jakejonesiv

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for the exposition on Marcion's gospel and what all. You have certainly established yourself as the go-to guy for anything FRDB. Rand Paul could only wish for your stamina. Which makes the following a bit uncomforable for me to ask. But it keeps bugging me that the briliant guy who wrote "Against Polycarp" could also write something so dubious as the book mentioned below.

I need your help to clear it up. A few years ago, you published The Real Messiah and I got an email from you personally (or someone pretending to be you) urging me to purchase the book. Still have the email on my other server. (Maybe it was that tricky guy 'Peter Moratto.')

You wrote in the book, right here on Google Books,

He was of Galilean ancestry known to us as Jesus....One Christian sect in antiquity was associated with this position -- the community of the 'Marcionites' or Marqionai in the original Aramaic, whose name is properly rendered in English as 'the followers of Mark.' These ancient 'heretics' happen also to be consistently identified as being 'addicted' to astrology and sky-watching.

In the Church Father Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, who gives us our first clue that this community that 'prefered' Mark's emphasised that Jesus was not the Christ. His successors tell us that the same 'followers of Mark' cited seemingly familiar gospel passages with slightly amended punctuation, grammatical emphasis or missing words. The overall effect of these changes was that they reflected an understanding that Jesus denied he was the Messiah -- he came as a herald for someone else.

The Real Messiah, The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), Stephan Huller, Watkins Publishing, London, 2009. ISBN: 978-1-907486-64-7

:constern01: That is more than a little fuzzy.

Why do you say the followers of Marcion followed gMark rather than a version of Luke? You appeal to "Church Father Irenaeus," but Irenaeus tells us that the Marcionites had Luke.

What is this about Marqiona being the "original Aramaic" for Marcion. Where can I find this original Aramaic text?

I notice you also professed a belief for the historical Jesus, but that he was a forerunner for someone else, I am guessing you mean Marcus Julius Agrippa who sat on a teeny tiny throne (allegedly). Do you still stand by this tiny little throne business? It is still on your website, http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-article-on-throne-of-st-mark-has.html

The dubious relic is the minature chair, the so-called "Throne of St. Mark" found in the Basilica San Marco in Venice.(pp 6-7).
Or maybe it isn't, :huh: It was placed in Venice in 1457 from Grado, but it is not the reliquery chair of St. Mark which Heraclius gave to the patriarch of Grado in 630, which was covered in ivory plates. _Early Christian chapels in the west_ By Gillian Vallance Mackie, page 277. You fuzz over the facts on page 167 of the book, first mentioning the fable that these two thrones were the same, and then continuing "Whatever association Heraclius may or may not have had with the throne ..." Do you insinuate that the tiny chair has a pedigree more ancient than the evidence will bear?

"... it would be very hard for a serious scholar to *deny* that the Throne of St. Mark was constructed with a specific mystical function ..." [emphasis in original]. page 181.

Your theory of the origins of Christianity fails if the identification of this relic is incorrect. (If anyone objects to the term "theory," please see the bottom of page 8, where you wrote "...my existing theory about the origins of St. Mark...") You admit that this theory depends on the so-called Throne on page 9, as the tangible evidence without which you cannot express your ideas to other people in a meaningful way.

The only "history" of this dubious relic is given on pages 5-6 and 166-167 (see the index),

"Where the throne went and what tumultuos events happned around it, we can never know. ... The details of both the throne and the relics are sketchy ... only legend remains .... What is probably true ... remains a mystery." page 6.

According to pages 200-201, "The Throne of St. Mark is a tangible testimony to what happened after Jesus' self sacrifice. It was created very early in story of the emerging faith - a little over one year after the crucifixion."

OK, I am going to stop right here. This is an extrodinary claim that needs to be backed up by rigorous archelogical and scientific evidence.

So my question is, was this book published without your knowledge?

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

As I have mentioned many times before here - I have never promoted the book in the years I have been here. Part of that is because of the fact that book was written in 2006 and published in 2008 and my ideas are always changing. Part of that is because the publisher deleted all the accompanying appendices that were necessary for the book to make sense. Part of that is because they limited my footnotes to 500. Part of that is because some of the ideas were ill conceived.

When you actually have an original thought and publish something I am sure you will understand.

You should know the many references to the Marcionites as astrologers. The passage is a paraphrase of Tertullian Against Marcion Book 1 Chapter 18:

The Marcionites are very strongly addicted to astrology; nor do they blush to get their livelihood by help of the very stars which were made by the Creator

In the Church Father Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, who gives us our first clue that this community that 'prefered' Mark's emphasised that Jesus was not the Christ.

The understanding that the Marcionite held that Jesus was not the Christ is well established. I don't think I need to show you those passages (unless you want me to).

Do you have an issue that that? That seems fairly straightforward.

I have maintained here to this day that when Mani goes to Osrhoene in the Acts of Archelaus and appeals his message to 'Marcellus' the corrupt Latin translation of a lost Greek original took Marcion to be a diminutive form of Marcus and translated (deliberately) as Marcellus. I do not believe that Jesus claimed to be the Christ. Anyone who takes Marcionitism seriously will have to accommodate himself to the use of the term 'Chrestos' in the tradition. The understanding can be supported by the many reports of the Marcionite interpretation of various gospel passages as well as other statements in the Patriarchs and especially Tertullian.

The supposition that Marcus Agrippa is Marcion is of course unsupported by any of the Christian evidence, but the rabbinic evidence supports the idea that Agrippa was dualistic Christian heretic. Does this mean that I now believe that Agrippa was the historical Marcion? No certainly not. I am more inclined to suppose that 'Marcion' was - as I have noted earlier - the equivalent of Clemention, Homereion and the like - i.e. a collection of writings associated with Mark which differed in some significant way from the normative version of the texts. Nevertheless the information about Agrippa as a Christian dualist deserves more attention. Against Apion references him as an expert in Greek philosophy. Acts says the same and his secretary Justus is cited as an authority on Plato in a much later period.

Philosophumena Book 7 chapter 18 among other reasons.

But Irenaeus also mentions a longer variant text of the Gospel of Mark (AH 3.11.7) and the Philosophumena is a version of the same tradition that survives as Against Heresies. Even if Hippolytus edited the material, it is an important variant which may go back to Justin's lost Syntagma and perhaps witnesses an earlier argument identify Marcion as the author of a longer gospel of Mark (cf). Also the phrasing in Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 speaks of an ambiguous 'others' after the initial mention of the Marcionites use of Luke. The order of the gospels are in the wrong order (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John). Perhaps Irenaeus couldn't make up his mind or Against Heresies was an amended of original lectures of Irenaeus (cf. Photius).

There are testimonies in Syriac which make reference to the name 'Marcion.' In those texts the name is spelled MRQYON'. Ephrem is one such source. Ephrem also makes reference to the unusual pronunciation of the name 'Jesus' (= Isu) among the Syriac speaking Marcionite. He also makes reference to the 'incorrect' preference that the Marcionites had for the Hebrew Bible over the Septuagint. At the time I was writing the book I was under the impression - based in no small part upon advice from my teacher Ruaridh Boid of Monash University - that Marcion could go back to an Aramaic construction. I have since changed my mind on that argument and argued for Marcion being the equivalent of Clemention, Homereion etc. Hilgenfeld offered up Marcion as a Greek diminutive of the name Marcus, a suggestion independently ascertained by my first professor of Aramaic at York University. Ephrem connects it with mrq. There may have been many explanations of the name including an attested personal name.

I wrote a peer reviewed article on the throne. After completing the process of getting that article published I am much happier to identify the throne as an earlier - perhaps the original - episcopal throne of Alexandria.

The article was published in the Journal of Coptic Studies because it has a solid argument. There are good reasons to believe that this is the throne mentioned in the Acts of Peter or one just like it. Birger Pearson liked my article. So too Marvin Meyer and many others.

The book unlike the article was an attempt at writing for a mass audience. Most people establish themselves as an authority on a subject and then - after earning the title of an 'authority' they embark on the task of taking their knowledge and wisdom and adapting it for a popular readership. There are reasons why that works better. I should have written the book after the article was published. Perhaps I could have waited even longer. The point is that what is done is done. There is no point looking back.

Of course that's true. The throne embodies the divine chariot which is the subject of Jewish mystical speculation and that of Christian Alexandria. How is that up for debate? Read Bucur's article on the secret at the heart of Clement's mystical speculation http://www.bgbucur.com/PDFuri/ClementJECS.pdf. The same thing as what I am suggesting.

That's silly. One can suffer from impotence in one's first sexual experience and then move on from there. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. If you worry too much about making mistakes you are liable to miss opportunities.

If the throne was a part of Alexandrian Christianity - as most everyone seems to think it does (why else would the Journal of Coptic Studies have published the article?). The idea that the throne was merely a reliquary was put forth by a scholar in the Sorbonne who also had a colleague - an expert in Punic inscriptions (!) - translate the inscription as having something to do with Jesus and donkeys (!!!). Since that time it has been established in subsequent articles that chair was actually sat upon. If the chair functioned as a throne then the idea that the mitred Patriarch of Alexandria sat on a symbol of the heavenly chariot is deeply significant, whether or not all the other stuff written in the book is true.

The book started as book I self-published and sent to various people and was an argument for Marcus Agrippa as St Mark. The publisher agreed to publish the book asked me to rewrite it. They rejected the first draft demanded I make changes to make it more popular. After emails went back and forth they agreed to the throne angle. I had basically a month to put the second draft together. Then they sent it to an 'editor.' But again had I not written the book I wouldn't have been able to publish my article in the Journal of Coptic Studies. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I don't know what to say.

It's an argument which was not included in my article for the Journal of Coptic Studies.

In life, when you get married and have children and you look back, there are a number of bittersweet memories and happy memories. It was thrilling to write the book. The book allowed me to work on a documentary, to get a trip to Venice, London and many European cities. The book allowed me to be published in a peer reviewed journal. The book also allowed me to make mistakes and get over it and clarify my ideas. All of these things are a part of my life and would have been impossible if I hadn't grabbed life by the balls and try to publish something. I've spent much of my early life doing nothing because I was afraid of failing. At some point I went in the opposite direction and decided that doing something - anything - is better than going through life doing nothing because nothing was good enough. In the end I think I made the right choice but then again it wouldn't matter what I thought. Life has moved on. I wouldn't have changed a thing in my life, the book included.

jakejonesiv

Stephan Huller wrote in the book,

He was of Galilean ancestry known to us as Jesus....One Christian sect in antiquity was associated with this position -- the community of the 'Marcionites' or Marqionai in the original Aramaic, whose name is properly rendered in English as 'the followers of Mark.' These ancient 'heretics' happen also to be consistently identified as being 'addicted' to astrology and sky-watching.

In the Church Father Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, who gives us our first clue that this community that 'prefered' Mark's emphasised that Jesus was not the Christ. His successors tell us that the same 'followers of Mark' cited seemingly familiar gospel passages with slightly amended punctuation, grammatical emphasis or missing words. The overall effect of these changes was that they reflected an understanding that Jesus denied he was the Messiah -- he came as a herald for someone else
The Real Messiah, The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), Stephan Huller, Watkins Publishing, London, 2009. ISBN: 978-1-907486-64-7.

GOOGLE books

The book misrepresented what Irenaeus said.

He is the quote from Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11.

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. Irenaeus, AH 3.11.7.

maryhelena

"You have certainly established yourself as the go-to guy for anything FRDB. "

Yep, FRDB has become a home from home for Stephan Huller.....and yet - Stephan has failed to bring along his literary history with him - and until now, nobody seems inclined to question him on The Real Messiah! Doherty gets his books examined in minute detail - and yet the 'go-to'guy' on FRDB, Stephan Huller, gets a free pass on his book....:huh: Either people on the forum are not interested in the ideas of Stephan Huller - or they just find the ideas in this book to be so 'out-there' that they give it a miss...

Maybe Stephan now finds what he wrote in that book to be embarrassing - which might explain his reluctance to offer the ideas within that book up for debate on FRDB...

I've noticed, since Stephan has been posting on FRDB, that his ideas on the gospel JC seem to have changed. i.e. in The Real Messiah, Jesus is a historical figure - and now, Stephan often writes as though he now believes Jesus is not historical but some kind of spirit that came down to earth from heaven.


For an author to state that his book is based on “hard facts and historical realities, not slender conjectures” - just after he has been reading the mind of an “eight or nine” year old Marcus Agrippa - boggles the mind with its failure to comprehend the nonsense he has just written.

If an author has so drastically changed his ideas since the publication of a book, what is the scholarly procedure? Do scholars issue retractions? As it now stands The Real Messiah is still being sold via amazon. (and being advertised on the author's website...) If it’s author no longer supports many of the ideas within that book - why continue to sell a book that cannot be supported with historical evidence? OK - many authors sell ideas that have no historical backing - just speculation. Ah, but this author is claiming to be seeking ‘truth’ etc......as he so often lets us all know here on FRDB. At the very least I would suggest that public retraction would be the honorable, scholarly, thing to be doing...

Consider George Wells:

Ideas develop. Our earlier ideas might not last the test of time. However, once our ideas are published, it is only fair to our readership to update or retract our published work when we no longer believe we are able to support it.

stephan huller

I don't understand what the difficulty here is. I said Irenaeus gives us a 'clue' especially when read in light of the Philosophumena 7:18 which is a development of some original Irenaeus compendium. The reference here is:

Who are those who separate Jesus from Christ if not the Marcionites who use the Gospel of Mark according to the Philosophumena? How do you reconcile the information? Oh let me guess - you have to ask Detering what he thinks. Can't have an original opinion of your own. You don't even have an original name. You don't even have one original idea after all those years at the Jesus Mystery forum.

stephan huller

And I have discussed this over and over at my blog since the publisher wouldn't allow me to have sufficient footnotes:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ce-to-two.html

And in that post I note that the pattern is inverted in the next paragraph:

And I think this passage has been corrected. 3.11.7 presents 'Marcion' and then 'others.' So too 3.11.9. The reason 3.11.8 had its order changed was because of the specific mention of 'the four gospels' at the very beginning. You can't have the order of gospels read Matthew, Luke, Mark and then John. That's why 'Marcion' and the 'others' were inverted here.

stephan huller

And in that same post I noted that Harnack identified Marcion as rejecting John from the same book. Moreover I continued:

stephan huller

The million dollar question is - who are these 'others' that are consistently placed beside Marcion (always in the singular) in the third book of Irenaeus's Against Heresies? I suggested in the book that they were Marcionites. I have heard it suggested that they might be Encratites. But I think the case is stronger that they are Marcionites because of what is written in the Philosophumena which as I have noted is related to the Irenaeus Against Heresies tradition. It does not necessarily stand to reason that Against Heresies is older than the Philosophumena. I see evidence that Irenaeus was not always armed with Luke for combat with the Marcionites.

stephan huller

And let me repeat I am not saying that every idea in that book is right. The point is that:

a) Watkins is not a scholarly publisher
b) that book was not intended as serious scholarship.

It's a lot like Stephen Carlson's book on Secret Mark. How could someone take a blown up image of a printed page in a book and try to claim that it showed a forger's tremor as the smoking gun for his case? There really is no difference here (save only for the fact that Baylor took him more seriously than he intended).

maryhelena

How about naming the wrong ideas in that book?