Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 06:17 PM

the English name Mark = Latin Marcus
Marcus = ܡܪܩܘܣ in Syriac
but I just received an email from Elie Wardini Professor Arabic/Head of the Department of Oriental Languages at Stockholm University who pointed me to the most obvious solution to the transformation of Marcus into Marcion in Greek, supposing Hilgenfeld is right that Μαρκίων is a Greek diminutive of Marcus. Here is the email:

Quote:

Hello Stephan,

Check Nöldeke's Compendius Syriac Grammar p.80, § 133.

Greetings,

Elie

I can't find the English translation of Nöldeke but I can read German and that is completely available on Google Books here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rIg...ed=0CC4Q6AEwAA

It seems so utterly simple now. All my complicated and convoluted explanations comes down to something rather simple potentially:

ܡܪܩ ܘܣ

What if someone - through ignorance, willful or otherwise - read the -us ending of the name Mark as a diminutive suffix? In other words, the original reference was to Marcus but someone transposed that into Greek as Marcion and then later to Marcellus in Latin (see below).

As I have noted many times before the existing text of the Acts of Archelaus, written in the Marcionite stronghold of Osroene, references 'Marcellus' as the leader/patron of the religious community there:

Quote:

In this city of Mesopotamia there was a certain man, Marcellus by name, who was esteemed as a person worthy of the highest honour for his manner of life, his pursuits, and his lineage, and not less so for his discretion and his nobility of character: he was possessed also of abundant means

The text that survives is a barbarous Latin translation of a lost Greek rendering of a lost Syriac original (= Jerome). The text not only mentions a contemporary 'Marcellus' (= Marcion) who only the bishop Archelaus can see and actively communes with but also a historical 'Marcellus' (= Marcion) who founded the community in the distant past:

Quote:

And truly the estimate of this deed made a magnificent addition to the repute of the other noble actions of Marcellus; for through that whole territory the fame of the piety of Marcellus spread so grandly, that large numbers of men belonging to various cities were inflamed with the intensest desire to see and become acquainted with the man, and most especially those persons who had not had occasion to bear penury before—to all of whom this remarkable man, following the example of a Marcellus of old, furnished aid most indulgently, so that they all declared that there was no one of more illustrious piety than this man. Yea, all the widows, too, who were believers in the Lord had recourse to him, while the imbecile also could reckon on obtaining at his hand most certain help to meet their circumstances; and the orphaned, in like manner, were all supported by him, so that his house was declared to be the hospice for the stranger and the indigent. And above all this, he retained in a remarkable and singular measure his devotion to the faith, building up his own heart upon the rock that shall not be moved.

4. Accordingly, as this man's fame was becoming always the more extensively diffused throughout different localities, and when it had now penetrated even beyond the river Stranga, the honourable report of his name was carried into the territory of Persia. In this country dwelt a person called Manes, who, when this man's repute had reached him, deliberated largely with himself as to how he might entangle him in the snares of his doctrine, hoping that Marcellus might he made an upholder of his dogma. For he reckoned that he might make himself master of the whole province, if he could only first attach such a man to himself. In this project, however, his mind was agitated with the doubt whether he should at once repair in person to the man, or first attempt to get at him by letter for he was afraid lest, by any sudden and unexpected introduction of himself upon the scene some mischance might possibly befall him. At last, in obedience to a subtler policy, he resolved to write; and calling to him one of his disciples, by name Turbo, who had been instructed by Addas, he handed to him an epistle, and bade him depart and convey it to Marcellus.

Under my understanding Manes appeal to 'Marcellus' is clearly the historical equivalent of the co-opting of Marcion by the Manichaean community as witnessed in numerous historical documents including the Cologne Manichaean Psalm book where Marcion becomes a herald for Mani. In other words the Acts of Archelaus tell the story of Marcion rejecting Mani, while the Manichaean literature, his acceptance of Mani's claims.

What do you think?

aa5874 · 03-25-2013, 06:41 PM

N/A

Mark is not the author of gMark. It is a false attribution. Isn't that the Scholarly consensus??

Toto · 03-25-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....

Mark is not the author of gMark. It is a false attribution. Isn't that the Scholarly consensus??

That depends on who you think "Mark" was. The consensus is that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus.

aa5874 · 03-25-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....

Mark is not the author of gMark. It is a false attribution. Isn't that the Scholarly consensus??

That depends on who you think "Mark" was. The consensus is that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus.

Which "Mark" are you referring to? Are you implying that Mark wrote gMark but was NOT an eyewitness?

By the way, there is no such thing as a contemporary of Jesus, except perhaps you mean Jesus the Son of Damneus or Jesus the Son Ananus or some other Jesus who did actually live.

Whether or not Marcion or Mark is derived from the same root words does not alter the contents of the Canon.

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 08:09 PM

Here is the English translation set to the equivalent page number:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VP_...syriac&f=false

Tommy · 03-25-2013, 08:15 PM

In gMark Jesus is brought before Pilate shortly after predicting (using the future tense) the destruction of the temple. This combination indicates that the author is implying that the piece describes events and was recorded before AD70. Are people suggesting that the author deliberately misled the readership regarding when s/he were writing? - Marcion wasn't born until the end of the first century CE.

I wonder if an unnamed follower, the naked young man at Gethsemane and in the empty tomb, hinted at his authorship: first he exposed himself in the text (was naked) then became an omniscient narrator (aware of the risen Christ's journey to Galillee).

[btw, I was asked to agree to terms and conditions on signing in for the first time in a couple of hundred posts. Have I done something wrong and, if so, what?]

Toto · 03-25-2013, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

... Are people suggesting that the author deliberately misled the readership regarding when s/he were writing? ..-

Either than, or the conclusion you have drawn is wrong about what the author wants you to believe about when the gospel was written, and what his intent was.

Quote:

...

[btw, I was asked to agree to terms and conditions on signing in for the first time in a couple of hundred posts. Have I done something wrong and, if so, what?]

It's nothing personal. We have new rules, and everyone who posts is asked to agree to them.

Tommy · 03-25-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

... Are people suggesting that the author deliberately misled the readership regarding when s/he were writing? ..-

Either than, or the conclusion you have drawn is wrong about what the author wants you to believe about when the gospel was written, and what his intent was.

Well, thing with gMark is that it tries more than the other canoncial gospels to come across as witness testimony (no accounts of young Jesus or Jesus talking alone with the devil) and it it does tie itself down to career of Pilate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

[btw, I was asked to agree to terms and conditions on signing in for the first time in a couple of hundred posts. Have I done something wrong and, if so, what?]

It's nothing personal. We have new rules, and everyone who posts is asked to agree to them.

Oh, I see; when it comes to BC&H I may have a chip on my shoulder what with not knowing Greek or Latin or coherent English.

Toto · 03-25-2013, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Either than, or the conclusion you have drawn is wrong about what the author wants you to believe about when the gospel was written, and what his intent was.

Well, thing with gMark is that it tries more than the other canoncial gospels to come across as witness testimony (no accounts of young Jesus or Jesus talking alone with the devil) and it it does tie itself down to career of Pilate.

Eyewitness? A voice coming out of heaven when Jesus is baptized? Jesus tempted for 40 days in the wilderness? Jesus talking to demons and sending them into pigs, who somehow drown themselves although they are not close to a body of water?

Not to mention the numerous geographic errors.

I don't think so.

aa5874 · 03-25-2013, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Either than, or the conclusion you have drawn is wrong about what the author wants you to believe about when the gospel was written, and what his intent was.

Well, thing with gMark is that it tries more than the other canoncial gospels to come across as witness testimony (no accounts of young Jesus or Jesus talking alone with the devil) and it it does tie itself down to career of Pilate.

Eyewitness? A voice coming out of heaven when Jesus is baptized? Jesus tempted for 40 days in the wilderness? Jesus talking to demons and sending them into pigs, who somehow drown themselves although they are not close to a body of water?

Not to mention the numerous geographic errors.

I don't think so.

Not to mention:

1. Jesus walking on the sea.

2. Jesus feeding 4000 men with a few fish and bread.

3. Jesus feeding 5000 men with a few fish and bread.

4. Jesus raising the dead instantly.

5. Jesus making the blind see with spit.

6. Jesus transfiguring.

7. Jesus was raised from the dead.

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

03-25-2013, 06:41 PM	#2
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	N/A Mark is not the author of gMark. It is a false attribution. Isn't that the Scholarly consensus??

03-25-2013, 08:09 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is the English translation set to the equivalent page number: http://books.google.com/books?id=VP_...syriac&f=false

03-25-2013, 08:15 PM	#6
Tommy Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Posts: 383	In gMark Jesus is brought before Pilate shortly after predicting (using the future tense) the destruction of the temple. This combination indicates that the author is implying that the piece describes events and was recorded before AD70. Are people suggesting that the author deliberately misled the readership regarding when s/he were writing? - Marcion wasn't born until the end of the first century CE. I wonder if an unnamed follower, the naked young man at Gethsemane and in the empty tomb, hinted at his authorship: first he exposed himself in the text (was naked) then became an omniscient narrator (aware of the risen Christ's journey to Galillee). [btw, I was asked to agree to terms and conditions on signing in for the first time in a couple of hundred posts. Have I done something wrong and, if so, what?]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.