Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-06-2010, 06:28 PM

It was from the common υπομνηματα that was used by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius as well as Celsus. I have been thinking about this all day. In a previous thread I noted that the figure of Marcion bears a striking resemblance to the Carpocratian Marcellina. They both said to have arrived in Rome during the reign of Anicetus and continue on until the time of Eleutherius. I noticed that the author of the Wikipedia article on the υπομνηματα (or more correctly 'Hegesippus') noted the similarity and questioned whether 'Marcellina' was the invention or the misunderstanding developed from Marcion. We have cited the evidence from Lawlor (the article only uses Lightfoot's preliminary efforts) which shows that Epiphanius is certainly citing verbatim from the υπομνηματα the idea that Marcellina came at the time of Anicetus and continued until the time that that the author of the explanatory note was writing (i.e. the reign of Eleutherius 175 - 189 CE).

In other words, the evidence related to Marcellina - even though she is far more obscure to us than Marcion - is actually a hell of a lot stronger. Marcellina is witnessed by this obscure author of the υπομνηματα whom Irenaeus infers is Polycarp but who is later identified (because of the subject material) as Josephus or Hegesippus. This narrative is cited in bits and pieces by Celsus, Irenaeus, Justin, Eusebius and Epiphanius.

The most important piece of evidence is that of Celsus who specifically cites the sect condemned in the work as the Μαρκελλιανοί. Origen never mentions the name 'Carpocratians' which clearly appeared all over every page in the version of the work known to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius. Eusebius does not mention the sect Μαρκελλιανοί in his catalogue of heretical sects in his version of the υπομνηματα. But Origen when citing Celsus's likely more original version of the material only mentions the Μαρκελλιανοί (who he links with the figure 'Marcellina' identified in later traditions as a Carpocratian but again the name is not mentioned here), the 'Harpocratians' associated with Salome, the Μαρκιωνιστων (but which appears in the manuscript known to Eusebius AND the parallel citation of Justin Dialogue 35 as 'Μαρκιανισταί' - i.e. those of Mark), the Σιβυλλιστάς (which is a mistake on Celsus's part for 'the Sabellians') as well as a few other sects which have no impact on this discussion.

The critical thing to see here is that the Marcionites were not mentioned in this early document. Irenaeus when citing directly from the text in Book Three of Against Heresies (AH 3.3.2) makes no mention of Marcellina or the Carpocratians but (a) infers that Polycarp was its original author and (b) goes out of his way to associate Polycarp with a systematic campaign against the evils of the Marcionite heresy. Marcion bears an uncanny resemblance as aforementioned to Marcellina insofar as he comes to Rome when she did and later - in a source known to Tertullian (who cites Irenaeus as one of his biggest influences) says that he also hung around until Eleutherius.

The thing that has been bouncing around in my head all day is that Irenaeus openly declares in the preface to his work that the text was NOT written in Greek but a 'βάρβαρον διάλεκτον' [AH i.pref.2] which can only be Latin or Aramaic. If it is acknowledged that the material was originally composed at Rome (cf. the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and internal evidence to Against Heresies) or if it is conceded that the original υπομνηματα known to everyone was originally preserved in Latin (which in turn helps explain the curious name 'Hegesippusd) or at the very least IF IT WAS ASSUMED that the Μαρκελλιανοί went back to a Roman report preserved in Latin (which is a reasonable hypothesis) the existence of such a sect could be presumed to be associated with a group alternatively identified as 'of Marcella' or 'of Marcellus' - i.e. the masculine or feminine diminutives of the original name 'Marcus' - i.e. Mark.

To this end the head of the Μαρκελλιανοί who came to Rome during the reign of Anicetus could be equally well explained to be 'Marcion' (in a Greek text) instead of the original identification of 'Marcellina' in the υπομνηματα. Why would someone want to attempt this type of correction of Polycarp's original work?

Clearly the disreputable Christian lady identified as possessing the feminine diminutive of Marcus lived on to the age of Commodus. Maybe she even became influential enough that Irenaeus or someone subsequent to Irenaeus thought it worth their while to alter the original material. It is ultimately difficult to say but at the very least the idea that the Greek diminutive of Marcus - viz. 'Marcion' might have emerged from Μαρκελλιανοί is at least possible.

It is worth noting by comparison that the Latin preservation of the name of the founder of the Marcionite community in Osrhoene also uses the form 'Marcellus' (the text is said by Jerome to have originally been written in Syriac and then Greek before being translated ultimately into Latin).

The point is that for centuries now we have presumed that the discussion of the heresies began with Irenaeus. Irenaeus mentions a heretic named Marcion with a fairly specific profile so most have assumed that there was something substantial to his report. The fact now that we can demonstrate that a slightly earlier υπομνηματα associated with Polycarp and extensively employed by Irenaeus makes no mention of Marcion or the Marcionites but concentrates instead on a Marcellina and a sect - the Μαρκελλιανοί - who anticipate the later invention of Marcion and the Marcionites and offers up the distinct possibility that these descriptions developed in Irenaeus out of a deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the original υπομνηματα.

aa5874 · 09-06-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...The point is that for centuries now we have presumed that the discussion of the heresies began with Irenaeus. Irenaeus mentions a heretic named Marcion with a fairly specific profile so most have assumed that there was something substantial to his report. The fact now that we can demonstrate that a slightly earlier υπομνηματα associated with Polycarp and extensively employed by Irenaeus makes no mention of Marcion or the Marcionites but concentrates instead on a Marcellina and a sect - the Μαρκελλιανοί - who anticipate the later invention of Marcion and the Marcionites and offers up the distinct possibility that these descriptions developed in Irenaeus out of a deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the original υπομνηματα.

But, was it not Justin Martyr who was BEFORE "Irenaeus" who mentioned Marcion by name and also did claim he had written about "Heresies"?

"First Apology" LVIII

Quote:

...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...

It would appear, based on Justin, that Marcion was a MAN from Pontus.

This is Justin again.

"First Apology" XXVI

Quote:

..But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

And now Justin names some who "style themselves as Christians" in "Dialogue with Trypho" XXXV

Quote:

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names...

Justin Martyr appears to be FAR MORE credible than "Irenaeus".

By the way, Polycarp, mentioned by Irenaeus, appears to be a fiction character INVENTED for "Church History".

Examine a most non-historical document "Against Heresies" 3.3.4.

Quote:

..4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth....

Jesus of the NT was a MYTH.

1.Polycarp was NOT instructed by apostles of Jesus.

2. Polycarp could NOT have conversed with anyone who had seen Jesus.

3. Irenaeus' dating, chronology, authorship and contents of the NT Canon has been deduced to be MASSIVELY ERRONEOUS.

4. Irenaeus' does not even know when Jesus supposedly live. He thought Jesus was alive during the reign of the Emperors Caligula and Claudius.

"Irenaeus" was a FICTION writer. "He/She" appears to have invented Polycarp for the "History" of the Church.

PhilosopherJay · 09-07-2010, 06:09 AM

Hi Stephan,

Absolutely fascinating.

I agree that when two characters with similar names have the same biography, it indicates somebody is copying and for some reason changing the name.

In the Broadway play "Panama Hattie" in 1940, 18 year old newcomer, Betty Hutton had her one musical number cut just before opening night by the show's star Ethel Merman, who thought that Hutton was too good and would upstage her. In the book and movie "Valley of the Doll" the famous incident is repeated with the names changed to Neely O'Hara (Betty) and Anne Wells (Ethel). In this case, the threat of lawsuits could have been the motivating factor in the name change.

Irenaeus or the writer of "Against Heresies" was not afraid of lawsuits, but perhaps he was afraid of offending the followers of Marcellina, or perhaps by making her gender masculine, he was taunting her followers by suggesting that she was actually a man.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It was from the common υπομνηματα that was used by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius as well as Celsus. I have been thinking about this all day. In a previous thread I noted that the figure of Marcion bears a striking resemblance to the Carpocratian Marcellina. They both said to have arrived in Rome during the reign of Anicetus and continue on until the time of Eleutherius. I noticed that the author of the Wikipedia article on the υπομνηματα (or more correctly 'Hegesippus') noted the similarity and questioned whether 'Marcellina' was the invention or the misunderstanding developed from Marcion. We have cited the evidence from Lawlor (the article only uses Lightfoot's preliminary efforts) which shows that Epiphanius is certainly citing verbatim from the υπομνηματα the idea that Marcellina came at the time of Anicetus and continued until the time that that the author of the explanatory note was writing (i.e. the reign of Eleutherius 175 - 189 CE).
{snip}

The thing that has been bouncing around in my head all day is that Irenaeus openly declares in the preface to his work that the text was NOT written in Greek but a 'βάρβαρον διάλεκτον' [AH i.pref.2] which can only be Latin or Aramaic. If it is acknowledged that the material was originally composed at Rome (cf. the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and internal evidence to Against Heresies) or if it is conceded that the original υπομνηματα known to everyone was originally preserved in Latin (which in turn helps explain the curious name 'Hegesippusd) or at the very least IF IT WAS ASSUMED that the Μαρκελλιανοί went back to a Roman report preserved in Latin (which is a reasonable hypothesis) the existence of such a sect could be presumed to be associated with a group alternatively identified as 'of Marcella' or 'of Marcellus' - i.e. the masculine or feminine diminutives of the original name 'Marcus' - i.e. Mark.

To this end the head of the Μαρκελλιανοί who came to Rome during the reign of Anicetus could be equally well explained to be 'Marcion' (in a Greek text) instead of the original identification of 'Marcellina' in the υπομνηματα. Why would someone want to attempt this type of correction of Polycarp's original work?

Clearly the disreputable Christian lady identified as possessing the feminine diminutive of Marcus lived on to the age of Commodus. Maybe she even became influential enough that Irenaeus or someone subsequent to Irenaeus thought it worth their while to alter the original material. It is ultimately difficult to say but at the very least the idea that the Greek diminutive of Marcus - viz. 'Marcion' might have emerged from Μαρκελλιανοί is at least possible.

It is worth noting by comparison that the Latin preservation of the name of the founder of the Marcionite community in Osrhoene also uses the form 'Marcellus' (the text is said by Jerome to have originally been written in Syriac and then Greek before being translated ultimately into Latin).

The point is that for centuries now we have presumed that the discussion of the heresies began with Irenaeus. Irenaeus mentions a heretic named Marcion with a fairly specific profile so most have assumed that there was something substantial to his report. The fact now that we can demonstrate that a slightly earlier υπομνηματα associated with Polycarp and extensively employed by Irenaeus makes no mention of Marcion or the Marcionites but concentrates instead on a Marcellina and a sect - the Μαρκελλιανοί - who anticipate the later invention of Marcion and the Marcionites and offers up the distinct possibility that these descriptions developed in Irenaeus out of a deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the original υπομνηματα.

09-06-2010, 06:28 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I Think I Know the Exact Place that the Heretic Marcion Was Invented It was from the common υπομνηματα that was used by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius as well as Celsus. I have been thinking about this all day. In a previous thread I noted that the figure of Marcion bears a striking resemblance to the Carpocratian Marcellina. They both said to have arrived in Rome during the reign of Anicetus and continue on until the time of Eleutherius. I noticed that the author of the Wikipedia article on the υπομνηματα (or more correctly 'Hegesippus') noted the similarity and questioned whether 'Marcellina' was the invention or the misunderstanding developed from Marcion. We have cited the evidence from Lawlor (the article only uses Lightfoot's preliminary efforts) which shows that Epiphanius is certainly citing verbatim from the υπομνηματα the idea that Marcellina came at the time of Anicetus and continued until the time that that the author of the explanatory note was writing (i.e. the reign of Eleutherius 175 - 189 CE). In other words, the evidence related to Marcellina - even though she is far more obscure to us than Marcion - is actually a hell of a lot stronger. Marcellina is witnessed by this obscure author of the υπομνηματα whom Irenaeus infers is Polycarp but who is later identified (because of the subject material) as Josephus or Hegesippus. This narrative is cited in bits and pieces by Celsus, Irenaeus, Justin, Eusebius and Epiphanius. The most important piece of evidence is that of Celsus who specifically cites the sect condemned in the work as the Μαρκελλιανοί. Origen never mentions the name 'Carpocratians' which clearly appeared all over every page in the version of the work known to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius. Eusebius does not mention the sect Μαρκελλιανοί in his catalogue of heretical sects in his version of the υπομνηματα. But Origen when citing Celsus's likely more original version of the material only mentions the Μαρκελλιανοί (who he links with the figure 'Marcellina' identified in later traditions as a Carpocratian but again the name is not mentioned here), the 'Harpocratians' associated with Salome, the Μαρκιωνιστων (but which appears in the manuscript known to Eusebius AND the parallel citation of Justin Dialogue 35 as 'Μαρκιανισταί' - i.e. those of Mark), the Σιβυλλιστάς (which is a mistake on Celsus's part for 'the Sabellians') as well as a few other sects which have no impact on this discussion. The critical thing to see here is that the Marcionites were not mentioned in this early document. Irenaeus when citing directly from the text in Book Three of Against Heresies (AH 3.3.2) makes no mention of Marcellina or the Carpocratians but (a) infers that Polycarp was its original author and (b) goes out of his way to associate Polycarp with a systematic campaign against the evils of the Marcionite heresy. Marcion bears an uncanny resemblance as aforementioned to Marcellina insofar as he comes to Rome when she did and later - in a source known to Tertullian (who cites Irenaeus as one of his biggest influences) says that he also hung around until Eleutherius. The thing that has been bouncing around in my head all day is that Irenaeus openly declares in the preface to his work that the text was NOT written in Greek but a 'βάρβαρον διάλεκτον' [AH i.pref.2] which can only be Latin or Aramaic. If it is acknowledged that the material was originally composed at Rome (cf. the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and internal evidence to Against Heresies) or if it is conceded that the original υπομνηματα known to everyone was originally preserved in Latin (which in turn helps explain the curious name 'Hegesippusd) or at the very least IF IT WAS ASSUMED that the Μαρκελλιανοί went back to a Roman report preserved in Latin (which is a reasonable hypothesis) the existence of such a sect could be presumed to be associated with a group alternatively identified as 'of Marcella' or 'of Marcellus' - i.e. the masculine or feminine diminutives of the original name 'Marcus' - i.e. Mark. To this end the head of the Μαρκελλιανοί who came to Rome during the reign of Anicetus could be equally well explained to be 'Marcion' (in a Greek text) instead of the original identification of 'Marcellina' in the υπομνηματα. Why would someone want to attempt this type of correction of Polycarp's original work? Clearly the disreputable Christian lady identified as possessing the feminine diminutive of Marcus lived on to the age of Commodus. Maybe she even became influential enough that Irenaeus or someone subsequent to Irenaeus thought it worth their while to alter the original material. It is ultimately difficult to say but at the very least the idea that the Greek diminutive of Marcus - viz. 'Marcion' might have emerged from Μαρκελλιανοί is at least possible. It is worth noting by comparison that the Latin preservation of the name of the founder of the Marcionite community in Osrhoene also uses the form 'Marcellus' (the text is said by Jerome to have originally been written in Syriac and then Greek before being translated ultimately into Latin). The point is that for centuries now we have presumed that the discussion of the heresies began with Irenaeus. Irenaeus mentions a heretic named Marcion with a fairly specific profile so most have assumed that there was something substantial to his report. The fact now that we can demonstrate that a slightly earlier υπομνηματα associated with Polycarp and extensively employed by Irenaeus makes no mention of Marcion or the Marcionites but concentrates instead on a Marcellina and a sect - the Μαρκελλιανοί - who anticipate the later invention of Marcion and the Marcionites and offers up the distinct possibility that these descriptions developed in Irenaeus out of a deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the original υπομνηματα.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.