The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[Ulan]

And what are you suggesting? That the Catholic proposition that a Jewish rabbi named 'Saul' decided to change his name to 'Paulos' after his experience on the road to Damascus?

No, I also think that the beginning of Acts is a political piece with many very questionable statements that don't hold up to scrutiny. The later parts sound more genuine, not in the sense of history, but in the sense of legend. And as I said, I think your proposal makes sense. That doesn't help with the lack of any real evidence though. You field Aramaic, without any convincing idea of why this would be of import, a mix-up of the Greek letters phi and pi, and the statements about lack of authorship attribution in Marcion's works. The latter is clear, and that void was filled in Acts, if we run with the Marcionite origin hypothesis for a moment (of which I think it has a lot going for it). Regarding the first two points, it's conjecture.

[Stephan Huller]

And I would agree with most of what you write. It isn't a finished theory yet. I only had the idea last week. More research will hopefully provide more evidence. But I will say that by the very nature of the surviving literature I don't expect to find the "missing link." No Marcionite literature survives and the Pauline writings were not surprisingly introduced to the world as coming from the hand of someone named Paulos. Like all things related to Marcion, there are a lot of dead ends and even more guesswork. I post ideas here at the forum and formerly at my blog. I tend to view investigating early Christianity in terms of jazz and other interpretative art forms rather than the traditional read text A and add it to text B and C to get answer D. All the original texts are gone hence real knowledge and real truth are likely forever out of our grasp

[Blood]

If Mark originated with, or was carried forth by, Marcion, why wasn't Pontus where "the church of St. Mark" was located?

You are aware of the generic nature of pontos right? I have always thought Harris nailed with this one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2529,d.cGE

Just went to a club. More later.

Sorry, I couldn't follow that at all. Was Harris arguing that an allusion to "Pontus" in Homer, quoted in the "Antitheses" of Marcion (which doesn't exist, but may be preserved in a dialogue that only exists in Armenian), was misunderstood by Tertullian to refer to Marcion's hometown? All the church fathers are therefore incorrect, and Marcion was not from Pontus, but actually Alexandria?

[Ulan]

All the original texts are gone hence real knowledge and real truth are likely forever out of our grasp

Yes, it's a pity. And I don't want to discourage you. It's still much better than yet another "scholarly" reconstruction of the "Real Jesus"™.

[Ulan]

All the church fathers are therefore incorrect...

Just a remark to this: As far as I heard, the statements of the church fathers are often not independent. They sometimes even inherited each others' libraries.

[steve43]

I bet any Church Father could smoke you on an IQ test.

[Ulan]

I bet any Church Father could smoke you on an IQ test.

Which has exactly what to do with my statement?

[Stephan Huller]

Sorry, I couldn't follow that at all. Was Harris arguing that an allusion to "Pontus" in Homer, quoted in the "Antitheses" of Marcion (which doesn't exist, but may be preserved in a dialogue that only exists in Armenian), was misunderstood by Tertullian to refer to Marcion's hometown?

No. It has long been noted that material at the end of De Recta in Deum Fide (= 'the Dialogues of Adamantius') is reused in other sources and attributed to other individuals in later sources. For instance, Eusebius cites a long part of De Recta in Deum Fide NOT as coming from the 'heretic' it is attributed to in De Recta in Deum Fide but a certain 'Maximos' who lived at the time of Commodus.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013/ ... -fide.html

The same thing is true with respect to the section Harris is dealing with. A shadowy figure called 'Methodius' reuses the same section. Both attribute the material to Valentinus. But Harris presents some very powerful reasons for considering that the section was originally attributed to Marcion. I would add one argument that Harris doesn't get into. Many of our earliest witnesses to De Recta in Deum Fide attest that it only had the Marcionite figure of Methodius (Anastasius of Sinai who had access to lots of early books at the library now lost). Indeed Methodius keeps popping up throughout the later parts of the debate even though the text has it that various heretics now 'combat' Adamantius. So the argument would be - what was once entirely a dialogue between Methodius and Adamantius was divided into many lesser figures (including a 'Mark the Marcionite' who holds the strong dualistic view not attested by Methodius) because the later Catholic editors don't want us to learn what the real beliefs of the Marcionites were on various issues.

I would put forward that once you accept that De Recta in Deum Fide was originally a debate between a Marcionite and a Catholicos then we can take a look at the parallels brought forward by Harris (rather than, as Harris would have it, use the parallels between Tertullian Adv Marc 1 and our text as the basis for recognizing the text as Marcionite). The work exists in Greek and Latin as far as I remember.

The implications of what Harris is suggesting then is as follows:

1. Tertullian at the very beginning of Adv Marc admits our present work against Marcion has been reworked at least four times.
2. The parallels between the what follows this statement in Adv Marc (= Marcion in your 'Pontus') derives its origin from a reference by the historical Marcion to a passage from Homer's description of the storm-driven sea is at the beginning of the ninth book of the Iliad. As Harris notes:

The sea upon which the winds play is called by Homer the Pontus; and no doubt he means the Thracian Pontus, from which Boreas and Zephyrus come in the twenty-third book to fan the Dames of the funeral pile of Patroclus (ll., 23, 230). It was, however, a word susceptible of misunderstanding; its most natural meaning is the Euxine, and we suspect that no less a person than Tertullian has thought of it as being the Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, about which he has so many epigrammatic touches in his books against Marcion. For, in his first book, after impaling Marcion on the horns of a dilemma, he says, "Marcion, you are caught in the surge of your own Pontus. The waves of truth overwhelm (involvunt) you on every side. You can neither set up equal gods nor unequal gods. .. The sting of the retort is evident, if Marcion had, to Tertullian's mind, represented himself as walking by the storm-tossed Euxine and imagining that he would be engulfed in the waves. "The very thing, says T ertullian ; "you are so, and the waves are the waves of truth breaking over you .. {Tert. Adv. Marc., i. 7)

3. The idea that Marcion received confirmation that the world was controlled by two powers in heaven at the beginning of the ninth book of Homer is very significant. The original passage reads:

Thus kept the Trojans watch, but the Achaeans were holden of wondrous Panic, the handmaid of numbing fear and with grief intolerable were all the noblest stricken.

ὣς οἱ μὲν Τρῶες φυλακὰς ἔχον: αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοὺς, θεσπεσίη ἔχε φύζα φόβου κρυόεντος ἑταίρη, πένθεϊ δ᾽ ἀτλήτῳ βεβολήατο πάντες ἄριστοι.

Even as two winds stir up the teeming deep, the North Wind and the West Wind that blow from Thrace, coming suddenly, and forthwith the dark wave reareth itself in crests and casteth much tangle out along the sea; even so were the hearts of the Achaeans rent within their breasts.

ὡς δ᾽ ἄνεμοι δύο πόντον ὀρίνετον ἰχθυόεντα Βορέης καὶ Ζέφυρος, τώ τε Θρῄκηθεν ἄητον ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐξαπίνης: ἄμυδις δέ τε κῦμα κελαινὸν κορθύεται, πολλὸν δὲ παρὲξ ἅλα φῦκος ἔχευεν: ὣς ἐδαΐζετο θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν Ἀχαιῶν.

The argument isn't that Harris just made up the understanding that 'Marcion of Pontus' derives from the beginning of Iliad book 9. Rather the heretic cited in De Recta in Deum Fide and Methodius makes the connection between Iliad book 9 and the two powers in heaven at the heart of Marcionism, and Harris says this heretic was originally Marcion rather than Valentinus who is attributed in the text.

The effect of all of this is to argue that by the time this original source text was garbled Marcion's witness by the pontos became 'Marcion of Pontus.' Liddell notes:

πόντος , ὁ: Ep. gen.
A. [select] “ἐκ ποντόφιν” Od.24.83:—sea, esp. open sea, common from Hom. downwds., exc. in Prose, where it is chiefly used of special seas (v. infr. 11); in the general sense, “ὁπότε πνεῦμα ἐκ πόντου εἴη” Th.4.26, cf. Pl.R.611e, Ti.25a, LXX Ex.15.5; π. ἀπείριτος, ἀπείρων, εὐρύς, μεγακήτης, Od.10.195, Il.1.350,6.291, Od.3.158; π. ἠεροειδής, ἰοειδής, μέλας, οἶνοψ, 2.263, 11.107, Il.24.79, 23.316; π. ἀτρύγετος, ἰχθυόεις, 15.27,19.378; opp. γαῖα, 8.479, etc.; κέλευθοι, πλάξ, πεδίον πόντου, Pi.P.4.195,1.24, A.Fr.150 (anap.); π. ἁλὸς πολιῆς the wide waters of the grey brine, Il.21.59, Thgn.10,106; πόντου γέφυρα, πύλαι, of the Isthmus, Pi.N.6.39,10.27.

2. [select] metaph., “π. ἀγαθῶν” Sophr.159; “π. χρυσίου” Phoen.1.2; “ἐκπεσεῖν εἰς τὸν ἀνομοιότητος π.” Pl.Plt.273d (ap.Dam.Pr.5).

II. [select] of special seas, π. Ἰκάριος, Γρηΐκιος, Il.2.145, 23.230; “ὁ Αἰγαῖος π.” Hdt.2.97, etc.; “ὁ π. οὗτος” Id.4.177 (v.l.); Ἰόνιος, Σαρωνικός, Σικελός, E.Tr.225 (lyr.), Hipp.1200, Cyc.703: esp. π. Εὔξεινος, Id.IT125 (lyr., nisi leg. Ἄξεινος ）“; ὁ Εὔξεινος π.” Hdt. 1.6, Th.2.96,97 (called Ἄξεινος, E.IT218 (lyr.)); generally called simply ὁ Πόντος or Πόντος, A.Pers.878 (lyr.), Hdt.7.147, Ar.V.700, Arist.Mete.354a14, al.; but Hdt. has also ὁ πόντος for the sea, 4.99, 177.

2. [select] the country Pontus on the S. shore of the Black Sea, App.Mith.8, etc.: Adj. Ποντικός (q.v.).

III. [select] personified as son of Gaia, Hes.Th.132,233 sq. (Cogn. with πάτος, q.v.)

If you are wondering why Marcion and Agamemnon should have had the same vision of the north and west winds (a vision which sent the Greek soldiers planning to sack Troy into a 'panic') the only logical sense seems to have something to do with divine willed destruction of a walled city. For Agamemnon goes on to tell his troops after this frightful sight:

“My friends, leaders and rulers of the Argives, great Zeus, son of Cronos, hath ensnared me in grievous blindness of heart, cruel god! seeing that of old he promised me, and bowed his head thereto, that not until I had sacked well-walled Ilios should I get me home; but now hath he planned cruel deceit, and biddeth me return inglorious to Argos, when I have lost much people. So, I ween, must be the good pleasure of Zeus supreme in might, who hath laid low the heads of many cities, yea, and shall lay low; for his power is above all. Nay, come, even as I shall bid let us all obey: let us flee with our ships to our dear native land; for no more is there hope that we shall take broad-wayed Troy.”

But the troops refuse to lose heart:

“Son of Atreus, with thee first will I contend in thy folly, where it is meet, O king, even in the place of gathering: and be not thou anywise wroth thereat. My valour didst thou revile at the first amid the Danaans, and saidst that I was no man of war but a weakling; and all this know the Achaeans both young and old. But as for thee, the son of crooked-counselling Cronos hath endowed thee in divided wise: with the sceptre hath he granted thee to be honoured above all, but valour he gave thee not, wherein is the greatest might. Strange king, dost thou indeed deem that the sons of the Achaeans are thus unwarlike and weaklings as thou sayest? Nay, if thine own heart is eager to return, get thee gone; before thee lies the way, and thy ships stand beside the sea, all the many ships that followed thee from Mycenae. Howbeit the other long-haired Achaeans will abide here until we have laid waste Troy. Nay, let them also flee in their ships to their dear native land; yet will we twain, Sthenelus and I, fight on, until we win the goal of Ilios; for with the aid of heaven are we come.”

If as the heretical text suggests that a prominent heretic had the very same vision as Agamemnon before his sacking of Troy, I don't think it outlandish that the vision was itself connected with the sacking of Jerusalem. Both see the destructive power of the divine opposition of love and hate (a key part of Marcionite doctrine according to the Philosophumena 7.18f).

Indeed we gain further context about how important this vision at the beginning of Iliad 9 at the very conclusion of Celsus's long polemic against Christianity. Origen notes that in the last words of his treatise - and in a section primarily directed against the Marcionites - that Celsus appeals to the very same words that Marcion did to encourage Christians to give up trying to overthrow the Emperor. Origen notes:

We have already said that we must not swear by a human king, or by what is called “the fortune of the king.” It is therefore unnecessary for us again to refute these statements: “If you are commanded to swear by a human king, there is nothing wrong in that. For to him has been given whatever there is upon earth; and whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him.” We deny, however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the king, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For whatever we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by His providence, as ripe fruits, and “grain which strengthens man's heart, and the pleasant vine, and wine which rejoices the heart of man.” And moreover, the fruit of the olive-tree, to make his face to shine, we have from the providence of God.

Celsus goes on to say: “We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;'” and adds: “If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom.” If, then, “there shall be one lord, one king,” he must be, not the man “whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed,” but the man to whom He gave the power, who “removes kings and sets up kings,” and who “raises up the useful man in time of need upon earth.” Sirach 10:4 For kings are not appointed by that son of Saturn, who, according to Grecian fable, hurled his father from his throne, and sent him down to Tartarus (whatever interpretation may be given to this allegory), but by God, who governs all things, and who wisely arranges whatever belongs to the appointment of kings. We therefore do set aside the maxim contained in the line:

“Whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;”

for we know that no god or father of a god ever devises anything crooked or crafty. But we are far from setting aside the notion of a providence, and of things happening directly or indirectly through the agency of providence. And the king will not “inflict deserved punishment” upon us, if we say that not the son of crafty Saturn gave him his kingdom, but He who “removes and sets up kings.”

And would that all were to follow my example in rejecting the maxim of Homer, maintaining the divine origin of the kingdom, and observing the precept to honour the king! In these circumstances the king will not “be left in utter solitude and desertion,” neither will “the affairs of the world fall into the hands of the most impious and wild barbarians.” For if, in the words of Celsus, “they do as I do,” then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed except the religion of Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it will one day triumph, as its principles take possession of the minds of men more and more every day.

I don't think this is accidental. The treatise by Marcion must have been fairly well known in antiquity. Celsus clearly draws from Marcion's original appeal to having the same sort of experience as Agamemnon to effectively rally his 'troops' (Jewish converts) that Jerusalem will be destroyed by divine assistance. Celsus's point is to turn around the reference and say that Christianity can and will be destroyed and that all should rally around the Emperor to see it carried out.

All the church fathers are therefore incorrect, and Marcion was not from Pontus, but actually Alexandria?

All that Harris's arguments do is eliminate 'Pontus' as the geographical place of origin for Marcion. They do not help establish Alexandria or any other city as its replacement.

[MrMacSon]

Is this the foundation for a book?

[Stephan Huller]

Nah, just shit I've been putting together for some time.