Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:45 am
The semantic development of post-classical Latin paganus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’ is unclear. The dating of this sense is controversial, but the 4th cent. seems most plausible.

The term in the 4th century appears to have been a pejorative associated with orthodox Christianity's "religious other”. It appears in Christian inscriptions and in the Roman law codes and appears to have been coined by Christians -- of the towns and cities (where the political process of Christianisation commenced)

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:29 am Methodius uses the term But they are dragged down, being shaken out by the folds of the dragon, because they did not remain within the triangular forms of godliness, falling away from it with respect to an orthodox service ὀρθόδοξον Φρησκείαν this is c 300 CE and one feels the term should be found earlier but I can't trace an example.

Andrew Criddle

Methodius of Olympus does indeed seem to be the earliest patristic witness to the term 'orthodoxy'. In the index to the GCS edition, ορθοδοξια appears once, ορθοδοξος six times, ορθοδοξως four times. Six instances in On the Resurrection, four in the Symposium, one in On Leprosy.

As a caveat, the Greek sections of On the Resurrection survive as extensive, "word for word" quotations in Epiphanius. It is not impossible that Epiphanius, or a C4 copyist, 'improved' Methodius' language.

The earliest evidence that 'orthodoxy' was not a C4 Christian neologism is its appearance in Julius Pollux' Onomasticon (C2). In a work on acceptable vocabulary, at 4.7 giving a word-cluster under the rubric of intellectual understanding, ορθοδοξια is cited alongside επιστημη, γνωσις, αληθεια, κατανοησις etc.

As a caveat, to quote the OCD (4th ed.) : "..the Onomasticon in its original form has perished : the extant manuscripts are derived from four incomplete, and interpolated copies, all descending from an early epitome possessed (and interpolated) by Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea, c.AD 900". Again, it is not impossible (indeed, quite likely) that Arethas inserted ορθοδοξια to increase the manual's utility in a contemporary context.

It is as C2 evidence against hyper-scepticism that Clement's line at Strom.1.9.45 is important. Its form, a 'hostile' quasi-reference, is very different from an anachronistic 'improvement'.

In the context of Strom.1.9 and 1.10, "those who are called practitioners of orthodoxy engage in good works, not knowing what they do"/οι ορθοδοξαστσι καλουμενοι εργοις προσφερονται καλοις, ουκ ειδοτες α ποιουσιν, seems to refer to an anti-intellectualist tendency, rather than a defined party or ideology. Clement indeed is quite eirenic : "Those who are given to good speech are near neighbours to those who accomplish good deeds. Accordingly discourse refreshes the soul and entices it to nobleness; and happy is he who has the use of both his hands." (1.10.46). Again, no anachronism.

Thus Clement seems to be the first witness to the (non-literary) use of the term 'orthodox', with Methodius the first extant witness to its use with contours altered and more defined.

Origen makes a similar disparaging reference to the orthodox in Peri Archon 2 without using the term orthodox.

Letter 1 of Alexander, Bishop and/or Pope of Rome (c. 107 - c. 115 CE)
(Courtesy of Pseudo-Isidore c.850 CE)