Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 09:36 AM

I have been working on this forever. Just getting around to writing something serious. Let's start with Μαρκεία:

It is pronounced http://translate.google.com/?pg=PA83...B5%CE%AF%CE%B1

an example of its usage -

http://books.google.com/books?id=xSt...%CE%B1&f=false

If there were many libraries, churches, books etc (= a collection of writings of Mark i.e. a 'canon') would be:

Μαρκείων = (pronounced with itacism = Μαρκίων)

It is pronounced http://translate.google.com/?pg=PA83...AF%CF%89%CE%BD

The question of when itacism showed up in Greece is an old one and epsilon iota is described as such. The reality that these two vowels were pronounced as 'i' (iota) is apparent from the oldest Christian inscriptions and the writings of Ireneaus:

Quote:

For one, and two, and three, and four, when added together, form ten; and this, as they will have it, is Jesus. Moreover, Chreistos, he says, being a word of eight letters, indicates the first Ogdoad, and this, when multiplied by ten, gives birth to Jesus (888). And Christ the Son, he says, is also spoken of, that is, the Duodecad. For the name Son, (uios) contains four letters, and Christ (Chreistos) eight, which, being combined, point out the greatness of the Duodecad. [Adv Haer 1.15.2]

I think that's checkmate.

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 11:35 AM

Homeric epics = τῶν Ὁμηρείων ἐπέων Herodotus Histories 5.67.1

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 11:40 AM

It is also interesting that you don't see early Father's speak about 'Johannine theology' Ιωάννεια θεολογία or 'Pauline Epistles.' Modern Greek scholars do. I wonder if this because the ancients were under the influence of the scriptures being inspired by one and the same Spirit?

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 12:08 PM

I can find examples of Mark in the vocative case:

τὸ γὰρ σῶμα αὐτῆς κατὰ σέ, Μάρκε, μεταγενέστερον μὲν Κάδμου καὶ τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ, μεταγενέστερον δὲ τῶν τὰ λοιπὰ προστεθεικότων στοιχεῖα, μεταγενέστερον δὲ καὶ σαυτοῦ. σὺ γὰρ μόνος ὡς εἴδωλον κατήγαγες τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ λεγομένην Ἀλήθειαν [Irenaeus via Epiphanius Panarion 11.2.2]

εἰδωλοποιὲ Μάρκε καὶ τερατοσκόπε, ἀστρολογικῆς ἔμπειρε καὶ μαγικῆς τέχνης, δι' ὧν κρατύνεις τῆς πλάνης τὰ διδάγματα, σημεῖα δεικνὺς τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ πλανωμένοις, ἀποστατικῆς δυνάμεως ἐγχειρήματα, ἃ σοὶ χορηγεῖ σὸς πατὴρ Σατὰν ἀεὶ δι' ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως Ἀζαζὴλ ποιεῖν, ἔχων σε πρόδρομον ἀντιθέου πανουργίας. [ibid 11.2.23]

Εΐδωλοττοιε Μάρκε και τΐρατοσκόπί, αστρολογικοί έμπειρε και μαγικής τέχνης

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:11 PM

Unless I am mistaken there is an inscription of Philip the Arab (Marcus Julius Philippus) which shows the interchangeability of the spelling Μαρκείας and Μαρκίας for his wife Marcia Otacilia Severa

http://books.google.com/books?id=2GZ...%CF%82&f=false

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:13 PM

I also found it online:

ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ.

ὑπὲρ γ̣είας καὶ σω<τ>η-

ρείας καὶ ἐωνείου <δ>-

ιαμονῆς τοῦ μεγί-
5
στου καὶ θειοτά{τω}-

του {²⁶θειοτάτου}²⁶ Αὐτοκράτορος

Μ(άρκου) Ἰουλίου Φιλίππου

Σεβ(αστοῦ) καὶ Μαρκείας

Ὠτακιλίας Σευήρας
10
εβ(αστῆς), ἡγεμονεύντος

ς̣ Θρᾳκῶν ἐπρχεί-

ο̣υ̣ρνίου πρεσ

Stuart · 08-28-2013, 01:15 PM

the 3rd century document 2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul's Epistles are difficult (i.e., read as heretical by non-orthodox Christians). This is a document is probably only predated by Irenaeus and Justin's pseudo Apology among church fathers. (I don't trust any others as pre-3rd century)

The orthodox fathers mention NT writings with phrases like "John said," "the Apostle (Paul) said," "Luke said," "the Lord said," and so on. They did not speak of the written books as schools.

The church fathers did speak of schools, but when they were categorizing opinions different than the harmonizing which was the focus of the early church.

We speak of schools today because we try to deconstruct the books which have been harmonized into distinct blocks of material which represent various schools in Christianity as it formed in the first three centuries.

I really have no idea what you think you have discovered. Its rather divorced from the writings and the theology involved. I suppose this goes back to your belief that Marcion is a fictitious name, which is just one of many derivations (Mark, Marcion, Markus, Marcosians, etc) for several groups, but came applied to one specific group.

But the one thing that leads me to believe Marcion might have been an actual person, is that his followers declare him a bishop; in Dialogue Adamantius Megathius states, Μακίων ἐπίοκός μου ἦν. Marcion episcopus meus fuit. A strange thing to declare if there was no such person. But its possible no such existed. I think a much stronger case can be made for Valentinus as a fiction, as the name means the "strong" or "valiant" one, which 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 seem to make reference to (Irenaeus AH 1.3.4, 1.6.1, etc)

Whatever, even if correct, it simply changes Marcion from being a real individual to the mythic leader who is said to have founded a church. Not much different from anyone else associated with the NT.

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:27 PM

I think Marcion was a real person but that his real name was Mark not Marcion

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:30 PM

Okay, I will try and spell this out -even though I am in the process of writing. I have put the next two chapters in my book put on line here:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ter-three.html
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...pter-four.html

Here are the components of the idea:

1. Irenaeus was involved in a lawsuit with the heretical churches in Rome and in the provinces and successfully defended the Catholic occupation of Marcionite and Valentinian churches and property by a praescriptio
2. The issue at the heart of the gospel of Mark is the same as that in the praescriptio - whether Mark's writings or Mark's property (Μαρκείων) were his or Peter's (and by Peter 'the great Church')
3. Clement's description of Mark's gospel writing in the Hypotyposeis assumes that Mark wrote independently of Peter. This is confirmed in the Letter to Theodore.
4. Irenaeus's idea was that Mark was a mere secretary of Peter, i.e. it was 'Peter's gospel' and there were no separate churches of Mark that were not heretical. The property of Mark whether it be houses, writings etc belonged to the Church not the separate conventicles of Mark (i.e. the Marcionites).
5. The Coptic Church to this day confirms that it represents a separate Church from Peter and that a world-wide network of Markan churches once existed.
6. Nevertheless because of the success of Irenaeus's praescriptio the Marcionites lost all of their property (houses, writings) etc. But more importantly we can begin to understand why the Catholic New Testament is arranged the way it is. It becomes the de facto 'testamentum' of the Church 'proving' that Peter and the apostles existed before Mark (or Marcion if you will) thus assisting Irenaeus win his lawsuit. In other words the material was forged to prove primacy. The Catholics did need to prove to their idiotic followers anything. They would have believed anything because the body of the church never saw any of the sacred documents. The massive forgery which is the New Testament is arranged in an interconnected way in order to prove monarchia from the beginning under Peter.

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:44 PM

A survival of the original accusation that the Marcionites 'stole' something that originally belonged to the Catholic Church:

Quote:

Nothing is without an origin except God alone. In as much as of all things as they exist the origin comes first, so must it of necessity come first in the discussion of them. Only so can there be agreement about what they are: for it is impossible for you to discern what the quality of a thing is unless you are first assured whether itself exists: and you can only know that by knowing where it comes from. As then I have now in the ordering of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ.a Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my converse has been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on I propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ, let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it except from the Creator's archives. [Against Marcion 5:1]

Tertullian also preserves (from Irenaeus) that the Marcionite's hid the name of the person who wrote the gospel. They did not call it 'according to Paul' and even denied the name. The parallel in the Markan community:

Quote:

As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries ... To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way ; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath

I think at bottom Mark = Paul for the Marcionites in the same manner as Saul = Paul for the Catholics. The Marcionites denied Acts and denied the name Saul. Since Paul was not the original name of the apostle, the ignored question in the study of Marcionitism is who was Paul originally? The Marcionites denied the name of Paul but their gospel was 'according to Mark' (Philosoph 7.18)

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

08-28-2013, 11:35 AM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Homeric epics = τῶν Ὁμηρείων ἐπέων Herodotus Histories 5.67.1

08-28-2013, 11:40 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is also interesting that you don't see early Father's speak about 'Johannine theology' Ιωάννεια θεολογία or 'Pauline Epistles.' Modern Greek scholars do. I wonder if this because the ancients were under the influence of the scriptures being inspired by one and the same Spirit?

08-28-2013, 12:08 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I can find examples of Mark in the vocative case: τὸ γὰρ σῶμα αὐτῆς κατὰ σέ, Μάρκε, μεταγενέστερον μὲν Κάδμου καὶ τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ, μεταγενέστερον δὲ τῶν τὰ λοιπὰ προστεθεικότων στοιχεῖα, μεταγενέστερον δὲ καὶ σαυτοῦ. σὺ γὰρ μόνος ὡς εἴδωλον κατήγαγες τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ λεγομένην Ἀλήθειαν [Irenaeus via Epiphanius Panarion 11.2.2] εἰδωλοποιὲ Μάρκε καὶ τερατοσκόπε, ἀστρολογικῆς ἔμπειρε καὶ μαγικῆς τέχνης, δι' ὧν κρατύνεις τῆς πλάνης τὰ διδάγματα, σημεῖα δεικνὺς τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ πλανωμένοις, ἀποστατικῆς δυνάμεως ἐγχειρήματα, ἃ σοὶ χορηγεῖ σὸς πατὴρ Σατὰν ἀεὶ δι' ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως Ἀζαζὴλ ποιεῖν, ἔχων σε πρόδρομον ἀντιθέου πανουργίας. [ibid 11.2.23] Εΐδωλοττοιε Μάρκε και τΐρατοσκόπί, αστρολογικοί έμπειρε και μαγικής τέχνης

08-28-2013, 01:11 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Unless I am mistaken there is an inscription of Philip the Arab (Marcus Julius Philippus) which shows the interchangeability of the spelling Μαρκείας and Μαρκίας for his wife Marcia Otacilia Severa http://books.google.com/books?id=2GZ...%CF%82&f=false

08-28-2013, 01:13 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I also found it online: ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ. ὑπὲρ γ̣είας καὶ σω<τ>η- ρείας καὶ ἐωνείου <δ>- ιαμονῆς τοῦ μεγί- 5 στου καὶ θειοτά{τω}- του {²⁶θειοτάτου}²⁶ Αὐτοκράτορος Μ(άρκου) Ἰουλίου Φιλίππου Σεβ(αστοῦ) καὶ Μαρκείας Ὠτακιλίας Σευήρας 10 εβ(αστῆς), ἡγεμονεύντος ς̣ Θρᾳκῶν ἐπρχεί- ο̣υ̣ρνίου πρεσ

08-28-2013, 01:15 PM	#7
Stuart Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: California Posts: 39	the 3rd century document 2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul's Epistles are difficult (i.e., read as heretical by non-orthodox Christians). This is a document is probably only predated by Irenaeus and Justin's pseudo Apology among church fathers. (I don't trust any others as pre-3rd century) The orthodox fathers mention NT writings with phrases like "John said," "the Apostle (Paul) said," "Luke said," "the Lord said," and so on. They did not speak of the written books as schools. The church fathers did speak of schools, but when they were categorizing opinions different than the harmonizing which was the focus of the early church. We speak of schools today because we try to deconstruct the books which have been harmonized into distinct blocks of material which represent various schools in Christianity as it formed in the first three centuries. I really have no idea what you think you have discovered. Its rather divorced from the writings and the theology involved. I suppose this goes back to your belief that Marcion is a fictitious name, which is just one of many derivations (Mark, Marcion, Markus, Marcosians, etc) for several groups, but came applied to one specific group. But the one thing that leads me to believe Marcion might have been an actual person, is that his followers declare him a bishop; in Dialogue Adamantius Megathius states, Μακίων ἐπίοκός μου ἦν. Marcion episcopus meus fuit. A strange thing to declare if there was no such person. But its possible no such existed. I think a much stronger case can be made for Valentinus as a fiction, as the name means the "strong" or "valiant" one, which 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 seem to make reference to (Irenaeus AH 1.3.4, 1.6.1, etc) Whatever, even if correct, it simply changes Marcion from being a real individual to the mythic leader who is said to have founded a church. Not much different from anyone else associated with the NT.

08-28-2013, 01:27 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think Marcion was a real person but that his real name was Mark not Marcion

08-28-2013, 01:30 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Okay, I will try and spell this out -even though I am in the process of writing. I have put the next two chapters in my book put on line here: http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ter-three.html http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...pter-four.html Here are the components of the idea: 1. Irenaeus was involved in a lawsuit with the heretical churches in Rome and in the provinces and successfully defended the Catholic occupation of Marcionite and Valentinian churches and property by a praescriptio 2. The issue at the heart of the gospel of Mark is the same as that in the praescriptio - whether Mark's writings or Mark's property (Μαρκείων) were his or Peter's (and by Peter 'the great Church') 3. Clement's description of Mark's gospel writing in the Hypotyposeis assumes that Mark wrote independently of Peter. This is confirmed in the Letter to Theodore. 4. Irenaeus's idea was that Mark was a mere secretary of Peter, i.e. it was 'Peter's gospel' and there were no separate churches of Mark that were not heretical. The property of Mark whether it be houses, writings etc belonged to the Church not the separate conventicles of Mark (i.e. the Marcionites). 5. The Coptic Church to this day confirms that it represents a separate Church from Peter and that a world-wide network of Markan churches once existed. 6. Nevertheless because of the success of Irenaeus's praescriptio the Marcionites lost all of their property (houses, writings) etc. But more importantly we can begin to understand why the Catholic New Testament is arranged the way it is. It becomes the de facto 'testamentum' of the Church 'proving' that Peter and the apostles existed before Mark (or Marcion if you will) thus assisting Irenaeus win his lawsuit. In other words the material was forged to prove primacy. The Catholics did need to prove to their idiotic followers anything. They would have believed anything because the body of the church never saw any of the sacred documents. The massive forgery which is the New Testament is arranged in an interconnected way in order to prove monarchia from the beginning under Peter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.