Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:38 amDrawing 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.

...

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."

That's fascinating, and makes a lot of sense. Even if it not Pius, I think your approach is right: someone high up in the Church so has influence, and who was in charge around the time of the earliest big schisms. Pius is an excellent candidate in that case.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:21 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:38 amDrawing 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.

...

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."

That's fascinating, and makes a lot of sense. Even if it not Pius, I think your approach is right: someone high up in the Church so has influence, and who was in charge around the time of the earliest big schisms. Pius is an excellent candidate in that case.

Thanks! It's too bad that it's completely speculative. It just fits so nicely into the alleged rise of Valentinians and Marcionites at the same time.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:22 pmThanks! It's too bad that it's completely speculative. It just fits so nicely into the alleged rise of Valentinians and Marcionites at the same time.

Too late! It's part of my "head canon" now. Jesus was a Jordan Peterson type, martyred for saying the quiet parts out loud, and thus being obedient to God unto death, James the Just was Ebion, Paul was a Benny Hinn-type, independent religious entrepreneur who was worried about collecting money for the poor -- 'poor ol' Paul', that is! -- Simon Magus was the same, but with more magic. Finally, the official schism occurred during the times of Cerdo/Marcion/Valentius/Pius, with each of them driving forward their own beliefs and agendas.

All speculative as you say, but that's how I rationalise the development of early Christianity, at least for now. Your idea about Pius was the last piece of the puzzle for me. To you goes the blame!

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!

I am shocked by what passes for Christianity in NAmerica these days. I've been living in an Orthodox country where they ignore Paul and the Faulines, and I come back to people fervently washing themselves in the blood of a dead god who "died for them". It's unhinged Marcionism. No mention of works, or commandments, or the law.

They can go weeks without mentioning a teaching from Matthew: it's almost exclusively the Faulines. And woe betide you if you make the helpful suggestion that the group read Revelations up to chapter 3 - the bit about those who say they are Apostolos but are not. The pastors seem to think they can lie blatantly, like Faul thinks he can - Rom 3:7.

No wonder all of the Churches fell in line with CovID.

Quoting Epiphanius to me feels like salt rubbed into those wounds - thanks for it Peter! And thanks for the forum, and especially for your website, and all of your hard work.