Who was Marcion?

I think Marqiyon in Aramaic is a back-formation from Marqîyônê meaning followers of Mark. The suffix –iyon is productive in Hebrew and Aramaic of the time. (Productive is a technical term of theoretical linguistics meaning used to make new words, as opposed to being recognised in existing words but not used to make new words). It does not make diminutives: it makes derivatives. PEOPLE don’t have names ending in –iyon in Hebrew or Aramaic, but THINGS named by relation to other things have the suffix. I think the Greek Markion is a combination of influence of the Aramaic and a conscious creation of a Greek diminutive. The Diatessaron was produced simultaneously in Syriac and Latin in Rome exactly when Irenaeus wrote, so Syriac/Aramaic contact is certain. Does the Greek or Latin name Markion occur before Irenaeus?

On the Samaritan Concept of 'the Year'

Many of the features of the throne naturally suggests both the concept of the Jubilee year, and the central Samaritan theological concept of the renewed Time of Favour [Hebrew רצון Rāṣon, Aramaic Rūūta, Arabic Riḍwân]. (The spelling with Alef instead of He as is normal in Samaritan mss. does not matter here). In each of the two corners above the Seraph with the human face, there is an angel with one pair of wings blowing a shofar. The one on the right has an eagle’s face. The one on the left has a lion’s face. The two are a reminder of Mark. Presumably they are both the heavenly equivalent of Mark blowing the shofar to announce the Jubilee. [FOOTNOTE: I don’t know the significance of the short rod held by the angel on the right. It seems to be a burning torch. I don’t know why they are on this panel with bull and not on the other panel with the human].

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the One Thing On the Throne of St. Mark NOT Represented in the Book of Revelations

There is only one piece of symbolism not connected with the book of Revelation. On each side of the backrest on the outside there are representations of five tubes with a flame at the top. These must symbolise the book of the Torah. If the representation is on both sides, then there must be a symbol of the new or second Torah, the Gospel. Perhaps this concept is what is intended by the words Moshav Marqos, meaning the formal session by Mark to decree the promulgation of the Gospel, according to the authority given at the first Pentecost.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the Throne of St. Mark as a Theological Concept

The obvious question is the meaning of the connection between the words Moshav and Marqos. A suggestion would be that a connection is to be made with the concept of the Christos Pantokrâtôr. The term Pantokrâtôr as a Christological title is taken from Daniel VII:14, by summing the verse up in one word. [FOOTNOTE: This word as a Christological title is not Biblical, but it is a legitimate and convenient invention, provided it is clearly distinguished from the Greek translation of the divine name Shaddai, traditionally though not necessarily correctly taken to mean Almighty, and conventionally translated as Pantokrâtôr. Failure to see this distinction has led to untold confusion]. The distinction between the absolute authority of God and the derived authority of the “humanlike figure” is clearly drawn in this passage. The formal act of the Ancient of Days upon enthronement at this session was to decree dominion to the “humanlike figure” of verse 13. It is then from this figure that authority is given to the Apostle. The “humanlike figure” in Daniel is given authority. Perhaps the connection of the two words Moshav Marqos is that this model is a memorial of the enthronement of Mark, when he assumed the authority given to him as Apostle by the Risen Christ at Pentecost. There is an alternative interpretation compatible with this one. There is only one picture on the model throne not connected with the book of Revelation. This probably means it is intended to be the primary piece of symbolism. On each side of the backrest on the outside there are representations of five tubes with a flame at the top. These must symbolise the book of the Torah. If the representation is on both sides, then there must be a symbol of the new or second Torah, the Gospel. Perhaps the words Moshav Marqos also mean the formal session by Mark to decree the promulgation of the Gospel, according to the authority given at the first Pentecost. Perhaps the symbolism of the New Torah is the link to the book of Revelation, which speaks of all things being made new. “All things” is the Torah, the model of Creation. As the source of Creation, it must be everlasting; but its manifestation on earth can be made new. It has been seen that the total number of rays on the stars is four hundred and eight, symbolising Alef times four followed by Tav followed by Alef times four. The multiplication of the Alef by four could refer to its manifestation at all four levels of Creation, that is, Emanation, Creation, Formation, and Making. Or it could refer to its manifestation in the material world, the world of the four elements.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

The Cup of Mark and the Throne of Mark

Irenaeus mentions a Mark who is intimately connected with a 'cup' (AH i:14f). Mark in Alexandria has his throne.

The Aramaic for cup is kâs, definite kâsa (kaf-samech-alef). (I don’t see how Jastrow can double the samech with endings, but it doesn’t matter for the present purpose). The difficulty is that the Aramaic word for “chair” does not resemble this. It is kurseyah (kaf-vav-resh-yod-he), definite plural kurse. On its own, the Hebrew kisse [“chair”, but in poetic language and on a sign or notice it could mean “the chair”] (kaf-samech-alef) could be misread as Aramaic kâsa, “the cup”. The difficulty is that the word would not stand on its own. The Hebrew word for a cup is kos [kaf-vav-samech, plural kosot kaf-vav-samech-vav-tav). The plural of kisse is kis’ot (kaf-samech-alef-vav-tav). These two words in the plural would only be confused by someone with no real knowledge of Hebrew. On second thought, that description might fit Irenaeus, as we have seen. Both plurals are regular, but would seem irregular to someone with no real knowledge of Hebrew. This is because both words, although masculine, have the plural suffix –ot. For most (not all) masculine nouns the plural suffix is –im. (Common exception are avot, fathers; dorot, generations; meqomot, places). ). For most (not all) feminine nouns the plural suffix is –ot. It is easily predictable from the form of kos and kisse (and maqom and dor and av) that they will have their plural in –ot, but only if you know Hebrew properly.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the word Lion (Arye)

Arye (Alef-Resh-Yod-He) meaning lion has the numerical value 1 + 200 + 10 + 5 = 216. This is eight times twenty-seven or two cubed times three cubed, or otherwise six cubed.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On Samaritans at Boucolia

If you compare what Abu ’l-Fatḥ says elsewhere, it is apparent that he does not say large numbers of a Dosithean sub-sect in Alexandria were wiped out. Comparison of his style and method with other passages shows that he says the leaders of one sub-sect were wiped out. (Or more exactly, this is the style and method of his source. This is the same source that was known to Origen secondhand in fragmentary quotes out of context which he did not understand). Compare what A. F. says about one sub-sect being wiped out when the roof fell in when they were ALL gathered. Similar stories are quote for the end of other sub-sects of the Dositheans. There is also the analogy of Origen saying there were only ever thirty Dositheans,, as well as Origen’s statement that Simon had thirty followers. Notice that in all cases a group founded by a named individual is involved.

In the standard references, you will find A. F. quoted as saying that Bustanos came up out of the sea and killed these people. Then there are guesses that this might be Poseidonios (Poseidon). A Samaritan author would not attribute an event to a Greek god! The rationalising interpretation that a tidal wave might be meant is no better, since no Samaritan would call a tidal wave a manifestation of Poseidon. You have to bear in mind that when A. F. is quoted, it is always according to Vilmar’s edition of 1865. This was a good start, but Vilmar frequently guesses and prints what is not in any manuscript without telling the reader. Very often he follows his ms. C against all the others because it is the oldest. It is not the oldest by very much, and it is badly copied. Guesses about what A. F. might have meant are futile unless the mss. are checked. Both Haroutun Jamgotchian (of Yerevan) and myself have published careful studies of the readings of the mss. in difficult places, and this fact is quite clear from our samples (Textproben). The correct reading in this case is not Bostanos but Botanos. (The insertion of the S is an easy reading mistake with Arabic script). This means hippopotamus. When A. F. says they had moved from Alexandria to the edge of the sea, it must be remembered that the Nile is the only river called The Sea in Arabic. As A. F. says the place was remote from people, I would guess it was on the Nile delta away from any town. (A location a long way upstream, past Elephantine, is unlikely. This would have been too far from Neapolis. In the Nile delta they could be out of the way but not far in miles from towns and main roads and a port). Perhaps only the leaders moved. Remember what was said about only the leaders being wiped out. We are told some were imprisoned. When they were wiped out, they were probably about to immerse themselves, at least in the imagination of the source author. As for the believability of the story, this is not a question. What A. F. says about the end of the other sub-sects is just as fantastic. In each case, his source wanted to show that they had been wiped out by the hand of Providence because of their wickedness, and being wiped out other than by the hand of man proved how wicked they were. The Dositheans did not vanish from Egypt, only the leaders of this sub-group. There is a notice in Photius of a substantial number of Dositheans in Alexandria in 588 A.D., numerous enough to petition for official recognition as a denomination other than the rest of the Samaritans.

For the same reasons as outlined, be very sceptical about the accuracy of the name Iulianus in this story. Vilmar has had difficulty with the mss. I don’t know yet what the correct reading is, as I have not fully collated the mss. here yet.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the Top-Piece of the Throne of St. Mark (and other things)

The top-piece is not the original. Enough has been written to make this certain. The stone is a very good match, but a slight difference in colour shows up in some photographs if the light is at the right angle.






First, to make sense fully, the words Moshav Marq(os) must have labelled something visible in the same place as being the See of Mark. Setting the throne over the High Altar and over some labelled relic of Mark would have been a start. If the words are to be a label, the model throne would have had to have been over the High Altar underneath a representation of the Christos Pantokrâtôr, so that it symbolised the worldwide Apostolic authority of Mark. The See of Mark, though centred in Alexandria, is the world. (The greater status of Mark over Peter is indisputable. Stealing the throne was the importation of a metaphysical poisoned chalice. The Venetians saw the implications, bought it, and used it to legitimise their independence from the Pope). Second, if the throne is too little for an adult, no-one can ever sit in it, and its symbolism of acts of divine manifestation and judgment, moshavot, would not be lost sight of. Third, there could be an allusion to Mark as the “little child” of the Gospels. This is not Coptic tradition but it is an attested Egyptian view (Clement, Instructor or Tutor, the poem at the end; Origen, commentary on Matthew ad loc. applies it to John but note that the Copts expressly identify Mark and John). The size of the throne is exactly right for a boy of eight to ten.

And while you've dropped by, why not read my book that answers all questions you never thought about asking about the origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Buy it here

Boid on the word 'Evangelist' and the Throne of St Mark

Evangelistes equals Mevasser, in an allusion to Isaiah LXI. Note, however, that the cross in the inscription, although not quite vertical, is not slanted enough to be a capital Chi, which should look like a Roman capital X. Note that the angles of the two lines of a Chi to each other are not right angles. The cross on the book held by the eagle would look vertical on the cover of the book, like a big plus sign, like this. +

I will look at some pictures of Chi in the period and see whether the lines can meet at right angles.

Don’ t forget that Tav in the Old Hebrew alphabet was originally a cross. In the specifically Samaritan form it has been modified. The form in the monogram is like a slanted capital N. The Samaritan form used in print is from a later period. Note that I am saying this Tav is old. What I will have to look at now is the shapes of the letters in Old Hebrew used by Jews in the revolt against Rome and in some Qumran mss. It is a cross that is meant in the place in Ezekiel where it says the elect had a Tav put on their foreheads. The word there is Tav (spelt Tav Vav). Also, if you look carefully at the Targum of Ezekiel and the Targums (plural) of Genesis and work out their terminology and cross-referencing of terminology, you will see that the mark of divine protection on Cain’ s forehead was a Tav in the shape of a cross. In its very oldest form it was equal-armed but slanted like a big lower-case X. Later forms are like an equal-armed vertical cross or like a Christian cross.

Have you read the bit right at the end where I give a reason for the use of the Old Hebrew alphabet? Of course, this is only one aspect of the reason. The details still need to be thought out.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

Revelations and the Throne of St. Mark

Although is not known for certain if the writer of the book of Revelation had any genuine information, none of those that are dubious about the book say it is entirely wrong. There are echoes in that book of the revelation of the Tetragrammaton in its full meaning. I said a bit on that in the unfinished article on the throne.

Two important observations. The four streams of water flow INTO the hexagon and spread out, as it says, “watering the whole earth”. So the hexagon is the created world, as you say. In that case, the curved line might be the missing seventh dimension.

If the ram is Moses, he stands above the material world and above the four rivers, the manifestation of the Torah as supporter of creation. The tree with fruit is then the single heavenly Torah with its multiple and diverse fruit, as often depicted to this day. Creation starts at the date of nought degrees of Aries. The numerical value of t.et-lamed-he, t.ale, the name of the sign of Aries, is 44. (And the Tetragrammaton has four letters). And Moses has ram’s horns [Exodus XXXIV:29-35]. Note all the fours in the symbolism on the throne. Is this one of the reasons why there was no objection to the invention of the concept of four books of the Gospel?

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the Author of Revelations and the Throne of St. Mark

I know what the author of the book saw when he looked at the hexagon on the front. He didn’t see the world that was created in six days and is imbued with the quality of six. He saw a two-dimensional drawing of a cube, each line being the edge of one of the six faces. Was he right or wrong?

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

On the Ram on the Throne of St. Mark

It isn’t a lamb. It’s a ram. It has definite curved horns. The reason we have missed them is that the pictures of the front aren’t very good, and the horns curve down and run along the top of the head, just as they would have to if the ram were to get caught in brambles. (The Hebrew has sevach [Samech-Bet-Kaf], anything tangled like a big wild climbing rose or a big blackberry. The word is related to sevacha lattice and mesubbach complicated. This is different to sene [Samech-Nun-He], as in the Burning Bush.

That doesn’t mean the author of Revelations has mistaken what he saw. He has followed the lead of John’s Gospel in fusing the ram of Genesis with the purely secondary identification (in my opinion) of the Passover lamb. Mind you, the fusion probably does go back to the actual date of 37 A.D. It need not be an invention of the period of falsification.

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here