Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stop what already? Not talking about "Jesus the peasant Christ," "Jesus the Christ" whom no Jew at any time in history would ever have believed was the Christ and other great historical white delusions? None of this works outside of the argument of "its the stuff we've always talked about." No one has yet brought a realistic or serious objection to "phaulos" being the original textual reading for "paulos" ... other than I can't produce manuscripts that say that.

Stephan Huller wrote: ... other than I can't produce manuscripts that say that.

While I find your hypothesis attractive, the objection you mention here is exactly the same you field against other hypotheses aired on this board. The hypothesis sounds good - but there seems to be no chance of putting some real meat on it.

To recount, let me see if I have your hypothesis correct.

1. The Euangelion was the original gospel. It was credited to Mark, though not explicitly. The church fathers who later claimed this was an edited form of Luke were wrong.
2. The Apostolikon was the original form of the Pauline Epistles. The author is not named; he is simply alluded to by the Stoic title phalous, "worthless," "of no account," perhaps a synonym for slave. This book also was credited to Mark, but also not explicitly. The idea was that Mark was "the Apostle."
3. These books were collected (written?) by Markion, "Mark the Lesser," in the early part of the second century.
4. The Catholics somehow obtained copies of the Euangelion and Apostolikon. They kept the Euangelion mostly intact, but "corrected" it by writing more gospels. They also did a full recension of the Apostolikon, taking phalous to mean "Paulous," a Latin proper name. These also were expanded. "The Apostle" only then became known as "Paul," and "Mark" was made explicit as the writer of the gospel. "Mark" was placed second in the Catholic New Testament, obscuring its crucial primary role for the next 1,700 years.

While I find your hypothesis attractive, the objection you mention here is exactly the same you field against other hypotheses aired on this board. The hypothesis sounds good - but there seems to be no chance of putting some real meat on it.

Well that's all that can be said then with any certainty with respect to paulos originally reading phaulos. But the Aramaic and Syriac texts read ܦܘܠܘܤ which could be either/or. Even if Greek was the original language Harvey makes clear that Irenaeus used Syriac NT sources or knew readings which only appear in Syriac. Irenaeus is also the first person in the history of the world (please don't cite Clement!) who not only knew of an apostle named 'Paulos' but vehemently argues and develops a systematic case against those who deny that 'Paulos' was the name of the apostle - "they cannot contend that Paul is not an apostle" (neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse Apostolum) Tertullian, who re-purposes Irenaeus at every turn lays the same accusation against the Marcionites -"and do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? (tu ergo negas apostolum Paulum?). That the name Paul was hidden from their gospel is also noted "Marcion attaches to his gospel no author's name" and again "even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single document would not be adequate for our faith."

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? This in spite of repeated denials of everyone who rejected Acts as a counterfeit historical document.

And does Acts ever even attempt to explain why there was a name change? No it doesn't which is suspicious in itself. So as far as I am concerned up until now there is no explanation why this Jewish apostle originally adopted what is now apparently a Latin name preserved in Irenaeus's Syriac texts as ܦܘܠܘܤ. If anyone comes up with an explanation let me know.

Blood,

1. The Euangelion was the original gospel. It was credited to Mark, though not explicitly. The church fathers who later claimed this was an edited form of Luke were wrong.

As Clement notes in the Letter to Theodore it wasn't just that the credit wasn't explicit, the followers of Mark went so far as to deny any association. Why was this? I suspect it was connected with the memory of the persecutions of 175 - 177 CE (which happen to coincide with the end of the Alexandrian revolt of 172 CE the epicenter of which was the Church of St Mark (= Boucolos, modern Chatby in Alexandria). The Philosophumena connects the Gospel of Mark to the Marcionites but again very little in the way of formal explanation.

2. The Apostolikon was the original form of the Pauline Epistles. The author is not named; he is simply alluded to by the Stoic title phalous, "worthless," "of no account," perhaps a synonym for slave. This book also was credited to Mark, but also not explicitly. The idea was that Mark was "the Apostle."

3. These books were collected (written?) by Markion, "Mark the Lesser," in the early part of the second century.

Here is the email the respected linguist Adam Latjar from the Uniwersytet Warszawski (University of Warsaw) sent me on the subject which settled the issue for me some time ago:

Dear Stephen Huller,
Thank you very much for your mail.
You are right: the name Μαρκίων derives from the Latin "Marcus". But it is neither Samaritan nor Egyptian; it is purely Greek. In Greek,especially in the Post-Classic period, ίων is a very productive nominal formant, used also in constructing personal names. The formant is simply added to the root irrespectable of the fact if the root ends in a consonant or a vowel. As far as personal names are concerned, the ίων formant is frequently added to a thephoric element, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων, Δίων (from Δι-ίων), Σαραπ-ίων, Ἁνουβ-ίων, Δημητρ-ίων, Μην-ίων, Ἀρ-ίων, etc. The ίων formant has somewhat diminutive meaning, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων actually means "The small Apollo" (in the sense: "He is like Apollo"), Δίων - "The small Zeus", etc. Μαρκίων can be analyzed as Μαρκ-ίων, "The small Marcus" ("the one who is like Marcus"). The name may refer to a person with the name Marcus, e.g. the father of the man who bears the name Μαρκίων. I insist on the fact that ίων names are not an Egyptian particularity; it is an overall Greek phenomenon.
I hope this helps you
Best regards
Adam Lajtar

4. The Catholics somehow obtained copies of the Euangelion and Apostolikon.

See my forthcoming article on this subject in Vigiliae Christianae (I hope). He found them in a vault of the main Marcionite church in Rome which the Catholics took over c. 177 CE.

They kept the Euangelion mostly intact, but "corrected" it by writing more gospels. They also did a full recension of the Apostolikon, taking phalous to mean "Paulous," a Latin proper name. These also were expanded. "The Apostle" only then became known as "Paul," and "Mark" was made explicit as the writer of the gospel. "Mark" was placed second in the Catholic New Testament, obscuring its crucial primary role for the next 1,700 years.

Examples of Greek words beginning with φ being translated פ in Aramaic.

פוטינון = φωτεινός (Jastrow p. 1140) bright, splendid. As Jastrow notes the Biblical 'Potiphar' is understood as φωτιφορός. He was called φωτιφορός because when he entered into Pharaoh's houe he became bright, for he brightened up the house of Pharaoh (Genesis Rabbah s. 86). The etymology assumes a knowledge of Greek on the part of the sage.

פוליא = φιλιππα (Jastrow p. 1141) Ya1k.ib. 642

פיולייטון m. (Jastrow p. 1141) foliatum, φουλιᾶτα, τά, = Lat. foliate, an ointment or oil prepared from leaves of spikenard. Cant. B. to 1,3 פ׳ טול לצלוחיח like a flask of foliatum; Snh.108a;פל;יטון (Gen. B. s. 39 אפופלםמון); Ab. Zar. 35b

פולר m. φόλλερόν= φόλλις (Jastrow p. 1142) S., v.בולרין folleron, a small debased coin. Y. Peah 1,15d מילח דטבא חד פ׳ .bot a thing which is worth one folleron

פורבי = φορβειά (Jastrow p. 1166) halter

There are dozens more. not exactly the same thing but ...

פַּרְעֹה = Φαραώ

Stephan Huller wrote:Blood,

1. The Euangelion was the original gospel. It was credited to Mark, though not explicitly. The church fathers who later claimed this was an edited form of Luke were wrong.

As Clement notes in the Letter to Theodore it wasn't just that the credit wasn't explicit, the followers of Mark went so far as to deny any association. Why was this? I suspect it was connected with the memory of the persecutions of 175 - 177 CE (which happen to coincide with the end of the Alexandrian revolt of 172 CE the epicenter of which was the Church of St Mark (= Boucolos, modern Chatby in Alexandria). The Philosophumena connects the Gospel of Mark to the Marcionites but again very little in the way of formal explanation.

2. The Apostolikon was the original form of the Pauline Epistles. The author is not named; he is simply alluded to by the Stoic title phalous, "worthless," "of no account," perhaps a synonym for slave. This book also was credited to Mark, but also not explicitly. The idea was that Mark was "the Apostle."

3. These books were collected (written?) by Markion, "Mark the Lesser," in the early part of the second century.

Here is the email the respected linguist Adam Latjar from the Uniwersytet Warszawski (University of Warsaw) sent me on the subject which settled the issue for me some time ago:

Dear Stephen Huller,
Thank you very much for your mail.
You are right: the name Μαρκίων derives from the Latin "Marcus". But it is neither Samaritan nor Egyptian; it is purely Greek. In Greek,especially in the Post-Classic period, ίων is a very productive nominal formant, used also in constructing personal names. The formant is simply added to the root irrespectable of the fact if the root ends in a consonant or a vowel. As far as personal names are concerned, the ίων formant is frequently added to a thephoric element, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων, Δίων (from Δι-ίων), Σαραπ-ίων, Ἁνουβ-ίων, Δημητρ-ίων, Μην-ίων, Ἀρ-ίων, etc. The ίων formant has somewhat diminutive meaning, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων actually means "The small Apollo" (in the sense: "He is like Apollo"), Δίων - "The small Zeus", etc. Μαρκίων can be analyzed as Μαρκ-ίων, "The small Marcus" ("the one who is like Marcus"). The name may refer to a person with the name Marcus, e.g. the father of the man who bears the name Μαρκίων. I insist on the fact that ίων names are not an Egyptian particularity; it is an overall Greek phenomenon.
I hope this helps you
Best regards
Adam Lajtar

4. The Catholics somehow obtained copies of the Euangelion and Apostolikon.

See my forthcoming article on this subject in Vigiliae Christianae (I hope). He found them in a vault of the main Marcionite church in Rome which the Catholics took over c. 177 CE.

This thesis is producing more questions than answers. If Μαρκίων is intended as a theophoric name, who is the Latin god "Marcus"?

Stephan Huller wrote: As Clement notes in the Letter to Theodore it wasn't just that the credit wasn't explicit, the followers of Mark went so far as to deny any association. Why was this? I suspect it was connected with the memory of the persecutions of 175 - 177 CE (which happen to coincide with the end of the Alexandrian revolt of 172 CE the epicenter of which was the Church of St Mark (= Boucolos, modern Chatby in Alexandria). The Philosophumena connects the Gospel of Mark to the Marcionites but again very little in the way of formal explanation.

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

This theory would make better sense if the Marcionites were located in Alexandria. Then we could establish a clear thread running from Hellenistic Judaism > Philo > Mark > Church of Mark > Marcion. But having the Marcionites a million miles away in the Black Sea is hard to explain.

Blood wrote:This theory would make better sense if the Marcionites were located in Alexandria... But having the Marcionites a million miles away in the Black Sea is hard to explain.

Tacitus, Histories, Book 3 (Adjacent Paragraphs):

"A sudden outbreak had been excited in Pontus by a barbarian slave, who had before commanded the royal fleet. This was Anicetus, a freedman of Polemon, once a very powerful personage, who, when the kingdom was converted into a Roman province, ill brooked the change. Accordingly he raised in the name of Vitellius the tribes that border on Pontus, bribed a number of very needy adventurers by the hope of plunder, and, at the head of a force by no means contemptible, made a sudden attack on the old and famous city of Trapezus, founded by the Greeks on the farthest shore of the Pontus...
...
"The matter attracted the attention of Vespasian, and induced him to dispatch some veterans from the legions under Virdius Geminus, a tried soldier. Finding the enemy in disorder and dispersed in the eager pursuit of plunder, he attacked them, and drove them to their ships. Hastily fitting out a fleet of Liburnian ships he pursued Anicetus, and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus, where he was protected by the king of the Sedochezi, whose alliance he had secured by a sum of money and other presents. This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees. So ended this servile war. Amidst the joy of this success, while everything was prosperous beyond his hopes, tidings of the victory of Cremona reached Vespasian in Aegypt. This made him hasten his advance to Alexandria, for, now that the army of Vitellius was shattered, he sought to apply the pressure of famine to the capital, which is always dependent on foreign supplies..."

I am serious as a heart attack when I state that this is found in Acts. This the the basis for "The Queen's Eunuch". The "Camarae Boats", found in part of the unquoted passages in Tacitus, provide the odd little story of the little boat lifted onto the ship and secured with ropes (See Moffatt Trans., f'rinstance). The last 2 chapters of Acts also are centered on the Camarae boats and the Cohibus River Inlet.

CW

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.