stephan huller

Of course the Mandaean example brings forward the obvious question - couldn't the simplicity of the Mandaean myth of Anus-Uthra represent a primitive alternative to the Trinity theology of the orthodox Church? In other words, could the Marcionites have been 'Patripassians'?

What I mean by that is could the Marcionites have held that Jesus was the Father or that the Father was crucified on the Cross etc? I have to admit I was seduced by this line of thought for some time just because it is so simple and straight forward. It makes everything easier. Yet I since abandoned it because it is apparent - independent of the things said by the Church Fathers while condemning in the Marcionites - that the Marcionites did identify Jesus as the Son.

We are back to our three original choices where Jesus is always the Son:

1. unknown Son and unknown Father
2. unknown Son and known Father
3. known Son and unknown Father

mountainman

This includes the Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Fathers and Ephrem.

mountainman

Almost 10 years ago I wrote A Brief History of IT Management and the RDBMS. The relational database model is exceptionally amenable to the history of Christian origins. The BlueLetter bible site is a good example of what can be done with one manuscript. Other manuscripts, people (authors etc), inscriptions and all other evidence items need to be added.

mountainman

What a totally weird and convoluted idea. You may be onto something. I guess the first question is to ask what we think Epiphanius's intention is in the normal sense. I'd answer that he set out to be a mightly heresy hunter (in the literary sense only) because of the times in which he lived, and his intention was to become another great Christian heresiologist.

He certainly preserved knowledge of the 80 heresies of the later 4th century, and may have coodinated the Top 40 charts for Rome and Alexandria. If he disguised himself as a tax exempt Christian bishop in order to document the diversity of heresy in the Nicaean Christian Roman Empire he may not have been alone.

I certainly think that his intention was actually to preserve knowledge of the heresies. The greatest was the Arian heresy, and Epiphanius does not seem to favor one or another. To him IMHO heresiology was like stamp collecting, and may have been supported under the academic umbrella of imperial research grants at the time. We know this approach finally paid off. The heretics were all executed with all their ..... writings writings burning bright; in the empire of the night.

If we are to believe the account of Ammianus Marcellinus there was probably so much death and destruction going on around Epiphanius that he had to rationalize and justify the position of orthodoxy by a detailed textual analysis of the deviants.


Of course all this is qualified on the basis that I have not been able to read much of this author due to the expensive cost of physical manuscripts. I was impressed by Epiphanius's knowledge of "The Greater Questions of Mary"