Secret Alias wrote:The opinions cited as belonging to 'some' in Origen Homilies on Luke 25 (= heretics, Marcionites) are the same as the 'orthodox' in known strongholds of Marcionitism after 140 CE = Osroene, Harran, Edessa, Persia etc. The Marcionites seem to have fled Roman territory in the manner closely paralleled by the (surviving) Mandaean sect.
Could the Marcionites have fled under threat of Persian invasion? -
the province would remain a bone of contention between the Romans and their eastern neighbors, the Sassanid Persians, suffering heavily in the recurrent [wiki]Roman–Persian Wars[/wiki]. war broke out after the death of the Roman emperor Decius in 251 and the province was invaded by the Persian. In the second half of the 250s, the Persian shah Shapur I (r. ca. 240–270) attacked the Roman east, which was defended by the Roman emperor Valerianus (r. 253–260), whom he captured at Edessa in 260.[1]
No they ran away from the Romans. The Romans are always the enemy. Read the story at the beginning of the Acts of Archelaus and all stories about a 'Marcellus' (dim. Marcus) who was a prominent Christian they said who established hostels and a network of churches in the Roman Empire who was 'well known' to everyone (in the Empire) according to the source. Now Marcellus is in Harran 'communing' with Archelaus (ruler of the people) at Harran. Mani even comes to appeal his message that he is the true Paraclete of Jesus against the heretical knowledge that Paul was. That's the basis behind the controversy. Jerome says that Hegemonius's testimony was originally written in Syriac (which is to be expected considering the source) and was subsequently translated into Greek and then a barbarous Latin.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
There always seems to be some lost connection too between the Jacobites of Egypt and the 'lost tribe' of Christians at Edessa and Osroene. There seems to have been some sort of connection between the two communities as late as the fifth century.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I have always suspected the Mandaeans bear some relation to the Marcionites. It's been documented that some of their hymns were taken over by the Manichaean tradition. Even that Mani was a member of the Elchasite ('hidden power') sect and these must have been proto-Mandaeans. One of the Mandaean texts says that the group once lived in Harran on their way from Israel to the marshes of Iraq. There were Mandaeans that made it all the way to southern Iran too. Jews who somehow learned to hate (what became 'normative') Judaism. The Mandaeans have a version of the story known from the Proto-Evangelium of James that Mary lived in the temple. The story has made its way into the Quran and other traditions. If I had the time I love to spend my life figuring it all out. But Mary here seems to be a hypostasis of some kind.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:I disagree with toejam that Paul was remembered chiefly as the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not seem to have been important to the pseudo-Clementines in their remembrance of 'Simon Magus' who is clearly a sublimated recollection of Paul.
Say what? Am I misreading you here? It's been a while since I read the pseudo-Clementines, but my recollection is that they're pissed at Simon Magus (Paul) for preaching anti-law, for distorting Jesus' Jewish teachings which were rightfully handed on to a very Jewish Peter. This is in line with my statement that Paul was chiefly remembered as the apostle to the gentiles, and one who taught that you didn't have to become a Jew in order to participate in this Jewish offshoot's salvation message. For Marcion, Valentinians, proto-orthodox (etc.), Paul was a good guy. For Jewish-Christians, he was a bad guy. But it's the same characterisation of said guy. The core of who he was and what he preached was more important (whether viewing him positively or negatively) than him being known as a writer of scripture. I don't recall the pseudo-Clementines accusing Paul of writing letters either (I stress I don't recall). It was later that his letters became viewed as scripture, or, from the POV of Jewish-Christians, false-scripture. Hence potentially why Acts or Pseudo-Clementines don't talk about him writing letters - that aspect is secondary to them. Chiefly what is important to them is what he stood for. Presumably, letters attributed to Peter and John were also circulating at the time of Acts' composition, yet Acts doesn't mention them writing anything either.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Is there anything in there about him being specifically an 'apostle to the Gentiles' - a term that doesn't make sense in the Israelite tradition to begin with because Moses, the original apostle, is just the 'spokesman' for God. There aren't categories and sub-categories (i.e. apostle to the fish, apostle to dandelions, apostle to people in Chinese restaurants etc). There's just God's man, God's spokesman Moses. That's the idea Paul is emulating, imitating. And in the Pseudo-Clementines Peter I think uses the example of Moses's status above Aaron and Miriam (when she gets leprosy) to demonstrate (rightly) that there can be only one apostle.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I know I come across as an asshole sometimes but I can't slug my way through these sorts of posts.
For Marcion, Valentinians, proto-orthodox (etc.), Paul was a good guy. For Jewish-Christians, he was a bad guy. But it's the same characterisation of said guy.
It's not a criticism of you per se but the state of Western scholarship. You are an accurate reflection of it so in that you shouldn't feel offended by my obtuseness but it reminds me of when my son was 5 years old and he learned that the world (of comic book movies) was divided between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and he thought he had leaped on to a meaningful discovery. The traditional Hebrew universe isn't like the world of Marvel comics and so we shouldn't expect the same from early Christianity.
The Marcionites thought Paul was the apostle of the Man-god above the Man-god of Israel after the flesh, Moses - i.e. when in Genesis 1:26 it says that the heavenly man was made after the image of God. There's two there - a pair of twins. That's the dichotomy. No good guys, no bad guys, no Hall of Justice, no massive Hovercarrier.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
^The term isn't important, it's the characterisation that I'm talking about. Paul is known as one spreading a Jesus salvation message that doesn't require obedience to the Torah. This is what he was chiefly known for. Seeing him as a writer of scripture probably came later, once his letters became the primary means by which people came to know about him.
Terms like good-guys and bad-guys are just a simple ways to cut to the core. Of course things were more complex than that.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
