stephan huller

Bacht,

Honestly, I know more about the Samaritans now after five years of study under Ruairidh Boid and an ongoing friendship with Benyamim Tsedaka than I did back then. I sent the manuscript to Price when I was like 23. I mean it has some intriguing ideas but I was very young. I used to think being great in bed was important too. Now I've learned that a lot of those ideas were sort of misguided. You should read this instead:


Title: The Rediscovery of the Original Episcopal Throne of the Alexandrian See of St. Mark
Author(s): HÜLLER, Stephan
Journal: Journal of Coptic Studies
Volume: 11 Date: 2009
Pages: 71-114
DOI: 10.2143/JCS.11.0.2044700

I have some other articles coming out. It's where my head is at now.

bacht

Thanks. I'll probably finish working through the articles on your Real Messiah blog first, are these excerpts or earlier drafts?

stephan huller

Actually the more up to date blog is www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com. The other blog was just something I had to do for my publisher. Every once and a while I update it just to look like I am fulfilling my deal with them. I appreciate you taking an interest in some of my ideas.

stephan huller

Sorry to keep bombarding the discussion with new information but I just confirmed something I had blogged about sometime ago. For Gregory Nanzianzen 'the Marcionites' were WITHOUT QUESTION the sect that Irenaeus identifies as the followers of Mark:

Wherefore we must keep the [Passover] feast spiritually. And this is the beginning of our discourse; for we must speak, even if our speech do seem a little too discursive; and we must be diligent for the sake of those who love learning, that we may as it were mix up some seasoning with our solemn festival. The children of the Hebrews do honour to the number Seven, according to the legislation of Moses (as did the Pythagoreans in later days to the number Four, by which indeed they were in the habit of swearing as the Simonians and Marcionites do by the number Eight and the number Thirty, inasmuch as they have given names to and reverence a system of Æons of these numbers); I cannot say by what rules of analogy, or in consequence of what power of this number; anyhow they do honour to it.

One thing indeed is evident, that God, having in six days created matter, and given it form, and having arranged it in all kinds of shapes and mixtures, and having made this present visible world, on the seventh day rested from all His works, as is shewn by the very name of the Sabbath, which in Hebrew means Rest. If there be, however, any more lofty reason than this, let others discuss it.

But this honour which they pay to it is not confined to days alone, but also extends to years. That belonging to days the Sabbath proves, because it is continually observed among them; and in accordance with this the removal of leaven is for that number of days. [Exod. xii. 15]. And that belonging to years is shewn by the seventh year, the year of Release; [Ib. xxi. 2] and it consists not only of Hebdomads, but of Hebdomads of Hebdomads, alike in days and years. The Hebdomads of days give birth to Pentecost, a day called holy among them; and those of years to what they call the Jubilee, which also has a release of land, and a manumission of slaves, and a release of possessions bought. For this nation consecrates to God, not only the firstfruits of offspring, or of firstborn, but also those of days and years. Thus the veneration paid to the number Seven gave rise also to the veneration of Pentecost. For seven being multiplied by seven generates fifty all but one day, which we borrow from the world to come, at once the Eighth and the first, or rather one and indestructible. For the present sabbatism of our souls can find its cessation there, that a portion may be given to seven and also to eight [Eccles. xi. 2] (so some of our predecessors have interpreted this passage of Solomon). [Gregory Nazianzen Oration XLI On Pentacost]

This IS NOT AN ISOLATED EXAMPLE from Gregory of his 'mistaking' the Marcionites for the Marcosians. It is consistent and can be demonstrated with great frequency. There seems also to be some connection with the native cultus of St. Mark in Alexandria as Gregory similarly declares that the Arians (Arius having been the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark) "will flee from Marcion's god, compounded of elements and numbers." (Oration 33:16)

But notice also that Gregory's information IS NOT ALWAYS DEPENDANT on existing sources. Consider this statement in the Fifth Theological Oration on the Holy Spirit "But if you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God begat the Son by a marriage with His own Will, we should be introduced (cf. Irenæus. AH. I. 6) to the Hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus who imagined these newfangled Æons." There is nothing in either of the Patristic accounts of Marcion and Marcus which suggest a hermaphrodite god (even though the Marcionite interest in eunuchs makes it understandable). I don't think Gregory is entirely 'mistaken' here as some might suggest.

As such we should note that Gregory consistently identifies the Marcionites were a group of heretics with a deep interest in kabbalah and numerology - exactly what Irenaeus says about the so-called Marcosians.

Just thought it might be important to share with y'all. Sorry if I am being a bother

aa5874

Your post does not show that Marcion did not exist in the miidle of the 2nd century as written by Justin Martyr who was a CONTEMPORARY of Marcion.

St. Gregory lived about 200 years after Marcion and Justin.

You cannot show that the doctrine of the Marcionites could NOT EVER have evolved over the 200 years since Marcion died.

It must also be noted that it is not necessary for Marcion to have not existed for the Church to make FALSE claims about him.

And based on your theory, is it remotely possible that St. Gregory was a mistaken identity or his writings?

St. Gregory's writings passed through the hands of the Church.

avi

writing only my own opinion, your comments are anything but a bother. I find your writing stimulating, provocative, well researched, and erudite.

However, there are two issues that still confound me.

1. Your several posts here, have referenced Irenaeus, in the context of reinforcing one point or another vis a vis Marcion. Why do you have so much confidence that our extant manuscripts of Irenaeus' writing represent unredacted copies of authentic texts by his hand? How can you be relatively confident that the third century author "Irenaeus" is not simply a fictitious creation of the fourth century?

2. Your interesting reply to my query regarding the notion that the chaos in our extant documents arose in the third century, rather than the fourth: Well, I am a bit dense, but, it would seem to me, that both reasons you cite: Latin (not Greek), and "dominated by Constantinople", represent two explanations for why the notion that it was the third, rather than the fourth century, where a significant amount of redaction occurred, is erroneous.

Latin: This is not the language of the myth. The political leaders of the nascent church were oriented to GREEK, even Constantine, i.e. right through the fourth century. Greek, not Latin, was his native language. Ditto for most of the power brokers, including, if we believe the legends, Irenaeus.

That there may well be perturbations in various documents due to political machinations, seems evident, but, that these perturbations should involve Latin, seems far fetched to me. Wasn't Jerome's Latin edition of the post-Nicean bible (based on the Greek documents, which had been given to participants at Nicea by Eusebius) the first such Latin document? Are you suggesting that the Marcion tradition was based not upon a Greek copy of Mark or Luke, but upon Latin translations? Since there are no extant copies of anything Marcion wrote, does this idea come from Tertullian, who, as far as I am aware, also wrote exclusively in Greek, not Latin?

avi

stephan huller

aa5874 or (as I suspect a certain someone I have run into on my own with the initials JPH) I have addressed the Justin issue. I don't believe that we have the original apology of Justin. I think what we have is a reworking of that original material by the circle of Irenaeus. I think the reference to Polycarp is the tip off. Certainly you will argue that it is a pristine text. You will argue that it was only natural for a Christian to glorify Polycarp. I am not so sure.

I think that Tatian's association with Justin is the only real sign of Justin's identity. I don't buy into the Tatian 'used to be' a faithful disciple and then fell away. I think that we have to allow what must have been Tatian's argument that he was FAITHFULLY maintaining the tradition of Justin. As such Justin would likely be closer aligned to the 'heresies' than the orthodox.

I think the description of Justinus in the Philosophumena was probably associated with the historical Justin Martyr.

You have this habit of reminding me how far removed certain people I am bringing forward are from Justin. The point I am bringing forward is that Gregory is another small piece in the puzzle. He is getting his information that all that Irenaeus attributes to the followers of Marcus really belong to the followers of Marcion. I haven't cited all the examples because I didn't want to drive people crazy with information.

The point that can be gleaned from even the examples I have cited is that Gregory was GOING BEYOND the portrait of Irenaeus. He for instance states that Marcion put forward THREE powers - a common trait of later anti-Marcionite rhetoric which is reflected in the writings of Athanasius, Adamantius, Eznik etc.

This is not a simple spelling error. He clearly thinks that the figure called Marcion is one and the same with the figure called Marcus in the writings of Irenaeus.

Avi, I will address your points after I put the kids to bed. I am sorry that I am addressing the points of aa5768 (who I assume to be JPH). I am sure I will grow as fatigued as the rest of you with this disingenuous 'freethinker.' His hostility coupled with his DELIBERATE ignoring of the material I was citing from Against the Valentinians makes me have my suspicions about his motives.

It is the sign of a religious mind to need certainty. I am not claiming to offer ABSOLUTE certainty. I am instead putting forward a working hypothesis which I think has a lot going for it. I am developing what I hope is viewed as a means of making sense/rescuing the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark which first rears its head in any meaningful way in the Passio Sancti Petri. Even here it is strange because the implicit assumption in this fifth century text is that St. Mark has always been at the heart of Christian Alexandria.

I hope that with the help of further research and discussions such as this and the publication of academic articles - might develop into a COMPLETELY workable theory. I can appreciate that you have little else to do here other than disturb that gestation process. JPH I will continue to answer your questions with whatever time I can afford this misplaced hostility.

Petergdi

If you think AA resembles Holding either in style or substance, then I think some serious doubt is cast upon your ability to sort out who was who in the early church. You may not like or agree with either of them, but they are very very obviously entirely different people who hold entirely different and incompatible views on Christianity.

Peter.

mountainman

A great deal could have happened between c.324 CE (when Constantine marked out his new city) and its official dedication c.330 CE. During this epoch "The Rulers of the Age" --- clearly identified as being associated with the "Sacred College of the Pontifices" (ie: the Graeco-Roman priesthood) -- were made redundant, and replaced. The new "Rulers of the Age" commencing with the Council of Nicaea 325 CE were represented by as many as 1800 personally (Constantine) appointed "Christian bishops"

stephan huller

Yes Peter I guess that settles it. I know nothing about the Church Fathers. The Apology of Justin is authentic. The fact that there are so many witnesses that conflate 'those of Mark' and 'those of Marcion' isn't important.

And by the way, I never mentioned the name Holding. Funny, I mention an acronym and you go for that guy. Wow!

But now that you mention it I know who you mean. J P Holding, he and his two other buddies. Sure they have very strong beliefs in the sanctity of the Church but there are like three of these guys that sponge off their wives while they diddle on the computer all day going on to sites like this pretending to be 'interested' in 'new interpretations' of Christianity. They claim they are 'conducting research.' But really what it is an embarrassing re-living of their adolescence, an opportunity to sneer at everything and recycling what they 'dig' up on line under fake names and with a fake interest in the heresies (all the while subtly defending the sanctity of the Church).

No I wasn't saying thinking of him. You're right 'AA' couldn't be him. After all he 'believes' in the heresies right (although I strangely never get the feeling he is defending Marcion as much as the sanctity of Justin's witness that's just me).

Well you say he's Holding. I am not so sure. I say he's another guy I know with the acronym JPH who I used to bowl with. Real goof. Sort of like Holding but like you said, AA believes in the heresies and Holding the sanctity of the Church.

BTW where in Toronto are you from? Just curious. Used to live there.