vid

In texts of "orthodox" (or "proto-orthodox") christians, we often find names for "herectical" sects of christians: docetists, gnostics, etc... Do we find any such names for "orthodox" christians in any quotation or extant document form "heretics"?

mountainman

What about "chrestians"?




Also, Emperor Julian actually legislated (c.361 CE) that they be called Galilaeans.
AFAIK he was the first to use that term to describe the "nation of othodox christians"

Toto

We mostly know about the heretics because writers like Irenaeus labeled them, discussed their theories, and tried to refute them. We have very few documents from the heretics themselves.

mountainman

What about the Nag Hammadi codices and the entire corpus of new testament non canonical literature (the cross that walked and talked its way out of the tomb, etc), and recently discovered Syriac documents over the last 200 years, and the gJudas, etc

vid

Not exactly what I meant, but good one Also "chreistians" or something like that too, in one of {Vaticanus, Sinaticus}

Can you point me to more precise source please? Preferably online or quotation.

Yeah, I just wondered if we don't have it in any such quotation, or mentioned in attack on heretics. Imperial decree, or one of few extant texts is another possible source.

Toto

We have these, but they do not seem to spend their energy attacking the proto-orthodox or inventing names for them.

Chrestians might have referred to the gnostics.

Julian, of course, was not a heretic, but an apostate.

DCHindley

I think Birger Pearson, who works with Nag-Hammadi Gnostic texts, has provided examples of gnostics bad-mouthing other gnostics, and maybe orthodox. I'll see if I can find it.

"Orthodox," which means "straight practicing" (or "right minded"), was the name that Christians as we know them called themselves in Justin's times. See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 80:2. The author of Acts says early Jewish Christians called their party "The Way" (presumably "the way of the Lord" as in what Elijah was said to tell people to prepare). The author of Acts also admits that the name "Christian" was first applied to them in Syrian Antioch.

DCH

mountainman

Additional and unauthorised gospels and acts of the (ahem!) "chrestian apostles" and their leader, mimic the canon.

IMO Julian, of course, was not a heretic, but a non-christian (or pagan, if you prefer). He was educated and brought up by Arians (ie: followers of the views of Arius). That Julian was an "apostate" is just another smear tactic by the christian historians, and their hangers-on. He describes his "house-arrest" by "christians" until his freedom. What type of consensus exists on this old assertion that "was Julian an apostate"?

mountainman

From Gregory Nazianzen, "Julian the Emperor" (1888). Oration 4: First Invective Against Julian.

mountainman

Dear vid,

This is really a very interesting question. It highlights the fact that we are looking at history presented as a moebius strip with both sides being twisted and presented by the proto-orthodox christians. This is not a healthy state. A true and proper history should be able to have two clear independent and untwisted sides - in this case the history of the orthodox christians, and the history of those who were deemed to be the non-orthodox.

We appear to be missing the history of the gnostics and docetists , etc. If I might also add, we appear to be also missing the accounts of Hellenistic academics and priests of the ancient temple networks which were ubiquitous in the Roman empire c.324 CE --- we might call these collectively the pagans. We appear to be missing a pagan history of the period concerning the rise of the orthodox over the pagans, from the persepctive of the pagans.

At a pinch we might cite Porphyry who was reported to have written that the evangelists were inventors, and similar aphorisms aimed at the orthodox. Porphyry was certainly targetted as a heretic, as was that Porphyrian Arius of Alexandria.

Best wishes,


Pete