The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:04 am ... I think we can see Rome as the center of 'orthodox' Christian worship from 180 CE onward with Alexandria effectively becoming Rome's rival in the period. To be honest the situation with Trump and Putin today mirrors how I think Alexandria functioned in the period. There was a deep history in Alexandria. Demetrius was a foreigner who was somehow placed in charge of the Alexandrian church (a Roman plant?). The calculation of Easter probably was established there first but Hippolytus represents an attempt at Roman appropriation https://books.google.com/books?id=0umDq ... 22&f=false. I think Arianism in some respects is the last vestige of that 'demonization' of Alexandria.
That is interesting. Arianism v 'orthodox' Christianity may be more than we have been led to believe.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:04 am As the fourth century continued after Nicaea I am not sure that Rome held the same level of influence. Perhaps this was owing eventually to the influence of Constantine's Byzantium. But it would be wrong to look to the fourth century as a time of strong Roman-centric Christianity.
As I alluded to in another response post above: 'Rome' --40-50 yrs before Nicea-- was near Nicea, as Nova Roma. It went to Nicomedia around ~284 CE, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up), and moved around a bit, including accounts of it also being in Nicea, before Constantine move it to Byzantium.

The fourth century was the time of strongest Roman-centric Christianity.

In trying to determining what really happened in the development of Christianity it would seem to best to work back from the early 4th century; to predominantly work back from when Byzantium became Constantinople.

See the bottom of page 1 of this thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 634#p89634

.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ulan »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:13 am
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:04 am As the fourth century continued after Nicaea I am not sure that Rome held the same level of influence. Perhaps this was owing eventually to the influence of Constantine's Byzantium. But it would be wrong to look to the fourth century as a time of strong Roman-centric Christianity.
As I alluded to in another response post above: 'Rome' --40-50 yrs before Nicea-- was near Nicea, as Nova Roma. It went to Nicomedia around ~284 CE, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up), and moved around a bit, including accounts of it also being in Nicea, before Constantine move it to Byzantium.
Rome had mostly lost its administrative functions in the late third century. It was officially stripped of the title "capital" in 330, when the Roman capital was officially moved to Constantinople. Even before that, the Empire was mostly ruled from other places. Constantine had been doing that from Milan for a long time. The important part of Constantine's move was that he managed to persuade half of the Roman nobility to move to the new capital. The Roman bishop basically got a building that was of no use anymore.

I had already stated it before, but all seven ecumenical councils between 325 and 787 were either in Constantinople itself (3 times), directly outside of Constantinople (twice Nicaea, once Chalcedon) and once in Asia Minor (Ephesos). Even in the church, the city of Rome was marginalized to some extent. Of course, left to themselves, the bishops of Rome could build their legend mostly away from official eyes. They could seize power when Rome's population had dropped to 30,000 shortly after the year 500.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:49 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius.
Agreed. The list evinces a break after Anicetus. So somebody (let us call him Hegesippus) listed bishops down to Anicetus, and somebody else (let us call him Irenaeus) added Soter and Eleutherus.
The name Soter makes me suspicious. It would seem to be out of place.
Sextus and a couple more from the early going are very suspicious to me. But please expand on Soter, since you pick him out in particular.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
I think you're drawing some long bows, Ben.
In what way(s) am I exaggerating?
How many Christian Dionysiuses are duplicates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius#Before_1000_AD
From that list? I imagine none of them, unless you have something on one or more of them.
Key Christian 'witnesses' like Tertullian and Irenaeus being on the other side or the far end of the Mediterranean seems anomalous
In what way?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

It is worth noting a few other 'Roman centric' details and the general neo-mountainman tendencies of Mr McSon. The Romans first ordering of the Pauline epistles (we see evidence of a Galatians first and Corinthians first canon ordering. Given that Roman centered Pauline ordering likely took place IMHO by someone trying to emphasize Roman superiority in the Church it can't have taken place in the age of Constantine. There is nothing to support that. The manuscript tradition behind Tertullian's Against Marcion doesn't know anything of a Romans first canon. It is ostensibly developed around the Galatians first canon of Ephrem. But there are signs in other books of the Corinthians first canon of the Muratorian canon. The point is that whatever date you give for the Romans first canon you have to also account for two other orderings of the Pauline material too and two different orders in one textual tradition - Tertullian Against Marcion. As I noted elsewhere many times the intro to Against Marcion makes mention of at least two other versions of the MS in circulation at the time of publication. That five volume book clearly has its third book - a rough adaptation of a common lost source to Against the Jews (by Tertullian) almost 'rammed' into the current edition and clearly written by the same man who wrote the intro noting two other editions in circulation (the end of Book Two clearly 'runs on' into the discussion at the beginning of Book Four). The point is that even though Against Marcion went through this last minute editing it still:

1. doesn't know a Romans first ordering of the Pauline canon. This can't mean a late third century dating for the rewrites. If the author was 'correcting' the material you'd figure he'd end up with something at least similar to Epiphanius's reworking in this direction. He basically took a composite four volume edition, made some corrections, possibly translated the four volume edition from Greek into Latin (given the number of Greek words that keep popping up untranslated in the MS) rammed an altered text from Justin with superficial 'Marcion' contextualization but did not adapt Book 5 so as to reflect a Romans first canon or the recognition of differences between Marcion's canon and his (like Epiphanius did). When could this have taken place? When you look at the parallel text to Against Marcion Book 3 (Against the Jews) the ur-text is very old so the copy could have been made at any time after the middle of the second century (the traditional date of Justin). But if you want to argue that that's wrong and Justin wasn't that early or fictional or whatever other craziness you want you still have to explain the two layers of Pauline letter ordering (Galatians first in Book Five and references to Corinthians first in Book 4). Even if you argue that either the Galatians first or the Corinthians first isn't a different layer to the text but reflective of the Marcionite canon you necessarily add another generation to the existence of Christianity - meaning that the Marcionites if for instance had a Galatians first canon and the orthodox Corinthians first (or vice versa) you have at the very least + 20 years (a generation) for the existence of two different orderings of Paul (you can't argue that the same orthodox communities had two different orders of Paul's letters) plus another generation (+ 20 years) to develop the Roman first canon. So let's say for argument sake an ur-Corinthians first Pauline canon, + 20 years for the Galatians canon and then + 20 years for the Romans first canon = 60 years at the very least. Now what's the latest date possible for the four volume Against Marcion? It can't be the last generation of the third century as Marcion wasn't a concern then. It can't be the period between 238 - 260 CE because the Empire was collapsing and under threat. A document like this specifically reference a figure who lived in the second century wouldn't have been created then. The five volume Against Marcion has to be before 238 CE. The four volume text had to have been created at the latest 20 years earlier. Therefore 218 CE. At the very least then a text referencing a Galatians first ordering for the Pauline letter in Book Five and a Corinthians first ordering (like the Muratorian letters) in Book Four and a subsequent Romans first ordering puts us into the late second century.

2. the uniformity of Christianity. I know that the neo-mountainman adherents like to imagine the Imperial government 'imposing' a Palestinian religion on to the masses. But this is insane. It didn't take place this way. What happened clearly was the creation of (a) a new book (b) a mystery religion developed around its exegesis and then (c) generations of arguments about its proper interpretation and accompanying textual manipulation to reinforce the dominant 'orthodoxy' that results. By the time of the Council of Nicaea we see no reporting of violent debate regarding textual variation or even the proper exegesis of the literature. This has all pretty much been settled in the previous centuries. What we see instead is a debate about whether 2 divine hypostases can be taken to be fully monarchic or absolutely monotheistic. This is a different kind of debate entirely. It is simply idiocy to argue that Against Marcion could have been created in the fourth century. The world had moved beyond these concerns. Whoever wrote the text didn't 'know' that the Pauline canon began with Romans and was instead fixated on debating an individual or individuals who had a completely different textual tradition related to the gospel, the Pauline epistles and the composition of the canon. We can't be talking about one generation or even three generations (given the complete absence of 'history' between 238 and 260 CE). Since it makes no sense to place Against Marcion even at 260 CE we necessarily again confirm a dating of the document before the great black hole which was 238 CE.

I don't know why you keep falling back to the neo-mountainman worldview. It is stupid and ill informed. I think it has something to do with intellectual laziness on your part or a brute 'will' which simply wants to ignore all the historical evidence which makes pure 'mythicism' unlikely at the beginning of Christianity. But the bottom line is that despite the lack of great textual information about early Christianity we know that it existed at least as early as the middle of the second century. No doubts about this.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ulan wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:35 am
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:13 am As I alluded to in another response post above: 'Rome' --40-50 yrs before Nicea-- was near Nicea, as Nova Roma. It went to Nicomedia around ~284 CE, I think (I can't be bothered looking it up), and moved around a bit, including accounts of it also being in Nicea, before Constantine move it to Byzantium.
Rome had mostly lost its administrative functions in the late third century.
Yes, though a significant issue is the whole empire was and had been undergoing variable administration, largely b/c of variable regional issues.

It was officially stripped of the title "capital" in 330, when the Roman capital was officially moved to Constantinople. Even before that, the Empire was mostly ruled from other places.
Yes, I stated that here, and have elsewhere on this forum. Whether "Constantine had been doing that from Milan for a long time."

The Roman bishop basically got a building that was of no use anymore.
Was there a significant Roman bishopric?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am Agreed. The list evinces a break after Anicetus. So somebody (let us call him Hegesippus) listed bishops down to Anicetus, and somebody else (let us call him Irenaeus) added Soter and Eleutherus.
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:49 amThe name Soter makes me suspicious. It would seem to be out of place.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am Sextus and a couple more from the early going are very suspicious to me. But please expand on Soter, since you pick him out in particular.
Soter derives from the Greek epithet σωτήρ (sōtēr), meaning a saviour, a deliverer. It would seem to be a name more aligned with theHellenistic religions of the time. Soter has been used as:
  • as a title of gods: Poseidon Soter, Zeus Soter, Dionysus Soter, Apollo Soter, Athena Soteria, Asclepius Soteri, and Hecate Soteria.
  • as the name of a distinct mythical figure, Soter (daimon)
  • any heroized or deified leaders of Hellenistic dynasties
    • Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt (reigned 323-283 BCE)
    • a couple of Soters of the Seleucid Empire BCE
    • a few Indo-Greek kings of the 1st century BCE
  • a title of Jesus of Nazareth, most particularly in the fish acronym
It is said that the name given to 'Pope Soter', said to have been the Bishop of Rome from c. 167 to his death c. 174, would have been a baptismal name, as his lifetime predates the tradition of adopting papal names.

---------------------------------------
MrMacSon wrote:How many Christian Dionysiuses are duplicates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius#Before_1000_AD
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am From that list? I imagine none of them, unless you have something on one or more of them.
Some of these are likely to be duplicates. Some are likely to be legends -
  • Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenian judge who was converted by Paul of Tarsus and became 'Bishop of Athens'
  • Dionysius of Vienne, d. 193, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 2nd-century bishop
  • Faustus, Abibus and Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 250, three Christian martyrs
  • Dionysius, 3rd-century Christian martyr and saint, noted in Theodore, Philippa and companions
  • Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, 3rd-century Egyptian bishop
  • Pope Dionysius, 259–268
    • said to have demanded from the bishop of Alexandria, also called Dionysius, on the protest of some of 'the faithful' at Alexandria, explanations concerning his doctrine regarding the relation of God to the Logos, which 'was satisfied'.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am 2. the uniformity of Christianity. I know that the neo-mountainman adherents like to imagine the Imperial government 'imposing' a Palestinian religion on to the masses. But this is insane. It didn't take place this way.
  • I agree.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am What happened clearly was the creation of (a) a new book (b) a mystery religion developed around its exegesis and then (c) generations of arguments about its proper interpretation and accompanying textual manipulation to reinforce the dominant 'orthodoxy' that results.
  • I would say 'a mystery religion' certainly developed in the 2nd century, but what it's nature was then and into the 3rd century is worth questioning.
  • I agree there were generations of arguments about its proper interpretation and accompanying textual manipulation to reinforce the dominant 'orthodoxy' that results.
  • But what "new book" ??

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am By the time of the Council of Nicaea we see no reporting of violent debate regarding textual variation or even the proper exegesis of the literature. This has all pretty much been settled in the previous centuries.
  • Huh??!

Fixed this for you
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am What we see [at Nicea and throughout the rest of the 4th C., and beyond] instead is [includes] a debate about whether 2 divine hypostases can be taken to be fully monarchic or absolutely monotheistic.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am It is simply idiocy to argue that Against Marcion could have been created in the fourth century.
  • I agree (though it is not impossible)

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am Whoever wrote the text didn't 'know' that the Pauline canon began with Romans and was instead fixated on debating an individual or individuals who had a completely different textual tradition related to the gospel, the Pauline epistles and the composition of the canon. We can't be talking about one generation or even three generations (given the complete absence of 'history' between 238 and 260 CE). Since it makes no sense to place Against Marcion even at 260 CE we necessarily again confirm a dating of the document before the great black hole which was 238 CE.
  • Fair enough.

Regarding "the general neo-mountainman tendencies of Mr McSon" and
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am I don't know why you keep falling back to the neo-mountainman worldview. It is stupid and ill informed. I think it has something to do with intellectual laziness on your part or a brute 'will' which simply wants to ignore all the historical evidence which makes pure 'mythicism' unlikely at the beginning of Christianity.
  • 10/10 for "neo-mountainman tendencies" and "the neo-mountainman worldview" . . . . :P
  • But the rest of your commentary about me and my propositions and arguments are misrepresentations and thus strawman fallacies, and are bordering on gaslighting.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 am But the bottom line is that despite the lack of great textual information about early Christianity we know that it existed at least as early as the middle of the second century. No doubts about this.
  • I agree. It is what its various natures were that is the issue.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:39 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am Surely a Roman episcopal list was added to Hegesippus. Hegesippus's narrative originally concluded in episcopate of Anicetus in the 147 CE. A Roman episcopal list was brought down to Eleutherius.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am Agreed. The list evinces a break after Anicetus. So somebody (let us call him Hegesippus) listed bishops down to Anicetus, and somebody else (let us call him Irenaeus) added Soter and Eleutherus.
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:49 amThe name Soter makes me suspicious. It would seem to be out of place.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am Sextus and a couple more from the early going are very suspicious to me. But please expand on Soter, since you pick him out in particular.
Soter derives from the Greek epithet σωτήρ (sōtēr), meaning a saviour, a deliverer.
Yes....
It would seem to be a name more aligned with theHellenistic religions of the time. Soter has been used as:
  • as a title of gods: Poseidon Soter, Zeus Soter, Dionysus Soter, Apollo Soter, Athena Soteria, Asclepius Soteri, and Hecate Soteria.
  • as the name of a distinct mythical figure, Soter (daimon)
  • any heroized or deified leaders of Hellenistic dynasties
    • Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt (reigned 323-283 BCE)
    • a couple of Soters of the Seleucid Empire BCE
    • a few Indo-Greek kings of the 1st century BCE
  • a title of Jesus of Nazareth, most particularly in the fish acronym
It is said that the name given to 'Pope Soter', said to have been the Bishop of Rome from c. 167 to his death c. 174, would have been a baptismal name, as his lifetime predates the tradition of adopting papal names.
Well, if Soter was his baptismal name, what would be the issue?

---------------------------------------
MrMacSon wrote:Some of these are likely to be duplicates. Some are likely to be legends -
  • Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenian judge who was converted by Paul of Tarsus and became 'Bishop of Athens'
  • Dionysius of Vienne, d. 193, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 2nd-century bishop
  • Faustus, Abibus and Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 250, three Christian martyrs
  • Dionysius, 3rd-century Christian martyr and saint, noted in Theodore, Philippa and companions
  • Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, 3rd-century Egyptian bishop
  • Pope Dionysius, 259–268
    • said to have demanded from the bishop of Alexandria, also called Dionysius, on the protest of some of 'the faithful' at Alexandria, explanations concerning his doctrine regarding the relation of God to the Logos, which 'was satisfied'.
Which ones do you think are duplicates, and why?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

The point is here that we get a pretty good sense of one thing - that orthodoxy as we know it seems to have an attachment with Rome and something like the orthodoxy we now know existed from the late second century. Beyond that I don't think that much more is discernible. Irenaeus seems to be the spokesman of this new tradition or at least the texts associated with this name. The Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp say that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's death (c. 162 CE). The context seems to be that he was writing in Rome the details associated with this martyrdom. I tend to believe this association between Irenaeus and Rome. I am not sure that the Martyrdom of Polycarp was written the minute he died. Perhaps it came from a general knowledge of Irenaeus's whereabouts. Why else and how else would Irenaeus have influenced Victor and had it in for Florinus? I don't believe the worldwide Church was 'off the ground' yet.

What else do we know to be true at this time? Persecutions in southern Gaul. Perhaps Irenaeus's reporting led to the assumption he was there. He seems to have also been a spokesman for the Asian church which might date back to Polycarp. I don't really know what to make of that. The reporting about Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus is the oldest real 'thing' we have about Christianity and a historical Christian personality. It is difficult to get much color from the account. We know there was Christianity in Greece and Asia Minor in the middle of the second century. What it looked like, who knows beyond the fact that a lunatic like Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus could 'make it' big. If the account of Lucian is to be believed there was also Christianity in Syria and Egypt at this time. This widespread nature of Christianity c. 150 CE implies an existence at the beginning of the century too. Beyond that who knows.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Well, if Soter was his baptismal name, what would be the issue?
It doesn't seem to be a common Greek name of that era.

---------------------------------------
MrMacSon wrote:Some of these are likely to be duplicates. Some are likely to be legends -
  • Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenian judge who was converted by Paul of Tarsus and became 'Bishop of Athens'
  • Dionysius of Vienne, d. 193, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 2nd-century bishop
  • Faustus, Abibus and Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 250, three Christian martyrs
  • Dionysius, 3rd-century Christian martyr and saint, noted in Theodore, Philippa and companions
  • Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, 3rd-century Egyptian bishop
  • Pope Dionysius [of Rome], 259–268
    • said to have demanded from the bishop of Alexandria, also called Dionysius, on the protest of some of 'the faithful' at Alexandria, explanations concerning his doctrine regarding the relation of God to the Logos, which 'was satisfied'.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:36 pm Which ones do you think are duplicates [or legends], and why?
a. one [or both] of the Popes: all these Popes seems unlikely, and the fact little is ascribed to each of them in a supposedly fast developing church. They don't seem to be associated with many people.

b. one [or both] of the martyrs: The martyr thing is overdone as the likes of Candida Moss has argued/shown.

c. one or both of Dionysius of Vienne, Bishop of Vienne, Gaul and/or Dionysius, 2nd C. Bishop of Corinth: both places seem to be outliers in a scant 2nd C church
Post Reply