stephan huller

Dissension is of course permitted; the question of course is whether it is constructive.

stephan huller

In a spirit of openness I will critique my own theory and explain why I have not attempted to publish an article on this topic. When I first read the Acts of Archelaus I recognized the Marcionite paradigm at work in the community. It was everything Walter Bauer would have hope to find from a document from third century Osrhoene. Paul is identified as the Paraclete. Mani makes an appeal to someone whose name is a Latin translation of Μαρκίων if as Hilgenfeld assume it was a diminutive of Μάρκος.

The problem of course is that when we fast forward a few hundred years the sect opposed by the Catholics is called mrqyone. It suggests that the founder of the sect was originally referenced as 'Mark.'

The question for me has always been - is Marcion a Greek diminutive of Marcus or a back formation of a Semitic gentilic collective plural meaning 'those of Mark' OR BOTH?

The solution might come from Jerome who notes that both languages figured into the transmission of the manuscript into Latin:

Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, composed in the Syriac language, a book of the discussion which he held with Manichaeus, when he came from Persia. This book, which is translated into Greek, is possessed by many. He flourished under the Emperor Probus, who succeeded Aurelianus and Tacitus.[Illustrious Lives 72]

That's where I can't decide which way to develop the argument. Both interpretations could have been at work in the cult. Mark could have been identified by a diminutive in his cultus and the group could have been similarly referenced by outsiders as 'those of Mark.'

Perhaps the solution will be found in constructing the equivalent Syriac or Aramaic diminutive for Mark. The first step, I think would be to isolate witnesses to known diminutive forms of Marqus or Marqeh (in Samaritan and Babylonian Jewish Aramaic).

Jastrow couldn't find any examples of Marqa in Jewish Aramaic let alone diminutive forms of that name. I don't think there are any Samaritan examples all of which leaves Syriac which will certainly be time consuming.

Anyway that's where the research is stuck. I will write a paper once I find the time to plow through Syriac manuscripts.

aa5874

Your theory is flawed.

When I refer to the writings of Justin Martyr you, all of sudden, question the reliability of Justin's writings yet you, in a wholesale manner, refer to passages from the Church writers as if they are PRISTINE.

Why do you NOT question the reliability of Acts of Archelaus?

Why do you question the reliability of Justin Martyr's writings?

You must discard all writings from antiquity that expose the flaws in your theory. You must reject all the writings of antiquity that clearly show that Marcion and YOUR Mark were completely different persons with different doctrines.

stephan huller

And what theory isn't flawed. Imperfect knowledge necessarily leads to imperfect theories. That's the situation we find ourselves in when we try to make sense of the origins of Christianity.

What's worse is that what material has survived from antiquity was necessarily modified from its original form. In some cases the alterations were accidental - the results of mistakes and misreadings on the part of scribes. At the same time there is evidence to suggest that the authorities eliminated and modified testimonies from previous generations of believers which didn't agree with new standards of orthodoxy.

Christianity is by no means the only tradition in which this occurred. Look at the discovery of Codex Ṣana'a DAM 01-27 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../Mss/soth.html

The same transformational process can be demonstrated in Judaism and Samaritanism too (cf Hans Kippenberg Garizim und Synagoge (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971). 84 that single verses or half-verses in several of the hymns attributed to Marqe express contrition for very recent undefined collective theological error, and the rejection of this error, still undefined).

I am not picking on Christianity. I am not advocating 'abandoning' employing the surviving material owing to its being preserved in a corrupt state. I am only saying that we should do so, above all else, critically.

aa5874

Once you knew in advance that your theory was seriously flawed then you should have abandoned it. It makes very little sense to introduce a theory that is FULL of Massive holes.

And this is the fundamental flaw with your theory. You ADMIT that the material that have survived were modified and contained mistakes yet you are also using the very MODIFIED material that contain mistakes to develop your theory.

You seem to advocate that all SURVIVING writings are NOT in a PRISTINE state except the ones that may support your theory.

stephan huller

Wow so positive as always. I am only saying that theories are works in progress until they are published and undergo the scrutiny of the peer review process. I am very happy with my theory thank you. Unlike you I come to such forums to gain insight into weaknesses and areas that need further research.

One wonderful result of coming here was that Andrew Criddle pointed out that reference in the Theodosian Code to the Marcianistae which as Wace aptly notes is a "somewhat confusing name." [p. 261]

The question which now lies before us is why if the Theodosian Code meant 'Marcionistae' why did they write 'Marcianistae'

Criddle also pointed to the fact that Marcian was a banker who was a purported leader of the Messalians in a period after the Theodosian Code was already established. While this is true. Timothy of Constantinople wrote in the seventh century and was referencing individuals associated with the Messalian sect who he claimed lived in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Nevertheless it is important to take careful note of Fitschen's note that:

There is an amazing fact in Timothy's report: he does not know one single current event about that heresy, neither about the Messalians nor about the Marcianists. He merely reports on traditions from earlier sources, and the witnesses against his opponents are the anti-Messalian protagonists of the 4th and 5th centuries, namely Cyril of Alexandria, Flavian and Theodotus of Antioch, Letious of Melitene and Amphilochius of Iconium. The records of these bishops seem to be the basis for Timothy's survey on Messalian doctrine.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B42...anists&f=false

I am trying to get an idea of how accurate this information about Marcian the Banker being the only explanation for why the sect was called the Marcianists. I have come across a number of scholars who DO NOT think that the Marcianistae of the Theodosian Code were Marcionites. The most recent is Andre who connects the sect to a heretic named Marcian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eJl...nistae&f=false

Wace certainly gets it right when he describes the name Marcianistae as a confusing one. It seems that people were interchanging Marcianistae and Marcionistae (and related terms) in every age of Christianity.

All of which begs the question again - how real is Marcion?

Anyway thanks for the continued interest ...

stephan huller

Just one more parallel between the Messalians and the Marcionites that I don't think has been recognized before. The term Messalians is universally acknowledged to come from the Aramaic מְצָלין which is why they are identified as a 'praying people.' Epiphanius translates the name (εὐχόμενοι), but in the next generation the Messalians had obtained a technical name in Greek also, and were known as Euchites (εὐχήται or εὐχῖται).

It has been noted that the Aramaic term appears in Daniel 6:11:

and [Daniel] kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed (וּמְצַלֵּא), and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

Yet here's what I found that hasn't been recognized before. Ephrem Syrus tells us that the Marcionites identified themselves as a 'praying people' (remember they never called themselves 'Marcionites') and the name is connected with the reference in Daniel 6:11:

Why forsooth do they say that there was no fasting (in the world), seeing that when all the scattered groups (lit. fragments) of the followers of Marcion are gathered together they cannot keep the fast of Ezekiel, nor have they (ever) prayed, nor do they (now) pray, a prayer like that of the friends of Daniel [Dan. 6:11] If they say, 'We are praying the whole day,' let us see whether their prayer is accepted. But perhaps they will say, '(It is.) for how do you know that it is not accepted ?' I say, 'From the fact that He does not do for them here (?) anything at all.' And if they say that He does (something) for them, let them show (it) us, and we will accept (it) ! For Daniel used to pray three times a day and by means of his prayer he interpreted dreams and brought back the People from Babylon, and angels used to come to him at the time of his prayer. But the Marcionites, because they pray more than Daniel, as they say, will not accomplish more than he, nor even as much as he, but less than he. But since they pray more than the righteous, as they say, and yet are not answered even as much as sinners (are answered), it is clear that, because they pray to one who does not exist, on that account they are not heard or answered when they |xxxii pray. But if we pray concerning great and heavenly things, these are additions. . . . What is the new (kind of) prayer which he brought with him? [S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Marcion I. 68 - 70]

I think this is an important reference. I think it just might explain the term Messalians as a DESCRIPTIVE term which was ultimately connected again with the Marcionite/Marcianite tradition of Osrhoene.

stephan huller

I am working on a new post at my blog demonstrating that Origen was likely aware of Secret Mark LGM 1 but I thought I should mention something that Harvey in his Adversus Haereses Libri Quinque noticed long before me. 'Those of Mark' and 'those of Marcion' have the same interpretation of Luke 12:50. It is ultimately connected with LGM 1 of Secret Mark.

Irenaeus says that the followers of Mark (Μαρκιανισταί; my addition) claim Jesus is pointing to their baptism:

And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it." [Luke 12.50] Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this ἀπολύτρωσις (baptism) to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked (i.e. near the equivalent place in the narrative to Mark 10:35 - 45) that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom [Irenaeus AH i.21.2]

The author of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism also seems to have the same context in mind when he rejects arguments for this same 'extra baptism':

For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. [Treatise on Baptism 14]

Epiphanius says that the so-called Marcionites (Μαρκιωνισταί) also used the passage in the EXACT same way:

He [Marcion] says that after the Lord's baptism by John he told the disciples, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with and why do I wish to if I have already accomplished it?' And again, 'I have a cup to drink and why do I wish to if I have already fulfilled it?' And because of this he decreed the giving of more baptisms [Epiphanius Panarion Section Marcionites III.3.9]

It is quite easy to connect the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism with the Marcosians. I have long argued that 'the Marcosians' and 'the Marcionites' are one and the same sect ONLY DESCRIBED DIFFERENTLY by different Patristic writers. I think this is an important witness.

aa5874

How PRISTINE is Epiphanius' Panarion?

I hope you realise that Epiphanius wrote after the Roman Emperor Constantine took control of the Church.

stephan huller

You remind me of a guy I knew who said he would only have sex with pure virgins. I think the only virgin he ended up having sex with was himself.