the ancient Israelite 'taking gold and silver' from the Pharaoh. So Irenaeus declares in what immediately followed the last citation that for members of the Catholic tradition "in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness. For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the garments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which, when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them?--not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Caesar; and to those who have not, does not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability?" [AH iv.30.1]
The point here as we shall see in coming chapters is that the Catholic Church did not just 'spring up' overnight in Rome as part of some natural development. Irenaeus clearly uses Polycarp again and again - and undoubtedly an altered copy of his hypomnemata - to make the case that a Christian 'Exodus' occurred to the 'Promised Land' of the Roman Church, where indeed leading members of the Church seemed to be 'in the pocket' of Caesar. Irenaeus points to Polycarp, his 'anonymous presbyter' as teaching that these were all foreshadowed by the experience of the ancient Exodus of the Israelites. Indeed, Irenaeus seems to remind his readers that the original Greek word for 'Catholic' - katholikos - has the specific meaning 'treasury' and that hoi katholou logoi literally means 'supervisor of accounts.'
In any event, the understanding of the development of the Roman Church is all ahead of us. For the moment it is important that we just come to terms with the original mythology developed by Irenaeus's predecessor. To this end we have to go back to that underlying 'division' we just referenced which must have existed at the end of book five in the hypomnemata where Irenaeus added the reference to the Roman Church. As Robert Lee Williams notes in his work on apostolic succession aptly titled 'Bishop Lists':
Hegesippus gave attention to the bishop introducing the succession in order to show that episcopal authority began in each church with an individual closer to Jesus than the sectarian leader could possibly be. The ecclesiastical leader was portrayed as closer both in time and in thought. We have the following evidence for the beginning of Hegesippus's Jerusalem and Roman successions. The Jerusalem succession began with James as bishop (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.4). James was contemporaneous with Jesus. James was “the Lord's brother” (2.23.4). Hegesippus recorded that James was appointed by Jesus himself (Epiphanius Pan 78.7). With reference to Hegesippus's philosophical school categories James was faithful to the “father” of the doctrine (cf. Justin, Dial. 35). He unswervingly witnessed to Jesus' claims. He testified of Jesus as the Christ, the apocalyptic Son of Man, and the Son of David (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.8–9, 14). The Roman succession began with Peter and Paul as bishops (Epiphanius, Pan. 27.6). These bishops were apostles. Regarding Paul Hegesippus noted that both Linus and Clement, contemporaries of Paul, later served as bishops (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 27.6).
This is a very useful description of the structure of the original hypomnemata. It describes the narrative in barest terms, first came Jerusalem, its bishop list dated to 147 CE and then the parallel Roman material. Williams also notes later that in each case there is a discussion about the manner in which heretics in each community caused many to 'fall away from the truth.'
Yet we have already determined that the entire Roman narrative is a fiction developed by Irenaeus to reconcile Polycarp's message with the argument for the primacy of the Church of Rome. The original hypomnemata makes clear the author's original status as - what Peter Lampe has coined - an 'outsider.' It is odd how the name 'Peregrinus' seems to fit the figure of Polycarp even when that connection has been deliberately suppressed. His narrative was clearly a kind of fairy tale - very similar in nature to the Clementine Romance tradition. That a Jewish Christian Church managed to establish itself in Jerusalem but also managed to survive three revolts and the active effort of Imperial conspiracies against it. Yet before we can develop a critique of what Hegesippus wrote about this entirely fabulous organization, it is important that we actually demonstrate what those before us have determined was in the original narrative at the end of Book Five. To this end it is worth going through Hugh Lawlor's work - almost line by line - in order to develop a clearer picture of its shape and color.
Lawlor begins our discussion of Hegesippus's account of James by noting that the earliest extract from Hegesippus is found in Eusebius's Church History Book Two Chapter Twenty Three and contains the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem. Lawlor demonstrates that "this is the only passage quoted by Eusebius of the position of which in the work of Hegesippus he gives us explicit information. It is expressly stated that it came from the fifth Memoir." He also references the fact that in the passage as given by Eusebius there are many repetitions which suggest either that he took it from a manuscript containing a corrupt text, or that Hegesippus was a very unskilful writer. But it has all the appearance of having been transcribed in its entirety.
Lawlor writes that even though there is no evident indication that Eusebius has omitted any part of the original hypomnemata once we consult with Epiphanius we will see that this appearance is delusive. For Epiphanius brings to our knowledge some sentences which must have belonged to this passage, and of which Eusebius takes no notice. Yet before attempting to prove this Lawlor thought it necessary to prove to his readers that Epiphanius had direct knowledge of our hypomnemata, or at any rate that for what he knew of them he was not entirely dependent on Eusebius. To this end, Lawlor reinforces here that Epiphanius (a) never mentions Hegesippus and (b) he notes that "though it is highly probable that he more than once refers to the Memoirs by name, in doing so he gives them a title which is not assigned to them by other writers." If he were simply using Eusebius as a source he would have followed that author's lead in identifying the material as 'the Memoirs of Hegesippus.'
Lawlor however concludes that "it is quite certain, however, that several passages of his Panarion are based on portions of the Memoirs quoted verbatim by Eusebius ; and a careful examination of those passages gives us reason to believe that in writing them Epiphanius used a text of the Memoirs which differed considerably from that which was known to Eusebius." It is apparent, for instance that Epiphanius has in Haer. 78.7 a description of James the Just which is plainly borrowed from the fragment now before us and cited in Eusebius's earlier account. Lawlor states that this will be obvious to any one who compares the two together and adds that it is only necessary to call attention to one clause in which his indebtedness to Hegesippus is less evident than elsewhere.
Epiphanius writes that James "was a Nazoraean, which being interpreted is holy". Now in the Memoirs as quoted by Eusebius the word "Nazoraean" does not occur. What according to him Hegesippus said was, "He was holy from his mother's womb, he drank not wine and strong drink, neither did he eat flesh, a razor did not touch his head, he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use a bath." That the greater part of this sentence might be fairly epitomized in the statement that James was a Nazorean (ie Nazirite) many will agree. That Epiphanius thought so is clear. For in another place, after quoting part of it almost as it stands in Eusebius — "In a bath he never washed, he partook not of flesh" — he adds the comment, "If the sons of Joseph knew the order of virginity and the work of Nazoraeans how much more did the old and honourable man (sc. Joseph the father of James) know how to keep a virgin pure, and to honour the vessel wherein, so to speak, dwelt the salvation of men?" (Haer 78.14)
Another point brought forward by Lawlor. It will be observed that in Epiphanius information that James was called Oblias is given near the beginning of the passage, immediately before this reference to his asceticism. In Eusebius it is lower down, after the account of his prayers. Lawlor encourages us to glance at the statement as it appears in Eusebius's text. It runs thus "Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him." Lawlor points to "several facts rouse the suspicion that the text is corrupt in this place." That James was named "the Just" was already said, and enlarged upon, only two sentences higher up; the explanation of the title here given is mere tautology — he was called righteous because of his righteousness; further on, the word dikaiosune whether it be taken as another name of James, as Schwartz's punctuation seems to suggest, or as a second translation of Oblias, is almost certainly wrong; and finally no satisfactory explanation of the allusion to the prophets in the last clause has ever been offered.
Now Lawlor also draws our attention to the fact that in Epiphanius, Haer.14, there is a passage which is, at any rate in part, a paraphrase of the opening sentences of our fragment. In it we find the words di huperbolen eulabeias. They evidently correspond to dia ge toi ten huperbolen in the sentence just quoted. for the two phrases are not only strikingly similar, they occur also in the same position, immediately after the notice of James's habit of prayer. But Epiphanius differs from Eusebius in two respects. He reads eulabeias instead of dikaiosune and he connects the clause, not with the statement that James received the name of "the Just," but with the assertion that he was a man of prayer. Placed in this context, Lawlor notes, the statement yields admirable sense. James prayed unceasingly because he was a man of much piety. As such, Lawlor notes "there can be little doubt that here Epiphanius had access to a better text of Hegesippus than Eusebius." .
Lawlor goes on to note that it is "already clear that the text used by Epiphanius differed considerably from that quoted by Eusebius in this passage, and was freer from corrupt readings. It may be added, as a further proof of its comparative excellence, that it presents a more satisfactory arrangement of the clauses." Lawlor draws our attention to the order of statements in Eusebius - James was called ' the Just ', he was an ascetic, he had priestly privileges and was constant in prayer, he was called 'the Just' and Oblias. In Epiphanius, on the other hand, the names by which he was known are first fully dealt with, and thus the way is opened for a description of his character, which proceeds without interruption. Now it is evident that if Epiphanius used a better text of the hypomenmata than that which is preserved in Eusebius's extracts, he cannot have depended on Eusebius for his knowledge of them. Lawlor concludes that Epiphanius "must have had either another series of of excerpts, or more probably a complete copy of the work itself."
Lawlor then moves on to discuss two other passages which point to the same conclusion. In Haer. 27. 6 Epiphanius discusses the chronological difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric, and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anencletus ; and in the course of his argument he appeals to a passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians : He himself says in one of his letters, "I withdraw, I will depart, let the people of God remain at peace." And Epiphanius adds, "For I have found this in certain hypomnematismoi." The point of course is that Epiphanius goes into much greater detail than either Irenaeus or Eusebius go into when analyzing this passage.
Then Lawlor turns to Epiphanius's Haer. 78.7 where we have two passages, "one of which we have already shown to be found on the excerpt now before us, while the other will hereafter be proved to be borrowed from a later section of the Memoirs." He adds that the latter of these references is immediately followed by a sentence about the first wife of Joseph and her children, which leads up to and is immediately followed by the former. According to Lawlor "it may reasonably be inferred that this sentence, like the two between which it stands, is taken from the Memoirs." While he acknowledges that "it is true indeed that elsewhere in this chapter Epiphanius gleans information from the apocryphal Protevangelium of James" Lawlor adds that from the information given in this sentence it is certain that it could not have been derived from this source.
Our fragment records that Joseph's wife was of the tribe of Judah and that she had six children, facts which are not mentioned in the Protevangelium. To the description of James succeeds an argumentative passage, which occupies the remainder of the chapter, and then comes (Haer. 78. 8) an enumeration of the children of Joseph by his first wife and other particulars not contained in the Protoevangelium. Lawlor concludes that these may on similar grounds, but with less confidence, be referred to the hypomnemata. The description of James in Haer. 78, 7 begins with words to which nothing corresponds in the text as given by Eusebius : "He (Joseph) had therefore as is first-born James." For like reasons this clause may be considered as borrowed from the Memoirs. The inference is confirmed by the passage already quoted, which claims for the statement the authority of the hypomnematismoi of Eusebius, Clement and others. It is there associated with the statement that James was 'sanctified' (hegiasmenos) which corresponds with Hegesippus's "he was holy (hagios) from his mother's womb."
After going section by section through the material common to the two ancient authors Lawlor eventually concludes that "we have now reasons of varying force for believing that we have recovered from the Panarion of Epiphanius no less than seven passages not quoted by Eusebius" which are enumerated as follows:
1. That by his first wife, who was of the tribe of Judah Joseph had four sons and two daughters.
2. His sons were James, born when he was about forty years old, Jose, Symeon, and Judas, and his daughters Mary and Salome. After a widowhood of many years he took Mary when he was about eighty years of age.
3. James was his first-born.
4. James did not wear sandals.
5. He exercised priestly functions.
6. He wore the mitre.
7. At his prayer the heaven gave rain
and to these we may perhaps add that
8. That he was appointed first bishop by the Lord.
The point of course is that Lawlor helps reconstruct what is clearly Polycarp's original argument that he was the last heir to a rival tradition to that of Rome which was perpetuated by nothing short of the 'family of Jesus' for over a century! He notes that it is "certain that Eusebius was not ignorant of the view that James was appointed bishop by the Lord. In one place he describes him as 'having received the episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem at the hands of the Savior himself and the apostles.'" (HE 7.19)
It is thus looking increasingly odd that Irenaeus would simply gloss over this entire section of the hypomnemata in his third book. Instead he musters together some excuse to the effect that "it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches ... [but rather] 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." By leaving Polycarp's original bit about the Jerusalem Church in the hypomnemata and adding the Roman narrative in the paragraphs that follow, Irenaeus can fall back to the accusation that the heretics - his enemies - have erased the material he wants us to scrutinize. As we shall see this follows a familiar pattern not only with regards to the literature associated with Lucian's stranger but the entire New Testament canon too.
Of course there are many who want to believe the original claims about Jesus establishing essentially a 'family business' in Jerusalem. Polycarp's narrative is likely pure nonsense and is based on little more than the establishment of a lost 'golden age' to Christianity which he was attempting to 'revive' in the middle of the second century. The important thing for our present purposes is that few other Church Fathers seem to pay any interest to this fictitious 'original' Palestinian Christian community. Lawlor continues by noting that "we may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs of the passage represented by HE iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It began, as we have seen, with some such words as 'And after James the Just had bome witness . . . and Jerusalem had immediately afterwards been captured '". This seems to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had preceded it; and if so there can be little question that the narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted from the Memoirs} If the whole of that section is summarized in the words 'after James the Just had borne witness', its closing words, kai euthus Ouespasianos poliorkei autous, are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the sack of Jerusalem."
Lawlor then agrees with Zahn that Hegesippus included in his Memoirs a notice of the flight of the Christians of Jerusalem to Pella, immediately before the siege. One might argue that such a narrative could easily have followed the siege narrative. Lawlor notes that Epiphanius has three short narratives of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the origin of the Nazoraeans, and in the second, in similar fashion, of that of the Ebionites (Haer. 29. 7; 30. 2); the third is found in his treatise De Mensuris et Ponderibus (c. 15).3 And the three accounts are characterized by remarkable similarities of phraseology. The fugitives are 'all the apostles' in Haer. 29, 'all the disciples' in De Mens. 15, and in Haer. 30 'all who believed in Christ.' Pella is said both in Haer. 30 and De Mens. 15 to have been a city of the Decapolis,1 a coincidence all the more remarkable because the name 'Decapolis' was obsolete in Epiphanius's day. This fact he plainly intimates, in one case by observing that the Decapolis is mentioned in the Gospel, and in the other by his disclaimer of first-hand knowledge — "the city is said to belong to the Decapolis."
Lawlor then turns to the only extant account of the flight of earlier date than Epiphanius, that which is given by Eusebius. It is evident, however, that Epiphanius did not depend on it, for he states definitely that the Christians left Jerusalem in obedience to a command of Christ (Haer. 29) which was conveyed by an angel (De Mens. 15), while Eusebius merely says that they had "some sort of (tina) divine intimation (chresmon) granted by revelation." All these facts lead to the conclusion that Eusebius and Epiphanius relied on a common document for the flight to Pella. What was it? In the earlier part of the long sentence in which Eusebius mentions the flight an indirect reference is made to Hegesippus, when the death of James the Just is said to have been 'already recounted'; and Epiphanius, in that part of the Panarion in which occur his first two accounts of the same incident, is probably depending on the Memoirs for some of his statements about other things.
Indeed Lawlor says even more firmly later that "a close examination of the account of Symeon's election seems to reveal the fact that it was introduced by a notice of the departure of the Christians from Jerusalem." Epiphanius makes clear that the author of the hypomnemata claimed that many of the apostles, disciples, and relatives of the Lord as survived assembled from all quarters to elect a bishop to succeed James the Just. Eusebius also informs us that Symeon was elected bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, a statement which Lawlor says Eusebius probably derived from the portion of the hypomnemata now under discussion. It seems to imply that the Christians had returned thither on the conclusion of the siege.
Lawlor then argues that immediately after Hegesippus's account of the election of Symeon the following words appeared:
On this account they called the Church a virgin , for it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But Thebuthis. because he was not himself made bishop, begins to corrupt it from the seven heresies among the people — to which he himself belonged . . . Each [of the heretical teachers] severally and in different ways introduced their several opinions. From these came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, men who divided the unity of the Church with corrupt words against God and against His Christ.'
Eusebius then tells us what followed in the narrative 'Hegesippus in his narrative about certain heretics goes on to state that by these at that time the above-mentioned person [Symeon] was subjected to accusation, and after being tortured for many days in various manners as being a Christian, and very greatly astonishing the judge and his attendants, won as his reward a death which resembled the passion of the Lord."
Lawlor notes that "the first words of this sentence plainly allude to the passage quoted above. The allusion would have been more obvious if the list of heresies and false teachers which it contains had not been omitted in our translation." The succeeding clause will be at once recognized as a condensed paraphrase of the following "certain of these (namely the heretics) accuse Simon the son of Clopas as being a descendant of David and a Christian. And so he bears witness at the age of 120 years under Trajan Caesar and the proconsul Atticus.' Lawlor adds that the parenthesis 'namely the heretics' is clearly an addition of Eusebius.
Lawlor goes to come to an interesting conclusion based on a number of different proofs which is worth citing about the material which immediately followed. He notes that "Eusebius drew from Hegesippus the account of Domitian in chapter xvii and the statement of chapter xviii that the Apostle St. John was banished under Domitian to Patmos; and we have extended it by tracing to the same source the further statement in chapter xx that the apostle returned to Ephesus in the reign of Nerva." In other words, Polycarp's interest wasn't just in establishing narratives about James but also John who - as J Rendel Harris points out - have been transformed into the Dioscuri as early as our gospel and, he adds "in that one stroke swept them out of whatever historic reality they might have had and into the procedures of mythic transformation." While it is premature to say that Polycarp had a hand in introducing this concept into our gospels, it is worth keeping in mind for later sections of this book.
We are beginning to finally connect all the dots with regards to our historical 'Polycarp' - that is to say Lucian's stranger. We can begin to see that his beliefs and practices could not have been the same as Irenaeus for as Lampe notes, he was always an 'outsider,' a stranger in Rome. Polycarp came as something of a romantic balladeer, poetically referencing a Jerusalem Church which likely never existed but which edified his contemporary claims that he could not but help maintain the Passover of the Jews as Easter. Irenaeus must have seen the glint in our stranger's eye when he referenced an 'apostolic succession' in Jerusalem starting with James, the brother of Jesus, and thought 'I can do that too.'
Many cooks are reluctant to allow people to know how that make a beloved dish. Yet Polycarp apparently allowed Irenaeus close enough to see the magic being created right before his eyes. Irenaeus in turn saw Polycarp as a first step, a path leading to something grander than a mere wandering itinerant prophet. Irenaeus likely believed in the myth of a universal Church and thought he could realize that dream, first at Antioch and then finally at Rome. He likely possessed skills that Polycarp lacked, fostering relations with influential people, men of substance in high places. And so the reality of a universal Church being established everywhere and nowhere in particular was finally born at the end of the second century. Irenaeus's word - not merely about our stranger - but the whole of the Christian canon became law in no small part because of his self-confessed 'connections' with the Imperial court.
Yet in order to come to terms with Irenaeus's myth of a universal Roman Church we have to come to terms with Polycarp's infectious ballad about the Jerusalem Church. The 'sheet music' of this tune so to speak was written in the closing words of his five volume hypomnemata. The work as a whole follows the example of Josephus, the ultimately repentant former general in the Jewish resistance movement. As with most of our existing Josephan narrative, the hypomnemata was written in the third person. Yet in Polycarp's original we follow Josephus through the narration of a Christian believer. Josephus fully confess the true faith but nevertheless provides of the truthful of Christ's original prediction that the Jewish religion would eventually be destroyed owing to the inherent wickedness of its people.
Polycarp however, in the voice of Josephus, goes on to explain what was wrong with the Jews of this previous age - they misunderstood the purpose of the religion of Moses and the prophets. The misapplied the original teaching into some radical doctrine which made the nation of Israel hostile to the Roman people. Emerging out of this tragic misunderstanding was James the brother of Jesus, who founded a church in Jerusalem which continued as a church in exile down until the time of the very completion of the hypomnemata in 147 CE, the seventy seventh anniversary of the destruction of the Jewish temple.
Where was this Church? It was embodied in the example of Polycarp as it had in previous generations in the example of John, the brother of James. Yet with Polycarp's death in 165 CE there was a clear dilemma. How would this teaching be perpetuated into the future? We may suppose that the early example of Ignatius, the contents of the Ignatian canon and the canonical Acts of the Apostles formed an early response to this problem. The material came together around 170 CE to argue that Polycarp was commissioned by Ignatius to find a replacement for his empty episcopal chair at Antioch which was the original seat of the Catholic Church. But then something clearly happened by the time Irenaeus got around to correcting the hypomnemata. Historical events likely linked to Commodus's rise to power around 175 CE likely encouraged the idea of a Church centered in the Emperor's backyard - Rome.
It is of course hard to say how such an event became manifest. Perhaps it was a series of 'little things' of which we will never fully comprehend. Yet the historical process is clearly completed by the time Irenaeus quotes Polycarp in Book Four of his Against Heresies as supporting the transfer of the center of Christianity to Rome - "For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus" which as Irenaeus notes means "the (Roman) faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles." Polycarp was apparently a prominent spokesman for the idea that Christianity was completely compatible with the accumulation of wealth, foreshadowed by the ancient Israelite 'taking gold and silver' from the Pharaoh. So Irenaeus declares in what immediately followed the last citation that for members of the Catholic tradition "in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness. For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the garments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which, when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them?--not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Caesar; and to those who have not, does not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability?" [AH iv.30.1]
The point here as we shall see in coming chapters is that the Catholic Church did not just 'spring up' overnight in Rome as part of some natural development. Irenaeus clearly uses Polycarp again and again - and undoubtedly an altered copy of his hypomnemata - to make the case that a Christian 'Exodus' occurred to the 'Promised Land' of the Roman Church, where indeed leading members of the Church seemed to be 'in the pocket' of Caesar. Irenaeus points to Polycarp, his 'anonymous presbyter' as teaching that these were all foreshadowed by the experience of the ancient Exodus of the Israelites. Indeed, Irenaeus seems to remind his readers that the original Greek word for 'Catholic' - katholikos - has the specific meaning 'treasury' and that hoi katholou logoi literally means 'supervisor of accounts.'
In any event, the understanding of the development of the Roman Church is all ahead of us. For the moment it is important that we just come to terms with the original mythology developed by Irenaeus's predecessor. To this end we have to go back to that underlying 'division' we just referenced which must have existed at the end of book five in the hypomnemata where Irenaeus added the reference to the Roman Church. As Robert Lee Williams notes in his work on apostolic succession aptly titled 'Bishop Lists':
Hegesippus gave attention to the bishop introducing the succession in order to show that episcopal authority began in each church with an individual closer to Jesus than the sectarian leader could possibly be. The ecclesiastical leader was portrayed as closer both in time and in thought. We have the following evidence for the beginning of Hegesippus's Jerusalem and Roman successions. The Jerusalem succession began with James as bishop (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.4). James was contemporaneous with Jesus. James was “the Lord's brother” (2.23.4). Hegesippus recorded that James was appointed by Jesus himself (Epiphanius Pan 78.7). With reference to Hegesippus's philosophical school categories James was faithful to the “father” of the doctrine (cf. Justin, Dial. 35). He unswervingly witnessed to Jesus' claims. He testified of Jesus as the Christ, the apocalyptic Son of Man, and the Son of David (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.8–9, 14). The Roman succession began with Peter and Paul as bishops (Epiphanius, Pan. 27.6). These bishops were apostles. Regarding Paul Hegesippus noted that both Linus and Clement, contemporaries of Paul, later served as bishops (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 27.6).
This is a very useful description of the structure of the original hypomnemata. It describes the narrative in barest terms, first came Jerusalem, its bishop list dated to 147 CE and then the parallel Roman material. Williams also notes later that in each case there is a discussion about the manner in which heretics in each community caused many to 'fall away from the truth.'
Yet we have already determined that the entire Roman narrative is a fiction developed by Irenaeus to reconcile Polycarp's message with the argument for the primacy of the Church of Rome. The original hypomnemata makes clear the author's original status as - what Peter Lampe has coined - an 'outsider.' It is odd how the name 'Peregrinus' seems to fit the figure of Polycarp even when that connection has been deliberately suppressed. His narrative was clearly a kind of fairy tale - very similar in nature to the Clementine Romance tradition. That a Jewish Christian Church managed to establish itself in Jerusalem but also managed to survive three revolts and the active effort of Imperial conspiracies against it. Yet before we can develop a critique of what Hegesippus wrote about this entirely fabulous organization, it is important that we actually demonstrate what those before us have determined was in the original narrative at the end of Book Five. To this end it is worth going through Hugh Lawlor's work - almost line by line - in order to develop a clearer picture of its shape and color.
Lawlor begins our discussion of Hegesippus's account of James by noting that the earliest extract from Hegesippus is found in Eusebius's Church History Book Two Chapter Twenty Three and contains the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem. Lawlor demonstrates that "this is the only passage quoted by Eusebius of the position of which in the work of Hegesippus he gives us explicit information. It is expressly stated that it came from the fifth Memoir." He also references the fact that in the passage as given by Eusebius there are many repetitions which suggest either that he took it from a manuscript containing a corrupt text, or that Hegesippus was a very unskilful writer. But it has all the appearance of having been transcribed in its entirety.
Lawlor writes that even though there is no evident indication that Eusebius has omitted any part of the original hypomnemata once we consult with Epiphanius we will see that this appearance is delusive. For Epiphanius brings to our knowledge some sentences which must have belonged to this passage, and of which Eusebius takes no notice. Yet before attempting to prove this Lawlor thought it necessary to prove to his readers that Epiphanius had direct knowledge of our hypomnemata, or at any rate that for what he knew of them he was not entirely dependent on Eusebius. To this end, Lawlor reinforces here that Epiphanius (a) never mentions Hegesippus and (b) he notes that "though it is highly probable that he more than once refers to the Memoirs by name, in doing so he gives them a title which is not assigned to them by other writers." If he were simply using Eusebius as a source he would have followed that author's lead in identifying the material as 'the Memoirs of Hegesippus.'
Lawlor however concludes that "it is quite certain, however, that several passages of his Panarion are based on portions of the Memoirs quoted verbatim by Eusebius ; and a careful examination of those passages gives us reason to believe that in writing them Epiphanius used a text of the Memoirs which differed considerably from that which was known to Eusebius." It is apparent, for instance that Epiphanius has in Haer. 78.7 a description of James the Just which is plainly borrowed from the fragment now before us and cited in Eusebius's earlier account. Lawlor states that this will be obvious to any one who compares the two together and adds that it is only necessary to call attention to one clause in which his indebtedness to Hegesippus is less evident than elsewhere.
Epiphanius writes that James "was a Nazoraean, which being interpreted is holy". Now in the Memoirs as quoted by Eusebius the word "Nazoraean" does not occur. What according to him Hegesippus said was, "He was holy from his mother's womb, he drank not wine and strong drink, neither did he eat flesh, a razor did not touch his head, he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use a bath." That the greater part of this sentence might be fairly epitomized in the statement that James was a Nazorean (ie Nazirite) many will agree. That Epiphanius thought so is clear. For in another place, after quoting part of it almost as it stands in Eusebius — "In a bath he never washed, he partook not of flesh" — he adds the comment, "If the sons of Joseph knew the order of virginity and the work of Nazoraeans how much more did the old and honourable man (sc. Joseph the father of James) know how to keep a virgin pure, and to honour the vessel wherein, so to speak, dwelt the salvation of men?" (Haer 78.14)
Another point brought forward by Lawlor. It will be observed that in Epiphanius information that James was called Oblias is given near the beginning of the passage, immediately before this reference to his asceticism. In Eusebius it is lower down, after the account of his prayers. Lawlor encourages us to glance at the statement as it appears in Eusebius's text. It runs thus "Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him." Lawlor points to "several facts rouse the suspicion that the text is corrupt in this place." That James was named "the Just" was already said, and enlarged upon, only two sentences higher up; the explanation of the title here given is mere tautology — he was called righteous because of his righteousness; further on, the word dikaiosune whether it be taken as another name of James, as Schwartz's punctuation seems to suggest, or as a second translation of Oblias, is almost certainly wrong; and finally no satisfactory explanation of the allusion to the prophets in the last clause has ever been offered.
Now Lawlor also draws our attention to the fact that in Epiphanius, Haer.14, there is a passage which is, at any rate in part, a paraphrase of the opening sentences of our fragment. In it we find the words di huperbolen eulabeias. They evidently correspond to dia ge toi ten huperbolen in the sentence just quoted. for the two phrases are not only strikingly similar, they occur also in the same position, immediately after the notice of James's habit of prayer. But Epiphanius differs from Eusebius in two respects. He reads eulabeias instead of dikaiosune and he connects the clause, not with the statement that James received the name of "the Just," but with the assertion that he was a man of prayer. Placed in this context, Lawlor notes, the statement yields admirable sense. James prayed unceasingly because he was a man of much piety. As such, Lawlor notes "there can be little doubt that here Epiphanius had access to a better text of Hegesippus than Eusebius." .
Lawlor goes on to note that it is "already clear that the text used by Epiphanius differed considerably from that quoted by Eusebius in this passage, and was freer from corrupt readings. It may be added, as a further proof of its comparative excellence, that it presents a more satisfactory arrangement of the clauses." Lawlor draws our attention to the order of statements in Eusebius - James was called ' the Just ', he was an ascetic, he had priestly privileges and was constant in prayer, he was called 'the Just' and Oblias. In Epiphanius, on the other hand, the names by which he was known are first fully dealt with, and thus the way is opened for a description of his character, which proceeds without interruption. Now it is evident that if Epiphanius used a better text of the hypomenmata than that which is preserved in Eusebius's extracts, he cannot have depended on Eusebius for his knowledge of them. Lawlor concludes that Epiphanius "must have had either another series of of excerpts, or more probably a complete copy of the work itself."
Lawlor then moves on to discuss two other passages which point to the same conclusion. In Haer. 27. 6 Epiphanius discusses the chronological difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric, and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anencletus ; and in the course of his argument he appeals to a passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians : He himself says in one of his letters, "I withdraw, I will depart, let the people of God remain at peace." And Epiphanius adds, "For I have found this in certain hypomnematismoi." The point of course is that Epiphanius goes into much greater detail than either Irenaeus or Eusebius go into when analyzing this passage.
Then Lawlor turns to Epiphanius's Haer. 78.7 where we have two passages, "one of which we have already shown to be found on the excerpt now before us, while the other will hereafter be proved to be borrowed from a later section of the Memoirs." He adds that the latter of these references is immediately followed by a sentence about the first wife of Joseph and her children, which leads up to and is immediately followed by the former. According to Lawlor "it may reasonably be inferred that this sentence, like the two between which it stands, is taken from the Memoirs." While he acknowledges that "it is true indeed that elsewhere in this chapter Epiphanius gleans information from the apocryphal Protevangelium of James" Lawlor adds that from the information given in this sentence it is certain that it could not have been derived from this source.
Our fragment records that Joseph's wife was of the tribe of Judah and that she had six children, facts which are not mentioned in the Protevangelium. To the description of James succeeds an argumentative passage, which occupies the remainder of the chapter, and then comes (Haer. 78. 8) an enumeration of the children of Joseph by his first wife and other particulars not contained in the Protoevangelium. Lawlor concludes that these may on similar grounds, but with less confidence, be referred to the hypomnemata. The description of James in Haer. 78, 7 begins with words to which nothing corresponds in the text as given by Eusebius : "He (Joseph) had therefore as is first-born James." For like reasons this clause may be considered as borrowed from the Memoirs. The inference is confirmed by the passage already quoted, which claims for the statement the authority of the hypomnematismoi of Eusebius, Clement and others. It is there associated with the statement that James was 'sanctified' (hegiasmenos) which corresponds with Hegesippus's "he was holy (hagios) from his mother's womb."
After going section by section through the material common to the two ancient authors Lawlor eventually concludes that "we have now reasons of varying force for believing that we have recovered from the Panarion of Epiphanius no less than seven passages not quoted by Eusebius" which are enumerated as follows:
1. That by his first wife, who was of the tribe of Judah Joseph had four sons and two daughters.
2. His sons were James, born when he was about forty years old, Jose, Symeon, and Judas, and his daughters Mary and Salome. After a widowhood of many years he took Mary when he was about eighty years of age.
3. James was his first-born.
4. James did not wear sandals.
5. He exercised priestly functions.
6. He wore the mitre.
7. At his prayer the heaven gave rain
and to these we may perhaps add that
8. That he was appointed first bishop by the Lord.
The point of course is that Lawlor helps reconstruct what is clearly Polycarp's original argument that he was the last heir to a rival tradition to that of Rome which was perpetuated by nothing short of the 'family of Jesus' for over a century! He notes that it is "certain that Eusebius was not ignorant of the view that James was appointed bishop by the Lord. In one place he describes him as 'having received the episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem at the hands of the Savior himself and the apostles.'" (HE 7.19)
It is thus looking increasingly odd that Irenaeus would simply gloss over this entire section of the hypomnemata in his third book. Instead he musters together some excuse to the effect that "it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches ... [but rather] 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." By leaving Polycarp's original bit about the Jerusalem Church in the hypomnemata and adding the Roman narrative in the paragraphs that follow, Irenaeus can fall back to the accusation that the heretics - his enemies - have erased the material he wants us to scrutinize. As we shall see this follows a familiar pattern not only with regards to the literature associated with Lucian's stranger but the entire New Testament canon too.
Of course there are many who want to believe the original claims about Jesus establishing essentially a 'family business' in Jerusalem. Polycarp's narrative is likely pure nonsense and is based on little more than the establishment of a lost 'golden age' to Christianity which he was attempting to 'revive' in the middle of the second century. The important thing for our present purposes is that few other Church Fathers seem to pay any interest to this fictitious 'original' Palestinian Christian community. Lawlor continues by noting that "we may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs of the passage represented by HE iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It began, as we have seen, with some such words as 'And after James the Just had bome witness . . . and Jerusalem had immediately afterwards been captured '". This seems to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had preceded it; and if so there can be little question that the narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted from the Memoirs} If the whole of that section is summarized in the words 'after James the Just had borne witness', its closing words, kai euthus Ouespasianos poliorkei autous, are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the sack of Jerusalem."
Lawlor then agrees with Zahn that Hegesippus included in his Memoirs a notice of the flight of the Christians of Jerusalem to Pella, immediately before the siege. One might argue that such a narrative could easily have followed the siege narrative. Lawlor notes that Epiphanius has three short narratives of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the origin of the Nazoraeans, and in the second, in similar fashion, of that of the Ebionites (Haer. 29. 7; 30. 2); the third is found in his treatise De Mensuris et Ponderibus (c. 15).3 And the three accounts are characterized by remarkable similarities of phraseology. The fugitives are 'all the apostles' in Haer. 29, 'all the disciples' in De Mens. 15, and in Haer. 30 'all who believed in Christ.' Pella is said both in Haer. 30 and De Mens. 15 to have been a city of the Decapolis,1 a coincidence all the more remarkable because the name 'Decapolis' was obsolete in Epiphanius's day. This fact he plainly intimates, in one case by observing that the Decapolis is mentioned in the Gospel, and in the other by his disclaimer of first-hand knowledge — "the city is said to belong to the Decapolis."
Lawlor then turns to the only extant account of the flight of earlier date than Epiphanius, that which is given by Eusebius. It is evident, however, that Epiphanius did not depend on it, for he states definitely that the Christians left Jerusalem in obedience to a command of Christ (Haer. 29) which was conveyed by an angel (De Mens. 15), while Eusebius merely says that they had "some sort of (tina) divine intimation (chresmon) granted by revelation." All these facts lead to the conclusion that Eusebius and Epiphanius relied on a common document for the flight to Pella. What was it? In the earlier part of the long sentence in which Eusebius mentions the flight an indirect reference is made to Hegesippus, when the death of James the Just is said to have been 'already recounted'; and Epiphanius, in that part of the Panarion in which occur his first two accounts of the same incident, is probably depending on the Memoirs for some of his statements about other things.
Indeed Lawlor says even more firmly later that "a close examination of the account of Symeon's election seems to reveal the fact that it was introduced by a notice of the departure of the Christians from Jerusalem." Epiphanius makes clear that the author of the hypomnemata claimed that many of the apostles, disciples, and relatives of the Lord as survived assembled from all quarters to elect a bishop to succeed James the Just. Eusebius also informs us that Symeon was elected bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, a statement which Lawlor says Eusebius probably derived from the portion of the hypomnemata now under discussion. It seems to imply that the Christians had returned thither on the conclusion of the siege.
Lawlor then argues that immediately after Hegesippus's account of the election of Symeon the following words appeared:
On this account they called the Church a virgin , for it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But Thebuthis. because he was not himself made bishop, begins to corrupt it from the seven heresies among the people — to which he himself belonged . . . Each [of the heretical teachers] severally and in different ways introduced their several opinions. From these came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, men who divided the unity of the Church with corrupt words against God and against His Christ.'
Eusebius then tells us what followed in the narrative 'Hegesippus in his narrative about certain heretics goes on to state that by these at that time the above-mentioned person [Symeon] was subjected to accusation, and after being tortured for many days in various manners as being a Christian, and very greatly astonishing the judge and his attendants, won as his reward a death which resembled the passion of the Lord."
Lawlor notes that "the first words of this sentence plainly allude to the passage quoted above. The allusion would have been more obvious if the list of heresies and false teachers which it contains had not been omitted in our translation." The succeeding clause will be at once recognized as a condensed paraphrase of the following "certain of these (namely the heretics) accuse Simon the son of Clopas as being a descendant of David and a Christian. And so he bears witness at the age of 120 years under Trajan Caesar and the proconsul Atticus.' Lawlor adds that the parenthesis 'namely the heretics' is clearly an addition of Eusebius.
Lawlor goes to come to an interesting conclusion based on a number of different proofs which is worth citing about the material which immediately followed. He notes that "Eusebius drew from Hegesippus the account of Domitian in chapter xvii and the statement of chapter xviii that the Apostle St. John was banished under Domitian to Patmos; and we have extended it by tracing to the same source the further statement in chapter xx that the apostle returned to Ephesus in the reign of Nerva." In other words, Polycarp's interest wasn't just in establishing narratives about James but also John who - as J Rendel Harris points out - have been transformed into the Dioscuri as early as our gospel and, he adds "in that one stroke swept them out of whatever historic reality they might have had and into the procedures of mythic transformation." While it is premature to say that Polycarp had a hand in introducing this concept into our gospels, it is worth keeping in mind for later sections of this book.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Against Polycarp [Part Seventeen]
So it is that we now approach the final destination in our journey. We stand on the brink of rediscovering the original influence of Polycarp over the nascent Catholic Church that Irenaeus did his best to hide from us. It is not enough for us merely to say that Lucian's stranger is really Polycarp, Ignatius or Clement. The key to putting all the pieces together is to piece together a text that no longer exists - the hypomnemata which Eusebius wrongly associates with a certain 'Hegesippus.' Polycarp has to be the author of the text. It is implicit in the phraseology of Irenaeus immediately after he cites material from the work and this suspicion is confirmed by Eusebius's reference to Irenaeus employing a 'commentary' in the name of his anonymous 'apostolic presbyter' who Charles Hill clearly demonstrates is Polycarp.
Of course it has to be acknowledged that there is a minority opinion in scholarship that says that Irenaeus is not citing from the hypomnemata in Book Three. Pheme Perkins in her Peter, Apostle for the Whole Church argues that Irenaeus might be citing from a different tradition than Epiphanius because of a slight difference she sees in the start of the episcopal list. She begins:
in the mid-second century, Hegesippus drew up a list to guarantee transmission of true doctrine amid the claims of rival Gnostic groups (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22). 16 Eusebius quotes a section of Hegesippus which indicates that he also catalogued Gnostic sects and Jewish sects opposed to Christianity. The principle of such catalogues was to show where they had deviated from the true faith. Eusebius has not preserved Hegesippus' list in complete form. His references to the succession of Roman bishops begin with Linus (Hist. Eccl. 3.13), not Peter. Other scholars prefer to reconstruct Hegesippus from a list in Epiphanius that ends with Anicetus (Panarion 27.6). Epiphanius' list refers to Peter and Paul jointly as the first bishops of Rome. However, the designation of both as "bishops" seems suspect. Irenaeus is more careful to designate Peter and Paul founders of the Roman church. Epiphanius may have adapted the list to the later conviction that the founders had been the first bishops. Irenaeus' list (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) gives the first bishop, Linus, apostolic credentials by asserting that he is the Linus who appears among those sending greetings in 2 Timothy 4:21. The succession of twelve Roman bishops from Linus guarantees the transmission of the authentic tradition.
Yet Perkins analysis is fundamentally flawed. Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius have all been demonstrated to have been using the same original source and the idea that Irenaeus is somehow irreconcilably in conflict with Epiphanius is certainly an overstatement.
If we go back to Irenaeus's original citation of the hypomnemata he originally attributed to Polycarp we see that the specific names 'Peter and Paul' do come up as founders of the tradition of Rome. We read from the very beginning of chapter three of Book Three again:
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; 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 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 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.
The best studies all acknowledge that the three Church Fathers are referencing the same material. Nevertheless there are examples of other scholars who feel uncomfortable 'working in dark' and base any degree of certainly on a text that no longer exists. So F F Bruce notes the citation above "is in keeping with early tradition which names Peter and Paul as founders not only of the church of Rome but also of the Roman succession of bishops" and cautiously puts forward that "Irenaeus's informant may have been Hegesippus." The point of course is that if the reports come from the same source, which they certainly do, the hypomnemata wrongly attributed to Hegesippus by Eusebius has to be the original text.
Indeed I want to draw the readers attention again to Irenaeus's opening words which imply that he could if he wanted cite the episcopal lists that Hegesippus apparently compiled in the same section but refrains from doing so. This seems to confirm a pattern that we are about to show in all the reports that the hypomnemata originally dealt with the Jerusalem Church, its founder James, an episcopal list detailing his successors and a brief note about some sectarian groups which sprung up in the early years of the Church. It is hard not to get the sense that this was certainly from Polycarp's own hand and that it was ultimately connected to the Paschal controversy he had with Anicetus. It was part of the stranger's defense arguing that he could not change his practices because he was only preserving the teachings associated with the queen of all churches - i.e. the Jerusalem Church. This document was the original basis for Irenaeus's statement that "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." In other words, 'the tradition of John' was really for the stranger an argument for the primacy of the Jerusalem church.
Lawlor's reconstruction of this original text makes absolutely certain that at least part of this narrative is witnessed by Eusebius as occurring in the fifth and last book in the series. As we shall see here the account of James's beheading happens just before the account of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. The rest of the material about the episcopal line which followed and Imperial efforts to wipe out the line of these 'sons of David' and many other details must have concluded the original five volume work. It will be our supposition that Irenaeus extended the original narrative to include mention of Polycarp's journey from Syria to Corinth and his arrival and stay in Rome, his meeting with Anicetus, his stay until the reign of Eleutherius with specific mention of Rome, the episcopal line starting with Paul and Peter and ending with a lengthy discussion of Marcellina and the Carpocratian heresy.
It will be noted that Irenaeus's episcopal succession is about five or seven years off the Liberian catalogue (c. late fourth century) but this is easily explained given the anomalies of that list. Every surviving list of Roman bishops that has come down to us has problems associated with it. The Liberian catalogue for instance splits 'Cletus' and 'Anacletus' (the two different spelling of the same person cited in Irenaeus's and Epiphanius's list) into two separate people. The fact that Pope 'Sixtus' happens to be the sixth in line of Peter is problematic too. But the point is that Epiphanius obvious recognized the problems with the original Roman list in the hypomnemata as he seems to intent on adding some years to Clement's tenure presumably to 'fill in a hole' in the succession which would 'correct' the original chronology from being 'off' five to ten years years the accepted dates.
So it is that Epiphanius says now that in spite of what he reads in this hypomnemata Clement 'must have' first accepted the post of bishop before Linus but then resigned and took it up later. So it is immediately after making this formulation he says "in any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way." In other words, the reference is very precise but ultimately inaccurate. The inherent problems in the narrative undoubtedly account for why Epiphanius never cites the author nor the name of the original text. It was cited by Irenaeus as authoritative so that proved its 'apostolic authority.' Nevertheless, revealing too much about this book was problematic to say the least.
To this end, it is hardly an overstatement to say that it is of paramount importance for us reconstruct the original shape of the work as best we can. If we do this successfully we will see quite clearly that 'Polycarp' was not the witness for the Roman tradition that Irenaeus claims in Book Three. As we shall see, this reference represents nothing short of a deliberate and ultimately dishonest attempt of Irenaeus to reconcile the historical stranger of Lucian with the Roman Church and fits within a nexus of material we have already brought forward. In other words, there were two layers to the original ending of the hypomnemata which must have clearly reflected differences in Polycarp's and Irenaeus's particular point of view.
Polycarp originally developed the hypomnemata in the name of Josephus to demonstrate that Christianity came out of the Jerusalem Church. In this text Christianity developed out of a 'Jewish repentance' for their forefathers madly rushing into war and not seeing that the truth about Jesus Christ. This is why James and the episcopal list associated with the Jerusalem Church was so important. It provided a historical context justifying the stranger's community as a 'church within the church' - a specifically Jewish-Christian community - which wanted to retain its practices owing to apostolic precedent rather than having to adapt itself to Roman customs and traditions.
Irenaeus by contrast employed the same hypomnemata to reinforce that Polycarp was not advocating Jerusalem primacy but was ultimately a witness for the antiquity and the authority of the Roman Church. This is exactly what Irenaeus meant when he introduces Polycarp to us in chapter three of Book Three just after citing episcopal list of his hypomnemata. Just look at the way he (a) introduces the Roman list and then (b) emphasizes that Polycarp's authority is apostolic:
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 [heretics] who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; 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 the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops ... 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 ...
Polycarp is clearly Irenaeus's original source. Indeed because scholars typically believe in Irenaeus's claims they fail to see that he has to present a witness who (a) the heretics could not reject was 'apostolic' and (b) whose testimony about a specifically Roman Church they could not refute. Irenaeus is not merely saying that the actual episcopal order in Rome was apostolic but rather that the written source he was drawing from was apostolic - hence the description of Polycarp here as 'instructed by apostles,' but one who had been 'conversant' with apostles. In other words, the hypomnemata itself is of apostolic authority.
Now we as textual critics can immediately see the 'seem' where Irenaeus sewed together this Roman list on to a pre-existing document testifying to Jerusalem episcopal primacy. All the dates in the original narrative conform to its being written on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the Jewish war - i.e. 147 CE. To this end as Turner noted already the Jerusalem line ends in the same year as the authors calculation of the distance between him and Moses the Patriarch. Indeed Book Five of the hypomnemata must have ended with this context in mind for the Jerusalem Church seems to have died out with the reign of Judas.
When Irenaeus begins his discussion by saying I won't cite the episcopal list of other traditions, it is clearly because the original reference of the hypomnemata to the Jerusalem Church was problematic. The heretics whom he refutes must have had copies of the original text which ended with Polycarp's original witness that he was the last witness for the Jerusalem community. Irenaeus goes on to add the bit about Polycarp coming through Corinth and citing from the Letter of Clement before coming to Rome and witnessing not only Anicetus but also Soter and Eleutherius. These details are very important for Irenaeus as they explicitly deny any connection between his master and the crazy 'stranger' who hung around the Olympic games every year and ultimately burned himself to death. It also suggests that Polycarp knew and approved of the current bishop Eleutherius who undoubtedly hand-picked by Irenaeus's organization to perpetuate their version of his teaching. Florinus and his 'Valentinian' followers undoubtedly only knew of the Jerusalem Church ending and undoubtedly had a very different opinion as to which community preserved the true teachings of their master.
Of course it has to be acknowledged that there is a minority opinion in scholarship that says that Irenaeus is not citing from the hypomnemata in Book Three. Pheme Perkins in her Peter, Apostle for the Whole Church argues that Irenaeus might be citing from a different tradition than Epiphanius because of a slight difference she sees in the start of the episcopal list. She begins:
in the mid-second century, Hegesippus drew up a list to guarantee transmission of true doctrine amid the claims of rival Gnostic groups (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22). 16 Eusebius quotes a section of Hegesippus which indicates that he also catalogued Gnostic sects and Jewish sects opposed to Christianity. The principle of such catalogues was to show where they had deviated from the true faith. Eusebius has not preserved Hegesippus' list in complete form. His references to the succession of Roman bishops begin with Linus (Hist. Eccl. 3.13), not Peter. Other scholars prefer to reconstruct Hegesippus from a list in Epiphanius that ends with Anicetus (Panarion 27.6). Epiphanius' list refers to Peter and Paul jointly as the first bishops of Rome. However, the designation of both as "bishops" seems suspect. Irenaeus is more careful to designate Peter and Paul founders of the Roman church. Epiphanius may have adapted the list to the later conviction that the founders had been the first bishops. Irenaeus' list (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) gives the first bishop, Linus, apostolic credentials by asserting that he is the Linus who appears among those sending greetings in 2 Timothy 4:21. The succession of twelve Roman bishops from Linus guarantees the transmission of the authentic tradition.
Yet Perkins analysis is fundamentally flawed. Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius have all been demonstrated to have been using the same original source and the idea that Irenaeus is somehow irreconcilably in conflict with Epiphanius is certainly an overstatement.
If we go back to Irenaeus's original citation of the hypomnemata he originally attributed to Polycarp we see that the specific names 'Peter and Paul' do come up as founders of the tradition of Rome. We read from the very beginning of chapter three of Book Three again:
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; 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 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 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.
The best studies all acknowledge that the three Church Fathers are referencing the same material. Nevertheless there are examples of other scholars who feel uncomfortable 'working in dark' and base any degree of certainly on a text that no longer exists. So F F Bruce notes the citation above "is in keeping with early tradition which names Peter and Paul as founders not only of the church of Rome but also of the Roman succession of bishops" and cautiously puts forward that "Irenaeus's informant may have been Hegesippus." The point of course is that if the reports come from the same source, which they certainly do, the hypomnemata wrongly attributed to Hegesippus by Eusebius has to be the original text.
Indeed I want to draw the readers attention again to Irenaeus's opening words which imply that he could if he wanted cite the episcopal lists that Hegesippus apparently compiled in the same section but refrains from doing so. This seems to confirm a pattern that we are about to show in all the reports that the hypomnemata originally dealt with the Jerusalem Church, its founder James, an episcopal list detailing his successors and a brief note about some sectarian groups which sprung up in the early years of the Church. It is hard not to get the sense that this was certainly from Polycarp's own hand and that it was ultimately connected to the Paschal controversy he had with Anicetus. It was part of the stranger's defense arguing that he could not change his practices because he was only preserving the teachings associated with the queen of all churches - i.e. the Jerusalem Church. This document was the original basis for Irenaeus's statement that "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." In other words, 'the tradition of John' was really for the stranger an argument for the primacy of the Jerusalem church.
Lawlor's reconstruction of this original text makes absolutely certain that at least part of this narrative is witnessed by Eusebius as occurring in the fifth and last book in the series. As we shall see here the account of James's beheading happens just before the account of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. The rest of the material about the episcopal line which followed and Imperial efforts to wipe out the line of these 'sons of David' and many other details must have concluded the original five volume work. It will be our supposition that Irenaeus extended the original narrative to include mention of Polycarp's journey from Syria to Corinth and his arrival and stay in Rome, his meeting with Anicetus, his stay until the reign of Eleutherius with specific mention of Rome, the episcopal line starting with Paul and Peter and ending with a lengthy discussion of Marcellina and the Carpocratian heresy.
It will be noted that Irenaeus's episcopal succession is about five or seven years off the Liberian catalogue (c. late fourth century) but this is easily explained given the anomalies of that list. Every surviving list of Roman bishops that has come down to us has problems associated with it. The Liberian catalogue for instance splits 'Cletus' and 'Anacletus' (the two different spelling of the same person cited in Irenaeus's and Epiphanius's list) into two separate people. The fact that Pope 'Sixtus' happens to be the sixth in line of Peter is problematic too. But the point is that Epiphanius obvious recognized the problems with the original Roman list in the hypomnemata as he seems to intent on adding some years to Clement's tenure presumably to 'fill in a hole' in the succession which would 'correct' the original chronology from being 'off' five to ten years years the accepted dates.
So it is that Epiphanius says now that in spite of what he reads in this hypomnemata Clement 'must have' first accepted the post of bishop before Linus but then resigned and took it up later. So it is immediately after making this formulation he says "in any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way." In other words, the reference is very precise but ultimately inaccurate. The inherent problems in the narrative undoubtedly account for why Epiphanius never cites the author nor the name of the original text. It was cited by Irenaeus as authoritative so that proved its 'apostolic authority.' Nevertheless, revealing too much about this book was problematic to say the least.
To this end, it is hardly an overstatement to say that it is of paramount importance for us reconstruct the original shape of the work as best we can. If we do this successfully we will see quite clearly that 'Polycarp' was not the witness for the Roman tradition that Irenaeus claims in Book Three. As we shall see, this reference represents nothing short of a deliberate and ultimately dishonest attempt of Irenaeus to reconcile the historical stranger of Lucian with the Roman Church and fits within a nexus of material we have already brought forward. In other words, there were two layers to the original ending of the hypomnemata which must have clearly reflected differences in Polycarp's and Irenaeus's particular point of view.
Polycarp originally developed the hypomnemata in the name of Josephus to demonstrate that Christianity came out of the Jerusalem Church. In this text Christianity developed out of a 'Jewish repentance' for their forefathers madly rushing into war and not seeing that the truth about Jesus Christ. This is why James and the episcopal list associated with the Jerusalem Church was so important. It provided a historical context justifying the stranger's community as a 'church within the church' - a specifically Jewish-Christian community - which wanted to retain its practices owing to apostolic precedent rather than having to adapt itself to Roman customs and traditions.
Irenaeus by contrast employed the same hypomnemata to reinforce that Polycarp was not advocating Jerusalem primacy but was ultimately a witness for the antiquity and the authority of the Roman Church. This is exactly what Irenaeus meant when he introduces Polycarp to us in chapter three of Book Three just after citing episcopal list of his hypomnemata. Just look at the way he (a) introduces the Roman list and then (b) emphasizes that Polycarp's authority is apostolic:
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 [heretics] who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; 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 the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops ... 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 ...
Polycarp is clearly Irenaeus's original source. Indeed because scholars typically believe in Irenaeus's claims they fail to see that he has to present a witness who (a) the heretics could not reject was 'apostolic' and (b) whose testimony about a specifically Roman Church they could not refute. Irenaeus is not merely saying that the actual episcopal order in Rome was apostolic but rather that the written source he was drawing from was apostolic - hence the description of Polycarp here as 'instructed by apostles,' but one who had been 'conversant' with apostles. In other words, the hypomnemata itself is of apostolic authority.
Now we as textual critics can immediately see the 'seem' where Irenaeus sewed together this Roman list on to a pre-existing document testifying to Jerusalem episcopal primacy. All the dates in the original narrative conform to its being written on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the Jewish war - i.e. 147 CE. To this end as Turner noted already the Jerusalem line ends in the same year as the authors calculation of the distance between him and Moses the Patriarch. Indeed Book Five of the hypomnemata must have ended with this context in mind for the Jerusalem Church seems to have died out with the reign of Judas.
When Irenaeus begins his discussion by saying I won't cite the episcopal list of other traditions, it is clearly because the original reference of the hypomnemata to the Jerusalem Church was problematic. The heretics whom he refutes must have had copies of the original text which ended with Polycarp's original witness that he was the last witness for the Jerusalem community. Irenaeus goes on to add the bit about Polycarp coming through Corinth and citing from the Letter of Clement before coming to Rome and witnessing not only Anicetus but also Soter and Eleutherius. These details are very important for Irenaeus as they explicitly deny any connection between his master and the crazy 'stranger' who hung around the Olympic games every year and ultimately burned himself to death. It also suggests that Polycarp knew and approved of the current bishop Eleutherius who undoubtedly hand-picked by Irenaeus's organization to perpetuate their version of his teaching. Florinus and his 'Valentinian' followers undoubtedly only knew of the Jerusalem Church ending and undoubtedly had a very different opinion as to which community preserved the true teachings of their master.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Against Polycarp [Part Sixteen]
At every turn in our investigation we have been surprised by unexpected information which challenges our tradition interpretation of the development of earliest Christianity. We have now reached the summit of the mountain in our journey. We have not only discovered clear evidence that Irenaeus manipulated, broke apart and rearranged original evidence associated with Lucian's stranger, it was clearly associated with a 'cover up' of inherent 'controversies' associated with that shadowy figure. Many times in our wanderings in the literary wilderness, we have wondered with Irenaeus deliberately speaks of his master in ambiguous terms, indeed as an essentially anonymous 'apostolic presbyter.' Now we have perhaps found the reason for that ambiguity - a problematic mid-second century text later identified as a hypomnemata.
We have discovered something so difficult to understand it doesn't seem at first to be what we claim it is - viz. the Rosetta Stone of ancient Christianity. At best it can be described as an obscure book cited only in part in the writings of some of the earliest Fathers. So now let us ask, why should this hypomnemata - a word most of us can't even spell far less know its meaning - be put forward as something which turns our inherited history totally upside down? The answer lies both in the nature of what a hypomnema (plural hypomnemata) is and what it necessarily demonstrates about the earliest period of the Christian religion.
Irenaeus tells us that God through the Holy Spirit sent a message to four different evangelists and many other apostles and letter writers. Modern scholarship has learned to ignore Irenaeus's claims, but as we shall see in the next section, the earliest traditions outside of the Catholic Church were very comfortable admitting that the gospel was a composite text and it is often described in some terminology related to the term hypomnema (cf. Justin Martyr, Tatian and Clement of Alexandria)
The point is that it was Irenaeus who invented the unhelpful idea that the writings of Christianity just dropped out of the sky directly from God. In the period before his influence it seems that everyone from the time of the evangelists to the earliest Church Fathers were essentially engaged in the activity of writing hypomnemata explaining the divine word of Christianity to their disciples. A partial list of early authors of hypomnemata in Christianity would include
1. the apostles (Justin I Apol. 66.3)
2. Peter (Justin Dial. 103; Clement Theod. 1.19)
3. Mark (Clement Theod. 1.19; Papias HE 3.39.15-16 = apomnemoneumata)
4. Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 4.22.4)
5. Polycarp (According to Eusebius, HE 5, 8, 8)
6. Symmachus (Eusebius, HE 6.17)
7. Pantaenus (Ecl. Prop. 56.2; Eusebius HE 5.10.4)
8. Heracleon (Origen Com. Jn. 6.92)
9. Clement (Strom. 1.1)
10. Ambrose, patron of Origen (so Cureton Spicilegium Syriacum p. xii)
The point then is that it was Irenaeus who essentially said for the first time that the New Testament canon was the 'limit' for true knowledge about Christ. It would seem that before his time it was quite normal for individuals to compose 'commentaries' of some sort in order to initiate devotees into the secret meaning of Jesus's sayings. One would have to think that our hypomnemata here fits the contemporary milieu. But what can we say for certain about the contents of this hypomnemata which was likely written by Polycarp in the name of Josephus? Perhaps the place to begin is to put our familiar understanding about the figure of 'Josephus the Jew' under the microscope.
The inherited story about Josephus is rather straightforward. He was the son of a prominent priest in Jerusalem named Matthias. Josephus was a leader in the Jewish revolt of 66 - 70 CE who was taken prisoner by the future Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus, and was ultimately banished. According to the traditional narrative Josephus came to Rome he presented to the emperors, father and son, a history of the events of that Jewish war, which were deposited in the public library and, on account of his genius, was found worthy of a statue at Rome. The works of Josephus are actually quite rarely referenced by the early Church Fathers, i.e. those who lived before Constantine. Eusebius is the first person who cites a text which resembles our surviving copies of Josephus and he is often suspected of having a hand in reshaping earlier material.
Why was there such reluctance to cite the original material? One possible explanation was that it was well known that the narrative did not go back to the time of Josephus but a second century author - even Polycarp. In other words, the writings of Josephus had a lot of baggage attached to them. It was only once Eusebius likely corrected the text and purged them of their original 'difficulties' that the material was widely used by Church figures.
Indeed as we have already noted, there is another version of the Josephus narrative which survives in a Latin translation and universally acknowledged to be 'heavily Christianized.' It, like the Eusebian narrative was copied in the fourth century and survives in many different manuscripts. As we noted in our last chapter the material survives under the name 'Hegesippus' and is unfortunately dismissed by most scholars as a 'corrupt' version of our familiar 'first century' narrative. What we are suggesting here is that all these assumptions are flawed because the actual evidence from our earliest witnesses to the Josephan narrative argues for it being composed by Polycarp - a Christian convert of Jewish extraction - in the year 147 CE.
It is in fact very likely that our stranger wrote this text in Alexandria, where he undoubtedly had access to all the historical sources used to make this hypomnemata and had this text with him when he arrived in Rome in 153 CE. The five volume book was written in the name of Josephus on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the war. It was intended to provide eyewitness testimony for the circumstances of the end of the Jewish religion and ultimately confirm Polycarp's own view of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Needless to say the book must also have been very controversial. It not only posits a very unique theological point of view but must also at the same time have been attempting to displace an earlier interpretation likely associated with Josephus's rival Justus of Tiberias.
The fact that only Irenaeus dares to acknowledge the fact that Josephus was not the original author of the material is pivotal here. For the later writers subsequent to Irenaeus all emphasize or pretend that a man named Josephus (or some such derivation) who lived in the second century wrote this narrative which at least partly focused on the life of another Jew named Josephus living in the first century. This whole scenario seems incredible to say the least and it is undoubtedly why most scholars reject it as spurious. But as we have seen time and time again in our study we can't just reject a literary tradition merely because it 'sounds stupid.' Maybe the original tradition really was quite idiotic and only subsequently 'corrected' to make it sound more reasonable. We can't afford to go into the study of Christianity accepting only those answers which ultimately vindicate the authenticity of the tradition. In this role we are only serving as handmaidens of the Church rather than as true men of science.
So it is that those writers like Clement and Eusebius likely had to develop an absurd alternative explanation to the origin of the hypomnemata other than that it was developed out of Polycarp's imagination. Why so? Because a careful examination of the material makes it all too obvious that the same individual who forged this history in the name of 'Josephus,' likely was also responsible for counterfeiting the New Testament canon. As such there was only solution for Eusebius - to purge the composition of any references to its original author and it being developed by the pious forger in the second century.
We shall develop these ideas in subsequent chapters here but it is enough to say that no one should underestimate the importance of Josephus to the Church. As a Jew, he provides seemingly 'objective' eyewitness testimony regarding the fulfillment of Jesus's prediction as to the coming end of the Jewish religion. As scholars have taken for granted the authenticity of the material in the name of Josephus, they fall into the trap first established by Polycarp and later 'completed' by Eusebius - viz. the establishment of a historical 'point of view' for accepting a particular gospel interpretation. This understanding has become so second nature for us that we don't even realize how the texts of Josephus have effectively manipulated our thought processes.
The entire purpose of this present work is to help make people realize how our entire view of history has been manipulated by the same man who edited the gospel and the apostolic epistles. The reason Josephus 'fits' with Christianity so well is that it was artificially designed that way from the very beginning. Yet before we get to these arguments let's finish up developing the historical implications of our last chapter. Let us ask - why should we think that the hypomnemata were related to the writings of Josephus? The first step in that direction is to eliminate other possibilities and to this end Lawlor begins by making a few very important observations which cannot be ignored. Lawlor notes that when examined with a critical eye, nothing in Eusebius's description of the hypomnemata suggests that it was a Church History, as many other have claimed.
Lawlor points to Eusebius's own words when he writes that "in five treatise he [Hegesippus] composed memoirs (hypomnematisamenos) in a very simple style of writing, containing the uncorrupt tradition of the apostolic doctrine (kerygmatos)." As noted, there is nothing here which implies a historical work. So let us turn instead to what Eusebius really tells us as to the nature of the book which Hegesippus wrote. His most important statement occurs in the immediate vicinity of that now referred to, forming the closing sentence of Church History Book Four and the opening words of the next chapter. Lawlor notes that "after giving some account of Saturninus and Basilides, and of Carpocrates, 'the father of the Gnostics,' he proceeds 'Nevertheless, in the time of the heretics just mentioned, the truth again called to her aid many champions of her own, who made war against the godless heresies, not only by viva voce refutations, but also by written demonstrations. Among these (en toutois) flourished Hegesippus.'" Again nothing in here to indicate that the text was a 'history of the Catholic Church.'
After a few sentences devoted to Hegesippus, we see Eusebius passes on to Justin Martyr. This description leaves no doubt that the work of Hegesippus was not primarily a history. Lawlor sees it instead as a "defence of the Faith against the attacks of heretics, and specially of the Gnostics." He repeats again a little later "the Memoirs then were an Apology for the Faith against unbelievers, for orthodoxy against misbelievers." Yet let us stop right there and question whether Lawlor's gives the best explanation of the problem raised in his original question.
If the hypomnemata here is not a 'Church history' specifically does it follow that it can't be any other kind of historical chronology? Lawlor points to the work as being used to define orthodoxy or at least the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine - "in disputing with the Greeks, if our writer used the arguments which form the stock-in-trade of the second-century apologists, he would not draw much upon ecclesiastical history. Against the Gnostics also there was much to be said which was purely theological, though here there was a historical argument, upon which Hegesippus, like other controversialists of his age, laid stress." But surely this in itself does not eliminate the possibility that even the Christian material was connected to a greater historical narrative related to the Jewish war of 66 - 70 CE.
There are only a handful of acknowledged citations of the contents of the hypomnemata but one of the most famous is the reference to the beheading of James the brother of Jesus. This narrative is always cited as being part of the original Josephan tradition but has now been edited out of earliest manuscripts. Lawlor has to acknowledge that this narrative was present in the hypomnemata of Hegesippus but doesn't seem to see the greater implications of this discovery. We read:
we may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs of the passage represented by HE iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It began, as we have seen, with some sucwords as 'And after James the Just had bome witness . . . and Jerusalem had immediately afterwards been captured '. This seems to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had preceded it; and if so there can be little question that the narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted from the Memoirs} If the whole of that section is summarized in the words 'after James the Just had borne witness,' its closing words 'kai euthus Ouespasianus poliorkei autous,' are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the sack of Jerusalem. But while it seems plain that the passage now under consideration followed the account of the martyrdom of St. James, it is less easy to decide whether it followed it immediately or was separated from it by another passage. On the one hand, the abrupt close of the story of the martyrdom with the sentence just quoted certainly suggests that some account of the Jewish war followed. And the inference is supported by the first sentence of our passage. Would Hegesippus have resumed his narrative in so elaborate a fashion if nothing had intervened between the close of the section about St. James and the beginning of that about Symeon? But on the other hand it is difficult to believe that if Hegesippus had enlarged on this subject Eusebius would have failed to quote him. For the war the historian depends wholly on Josephus, though when he comes to the murder of St. James he places his account side by side with that of the Christian writer.
One has to feel that Lawlor consistently asks the right questions but often fails to see the right answer. It seems very likely that the reason why Eusebius 'switches' to Josephus at this critical point in the narrative is the fact that the implications of Hegesippus's original claim that the destruction of the temple was 'caused' by the mistreatment of James, rather than the crucifixion is problematic for the Christian faith.
The very same thing happens when Origen, citing from his copies of 'the works of Josephus' makes reference to the story in the following way "Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."
Indeed when we look to the surviving copies of the five books of Hegesippus which survive in Latin at the very beginning of the section which starts the description of the destruction of the temple we find exactly the kind of argument Origen thought was proper in exactly the place we might imagine the aforementioned account of James's beheading would have stood:
Iosephus finished his speech but Iohannes is moved by no laments and not persuaded by promises. God had long been pressing the faithless minds, from which crucifying Jesus Christ they defiled themselves by that wicked murder. He is the one whose death is the ruin of the Jews, born from Maria. Who came to his people and his people did not receive him. When indeed have the Jews not killed their own people? Did they not kill the son of their own Saul? Nabutha the prophet was indeed stoned by his own people. Iezabel was a Jewish woman, who commanded the Jewish elders who carried out the command, Achab was a Jew, who became the cause of his death. How many other citizens killed by the citizens! And however the city long remained whole, although destroyed by the Babylonians after many years, but afterwards restored. This is the final destruction after which the the temple is not restorable, because they have alienated with wickedness the protector of the temple, the overseer of restoration.
Of course this doesn't amount to a proof that the execution of James necessarily was part of the original text behind the Latin translation. It also must also be noted that the surviving manuscripts of Origen identify the passage as coming from the 'eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities' but it must be noted that the Latin Hegesippus shares many stories traditionally identified as belonging to Antiquities and not found in our surviving Jewish War tradition.
The fact is that beheading of James is certainly a Josephan narrative at least according to all our earliest witnesses. It must be admitted that a later editor removed the story from the 'purified' texts that we have now as part of his campaign to bury any evidence linking the production of Josephus's Jewish War to Polycarp's hypomnemata of the mid-second century. The deeper we dig into the relationship between the Hegesippus tradition and the Josephus tradition will ultimately demonstrate that the two branches come from one tree - a dubious history written on the seventy seventh anniversary of the destruction of the temple with a very questionable theological purpose.
To this end it is very important to follow Lawlor's proofs that our 'hypomnemata' wasn't a Church History even though we don't entirely agree with his other conclusions. Most convincing of all his arguments is the fact that all references to things specifically Christian appear only in the last book of the series. As Lawlor again notes "the non-historical portion of the Memoirs, in fact, must have included the greater part of the work. Let us suppose that the argument based on the early history of the Church was only reached in the fifth Memoir, and we have at once an explanation of the facts that Eusebius does not expressly refer to the first four, and that the martyrdom of St. James was narrated in the closing division of the work." Of course the only thing that can be said for certain is the fact that something other than a 'Church History' took up the first four books - and possibly much of the fifth book too. The James narrative certainly would not have taken up too much space, and like the Latin Hegesippus narrative just cited, it represented little more than an aside on the part of the original author to connect the events to a Christian framework which would have greatly interested his readership.
So let us ask again - what might have filled the pages of most of the book before the mention of events in the history of the Church? There is really only convincing answer. Lawlor's arguments are ultimately speculative or at the very least based on a debatable of the evidence. The one thing which cannot be overlooked is the fact that medieval copyists of the History of Hegesippus - a five volume work related to our surviving Josephan Jewish War - thought for some reason that their work was related to our hypomnemata. While that assumption can't be proved it at the very least provides a precedent for the idea of some sort of relationship between the two texts attributed to a man with a strange name - i.e. 'Hegesippus.'
So it is then that we can only half agree with Lawlor's initial conclusions that "the first four Memoirs contained few, if any, allusions to the history of the Church. This will become a highly probable supposition if we can show that the historical passages quoted by Eusebius, the exact source of which is not stated, are, for the most part, drawn from the fifth division of Hegesippus's work. This, I think, will be found to be the case. We can, as I believe, reconstruct nearly the whole of two long passages of the fifth Memoir, the greater part of which Eusebius, after his manner, has cut up into fragments, and inserted where it suited him in his History, and which include all the extant fragments of the writings of our author which have a direct bearing on Ecclesiastical History." We should find it much more likely that the Christian references occurred in the fifth book because the first four books and undoubtedly much of book five dealt with the circumstances of the Jewish war (66 - 70 CE). This revolt let's not forget leads to the destruction of the Jewish religion and - to follow Latin Hegesippus main argument - becomes the central proof for the sanctity of the Christian religion. After all Jesus made a prediction that 'these things would come to pass' long before the events of the war.
Indeed it is not hard to put together a proof that this 'hypomnemata' written in 147 CE must have resembled a Josephan work. It all begins with a mostly ignored reference to 'Josephus' in Clement of Alexandria:
Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.[Strom. 1.21]
There can be absolutely no question that Clement is the one calculating the passage of time from Moses to 147 CE. The context of this passage proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Clement is citing at least one other chronology - presumably that of Judas, a near contemporary of Clement - which immediately follows the words just cited "Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years." In other words it is Clement's source - i.e. 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote a book in the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy seven years from the end of the Jewish War who made this original calculation.
Hardwick says that this calculation just cited is a composite of Jewish War 6.435 ff. and Antiquities 8.61 ff; 7.389. Whealey agrees and a colleague, Andrew Criddle, helped confirm the numbers for us from the best manuscripts. The point now is that Clement's knowledge of a manuscript attributed to 'Josephus' which makes calculations of the dates of Biblical figures from the year 147 CE is paralleled by the parallel calculations of episcopal chronologies in the hypomnemata of 'Hegesippus' that end in the year 147 CE. As Cuthbert Turner notes in his study 'The Early Episcopal Lists':
the existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1. The former tells us that ' Josephus reckons from Moses to David to the second year of Vespasian 1179 years, and from that to the tenth of Antoninus seventy-two years,' Strom, i 21 147; and as the mention of this this last date cannot come either from Josephus, who wrote half a century before it, or from Clement himself, who wrote half a century after it, it is a reasonable supposition that it is borrowed from some other intermediate writer, who will also have been the source of Epiphanius. This lost writer is conjectured by Schlatter l, following von Gutschmid, to be identical with the Judas mentioned above; but something more than mere conjecture is wanted before we can accuse Eusebius of mistaking the tenth year of of Severus for the tenth of A. Pius. With better judgement, Harnack suggests Cassianus was the author, we have seen that Eusebius knew nothing of him ; if Judas, we must conclude that Eusebius knew next to nothing of a book which ex hypothesi he dated fifty years too late.[Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]
So Turner notices that Clement's allusion to a 'tenth year of Antoninus' in Josephus is paralleled by a reference in Eusebius and Epiphanius to a list of bishops of Jerusalem that ends in the 'tenth year of Antoninus.' Lawlor of course demonstrates quite convincingly that the material cited by Eusebius and Epiphanius is the hypomnemata of Hegesippus. In other words, Clement's 'Josephus' has by the time of Eusebius been corrupted (deliberately?) into 'Hegesippus.'
Of course Irenaeus as we have seen infers - on at least two occasions - that Polycarp was the author of the material. How can this conflict be resolved? The answer is clearly that Lucian's stranger must have developed a historical hypomnemata in the name of Josephus the legendary Jewish commander who was captured by Vespasian and survived the events of the Jewish war. There is interestingly a hypomnemata associated with Josephus at least in the mind of the great Josephus scholar Shaye Cohen who argues that Jewish War (BJ) and Vita go back to some lost common source which was a hypomnema:
what is the nature of this hypothetical common source? The least uncertain thing about it is that it was arranged chronologically much like V(ita). If it was a literary work, a polished account like, say, that of Nicolaus of Damascus, we must explain why there are so many discrepancies between V and BJ, many more than between AJ 15-16 and BJ 1 ... It is apparent that Josephus' memory, in addition to this written source, must have played a large part in both V and BJ. Thus we need a document fixed enough to have a definite order but free enough to allow remarkable divergences caused by shifts in memory. The most likely candidate is a hypomnema, a dry sketch or outline of the events in Galilee, which Josephus prepared before writing BJ. CA 1.50, "when my entire narrative was prepared" may well refer to this sketch. Ancient historians were expected to prepare such hypomnemata before proceeding to their literary works. BJ, a rhetorical history, drastically shortened, thematically rearranged, and freely modified the hypomnema. V, a hasty polemic and apologetic, retained the scope, structure, and, in general, the dryness of the original but added anti-Justus material (including the "glosses") and extensive self-defense. A similar theory has been advanced to account for the differences between the Vita Constantini and the sections parallel to it in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. The one, a biography, and the other, a history, describe events of Eusebius' own lifetime but disagree on many details and on the order of events. Perhaps these two works derive from a Eusebian hypomnema. We cannot now determine the exact content and form of this work. Josephus has rewritten everything not only because this was his normal procedure (see chapter two), but also because the hypomnema was meant to be rewritten.[p. 81 - 83]
As such it is at least possible that the fourth century texts of Josephus cited by Eusebius and others might ultimately have been an adaption from a lost, second century text which was a hypomnema.
Traditional Josephan scholarship can only in terms of a first century author - namely Josephus himself - developing an Aramaic hypomnema which was later expanded by second century 'assistants' (Greek synergoi) under his direction. Yet what if Jewish War especially was developed by a second century figure - namely Polycarp - developing a historika hypomnemata in the name of Josephus on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the war? This would certainly explain how Irenaeus could identify the text as being written by 'Polycarp,' Clement 'Josephus' and Eusebius 'Hegesippus.'
Instead of us having to posit the incredible idea that this Palestinian revolutionary so hostile originally to Greek and Roman culture suddenly and rapidly became an authority on pagan historical literature. For it is worth noting that Josephan scholarship has long recognized that the author of the Josephan corpus in part modeled his work on a work by the great Greek historian Strabo who composed a very similar work years earlier. As Alessandro Galimberti notes "there are 10 fragments of Strabo's Historika Hypomnemata in Stern's collection that depend on Josephus' express reference, all included in Books 13, 14, and 15 of the Antiquities.1 However, in 1976, Stern wrote (p. 262): 'There is much more in books thirteen and fourteen of of the Antiquities that depends on Strabo's Historika Hypomnemata than Josephus' express references to Strabo.'" The surviving material associated with 'Josephus' also makes references to his use of the hypomnemata of Herod, Vespasian and Titus (Vita 342; 358; Ap. 1.56).
The point here is that a very good circumstantial case can be made that beneath our surviving works of Josephus was a hypomnema. If we accept that the Josephan text that Clement witnesses was published in 147 CE is the source of all our existing material, Irenaeus's witness makes clear that Polycarp was the original author of this text.
We have discovered something so difficult to understand it doesn't seem at first to be what we claim it is - viz. the Rosetta Stone of ancient Christianity. At best it can be described as an obscure book cited only in part in the writings of some of the earliest Fathers. So now let us ask, why should this hypomnemata - a word most of us can't even spell far less know its meaning - be put forward as something which turns our inherited history totally upside down? The answer lies both in the nature of what a hypomnema (plural hypomnemata) is and what it necessarily demonstrates about the earliest period of the Christian religion.
Irenaeus tells us that God through the Holy Spirit sent a message to four different evangelists and many other apostles and letter writers. Modern scholarship has learned to ignore Irenaeus's claims, but as we shall see in the next section, the earliest traditions outside of the Catholic Church were very comfortable admitting that the gospel was a composite text and it is often described in some terminology related to the term hypomnema (cf. Justin Martyr, Tatian and Clement of Alexandria)
The point is that it was Irenaeus who invented the unhelpful idea that the writings of Christianity just dropped out of the sky directly from God. In the period before his influence it seems that everyone from the time of the evangelists to the earliest Church Fathers were essentially engaged in the activity of writing hypomnemata explaining the divine word of Christianity to their disciples. A partial list of early authors of hypomnemata in Christianity would include
1. the apostles (Justin I Apol. 66.3)
2. Peter (Justin Dial. 103; Clement Theod. 1.19)
3. Mark (Clement Theod. 1.19; Papias HE 3.39.15-16 = apomnemoneumata)
4. Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 4.22.4)
5. Polycarp (According to Eusebius, HE 5, 8, 8)
6. Symmachus (Eusebius, HE 6.17)
7. Pantaenus (Ecl. Prop. 56.2; Eusebius HE 5.10.4)
8. Heracleon (Origen Com. Jn. 6.92)
9. Clement (Strom. 1.1)
10. Ambrose, patron of Origen (so Cureton Spicilegium Syriacum p. xii)
The point then is that it was Irenaeus who essentially said for the first time that the New Testament canon was the 'limit' for true knowledge about Christ. It would seem that before his time it was quite normal for individuals to compose 'commentaries' of some sort in order to initiate devotees into the secret meaning of Jesus's sayings. One would have to think that our hypomnemata here fits the contemporary milieu. But what can we say for certain about the contents of this hypomnemata which was likely written by Polycarp in the name of Josephus? Perhaps the place to begin is to put our familiar understanding about the figure of 'Josephus the Jew' under the microscope.
The inherited story about Josephus is rather straightforward. He was the son of a prominent priest in Jerusalem named Matthias. Josephus was a leader in the Jewish revolt of 66 - 70 CE who was taken prisoner by the future Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus, and was ultimately banished. According to the traditional narrative Josephus came to Rome he presented to the emperors, father and son, a history of the events of that Jewish war, which were deposited in the public library and, on account of his genius, was found worthy of a statue at Rome. The works of Josephus are actually quite rarely referenced by the early Church Fathers, i.e. those who lived before Constantine. Eusebius is the first person who cites a text which resembles our surviving copies of Josephus and he is often suspected of having a hand in reshaping earlier material.
Why was there such reluctance to cite the original material? One possible explanation was that it was well known that the narrative did not go back to the time of Josephus but a second century author - even Polycarp. In other words, the writings of Josephus had a lot of baggage attached to them. It was only once Eusebius likely corrected the text and purged them of their original 'difficulties' that the material was widely used by Church figures.
Indeed as we have already noted, there is another version of the Josephus narrative which survives in a Latin translation and universally acknowledged to be 'heavily Christianized.' It, like the Eusebian narrative was copied in the fourth century and survives in many different manuscripts. As we noted in our last chapter the material survives under the name 'Hegesippus' and is unfortunately dismissed by most scholars as a 'corrupt' version of our familiar 'first century' narrative. What we are suggesting here is that all these assumptions are flawed because the actual evidence from our earliest witnesses to the Josephan narrative argues for it being composed by Polycarp - a Christian convert of Jewish extraction - in the year 147 CE.
It is in fact very likely that our stranger wrote this text in Alexandria, where he undoubtedly had access to all the historical sources used to make this hypomnemata and had this text with him when he arrived in Rome in 153 CE. The five volume book was written in the name of Josephus on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the war. It was intended to provide eyewitness testimony for the circumstances of the end of the Jewish religion and ultimately confirm Polycarp's own view of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Needless to say the book must also have been very controversial. It not only posits a very unique theological point of view but must also at the same time have been attempting to displace an earlier interpretation likely associated with Josephus's rival Justus of Tiberias.
The fact that only Irenaeus dares to acknowledge the fact that Josephus was not the original author of the material is pivotal here. For the later writers subsequent to Irenaeus all emphasize or pretend that a man named Josephus (or some such derivation) who lived in the second century wrote this narrative which at least partly focused on the life of another Jew named Josephus living in the first century. This whole scenario seems incredible to say the least and it is undoubtedly why most scholars reject it as spurious. But as we have seen time and time again in our study we can't just reject a literary tradition merely because it 'sounds stupid.' Maybe the original tradition really was quite idiotic and only subsequently 'corrected' to make it sound more reasonable. We can't afford to go into the study of Christianity accepting only those answers which ultimately vindicate the authenticity of the tradition. In this role we are only serving as handmaidens of the Church rather than as true men of science.
So it is that those writers like Clement and Eusebius likely had to develop an absurd alternative explanation to the origin of the hypomnemata other than that it was developed out of Polycarp's imagination. Why so? Because a careful examination of the material makes it all too obvious that the same individual who forged this history in the name of 'Josephus,' likely was also responsible for counterfeiting the New Testament canon. As such there was only solution for Eusebius - to purge the composition of any references to its original author and it being developed by the pious forger in the second century.
We shall develop these ideas in subsequent chapters here but it is enough to say that no one should underestimate the importance of Josephus to the Church. As a Jew, he provides seemingly 'objective' eyewitness testimony regarding the fulfillment of Jesus's prediction as to the coming end of the Jewish religion. As scholars have taken for granted the authenticity of the material in the name of Josephus, they fall into the trap first established by Polycarp and later 'completed' by Eusebius - viz. the establishment of a historical 'point of view' for accepting a particular gospel interpretation. This understanding has become so second nature for us that we don't even realize how the texts of Josephus have effectively manipulated our thought processes.
The entire purpose of this present work is to help make people realize how our entire view of history has been manipulated by the same man who edited the gospel and the apostolic epistles. The reason Josephus 'fits' with Christianity so well is that it was artificially designed that way from the very beginning. Yet before we get to these arguments let's finish up developing the historical implications of our last chapter. Let us ask - why should we think that the hypomnemata were related to the writings of Josephus? The first step in that direction is to eliminate other possibilities and to this end Lawlor begins by making a few very important observations which cannot be ignored. Lawlor notes that when examined with a critical eye, nothing in Eusebius's description of the hypomnemata suggests that it was a Church History, as many other have claimed.
Lawlor points to Eusebius's own words when he writes that "in five treatise he [Hegesippus] composed memoirs (hypomnematisamenos) in a very simple style of writing, containing the uncorrupt tradition of the apostolic doctrine (kerygmatos)." As noted, there is nothing here which implies a historical work. So let us turn instead to what Eusebius really tells us as to the nature of the book which Hegesippus wrote. His most important statement occurs in the immediate vicinity of that now referred to, forming the closing sentence of Church History Book Four and the opening words of the next chapter. Lawlor notes that "after giving some account of Saturninus and Basilides, and of Carpocrates, 'the father of the Gnostics,' he proceeds 'Nevertheless, in the time of the heretics just mentioned, the truth again called to her aid many champions of her own, who made war against the godless heresies, not only by viva voce refutations, but also by written demonstrations. Among these (en toutois) flourished Hegesippus.'" Again nothing in here to indicate that the text was a 'history of the Catholic Church.'
After a few sentences devoted to Hegesippus, we see Eusebius passes on to Justin Martyr. This description leaves no doubt that the work of Hegesippus was not primarily a history. Lawlor sees it instead as a "defence of the Faith against the attacks of heretics, and specially of the Gnostics." He repeats again a little later "the Memoirs then were an Apology for the Faith against unbelievers, for orthodoxy against misbelievers." Yet let us stop right there and question whether Lawlor's gives the best explanation of the problem raised in his original question.
If the hypomnemata here is not a 'Church history' specifically does it follow that it can't be any other kind of historical chronology? Lawlor points to the work as being used to define orthodoxy or at least the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine - "in disputing with the Greeks, if our writer used the arguments which form the stock-in-trade of the second-century apologists, he would not draw much upon ecclesiastical history. Against the Gnostics also there was much to be said which was purely theological, though here there was a historical argument, upon which Hegesippus, like other controversialists of his age, laid stress." But surely this in itself does not eliminate the possibility that even the Christian material was connected to a greater historical narrative related to the Jewish war of 66 - 70 CE.
There are only a handful of acknowledged citations of the contents of the hypomnemata but one of the most famous is the reference to the beheading of James the brother of Jesus. This narrative is always cited as being part of the original Josephan tradition but has now been edited out of earliest manuscripts. Lawlor has to acknowledge that this narrative was present in the hypomnemata of Hegesippus but doesn't seem to see the greater implications of this discovery. We read:
we may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs of the passage represented by HE iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It began, as we have seen, with some sucwords as 'And after James the Just had bome witness . . . and Jerusalem had immediately afterwards been captured '. This seems to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had preceded it; and if so there can be little question that the narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted from the Memoirs} If the whole of that section is summarized in the words 'after James the Just had borne witness,' its closing words 'kai euthus Ouespasianus poliorkei autous,' are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the sack of Jerusalem. But while it seems plain that the passage now under consideration followed the account of the martyrdom of St. James, it is less easy to decide whether it followed it immediately or was separated from it by another passage. On the one hand, the abrupt close of the story of the martyrdom with the sentence just quoted certainly suggests that some account of the Jewish war followed. And the inference is supported by the first sentence of our passage. Would Hegesippus have resumed his narrative in so elaborate a fashion if nothing had intervened between the close of the section about St. James and the beginning of that about Symeon? But on the other hand it is difficult to believe that if Hegesippus had enlarged on this subject Eusebius would have failed to quote him. For the war the historian depends wholly on Josephus, though when he comes to the murder of St. James he places his account side by side with that of the Christian writer.
One has to feel that Lawlor consistently asks the right questions but often fails to see the right answer. It seems very likely that the reason why Eusebius 'switches' to Josephus at this critical point in the narrative is the fact that the implications of Hegesippus's original claim that the destruction of the temple was 'caused' by the mistreatment of James, rather than the crucifixion is problematic for the Christian faith.
The very same thing happens when Origen, citing from his copies of 'the works of Josephus' makes reference to the story in the following way "Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."
Indeed when we look to the surviving copies of the five books of Hegesippus which survive in Latin at the very beginning of the section which starts the description of the destruction of the temple we find exactly the kind of argument Origen thought was proper in exactly the place we might imagine the aforementioned account of James's beheading would have stood:
Iosephus finished his speech but Iohannes is moved by no laments and not persuaded by promises. God had long been pressing the faithless minds, from which crucifying Jesus Christ they defiled themselves by that wicked murder. He is the one whose death is the ruin of the Jews, born from Maria. Who came to his people and his people did not receive him. When indeed have the Jews not killed their own people? Did they not kill the son of their own Saul? Nabutha the prophet was indeed stoned by his own people. Iezabel was a Jewish woman, who commanded the Jewish elders who carried out the command, Achab was a Jew, who became the cause of his death. How many other citizens killed by the citizens! And however the city long remained whole, although destroyed by the Babylonians after many years, but afterwards restored. This is the final destruction after which the the temple is not restorable, because they have alienated with wickedness the protector of the temple, the overseer of restoration.
Of course this doesn't amount to a proof that the execution of James necessarily was part of the original text behind the Latin translation. It also must also be noted that the surviving manuscripts of Origen identify the passage as coming from the 'eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities' but it must be noted that the Latin Hegesippus shares many stories traditionally identified as belonging to Antiquities and not found in our surviving Jewish War tradition.
The fact is that beheading of James is certainly a Josephan narrative at least according to all our earliest witnesses. It must be admitted that a later editor removed the story from the 'purified' texts that we have now as part of his campaign to bury any evidence linking the production of Josephus's Jewish War to Polycarp's hypomnemata of the mid-second century. The deeper we dig into the relationship between the Hegesippus tradition and the Josephus tradition will ultimately demonstrate that the two branches come from one tree - a dubious history written on the seventy seventh anniversary of the destruction of the temple with a very questionable theological purpose.
To this end it is very important to follow Lawlor's proofs that our 'hypomnemata' wasn't a Church History even though we don't entirely agree with his other conclusions. Most convincing of all his arguments is the fact that all references to things specifically Christian appear only in the last book of the series. As Lawlor again notes "the non-historical portion of the Memoirs, in fact, must have included the greater part of the work. Let us suppose that the argument based on the early history of the Church was only reached in the fifth Memoir, and we have at once an explanation of the facts that Eusebius does not expressly refer to the first four, and that the martyrdom of St. James was narrated in the closing division of the work." Of course the only thing that can be said for certain is the fact that something other than a 'Church History' took up the first four books - and possibly much of the fifth book too. The James narrative certainly would not have taken up too much space, and like the Latin Hegesippus narrative just cited, it represented little more than an aside on the part of the original author to connect the events to a Christian framework which would have greatly interested his readership.
So let us ask again - what might have filled the pages of most of the book before the mention of events in the history of the Church? There is really only convincing answer. Lawlor's arguments are ultimately speculative or at the very least based on a debatable of the evidence. The one thing which cannot be overlooked is the fact that medieval copyists of the History of Hegesippus - a five volume work related to our surviving Josephan Jewish War - thought for some reason that their work was related to our hypomnemata. While that assumption can't be proved it at the very least provides a precedent for the idea of some sort of relationship between the two texts attributed to a man with a strange name - i.e. 'Hegesippus.'
So it is then that we can only half agree with Lawlor's initial conclusions that "the first four Memoirs contained few, if any, allusions to the history of the Church. This will become a highly probable supposition if we can show that the historical passages quoted by Eusebius, the exact source of which is not stated, are, for the most part, drawn from the fifth division of Hegesippus's work. This, I think, will be found to be the case. We can, as I believe, reconstruct nearly the whole of two long passages of the fifth Memoir, the greater part of which Eusebius, after his manner, has cut up into fragments, and inserted where it suited him in his History, and which include all the extant fragments of the writings of our author which have a direct bearing on Ecclesiastical History." We should find it much more likely that the Christian references occurred in the fifth book because the first four books and undoubtedly much of book five dealt with the circumstances of the Jewish war (66 - 70 CE). This revolt let's not forget leads to the destruction of the Jewish religion and - to follow Latin Hegesippus main argument - becomes the central proof for the sanctity of the Christian religion. After all Jesus made a prediction that 'these things would come to pass' long before the events of the war.
Indeed it is not hard to put together a proof that this 'hypomnemata' written in 147 CE must have resembled a Josephan work. It all begins with a mostly ignored reference to 'Josephus' in Clement of Alexandria:
Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.[Strom. 1.21]
There can be absolutely no question that Clement is the one calculating the passage of time from Moses to 147 CE. The context of this passage proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Clement is citing at least one other chronology - presumably that of Judas, a near contemporary of Clement - which immediately follows the words just cited "Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years." In other words it is Clement's source - i.e. 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote a book in the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy seven years from the end of the Jewish War who made this original calculation.
Hardwick says that this calculation just cited is a composite of Jewish War 6.435 ff. and Antiquities 8.61 ff; 7.389. Whealey agrees and a colleague, Andrew Criddle, helped confirm the numbers for us from the best manuscripts. The point now is that Clement's knowledge of a manuscript attributed to 'Josephus' which makes calculations of the dates of Biblical figures from the year 147 CE is paralleled by the parallel calculations of episcopal chronologies in the hypomnemata of 'Hegesippus' that end in the year 147 CE. As Cuthbert Turner notes in his study 'The Early Episcopal Lists':
the existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1. The former tells us that ' Josephus reckons from Moses to David to the second year of Vespasian 1179 years, and from that to the tenth of Antoninus seventy-two years,' Strom, i 21 147; and as the mention of this this last date cannot come either from Josephus, who wrote half a century before it, or from Clement himself, who wrote half a century after it, it is a reasonable supposition that it is borrowed from some other intermediate writer, who will also have been the source of Epiphanius. This lost writer is conjectured by Schlatter l, following von Gutschmid, to be identical with the Judas mentioned above; but something more than mere conjecture is wanted before we can accuse Eusebius of mistaking the tenth year of of Severus for the tenth of A. Pius. With better judgement, Harnack suggests Cassianus was the author, we have seen that Eusebius knew nothing of him ; if Judas, we must conclude that Eusebius knew next to nothing of a book which ex hypothesi he dated fifty years too late.[Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]
So Turner notices that Clement's allusion to a 'tenth year of Antoninus' in Josephus is paralleled by a reference in Eusebius and Epiphanius to a list of bishops of Jerusalem that ends in the 'tenth year of Antoninus.' Lawlor of course demonstrates quite convincingly that the material cited by Eusebius and Epiphanius is the hypomnemata of Hegesippus. In other words, Clement's 'Josephus' has by the time of Eusebius been corrupted (deliberately?) into 'Hegesippus.'
Of course Irenaeus as we have seen infers - on at least two occasions - that Polycarp was the author of the material. How can this conflict be resolved? The answer is clearly that Lucian's stranger must have developed a historical hypomnemata in the name of Josephus the legendary Jewish commander who was captured by Vespasian and survived the events of the Jewish war. There is interestingly a hypomnemata associated with Josephus at least in the mind of the great Josephus scholar Shaye Cohen who argues that Jewish War (BJ) and Vita go back to some lost common source which was a hypomnema:
what is the nature of this hypothetical common source? The least uncertain thing about it is that it was arranged chronologically much like V(ita). If it was a literary work, a polished account like, say, that of Nicolaus of Damascus, we must explain why there are so many discrepancies between V and BJ, many more than between AJ 15-16 and BJ 1 ... It is apparent that Josephus' memory, in addition to this written source, must have played a large part in both V and BJ. Thus we need a document fixed enough to have a definite order but free enough to allow remarkable divergences caused by shifts in memory. The most likely candidate is a hypomnema, a dry sketch or outline of the events in Galilee, which Josephus prepared before writing BJ. CA 1.50, "when my entire narrative was prepared" may well refer to this sketch. Ancient historians were expected to prepare such hypomnemata before proceeding to their literary works. BJ, a rhetorical history, drastically shortened, thematically rearranged, and freely modified the hypomnema. V, a hasty polemic and apologetic, retained the scope, structure, and, in general, the dryness of the original but added anti-Justus material (including the "glosses") and extensive self-defense. A similar theory has been advanced to account for the differences between the Vita Constantini and the sections parallel to it in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. The one, a biography, and the other, a history, describe events of Eusebius' own lifetime but disagree on many details and on the order of events. Perhaps these two works derive from a Eusebian hypomnema. We cannot now determine the exact content and form of this work. Josephus has rewritten everything not only because this was his normal procedure (see chapter two), but also because the hypomnema was meant to be rewritten.[p. 81 - 83]
As such it is at least possible that the fourth century texts of Josephus cited by Eusebius and others might ultimately have been an adaption from a lost, second century text which was a hypomnema.
Traditional Josephan scholarship can only in terms of a first century author - namely Josephus himself - developing an Aramaic hypomnema which was later expanded by second century 'assistants' (Greek synergoi) under his direction. Yet what if Jewish War especially was developed by a second century figure - namely Polycarp - developing a historika hypomnemata in the name of Josephus on the seventy seventh anniversary of the end of the war? This would certainly explain how Irenaeus could identify the text as being written by 'Polycarp,' Clement 'Josephus' and Eusebius 'Hegesippus.'
Instead of us having to posit the incredible idea that this Palestinian revolutionary so hostile originally to Greek and Roman culture suddenly and rapidly became an authority on pagan historical literature. For it is worth noting that Josephan scholarship has long recognized that the author of the Josephan corpus in part modeled his work on a work by the great Greek historian Strabo who composed a very similar work years earlier. As Alessandro Galimberti notes "there are 10 fragments of Strabo's Historika Hypomnemata in Stern's collection that depend on Josephus' express reference, all included in Books 13, 14, and 15 of the Antiquities.1 However, in 1976, Stern wrote (p. 262): 'There is much more in books thirteen and fourteen of of the Antiquities that depends on Strabo's Historika Hypomnemata than Josephus' express references to Strabo.'" The surviving material associated with 'Josephus' also makes references to his use of the hypomnemata of Herod, Vespasian and Titus (Vita 342; 358; Ap. 1.56).
The point here is that a very good circumstantial case can be made that beneath our surviving works of Josephus was a hypomnema. If we accept that the Josephan text that Clement witnesses was published in 147 CE is the source of all our existing material, Irenaeus's witness makes clear that Polycarp was the original author of this text.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Against Polycarp [Part Fifteen]
Edgar Allen Poe wrote perhaps his cleverest detective story "The Purloined Letter" on the subject of hiding some thing in plain view. The story goes something like this - a damning letter is hidden for ransom and despite the best efforts of the police, they cannot find it—even knowing which room it is in. Finally, the main protagonist of the story describes how very small changes to the letter caused it to be hidden from the police's eyes, even when they saw it, simply because it didn't look quite the way they thought it should.
Most of us have found ourselves in a situation where we have spent hours - even years - looking for something thinking it was lost only to discover that it was right in front of our eyes all the time. So it is that scholars go on a quest for the historical Jesus to solve all the mysteries of Christianity. Yet this assumes again that we can just take our sources at face value, that there is no need to question who is giving us this information and for what reason.
All of our little inquiries into the relationship of Irenaeus to the body of literature associated with 'Polycarp,' 'Ignatius' and 'Clement' have led us to the very place we now stand in our investigation. We have uncovered an obscure work which doesn't get much 'press' in the work - the so-called hypnomnemata - which is generally assumed by the handful of people who have written something about it to have come to us by the hand of someone named 'Hegesippus.' Yet this information is all derived from Eusebius, a Church Father writing almost a century and a half after Irenaeus first cites from the work. As we shall see, Clement of Alexandria, another Church Father who was active in the same age as Irenaeus, references some of the contents of the work as having come from the hand of a certain 'Josephus the Jew' in 147 CE. Epiphanius of Salamis, another author who is generally acknowledged to have used this text and wrote at the end of the fourth century, never identifies the author's name.
Yet we are most interested in Irenaeus account of the material because he both seems to give a name and does not seem to give a name for the author of said work. How can that be possible? It was Philip Schaff's genius to see there was apparently another reference to Irenaeus's use of the hypomnemata in the writings of Eusebius. As such Schaff points us to:
Eusebius's statement (HE 5, 8, 8) that Irenaeus quotes from the 'apomnemoneumata of a certain apostolic presbyter whose name he passes by in silence and gives his exposition of Sacred Scripture' cf. Adv.Haer. 4, 23, if., cf. 4, 28, 1; 30, 1; 31, 1; 32, 1), without giving the name (Eusebius, Dem. evang. 3, 6, 2).
The term apomnemoneumata is roughly synonymous with hypomnemata (meaning 'notes' or 'rough draft,' connoting unfinished form, or 'commentary') but in the singular can mean 'book.' Indeed for those who actually look at Eusebius's wording in the section on Hegesippus it is not exactly clear that hypomnemata is the actual title of the work or a description of the kind of work it was. As Otto Bardenhewer notes "on his return to his native land he wrote five books that Eusebius sometimes calls pente suggramata (HE 4.8.2) and again pente hypomnemata (HE 4.22.1; cf. 2.23.1). The latter title is used by Hegesippus himself (HE 2.23.3)."
Yet does Eusebius really make certain Hegesippus gave the name 'the hypomnemata' to his five volume work? Let's look at the reference cited by Bardenhewer a little closer - viz. "Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his hypomnemata. He writes as follows ..." There is nothing in this citation which proves that hypomnemata was anything other than a description of its contents - i.e. that it was a commentary of some sort. This is even plainer in the only other reference of this kind is what appears in Book Four of Eusebius's Church History where he refers to "Hegesippus in the five books of hypomnemata which have come down to us ..." (HE 4.22.1)
The only other person who is almost universally regarded as also referencing this text is Epiphanius and in the sections where he is citing common material with Eusebius he refers to the work by a slightly different name. As Robert Lee Williams notes:
In the early twentieth century Lawlor compiled evidence that Epiphanius had preserved some information from Hegesippus that is not included by Eusebius but dovetails with Hegesippan material he has used. For example, at the point that Eusebius states that James entered the sanctuary, Epiphanius includes mention of his holding “priestly office” and wearing “the mitre” according to 'memoirs,' mnematismoi of Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and 'others' (HE 2.23.6; Panarion 78.13). Furthermore, the Roman bishop list extends precisely to Anicetus in Epiphanius (Pan. 27.6), as Hegesippus states of his own according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.22.3). F. Stanley Jones, however, has recently questioned the claim that the “surplus material” on James, that found in Epiphanius but not Eusebius, came from a text of Hegesippus and wondered why Hegesippus, if used, was never named.
Indeed Lawlor, whose work we will cite rather extensively shortly, actually brings forward a number of other examples all of which when read in the proper context prove once and for all that this work being cited did not have the title 'hypomnemata.'
We have already demonstrated that Irenaeus was certainly using the same text when referencing 1 Clement in his Against Heresies only he attributes the letter to Polycarp. The 1 Clement was clearly in the original material for it is referenced twice by Eusebius - once already cited - and then again in Book Two of his Church History he throws out this "these things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement." Epiphanius makes reference to the same portion of the work but once again demonstrates that the text was not called 'the hypomnemata.' We read in Lawlor:
In Haer 27.6.1 Epiphanius discusses the chronological difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession. His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric, and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anencletus; and in the course of his argument he appeals to a passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians: 'He himself says in one of his letters, I withdraw, I will depart, let the people of God remain at peace.' And Epiphanius adds, ' For I have found this in certain memoirs' (en tisi hypomnematatismois). Epiphanius therefore did not quote Clement at first hand. From what source then did he take this excerpt? When we bear in mind that perhaps Hegesippus himself, and certainly Eusebius, called our Memoirs by the title hypomnemata and that the latter applies to them the cognate verb hypomnematizesthai, Lightfoot's suggestion that the same work is here designated by the word hypomnematismoi is very probable. And its probability is increased when we remember that Hegesippus certainly gave some account of Clement's Epistle in his Memoirs.
Lawlor brings many more examples like this but there are two things that escape his attention. The first is that hypomnemata cannot be the original title. It is rather a description of the type of work it was - a commentary drawing from many sources as it were - and more importantly it is highly unlikely that Hegesippus was the original author. The reason Epiphanius doesn't give a name is because he knows Irenaeus refers to the same work as being associated with Polycarp.
There are even more things that we need to correct from previous studies of these lost but critically important second century 'commentaries.' As Bardenhewer notes "though the fragments in Eusebius are mostly historical in character, it does not seem possible to reconcile his excerpts with the judgment of Jerome. according to which the work of Hegesippus resembled a history of the Church. It must have been more like a polemical treatise against Gnosticism, with the purpose of setting forth the evidence of ecclesiastical tradition particularly its close dependency on the uninterrupted episcopal succession."
Bardenhewer is at least partially correct in his assessment. Where he goes wrong of course is that he fails to note that there is a conflict between this portion of the hypomnemata and the rest of the material. For Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Epiphanius cite portions from the different parts of the original work which demonstrate that it was written in the year 147 CE. Yet this section which references 1 Clement and sounds oddly Irenaean dates from the time of Irenaeus (i.e. the reign of Eleutherius c. 171 - 185 CE). We shall explain all of this in due course but the reader can already expect to find that the solution here will fit the pattern demonstrated with other ancient Church writings - viz. that original material was transformed in order to become the mouthpiece of our forger.
We have now started to demonstrate that the work had no clear author, no clear title, nor even a clear purpose. Is there anything intelligent that we can say about these commentaries? Hegesippus's hypomnemata are always said to have been a collection of five books describing the history of the period from a Jewish-Christian perspective. The truth is that no scholar has been able to properly 'crack the code' for what this book was really about. Yet even with regards to Eusebius's testimony earlier that Irenaeus made reference to an apomnemoneumata - yet another variant of hypomnemata - in the name of an anonymous apostolic presbyter, it is impossible not to see that Irenaeus's 'unnamed presbyter' is our stranger. Charles Hill devoted his Lost Teachings of Polycarp to a successful proof that Polycarp was indeed Irenaeus's 'unnamed presbyter.'
Once we learn that Irenaeus's stranger wrote what ammounts to being a 'commentary' (apomnemoneumata) our initial suspicion that Irenaeus's introduces Polycarp as the real author of the episcopal list usually assigned to a hypomnemata associated with a certain Hegesippua seems to be well founded. Why then did Clement attribute the same text to a second century 'Josephus' and Eusebius a 'Hegesippus' from the same period? As difficult as it may sound to virgin ears at first listen, the only logical answer as we will see is that this hypomnemata was ultimately related to the production of the Jewish War literary tradition. Indeed it is well known that a five book Latin text extant in numerous medieval manuscripts under the title of De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem) or Historiae (History) related to our familiar Jewish War of Josephus.
Of course right from the outset those who have superficially examined the Hegesippus tradition take great pains to point out that the Hegesippus who Eusebius identifies as a chronicler from the mid-second century can't be the same as the Hegesippus who wrote History. Why so? It is because the material cited by Eusebius's Hegesippus is related to Christianity while our Latin texts of History are written about Josephus, a first century Jew. Of course, this distinction rings hollow given the fact that no one denies that Hegesippus the author of History is also a Christian. Indeed most of the material cited by Eusebius in fact does have parallels with things found in variant manuscripts of the writings of Josephus - especially the narrative of the beheading of James the brother of Jesus. Moreover one of the hallmark of the Latin text of Hegesippus is to 'add' Christianized references to our familiar Josephan narrative.
To this end it might be useful to cite Louis Feldman's introduction to the subject of Hegesippus and the relationship between the two literary traditions:
The name Hegesippus is unfamiliar to most students of ancient or medieval literature ... Those familiar with the history of the early church may recognize it as the name of a mid-second-century Christian author cited several times by Eusebius. This Hegesippus wrote a five-book "memoir" of the church from apostolic times to the age of the Antonine emperors; only those fragments quoted by Eusebius survive. At some time between the fourth and early ninth centuries, however, the name Hegesippus becomes associated with the five-book "adaptation" of Josephus that is the subject of this study. The name Hegesippus was certainly not chosen by the author. It appears in no citation before the mid-ninth century. The medieval writers who cite him seem to have thought they were using the Hegesippus known to Eusebius. A number of manuscripts of the work contain a gloss to the effect that "Ambrosius episcopus de graeco transtulit. This assumption is understandable, though entirely unwarranted. The coincidence of five books in each work and the apocryphal stories of the apostles in the opening chapters of pseudo-Hegesippus' third book, combined with his overarching Christian viewpoint, seem sufficient to explain the association with the early Hegesippus.
The author's identity and the title of his work were lost, along with the first few folios of the oldest manuscripts, Ambrosianus C 105 inf. and Cassellanus, both of which date from the early sixth century.9 But a tenth-century Spanish manuscript, which is shown by a number of its readings to be a direct copy of Ambrosianus. bears the title De excidio Hierosolymitano. This title, or some variation, appears in several other codices as well." The editors of the Patrologia Latina (volume 15) used it, but but V. Ussani, the most recent editor, preferred the noncommittal Historiae libri v.
It should be noted that most scholars date the composition of the text to around 370 CE owing to clues within the narrative. One could argue however that this is rather only the handiwork of the copyist who has added references to recent events as part of his general sloppiness.
There is general agreement among scholars that the medieval copyists though that the five volumes of our surviving manuscripts of History were the hypomnemata cited by Eusebius. "Whoever he was, the author acquired the name of Hegesippus, variously spelled, by a confusion with a late second-century writer who is mentioned by Eusebius. This gave his work false prestige as that of a 'vicinus apostolorum.'" There is also agreement that the name 'Hegesippus' here is a corruption of 'Josephus' - we should even say deliberate corruption.
The question which stands before us now is whether the borrowings from a variant Josephan narrative which make their way into Luke and Acts which was likely written by Polycarp can have nothing to do with Irenaeus's report that Polycarp actively campaigned against Marcion and the Marcionites. The Gospel of Luke is clearly set up as the anti-Marcionite gospel. Was the development of the hypomnemata connected with Polycarp's alleged war against the Marcionites? Could it be that the reason why the material was disguised is owing to the fact that it laid bare the underlying corrupt origins of the Catholic canon?
Most of us have found ourselves in a situation where we have spent hours - even years - looking for something thinking it was lost only to discover that it was right in front of our eyes all the time. So it is that scholars go on a quest for the historical Jesus to solve all the mysteries of Christianity. Yet this assumes again that we can just take our sources at face value, that there is no need to question who is giving us this information and for what reason.
All of our little inquiries into the relationship of Irenaeus to the body of literature associated with 'Polycarp,' 'Ignatius' and 'Clement' have led us to the very place we now stand in our investigation. We have uncovered an obscure work which doesn't get much 'press' in the work - the so-called hypnomnemata - which is generally assumed by the handful of people who have written something about it to have come to us by the hand of someone named 'Hegesippus.' Yet this information is all derived from Eusebius, a Church Father writing almost a century and a half after Irenaeus first cites from the work. As we shall see, Clement of Alexandria, another Church Father who was active in the same age as Irenaeus, references some of the contents of the work as having come from the hand of a certain 'Josephus the Jew' in 147 CE. Epiphanius of Salamis, another author who is generally acknowledged to have used this text and wrote at the end of the fourth century, never identifies the author's name.
Yet we are most interested in Irenaeus account of the material because he both seems to give a name and does not seem to give a name for the author of said work. How can that be possible? It was Philip Schaff's genius to see there was apparently another reference to Irenaeus's use of the hypomnemata in the writings of Eusebius. As such Schaff points us to:
Eusebius's statement (HE 5, 8, 8) that Irenaeus quotes from the 'apomnemoneumata of a certain apostolic presbyter whose name he passes by in silence and gives his exposition of Sacred Scripture' cf. Adv.Haer. 4, 23, if., cf. 4, 28, 1; 30, 1; 31, 1; 32, 1), without giving the name (Eusebius, Dem. evang. 3, 6, 2).
The term apomnemoneumata is roughly synonymous with hypomnemata (meaning 'notes' or 'rough draft,' connoting unfinished form, or 'commentary') but in the singular can mean 'book.' Indeed for those who actually look at Eusebius's wording in the section on Hegesippus it is not exactly clear that hypomnemata is the actual title of the work or a description of the kind of work it was. As Otto Bardenhewer notes "on his return to his native land he wrote five books that Eusebius sometimes calls pente suggramata (HE 4.8.2) and again pente hypomnemata (HE 4.22.1; cf. 2.23.1). The latter title is used by Hegesippus himself (HE 2.23.3)."
Yet does Eusebius really make certain Hegesippus gave the name 'the hypomnemata' to his five volume work? Let's look at the reference cited by Bardenhewer a little closer - viz. "Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his hypomnemata. He writes as follows ..." There is nothing in this citation which proves that hypomnemata was anything other than a description of its contents - i.e. that it was a commentary of some sort. This is even plainer in the only other reference of this kind is what appears in Book Four of Eusebius's Church History where he refers to "Hegesippus in the five books of hypomnemata which have come down to us ..." (HE 4.22.1)
The only other person who is almost universally regarded as also referencing this text is Epiphanius and in the sections where he is citing common material with Eusebius he refers to the work by a slightly different name. As Robert Lee Williams notes:
In the early twentieth century Lawlor compiled evidence that Epiphanius had preserved some information from Hegesippus that is not included by Eusebius but dovetails with Hegesippan material he has used. For example, at the point that Eusebius states that James entered the sanctuary, Epiphanius includes mention of his holding “priestly office” and wearing “the mitre” according to 'memoirs,' mnematismoi of Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and 'others' (HE 2.23.6; Panarion 78.13). Furthermore, the Roman bishop list extends precisely to Anicetus in Epiphanius (Pan. 27.6), as Hegesippus states of his own according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.22.3). F. Stanley Jones, however, has recently questioned the claim that the “surplus material” on James, that found in Epiphanius but not Eusebius, came from a text of Hegesippus and wondered why Hegesippus, if used, was never named.
Indeed Lawlor, whose work we will cite rather extensively shortly, actually brings forward a number of other examples all of which when read in the proper context prove once and for all that this work being cited did not have the title 'hypomnemata.'
We have already demonstrated that Irenaeus was certainly using the same text when referencing 1 Clement in his Against Heresies only he attributes the letter to Polycarp. The 1 Clement was clearly in the original material for it is referenced twice by Eusebius - once already cited - and then again in Book Two of his Church History he throws out this "these things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement." Epiphanius makes reference to the same portion of the work but once again demonstrates that the text was not called 'the hypomnemata.' We read in Lawlor:
In Haer 27.6.1 Epiphanius discusses the chronological difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession. His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric, and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anencletus; and in the course of his argument he appeals to a passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians: 'He himself says in one of his letters, I withdraw, I will depart, let the people of God remain at peace.' And Epiphanius adds, ' For I have found this in certain memoirs' (en tisi hypomnematatismois). Epiphanius therefore did not quote Clement at first hand. From what source then did he take this excerpt? When we bear in mind that perhaps Hegesippus himself, and certainly Eusebius, called our Memoirs by the title hypomnemata and that the latter applies to them the cognate verb hypomnematizesthai, Lightfoot's suggestion that the same work is here designated by the word hypomnematismoi is very probable. And its probability is increased when we remember that Hegesippus certainly gave some account of Clement's Epistle in his Memoirs.
Lawlor brings many more examples like this but there are two things that escape his attention. The first is that hypomnemata cannot be the original title. It is rather a description of the type of work it was - a commentary drawing from many sources as it were - and more importantly it is highly unlikely that Hegesippus was the original author. The reason Epiphanius doesn't give a name is because he knows Irenaeus refers to the same work as being associated with Polycarp.
There are even more things that we need to correct from previous studies of these lost but critically important second century 'commentaries.' As Bardenhewer notes "though the fragments in Eusebius are mostly historical in character, it does not seem possible to reconcile his excerpts with the judgment of Jerome. according to which the work of Hegesippus resembled a history of the Church. It must have been more like a polemical treatise against Gnosticism, with the purpose of setting forth the evidence of ecclesiastical tradition particularly its close dependency on the uninterrupted episcopal succession."
Bardenhewer is at least partially correct in his assessment. Where he goes wrong of course is that he fails to note that there is a conflict between this portion of the hypomnemata and the rest of the material. For Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Epiphanius cite portions from the different parts of the original work which demonstrate that it was written in the year 147 CE. Yet this section which references 1 Clement and sounds oddly Irenaean dates from the time of Irenaeus (i.e. the reign of Eleutherius c. 171 - 185 CE). We shall explain all of this in due course but the reader can already expect to find that the solution here will fit the pattern demonstrated with other ancient Church writings - viz. that original material was transformed in order to become the mouthpiece of our forger.
We have now started to demonstrate that the work had no clear author, no clear title, nor even a clear purpose. Is there anything intelligent that we can say about these commentaries? Hegesippus's hypomnemata are always said to have been a collection of five books describing the history of the period from a Jewish-Christian perspective. The truth is that no scholar has been able to properly 'crack the code' for what this book was really about. Yet even with regards to Eusebius's testimony earlier that Irenaeus made reference to an apomnemoneumata - yet another variant of hypomnemata - in the name of an anonymous apostolic presbyter, it is impossible not to see that Irenaeus's 'unnamed presbyter' is our stranger. Charles Hill devoted his Lost Teachings of Polycarp to a successful proof that Polycarp was indeed Irenaeus's 'unnamed presbyter.'
Once we learn that Irenaeus's stranger wrote what ammounts to being a 'commentary' (apomnemoneumata) our initial suspicion that Irenaeus's introduces Polycarp as the real author of the episcopal list usually assigned to a hypomnemata associated with a certain Hegesippua seems to be well founded. Why then did Clement attribute the same text to a second century 'Josephus' and Eusebius a 'Hegesippus' from the same period? As difficult as it may sound to virgin ears at first listen, the only logical answer as we will see is that this hypomnemata was ultimately related to the production of the Jewish War literary tradition. Indeed it is well known that a five book Latin text extant in numerous medieval manuscripts under the title of De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem) or Historiae (History) related to our familiar Jewish War of Josephus.
Of course right from the outset those who have superficially examined the Hegesippus tradition take great pains to point out that the Hegesippus who Eusebius identifies as a chronicler from the mid-second century can't be the same as the Hegesippus who wrote History. Why so? It is because the material cited by Eusebius's Hegesippus is related to Christianity while our Latin texts of History are written about Josephus, a first century Jew. Of course, this distinction rings hollow given the fact that no one denies that Hegesippus the author of History is also a Christian. Indeed most of the material cited by Eusebius in fact does have parallels with things found in variant manuscripts of the writings of Josephus - especially the narrative of the beheading of James the brother of Jesus. Moreover one of the hallmark of the Latin text of Hegesippus is to 'add' Christianized references to our familiar Josephan narrative.
To this end it might be useful to cite Louis Feldman's introduction to the subject of Hegesippus and the relationship between the two literary traditions:
The name Hegesippus is unfamiliar to most students of ancient or medieval literature ... Those familiar with the history of the early church may recognize it as the name of a mid-second-century Christian author cited several times by Eusebius. This Hegesippus wrote a five-book "memoir" of the church from apostolic times to the age of the Antonine emperors; only those fragments quoted by Eusebius survive. At some time between the fourth and early ninth centuries, however, the name Hegesippus becomes associated with the five-book "adaptation" of Josephus that is the subject of this study. The name Hegesippus was certainly not chosen by the author. It appears in no citation before the mid-ninth century. The medieval writers who cite him seem to have thought they were using the Hegesippus known to Eusebius. A number of manuscripts of the work contain a gloss to the effect that "Ambrosius episcopus de graeco transtulit. This assumption is understandable, though entirely unwarranted. The coincidence of five books in each work and the apocryphal stories of the apostles in the opening chapters of pseudo-Hegesippus' third book, combined with his overarching Christian viewpoint, seem sufficient to explain the association with the early Hegesippus.
The author's identity and the title of his work were lost, along with the first few folios of the oldest manuscripts, Ambrosianus C 105 inf. and Cassellanus, both of which date from the early sixth century.9 But a tenth-century Spanish manuscript, which is shown by a number of its readings to be a direct copy of Ambrosianus. bears the title De excidio Hierosolymitano. This title, or some variation, appears in several other codices as well." The editors of the Patrologia Latina (volume 15) used it, but but V. Ussani, the most recent editor, preferred the noncommittal Historiae libri v.
It should be noted that most scholars date the composition of the text to around 370 CE owing to clues within the narrative. One could argue however that this is rather only the handiwork of the copyist who has added references to recent events as part of his general sloppiness.
There is general agreement among scholars that the medieval copyists though that the five volumes of our surviving manuscripts of History were the hypomnemata cited by Eusebius. "Whoever he was, the author acquired the name of Hegesippus, variously spelled, by a confusion with a late second-century writer who is mentioned by Eusebius. This gave his work false prestige as that of a 'vicinus apostolorum.'" There is also agreement that the name 'Hegesippus' here is a corruption of 'Josephus' - we should even say deliberate corruption.
The question which stands before us now is whether the borrowings from a variant Josephan narrative which make their way into Luke and Acts which was likely written by Polycarp can have nothing to do with Irenaeus's report that Polycarp actively campaigned against Marcion and the Marcionites. The Gospel of Luke is clearly set up as the anti-Marcionite gospel. Was the development of the hypomnemata connected with Polycarp's alleged war against the Marcionites? Could it be that the reason why the material was disguised is owing to the fact that it laid bare the underlying corrupt origins of the Catholic canon?
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."
