During the second and third century, there was a "continuing preoccupation with the figure of the Antichrist" (Pelikan 1:127 [1971]). Apocalyptic themes were rife among both the polemicists and apologists of the ancient ecclesia. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus all wrote about the Antichrist and applied the Biblical description of the Antichrist and other eschatological passages to their time:
"Irenaeus saw in Antichrist the recapitulation of every error and idolatry since the deluge; and, in accordance with the prophecies of both the Old and New Testament, as interpreted by the apostolic tradition of 'men who saw John face to face,' he believed that Antichrist would be a member of the tribe of Dan" (Pelikan 1:128 [1971] Cf. Also Haer. 5.30.1-2.
Was Irenaeus correct in his assessment of the Biblical Antichrist? I now ask you what exactly was his Biblical proof for such an assertion?
What about his view of apostolic succession? Irenaeus has been quoted as saying that "obedience is due to those presbyters who, as we have shown, are in the succession after the Apostles, having received, according to the will of the Father, certain charisma of truth" (Haer. 4.26.2).
W.H.C. Frend relates: "Irenaeus based this [apostolic succession] less on mechanical succession than on the fact that the Spirit had been present in the apostles and continued in these elders" (Frend 249-250 [1984]). Irenaeus further reports that the Church in Rome was especially prestigious, for Paul and Peter had preached there and the later elders of Rome were alleged successors of these preeminent apostles:
"Chief among these [elders who were apostolic successors] in authority and prestige was the church at Rome, in which the apostolic tradition shared by all the churches everywhere had been preserved," (Haer. 5.20.1).
Was Irenaeus adhering to the ipsissima verba of the Bible when he taught the validity of apostolic succession? Nowhere does the Bible say that Rome was/is the most prestigious Christian congregation; nor does the Bible support apostolic succession. We may also point out that Irenaeus is not on Scriptural ground when he contends that Peter went to Rome in order to preach; again, this statement cannot be proved from the Scriptures. The Bible simply reports that Peter preached in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). N.B.: This is not a symbolic allusion to Rome. Even a cursory examination of how the word "Babylon" is used in Scripture will put this erroneous notion to rest. It is therefore apparent that Irenaeus is shown to be mistaken in at least some of his teachings. For more details on this subject, and the church politics that Irenaeus was involved in, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels. She provides evidence that the monarchical model espoused by both Ignatius and Irenaeus possibly was influenced more by politics than the Bible.
5 comments:
Regarding Peter, I am reminded of this concession:
Even if Peter did preach in Rome, as some secular literature from the first and second centuries implies, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there. (w11 8/1 p. 25 Is the Pope “Saint Peter’s Successor”?)
I wonder if while he preached to the Jewish community in Babylon if he was later arrested and taken to Rome for trial and execution.
Thanks, Jim. I don't think we can say whether Peter was arrested in Babylon or not, but we know that John 21 prophesied his death. Church tradition also holds that both Paul and Peter were martyred during the Neronic persecution circa 62-64 CE.
Most interpreters I've read view Babylon as Rome, though I've read otherwise among scholars too.
Thanks. This is a great blog entry.
We're familiar with the NET Bible footnote for 1 Peter 5:13 reasoning that it's really Rome. (https://netbible.org/bible/1+Peter+5) But this does not account for Galatians 2:7-9 or the "large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon" that produced the later voluminous Babylonian Talmud. So a literal Babylon may be seen as legitimately rooted in history.
We also know of the tradition that Peter was executed in Rome, nay crucified upside down per his request. However, the Romans would need more than just his plea to deviate from their standard crucifixion routine. Indeed, crucifying him rightside up would add misery and humiliation to his death to their satisfaction. So that tradition (that he died upside down per his request) is suspect indeed. Perhaps it's an accretion to an actual event of him being executed in Rome.
Appreciate your contribution, Jim. I agree that Peter was likely in literal Babylon, not Rome. Too bad that this tradition has become an entrenched idea in modern commentaries.
Peter may well have been crucified in Rome. That Nero would have executed him or Paul sounds plausible enough, but the manner of death is suspect. I've always found it difficult to untangle all the later traditions about Peter and Paul from what's actually historical.
I no longer have R.W. Wall's commentary on Revelation, but he made some perceptive comments about Babylon and Rome from what I remember.
Post a Comment