Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

The discussion led me to want to find some relevant maps. Here's one:

Image

There's a lot of overlap between port towns and well-known place names for early Christianity:

Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, Alexandria, and Carthage, for example.

Ostia was another important city in the second century, home to more than 50,000.

In later church tradition, Ostia held special importance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Mark
According to the Liber Pontificalis, Pope Mark [in AD 336] issued a constitution investing the bishop of Ostia with a pallium and confirming his power to consecrate newly elected popes.
And later, with the college of cardinals, the bishop of Ostia was the dean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... e_of_Ostia

In one of the baths in Ostia, there are Christian symbols, perhaps late 3rd / early 4th century:

https://brewminate.com/the-rise-of-chri ... ent-ostia/
These are Christian symbols, for which parallels are known. Becatti suggests that the mosaic may be dated to the second half of the third century or the first half of the fourth (“in un periodo in cui ancora non v’era stato un pieno riconoscimento ufficale della nuova religione, ma il cristianesimo era già profondamente infiltrato nella società romana”).
The Christian symbols in room 6 (not in their original position). / From SO IV, fig. 17.

Top row:
Grapes (a symbol of heaven).
An 8, the number M (the life cycle of the phoenix, referring to the resurrection).
Grapes (a symbol of heaven).
The Greek letter chi (initial of Christ).
A vessel below the letter I (initial of Christ).
Swastika with the Greek letter rho (symbol of the cross).
A schematic branch of a palm tree.
A heart-shaped leaf.
Bottom row:
The word IESVS, four times.
The Greek letter chi (initial of Christ).
A cross and the Greek letter chi (initial of Christ).
The Greek letters iota and chi (initials of Jesus Christ), a heart-shaped leaf, two black ovals (the number M, the life cycle of the phoenix), the letter R (of resurrectio), a phoenix (referring to the resurrection).
The letters RE and LE.
There is a mid-third century house with this mosaic:

Image

There is also a Mithraeum in Ostia dated to the reign of Alexander Severus (222 – 235 AD). It contained a statue of Mithras about to slay the bull dated to the second century.

Image

There was another religious site from the third century with a statue created in the second century, this one for Attis:

Image
In the apse is a plaster cast (the original is in the Vatican Museums) of a statue of a reclining Attis, after the emasculation. In his left hand is a shepherd’s crook, in his right hand a pomegranate. His head is crowned with bronze rays of the sun and on his Phrygian cap is a crescent moon. This suggests astrological aspects: Attis was regarded as a solar deity and identified with the moon-god Men.
There is also another shrine to Mars, which was associated with the imperial cult.

The diversity on display here brings to mind the lament attributed to Tacitus:

"... a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

These superstitions were carried along the same routes that brought grain, goods, and correspondence -- and in the case of Rome, the path to the city ran through Ostia. So it is plausible that the city had some importance early on & that it was a center for Christians as early as Rome was.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:39 pmGaius of Rome’s testimony, cited in Eusebius’s Church History Book Five regarding a Pauline ‘trophy’ which is found by taking the road from the Vatican to Ostia.
Nitpick: it's the road to Ostia, but it's not necessarily the road from the Vatican to Ostia.

https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasti ... 2/mode/2up

The Greek word for "or" implies that you can find a "trophy" in either location.

Subsequent tradition (and basilicas) have Peter associated with a Vatican site, while Paul is associated with a site on the road to Ostia.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Secret Alias »

I acknowledge it says Ostian Way. Only one road to Ostia in Rome.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:39 pm For Gaius was known in antiquity as ‘the bishop of the nations’ or if you will the Pauline episcopal counterpart to the Petrine bishop of Rome.
You are no doubt familiar with the context, but I needed a refresher.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photi ... eca.htm#48
I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius,3 a presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth,4 and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists.5 The latter, which had no ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and The Labyrinth to Origen. But there is no doubt that the work is by Gaius, the author of The Labyrinth, who at the end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author of The Nature of the Universe. But it is not quite clear to me, whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor6 and Zephyrinus,7 and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon,8 and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of St. Paul, and does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews.
http://www.textexcavation.com/gaiusrome.html
The Dialogue with Proclus, the Labyrinth, Against the Heresy of Artemon, and On the Essence of the Universe were all written by a certain Gaius, a Roman presbyter, who was ordained in the time of Victor and Zephyrinus, and was bishop of the nations. (All this according to a marginal note in the Dialogue that Photius read, though his copy elsewhere attributed itself to Josephus.) Photius, Bibliotheca 48.2
The Labyrinth, far from having been authored by Gaius, is actually the tenth book of the Refutation of All Heresies by Hippolytus, according to Hill, page 197. Likewise, On the Essence of the Universe is regarded as Hippolytan (ibidem). Against the Heresy of Artemon is apparently (according to Lightfoot on page 378 of The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, volume 2) a descriptive name for another Hippolytan work, the Little Labyrinth. Only the Dialogue with Proclus is known to be from the pen of Gaius. Lightfoot hypothesized that these four books were at one time bound together, and only the last identified its author internally; hence the attribution of all four to Gaius (see Hill, page 197, especially note 79).
J. B. Lightfoot argues persuasively that there was no separate person of Gaius; that this was just the name of the interlocutor in the text that Hippolytus created of a disputation with Proclus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/l ... ippo4.html
Having thus given the facts which bear upon the decision, I will state my hypothesis. Unless I am mistaken, it explains all the phenomena better thatn they have hitherto been explained; and, if so, it may fairly claim a hearing.

Gaius is simply an interlocuter in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Gaius was his own praenomen; for then he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings. Not being a slave and being in some sense a Roman, Hippolytus must almost necessarily have had two names, if not more; just as his Alexandrian contemporary Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Such a combination as Gaius Hippolytus is natural in itself, and indeed occurs in an extant inscription found at Placentia; Q. POBLICIO L.L.C. HIPPOLYTUS2. On the latter supposition (that Gaius is an imaginary person), we may appeal to the legal formula 'Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia,' as suggesting that Hippolytus might avail himself of the name which corresponds to the anonymous N. or M. of our own formularies1. Of the former kind of dialogue, where the author himself is the orthodox disputant, the work of Justin against Trypho may be taken as a type: of the latter, where a fictitious person maintains the right cause, the dispute between Jason and Papiscus by Ariston of Pella will serve as an example2.

I suppose then that the copies of the Dialogue in general circulation were anonymous. The title may have run Διαλογος Γαιου και Προκλου (or προς Προκλον) η κατα Μοντανιστων. A writer, into whose hands this Dialogue fell, would naturally infer, as Eusebius inferred, (and the analogy of Justin's work would favour the inference), that Gaius was the actual author of the book. The few particulars which Eusebius gives respecting the life of Gaius were doubtless drawn form the Dialogue itself. Thoes which are added by Photius came from the other writings attributed to Gaius, from the Cause of the Universe or the Labyrinth, or perhaps from the Refutation itself. The critics, whom he quotes and to whom he is indebted for these particulars, had observed the cross references from one work to another and correctly inferred therefrom the identity of authorship. Among these cross references was one which connected the authorship of the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus with the other works, just as these are connected among themselves and proved to belong to the same author. Hence Gaius assumed to be the author of the Dialogue was credited with the other works also.

This is the explanation of the fact that all the particulars, which are predicated of Gaius, are predicated or predicable of Hippolytus also. They both flourish during the same pontificates; they are both styled 'presbyters,' and both live in Rome; they both receive only thirteen Epistles as written by St Paul, excluding the Epislte to the Hebrews; they both are men of great learning, though the Roman Church for some generations before and after this time was singularly devoid of literary eminence. And lastly, we have here an explanation of the otherwise not very intelligible statement, that Gaius was appointed 'bishop of the Gentiles' (AR. 32. a); for Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office (AR. 1), and addresses the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge1. If the designation 'bishop of the Gentiles' is not strictly correct, it was at least a very easy inference from his language in this work; and probably he expressed himself similarly elsewhere, when the occasion demanded, as for instance in the treatise on the Universe addressed to the Greeks.

To this identification of Gaius and Hippolytus another ancient notice also points. The extant manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp profess to be derived ultimately from a copy which was 'transcribed from the writings (or manuscripts or lectures) of Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp by Gaius who also was intimate with Irenaeus2.' Now I shall not stop to enquire whether this postscript to the account of Polycarp's martyrdom contains authentic matter or not; but in any case it would seem that the transcriber here intended was none other than our Gaius, the Roman presbyter; for he is the only notable personage of the name and age, whose attestation would be of value to accredit the genuineness of the narrative. If so, it is remarkable that he is represented as a disciple of Irenaeus. For Hippolytus also attended the lectures of this father, and was much indebted to them for the materials of his earlier Compendium against Heresies. In his later Refutation also he twice mentions Irenaeus as 'the blessed elder,' and in the second of the two passages avows his great obligations to him (Ref. Haer. VI. 42, 45). May we suppose that Gaius in the Dialogue with Proclus expresses himself similarly with respect to this father?
There are a couple references in Epiphanius to the idea that some cities had two bishops:

Epiphanius, Panarion 68.7.3
Alexandria has never had two bishops, like the other cities
Epiphanius, Panarion 27.6
For the bishops at Rome
were, fi rst, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops—then
Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom
Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. And no one need wonder why
others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though
he was contemporary with Peter and Paul—for he too is the apostles’ contemporary. (4) I am not quite clear as to whether he received the episcopal
appointment from Peter while they were still alive, and he declined and
would not exercise the offi ce—for in one of his Epistles he says, giving
this counsel to someone, “I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God be
tranquil,”29 (I have found this in certain historical works)—or whether he
was appointed by the bishop Cletus after the apostles’ death.
6,5 But even so, others could have been made bishop while the apostles,
I mean Peter and Paul, were still alive, since they often journeyed abroad
for the proclamation of Christ, but Rome could not be without a bishop.
(6) Paul even reached Spain, and Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia.
But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened—I suspect this but cannot say it for certain—he could have been
compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and
Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints
Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.)
6,7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order:
Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus,
Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on
the list.30 And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so
exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (8) In Anicetus’ time
then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing
forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed
many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.
Some have tried to solve the problem of the inconsistent bishop lists by suggesting that Clement followed Paul (as he is sometimes first after the apostles in tradition), while both Linus and Cletus succeeded Peter (as "bishop of the Jews").

https://books.google.com/books?id=N6nhA ... e=bookclip
CLEMENT is generally denominated the firsť Bishop of Rome though he is also by numerous authors stated to be the third Linas being the first and CLETUS or ANACLETUS the second. The most esteemed authorities agree that he was Bishop from the year 64 to 81 while others affirm he did not receive that distinguished authority until 91 or 92. CLEMENT is alleged by some to have succeeded St Paul as Bishop of the Gentiles and LINAS and after the latter CLETUS to have succeeded St PETER as Bishop of the Jews and that when the distinction between Jew and Gentile was discontinued CLEMENT SUCceeded Cletus as sole Bishop thence accounting for the difference in the historical accounts as to his numerical rank as Bishop for it is evident he would be the first Bishop at Rome of the Gentiles if the Apostle Paul be excluded or the third Bishop at Rome if both the Apostles Paul and Peter be omitted and the successors of the latter LINAS and CLETUS be alone admitted while he would be the first Bishop of Rome including both Gentiles and Jews combined
The Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Hippolytus as an "antipope" (a pretender as bishop of Rome):
In the reign of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the christological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism). Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers. These he calls the Catholic Church and himself successor to the Apostles, terming the great majority of Roman Christians the School of Callistus. He accuses Callistus of having fallen first into the heresy of Theodotus, then into that of Sabellius; also of having through avarice degraded ecclesiastical, and especially the penitential, discipline to a disgraceful laxity. These reproaches were altogether unjustified. Hippolytus himself advocated an excessive rigorism. He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, probably during the pontificate of Pontianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena".
Just some notes, so far.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:49 pmHegesippus himself reports that when he visited Rome under Anicetus he encountered a female heretic name Marcellina whom he opposed. By the time Irenaeus takes over this material in the Third Book of his Against Heresies, the material is alleged to have come from ‘Polycarp’ and the person he opposed is now named ‘Marcion.’ Jerome seems to recognize some underlying connection when he reports that Marcellina was in effect a Marcionite missionary.

The only way we can make sense of all the confusion is to recognize that Marcion and Marcellus have the same meaning – ‘little Mark.’ The name Marcellina means "of or pertaining to Marcellus” in a similar way masculum is "male” but masculinus is the adjective meaning "of or pertaining to a male." We are left with the sense that somehow that the name ‘Marcion’ goes back to Marcellus not merely the substitution of Hegesippus’s ‘Marcellina’ for Marcion. There was real scandal that the Roman tradition – perhaps even the Pauline community of Ostia – had female presbyters. Marcellina isn’t just hated because of her message or teachings – she is despised because of her sex. There is an obvious concern with the ‘appropriateness’ of female teachers and ministers which extends to texts like Tertullian’s On Baptism which clearly also developed from something written by Irenaeus. On Baptism singles out ‘the Gaians’ i.e. ‘those of Gaius’ who used ‘the Acts of Paul’ to bolster the case for female presbyters. The relationship between the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter is widely acknowledged.
You've previously posted something that is pretty well organized on the subject, which is worth referencing:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7617#p117429
Here's my take. We have inherited a very specific understanding of Christianity associated with Irenaeus in the late second century. Irenaeus was an educated person. He has a very specific point of view which is known through two principle surviving works and a host of fragments. Irenaeus is either the person who introduced the New Testament canon or very close to the man who did. He claims to be close to Polycarp but his rival Florinus the Roman priest was actually closer. Irenaeus claims to continue the tradition of Justin Martyr, another Christian active in Rome from the previous generation but Tatian was actually closer. Both Florinus and Tatian are described as 'Valentinian' in some respects.

Marcion is identified by Irenaeus as visiting Rome in the period Justin was active in Rome - the reign of Anicetus. There are clear crossovers between Marcion's reported appearance in Rome and Hegesippus's description of a certain Marcelina. On some level there is a relationship between Marcion and Marcelina. I don't pretend to know which is the real person but given the fact that Irenaeus seems to be using Hegesippus to establish his Roman succession list (and augmenting it) it would appear that Hegesippus's account of Marcelina was first and 'Marcion' came later - as an invention or adaptation of Hegesippus by Irenaeus.

Justin is said by Irenaeus to have opposed Marcion. The surviving manuscripts of Justin - a single copy - has clear references to 'Marcion.' But they also show signs of being adulterated c. 195 CE - i.e. the time Irenaeus was active. Irenaeus might have been using the adulterated copies of Justin to prove the existence of a 'Marcion' instead of Marcelina in Rome during the reign of Anicetus.

Why would Irenaeus have preferred to promote 'Marcion' rather than Marcelina? It would confirm that women had prominent roles in early Christianity. Jerome when citing the story of Marcelina (now confused into a generic reference to a Marcionite 'woman' who came to Rome) uses it to note this - i.e. that heretics were led by women. A similar inference is made by Tertullian (i.e. that Marcionites couldn't keep their women in order). Marcos the heretic similarly has appeal to female members. There seems to be a pattern where a female-friendly form of Christianity is covered up by Irenaeus into a male religion of Marcion and Marcionism.

It is worth noting that in Tertullian's book Against Marcion there are frequent references to Marcionites being castrated and taking an interest in castration and eunuchs. The ancient world had similar difficulties/challenges as we do today with the 'trans' situation. Is a man who castrates himself a full woman or a man who wants to be a woman. The Golden Ass seems to imply that at least some eunuchs identified as female. Is this part of the confusing Marcelina/Marcion situation?
Evidence for the activity of a Marcellina and Marcellians comes from Origen, referencing Celsus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellina_(gnostic)
Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) also briefly mentions Marcellina in his Contra Celsum, stating that "Celsus knows also of Marcellians who follow Marcellina, and Harpocratians who follow Salome, and others who follow Mariamme, and others who follow Martha." Anne McGuire states that, because all the other figures listed by Origen in this passage are figures who appear in the canonical gospels, it is possible that the Marcellians may have regarded Marcellina, not only as a teacher and religious leader, but as "an authoritative source of apostolic tradition".
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm
He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists. He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians [followers of Horus?] from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
There is a pattern that is found in Celsus here, where either Celsus or his source is focusing on female leadership among Christians.

Sibyl - a priestess and female prophet

Helen - considered the associate of Simon in Justin Marty et al., Helen gets recognition here as the teacher of Helenians

Marcellina - after which the Marcellians are named

Mariamme - some have their name from Mariamme

Martha - there are those from Martha

Marcion - Marcionites

The only name on this list belonging to a person who isn't clearly female is "Marcion."
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by perseusomega9 »

I like SA's idea of a castrated/trans Markion/Markellina, makes me wonder why he was also known as colobodactylus (stubby "finger")
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Secret Alias »

ὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βασικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὠστίαν

For should you want to go on/at the Βασικανὸν (WTF this means) or on/at the Ostian Way
Βασικανὸν could be just about anything. Could be a name of a street or road too. Could also mean 'Evil Eye':
[the Evil Eye] was known to the Greeks by the different names of Βασκανος Οφθαλμος , Οφθαλμος Πονηρος , Βασκανος , Βασκανιον , Βασκανια , and Berraouin ; the same , according to Vossius , " as Parraivos ; and , according to the Etymol . Mag . and the Scholiast of Theocritus , derived from oceci xályw aspectu occido , whence the Latin fascinum is also probably derived . Those who were supposed to possess the Evil Eye were particularly avoided
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Secret Alias »

Another curiosity that might factor in this. Stephanus tells us that Ostia was established by Marcius king of Rome. Might help explain or reflect the iota in Marcion (to distinguish it from Marcus and Marcellus):

Ὠστία, πόλις Ἰταλίας. Ἰόβας ἐν πρώτῳ Ῥωμαϊκῆς ἱστορίας ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν βορείων μερῶν ὁ Τίβερις, Ὠστία πόλις πλησίον. καὶ Πολύβιος ἕκτῳ ἔκτισε δὲ καὶ πόλιν Ὠστίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ Τιβέριδος. ἐκτίσθη δ' ὑπὸ Μαρκίου βασιλέως, τοῦ ἀπὸ Νουμᾶ τρίτου, ὡς Διονύσιός φησιν ἐν Ῥωμαϊκῇ ἀρχαιολογίᾳ. τὸ ἐθνικὸν δύναται καὶ Ὠστιανός καὶ Ὠστιάτης· συνήθης γὰρ ὁ τύπος τοῖς Ἰταλοῖς. Φλέγων δὲ Ὠστίους αὐτοὺς καλεῖ λέγων παρέλαβε δὲ τὴν Ὠστίων πόλιν. Στράβων δὲ ἐν τῷ ε΄ οὕτω φησὶν οὐδετέρως τὰ Ὤστια τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίνειον.

Image
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

One note on the paper:

It frequently requires the reader to suspend judgement when an assertion is introduced without the relevant arguments and citations to support it. A less-motivated reader could get frustrated and assume that the assertions are not well founded. Maybe the paper could be reorganized a little, with a short introductory section (which the reader understands is giving an outline of what to come). After the short introductory section, every interesting claim should be presented only when it is also the right time to outline some of the relevant support for it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Paul Described as Having a 'Stopover' in Rome?

Post by Secret Alias »

That's why I post here. Thanks. TBH I don't even know what I am arguing until all the evidence is in.
Post Reply