The Heresies of Asia Minor

I'm annoyed by people appealing to the Early Church Fathers as if a doctrine being affirmed by them from very early on must make it valid, because The New Testament informs us heresies were emerging already in the first generation of The Church.

In Acts 20:16 Paul arrived in Ephesus and proceeded to warn them about false teachers who will emerge as soon as he leaves them.  Verses 29-31.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

And later in 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul laments that all of Asia has departed from him.

In Revelation 2:2 the Ephesian Church being addressed is commended for rejecting False Apostles.  But the same false doctrines Ephesus resisted here we can infer were not so well resisted by the other churches, especially Pergamos.  Jesus refused to say anything bad about Smyrna because they were dying for their Faith, but even martyrs can be influenced by bad doctrines.

Now the Anti-Paul people insist Revelation is on the other side of this conflict, that Paul and his Clique are the False Apostles Jesus refereed to.  After all Paul said "All of Asia" seemingly not allowing Ephesus as an exception.

The Bible will sometimes use the word "all" hyperbolically when exceptions do exist.  That Ephesus is where Paul gave the warning, and also the only of the Seven Churches to also be recipients of a Paulian Epistle, is sufficient reason to expect them to be the exception.  Also Timothy himself was a Bishop in Ephesus when these letters were written so clearly he represents some support Paul still had there.

Meanwhile it could be a specific Church in Ephesus that John was in contact with being addressed.  It can be inferred that Ephesus is the city these False Apostles were operating in and that's why they're relevant to that message.

However it's also interesting that Jesus addresses them as the "Church of Ephesus" not the "Church in ____" as he did 5 of the 6 following Churches.  Could it be that the true Ephesian Church Paul founded was not actually in Ephesus anymore?  Remember he met with them as Miletus once.

I should mention that different definitions of what "Asia" meant in these kinds of contexts can create ambiguity about if Phyrgian locations (like Laodicea and the recipients of Colossians and maybe Philadephia) count as Asia. Some texts of 1 Timothy end with Paul saying he wrote that letter in Laodicea.  1 Peter 1:1 by not mentioning Phrygia at all is probably counting it as Asia, but language in Acts 16 seems to imply neither Phrygia or Mysia (where Pergamon was) count as Asia.  The Roman Province of Asia included all Seven cities however.  Polycrates seems to be counting Phrygian locations like Hierapolis and Laodicea as Asia, but since Pergamon and Thyatira aren't mentioned we don't know if he'd count them.

I think the more specific use of Asia is treating it as a synonym for Lydia (but with Coastal cities like Miletus, Ephesus and Smyrna added), which The Bible never uses as a location name, but in Acts 16 a woman from Thyatira is called Lydia in the KJV but the Greek means Lydian(of Lydia).  Thyatira was on the border between Lydia and Mysia.  Sardis was the capital of Ancient Lydia and the seat of a Proconsul under Rome.

I talked about the Apostles of Ephesus on this blog before, in that post mostly accepting the traditions at face value.  But now, given this direct Biblical Evidence of False Apostles in Ephesus, I should perhaps be just as skeptical of the traditions about John and the Marys going to Ephesus as I am of Peter going to Rome.  My theory that traditions of Mary Magdelene going to France are derivative of earlier traditions of her going to Ephesus because of Ephesian Christians migrating to France remains valid however.

It's interesting then how much of the alleged "Apostolic Succession" of the Early Church Fathers goes back to Asia Minor.  Polycarp, Ignatius and presumably Papias were all direct students of a "John" who was in Ephesus in the late first century.  Students of Polycarp founded the early church of Lyon in France, one of whom Irenaus was the mentor of Hipolytus an early Bishop of Rome and only Early Church precedent for Dispensationalist interpretations of Daniel 9 and 11.  Ignatius who is given much of the credit for the development of Early Church Hierarchy was a Bishop of Antioch so also played a role in spreading these doctrines beyond Asia Minor.

The Montanists also had their origin in Asia Minor, and were an influence on Tertulian the first Church Father to write in Latin and thus a major influence on later Latin Church writers like Augustine. 

Marcian also first emerged in Asia Minor.  Now at face value he's the opposite of departing from Paul, Marcian was Paul's biggest super fan.  But we see in 1 Corinthians that Paul was also annoyed by people saying they are "Of Paul" he would not like the term "Paulian Christianity".  Paul's warning in Acts 20 was of multiple heresies not just one, some emerging from without and some emerging from within.

Frankly the reason why so much confusion exists about the Nicolatians is because people keep turning to the Early Church Fathers opinions to identify them when in my view they were the Nicolatians and so in constant denial about who the Nicolatians really were and what they taught.

What Papias is quoted as saying about John The Presbyter I view as evidence that the original John of Ephesus was not an authentic Biblical John, but that his followers confused him with John later.

The canonocity of 2 John and 3 John were sometimes disputed in the Early Church.  Including attributing them to John the Presbyter.  But that early dispute gave them the same author, some today think these two Epistles were actually condemning each others authors.  That 3 John's description of Diotrephes fits the author of 2 John like a glove.  And so likewise the author of 3 John could be one of the people 2 John complains about.  Neither text actually identifies itself as having been written by a John.

But assuming they have the same Author, they still both show heretics had emerged within the presumed Johnian community.

Diotrephes has been seen as the first Monarchial Bishop.  Some early Church references do imply that in Asia Paul's Churches had many Elders who were all Bishops while Churches founded by "John" had one Bishop and multiple elders, a Structure elaborated upon by his student Ignatius.  So whether he wrote 2 John or not I think Diotrephes which means "nourished by Zeus" could be a name for the false John of Ephesus.

The origins of identifying the Beloved Disciple with the name of John are partly based on Polycrates statements about the John of Ephesus who he doesn't say was one of the 12.  He does say this John was a Priest (as in Kohen not as in Presbytr) possibly specifically a High Priest since he wore the Sacredotal Plate.  There was a High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple in the First Century named John, he was one of the sons of Ananias and probably the John kindred to the High Priest mentioned in Acts 4.  He served as High Priest twice both very briefly and we don't know what became of him afterwards.

Crenthius was one of the earliest Proto-Gnostics, and he spent time in Asia Minor.  Some also speculate he specifically was among those John's Epistles were written against.   What's distinct about Crenthius is that while Gnostic in many ways including separating the Demiurge from The Father.  He didn't view the Demiurge as Evil but rather taught we still had to follow The Law of Moses.  In a way that makes him a lot like Rob Skiba, who's an ardent Hebrew Roots believer but believes a lot of quasi Gnostic stuff.

The claim that Crenthius's Gospel was a version of Matthew I think must be wrong.  His doctrines make much more sense if he was focusing on Mark.  In fact I now think his Hersey was the origin of removing the last portion of Mark 16.

Melito the Eunuch who fell asleep in Sardis was also someone who seems to have had Legalistic tendencies.  The heresies Paul warned of I think are likely to include falling back into Legalism, after all the Ravening Wolves imagery suggests some of these false teachers will be fellow Benjamites based on Genesis 49.

This does not mean Asia Minor was the only source of Hersey.  Simon Magus I still believe was the real Peter of Rome, Justin Martyr was another mystic from Samaria who started his own school in Rome, and Tatian (possibly the first to teach Endless Torment and other Gnostic ideas) was a student of his. Justin was an early example of seeking to justify claiming that Socrates and Plato taught Christian ideas because they were in contact with the Logos.

I'm not trying to demonize anyone.  Some of the people I mentioned in this post were Martyred for their Faith in Jesus, and for that I firmly believe they won the Crown of Life no matter how flawed their doctrines were.  My point is simply that being an early belief of The Church doesn't make it a correct one.

There is a website called Church-History.Org which has some good information on it, but it says that Protestants were right to reject the Catholic Understanding of Tradition and Apostolic succession but were wrong to reject "Apostolic Tradition".   The problem is this Apostolic Tradition becomes exactly the same thing as the "Oral Torah" of Rabbinic Judaism aka The Pharisees Jesus preached against.  And it cites Ignatius as proof monarchical Church structure isn't heretical while admitting it's not supported by Scripture.

All references in the New Testament to "traditions" that seem positive are to teachings that became written down in the New Testament.  You need to remember when Paul was writing not even all 4 Gospels had been written down yet, and most of his Epistles predate Luke-Acts which were written while he was in Rome.  One of the things Jude refers to as a teaching from the Apostles is written down in 2 Peter, which some scholars think was written later then Jude.  But for the most part these "traditions" are what Jesus taught in The Gospels and what Peter and John taught in the first 11 chapters of Acts.