Roger Pearse

There is no evidence that they did. The Bauer thesis on this subject involves manipulating the evidence in a rather shocking way. (I need to write this up)

Specifically, the only reference known to me where Marcionites are called Christians and Christians are called something else is that in the 6th century Life of Mar Aba (chapter 3 - it's on the web). This refers to events at a specific location across the Persian border, not to the whole eastern world. No doubt it means only that the Marcionites in that region were the only Christian group known to the pagans. There is nothing to indicate that they did not come across the river into the Persian realm just in the previous 50 years. This would tie in neatly with the pressure on heretics from Justinian's clean-up campaigns. So there is nothing to suggest that any of this relates to any events prior to the 6th century. (If anyone thinks that I'm missing something, I'd be interested to hear the data that shows this; all this to the best of my knowledge, of course).

This is from the Walter Bauer chapter on Edessa, derived from the "Hymns against Heresies" 22-24 of Ephraem Syrus. But the actual source doesn't say this (it's now online in English so people can go and look). It says that the Marcionites called the Christians "Palutians", after an early bishop. No doubt they did.

Beware. Walter Bauer, in 1934, in a Germany where the idea that Jesus was an Aryan was good scholarship, produced this work by (IMHO) deliberating twisting the data and causing his readers to misunderstand it.

The grossest example of his misdeeds that I can recall was the treatment of a passage in Eusebius, HE, which explicitly refers to a Christian bishop in Mesopotamia. This is inconvenient for Bauer, who points to the omission of the words in the Latin translation. Then he plays a trick on his readers; he suggests that the earliest mss of the Latin are earlier than those of the Greek, leading readers to suppose "much earlier", and thus that they preserve the original. He gets all this from the GCS edition.

The mss of the Greek are 9-10th century. The mss of the Latin are 8-9th. But there are around 300,000 Latin mss to only 50,000 Greek, so the translation copies are not infrequently earlier. It does NOT mean 'better', but is just a statistical thing. And a century is hardly "much earlier".

But there is worse. For in the GCS edition, there is mention of a Syriac version, and of an Armenian version. The copy of the Syriac version is 5th century, and the Armenian is 6th, based on a 4th century Syriac text. Both have the passage Bauer wishes to get rid of.

And it looks to me as if Professor Bauer knew it. Because he must have worked from the GCS edition, which alone gives the Latin conveniently, and the dates of the mss, and it clearly shows all this data. Unless I am missing something, it seems that Bauer knew that his argument was false, refuted by the same data that he was using, but made it anyway and relied on the fact that his readers would find it hard to check.

May well be, but ... caution ... I am not sure we know this as a fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Hi Roger

Can I just clarify my argument here ?

Even if the term Christian has become customary it would not occur in every text. Some texts would avoid it, either because their particular concerns gave no occasion to mention it or from sheer chance. However the larger the body of work available for analysis, the more convincing becomes the argument that the absence of a word from this material is not a matter of chance but has real significance.

The total body of work attributed to Paul is rather large and the absence of the term Christian is likely to be significant. But the absence of the term from any specific work need not be significant. Therefore either all of the letters attributed to Paul were written by an author or authors who did not use the term Christian or some of the letters were written by such an author and others were written by an author who sometimes did use the term Christian but happens not to do so in his extant work.

i.e. this sort of argument cannot be used to establish a 1st century date for all of Paul's letters, (although such a date may well be true), the most it can do is argue for a 1st century date for at least some of the letters.

(On the substantive question of the origin of the term Christian, I think it originated in Nero's Rome rather than earlier in Antioch as in Acts. The limited usage of the term in the NT is IMHO a problem if the term was in widespread use before 50 CE.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Roger, it is more than Bauer. For instance, why does the community at Harran in Osroene think that Paul is the Paraclete? This is a known Marcionite position (Origen Homilies on Luke). There are a lot of bizarre opinions in the Acts of Archelaus which I think can be attributed to Marcionitism. FWIW I am contacting Laval University to get Titus of Bostra's many statements about the Marcionites which I think will have some relevance to the discussion. I thought I had it in the bag yesterday but will have to wait. I will share them with you when and if I get them (for your private use). Her publication of the material from Latin and Armenian has been delayed again to 2014. 'Improving the translation' is the excuse.

stephan huller

But thanks for all that information. Scholars often act as the prosecutor who doesn't have to worry about the penalty of suppressing evidence. I think that's a universal short coming of scholarship not just Bauer.

And about the term Christianoi. How do you explain the apostles gathering together in Antioch and using a name derived from Latin - Christianus? I've never understood that. I am not being difficult. I just find it odd.

aa5874

I have already shown that writings in the 2nd century did NOT mention the term Christian when the author himself was a Christian and it was claimed he had a version of the Christian story of Jesus called the Diatessaron.

See Tatian's "Discourse to the Greeks"--No mention of "Christians"

See Revelation--No mention of Christians.

See gLuke--No mention of Christians

See gMatthew--No mention of Christians.

See the Pastorals--No mention of Christians.

See all the non-Pauline Epistles--No mention of Christians.

In addition there is no mention of "Christians" in Justin Martyr's:

1. Hortatory Address to the Greeks

2. On the Resurrection.

3. Discourse to the Greeks.

4. On the Sole Government of God.

It is clear that the claim that Pauline writings were early because they did not mention "Christians" is flawed.

Writings from those who called themselves Christians in the 2nd century did not mention Christians even though they supposedly lived 100 years after Nero.

Roger Pearse

I haven't heard of this one: what's the source?

mountainman

I have an answer to this question, but you would not like it.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Just go away. No one cares what you have to say.

mountainman

It may be related to Stephan's blog: The Coming of the Paraclete - Paul and Mani in the Acts of Archelaus of Hegemonius and Titus of Bostra

If so, it may be the text of Acts of the Disputation with Manes (Archelaus).






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Roger Pearse

I agree: that seems to be what is in question.

The ANF translation of this text is here. Let's look at it...

Not finding it. Mani claims to be the paraclete; Mani (the heretic) states that the paraclete dwelled in Paul. But ... "the community at Harran in Osroene think that Paul is the Paraclete"?