Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:48:52.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic Succession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Allen Brent
Allen Brent
Affiliation:
Department of History, James Cook University,Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The cultural and historical location of the concept of ςιαςοϰή in second century claims about the apostolic succession has been widely debated. In England, under the influence of Ehrhardt, the term is generally taken to be used by analogy with the sacerdotal succession of Jewish high priests, and to derive from the influence of James the Just on Jewish Christianity. In Germany, on the other hand, following Campenhausen, ςιαςοϰή has been understood in terms of continuity of doctrine, in which references to James in the sources are regarded as pure legend constructed to make the point of such continuity in a picturesque way. Both Ehrhardt and Campenhausen, and their respective followers, regard the ςιαςοχή of teachers in the literature of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as quite incidental, without any close relation to the Christian usage. In this article I will argue the contrary, that there are in fact integral connections between the Hellenistic literature of the philosophical successions, and the development of the idea of the apostolic succession in the late second century, where perhaps the true origin of the Christian concept is to be found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 367 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ehrhardt, A. A. J., The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church, London 1953Google Scholar; Telfer, W., The Office of a Bishop, London 1962Google Scholar.

2 Campenhausen, H. von, ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, Studia Theologica i. fasc. 1–11 (1947), 96–120 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar‘Die Nachfolge des Jakobs’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte lxiii (1952–1953). 133–44Google Scholar.

3 Ehrhardt, , Apostolic Succession, 44–61Google Scholar, cf. Telfer, Office of a Bishop, ch. iv.

4 Apostolica Traditio 3. 2–4.

5 Ehrhardt, , Apostolic Succession, 63–5ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Antiquitates Judaicae xiii. II. 301 cf. 20. 10.

7 Ad Aristidem iv.

8 Ehrhardt, , Apostolic Succession, 44Google Scholar.

9 I prefer the title Successions to the Byzantine Lives (βιὼν) employed by Hicks, R. D. in his edition, Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge, Mass. 1925Google Scholar. I show below that, in the Severan age in which he lived (c. AD 205) the genre in which he wrote would have suggested the title ςιαςоХαί, as is clear from the titles used by his predecessors.

10 Ap. Trad. 3. 2–4, cf. proem. 6: x03BF;ίάπόστολοι…ών ήμεĩς δΙάδοΧοι τυγΧάνοντες τής τεαÙτής Χάριτος μετέΧοντες άρΧιερατείας τε καί διδασκαλίας.

11 Photius, , Bibliotheca 121Google Scholar.

12 Adverses Haereses i. 27. 2: Διαδεδξάμενος δέ αùτον Μαρκίων ó ποντικóς αύξησε τοδιασκαλείον cf. Ref. x. 19.

13 Adv. Haer. i. 11. 1; Ref. vi. 38. 2; Adv. Haer. i. 13. 1 (6 (ό μέν уάρ πρ⋯τος άπό τήςλεΥοένης Г⋯νωστικής αίρέσεως τάς άρχάς είς ίδιον χαραχτ⋯ρα διδασχαλείοʋ μεθαρμόσας Οὺαλεντίνος ούτως ώρίσατο); Ref. vi. 39. 1; Tertullian, , De Praescriptione Haereticorum 42Google Scholar.

14 Succ. i. 20.

15 Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, I: Clement of Rome, London 1890, 255Google Scholar.

16 Bardy, G., ‘Les écoles romaines au second siècìe’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiasligue xxviii (1932), 501–32Google Scholar. See also Piana, G. La, ‘The Roman Church at the end of the second century’, Harvard Theological Review xviii (1925), 201–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more recent analysis see also Lampe, P., ‘Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten’, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zwn Neuen Testament ii (1987), 18Google Scholar, where order is correctly seen as more fluid before the pontificate of Victor.

17 Dialogus 1. 2; 3. 1; 9. 1.

18 Acta Justina 3. 3, ed. Knopf-Krüger, , Tübingen 1929, 16Google Scholar. Cf. the study of the organisation of Greek philosophical schools as arising within the ambience of the Greek house in Wycherley, R. E. ‘Peripatos: the ancient philosophical scene’, Greece and Rome viii (1961)Google Scholar; ix (1962).

19 1 Apologia 65, 66.

20 Succ. proem. 19.

21 For a recent serious challenge to my argument, published too late for the more detailed consideration that it deserves, see Bammel, E., ‘Sukzessionsprinzip im Urchristentum’, Studia Ephemeridis ‘Augustinianum’ xxxi (1990), 63–72Google Scholar. Bammel argues, on the basis of an inscription published by Schubart in 1917, that the original significance of ςιαςοχή) was juridicial, and was the means by which pagan priests established the regularity and good order of their cult in the eyes of the Roman emperor. Thus its Christian use was primarily sacerdotal but also apologetic. My reply, briefly, would be in line with that of Gluckner, J., ‘Antiochus and the late academy’, Hypomnemata: Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben lvi (1978), 149–58ffGoogle Scholar, who argues the essential distinction between ςιάςοχα as the heir to the teaching of a set of ideas and the possession of ςιάςοχος or the property of a school as such. The critical text here is the Epistula Plotinae in Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. Kirschner, J., ii, iii, Berlin 1913, 1099Google Scholar.

22 Succ. v. 51–2.

23 Ibid. v. 52–3.

24 Dial. 117.

25 Succ. ii. 12.

26 Ibid. i. 107; vi. 80; viii. 8.

27 Ibid. vi. 13.

28 Ibid. v. 94.

29 For a full discussion of the dating, see Trevissoi, M., ‘Diogene Laerzio: L'età in cui visse’, Rivista di Storia Antica xii (1908), 482–505Google Scholar. See also Hope, R., The Book of Diogenes Laertios: its spirit and its method, New York 1930, 6–7Google Scholar.

30 Succ. ix. 60.

31 Ibid. x. 6.

32 Ibid. ix. 87, 116.

33 Ibid. proem. 14.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid. 15.

36 Hope, , The Book of Diogenes Laertios, 133–4Google Scholar.

37 Succ. i. 15.

38 Ibid. ix. 21.

39 Ibid. viii. 50.

40 Ibid. viii. 42.

41 For a full discussion of these see Hope, , The Book of Diogenes Laertios, 133–9Google Scholar.

42 Ibid 138.

43 Succ. I 3.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid. i. 4, 12.

46 Ibid. i. 5.

47 Origen, , Contra Celsum i. 69–70Google Scholar; ii. 30–1; iv. 18 etc.

48 Adv. Haer. iii. 3. 2–4.

49 In Ref. v. 6. 3 the claim αἴτιος τής πλάνης ὂΦις indicates that, convinced by his new discovery of gnostic texts, Justin (1Apol.) was wrong in ascribing to Simon Magus the origin of all heresy, as was Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. i. 22. 2–23, 1–4): Marcovich, M., Hippolytus' Refulatio Omnium Haeresium, Berlin-New York 1986, 34–5Google Scholar.

50 Ref. viii. 29–30.

51 Succ. i. 13.

52 Ibid. i. 43–4, 122.

53 Ibid. i. 53, 64–7.

54 Chilon to Periander (i. 73); Pittacus to Croesus (i. 81); Bias none; Cleobulus to Solon (i. 93); Periander to the wise men and then to Procles, with a letter from Thrasybulus to him (i. 99–100); Anacharsis to Croesus (i. 105); Myson none; Epimenides to Solon (i. 113–15).

55 Ibid. ii. 3.

56 Ibid. ii. 4.

57 Ibid. viii. 49.

58 Epistula Petri ad Iacobum 1. 1.

59 Epistula Clementis ad Iacobum 1. 1.

60 Epist. Pet. ad lac. 2–3.

61 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 1. 19.

62 Succ. ii. 3–4; viii. 49.

63 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 1.

64 Ibid. 19. 2.

65 Epist. Pet. ad lac. 2. 1.

66 Ibid. 1.3.

67 Ref. i proem. 6, cf. Ap. Trad. 7.

68 For a detailed summary of research on the Clementines, see Jones, F. Stanley, ‘The Pseudo Clementines: a history of research’, Second Century ii (1982), 1–33, 63–96. Although the Clementines in their final form may be mid-third century and subsequent to Hippolytus, it has been argued that a common and early liturgy underlines both the report of Clement's consecration inGoogle ScholarEpist. Clem, ad lac. and in Homilies 3. 62–71Google Scholar, with the epistle's account as the more original. Furthermore, such an account must underlie the Grundschrift, since the passages in the Homilies are paralleled in the Recognitions (3. 65–6) too:Strecker, G., ‘Das Judenchristentum in der Pseudoclementinen’, Texte und Untersuchungen lxx (1958), 97–115Google Scholar. Such a liturgy would, according to my argument, originate in Irenaeus' time, and predate Hippolytan sacerdotalism.

69 Epist. Pet. ad lac. 1. 3–4.

70 Ibid. 3. 1.

71 Ibid. 3. 3.

72 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 2. 2.

73 Ap. Cons. 2. 25. 9–13.

74 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 2. 4, cf. for this phrase, Origen De Principiis 4. 9= έχΟμένοις τούκανóνος τής 'ιησού χριστού κατά ςιαςοχήν τών αποστóλων ούρανίον Έκκλησίας.

75 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 2. 5, cf. 6. 2–4; 17. 1. I translate τòν άληθείας πρΟκαθεξόίας as ‘pre-eminent’ rather than ‘preside’ here as well as in the Ignatian passages, as far more natural. See Brent, A. ‘The relation between Ignatius of Antioch and the’ Didascalia Apostolorum', Second Century viii (1991), 129–56Google Scholar.

76 Epist. Clem, ad lac. 3. 1.

77 Ibid. 3. 2; cf. 4. 4; 13. 3.

78 Ibid. 19. 3; 6. 2.

79 Hom. 29–58; Recog. 19–70.

80 Strecker, , ‘Das Judenchristentum’, 259–70Google Scholar.

81 Adv. Haer. iii. 3. 2.

82 Ibid. iii. 3. 3.

83 My italics: Telfer, W., ‘Was Hegesippus a Jew?’, Harvard Theological Review liii (1960), 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also ‘I t is thus the sacerdotal character of the bishop which Irenaeus sees as passing from the order of the apostles to the order of bishops’: idem, Office of a Bishop, 115.

84 The text of this sentence is problematic. The alternative, Greek reading from John Damascene, Sacra Parallela (Holl edition), 61 πάς βασιλεύς ςίκαιος ίερατικήν έΧει τάξιν. In that case, it was the character of Christ as priest that constituted the real justification for the disciples' act rather than their own righteousness. See Lyon, Irénée de, Contre Les Hérésies, in Rousseau, A. and others, Sources Chrétiennes C, Paris 1965, Livre IV, 472–3Google Scholar.

85 Deut. xxxiii. 9; x. 9; xviii. 1.

86 Mai. 1. 10–11.

87 Adv. Haer. iv. 17. 6; 18. 1.

88 Ibid. iv. 2. 2; vi. 2. 4; 8. 1.

89 Luke xiii. 10–13.

90 Adv. Haer. iv. 8. 2.

91 He uses this quote from Ehrhardt, (Apostolic Succession, 82Google Scholar) against Campenhausen:Smittals, W., Office of Apostle in the Early Church, trans Steely, J. E., London 1971, 288Google Scholar. Cf. Campenhausen, von, ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, 96–120Google Scholar, and ‘Die Nachfolge desjakobs’, 133–44.

92 HE.ii 23.3.

93 Ibid. iv. 22. 4, 3.

94 Telfer, , ‘Hegesippus’, 143–56Google Scholar.

95 Zuckschwerdt, E., ‘Das Naziraät des Herrenbruders Jakobus nach Hegesippus’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft lxviii (1977), 276–87Google Scholar: ‘die Tradition des lebenslangen Nazirtums… wurde durch den Gegensatz zu dieser priesterlichen Konzeption und durch die sich heraus ergebenden, im Lauf der Zeit zunehmend verschärften Antithesen, die Wiederspeigelungen geschichtlicher Spannungen und hieraus erwach-sender Gegensätze zum priesterlich bestimmten’ (p. 287).

96 Telfer, , ‘Hegesippus’, 149Google Scholar.

97 Coulsen, J., Les functions ecclesiales aux deux premiers siècles, Paris 1956, 117–19Google Scholar: ‘cesjuifs convertis de Jérusalem avaient choisi… celui qui était le plus proche par le sang du “Fils de David.” Ainsi, à la morte de Judas Macchabée…s'é;tait continuéd la “dynastie” macchabéenne…Sans doute “la chair et le sang” trouvent encore leur compte dans une telle mentalite”’.

98 Stauffer, E., ‘Zum Kalifat des Jacobus’, Zeitschrift für Religions und Geislesgeschichte iv (1952), 193–214Google Scholar, in reply to von Campenhausen, ‘Die Nachfolge des Jakobs’. The most recent historical study supporting the caliphate view is Hengel, M., ‘Jacobus der Herrenbruder – der erst Papst?’, in Glaube und Eschatologie, Festshrift für W. C. Kümmel zum 80 Geburtstag, Tübingen 1985, 71–104Google Scholar.

99 HE i. 6. 11.

100 Stauffer, , ‘Kalifat des Jacobus’, 200Google Scholar.

101 Ibid. 199–200.

102 Eusebius, , HE v. 24. 6Google Scholar, cf. Stauffer, , ‘Kalifat des Jacobus’, 200Google Scholar.

103 Eusebius, , HE v. 3. 20Google Scholar, cf. Hyldahl, N., ‘Hegesipps Hypomnemata’, Studia Theologica xiv (1960), 87Google Scholar: ‘Die Fragen des Domitian an die Nachkommen Davids… sind Fragen die nur innerhalb einer ganz bestimmten Problemstellung einen Sinn hatten, nämlich bei der Frage nach dem Verhaltnis der Christen und der Kaisermacht zueinander.’

104 See e.g. Stauffer, ‘Zum Kalifat des Jacobus’, 119–200, 202, 206Google Scholar; Brandon, S. C. F., Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester 1967, 28–32, 115–25Google Scholar; Telfer, , Office of a Bishop, 11–12Google Scholar.

105 Brandon finds this passage most embarrassing to his case for the political messianism of both Jesus and the Jacobean Church: Jesus and the Zealots, 119–21, where he tries to associate the present, allegedly corrupt text of Josephus with doubts about the Testimonium Flavianum and possible Christian insertions and editing. For a contrary view, seeSchürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus, (17 B.C.–A.D.), ed. Verities, G., Millar, F. and Black, M., Edinburgh 1979, i. 428–41Google Scholar.

106 HE iv. 22. 2–3.

107 Ibid. iv. 22. 2.

108 Ibid. iv. 22. 3, cf. Hyldahl, , ‘Hegesipps Hypomnemata’, 100–3Google Scholar. See also Campenhausen, H. von, ‘Lehrerreihen und Bishofsreihen im 2. Jahrhundert’, in In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, Stuttgart 1953, 247Google Scholar: ‘Daher verzichtet sie auf die Datierung und iiberhaupt auf jede historische Auswertung und zahlt die Apostel nicht etwa selbst schon also das erste Glied sondern nur den jeweiligen Abstand, in dem die späteren Bischofe also Erben ihrer Lehre in dem Zusammenhang der ςιαςοχή erscheinen.’

109 Hyldahl, , ‘Hegesipps Hypomnemata’, 101Google Scholar.

110 Adv. Haer. iii. 3. 3, cf. Succ. proem. 1; v. 94.

111 Apostolic Succession, 77–80, 121–2.

112 Campenhausen, von, ‘Lehrerreihen und Bishofsreihen’, 242Google Scholar: ‘An den person-lichen, rechtlichen oder sakramentalen Zusammenhang mit den Aposteln ist ebenfalls noch nich gedacht, und der Gedanke an eine Lehre und Lehrüberlieferung bleibt völlig beiseite’.

113 Clement xliv. 2.

114 Ibid. xl. 5.

115 Ibid. xli. 1–2.

116 Ibid. xlii. 2.

117 Ibid. xliv. 2.

118 Succ. viii. 50. 91; ix. 1; x. 21. 25.

119 Ant. Jud. xx. 16. 103, 197, 213, 229, 235 etc.

120 Ibid. xv. 297–8.