avi

Hi Pete!
I again mention Arius of Alexandria, not to beat spin's dead horse, but, because he fulfills your criterion:

Prior to Nicea, he was an orthodox Christian, and so far as I understand, he was NOT spouting off rubbish against Marcion, or anyone else.

Arius was so much in favor within the organized church, that he was invited to instruct Constantine's children, and as a result of that exposure, upon the death of his father, the eldest (surviving) son became emperor, and promptly reversed Nicea, and trinitarianism went out the door, and Arius was restored to his proper place on the pedestal, though he was, by then, dead, probably by assassination.

Though none of Marcion's works survive, we are bombarded daily on the forum with "marcion said this...", or "marcion said that...", as though his written works yet remain in our consciousness.

As far as I am concerned, Arius of Alexandria is about the only person, from that era, whose writings make any sense, at all. I agree, we really have only conjecture, not actual data from him, but, that's the same for most of these early fellas, isn't it?

avi

mountainman

Quite true.

Without going through the long exercise, which I may yet do, I would tend to think that although there may be some exceptions, most of the "Early Christian sources" before Nicaea, may be categorised as "heresiologists", and the more important the sources are, the more heresiological is the author. (Here I have Eusebius and Irenaeus etc in mind). After Nicaea, all Christian sources are able to be immediately categorised as "heresiological".



One issue is if it is a valid statement that both "Early and Late Christian Orthodoxy" has been essentially defined by heresiological authors, then it seems to follow that the earliest christian orthodoxy was derived by an iterative process of exclusion.

Toto

Huh?

Orthodoxy was ultimately derived by the civil authorities banging heads together.

mountainman

Hi avi,

While this is possible, the case of Arius is a very special one for a number of reasons. I agree that we do not seem to have any record of Arius espousing the standard routine heretical polemic against anyone, but while the writings of all the prior christians were at that time preserved in Eusebius, the writings of Arius were subject to both destruction and damnatio memoriae.


You may be confusing Arius and Lactantius.


Modern analysis suggests that at the basis of Arius's philosophy were the Neoplatonic developments of Plotinus. According to one author:

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

I think this is why the fragments of Arius make any sense. Not because of anything "christian".


No. Not really. Eusebius seems to preserve the "necessary data" from all the Christians that Eusebius deemed relevant. None of these sources were destroyed or burnt or the subject of imperial damnatio memoriae. Data about Arius is not really in the same category.

However, here the OP is looking at all these "christian sources" that Eusebius presents, and is asking to what extent may the entire set of authors be regarded as "heresiological". Orthodoxy seems to have been historically defined by a process of defining opposing segments of the populace as heretics.

Doug Shaver

I suspect that none of them didn't think that people who disagreed with them were mistaken, if that's what you mean.

avi

Thanks Doug. I am not certain that I follow your idea, because of a limitation in my ability to follow double negatives.

I think you are suggesting that in ancient times, most folks practicing their particular brand of Christianity imagined that everyone else, not following their practice, were living in error.

I suppose you are correct, however, I think that there was a much more serious dimension to this issue.

In my opinion, early Christians killed "heretics".

I don't agree with you, that it was simply a question of regarding non-believers as erroneous, but rather that heretics represented a threat, and required disposal....

avi

Doug Shaver

In holding that opinion, you have lots of company.

mountainman

So to what extent are the early christian sources simply polemical heresiological sources, the primary purpose of which may have been to combat various shall we say "adverse or antichristian opinions" about the historical jesus. These opinions are in the realm of intellect and polemic. But were they really discussed by Papias and Hegeesippus et al, and documented in ancient history as disclosed in Eusebius's history of the "Church" before Nicaea? Or were they just a pistache of Eusebian opinions, with retrojected dates, on a scale comparable to the hundred odd false sources (and corresponding false anti-sources) that are found in the 4th century fabrication "Historia Augusta"?


We have virtually zero history and 100% heresiological polemic. The purposes of the sources is to define orthodoxy against heretics. But when did the opinions about the historical Jesus really matter?

Surely to Christ, wouldn't that have been the time he was raised up from obscurity into the political spotlight by Constantine?



It does not appear to be possible to differentiate between an "Early Christian source" and an "Early Heresiological source" because the new testament itself has major heresiological dispensations built into it.

The new testament may therefore have been designed for heresiological purposes directly related to the spread of public opinions concerning their belief (or heaven forbid, their disbelief and unbeleif) in the historical Jesus representation in the (canonical) books of the NT.

mountainman

Yes, Ignatius looks to be untouched by the taint of heresiology, although I have not read through everything purported to be from the mind of "Ignatius". As a source, "Ignatius" may represent one of the relatively small percentage of christian authors in this non heresiological class. It would appear in general however, that the larger percentage of christian sources in Eusebius's pre-Nicaean antiquity, are able to be classified, to varying degrees, as heresiologists. They expressed their opinions on how the heretics deviated from the orthodox.

Once Nicaea happens however, without exception, all Christian sources become excessively vexious and authoritarian heresiological mouthpieces. I guess the OP is heading towards a general question, and this is not a joke question ....


What's the difference between an "Early Orthodox Christian" and an "Early Orthodox Heresiologist"?

stephan huller

If you would have asked - what early Christian text does not find detractors, I think the answer would be none. Even Ignatius has been interpolated and modern scholars recognize that (with respect to the longer recension). The Evangelium, Apostolikon and Acts have detractors. The Apocalypse etc.