Boid on the Acts of Archelaus

I have been looking through the new translation of the Acts of Archelaus, which arrived a couple of days ago. There is no doubt that the narrative setting is late and fictitious; but there is equally well no doubt that what is attributed to Archelaus comes from an old treatise of great importance, and fortunately it doesn’t seem to have been re-worded. (The arguments attributed to Mani seem to have been taken from a Manichaean basic presentation of their religion, but this is not what I am interested in). I really must thank you for reminding me so often till I thought I had better read it.

On the names. Yes, Archelaus has no real existence, and the name must originally have been a title of Marcellus which is the Latin equivalent of Markion. The title means national ruler. As for the name of the supposed author, Hegemonius, just look up the word hegmon in Jastrow. I think the author of the fiction had more names and titles in front him than he needed. Has it occurred to you that the name he gives as an alternative name of Mani, Corbicus, means crow? (The translation you’re using might have Cubricus, but that translation was done before the discovery of another, better, ms.). In Latin of this period, the word corvus had become corbus, corvinus had become corbinus, and so on, for reasons that needn’t be explained just now. (The diminutive corbellus became the French corbeau). Corbicus is a fairly normal expansion of corvus or corbus to form a personal name or title. I think the late author tried to think what to do with this name and assigned it to Mani. He did something like this with other names. The name of the village Diodoris that Mani fled to equals Dositheos, and the name of the presbyter in the village, Trophon, is almost certainly the same as Trypho. (So Epiphanius’s version. The Latin translation says both the village and the presbyter were called Diodorus).

The translators mention a related Christian text which I intend to try to find.

This translation, though published in Belgium, was done by people at Macquarie University, in Sydney.

A bit more on the letters MRQH مرقه in the preface to the Arabic Diatessaron. I told you the form is either (a) Samaritan or (b) Jewish Palestinian Aramaic before 200 A.D. I intend to look into the dating more exactly. Add to this the SPELLING WITH HE NOT ALEF. This is either (a) Samaritan or (b) Jewish Palestinian before 150 A.D.

The readings of the Old Syriac and Peshitta on Iscariot, Sychar, etc. will be sent in a few days.