stephan huller

I truly admire and respect Roger Pearse. He has done a world of good with his efforts to translate ancient texts and understand ancient religions especially Mithras. He has however called into question Bauer's identification of Edessa as 'Marcionite' in the fourth century mostly on the basis of Bauer doing such a shitty job with Eusebius http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2...ism-in-edessa/. I would like to note that modern scholarship continues to echo Bauer's basic assessment here. A recent article by David Bundy ( http://almanac.logos.com/David_D._Bundy ) of the Fuller Theological Seminary should put the issue to rest:

mountainman

Seconded. Roger has done well.



It should be well known that the source for this claim is Eusebius, who also claims the existence of Christian bishops in the Persian capital city.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Roger Pearse

Thank you both for the kind words.

That's for two reasons. 1. They haven't checked what he says. 2. His conclusion is convenient.

Does the reference given for that claim actually say this, one wonders?

As you see, no statement about the relative number of the "Palutians" (which is what the Marcionites called the Christians) is not to be found.

It's all like that, with the Bauer theory, at least as far as I have read. If I ever get some time, I ought to digest it all into an article. But it's very hard going, and my guess is that few have ever grappled with it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

i guess the argument would be that the Marcionites called this other tradition "the followers of Palut" in the same way outside of Edessa this tradition (= the Palutian) is called orthodox and the orthodoxy of Edessa is called Marcionite. Maybe its a bit ambitious on its own but there are other pieces of evidence. Köstenberger accuses Bauer of making too much with too little. That's fair too but still that's what the evidence seems to point in the direction of. Why would the Chronicle have Marcion at 1_8 but Ephrem accepts being named after a missionary who arrived no earlier 200 CE? The orthodox demonstrate their authority by imposing on them appellations with unflattering associations

stephan huller

i guess the argument would be that the Marcionites called this other tradition "the followers of Palut" in the same way outside of Edessa this tradition (= the Palutian) is called orthodox and the orthodoxy of Edessa is called Marcionite. Maybe its a bit ambitious on its own but there are other pieces of evidence. Köstenberger accuses Bauer of making too much with too little. That's fair too but but still that's what the evidence seems to point. Why would the Chronicle have Marcion at 138 but Ephrem accepts being named after a missionary who arrived no earlier 200 CE? The orthodox demonstrate their authority by imposing on them appellations with unflattering associations


it is impossible to edit on this phone

Roger Pearse

Um, surely Ephrem does NOT accept being so named? His complaint seems pretty loud to me, that someone was calling the Christians such, and he wasn't having it. Not sure what your argument is here? (confused)

I have just noticed that Ephraem does NOT say that it was the Marcionites who were doing so, nor does he give special precedence to the Marcionites. He names equally the Bardaisanites (who probably originated in Edessa), the Valentinians, the Manichaeans, and the mysterious Quqites.

As to why this situation had arisen, we have no certain data. We could all speculate. I would only point out that Bauer's proposal - that Marcionite heretics were present in Edessa prior to the orthodox - is speculation. The data does not require the hypothesis.

What I imagine Bauer would argue is that this should be connected and interpreted by reference to the statement in the Life of Mar Aba that, in the 6th century, across the Persian frontier, the Marcionites were called "Christians" and Christians were called "Messianists". To which, naturally, one would respond that it could be connected; but there is no necessity to do so, and two centuries and geography against it.

I would suggest that there is no reason why someone like Bardaisan, a local nobleman, could not have heard about the Christians while on his travels. It could happen. He could have done so, then gone home and set up his own (slightly heretical) church, before any real Christians arrived. It's perfectly possible (and somewhat more plausible than Bauer attributing this to Marcion who had no local connection). But ... there is no data saying that any of this did happen. So we mustn't state it as if there was.

We don't know how the Christian congregation in Edessa in the 4th century came to be known as Palutians. We do not know how the Christians in that area of Persia in the 6th came to be known as Messianists. We don't know that Marcionites (or anyone else) in Edessa were called Christians in the 4th century. We do know that Marcionites were called Christians in the 6th century in a region of Persia.

The rest is speculation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

But surely that was the name of the community there. The very fact he is cursing those who adopted the name is that until then it was the name of the community.

Come on Roger. The picture isn't clear but it has to be something like this. Up until Ephrem the orthodox apparently accepted being called Palutians. My teacher once noted that while the form palut (with t.et not tav) is not attested, but it is regular in formation, and would mean the same as palet (only used in the plural peletim) and palit (only used in the singular), which means “refugee”. These two forms are often paired with nimlat “escapee”. Often paired with palit and nimlat is sarid (in Biblical Hebrew with SIN, but with SAMECH later on) meaning “survivor”.

He noted that while the name officially drives from a bishop called Palut, names of groups and sects are often wrongly explained as deriving from the name of some fictitious individual. If however there was such an individual, it is worth bearing in mind that there is a strong connotation in the use of this word, if the context favours it, of the individual that is the last survivor of a bloodline or a line of tradition or a line of initiation and who becomes the saviour of the line and the ancestor (real or metaphorical) of all that come after. This kind of usage is so common that the name on its own could have had this connotation in this case.

This has little to do with Bauer. It's like what Carlson does trying to pin all the oddities of the Letter to Theodore on the guy that discovered it. I notice also at your blog you are planning a 'book review.' Since you are so keen on defending Carlson's silly theories (Morton salt company, the bald one, forger's tremor etc). The conference wasn't about Carlson any more than it was about Morton Smith. If you feel like saving a disgraced theory why not wait for the next issue Vigilae Christianae. There you will have your work cut out for you ....

Duvduv

All this despite the fact that evidence for the existence of Marcionite community does not exist and is simply reconstructed based on the statements found in official church apologetics. But as we know there is NO EVIDENCE anywhere for the existence of any Marcion communities.

For that matter we already know that not a shred of evidence exists for the existence of any of the communities alleged to have been around associated with the epistles attributed to Paul. None.

outhouse

Stop it.

Your only raising more questions then answers. Marcions historicity is not in question here.

Duvduv

I assume you mean that tongue in cheek........are you referring to the value of faith that the texts about Marcion are true despite their biased origin, and the lack of any hard data regarding anything to do with Marcion or Marcionite communities?