Post by Suryoyo on Jan 15, 2013 13:49:57 GMT 2
I was reading an article on a non-Orthodox site about Apostolic Succession...
www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm
I started wondering mostly about the different dating of the Churches and wonder what your thoughts are about this kind of thing?
I noticed that the dates in the link to the Syriac Orthodox chronological list isn't the same as the old "spiral" of all our patriarchs that is still preserved in our Zaffran monastery.
This is a copy of the spiral (which is in a monastery in Holland):
i.imgur.com/2Cyti.jpg
Here Peter's date is 38-41. And Cornelius date is 135-140 while in the link it says 127-154 (and the Antiochian site says 127-151).
I'm guessing the spiral dates are less "scientific" since they are older and can't be edited and the chronological list on the Syriac site has taken new research into consideration?
This is a photo of the real spiral in the monastery in Tur Abdin:
I don't have any problem with the dates being different since I kind of view it the same as different national Orthodox Churches having different customs/small t traditions but...
What are your thoughts on dates differing like this? Do you think it's because at first they didn't really write this kind of thing down and then when trying to trace back the Churches used different manuscripts (that had survived and were in their possession) and tried to pinpoint a possible year?
1. Euodius of Antioch. There are at least two "orthodox" churches that blatantly claim apostolic succession from Antioch.
And both the Eastern Orthodox (or Rum Orthodox) Church of Antioch (apparently also called the Antiochian Orthodox) and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch claim that Euodius (also spelled Evodius) was the successor to the Apostle Peter (see Syriac Orthodox Resources. Chronological List of the Patriarchs of Antioch. sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html 03/19/06 and The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul www.antiochian.org/patofant 5/14/06).
Yet they have differing dates. The Syriac Church claims from Euodius led from 67-68 A.D., while the time period claimed by the Eastern Orthodox Church is earlier and longer. Specifically the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches:
Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34 . Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city... It was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas departed for their great missionary journeys to the Gentile lands (Acts 13:1). The Apostles directed a truly universal ministry. After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter...Saint Ignatius of Antioch for example, is revered as both a victorious martyr during the reign of Emperor Trajan (early second century) (The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul www.antiochian.org/patofant 5/14/06).
Although the above suggests that the Eastern Orthodox claim Euodius (spelled Eudoius below) was bishop from perhaps 41 A.D. (34 A.D. plus seven years) until whenever Ignatius took over, that is not actually what they claim as they provided the following early list:
1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.
2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.
3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.
4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.
(Source: Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch (Orthodox Succession). www.antiochian.org/667 11/16/07).
It may be of interest to realize that while the Bible lists some of the leaders in Antioch around 46 A.D., neither Peter nor Euodius is among them. The following is from the Rheims New Testament (a Catholic accepted translation):
AND there were in the Church which was at Antioch, Prophets and Doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to our Lord, and fasting, the holy Ghost said: Separate me Saul and Barnabas unto the work, whereto I have taken them (Acts 13:1-2, RNT).
If either Peter or Euodius were the "Bishop of Antioch" and ministering to the Lord, it would make sense that they would at least have been mentioned, but they were not (the dates that the Syriac Antiochian Orthodox use for Eudoius, 67-68, make more biblical sense, but may do not seem to necessarily agree with other historical records).
In addition, Peter around 50 A.D. was still in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-7). Notice that Paul and Barnabas were sent back to Antioch and they remained there:
Then it pleased the Apostles and Ancients with the whole Church, to choose men out of them, and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren...And Paul and Barnabas tarried at Antioch, teaching and evangelizing with many others the word of our Lord (Acts 15:22,35, RNT).
Does any true Christian believe that there was a bishop in Antioch that Paul and Barnabas were reporting to then?
...
The next problem is that it is not probable that Peter could have been the Bishop of Antioch until 67 A.D., as the Syriacs claim, for at least three reasons.
First, blatant and unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary, there is no indication that Peter was in Antioch for any length of time (though he did have a meeting there once, see Galatians 2:11, probably in the mid 40s A.D. according to The Catholic Encyclopedia).
Second, if Peter became bishop simply because he once visited that town, then Euodius would have had to become bishop that far back.
And thirdly, if as the Syriac Orthodox claim, Peter was the bishop of Antioch from 37 A.D. until 67 A.D., then he could not have been Bishop of Rome then (not that I am saying that Peter was a bishop of Rome).
The reality is that there is major doubt that Peter spent any significant amount of time in Antioch or Rome (it is not even certain that he ever was in Rome). Neither city has any contemporaneous proof that Peter did anything than visit (or according to the Roman claim, died in) their respective city.
Another possible problem with Antioch is that although Ignatius is listed as the bishop after Euodius, he would have had to have been exceptionally young when he became a bishop as he is claimed to have lived until 107 or to possibly 118 A.D. (the latter date is has been proposed by some modern scholars). Yet, if either of those dates are correct, then the Antiochian claim of succession is in error as it has someone named Heros as bishop beginning with 100 A.D. (Ignatius was still alive then, and apparently in Antioch until at least 107). Nor is there any contemporaneous evidence that Ignatius was a bishop prior to the second century starting with 68 A.D. Hence there appears to be several gaps in the alleged apostolic succession in Antioch.
And both the Eastern Orthodox (or Rum Orthodox) Church of Antioch (apparently also called the Antiochian Orthodox) and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch claim that Euodius (also spelled Evodius) was the successor to the Apostle Peter (see Syriac Orthodox Resources. Chronological List of the Patriarchs of Antioch. sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html 03/19/06 and The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul www.antiochian.org/patofant 5/14/06).
Yet they have differing dates. The Syriac Church claims from Euodius led from 67-68 A.D., while the time period claimed by the Eastern Orthodox Church is earlier and longer. Specifically the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches:
Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34 . Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city... It was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas departed for their great missionary journeys to the Gentile lands (Acts 13:1). The Apostles directed a truly universal ministry. After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter...Saint Ignatius of Antioch for example, is revered as both a victorious martyr during the reign of Emperor Trajan (early second century) (The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul www.antiochian.org/patofant 5/14/06).
Although the above suggests that the Eastern Orthodox claim Euodius (spelled Eudoius below) was bishop from perhaps 41 A.D. (34 A.D. plus seven years) until whenever Ignatius took over, that is not actually what they claim as they provided the following early list:
1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.
2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.
3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.
4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.
(Source: Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch (Orthodox Succession). www.antiochian.org/667 11/16/07).
It may be of interest to realize that while the Bible lists some of the leaders in Antioch around 46 A.D., neither Peter nor Euodius is among them. The following is from the Rheims New Testament (a Catholic accepted translation):
AND there were in the Church which was at Antioch, Prophets and Doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to our Lord, and fasting, the holy Ghost said: Separate me Saul and Barnabas unto the work, whereto I have taken them (Acts 13:1-2, RNT).
If either Peter or Euodius were the "Bishop of Antioch" and ministering to the Lord, it would make sense that they would at least have been mentioned, but they were not (the dates that the Syriac Antiochian Orthodox use for Eudoius, 67-68, make more biblical sense, but may do not seem to necessarily agree with other historical records).
In addition, Peter around 50 A.D. was still in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-7). Notice that Paul and Barnabas were sent back to Antioch and they remained there:
Then it pleased the Apostles and Ancients with the whole Church, to choose men out of them, and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren...And Paul and Barnabas tarried at Antioch, teaching and evangelizing with many others the word of our Lord (Acts 15:22,35, RNT).
Does any true Christian believe that there was a bishop in Antioch that Paul and Barnabas were reporting to then?
...
The next problem is that it is not probable that Peter could have been the Bishop of Antioch until 67 A.D., as the Syriacs claim, for at least three reasons.
First, blatant and unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary, there is no indication that Peter was in Antioch for any length of time (though he did have a meeting there once, see Galatians 2:11, probably in the mid 40s A.D. according to The Catholic Encyclopedia).
Second, if Peter became bishop simply because he once visited that town, then Euodius would have had to become bishop that far back.
And thirdly, if as the Syriac Orthodox claim, Peter was the bishop of Antioch from 37 A.D. until 67 A.D., then he could not have been Bishop of Rome then (not that I am saying that Peter was a bishop of Rome).
The reality is that there is major doubt that Peter spent any significant amount of time in Antioch or Rome (it is not even certain that he ever was in Rome). Neither city has any contemporaneous proof that Peter did anything than visit (or according to the Roman claim, died in) their respective city.
Another possible problem with Antioch is that although Ignatius is listed as the bishop after Euodius, he would have had to have been exceptionally young when he became a bishop as he is claimed to have lived until 107 or to possibly 118 A.D. (the latter date is has been proposed by some modern scholars). Yet, if either of those dates are correct, then the Antiochian claim of succession is in error as it has someone named Heros as bishop beginning with 100 A.D. (Ignatius was still alive then, and apparently in Antioch until at least 107). Nor is there any contemporaneous evidence that Ignatius was a bishop prior to the second century starting with 68 A.D. Hence there appears to be several gaps in the alleged apostolic succession in Antioch.
www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm
I started wondering mostly about the different dating of the Churches and wonder what your thoughts are about this kind of thing?
I noticed that the dates in the link to the Syriac Orthodox chronological list isn't the same as the old "spiral" of all our patriarchs that is still preserved in our Zaffran monastery.
This is a copy of the spiral (which is in a monastery in Holland):
i.imgur.com/2Cyti.jpg
Here Peter's date is 38-41. And Cornelius date is 135-140 while in the link it says 127-154 (and the Antiochian site says 127-151).
I'm guessing the spiral dates are less "scientific" since they are older and can't be edited and the chronological list on the Syriac site has taken new research into consideration?
This is a photo of the real spiral in the monastery in Tur Abdin:
I don't have any problem with the dates being different since I kind of view it the same as different national Orthodox Churches having different customs/small t traditions but...
What are your thoughts on dates differing like this? Do you think it's because at first they didn't really write this kind of thing down and then when trying to trace back the Churches used different manuscripts (that had survived and were in their possession) and tried to pinpoint a possible year?
