mountainman

Hi stephan,

Thanks for that comment. I am meditating on the distinction between being a detractor and being an heresiologist. Let's put the class of secondary interpolators and redactors for one minute to the side, and look at the source books which were in theory preserved for centuries with the status: under dispute.

I guess the common trading ground is always able to be reduced to opinions about the orthodoxy status of books, fanning out in all directions from the four books of the gospels, the books of Paul's epistles, the book of Acts a few other books as letters, and a book called "The Shepherd of Hermas", which did not make the final "Canonization Party", held very soon after Emperor Julian's untimely death.

The voice of "Early Christian History" are the voices of the orthodox new testament book following brigade, detracting from the heretics, who happened to for some other reason, follow the voice of Plato et al, that would have been commonly found in any Greek bookstore in Rome or Alexandria or any other major cities in the Roman Empire.

We cant say the same about the books of the new testament, can we?
How far underground were the heresiological detractors of the heretics?
The Master Heresiologist Eusebius is a little like a puppet master.

""Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself
the merit of having invented ecclesiastical history.
This merit cannot be disputed." ... [AM]

What's the real difference between Christian heresiological history and Christian ecclesiastical history?


Best wishes


Pete