Page 3 of 4
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2023 4:15 pm
by Secret Alias
The first statement from Megethius in Adamantius answes thar question. "Brother."
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:22 am
by andrewcriddle
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:12 pm
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?
Whether or not it is legitimate to begin the rule of Octavius with the death of Julius (or the reading of Julius' will shortly after his death in which Octavius is declared the heir) that is what the chronicle is doing. 2 BCE for the birth of Christ is a possible interpretation of the data in Luke (30 years before the 15th year of Tiberius).
Andrew Criddle
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:53 am
by lclapshaw
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:22 am
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:12 pm
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?
Whether or not it is legitimate to begin the rule of Octavius with the death of Julius (or the reading of Julius' will shortly after his death in which Octavius is declared the heir) that is what the chronicle is doing. 2 BCE for the birth of Christ is a possible interpretation of the data in Luke (30 years before the 15th year of Tiberius).
Andrew Criddle
Sounds like they're just making stuff up.
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:04 pm
by Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:24 pm
Nobody runs around and says they are "of Marcion" or "of Valentinus" or "of Basilides." They say they're Christian (or Chrestian I guess)
Epiphanius confirms this (with displeasure) in
Panarion 29.6.6:
Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of “Christians,” though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since the name is an ornament to it. For they think they can preen themselves on Christ’s name—certainly not on Christ’s faith and works!
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:38 pm
by GakuseiDon
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:04 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:24 pm
Nobody runs around and says they are "of Marcion" or "of Valentinus" or "of Basilides." They say they're Christian (or Chrestian I guess)
Epiphanius confirms this (with displeasure) in
Panarion 29.6.6:
Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of “Christians,” though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since the name is an ornament to it. For they think they can preen themselves on Christ’s name—certainly not on Christ’s faith and works!
Yes, which made me wonder what Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics, etc -- who probably called themselves "Christians" -- called the proto-orthodox brands. Since nearly all branches saw themselves as going back to the original apostles whereas they saw the other branches as being founded by later adherents, who did they regard as the later founder of the proto-orthodox side? That's my question in the OP.
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:20 pm
by Peter Kirby
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:38 pm
Yes, which made me wonder what Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics, etc -- who probably called themselves "Christians" -- called the proto-orthodox brands. Since nearly all branches saw themselves as going back to the original apostles whereas they saw the other branches as being founded by later adherents, who did they regard as the later founder of the proto-orthodox side? That's my question in the OP.
I understand the question, but, as I said, I don't think the answer (if any) has survived.
Re: Παύλου; Παυλινοί
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:12 pm
by billd89
1
Corinthians 1:12.
But I think
Nazoraeans are the best candidate (assuming an Historical Jesus comes out of that cult) in the 1st C.
Given that most 2nd C Gnostics seem only and very superficially Xtian and -- if Philo says likewise of the veiled Therapeutae 'they had ancient books of their founders' -- so Gnostics probably wouldn't fixate on one label positively/exclusively: hence, all and sundry would be labelled 'Chrestianoi'/Christiani in the general way.
DVC 3.29: ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ συγγράμματα παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν, οἳ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγέται γενόμενοι πολλὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἀλληγορουμένοις ἰδέας ἀπέλιπον, οἷς καθάπερ τισὶν ἀρχετύποις χρώμενοι μιμοῦνται τῆς προαιρέσεως τὸν τρόπον·
My translation:
DVC 3.29: “They also have treatises of ancient men, founders of their sect {αἱρέσεως =‘heresy’}, who left behind many records of the allegorical interpretation of the Idea, which – according to a certain archetype {ἀρχετύποις} – they make use of {=administer/experience/proclaim/etc.} to imitate the course of action/purpose {προαιρέσεως} in such a way.”
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:18 pm
by GakuseiDon
Perhaps I should reframe my question in the OP in terms of a thought experiment:
Nearly all early Christian groups arguably traced themselves back to one or more apostles who had understood the 'true' teachings of Christ. But the eventually-triumphant proto-orthodox group named the other groups after post-apostle founders: so 'Marcionites" after a Marcion whom was thought to have introduced novelties into mainstream beliefs, 'Valentinians' similarly.
So: If Marcionites and Valentinians did the same, i.e. named proto-orthodoxy after the person whom was thought to have introduced novelties into 'true Christianity' (as defined by Marcionites or Valentinians): then, whom do you think they would they have named the proto-orthodox group after? And why?
No wrong answers!
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:38 am
by Peter Kirby
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:18 pm
Perhaps I should reframe my question in the OP in terms of a thought experiment:
Nearly all early Christian groups arguably traced themselves back to one or more apostles who had understood the 'true' teachings of Christ. But the eventually-triumphant proto-orthodox group named the other groups after post-apostle founders: so 'Marcionites" after a Marcion whom was thought to have introduced novelties into mainstream beliefs, 'Valentinians' similarly.
So: If Marcionites and Valentinians did the same, i.e. named proto-orthodoxy after the person whom was thought to have introduced novelties into 'true Christianity' (as defined by Marcionites or Valentinians): then, whom do you think they would they have named the proto-orthodox group after? And why?
No wrong answers!
Drawing on parallel schisms for analogy, maybe I would look at a contentious bishop appointment.
Irenaeus says Valentinus came to Rome in Hyginus' time. He claims Pius was next. Tertullian says Valentinus expected to become bishop.
Given his influence, it would not be surprising if many did consider Valentinus to be a bishop, with the power to ordain others.
So this would suggest Pius, bishop of Rome. This is also chronologically plausible in that it is contemporary with the activity of Justin and Polycarp.
Re: What did early gnostic Christians call other Christians?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:27 pm
by Peter Kirby
By the way, this is the Latin equivalent to the Greek word εὐσεβής (in various cases).
You can find it on this papyrus used in Greek for the name of Antoninus Pius:
https://papyri.info/apis/wisconsin.apis.5392
You can also find statements in an anti-heretical context where the true believers are called εὐσεβεῖς such as 2 Peter 2:9.
then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout (εὐσεβεῖς) from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment
2 Peter 2 is a denunciation of false teachers:
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2peter/2
So, while this is far from obvious, it has some plausibility. I would need to dig into a Greek concordance / search tool to find more uses.
There may have been a dichotomy between "the devout" and "the gnostic."