Why some named Joseph would naturally be nicknamed 'fruitful' (Πολυκάρπου) in a Jewish milieu:
Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine near a spring, whose branches climb over a wall.
Πολυκάρπου was a nickname of Joseph the Jew, whose chronicle ended 147 CE just like 'Hegesippus' (cf Lawlor and others) Hegesippus a Latinized corruption of the Greek Josephus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
There was clearly an edition of Hegesippus which extended the original narrative which ended in 147 CE down to a later period. Eusebius used this version:
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.11.7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus. (link)
I am just suggesting that when Irenaeus cites this text he attributes it not to Hegesippus or Josephus but Polycarp. It is in this expansion of Hegesippus that Marcellina is transformed to Marcion and all the business about the repentance of the Marcionites emerges.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
First Generation Text Hegesippus text used by Epiphanius (though he never identifies it as 'Hegesippus' but references 'catalog' which precedes the reference to Marcellina in Rome at the time of Anicetus' at the time author visits) Chronicle of Josephus the Jew in Clement Stromata 1.21 - both texts end 147 CE (seen in Hegesippus from the Jerusalem church succession.
Second Generation TextHegesippus used by Eusebius (explicitly cited as 'Hegesippus') and Polycarp text in Irenaeus Adv Haer 3.3.1 which references Marcion in Rome at the time of Anicetus as author visits. Both chronicles extend the narrative until a later period (= Eleuther(i)us).
All the garbage about the repentance and conversion of the Marcionites appears in the expansion from the first generation text to that of the second. 'Marcellina' of the first generation text (Hegesippus) is also transformed to 'Marcion' in the second generation text (Irenaeus) making Marcion a dubious historical figure as is all the nonsense of his (and his followers) repentance. Marcionism IMHO is just the remainder of Markan Christianity in Rome and Alexandria which later migrated outside of the Roman Empire to the East undoubtedly because of persecution (c. 180 - 235 CE).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Way too much to read and such a complicated theory by Secret Alias.
It is hard for me to follow his complex line of thinking.
Perhaps someone else can verify if I understand the Secret Alias theory correctly.
Although Irenaeus, a contemporary of Marcion goes on and on (yada, yada, yada) about the false doctrines of Marcion and the reasons for his excommunication and Tertullian provides additional details that after the excommunication Marcion repented, this is not to believed. Why? Because almost two thousand years later, Secret Alias says they were actually writing about an obscure person named Marcellina and not Marcion. If not, it is because all of the Ante-Nicean Fathers were liars when it comes to Marcion. There is also the forgery argument.
I'm so very, very confused.
Is there anyone that can give me an idiots Readers Digest Version of the Secret Alias theory?
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John T wrote:Way too much to read and such a complicated theory by Secret Alias.
It is hard for me to follow his complex line of thinking.
Perhaps someone else can verify if I understand the Secret Alias theory correctly.
Although Irenaeus, a contemporary of Marcion goes on and on (yada, yada, yada) about the false doctrines of Marcion and the reasons for his excommunication and Tertullian provides additional details that after the excommunication Marcion repented, this is not to believed. Why? Because almost two thousand years later, Secret Alias says they were actually writing about an obscure person named Marcellina and not Marcion. If not, it is because all of the Ante-Nicean Fathers were liars when it comes to Marcion. There is also the forgery argument.
I'm so very, very confused.
Is there anyone that can give me an idiots Readers Digest Version of the Secret Alias theory?
John T
You forgot the part where every text in ancient times was really written by Irenaeus and not the authors they're attributed to. Luke? Written by Irenaeus. Tertullian's works? Written by Irenaeus. Ceasar's commentaries? Irenaeus. Josephus? Hegesippius, who is...Irenaeus. Marcion/Marcellina/Mark/Marque/MarkusTheMagician/MarcusAgrippa? Irenaeus. Every book was written by Irenaeus and every individual was Irenaeus...unless they were Polycarp, who is Peregrinus, who is probably Irenaeus.
To be fair, if someone thinks that some watered-down paint-by-numbers don't-make-my-head-hurt approach is going to unscramble the mess that is the literary remains of Christianity in antiquity, they are the most deluded of us all.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:To be fair, if someone thinks that some watered-down paint-by-numbers don't-make-my-head-hurt approach is going to unscramble the mess that is the literary remains of Christianity in antiquity, they are the most deluded of us all.
Actually, I don't see the writings of Ante-Nicene Fathers a mess. Cyprian wrote that the early Christian faith was a fairly simple one.
Instead, I see people (two thousand years later) who are trying to make a mess so as to delude us into thinking nothing can be learned/trusted about the history and/or simple doctrines of the early church.
More on this later if needed Peter.
Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
I'm glad John t is here to assure that the one sided redacted literary remains preserved by the doctrinal sword of the Roman Empire should be accepted for the simple truth that they are.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
John T wrote:
Actually, I don't see the writings of Ante-Nicene Fathers a mess. Cyprian wrote that the early Christian faith was a fairly simple one.
Well Cyprian was right; the early Christian faith was a fairly simple one: two gods, one buys those who will believe in him from the other with a ransom payment (aka Jesus' death). But then comes Valentinian speculation (first) and corrupts it with complex theories of the OT allegorically prophecying Jesus, and then comes orthodoxy cutting those Valentinian theories down to a manageable discreet set of whacky false prophecy claims.
Instead, I see people (two thousand years later) who are trying to make a mess
