The Orthodox Defense of the Charismatic Church in the Second and Third Century AD
Introduction
This paper is intended to show that there was in the Church from its beginning an orthodoxy. And that orthodoxy found continuity into and through the second century in the 'Great Church" and was perverted among the Gnostics. This is notwithstanding the fact that both systems grew by selecting and rejecting elements from the cultures available within the Europe, the Africa and the Asia of that period and both systems may have been interested more in discussing the way of life as opposed the what of dogma. Even in the midst of the flexibility in the life of the Church there was an orthodoxy, that is a "right opinion" or right teaching of the faith handed down from the apostles.
Unity in fundamentals
The way this paper intends to show this is by seeking to look at the history of the second century Church from the perspective of Hegesippus with the letters of 1 John and 1 Timothy acting as our main bridge to the first century. The argument is that although Hegessipus has a his own scopos (intention in writing) yet he was certain in understanding orothodoxy in certain elements of second century Christianity. This area of teaching or beliefs is what I mean by orthodoxy. To the degree that the beliefs agree with that handed down by the Apostles in letters and gospels later canonised, to that degree is the teaching that of the orthologo Church and what might be termed the orthodox Church. Further, although he may have expressed his concepts of the Church through differing pictures or metaphors and selected differing elements to focus upon in his defence of the faith, he had at root a fundamental viewpoint as to the faith of the Church, which found its source in an apostolic perspective on the themes of the day, including origin, identity and destination of the Church. In contrast to this the Gnostic not only did not take an apostolic perspective but were happy to boast about being superior to the apostles in their revelation (Ireneus ch 3), and were more than happy to speak "boastful words against the most high" that is the Creator(Dan 7).
Some elements of the writings of Hegisippus which show their fundamental understanding as to an orthodoxy are:
1 He asserts that the origin and identity of the true faith was from the Lord, the Scriptures and the Apostles notwithstanding the Apostolic use of some of the ideas of Greek philosophy to explain the faith).
2 He asserts that the origin of the Gnostic sects was from outside of the Apostles (notwithstanding apparent Apostolic use of Gnostic ideas (Bultman: Primitive Christianity). In this he agrees with such fathers as Hippolytus and Ireneus and the New Catholic Encylopedia article “Gnosticism”
3 He asserts that the Creator was the Father of Iesous and there was one good God in agreement with Lukes in Acts 5.
4 He asserts that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and rose from the dead in the flesh not as a phantom. And hence answered the question where are we going differently to the Gnostics. Here he agrees with John’s gospel and the Epistles of John and Ignatiuos of Antioch.
These are just four of the elements which set apart a Church of orthodoxy from the Gnostic flood which sought to sweep away and drown the Church of Jesus Christ whilst still in its infancy.
Bauer (1934) argued against the orthodoxy of the second century church, because the Gnostics out numbered or preceded the Church in certain places such as Alexandria. And Grant (1946) relied upon Bauer in his conclusion "Well into the second century there was within Christianity no sharp dividing line between what was orthodox and what was heretical'. Turner (1954) answered Bauer ably, attacking both his book and thesis. He agreed with Baeur that orthodoxy and Heresy found their basis in "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" (p301 Bauer 1934) but argued that it was in the application of these sources that they differed.
For the heretics, canonical is used selectively or interpreted by forced exegesis, church tradition is falsified or discarded in favor of non-orthodox materials,...the heretics have no feeling for the organic wholeness of the Church's faith (301-302).
Two major weaknesses of Bauer’s case was that much of it was argued from silence (286-302) and secondly he all but ignored the position of the Church of the first century (293-294).
Frend (1985) could conclude that Bauer's thesis was pointless (14).
Hegessipus wrote towards the end of the second century. He was preceded by New Testament AD 51-125 (following most conservative and liberal scholars), the Apostolic Fathers (AD 96-156), the Apologists and numerous Apocryphal gospels, Acts and Apocalypses. Hegissipus is considered to have written as an historian (Anf Introduction to Hegissipus) but he wrote with the understanding that there was an orthodoxy and he was in it. His intention of writing memorials of the Apostles and the origins of orthodoxy and heresy is both honorable and practical and it is a real pity more of his material was not preserved. His intention in writing was linked with this understanding of the first and second century, that there was originally one orthodox church which began to divide under the influence of her external enemies working through her members who because of ambition caused division .
May in his "Marcion in contemporary Views" has shown that there are various traditions preserved by various Church Fathers regarding who Marcion was. Each Father wrote according to his tradition and perspective and so Marcion is portrayed in various ways some consistent with each other and others inconsistent. In the same way we can expect Hegisippus to write his own particular perspective on the Church and the faith. We need then to hope that we can expect to see them as an independent witness as to orthodoxy in the Church of the second century and hope that through their his agreement with other writers of orthodoxy we will see that orthodoxy was not accidental to the church but essential. A comprehensive comparison of the various orthodox writers in this respect is perhaps a disideratum.
The Virgin Church a Church of right teaching
From the unfortunately, fragmentary parts of the Memoirs of Hegissipus preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, we find a Hebrew believer, whose focus was the past of the Church which is linked inextricably with the tribe of Judah.
Hegisippus demonstrates at least six concerns in his Memoirs, although some of these may be dictated by the writer he was dependent on in writing his memoirs and clearly to the editorial or selection work of Eusebius.
1 He relates that the One Church of the Apostles was divided during the second century (ANF 764)
Hegesippus relates to us a tradition that understood that the second century church was divided and this was in contrast to the original first century Church which was one. The divisions with in the second century church originated in between AD 62- AD 66, after the death James the first bishop of the Zion Church in Jerusalem. For Hegisspus according to the natural order a "Kindred of the Lord", indeed a descendent of the Lord's uncle, ascended the seat of the Jerusalem Church. He was elected on the basis that he was a physical relative of the Lord. However Thebulis, a contender for the seat was unhappy about this and began to divide the one Church. This to Hegisippus was the beginning of the division of the church. Thebulis is said to be linked with seven sects who were among 'the people" presumably Israel, but opposed the "tribe of Judah" and the teaching of the Church. These sects existed alongside the "ortho logo" and considered that the teaching of the Church itself, especially regarding Jesus, was error that is not "ortho logo'. It is the private opinions of the leaders of various sects that split the church and Hegissipus goes on to name the sects but unlike Hippolytus, he does not positively explain their doctrines to refute them. To Hegesiipus then the division of the second century Church began because of "selfish ambition" and was effected through private opinions especially originating in the seven sects. One might ask the question of the division between the Church of the Circumcision and the Church of the Gentiles before 66 AD, indeed going back to the council of Jerusalem. Did not Hegissipus take these imperfections into account. However the objection is found not to carry so much weight for this was a division which the leadership permitted and still held together the right hand of fellowship. Paul and Peter did not fall out completely but were united in the one mission to bring the Circumcicion and the Gentiles to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Even James made a decision to preserve the unity at that time despite be head of a lots Pharisee branch of the Church. (For some Lukes account is considered unbalanced but not all hold to this position.
2 He is concerned that the orthodox faith (Ortho Logo) preserve its true right teachings, which are not private teaching.
It is stories from the history of the Jerusalem Church of the Circumcision or the "Judeo Christians" as Testa (1991) would call them, that concerns him. His portrait of the Church comes from a tradition no doubt reflected in 2 Corinthians 11, which saw the Church orginally as a virgin. This image has been objected to, as historically inaccurate and as a kind of idealistic late second century fantasy of Hegissipus. One makes the point that where there is a virgin there is no life. However three points must be considered when looking at Hegisspus's portrait of the Church. Firstly it has clear agreement with apostolic orthodoxy and hence orthodoxy from the Apostle Paul. "I espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor 11:1-3). The period of the virgin lasts until the day Paul will present the Corinthian Church to Christ, that is presumably at the resurrection, in the future. Secondly. this points to a tradition in the Church, not just in Hegisipus or Paul but in the wider Church. Since Hegissipus was from the Circumcision it would suggest that the Pauline and the Petrine Churches pictured the Church as a virgin and that until her marriage to Christ in the last days. For Paul the corruption of the virginity would come through the corrupting of the minds with the preaching of another Jesus, receiving of another spirit and the acceptance of another gospel. For Hegissipus it came through men teaching their own private opinions instead perhaps of the "Ortho Logo". Thirdly where there is a virgin there is no life fits only in the world outside the Church. For the very foundational prophecy of the Messiah of the Church is that a virgin shall be with child. The virgin Church even as the virgin Mary can bear children and has borne many in her time.
What then was the :Ortho logo" the right message of the orthodox faith. We can glean this from Hegessipus stories of the history of the testimonies of various memebers of the family of the Lord. The doctrines if we put it into a creed it would read:
We believe, Jesus son of David, is the Saviour, the Christ and the Son of Man
We believe he himself sits in heaven, at the right hand of the great power
And shall come with the clouds of heaven
Hosanna to the son of David
We believe his kingdom is not of this world, nor of the earth
but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels.
It will appear at the end of time
And there shall be a resurrection
when the Lord shall come in glory and judge the living and the dead
and render to every one according to the course of his life and his works
As taught by the Law and the prophets and the Lord.
Hegisipus makes it very clear which first and second century group are not with in the pale of "orthologo". He rejected "Knowledge falsely so called" and contrasts this with the preaching of the truth. When he looked around him during that fourth quarter of the second century he saw as he understood it, many false Christs, and false prophets and he read of them in his sources and heard of them in the traditions he had received. He leaves no doubt as to the perceived sources of the lamentable and divided state of the second century Church
“ For this reason they called the church a virgin, for she had not yet been corrupted by vain discourses; but Thebouthis, because he had not become a bishop, began to corrupt her from the seven heresies among the people to which he himself belonged. From these also came Simon, whence the Simonians, Cleobius, whence the Cleobians, Dositheus, whence the Dositheans abd Gorthaeus, whence the Gorathenes (and Masbotheans). From these the Menandrianists and Marcionites and Carpocratians and Valentinians and Basilidians and Saturnilians have introduced their own opinions in different ways” (Grant 1946 p60).
So Hegissipus in agreement with modern scholarship (NCE article Gnosticism)locates the source of the Gnostic heresies outside of the Church among the seven sects. He like the “modern scholars” mentioned above and like a good Hebrew chronicler follows the teaching to its source but does not go into too much detail about their teachings unlike Ireneaus and Hippolytus who were not Hebrews. It would appear that the seven sects Hegisippus mentions are listed elsewhere and are the “ Essenes, Galilieans, Hemerobaptists Masbotheans, Samaritans, Saducees, and Pharisees.” Grant 1946 p58 (H.E. i.v 22.7) They were in his understanding against the tribe of Judah and the Messiah as mentioned earlier. Hegessipus who appears very interested in the fulfilment of prophecy in the tribe of Judah and Messiah and his family, points to the fact that these seven sects and their children, Simon etc and their seed the Simonians and their offspring the Menandrianists etc also produced seed. And these seed were “false Christs, false prophets, false apostles’ and what is the fruit of these “christs”, “prophets” and “apostles”? They have “divided the unity of the Church with corrupting words against God and against his Christ’.
3 He believes in church government in terms of succesion accords to the teaching of the "Law, the prophets and the Lord'
Hegissipus portrays a second century church which believes in the Monarchical Episcopacy. Liebnitz relates that this was true in the case of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning. Hegissipus went to Corinth and Rome in his travels. He tells us a little about the situation in these Churches sometime between 175 AD and 189 AD when Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome. At that time the Church of his "O'rthologo" had set procedures for succession of Bishops. These regulations were in "the Law, the Prophets and the Lord". Regarding the three Churches and their state in the last quarter of the second century we find that although their are Corinthians hold to the "Orthologo" it would appear that at some point the Corinthian church as a whole dparted from it. For he says "the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth". The import of his words is that at or after the time of Primus the Corinthian Church departed from the orthodox faith. However there still remained in Corinth a group who maintained the faith of the orthodox for Hegissipus met them and they refreshed themselves in the message.
As for the Roman Church for Hegissipus it was still orthodox even until the time of his writing. He mentions that he made a list of the succession of the bishops in Rome but only mentions three of them. Anicetus(c 155-166) and his deacon Eleutherius, Soter (166-175), and then Elutherius who ruled from (175-189). Liebnitz notes that up until the time of Ireneus and his defeat of the Gnostics, only five Church had maintained a list of the succession of bishops, through from the Apostles to the end of the second century. These were Jerusalem (although he is suspicious of their list), Rome, Byzantium, Alexandria and Antioch.
The second century Bishops of Rome preceding Anicetus and listed by Hegisspus would have been Evarastus (c 99-107), Sixtus I (115-125), Telephorus (125-136), Hyginus (136-140), Pius I (140-155).
This list would come into its own in Ireneus diputes with the Valentinians and the other Gnostics at the end of the second century. The idea of Apostolic Succession, which Hegissipus believed in was a significant fact in the defeat of the Gnostics. With Hegisspus it is not simply a matter of one bishop succeeding another but the succession must take place in accordance with the Law the Prophets and the Lord, to be legitimate and orthologo.
We can also observe something of the state of ranks in the orthodox faith In terms of Church government the Bishop and the Deacons are together in the work of governing the Church. He mentions the Bishop and his related deacon, not presbyter. We know from the New Testament that the terms episkopos and prebyteros were interchangeble and the explanation of this in the original of the mode of government.
The primtive Christian presbetery, like the Jewish prebetery from which it derived, was a corporate judicial and adminsitrative body, and the bishop as ruler of his church was simply its president, a presbyter among his fellow-prebyters. The primitive christian prebyter , like his Jewish prototype had as such no liturgical functions. (cf the presbyters ordination prayer in the Apostolic Tradition.) But the Episkope, the bishops own office as bishop was from the first primarily liturgical, like the deacons (cf. their ordination prayers in Hippolytus)
So we see Hegisspus's mention of the Bishop and the Deacon may point to an undertanding of the relative roles distinct from that of presbyter and that could be part of election accrding to the Law and the Prophets and the Lord.
In Hegisppus' eyes for the succession of leaders to take place legitimately in the Jerusalem Church there is another condition attached. Those who are relatives of the Lord have priority. So in Jerusalem it is not just a matter of any Church member filling the position, but those related by flesh and blood to the Lord. In giving us some details of the succesion in the Jerusalem his position becomes evident. He relates
James the Lord brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the Apostles....And after James the Just had suffered martydom as had the Lord also and on the same account, ...Symeon the son of Clopas a descendent of the Lord's uncle, is made bishop his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord
We see here that in right Church government for second century Hegisspus, the bishop should be elected after the support of the community and being a kinsman of the Lord made one more qualified. However by the time Hegissipus wrote down his journal it had been perhaps fifty years since a kinsman of the Lord had ruled the Jerusalem Church. The Succesion list of the second century Church of Jerusalem reads
Simeon I (62-106), Justus I (-111) Zaccheus (134) Tobias, Benyamin, John I, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph, Yahudah, Mark I (134-185) Cassianus.
The large number of names around AD 134 makes Liebnitz suspect that this is not a list of monarchical succesion but perhaps a list of those who were on a synod of Presbyters. It ha been observed that the Jerusalem church went through a change from Jewish to Gentile leadership in about 134 with Mark I being the first Gentile name. This being caused by the effect of the failed Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochba revolt between 132 and 135 and the expulsion of the Jews, including the believers from Jerusalem.
Although Hegisspus says all promoted the election of Symeon clearly in Thebulis and his entourage there was a dissenting party. And it was for him the ambition of this man and his teaching of his private opinions and worthless doctrines which lead to the lamentable and divided state of the second century which now Hegissipus had to deal.
During the early second century the Church had a period of peace. This was from the passing of the decree by Domitian "to stop the persecution of the Church. Two relatives of the Lord who were informed against as being from the house of David were tried and aquitted by Domitian. He saw that although they were from the house of David from whence the Jews expected a Messiah, they were no danger to his state. They having testified before the emperor became "leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord" Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition also mentions the importance of those who had been witnesses or confessors or martyrs for the Name. He also agrees that they received a place of greater honor in the Church. The importance of marteydom even to death was emphasised by the stories of Ignatious of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. However some Gnostics sects such as Basilides, Johns antichrist in Alexandria taught againt martyrdom for they did not see that Jesus had truly suffered so why should they?
4 He is concerned with the position of the "Kindred of the Lord' and their relationship to the Church government, "the people" and the sects among the people, and the Roman government.
He notes seven sects among the people of Israel. And he lists Gnostic groups who were from outside of the people. These he sees as fulfilling the words of Jesus when he talks about false prophets and false Christ’s.
5 He continues with the Church tradition of seeing prophecies hundreds of years old being fulfilled in person of his time.
James fulfils scriptures in the Memoirs of Heggisippus even as Jesus in did in the Gospel.
6 He is interested in the events of that church history and especially important event like the stoning of James and the corruption of Theobilus.
In Hegisspus we see the church of orthologo from the perspective of a Hebrew believer.
Appendixes and possible sources of more information
Along with the above introduction this was the attempt at the first paper.
Bauer (1934) argued against the orthodoxy of the second century church, because the Gnostics out numbered or preceded the Church in certain places such as Alexandria. And Grant (1946) relied upon Bauer in his conclusion "Well into the second century there was within Christianity no sharp dividing line between what was orthodox and what was heretical'. Turner (1954) answered Bauer ably, attacking both his book and thesis. He agreed with Bauer that orthodoxy and Heresy found their basis in "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" (p301 Bauer 1934) but argued that it was in the application of these sources that they differed.
For the heretics, canonical is used selectively or interpreted by forced exegesis, church tradition is falsified or discarded in favor of non-orthodox materials,...the heretics have no feeling for the organic wholeness of the Church's faith (301-302).
Two major weaknesses of Bauer’s case was that much of it was argued from silence (286-302) and secondly he all but ignored the position of the Church of the first century (293-294).
Frend (1985) could conclude that Bauer's thesis was pointless (14).
The Defenders of the Apostolic and Scriptural Faith:
Ireneaus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome
The first defender of this sort was Irenaeus (130-200) who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul modern day France, from AD 177. In his youth he went to the school of Polycarp, the Apostolic Father, who knew Apostle John. Ireneaus would use in his defense against the Gnostic sects of Christianity the fact that Polycarp knew John and he knew Polycarp and they both disagreed with what the Heretic was saying. Irenaeus moved from Smyrna to Rome and joined the lectures of Justin the Martyr. In 177 he returned to Lyons and became bishop in place of Pothinus who was recently martyred.
His disciple, Hippolytus, bishop of Rome is the man whose writings we will compare with those of Hegessipus and see what they teach us about the Church of the second century.
Hippolytus wrote many great works. We have from him Apostolic Tradition, The refutation of all Heresies, Fragments of his commentaries on scriptures, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Expository Treatise Against the Jews, Against on the cause of the Universe, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Against Beron and Helix, The Discourse on Holy Theophany, And various works which are put in an appendix.
The Intention of the writers.
Hippolyus wrote his Refutation of all Heresies after 222 AD. We need to ask what was Hippolytus’s intention in writing his refutation?
And it is made for us abundantly clear in his last book. He is nothing less than an Evangelist to the nations. His desire is to save the nations from “the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire” (ANF 1994 p153). He exposes the difference between the True Church and the Apostate Churches using scripture as the touchstone of authority along with the doctrine of Christ. He feels his job of refuting is complete by the ninth book.
The Seduction of the Virgin Church AD 70-AD 200
During the rule of James a number of sects lived in Jerusalem which opposed the tribe of Judah.
Many sects, religions, philosophies were prevalent in that period. Many came from the Jews and many came from the philosophies of the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians. There concepts were sometimes used by the Church to explain her ideas but among some groups hellenistic concepts became the guiding rule to rage against Yahuwah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Creator of the heavens the earth the sea and the dry land and all that in them is. In the New Testament and in the Great Church, these aspects of Yahuwah’s work, his creation and kindness in giving the Torah and the Prophets, were always a positive thing and a wonderful display of Yahuwah’s grace, mercy, compassion, power and providence. In the eyes of the Gnostic and Marcionite communities this work is seen as a very negative thing and Yahuwah the creator and the God of the Jews is blasphemed regularly in their literature. They call the prophets of Yahuwah “fools who knew nothing” and they apply such adjectives to Yahuwah also. Some members of these Gnostic Churches replaced Jesus with a certain Simon who himself was the incarnate deity who pretended to be crucified and rose again. Some denied the Crucifixion of the Messiah and some denied that the Mashiach Yeshua came in the flesh. With the increasing popularity of these teachings the Church of the Second century found itself in what some people have called a life and death struggle.
Generation 1: The Period of Apostles and Prophets
From this period of the Church we have all the writings of the New Testament except the Gospel, letters, and Revelation of John. John is the only Apostle to survive this period and by the time the Temple is destroyed in 70 AD all the Apostles to the Circumcision have passed to be with Yeshua. We have a tradition handed down from Hippolytus of Rome, who was ministering around 200 AD in Rome. He was then in the fifth generation (AD 190-240) from the Ascension. He wrote a number of works and worked on a Church calendar and chronology of the man from creation (Fox 1986 pg 267). His work is sometimes influenced by Ireneus bishop of Lyons but is considered by Lietzmen (1953 p245) to be continuing the line of Apology through Justin Martyr and was in sympathy with the Greek manner of thought. He hands down a tradition related to the structure of the Church in the period of Yeshua and the Apostolic and Prophetic periods. He hands down about the ministry and deaths of the Apostles and also about the names of the 70 whom Yeshua sent out on mission in Luke 10. Ireneus gives a list of the episkopoi (overseers or Bishops) of Rome from its founding as a Church which is traditionally considered to be AD 42 by the Apostle Peter (Freemantle 1953 - Introduction) to his time which is around 177 AD to 200 AD. He is doing this to show that the tradition held by what we will call the Great Church came straight from the Apostles unlike that of the Gnostic Valentinus or the arch heretics Marcion of Pontus and Basilides of Egypt. In his Against Heresies Book III chapter 3 section 3 he states
“ The blessed Apostles, then having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric This man as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone (in this), for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus ; then sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles hold the inheritance of the Episcopate. In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition, from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
So we see that assuming each of the episkopoi (overseers or bishops) mentioned oversaw the Roman Church in the succession mentioned; and assuming they were faithful to what was taught them, we can see that what we hear in the fifth generation from the Acension, from the leaders of the Church, is the similar to that believed and taught in the first generation. If we do not hold these assumptions the list can help to establish the connection and chain which is important for assessing legitimacy of ministry as opposed to those who created their own churches yesterday, but the content of the teaching can not be confirmed this way.
This is the first such list of overseers according to Liebnitz and is felt it could rest on “sound historical tradition”. However since according to the same Liebnitz, the first centuries churches were governed by a team or synod or presbyteroi, the earlier names may be historical but probably did not rule the Church consecutively. Rather they were prominent members of the synod.
The Seduction of the Virgin Church AD 70-AD 200
During the rule of James a number of sects lived in Jerusalem which opposed the tribe of Judah.
Many sects, religions, philosophies were prevalent in that period. Many came from the Jews and many came from the philosophies of the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians. There concepts were sometimes used by the Church to explain her ideas but among some groups hellenistic concepts became the guiding rule to rage against Yahuwah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Creator of the heavens the earth the sea and the dry land and all that in them is. In the New Testament and in the Great Church, these aspects of Yahuwah’s work, his creation and kindness in giving the Torah and the Prophets, were always a positive thing and a wonderful display of Yahuwah’s grace, mercy, compassion, power and providence. In the eyes of the Gnostic and Marcionite communities this work is seen as a very negative thing and Yahuwah the creator and the God of the Jews is blasphemed regularly in their literature. They call the prophets of Yahuwah “fools who knew nothing” and they apply such adjectives to Yahuwah also. Some members of these Gnostic Churches replaced Jesus with a certain Simon who himself was the incarnate deity who pretended to be crucified and rose again. Some denied the Crucifixion of the Messiah and some denied that the Mashiach Yeshua came in the flesh. With the increasing popularity of these teachings the Church of the Second century found itself in what some people have called a life and death struggle.
The Church of the Second Century
The mixture of the conditions we have just mentioned with the preaching of the gospel by men who were either anointed and sent forth by the Apostles, such as Timothy, Titus and others or people who heard the Apostles or heard someone who heard someone who heard an Apostle, lead to a wide variety of communities believing things unheard by the average Christian in the twentieth century. Blasphemies which would make the modern Christian’s ears tingle were normal talk in that age. And the Great Church, headed up by Jerusalem and then teachers from Rome, Lyons and Israel took up battle, these were the defenders of the God who created the universe.The men who blasphemed Yahuwah, and those who denied that Messiah came in the flesh, that he was crucified and died and was buried and rose on the third day, in the flesh were from Alexandria in Egypt, Pontus in northern Turkey and Samaria and Galilee in Israel and other places. There were communities who were opposed by the Great Church and her writers and speakers who did not blaspheme Yah’wah, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob such as the Montanists called Phrygians by Hippolytus. We see then there was great variety in the beliefs of the Great Church and the other “Churches” of the second century. From believing the Creator to be the Father of our Lord Yeshua the Mashiach to believing him to be completely on the other side of the fence and from the dark side. The cause of these differences comes down to authority. Those who considered the pagan philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, Zeno of Citium and Cleanthes of Assos not simply as truth seekers who in the providence of the Creator who were allowed some insight the truth via the Logos, but as higher than prophets and as mouth pieces of truth, undermined the scriptures and the Creator and his glory. Those who put the Scriptures and the Prophets and the Apostles first would used some philosophy as a teacher does an illustration, but the Truth lies in the Scriptures of the Torah and the Prophets, the Lord and his Apostles. They respected the Creator and honored him in his Son who was resurrected in the flesh and would return to judge the living and the dead.
The Battle for the Church
There were numerous Churches planted from Spain to India by the beginning of the second century and it was among these that the battle for the soul of the Church took place. The northern tribe of Israel back in 931 BC had split from Judah. Then under Jereboam son of Nebat a battle for the faith of Israel took place. And as a result after its separation from Jerusalem, every king of the nineteen kings of Israel was in apostasy. In the end Yah’wah had the kingdom dismantled during the rule of the Assyrians in 722 BC. Now in the second century the Church also had a battle on its hand would it follow Yah’wah or would it reinterpret the whole gospel in Pythagorean, Platonic, Aristotleian modes. Which side would the Church fall on? Yah’wah or his enemies and indeed these were his enemies for in the case of the Gnostics, blasphemy against the Creator and denial of the power of God to resurrect the flesh were second nature. On the side of the Great Church we take as representatives one from the circumcision, Hegissipus and one from the uncircumcision Hippolytus. In both cases they were not ashamed to name the opposition. Hegissipus names the enemies in the camp of the circumcision and the uncircumcision. Hippolytus gives a chronological list every heresy he came across in the second century and then to his own satisfaction showed their cause and the source of their doctrine. Showing that their authority for their doctrines did not lie in the scripture or the doctrine of Christ as handed down by the Apostles, but lay in the moral, natural and logical philosophies of the Greeks or some non scriptural source and not from God as the Gnostic “prophets” claims.”
The Gnostic and heretic communities mentioned by Hegessipus and Hippolytus were born in the first century or before and flourished into the second century producing offspring through teaching and succesion.
Let us listen to Hegissipus
“ For this reason they called the church a virgin, for she had not yet been corrupted by vain discourses; but Thebouthis, because he had not become a bishop, began to corrupt her from the seven heresies among the people to which he himself belonged. From these also came Simon, whence the Simonians, Cleobius, whence the Cleobians, Dositheus, whence the Dositheans abd Gorthaeus, whence the Gorathenes (and Masbotheans). From these the Menandrianists and Marcionites and Carpocratians and Valentinians and Basilidians and Saturnilians have introduced their own opinions in different ways” (Grant 1946 p60). So Hegissipus in agreement with modern scholarship locates the source of the Gnostic heresies outside the Church among the seven sects. He like the “modern scholars” mentioned above and like a good Hebrew chronicler follows the teaching to its source bnut does not go into too much detail about their teachings unlike Hippolytus who was a Roman. It would appear that the seven sects Hegisippus mentions are listed elsewhere and are the “ Essenes, Galilieans, Hemerobaptists Masbotheans, Samaritans, Saducees, and Pharisees.” Grant 1946 p58 (H.E. i.v 22.7) They were in his understanding against the tribe of Judah and the Messiah as mentioned earlier. Hegessipus who appears very interested in the fulfilment of prophecy in the tribe of Judah and Messiah and his family, points to the fact that these seven sects and their children the Simon etc and their seed the Simonians and their offspring the Menandrianists etc also produced seed. And these seed were “false Christs, false prophets, false apostles’ and what is the fruit of these “christs”, “prophets” and “apostles”? They have “divided the unity of the Church with corrupting words against God and against his Christ’.
Hippolytus names the opposition in the battle for the soul of the Church
Hippolytus having been taught by Ireneaus who early raised the standard of Apostolic succession and Apostolic tradition against the so called secret teaching of the Gnostic teachers, conceived of the idea of writing a book refuting all Heresies that had plagued the Church from the beginning. He considered that the best way to do this was to show exactly where each Gnostic teacher got his ideas from, and in doing he would pull the wool from under their feet. For what they climed came by revelation or the secret teaching of the Messaih was actually simply pagan Greek Philosophy rehashed. So he set out and wrote in ten books a history of Greek Philosophy before Christ and then a Hisstory of the Heretics after Christ. Whilst writing of the heretics he would show that the source of their fantastic ideas were neither scriptural nor from Christ but plagiarized from this philosopher or the other and all the Heretics did was rehash old Greek philosophy with new words. Hippolytus also included in his list some Pope Zephynirus and Pope Callistus who are today and were in those days considered orthodox and as a result Hippolytus is seen as a schismatic to this day. But to the Eastern Church he is simply a Bishop of Rome. He lists in chronoligical order no less that 27 heresies which arose after Yeshua until the beginning of the second century when he was writing. Let us observe with the prosecutor from the uncircumcision Hippolytus.
Heresy Source according to Hippolytus
1 Naasenes from Philosphers and mystical rites
2 Peretae framed from Astrological art
3 Sethians from wise men among the Greeks (Musuesis, Linus and Orpheus)
4 Justinus from the marvels of Herodotus
Book VI Refutation of all Heresies
5 Simon from magicians and poets using ideas of Aristotle
6 Valentinus Platonic and Pythgorean sects
7 Secundus from the philosophers but with a different terminology
8 Ptolemaeus from the philosophers but with different terminology
9 Haracleon from the philosophers but with different terminology
10 Marcus magical arts and Pythagorean numerology
11 Colarbasus magical arts and Pythagorean numerology
Book VII Refutation of all Heresies
12 Basilides from Aristotle (During the reign of Hadrian)
13 Saturnilus
14 Menander disciple of Simon and believed the world was made by angels.
15 Marcion from Empedocles a Greek philospher
16 Carpocrates existing things made from angels
17 Cerinthius from the tenets of the Egyptians
18 Ebinaens adhere to Jewish customes
19 Theodotus from the Ebionits and the Cerenthius
20 Cerdon from Empedocles and he encouraged Marcion
21 Lucian blasphmed God from time to time and was encouraged by Marcion
22 Appelles natural philosphers
23 Decetae natural philosophy
24 Moimus poets, geometricians and arithmeticians
25 Tatian from Valentinus and Marcion
26 Hermogenes from Socrates not Christ
27 Phrygians
Clearly our summary is not in an detail and does cover all the groups cover by Hippolytus but it will be interesting to see some of the relationships of the Gnostic “churches” and perhaps to understand why the Great Church felt it necessary to refute. No doubt to some it was by the providence of the Creator Yah’wah that he ensured the Gnostic were seen as plainly outside the Church of his son. But some have argued that since some of these teachers and their groups were apparently the only “Church” in a region or the main “church” in a region this would make them the “orthodox” Christianity of that region (See Bauer 1934). But clearly this can not be the case for the opinion is important in orthdoxy not the numbers. If the opinion held is the right opinion not in accordance with the first in the region but in accordance with the original teacher. So let us look at some of the teachings of churches of the apostasy of and see if they really hold water in comparison to the Apostles.
The Discipleship training school of Magician Incarnate Simon
“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ this is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” and put Simon and Menander in his place?
The main process of heresy seemed to be to start in a local place and then head to a more popular place to preach your gospel. Simon who is seen by many Church fathers as the father of the Heretics was a resident from Gitta in Samaria. He is believed to be the same Simon Magus who conflicted with Peter in Acts 8. He according to the tradition went to Rome to challenge Peter. He lost the battle and went into demise.
We have different tradition regarding him but a key point was he thought he was the redeemer. He thought he was God incarnate. He was the one who was crucified not Jesus of Nazareth. This being the case, could he be seen as a legitimate from of Christianity? One which takes Jesus off the cross and eliminates Jesus resurrection? From I Cor 15 and Acts 1-2 we have to say no. Simon had a disciple called Menander. Even if the identity of Simon the Gnostic is not Simon Magus as some hold he is always assigned Menander as his disciple. Now Menander was from Galilee according to Justin Martyr. He went to Samaria as Simons disciple and then went to Antioch the third largest city of the Roman empire to preach his message. He with his magical tricks persuaded people that they could not be saved unless they were baptised in his name! Not in Jesus name. This time however his baptism was more powerful than Jesus for he persuaded his followers that they would not have to died and rise from the dead but with his baptism they inherited eternal life now. He climbed to be a Saviour sent down from somewhere above to save mankind from the invisible aeons which in those days were supernatural powers. According to Eusebius he taught this to make a mockery of the church’s teaching o the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. (HC Eus p136 1965)
We notice with these earlier Heretics that they were based I the land of Israel and went out from their.
Post Apostolic Disciple Training Schools
One thing in common between the Great Church who respected the Creator and the other “churches” who regularly blasphemed him was that they set up schools and trained disciples. In the late first and the second century these schools produced disciples who continued and expanded the message of their teachers. Many of these schools claimed Apostolic succession as source of authority.
The School of Polycarp in the Great Church (Asia and Rome)
The first school we will look at is that of the Apostle John. He had a disciple Polycarp who became bishop of Smyrna in Asia minor. He taught a young man called Ireneaus. Who then left Polycarp and went to Lyons in Gaul (modern day France). He then went to Rome and trained under Justin the Martyr who was actually from Shechem in Samaria. During his stay in Rome he met a young man called Hippolytus who became his disciple. Ireneaus left Rome and became Bishop of Lyons in AD 177. He later wrote a book Against Heresies which was a very strong blow to the teachings of the Gnostics. His disciple Hippolytus took up the challenge also and wrote a book called the Refutation of all Heresies. This school of Disciple started in Ephesus and ended in Rome and was a Greek school and part of the great Church.
The Schools of the Egyptians
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard it is coming”
The list of the Apostles dividing up the inheritance from the nations many or may not be historically accurate. It hands down what one part of Church tradition in the end of the second century held to be the places where the disciples ministered. If it really was from Hippolytus his very reputation for wide learning and being a man who wouldn’t falsify fact deliberately would go some way to point to the trustworthiness of the data. This being said if we look at the list we find this interesting fact. None of the Apostles are seen as being assigned Egypt. According to Grant (1946) and Bauer (1934) there is little evidence of Orthodox Christianity or the Christianity of the Great Church being present in Alexandria until the middle to the end of the second century. “Pantaneus was the earliest teacher of ‘orthodoxy’ at Alexandria; and of his career we know almost nothing” Grant 1946 p 54. If this is true and no apostle really was assigned Alexandria and they delegated it to one of the seventy although it was the second largest city in the Roman world, this could be seen as a strategic mistake on the part of the Apostles in dividing up the land. For out of Alexandria came some of the most dangerous Gnostic sects known to the second century Church. On the other hand one might see it as all in God’s providence to help toward the purifying of doctrine of the Great Church which turned out to be the true Church. For the extremeites of the Gnostic churches of Alexandria drove Ireneaus to set down in words creedal formulations of the faith of the Church which were influential as the Church grew in the following centuries accepting certain elemts of Greek culture as was acceptable but rejecting elements of Greek philosophy which perhaps caused the Gnostics to “blapheme their creator after a most impudent manner!” . So what was in Alexandria before Orthodoxy? We find two major discipleship training schools.
The “Antichrist” School of Basilides during the reign of Hadrian (117-138)
Peter taught a disciple called Glaukias (Another interpreter of Peter like Mark the Evangelist) and he taught a disciple called Basilides. This Basilides then set up school in Egypt. His son Isidore continued his ministry. Basilides wrote a 24 volume commentary on a gospel called Exegetics. Distinctives of the training school was that the name of his god was Abraxas not Yah’wah. That the God of the Jews, who gave the law and the prophets was the last of the numerous angels of Abraxas and was more troublesome than all.. And as for Christ, he came as a phantom “without the substance of flesh”. Jesus “Did not suffer in the flesh but in his place Simon was crucified”.
Such are some of the distinctives of the school of Basilides. Ireneaus must have thought “Can this be the same faith as that of Peter who prayed “Yah’wah”, “Thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is….in the name of thy holy child Jesus” Could he believe in the same faith as John who wrote “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God” According to modern liberal scholarship the letter and the gospel of John were written and circulated in “the second quarter of the second century”, This is exactly the time Basilides was flourishing in Alexandria. If then the Gospel and the letters of John are authoritative this school of Basilides was not only Gnostic but antichrist. Do we have scholarly evidence here, without being carried way into fantasy, that the way the writer of I John viewed the teaching of the Gnostic heresies was that they were expressions of the spirit of antichrist? And if so do we need to view the battle between the Gnostics and the Great Church in the second century as the battle between Antichrist and the saints. Grant states that “His heresy did not survive long; probably his followers either turned to Valentinianism or to the later orthodox “gnosticism” of Alexandria.
The Gnostic Discipleship School of Valentinus
By far the most successful of the Gnostic schools was that of Valentinus. “Valentinus, who taught first at Alexandria and then at Rome, was the greatest of the rationalist teachers of the second century” He was flourishing from around 125-150 AD and so it was during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Again we have a claim of Apostolic succession. Paul taught a certain Theodas who taught Valentinus. They had their own gospel called the Gospel of Truth Valentinus taught a number of infamous (from the perspective the Church of Christ) disciples. His school split into the Western or Italian school (who said the body of Jesus was soulish or psychic) and this school included Ptolemaeus (from about 160) who does not seems so blasphemous as Valentinus, if we read his Letter to Flora and Heracleon. (about170) . He is known for writing an Allegorical commentary on the book of John. “It is the first commentary on a single gospel known to us”. The other school which came from Valentinus is the Oriental school who believed the body of Jesus was spiritual. Representatives of this school are Marcus who taught in Asia Minor and whose disciples went to Gaul. He was very much into Gematria and Jesus statement that I am the Alpha and the omeag were key parts in his system. “But what is not so vain, but dangerous , is that they imagine another god beside the creator and deny that Christ was in the substance of flesh” It was to refute the Valentinian schools that Ireneaus was asked to write Against Heresies.
It seems that Valentinus attempted to stay in fellowship with the Great Church. He was a long time in the Church of Rome. He seems to have taught deception so that they looked like they were part of the Church but underneath taught other things, the “secret teachings. This is evidence by the fact Ireneaus’s first task was to make the secret teaching known and only then to refute them. In Heracleon’s commentary we have a hint of these hidden things in his commentary of John I:26 “concerning this flesh I cannot give a word nor interpret nor explain the economy concerning it”
Valentinus himself taught that the Demiurge (a name they call the Creator who gave the law and the prophets “a foolish god” and the prophets themselves were “fools who knew nothing” No doubt this kind of talk was around in the time of Paul for he himself said “God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believed.” And when he was preaching in Athens the Greek philosophers called him a “babbler” and among them he did not achieve very much. Again Jesus does not come in the flesh but in “some sort of spiritual body” as Pseudo Tertullian explains. So we see another representative of the spirits of Antichrist and false prophets which the author of the letter of John defined and the writings of Hegessipus confirmed.
We do not have space to go into all the details of the Heresies. Suffice to say that on looking at the nature of Christ and the attitude to the creator they fall into John’s category of antichrists and false prophets.
Some other Schools
The school and Church of Marcion
Marcion the shipowner from Sinope in Pontus was distingushed from the various Gnostic schools in a number of way. He did not just establish a “training school” but set up an entire Church organisation which in the East last right through to the fifth century. His most well known disciple was Apelles.
He went ahead of the Great Church and established his own personal canon of the Bible with a version of the Gospel of Luke and 10 adjusted letters of Paul. Like the other groups we have a number of sources about him, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. He started his work around 138-140 AD when he came to Rome. To Justin Martyr he was “a demon-inspired archenemy of the church”He is according to May portrayed differently by different fathers. But our job is to see where he is in relation to the criteria for antichrist laid down by the author of the first Epistle of John and agreed with by the great Church in accepting these letter not only as written by the elder John but by the Apostle John. Firstly we will note how he differed from the mainstream Gnostics whom we have concluded that in John’s terms they are antichrist. According to May “Whereas Gnostics appeal to Christian and as well as extra Christian texts and traditions, and in particular traced their special esoteric doctrines back to secret traditions, Marcion rejects any form of Oral tradition and relies solely upon writings associated with the name of Paul” (May 1987-88 p146). So then we ask does his position regarding Jesus Christ coming in the flesh and the Church’s relationship change in accordance with his limitation of authorities? And the answer is no because they made up, not just their own list of books but then they changed what was written in those books according to their idea of two gods. So it was that “Both of the Old testament and the God of the Old Testament were evil…His view of Christ on was basically the Docetic view. He rejected the idea of the resurrection of the body since the soul and the spirit alone were redeemed” Despite the fact that the weaknesses of the Great Churches “theological position became apparent” May (1987-1988 p 150) when they disputed Marcion, his position had to fall in the end. Why? The problems of Old Testament justice and apparent New Testament goodness were apparent enough. The solution of making up your own gospel of Luke and deciding what should be in the letters of Paul by your own philosophy could never stand the test of time. You can not defend truth by deceptively taking away parts of the truth. And as we can see Marcion believed Jesus did not come in the flesh but only appeared, in short he fulfilled John’s criteria for the Antichrist spirit.
The School of Montanism
“ I am neither and angel nor an envoy, but I the Lord God, the Father have come” Montanus
More than a discipleship school this school was a school of prophecy. It was founded after Montanus a resident of Pepuza in Phrygia central Turkey in about 155 AD. Montanus was a newly baptized Christian and experienced what in modern day terms would be called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He had two main disciples Prisca and Maximillian. Montanism was neither Gnostic or Marcionite. They believed in the Creator and prophesied from him. They set high standards of life and attracted Tertullian one of the greatest defenders the Great Church has ever known and the founder of Apostolic Christianity. According to Tertullian Pope Victor around 190 AD “acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, and kept up communion with the Phrygian Churches that adopted them” And Hippolytus himself says “These people agree with the Church in acknowledging the Father of the universe to Be God and Creator of all things, and they also acknowledge all that the gospel testifies of Christ” Hippolytus was upset with a few elements of Church practice such as fastings, feasts and the diets of the Montanism.Some historians see the Montanist movement as a revival movement carrying the Church back to the days of its birth. It is clear from the evidence that it is not among the antichrsit categories of the author of I John and as one writer has said “The best indication of the moral worthiness of the movement is that Tertullian , the scourge of Hereitics , eventually joined it. He could not continue to endorse an orthodoxy, which denied any independent role to the Spirit and insisted all communication should be through the regular ecclesiatical channels” Were they really heretics or was Maximilla right “I am driven as a wolf from the sheep . I am not a wolf; I am word , spirit and power”
Conclusion
This study is by no means exhausitive and has no doubt left out much which should have been included. But what can we conclude from these meanderings through parts of the second century Church with the attitude to Yah’wah the Creator and Yeshua the Messiah coming in the flesh. We can conclude this orthodoxy matters. And perhaps even as scholars we can look upon the second century as one in battle with the church of Antichrist. The antichrist church blaspheme the Father of out Lord Jesus Christ in a manner which it is difficult for a Hebrew to repeat. And they deny that Jesus really became man that is they deny the very basis of the redemption mankind the incarnation “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” And the Hegisippus a Hebrew believer and Hippolytus the last of the Greek fathers both agree in these Gnostic Church lies the source of false prophets and false Christs. And the major source of the problem in that day was that the “Old Testament and also the early Christian writings were read with ‘Greek’ presuppositions” Yes perhaps all the Church true and false was included in that process, but not all blasphemed the creator as a result. The Gnostic system represent a level of arrogance toward the law the prophets and Yah’wah almost unheard in antiquity let us hope future speculation will be characterised by greater humility.
If you have comments and advice of strengthening these thoughts please feel free to make them to Edi Nachman at mashiacana@hotmail.com.
This paper is intended to show that there was in the Church from its beginning an orthodoxy. And that orthodoxy found continuity into and through the second century in the 'Great Church" and was perverted among the Gnostics. This is notwithstanding the fact that both systems grew by selecting and rejecting elements from the cultures available within the Europe, the Africa and the Asia of that period and both systems may have been interested more in discussing the way of life as opposed the what of dogma. Even in the midst of the flexibility in the life of the Church there was an orthodoxy, that is a "right opinion" or right teaching of the faith handed down from the apostles.
Unity in fundamentals
The way this paper intends to show this is by seeking to look at the history of the second century Church from the perspective of Hegesippus with the letters of 1 John and 1 Timothy acting as our main bridge to the first century. The argument is that although Hegessipus has a his own scopos (intention in writing) yet he was certain in understanding orothodoxy in certain elements of second century Christianity. This area of teaching or beliefs is what I mean by orthodoxy. To the degree that the beliefs agree with that handed down by the Apostles in letters and gospels later canonised, to that degree is the teaching that of the orthologo Church and what might be termed the orthodox Church. Further, although he may have expressed his concepts of the Church through differing pictures or metaphors and selected differing elements to focus upon in his defence of the faith, he had at root a fundamental viewpoint as to the faith of the Church, which found its source in an apostolic perspective on the themes of the day, including origin, identity and destination of the Church. In contrast to this the Gnostic not only did not take an apostolic perspective but were happy to boast about being superior to the apostles in their revelation (Ireneus ch 3), and were more than happy to speak "boastful words against the most high" that is the Creator(Dan 7).
Some elements of the writings of Hegisippus which show their fundamental understanding as to an orthodoxy are:
1 He asserts that the origin and identity of the true faith was from the Lord, the Scriptures and the Apostles notwithstanding the Apostolic use of some of the ideas of Greek philosophy to explain the faith).
2 He asserts that the origin of the Gnostic sects was from outside of the Apostles (notwithstanding apparent Apostolic use of Gnostic ideas (Bultman: Primitive Christianity). In this he agrees with such fathers as Hippolytus and Ireneus and the New Catholic Encylopedia article “Gnosticism”
3 He asserts that the Creator was the Father of Iesous and there was one good God in agreement with Lukes in Acts 5.
4 He asserts that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and rose from the dead in the flesh not as a phantom. And hence answered the question where are we going differently to the Gnostics. Here he agrees with John’s gospel and the Epistles of John and Ignatiuos of Antioch.
These are just four of the elements which set apart a Church of orthodoxy from the Gnostic flood which sought to sweep away and drown the Church of Jesus Christ whilst still in its infancy.
Bauer (1934) argued against the orthodoxy of the second century church, because the Gnostics out numbered or preceded the Church in certain places such as Alexandria. And Grant (1946) relied upon Bauer in his conclusion "Well into the second century there was within Christianity no sharp dividing line between what was orthodox and what was heretical'. Turner (1954) answered Bauer ably, attacking both his book and thesis. He agreed with Baeur that orthodoxy and Heresy found their basis in "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" (p301 Bauer 1934) but argued that it was in the application of these sources that they differed.
For the heretics, canonical is used selectively or interpreted by forced exegesis, church tradition is falsified or discarded in favor of non-orthodox materials,...the heretics have no feeling for the organic wholeness of the Church's faith (301-302).
Two major weaknesses of Bauer’s case was that much of it was argued from silence (286-302) and secondly he all but ignored the position of the Church of the first century (293-294).
Frend (1985) could conclude that Bauer's thesis was pointless (14).
Hegessipus wrote towards the end of the second century. He was preceded by New Testament AD 51-125 (following most conservative and liberal scholars), the Apostolic Fathers (AD 96-156), the Apologists and numerous Apocryphal gospels, Acts and Apocalypses. Hegissipus is considered to have written as an historian (Anf Introduction to Hegissipus) but he wrote with the understanding that there was an orthodoxy and he was in it. His intention of writing memorials of the Apostles and the origins of orthodoxy and heresy is both honorable and practical and it is a real pity more of his material was not preserved. His intention in writing was linked with this understanding of the first and second century, that there was originally one orthodox church which began to divide under the influence of her external enemies working through her members who because of ambition caused division .
May in his "Marcion in contemporary Views" has shown that there are various traditions preserved by various Church Fathers regarding who Marcion was. Each Father wrote according to his tradition and perspective and so Marcion is portrayed in various ways some consistent with each other and others inconsistent. In the same way we can expect Hegisippus to write his own particular perspective on the Church and the faith. We need then to hope that we can expect to see them as an independent witness as to orthodoxy in the Church of the second century and hope that through their his agreement with other writers of orthodoxy we will see that orthodoxy was not accidental to the church but essential. A comprehensive comparison of the various orthodox writers in this respect is perhaps a disideratum.
The Virgin Church a Church of right teaching
From the unfortunately, fragmentary parts of the Memoirs of Hegissipus preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, we find a Hebrew believer, whose focus was the past of the Church which is linked inextricably with the tribe of Judah.
Hegisippus demonstrates at least six concerns in his Memoirs, although some of these may be dictated by the writer he was dependent on in writing his memoirs and clearly to the editorial or selection work of Eusebius.
1 He relates that the One Church of the Apostles was divided during the second century (ANF 764)
Hegesippus relates to us a tradition that understood that the second century church was divided and this was in contrast to the original first century Church which was one. The divisions with in the second century church originated in between AD 62- AD 66, after the death James the first bishop of the Zion Church in Jerusalem. For Hegisspus according to the natural order a "Kindred of the Lord", indeed a descendent of the Lord's uncle, ascended the seat of the Jerusalem Church. He was elected on the basis that he was a physical relative of the Lord. However Thebulis, a contender for the seat was unhappy about this and began to divide the one Church. This to Hegisippus was the beginning of the division of the church. Thebulis is said to be linked with seven sects who were among 'the people" presumably Israel, but opposed the "tribe of Judah" and the teaching of the Church. These sects existed alongside the "ortho logo" and considered that the teaching of the Church itself, especially regarding Jesus, was error that is not "ortho logo'. It is the private opinions of the leaders of various sects that split the church and Hegissipus goes on to name the sects but unlike Hippolytus, he does not positively explain their doctrines to refute them. To Hegesiipus then the division of the second century Church began because of "selfish ambition" and was effected through private opinions especially originating in the seven sects. One might ask the question of the division between the Church of the Circumcision and the Church of the Gentiles before 66 AD, indeed going back to the council of Jerusalem. Did not Hegissipus take these imperfections into account. However the objection is found not to carry so much weight for this was a division which the leadership permitted and still held together the right hand of fellowship. Paul and Peter did not fall out completely but were united in the one mission to bring the Circumcicion and the Gentiles to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Even James made a decision to preserve the unity at that time despite be head of a lots Pharisee branch of the Church. (For some Lukes account is considered unbalanced but not all hold to this position.
2 He is concerned that the orthodox faith (Ortho Logo) preserve its true right teachings, which are not private teaching.
It is stories from the history of the Jerusalem Church of the Circumcision or the "Judeo Christians" as Testa (1991) would call them, that concerns him. His portrait of the Church comes from a tradition no doubt reflected in 2 Corinthians 11, which saw the Church orginally as a virgin. This image has been objected to, as historically inaccurate and as a kind of idealistic late second century fantasy of Hegissipus. One makes the point that where there is a virgin there is no life. However three points must be considered when looking at Hegisspus's portrait of the Church. Firstly it has clear agreement with apostolic orthodoxy and hence orthodoxy from the Apostle Paul. "I espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor 11:1-3). The period of the virgin lasts until the day Paul will present the Corinthian Church to Christ, that is presumably at the resurrection, in the future. Secondly. this points to a tradition in the Church, not just in Hegisipus or Paul but in the wider Church. Since Hegissipus was from the Circumcision it would suggest that the Pauline and the Petrine Churches pictured the Church as a virgin and that until her marriage to Christ in the last days. For Paul the corruption of the virginity would come through the corrupting of the minds with the preaching of another Jesus, receiving of another spirit and the acceptance of another gospel. For Hegissipus it came through men teaching their own private opinions instead perhaps of the "Ortho Logo". Thirdly where there is a virgin there is no life fits only in the world outside the Church. For the very foundational prophecy of the Messiah of the Church is that a virgin shall be with child. The virgin Church even as the virgin Mary can bear children and has borne many in her time.
What then was the :Ortho logo" the right message of the orthodox faith. We can glean this from Hegessipus stories of the history of the testimonies of various memebers of the family of the Lord. The doctrines if we put it into a creed it would read:
We believe, Jesus son of David, is the Saviour, the Christ and the Son of Man
We believe he himself sits in heaven, at the right hand of the great power
And shall come with the clouds of heaven
Hosanna to the son of David
We believe his kingdom is not of this world, nor of the earth
but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels.
It will appear at the end of time
And there shall be a resurrection
when the Lord shall come in glory and judge the living and the dead
and render to every one according to the course of his life and his works
As taught by the Law and the prophets and the Lord.
Hegisipus makes it very clear which first and second century group are not with in the pale of "orthologo". He rejected "Knowledge falsely so called" and contrasts this with the preaching of the truth. When he looked around him during that fourth quarter of the second century he saw as he understood it, many false Christs, and false prophets and he read of them in his sources and heard of them in the traditions he had received. He leaves no doubt as to the perceived sources of the lamentable and divided state of the second century Church
“ For this reason they called the church a virgin, for she had not yet been corrupted by vain discourses; but Thebouthis, because he had not become a bishop, began to corrupt her from the seven heresies among the people to which he himself belonged. From these also came Simon, whence the Simonians, Cleobius, whence the Cleobians, Dositheus, whence the Dositheans abd Gorthaeus, whence the Gorathenes (and Masbotheans). From these the Menandrianists and Marcionites and Carpocratians and Valentinians and Basilidians and Saturnilians have introduced their own opinions in different ways” (Grant 1946 p60).
So Hegissipus in agreement with modern scholarship (NCE article Gnosticism)locates the source of the Gnostic heresies outside of the Church among the seven sects. He like the “modern scholars” mentioned above and like a good Hebrew chronicler follows the teaching to its source but does not go into too much detail about their teachings unlike Ireneaus and Hippolytus who were not Hebrews. It would appear that the seven sects Hegisippus mentions are listed elsewhere and are the “ Essenes, Galilieans, Hemerobaptists Masbotheans, Samaritans, Saducees, and Pharisees.” Grant 1946 p58 (H.E. i.v 22.7) They were in his understanding against the tribe of Judah and the Messiah as mentioned earlier. Hegessipus who appears very interested in the fulfilment of prophecy in the tribe of Judah and Messiah and his family, points to the fact that these seven sects and their children, Simon etc and their seed the Simonians and their offspring the Menandrianists etc also produced seed. And these seed were “false Christs, false prophets, false apostles’ and what is the fruit of these “christs”, “prophets” and “apostles”? They have “divided the unity of the Church with corrupting words against God and against his Christ’.
3 He believes in church government in terms of succesion accords to the teaching of the "Law, the prophets and the Lord'
Hegissipus portrays a second century church which believes in the Monarchical Episcopacy. Liebnitz relates that this was true in the case of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning. Hegissipus went to Corinth and Rome in his travels. He tells us a little about the situation in these Churches sometime between 175 AD and 189 AD when Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome. At that time the Church of his "O'rthologo" had set procedures for succession of Bishops. These regulations were in "the Law, the Prophets and the Lord". Regarding the three Churches and their state in the last quarter of the second century we find that although their are Corinthians hold to the "Orthologo" it would appear that at some point the Corinthian church as a whole dparted from it. For he says "the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth". The import of his words is that at or after the time of Primus the Corinthian Church departed from the orthodox faith. However there still remained in Corinth a group who maintained the faith of the orthodox for Hegissipus met them and they refreshed themselves in the message.
As for the Roman Church for Hegissipus it was still orthodox even until the time of his writing. He mentions that he made a list of the succession of the bishops in Rome but only mentions three of them. Anicetus(c 155-166) and his deacon Eleutherius, Soter (166-175), and then Elutherius who ruled from (175-189). Liebnitz notes that up until the time of Ireneus and his defeat of the Gnostics, only five Church had maintained a list of the succession of bishops, through from the Apostles to the end of the second century. These were Jerusalem (although he is suspicious of their list), Rome, Byzantium, Alexandria and Antioch.
The second century Bishops of Rome preceding Anicetus and listed by Hegisspus would have been Evarastus (c 99-107), Sixtus I (115-125), Telephorus (125-136), Hyginus (136-140), Pius I (140-155).
This list would come into its own in Ireneus diputes with the Valentinians and the other Gnostics at the end of the second century. The idea of Apostolic Succession, which Hegissipus believed in was a significant fact in the defeat of the Gnostics. With Hegisspus it is not simply a matter of one bishop succeeding another but the succession must take place in accordance with the Law the Prophets and the Lord, to be legitimate and orthologo.
We can also observe something of the state of ranks in the orthodox faith In terms of Church government the Bishop and the Deacons are together in the work of governing the Church. He mentions the Bishop and his related deacon, not presbyter. We know from the New Testament that the terms episkopos and prebyteros were interchangeble and the explanation of this in the original of the mode of government.
The primtive Christian presbetery, like the Jewish prebetery from which it derived, was a corporate judicial and adminsitrative body, and the bishop as ruler of his church was simply its president, a presbyter among his fellow-prebyters. The primitive christian prebyter , like his Jewish prototype had as such no liturgical functions. (cf the presbyters ordination prayer in the Apostolic Tradition.) But the Episkope, the bishops own office as bishop was from the first primarily liturgical, like the deacons (cf. their ordination prayers in Hippolytus)
So we see Hegisspus's mention of the Bishop and the Deacon may point to an undertanding of the relative roles distinct from that of presbyter and that could be part of election accrding to the Law and the Prophets and the Lord.
In Hegisppus' eyes for the succession of leaders to take place legitimately in the Jerusalem Church there is another condition attached. Those who are relatives of the Lord have priority. So in Jerusalem it is not just a matter of any Church member filling the position, but those related by flesh and blood to the Lord. In giving us some details of the succesion in the Jerusalem his position becomes evident. He relates
James the Lord brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the Apostles....And after James the Just had suffered martydom as had the Lord also and on the same account, ...Symeon the son of Clopas a descendent of the Lord's uncle, is made bishop his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord
We see here that in right Church government for second century Hegisspus, the bishop should be elected after the support of the community and being a kinsman of the Lord made one more qualified. However by the time Hegissipus wrote down his journal it had been perhaps fifty years since a kinsman of the Lord had ruled the Jerusalem Church. The Succesion list of the second century Church of Jerusalem reads
Simeon I (62-106), Justus I (-111) Zaccheus (134) Tobias, Benyamin, John I, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph, Yahudah, Mark I (134-185) Cassianus.
The large number of names around AD 134 makes Liebnitz suspect that this is not a list of monarchical succesion but perhaps a list of those who were on a synod of Presbyters. It ha been observed that the Jerusalem church went through a change from Jewish to Gentile leadership in about 134 with Mark I being the first Gentile name. This being caused by the effect of the failed Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochba revolt between 132 and 135 and the expulsion of the Jews, including the believers from Jerusalem.
Although Hegisspus says all promoted the election of Symeon clearly in Thebulis and his entourage there was a dissenting party. And it was for him the ambition of this man and his teaching of his private opinions and worthless doctrines which lead to the lamentable and divided state of the second century which now Hegissipus had to deal.
During the early second century the Church had a period of peace. This was from the passing of the decree by Domitian "to stop the persecution of the Church. Two relatives of the Lord who were informed against as being from the house of David were tried and aquitted by Domitian. He saw that although they were from the house of David from whence the Jews expected a Messiah, they were no danger to his state. They having testified before the emperor became "leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord" Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition also mentions the importance of those who had been witnesses or confessors or martyrs for the Name. He also agrees that they received a place of greater honor in the Church. The importance of marteydom even to death was emphasised by the stories of Ignatious of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. However some Gnostics sects such as Basilides, Johns antichrist in Alexandria taught againt martyrdom for they did not see that Jesus had truly suffered so why should they?
4 He is concerned with the position of the "Kindred of the Lord' and their relationship to the Church government, "the people" and the sects among the people, and the Roman government.
He notes seven sects among the people of Israel. And he lists Gnostic groups who were from outside of the people. These he sees as fulfilling the words of Jesus when he talks about false prophets and false Christ’s.
5 He continues with the Church tradition of seeing prophecies hundreds of years old being fulfilled in person of his time.
James fulfils scriptures in the Memoirs of Heggisippus even as Jesus in did in the Gospel.
6 He is interested in the events of that church history and especially important event like the stoning of James and the corruption of Theobilus.
In Hegisspus we see the church of orthologo from the perspective of a Hebrew believer.
Appendixes and possible sources of more information
Along with the above introduction this was the attempt at the first paper.
Bauer (1934) argued against the orthodoxy of the second century church, because the Gnostics out numbered or preceded the Church in certain places such as Alexandria. And Grant (1946) relied upon Bauer in his conclusion "Well into the second century there was within Christianity no sharp dividing line between what was orthodox and what was heretical'. Turner (1954) answered Bauer ably, attacking both his book and thesis. He agreed with Bauer that orthodoxy and Heresy found their basis in "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" (p301 Bauer 1934) but argued that it was in the application of these sources that they differed.
For the heretics, canonical is used selectively or interpreted by forced exegesis, church tradition is falsified or discarded in favor of non-orthodox materials,...the heretics have no feeling for the organic wholeness of the Church's faith (301-302).
Two major weaknesses of Bauer’s case was that much of it was argued from silence (286-302) and secondly he all but ignored the position of the Church of the first century (293-294).
Frend (1985) could conclude that Bauer's thesis was pointless (14).
The Defenders of the Apostolic and Scriptural Faith:
Ireneaus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome
The first defender of this sort was Irenaeus (130-200) who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul modern day France, from AD 177. In his youth he went to the school of Polycarp, the Apostolic Father, who knew Apostle John. Ireneaus would use in his defense against the Gnostic sects of Christianity the fact that Polycarp knew John and he knew Polycarp and they both disagreed with what the Heretic was saying. Irenaeus moved from Smyrna to Rome and joined the lectures of Justin the Martyr. In 177 he returned to Lyons and became bishop in place of Pothinus who was recently martyred.
His disciple, Hippolytus, bishop of Rome is the man whose writings we will compare with those of Hegessipus and see what they teach us about the Church of the second century.
Hippolytus wrote many great works. We have from him Apostolic Tradition, The refutation of all Heresies, Fragments of his commentaries on scriptures, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Expository Treatise Against the Jews, Against on the cause of the Universe, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Against Beron and Helix, The Discourse on Holy Theophany, And various works which are put in an appendix.
The Intention of the writers.
Hippolyus wrote his Refutation of all Heresies after 222 AD. We need to ask what was Hippolytus’s intention in writing his refutation?
And it is made for us abundantly clear in his last book. He is nothing less than an Evangelist to the nations. His desire is to save the nations from “the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire” (ANF 1994 p153). He exposes the difference between the True Church and the Apostate Churches using scripture as the touchstone of authority along with the doctrine of Christ. He feels his job of refuting is complete by the ninth book.
The Seduction of the Virgin Church AD 70-AD 200
During the rule of James a number of sects lived in Jerusalem which opposed the tribe of Judah.
Many sects, religions, philosophies were prevalent in that period. Many came from the Jews and many came from the philosophies of the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians. There concepts were sometimes used by the Church to explain her ideas but among some groups hellenistic concepts became the guiding rule to rage against Yahuwah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Creator of the heavens the earth the sea and the dry land and all that in them is. In the New Testament and in the Great Church, these aspects of Yahuwah’s work, his creation and kindness in giving the Torah and the Prophets, were always a positive thing and a wonderful display of Yahuwah’s grace, mercy, compassion, power and providence. In the eyes of the Gnostic and Marcionite communities this work is seen as a very negative thing and Yahuwah the creator and the God of the Jews is blasphemed regularly in their literature. They call the prophets of Yahuwah “fools who knew nothing” and they apply such adjectives to Yahuwah also. Some members of these Gnostic Churches replaced Jesus with a certain Simon who himself was the incarnate deity who pretended to be crucified and rose again. Some denied the Crucifixion of the Messiah and some denied that the Mashiach Yeshua came in the flesh. With the increasing popularity of these teachings the Church of the Second century found itself in what some people have called a life and death struggle.
Generation 1: The Period of Apostles and Prophets
From this period of the Church we have all the writings of the New Testament except the Gospel, letters, and Revelation of John. John is the only Apostle to survive this period and by the time the Temple is destroyed in 70 AD all the Apostles to the Circumcision have passed to be with Yeshua. We have a tradition handed down from Hippolytus of Rome, who was ministering around 200 AD in Rome. He was then in the fifth generation (AD 190-240) from the Ascension. He wrote a number of works and worked on a Church calendar and chronology of the man from creation (Fox 1986 pg 267). His work is sometimes influenced by Ireneus bishop of Lyons but is considered by Lietzmen (1953 p245) to be continuing the line of Apology through Justin Martyr and was in sympathy with the Greek manner of thought. He hands down a tradition related to the structure of the Church in the period of Yeshua and the Apostolic and Prophetic periods. He hands down about the ministry and deaths of the Apostles and also about the names of the 70 whom Yeshua sent out on mission in Luke 10. Ireneus gives a list of the episkopoi (overseers or Bishops) of Rome from its founding as a Church which is traditionally considered to be AD 42 by the Apostle Peter (Freemantle 1953 - Introduction) to his time which is around 177 AD to 200 AD. He is doing this to show that the tradition held by what we will call the Great Church came straight from the Apostles unlike that of the Gnostic Valentinus or the arch heretics Marcion of Pontus and Basilides of Egypt. In his Against Heresies Book III chapter 3 section 3 he states
“ The blessed Apostles, then having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric This man as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone (in this), for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus ; then sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles hold the inheritance of the Episcopate. In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition, from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
So we see that assuming each of the episkopoi (overseers or bishops) mentioned oversaw the Roman Church in the succession mentioned; and assuming they were faithful to what was taught them, we can see that what we hear in the fifth generation from the Acension, from the leaders of the Church, is the similar to that believed and taught in the first generation. If we do not hold these assumptions the list can help to establish the connection and chain which is important for assessing legitimacy of ministry as opposed to those who created their own churches yesterday, but the content of the teaching can not be confirmed this way.
This is the first such list of overseers according to Liebnitz and is felt it could rest on “sound historical tradition”. However since according to the same Liebnitz, the first centuries churches were governed by a team or synod or presbyteroi, the earlier names may be historical but probably did not rule the Church consecutively. Rather they were prominent members of the synod.
The Seduction of the Virgin Church AD 70-AD 200
During the rule of James a number of sects lived in Jerusalem which opposed the tribe of Judah.
Many sects, religions, philosophies were prevalent in that period. Many came from the Jews and many came from the philosophies of the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians. There concepts were sometimes used by the Church to explain her ideas but among some groups hellenistic concepts became the guiding rule to rage against Yahuwah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Creator of the heavens the earth the sea and the dry land and all that in them is. In the New Testament and in the Great Church, these aspects of Yahuwah’s work, his creation and kindness in giving the Torah and the Prophets, were always a positive thing and a wonderful display of Yahuwah’s grace, mercy, compassion, power and providence. In the eyes of the Gnostic and Marcionite communities this work is seen as a very negative thing and Yahuwah the creator and the God of the Jews is blasphemed regularly in their literature. They call the prophets of Yahuwah “fools who knew nothing” and they apply such adjectives to Yahuwah also. Some members of these Gnostic Churches replaced Jesus with a certain Simon who himself was the incarnate deity who pretended to be crucified and rose again. Some denied the Crucifixion of the Messiah and some denied that the Mashiach Yeshua came in the flesh. With the increasing popularity of these teachings the Church of the Second century found itself in what some people have called a life and death struggle.
The Church of the Second Century
The mixture of the conditions we have just mentioned with the preaching of the gospel by men who were either anointed and sent forth by the Apostles, such as Timothy, Titus and others or people who heard the Apostles or heard someone who heard someone who heard an Apostle, lead to a wide variety of communities believing things unheard by the average Christian in the twentieth century. Blasphemies which would make the modern Christian’s ears tingle were normal talk in that age. And the Great Church, headed up by Jerusalem and then teachers from Rome, Lyons and Israel took up battle, these were the defenders of the God who created the universe.The men who blasphemed Yahuwah, and those who denied that Messiah came in the flesh, that he was crucified and died and was buried and rose on the third day, in the flesh were from Alexandria in Egypt, Pontus in northern Turkey and Samaria and Galilee in Israel and other places. There were communities who were opposed by the Great Church and her writers and speakers who did not blaspheme Yah’wah, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob such as the Montanists called Phrygians by Hippolytus. We see then there was great variety in the beliefs of the Great Church and the other “Churches” of the second century. From believing the Creator to be the Father of our Lord Yeshua the Mashiach to believing him to be completely on the other side of the fence and from the dark side. The cause of these differences comes down to authority. Those who considered the pagan philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, Zeno of Citium and Cleanthes of Assos not simply as truth seekers who in the providence of the Creator who were allowed some insight the truth via the Logos, but as higher than prophets and as mouth pieces of truth, undermined the scriptures and the Creator and his glory. Those who put the Scriptures and the Prophets and the Apostles first would used some philosophy as a teacher does an illustration, but the Truth lies in the Scriptures of the Torah and the Prophets, the Lord and his Apostles. They respected the Creator and honored him in his Son who was resurrected in the flesh and would return to judge the living and the dead.
The Battle for the Church
There were numerous Churches planted from Spain to India by the beginning of the second century and it was among these that the battle for the soul of the Church took place. The northern tribe of Israel back in 931 BC had split from Judah. Then under Jereboam son of Nebat a battle for the faith of Israel took place. And as a result after its separation from Jerusalem, every king of the nineteen kings of Israel was in apostasy. In the end Yah’wah had the kingdom dismantled during the rule of the Assyrians in 722 BC. Now in the second century the Church also had a battle on its hand would it follow Yah’wah or would it reinterpret the whole gospel in Pythagorean, Platonic, Aristotleian modes. Which side would the Church fall on? Yah’wah or his enemies and indeed these were his enemies for in the case of the Gnostics, blasphemy against the Creator and denial of the power of God to resurrect the flesh were second nature. On the side of the Great Church we take as representatives one from the circumcision, Hegissipus and one from the uncircumcision Hippolytus. In both cases they were not ashamed to name the opposition. Hegissipus names the enemies in the camp of the circumcision and the uncircumcision. Hippolytus gives a chronological list every heresy he came across in the second century and then to his own satisfaction showed their cause and the source of their doctrine. Showing that their authority for their doctrines did not lie in the scripture or the doctrine of Christ as handed down by the Apostles, but lay in the moral, natural and logical philosophies of the Greeks or some non scriptural source and not from God as the Gnostic “prophets” claims.”
The Gnostic and heretic communities mentioned by Hegessipus and Hippolytus were born in the first century or before and flourished into the second century producing offspring through teaching and succesion.
Let us listen to Hegissipus
“ For this reason they called the church a virgin, for she had not yet been corrupted by vain discourses; but Thebouthis, because he had not become a bishop, began to corrupt her from the seven heresies among the people to which he himself belonged. From these also came Simon, whence the Simonians, Cleobius, whence the Cleobians, Dositheus, whence the Dositheans abd Gorthaeus, whence the Gorathenes (and Masbotheans). From these the Menandrianists and Marcionites and Carpocratians and Valentinians and Basilidians and Saturnilians have introduced their own opinions in different ways” (Grant 1946 p60). So Hegissipus in agreement with modern scholarship locates the source of the Gnostic heresies outside the Church among the seven sects. He like the “modern scholars” mentioned above and like a good Hebrew chronicler follows the teaching to its source bnut does not go into too much detail about their teachings unlike Hippolytus who was a Roman. It would appear that the seven sects Hegisippus mentions are listed elsewhere and are the “ Essenes, Galilieans, Hemerobaptists Masbotheans, Samaritans, Saducees, and Pharisees.” Grant 1946 p58 (H.E. i.v 22.7) They were in his understanding against the tribe of Judah and the Messiah as mentioned earlier. Hegessipus who appears very interested in the fulfilment of prophecy in the tribe of Judah and Messiah and his family, points to the fact that these seven sects and their children the Simon etc and their seed the Simonians and their offspring the Menandrianists etc also produced seed. And these seed were “false Christs, false prophets, false apostles’ and what is the fruit of these “christs”, “prophets” and “apostles”? They have “divided the unity of the Church with corrupting words against God and against his Christ’.
Hippolytus names the opposition in the battle for the soul of the Church
Hippolytus having been taught by Ireneaus who early raised the standard of Apostolic succession and Apostolic tradition against the so called secret teaching of the Gnostic teachers, conceived of the idea of writing a book refuting all Heresies that had plagued the Church from the beginning. He considered that the best way to do this was to show exactly where each Gnostic teacher got his ideas from, and in doing he would pull the wool from under their feet. For what they climed came by revelation or the secret teaching of the Messaih was actually simply pagan Greek Philosophy rehashed. So he set out and wrote in ten books a history of Greek Philosophy before Christ and then a Hisstory of the Heretics after Christ. Whilst writing of the heretics he would show that the source of their fantastic ideas were neither scriptural nor from Christ but plagiarized from this philosopher or the other and all the Heretics did was rehash old Greek philosophy with new words. Hippolytus also included in his list some Pope Zephynirus and Pope Callistus who are today and were in those days considered orthodox and as a result Hippolytus is seen as a schismatic to this day. But to the Eastern Church he is simply a Bishop of Rome. He lists in chronoligical order no less that 27 heresies which arose after Yeshua until the beginning of the second century when he was writing. Let us observe with the prosecutor from the uncircumcision Hippolytus.
Heresy Source according to Hippolytus
1 Naasenes from Philosphers and mystical rites
2 Peretae framed from Astrological art
3 Sethians from wise men among the Greeks (Musuesis, Linus and Orpheus)
4 Justinus from the marvels of Herodotus
Book VI Refutation of all Heresies
5 Simon from magicians and poets using ideas of Aristotle
6 Valentinus Platonic and Pythgorean sects
7 Secundus from the philosophers but with a different terminology
8 Ptolemaeus from the philosophers but with different terminology
9 Haracleon from the philosophers but with different terminology
10 Marcus magical arts and Pythagorean numerology
11 Colarbasus magical arts and Pythagorean numerology
Book VII Refutation of all Heresies
12 Basilides from Aristotle (During the reign of Hadrian)
13 Saturnilus
14 Menander disciple of Simon and believed the world was made by angels.
15 Marcion from Empedocles a Greek philospher
16 Carpocrates existing things made from angels
17 Cerinthius from the tenets of the Egyptians
18 Ebinaens adhere to Jewish customes
19 Theodotus from the Ebionits and the Cerenthius
20 Cerdon from Empedocles and he encouraged Marcion
21 Lucian blasphmed God from time to time and was encouraged by Marcion
22 Appelles natural philosphers
23 Decetae natural philosophy
24 Moimus poets, geometricians and arithmeticians
25 Tatian from Valentinus and Marcion
26 Hermogenes from Socrates not Christ
27 Phrygians
Clearly our summary is not in an detail and does cover all the groups cover by Hippolytus but it will be interesting to see some of the relationships of the Gnostic “churches” and perhaps to understand why the Great Church felt it necessary to refute. No doubt to some it was by the providence of the Creator Yah’wah that he ensured the Gnostic were seen as plainly outside the Church of his son. But some have argued that since some of these teachers and their groups were apparently the only “Church” in a region or the main “church” in a region this would make them the “orthodox” Christianity of that region (See Bauer 1934). But clearly this can not be the case for the opinion is important in orthdoxy not the numbers. If the opinion held is the right opinion not in accordance with the first in the region but in accordance with the original teacher. So let us look at some of the teachings of churches of the apostasy of and see if they really hold water in comparison to the Apostles.
The Discipleship training school of Magician Incarnate Simon
“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ this is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” and put Simon and Menander in his place?
The main process of heresy seemed to be to start in a local place and then head to a more popular place to preach your gospel. Simon who is seen by many Church fathers as the father of the Heretics was a resident from Gitta in Samaria. He is believed to be the same Simon Magus who conflicted with Peter in Acts 8. He according to the tradition went to Rome to challenge Peter. He lost the battle and went into demise.
We have different tradition regarding him but a key point was he thought he was the redeemer. He thought he was God incarnate. He was the one who was crucified not Jesus of Nazareth. This being the case, could he be seen as a legitimate from of Christianity? One which takes Jesus off the cross and eliminates Jesus resurrection? From I Cor 15 and Acts 1-2 we have to say no. Simon had a disciple called Menander. Even if the identity of Simon the Gnostic is not Simon Magus as some hold he is always assigned Menander as his disciple. Now Menander was from Galilee according to Justin Martyr. He went to Samaria as Simons disciple and then went to Antioch the third largest city of the Roman empire to preach his message. He with his magical tricks persuaded people that they could not be saved unless they were baptised in his name! Not in Jesus name. This time however his baptism was more powerful than Jesus for he persuaded his followers that they would not have to died and rise from the dead but with his baptism they inherited eternal life now. He climbed to be a Saviour sent down from somewhere above to save mankind from the invisible aeons which in those days were supernatural powers. According to Eusebius he taught this to make a mockery of the church’s teaching o the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. (HC Eus p136 1965)
We notice with these earlier Heretics that they were based I the land of Israel and went out from their.
Post Apostolic Disciple Training Schools
One thing in common between the Great Church who respected the Creator and the other “churches” who regularly blasphemed him was that they set up schools and trained disciples. In the late first and the second century these schools produced disciples who continued and expanded the message of their teachers. Many of these schools claimed Apostolic succession as source of authority.
The School of Polycarp in the Great Church (Asia and Rome)
The first school we will look at is that of the Apostle John. He had a disciple Polycarp who became bishop of Smyrna in Asia minor. He taught a young man called Ireneaus. Who then left Polycarp and went to Lyons in Gaul (modern day France). He then went to Rome and trained under Justin the Martyr who was actually from Shechem in Samaria. During his stay in Rome he met a young man called Hippolytus who became his disciple. Ireneaus left Rome and became Bishop of Lyons in AD 177. He later wrote a book Against Heresies which was a very strong blow to the teachings of the Gnostics. His disciple Hippolytus took up the challenge also and wrote a book called the Refutation of all Heresies. This school of Disciple started in Ephesus and ended in Rome and was a Greek school and part of the great Church.
The Schools of the Egyptians
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard it is coming”
The list of the Apostles dividing up the inheritance from the nations many or may not be historically accurate. It hands down what one part of Church tradition in the end of the second century held to be the places where the disciples ministered. If it really was from Hippolytus his very reputation for wide learning and being a man who wouldn’t falsify fact deliberately would go some way to point to the trustworthiness of the data. This being said if we look at the list we find this interesting fact. None of the Apostles are seen as being assigned Egypt. According to Grant (1946) and Bauer (1934) there is little evidence of Orthodox Christianity or the Christianity of the Great Church being present in Alexandria until the middle to the end of the second century. “Pantaneus was the earliest teacher of ‘orthodoxy’ at Alexandria; and of his career we know almost nothing” Grant 1946 p 54. If this is true and no apostle really was assigned Alexandria and they delegated it to one of the seventy although it was the second largest city in the Roman world, this could be seen as a strategic mistake on the part of the Apostles in dividing up the land. For out of Alexandria came some of the most dangerous Gnostic sects known to the second century Church. On the other hand one might see it as all in God’s providence to help toward the purifying of doctrine of the Great Church which turned out to be the true Church. For the extremeites of the Gnostic churches of Alexandria drove Ireneaus to set down in words creedal formulations of the faith of the Church which were influential as the Church grew in the following centuries accepting certain elemts of Greek culture as was acceptable but rejecting elements of Greek philosophy which perhaps caused the Gnostics to “blapheme their creator after a most impudent manner!” . So what was in Alexandria before Orthodoxy? We find two major discipleship training schools.
The “Antichrist” School of Basilides during the reign of Hadrian (117-138)
Peter taught a disciple called Glaukias (Another interpreter of Peter like Mark the Evangelist) and he taught a disciple called Basilides. This Basilides then set up school in Egypt. His son Isidore continued his ministry. Basilides wrote a 24 volume commentary on a gospel called Exegetics. Distinctives of the training school was that the name of his god was Abraxas not Yah’wah. That the God of the Jews, who gave the law and the prophets was the last of the numerous angels of Abraxas and was more troublesome than all.. And as for Christ, he came as a phantom “without the substance of flesh”. Jesus “Did not suffer in the flesh but in his place Simon was crucified”.
Such are some of the distinctives of the school of Basilides. Ireneaus must have thought “Can this be the same faith as that of Peter who prayed “Yah’wah”, “Thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is….in the name of thy holy child Jesus” Could he believe in the same faith as John who wrote “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God” According to modern liberal scholarship the letter and the gospel of John were written and circulated in “the second quarter of the second century”, This is exactly the time Basilides was flourishing in Alexandria. If then the Gospel and the letters of John are authoritative this school of Basilides was not only Gnostic but antichrist. Do we have scholarly evidence here, without being carried way into fantasy, that the way the writer of I John viewed the teaching of the Gnostic heresies was that they were expressions of the spirit of antichrist? And if so do we need to view the battle between the Gnostics and the Great Church in the second century as the battle between Antichrist and the saints. Grant states that “His heresy did not survive long; probably his followers either turned to Valentinianism or to the later orthodox “gnosticism” of Alexandria.
The Gnostic Discipleship School of Valentinus
By far the most successful of the Gnostic schools was that of Valentinus. “Valentinus, who taught first at Alexandria and then at Rome, was the greatest of the rationalist teachers of the second century” He was flourishing from around 125-150 AD and so it was during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Again we have a claim of Apostolic succession. Paul taught a certain Theodas who taught Valentinus. They had their own gospel called the Gospel of Truth Valentinus taught a number of infamous (from the perspective the Church of Christ) disciples. His school split into the Western or Italian school (who said the body of Jesus was soulish or psychic) and this school included Ptolemaeus (from about 160) who does not seems so blasphemous as Valentinus, if we read his Letter to Flora and Heracleon. (about170) . He is known for writing an Allegorical commentary on the book of John. “It is the first commentary on a single gospel known to us”. The other school which came from Valentinus is the Oriental school who believed the body of Jesus was spiritual. Representatives of this school are Marcus who taught in Asia Minor and whose disciples went to Gaul. He was very much into Gematria and Jesus statement that I am the Alpha and the omeag were key parts in his system. “But what is not so vain, but dangerous , is that they imagine another god beside the creator and deny that Christ was in the substance of flesh” It was to refute the Valentinian schools that Ireneaus was asked to write Against Heresies.
It seems that Valentinus attempted to stay in fellowship with the Great Church. He was a long time in the Church of Rome. He seems to have taught deception so that they looked like they were part of the Church but underneath taught other things, the “secret teachings. This is evidence by the fact Ireneaus’s first task was to make the secret teaching known and only then to refute them. In Heracleon’s commentary we have a hint of these hidden things in his commentary of John I:26 “concerning this flesh I cannot give a word nor interpret nor explain the economy concerning it”
Valentinus himself taught that the Demiurge (a name they call the Creator who gave the law and the prophets “a foolish god” and the prophets themselves were “fools who knew nothing” No doubt this kind of talk was around in the time of Paul for he himself said “God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believed.” And when he was preaching in Athens the Greek philosophers called him a “babbler” and among them he did not achieve very much. Again Jesus does not come in the flesh but in “some sort of spiritual body” as Pseudo Tertullian explains. So we see another representative of the spirits of Antichrist and false prophets which the author of the letter of John defined and the writings of Hegessipus confirmed.
We do not have space to go into all the details of the Heresies. Suffice to say that on looking at the nature of Christ and the attitude to the creator they fall into John’s category of antichrists and false prophets.
Some other Schools
The school and Church of Marcion
Marcion the shipowner from Sinope in Pontus was distingushed from the various Gnostic schools in a number of way. He did not just establish a “training school” but set up an entire Church organisation which in the East last right through to the fifth century. His most well known disciple was Apelles.
He went ahead of the Great Church and established his own personal canon of the Bible with a version of the Gospel of Luke and 10 adjusted letters of Paul. Like the other groups we have a number of sources about him, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. He started his work around 138-140 AD when he came to Rome. To Justin Martyr he was “a demon-inspired archenemy of the church”He is according to May portrayed differently by different fathers. But our job is to see where he is in relation to the criteria for antichrist laid down by the author of the first Epistle of John and agreed with by the great Church in accepting these letter not only as written by the elder John but by the Apostle John. Firstly we will note how he differed from the mainstream Gnostics whom we have concluded that in John’s terms they are antichrist. According to May “Whereas Gnostics appeal to Christian and as well as extra Christian texts and traditions, and in particular traced their special esoteric doctrines back to secret traditions, Marcion rejects any form of Oral tradition and relies solely upon writings associated with the name of Paul” (May 1987-88 p146). So then we ask does his position regarding Jesus Christ coming in the flesh and the Church’s relationship change in accordance with his limitation of authorities? And the answer is no because they made up, not just their own list of books but then they changed what was written in those books according to their idea of two gods. So it was that “Both of the Old testament and the God of the Old Testament were evil…His view of Christ on was basically the Docetic view. He rejected the idea of the resurrection of the body since the soul and the spirit alone were redeemed” Despite the fact that the weaknesses of the Great Churches “theological position became apparent” May (1987-1988 p 150) when they disputed Marcion, his position had to fall in the end. Why? The problems of Old Testament justice and apparent New Testament goodness were apparent enough. The solution of making up your own gospel of Luke and deciding what should be in the letters of Paul by your own philosophy could never stand the test of time. You can not defend truth by deceptively taking away parts of the truth. And as we can see Marcion believed Jesus did not come in the flesh but only appeared, in short he fulfilled John’s criteria for the Antichrist spirit.
The School of Montanism
“ I am neither and angel nor an envoy, but I the Lord God, the Father have come” Montanus
More than a discipleship school this school was a school of prophecy. It was founded after Montanus a resident of Pepuza in Phrygia central Turkey in about 155 AD. Montanus was a newly baptized Christian and experienced what in modern day terms would be called the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He had two main disciples Prisca and Maximillian. Montanism was neither Gnostic or Marcionite. They believed in the Creator and prophesied from him. They set high standards of life and attracted Tertullian one of the greatest defenders the Great Church has ever known and the founder of Apostolic Christianity. According to Tertullian Pope Victor around 190 AD “acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, and kept up communion with the Phrygian Churches that adopted them” And Hippolytus himself says “These people agree with the Church in acknowledging the Father of the universe to Be God and Creator of all things, and they also acknowledge all that the gospel testifies of Christ” Hippolytus was upset with a few elements of Church practice such as fastings, feasts and the diets of the Montanism.Some historians see the Montanist movement as a revival movement carrying the Church back to the days of its birth. It is clear from the evidence that it is not among the antichrsit categories of the author of I John and as one writer has said “The best indication of the moral worthiness of the movement is that Tertullian , the scourge of Hereitics , eventually joined it. He could not continue to endorse an orthodoxy, which denied any independent role to the Spirit and insisted all communication should be through the regular ecclesiatical channels” Were they really heretics or was Maximilla right “I am driven as a wolf from the sheep . I am not a wolf; I am word , spirit and power”
Conclusion
This study is by no means exhausitive and has no doubt left out much which should have been included. But what can we conclude from these meanderings through parts of the second century Church with the attitude to Yah’wah the Creator and Yeshua the Messiah coming in the flesh. We can conclude this orthodoxy matters. And perhaps even as scholars we can look upon the second century as one in battle with the church of Antichrist. The antichrist church blaspheme the Father of out Lord Jesus Christ in a manner which it is difficult for a Hebrew to repeat. And they deny that Jesus really became man that is they deny the very basis of the redemption mankind the incarnation “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” And the Hegisippus a Hebrew believer and Hippolytus the last of the Greek fathers both agree in these Gnostic Church lies the source of false prophets and false Christs. And the major source of the problem in that day was that the “Old Testament and also the early Christian writings were read with ‘Greek’ presuppositions” Yes perhaps all the Church true and false was included in that process, but not all blasphemed the creator as a result. The Gnostic system represent a level of arrogance toward the law the prophets and Yah’wah almost unheard in antiquity let us hope future speculation will be characterised by greater humility.
If you have comments and advice of strengthening these thoughts please feel free to make them to Edi Nachman at mashiacana@hotmail.com.
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 9:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home