Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 11:12 PM

Hello spin

Here is what Hilgenfeld [Hilgenfeld, Adolf, “Häreseologische Berichtigungen”, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,(1888), XXIII, 478—483] argued well over a century ago. Here is the original link http://books.google.com/books?id=D1g...%CE%BD&f=false. My best attempt at translation on the fly:

Quote:

That Μαρκίων is a diminutive of Μαρκος, I conclude also from the relation of Εὔρυτος to Εὐρυτίων, (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (from Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) to κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So also I think κάλλιστος, the Roman Bishop (217 - 222) against whom the author of the Philosophumena shows such hostility, is behind Rhodon's reference to κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων (Eusebius, Church History V, 13, 8). Stronger still is the case for the Μαρκιανοί - which Justin Dial c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 mentions before the Valentinians, Basilideans, Satornillians, etc - being a reference to Marcionites. Similarly, one will have to read the Muratorianum Z 82-84: quia etiam librum novum psalmorum Marciani (= Marcionitae conscripserunt).

Eusebius's citation of Hegesippus which follows:

Quote:

But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, (Μαρκιανισταί) and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.”[Eusebius Church History iv.22]

Hippolytus references what must be a Marcionite claim that their founder was the author of the Gospel of Mark [Ref. vii.18].

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 11:23 PM

The use of the diminutive is quite common among modern Greek speakers. It is shows that affection and closeness exists between speaker and addressee. When I went to Athens to meet my friend Harry and his friend Agamemnon the two only addressed one another (in Greek) in the diminutive. 'Harry' from Haralimous and 'Memos' from Agamemnon. I think a switch was made - by Irenaeus most likely (but I can't prove it of course). Irenaeus makes frequent blunders in Semitic languages including the idea that Genesis "says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares. And this, translated into our language, is: "The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth."

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 11:25 PM

More greatest hits of Irenaeus from Against Heresies Book Two:

Quote:

For the term Eloe in the Jewish language denotes God, while Eloeim and Eloeuth in the Hebrew language signify "that which contains all."

As to the appellation Adonai, sometimes it denotes what is nameable and admirable; but at other times, when the letter Daleth in it is doubled, and the word receives an initial guttural sound--thus Addonai--[it signifies], "One who bounds and separates the land from the water," so that the water should not subsequently submerge the land.

In like manner also, Sabaoth, when it [is spelled by a Greek Omega in the last syllable [Sabaoth], denotes "a voluntary agent;" but when it is spelled with a Greek Omicron--as, for instance, Sabaoth--it expresses "the first heaven."

In the same way, too, the word Jaoth, when the last syllable is made long and aspirated,denotes "a predetermined measure;" but when it is written shortly by the Greek letter Omicron, namely Jaoth, it signifies "one who puts evils to flight."

Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half (= yeshu) and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth; for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser. The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus.

Book Three:

Quote:

For mammon is, according to the Jewish language (= Aramaic), which the Samaritans do also use, a covetous man, and one who wishes to have more than he ought to have. But according to the Hebrew, it is by the addition of a syllable (adjunctive) called Mamuel, and signifies gulosum, that is, one whose gullet is insatiable. Therefore, according to both these things which are indicated, we cannot serve God and mammon.

Book One:

Quote:

[the followers of Mark] still repeat certain Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated, as follows: "Basema, Chamosse, Baoenaora, Mistadia, Ruada, Kousta, Babaphor, Kalachthei." The interpretation of these terms runs thus: "I invoke that which is above every power of the Father, which is called light, and good Spirit, and life, because Thou hast reigned in the body."

The name of restitution stands thus: Messia, Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria. The interpretation of these words is as follows: "I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth!"

What were the followers of mrqws (= they say their prayers in Aramaic) called? The Semitic gentilic collective plural is not provided in the surviving texts of Against Heresies.

stephan huller · 03-25-2013, 11:49 PM

However Epiphanius does reference "the work written against Marcus himself and his successors by the most holy and blessed Irenaeus" (Εἰρηναίου κατ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ Μάρκου καὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁρμωμένων πραγματευθεῖσιν). In other words, the mistake most people make about Against Heresies is that it was actually written by Irenaeus from beginning to end. All the evidence points to a later compiler putting together five books from his various 'lectures' (cf Photius). These treatises existed as separate works as we can see from Tertullian's Latin translation of just 'Against the Valentinians.' But what about this work 'Against Mark' or potentially 'Against the Marcites.'

The author of the Philosophumena interestingly makes reference to this same treatise being available to him too and the fact that the Marcites themselves were (a) within the greater Church and (b) had access to this original work and complained about its inaccuracies:

Quote:

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny).

And then again at the end:

Quote:

This, however, is the less requisite,) as now the blessed presbyter Irenaeus has powerfully and elaborately refuted the opinions of these (heretics). And to him we are indebted for a knowledge of their inventions, (and have thereby succeeded in) proving that these heretics, appropriating these opinions from the Pythagorean philosophy, and from over-spun theories of the astrologers, cast an imputation upon Christ, as though He had delivered these (doctrines)

The fact that Epiphanius actually departs from the chronology of Against Heresies and identifies the 'redemption' rite associated with the followers of Mark in our Against Heresies with the Heracleonites. The interesting thing however is that no other source ever mentions a specific treatise against the Marcosians but the Marcionites:

Quote:

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. In another work,(1) however, I shall, God granting [me strength], refute them out of these which they still retain. But all the rest, inflated with the false name of "knowledge," do certainly recognise the Scriptures; but they pervert the interpretations, as I have shown in the first book. [Book 4:12:12]

and then finally the Philosophumena makes specific reference to the relationship of Marcion, the evangelist Mark and his gospel:

Quote:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. [Phil. 7.18]

I also can't help wondering that the 'other' group listed after the Marcionites in Irenaeus's Against Heresies must necessarily have been the original understanding of the Marcionites being associated with the Gospel of Mark:

Quote:

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. [AH 3.11.7]

and again in what follows:

Quote:

For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others, again, that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo- prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin. [4.11.9]

Irenaeus's point is often misunderstood. He is not saying that these men DON'T accept Paul but that they do but shouldn't because he confirms the Holy Spirit and prophesy.

stephan huller · 03-26-2013, 12:03 AM

I did find reference to what the group who follow Mark were called. It would seem Irenaeus manufactured the term Μαρκωσίων (Epiphanius Panarion 1.34.1.1, 34.1.8) from Mark (Μάρκος). I can't find a single example of this construction. The facts are nevertheless that this and other examples preserved in the Panarion from the very earliest period of heresy writing demonstrate ίων was originally used as a suffix to create Greek gentilic collective plurals.

Again there can be no doubt that Epiphanius is only following what his manuscript of Irenaeus's lost (at least as a 'stand-alone' lecture) Against the Marcosians called the sect given his use of the term:

Quote:

Against the Marcosians: A certain Marcus, the founder of the so-called Marcosians ... [from] the work written against Marcus himself and his successors by the most holy and blessed Irenaeus (Κατά Μαρκωσίων - Μάρκος δέ τις, ἀφ' οὗπερ οἱ Μαρκώσιοι καλούμενοι ... καὶ ἁγιωτάτου Εἰρηναίου κατ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ Μάρκου καὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁρμωμένων πραγματευθεῖσιν)

and then after the citation from Irenaeus's work, Epiphanius against confirms the same name:

Quote:

But passing his wickedness by as well, and the wickedness of the people who are called Marcosians after him (ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Μαρκωσίων), let us hurry on to the rest, beloved, and in turn discover their roots and counteract the bitterness of their fruit by making public the refutation of it and all of the facts about them.

We know that Irenaeus wrote a treatise 'Against Marcion' referenced in Against Heresies. Strange that in the construction of the 'Marcosians' (Μαρκωσίων) it doesn't appear as Μαρκίων when other Irenaean gentilic collective plurals drop the equivalent masculine termination in the original name - i.e.'Colorbasians' (= Κολορβασίων or Κολόρβασος - suffix ος + ίων). Similarly we can see 'Epiphanians' (= Ἐπιφανείων or Ἐπιφάνης -ς + ίων), 'Valesians' (Οὐαλησίων or Οὐάλης -ς + ίων) or most significantly against from the Panarion's original source the Outlines of Hegesippus Καρποκρασίων (= Καρποκρᾶς + ίων).

stephan huller · 03-26-2013, 12:38 AM

Another thing to consider. The names of heretical sects is pretty consistent. From Ephrem - the followers of Qoq (= qoqna), the followers of Arius (= aryna), Sabellians (= sblina), Photians (= fotina), the Audians (= aodna), the Messalians (= mslina) and Palutians (= flotna).

wordy · 03-26-2013, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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

Yes does happen to me too so it is a general thing and not personal
and the purpose is to keep us who just chat and have no real knowledge
to reconsider that maybe our post does not further the OP.

I can agree to that that is a good rule to have to hold us accountable
to not derail the thread into chatting unrelated to the OP subject.

I find the OP very interesting but have no knowledge can only wild guess
so I can not participate in these parts of the forum so should I start a new thread
and link to this one and saying that in the other part of the forum we are
allowed to just share wild ideas?

Chili · 03-26-2013, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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

Yes does happen to me too so it is a general thing and not personal
and the purpose is to keep us who just chat and have no real knowledge
to reconsider that maybe our post does not further the OP.

I can agree to that that is a good rule to have to hold us accountable
to not derail the thread into chatting unrelated to the OP subject.

I find the OP very interesting but have no knowledge can only wild guess
so I can not participate in these parts of the forum so should I start a new thread
and link to this one and saying that in the other part of the forum we are
allowed to just share wild ideas?

It's ok here, wild girls are welcome anywhere.

stephan huller · 03-26-2013, 11:01 AM

Follow up from Elie about whether it is possible to have innocently mistaken Marcus (written in Syriac) for a diminutive:

Quote:

It is hard to tell. The -us diminutive is not very common, plus it is a long vowel. Did they associate the two?

I cannot tell.

andrewcriddle · 03-26-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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.
...............

I'm not sure but I suspect that the benevolent Marcellus of old is the Marcellus mentioned in the acts of peter as a benefactor of the early Christians

Quote:

And the brethren repented and entreated Peter to fight against Simon: (who said that he was the power of God, and lodged in the house of Marcellus a senator, whom he had convinced by his charms) saying: Believe us, brother Peter: there was no man among men so wise as this Marcellus. All the widows that trusted in Christ had recourse unto him; all the fatherless were fed by him; and what more, brother? all the poor called Marcellus their patron, and his house was called the house of the strangers and of the poor, and the emperor said unto him: I will keep thee out of every office, lest thou despoil the provinces to give gifts unto the Christians.

Andrew Criddle

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

03-25-2013, 11:23 PM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The use of the diminutive is quite common among modern Greek speakers. It is shows that affection and closeness exists between speaker and addressee. When I went to Athens to meet my friend Harry and his friend Agamemnon the two only addressed one another (in Greek) in the diminutive. 'Harry' from Haralimous and 'Memos' from Agamemnon. I think a switch was made - by Irenaeus most likely (but I can't prove it of course). Irenaeus makes frequent blunders in Semitic languages including the idea that Genesis "says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares. And this, translated into our language, is: "The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth."

03-26-2013, 12:38 AM	#26
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another thing to consider. The names of heretical sects is pretty consistent. From Ephrem - the followers of Qoq (= qoqna), the followers of Arius (= aryna), Sabellians (= sblina), Photians (= fotina), the Audians (= aodna), the Messalians (= mslina) and Palutians (= flotna).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.