Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In Syria where most early Christianity was not orthodox (by later standards) orthodox Christians were apparently called Palutians.
See Edessa

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add Peter Kirby had already posted something similar.

An English translation of Ephraim, Hymns Against Heresies 22 is given on pages 35-37 in Invitation to Syriac Christianity: An Anthology, M.P. Penn et al., 2022. Google books advanced search (depending on limits) may allow a look by searching Palutians and book title or date.

And English translation by Adam McCollum here:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... n-english/

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:37 am In Syria where most early Christianity was not orthodox (by later standards) orthodox Christians were apparently called Palutians.
See Edessa

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add Peter Kirby had already posted something similar.

If my math is correct then the year 309, "the year our Lord was born", equates with the year 16 CE as we recon it based on Augustus becoming emperor in 27 BCE. Year 449 for Marcion would be 156 CE. 140 years later.

If IC was born in 16 CE he could be no older than 20 or 21 under Pilate by this account. So Marcion is at least 100 to 120 years after the crucifixion.

I also can't help but notice that 16 years is the spread from 2 years before the death of Herod in 4 BCE and the census of Quirinius in 10 CE. The difference between Matthew and Luke.

So anyway the Chronicle of Edessa would have IC crucified between the ages 10/11 and 20/21. In Luke it's 16/17 to 26/27 and in Matthew it's at least 32/33 - 42/43.

Quite a spread.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:27 pmDoes anyone know of any terms used by heretical groups to call other groups, especially proto-orthodox Christians?

IMO you would have to search for such terms in the NT apocryphal (NTA) literature (including the NHL). AFAIK the only sources that we have which represent the heretical groups (outside of the heresiologists) are the texts of the NTA.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:25 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:37 am In Syria where most early Christianity was not orthodox (by later standards) orthodox Christians were apparently called Palutians.
See Edessa

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add Peter Kirby had already posted something similar.

If my math is correct then the year 309, "the year our Lord was born", equates with the year 16 CE as we recon it based on Augustus becoming emperor in 27 BCE. Year 449 for Marcion would be 156 CE. 140 years later.

If IC was born in 16 CE he could be no older than 20 or 21 under Pilate by this account. So Marcion is at least 100 to 120 years after the crucifixion.

It is dating by the Seleucid calendar starting around 311 BCE Augustus becomes Emperor with the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE Jesus is born c 2 BCE Marcion is c 139 CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:12 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:25 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:37 am In Syria where most early Christianity was not orthodox (by later standards) orthodox Christians were apparently called Palutians.
See Edessa

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add Peter Kirby had already posted something similar.

If my math is correct then the year 309, "the year our Lord was born", equates with the year 16 CE as we recon it based on Augustus becoming emperor in 27 BCE. Year 449 for Marcion would be 156 CE. 140 years later.

If IC was born in 16 CE he could be no older than 20 or 21 under Pilate by this account. So Marcion is at least 100 to 120 years after the crucifixion.

It is dating by the Seleucid calendar starting around 311 BCE Augustus becomes Emperor with the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE Jesus is born c 2 BCE Marcion is c 139 CE.

Andrew Criddle

I'm a little curious, Octavian in 44 BCE had as yet to command an army let alone be given the honor of the title of Imperator.

And, where the heck does 2 BCE for IC come from?

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:37 am In Syria where most early Christianity was not orthodox (by later standards) orthodox Christians were apparently called Palutians.
See Edessa

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add Peter Kirby had already posted something similar.

Thanks Andrew, Peter. I did some digging on that, and it seems (if what I found is correct) that "Palutians" was named after a person called "Palut", who taught Nicene Christianity. So interesting, but I was thinking of much earlier names -- say, Second Century -- for proto-orthodox Christianity. It might suggest where gnostics thought was the person who originated what became orthodox Christianity.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:19 pm Thanks Andrew, Peter. I did some digging on that, and it seems (if what I found is correct) that "Palutians" was named after a person called "Palut", who taught Nicene Christianity. So interesting, but I was thinking of much earlier names -- say, Second Century -- for proto-orthodox Christianity. It might suggest where gnostics thought was the person who originated what became orthodox Christianity.

I don't think you're going to find what you're asking for.

There is a passage in Adamantius (pseudo-Origen) about a hundred years later.


So, in this dialogue, Megethius applies the label of "Catholic" and the name of "Socrates" to his opponent. The reference to Socrates follows another polemical strategy of naming an individual who is not even a Christian, especially from the Greek philosophical tradition. So we learn for example that someone is following the teachings of Epicurus or something, as a way to discredit them. Here, Socrates.

Also, it sounds like his opponent (Adamantius) is saying every bishop traces themselves back to an apostle or disciple, in whose "house" they dwell. Therefore, as is already highly plausible, every claim of origin with someone more recent than an apostle or a disciple of Jesus is invented and polemical. Nobody runs around and says they are "of Marcion" or "of Valentinus" or "of Basilides." They say they're Christian (or Chrestian I guess) and that their church leaders go back to an apostle, such as Paul, or James, or Thomas, or Peter, or John. You can see the traces of that in the gospel and acts literature, where different apostles are elevated over others. The most natural significance of that kind of effort is to place your leaders, who trace themselves back to that apostle, above others. So for example the elevation of Peter (such as in Matthew) or the beloved disciple (in John) or Paul (in the Marcionite tradition).

This text was written by someone who favored the "Catholic" position.

We may of course be missing some of the second century polemics. If we want to construct a hypothetical search for what such claims might have been (not that we know about them directly from references), you might look for advocates of the label "Catholic." By inference, you might also look to see who elevated Peter, upon whose authority the church at Rome advocated against what they viewed as heresy. Or possibly John, to whom Irenaeus (that exhaustive heresy hunter) appealed through Polycarp.