Polycarp and Ignatius have come up a lot when I talk about Heresies of Asia Minor and questioning alleged Apostolic Succession from John. I want to further make clear here that I do not mean to demonize them, they both died Martyrs and for that they will be rewarded regardless of how wrong I feel they were on certain doctrines.
First and foremost, in their own writings they never claim to be students of John or to have known him, none of the authentic Epistles of Igantius or Polycarp make any references to knowing John. Even the personal letter Ignatius wrote to Polycarp does not mention their alleged important common mentor. In fact Ignatius never even quotes any book attributed to John. The claim they were students of John came later. Papias, who was contemporary with them in near the same region, explicitly distinguishes the John he knew from the Apostle referring to him as John the Elder. Ireneaus and Tertullian are our oldest sources on either of them knowing John and they only mention Polycarp not Ignatius, and in Irenaeus it's clarified the John who Polycarp knew was the same one Papias knew. Polycarp interestingly doesn't seem to support the Monarchical Church structure popularized by Ignatius and later supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian, since he identified himself as one of a group of Presbyters not a Bishop.
Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch was also an Apostolic Successor of Peter (if you believe in Apostolic succession), but claims Peter personally chose him are a much later tradition. Unlike Rome, The Bible supports Peter having been in Antioch. Ignatius was martyred in Rome, so what if he appointed some Bishops or Deacans while he was in Rome and that was the origin of Rome having an alleged Apsotalic Succession from Peter?
I still firmly believe Peter was never in Rome, but I'm not as invested in the Simon Magus conspiracy theory as I once was. I now desire to explain the origins of these wrong traditions as having more to them then just people lying. This theory about Ignatius in Rome is one such possibility.
Another has to do with Mark. The basis for claims of Peter in Rome are tied to claims about the origin of Mark's Gospel being him writing down what Peter preached. Papias did not give any clue where Peter preached or where Mark wrote, it's later writings referencing him that want to read that into Papias.
I disagree with the desire of Eastern Traditions to separate all the Marks of the New Testament. The John Mark of Acts 12-15 has close connections to Peter and Banabas, so I think he is also both the Cousin of Barnabas and the Marcus referenced in 1 Peter.
Some references to Mark in Paul's Epistles do have Mark with Paul in Rome. But again if Peter was there at the same time why isn't Paul mentioning him? Over half the Latin words in the New Testament are in Mark's Gospel, some have even theorized the Gospel of Mark was originally in Latin. So it could be Mark published his Gospel in Rome based on what Peter had preached in Antioch and Mesopotamia.
BTW I don't think Mark was actually ever in Alexandria, I think that tradition is just as shaky as the ones about Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus.
There is solid evidence the Roman Church was not originally Monarchical, but had many Elders who were all Bishops(Overseers) the Monarchical system emerged over the course of the Second Century probably from the influence of Ignatius.
I think the traditional succession of Bishops of Byzantium between Andrew and the founding of Constantinople were probably also Bishops in Rome. Andrew was never associated with Byzantium prior to Constantine, the 2nd Century Acts of Andrew places his Martyrdom in Patras west of Corinth. Byzantium is mentioned briefly in the Acts of Andrew, but only as a place he stopped at on the way to Thrace, like Paul stopping at Samothrace on the way to Macedon.
Constantine is known to have taken many people (including Senators) from Rome to Constantinople when he founded it. The Bishop of Constantinople who was at Nicaea was a native of Calabria in Italy. Castinus a supposed Bishop of Byzantium from the 3rd Century was also said to have been a Roman Senator. Meanwhile the supposed second Bishop of Byzantium is Stachys a name also mentioned in Romans 16 as someone in Rome. And the third is Onesimus who could be the same as the Onesimus of Philemon who we know was also in Rome.
As far as John Son of Zebedee goes, I've been considering the possibly that maybe he was Martyred at the same time his brother was in Acts 12, since Papias arguably implies that. The last explicit reference to him is in Acts 12 when identifying James as his Brother, maybe that verse meant to say both brothers were killed then? For James this is viewed as fulfilling what was prophesied of the Sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40. Galatians 2 mentions a James, Cephas and John when giving his account of the Acts 15 council, but this isn't referring to the usual big three since we know this James can't be the Son of Zebedee. I think John Mark could be the John who Paul was referring to here.
So that would make all extra-biblical traditions about either of them traveling to other lands invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment