38 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy“disciples” and not “apostles” and commenting upon the scene in the Gospels when
Jesus was defending his disciples against the Pharisaic charge of plucking ears of corn
on the Sabbath. By his action he had made “all the disciples of the Lord priests.”^13
Irenaeus is not commenting here on the apostolic succession but on Marcion’s
claim that Jesus’ defense of his disciples in this passage reveals his rejection of the Old
Testament law of a lesser god. Irenaeus’s response is that Jesus in fact fulfills the law by
making his disciples priests for the occasion, and they can therefore behave like priests
on the Sabbath. When Irenaeus comments on the Eucharist as the “pure sacrifice” of
Malachi, he does not conclude that it is the bishop’s offering as a priest: he concludes
that it is the church’s offering.^14 Any notion that Irenaeus has before him as a model of
apostolic succession a Jewish sacerdotal succession list is therefore ruled out. Irenaeus
does not base his model upon a preexisting chronography but rather on that of the
historiographical genre of Hellenistic philosophical schools.
It is clear from what both Irenaeus and Hegesippus say that they do not have gen-
eral access to chronological succession lists, albeit without actual dates. Hegesippus did
not claim to have established a succession or succession list for Corinth as opposed to
the consistency over time of orthodox teaching. It was for Rome that he claimed, if this
is what is meant, to have “composed a succession list.” Eusebius was not to inherit any
succession list for Corinth, and has no entry for the Primus that Hegesippus informs
us “exercised the episcopal office.” His only entry for someone named Primus is for the
fourth bishop on his Alexandrian list (a.d. 107).^15
Irenaeus had no list other than that for Rome. He accepted Hegesippus’s general
conclusion about other churches that “in each succession and in each city it is the case
that the law is proclaimed along with the prophets and the Lord.”^16 But he will draw an
even more general conclusion from Hegesippus’s declaration following his experience
on a journey that included Corinth on his voyage to Rome: “There is present to be seen
in every church throughout the whole world the manifest tradition of the apostles for
all who wish to behold what is true.”^17
Thus Irenaeus was now able to go further. Hegesippus had been able to construct
a succession list for Rome alone but in principle this had to be possible for any church
in any place. Thus he continues: “We are able to call the roll [καταλέσαι] of those estab-
lished as bishops [κατασταθέντας ἐπισκόπους] in the churches and their successors
[διαδόχους] up until our time.... For they wished them to be in every respect per-
fect and blameless whom they left as their successors [διαδόχους], as they handed on
to them their personal teaching position [τὸν ἴδιον αὐτῶν διδασκαλίας παραδιδόντες
τόπον] .”
But how in that case was Irenaeus able to construct such a list for Rome and with
what model, given the lack of a chronography with dates?
How Irenaeus and Hegesippus Constructed Their List
Irenaeus and Hegesippus constructed their lists on the basis of the idea of a “succession”
of philosophers and a “succession” of apostles. We can see that if we begin with Clement.
Irenaeus describes Clement as next but one after Linus, mentioned by the author
of 2 Tim. 4:21 in a list of names undistinguished by any office, but now, Irenaeus adds,