Nevertheless an idea has come into my head - or perhaps better yet - I have been reminded of an idea that comes to the fore every once and a while, regarding the origins of the Marcionite sect. It follows what I just wrote about Celsus being the earliest witness to the Carpocratians so I would like to share it with you now.
Origen makes it clear that Celsus applies the name 'Harpocratians' to some form of presumably Alexandrian sect of Christianity. I think the specific form 'Harpocratians' is original and the later 'Carpocratians' is a corruption - perhaps deliberately on the part of later Church Fathers. But Origen only passes on two things from Celsus regarding the sectarian make up in Alexandrian Christianity in the year 177 CE:
- that both the Marcellians and the Harpocratians derive from 'Salome' (presumably the mother of John in the gospel).
- that Marcionite dogma was widespread and influential in the age.
Indeed I would argue that the term Μαρκελλιανοὺς was the means by which Celsus identified the group we know as the Μαρκιωνιστῶν (or some such other related term). In other words, Celsus identified the Marcionites as a group associated with 'Marcellus' not 'Marcellina' (as Irenaeus). It follows a similar corruption mentioned above (i.e. going from Ἁρποκρατιανοὺς to Καρποκρατιανοὺς), a corruption which is never explained but typically 'swept under the carpet' by traditional scholarship.
'Marcellus' is the Latin masculine diminutive of the name 'Marcus' just as 'Marcion' is its Greek equivalent. Why didn't Celsus identify the sect by its more familiar Greek gentilic collective plural - i.e. Μαρκιωνιστῶν? The explanation that follows might sound outlandish to some, but it really is the only solution which explains all of the evidence.
As we just noted, Celsus wrote an original treatise which identified both the Marcellians and the Harpocratians as being associated with Salome - presumably the mother of John. It was Origen who added the explanation about the name deriving from the feminine form of the Latin diminutive of Marcus - viz. 'Marcellina.' Origen got this idea from Irenaeus or the final redactor of the lost Hypomnemata of Josephus (= 'Hegesippus') assuming of course that Irenaeus wasn't that person (I am pretty sure that he was).
Origen however goes on to tack on an explanation that 'Celsus also mentions the Marcionites' who derive from someone named Marcion. I think that the afterthought here was purposed. It must have been well-known that Celsus spent a lot of time attacking Marcionite dogma in the True Word. The problem however was that Celsus never identifies the sect as the Μαρκιωνιστῶν. As Origen himself notes Celsus merely 'heaps' names on to his reader - the 'Simonians' (whose origins are ignored) but are connected with the 'Hellenians' (who are associated with someone named 'Helen' or 'Helenus') and the Marcellians and Harpocratians who as noted above are referenced with Salome.
I have been thinking about this stuff for almost twenty five years. One of things that has always stumped me is why cite the diminutive of Mark in Latin as opposed to Greek (when there were certainly more Greek speakers and people with Greek names than Latin ones)? Today I came up with my answer, and I am sure it will please no one but me.
I think Celsus was applying the term Μαρκελλιανοὺς as a kind of gens (= tribe, people) to the Alexandrian tradition as a whole. Again, the term was never explained in his True Word, but I think the closest example is the manner in which Marcellus developed as a cognomen from within the clan of Claudians.
In Roman nomenclature the cognomen was the third name of a citizen of Ancient Rome, under Roman naming conventions. The cognomen started as a nickname, but lost that purpose when it became hereditary (and thus more like a family name). The term (with an Anglicized plural cognomens) has taken on a less specific meaning. Because of the limited nature of the Latin praenomen, the cognomen developed to distinguish branches of the family from one another, and occasionally, to highlight an individual's achievement, typically in warfare.
So it was that in the Republican period, Marcus Claudius was originally of the Claudian family but sometime after his death, the name 'Marcellus' became cognomitated as the surname of a Roman family, which produced many great and illustrious characters, even though they were still considered to be a branch of the Claudian clan (gens Claudia). Plutarch begins his famous book on Marcus Claudius (entitled 'on Marcellus') with the sentence:
Marcus Claudius, who was five times consul of the Romans, was a son of Marcus, as we are told, and, according to Poseidonius, was the first of his family to be called Marcellus, which means Martial.For whatever its worth it is interest to note that Plutarch also wrote a book on the Marcii clan who date themselves back to one of the earliest (and most important) kings of Rome - i.e. 'Marcius.' It begins:
Μᾶρκον δὲ Κλαύδιον τὸν πεντάκις ὑπατεύσαντα Ῥωμαίων Μάρκου μὲν υἱὸν γενέσθαι λέγουσι, κληθῆναι δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας πρῶτον Μάρκελλον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν Ἀρήϊον, ὥς φησι Ποσειδώνιος.
The patrician house of the Marcii at Rome furnished many men of distinction. One of them was Ancus Marcius, the grandson of Numa by his daughter, and the successor of Tullus Hostilius in the kingship. To this family belonged also Publius and Quintus Marcius, the men who brought into Rome its best and most abundant supply of water.At the danger of getting irreparably sidetracked by this exercise in speculation, let's return to our original point about Celsus's identification of the Alexandrian Christians as Μαρκελλιανοὺς.
ὁ Μαρκίων (= 'of the Marcii') οἶκος ἐν Ῥώμῃ τῶν πατρικίων πολλοὺς παρέσχεν ἐνδόξους ἄνδρας, ὧν καὶ Μάρκιος ἦν Ἄγκος, ὁ Νομᾶ θυγατριδοῦς καὶ μετὰ Τύλλον Ὁστίλιον βασιλεὺς γενόμενος. Μάρκιοι (= 'the Marcii') δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ Πόπλιος καὶ Κόιντος οἱ πλεῖστον ὕδωρ καὶ κάλλιστον ἐν Ῥώμῃ καταγαγόντες, καὶ Κηνσωρῖνος, ὃν δὶς ἀπέδειξε τιμητὴν ὁ Ῥωμαίων δῆμος, εἶτα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πεισθεὶς ἐκείνου νόμον ἔθετο καὶ ἐψηφίσατο μηδενὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν δὶς ἐξεῖναι μετελθεῖν
I don't know for far I can go with this but my readers can ignore the post if they find it too speculative. We know from the Church Fathers that the central ritual among the various heresies is that of the so-called redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις). The term ἀπολύτρωσις of course is connected with the liberation of slaves. And whether they are called 'Marcionites,' 'Marcites' or 'Marcosians' the Patristic references tell us that the baptism ritual is somehow associated with Mark 10:35 - 45 (as such I have always argued that it is related to LGM 1 = 'the first addition to secret Mark' as referenced in the Letter to Theodore).
Now Christian baptism is always associated with both adoption and redemption. In other words, 'the Father' not only 'redeems' (or 'purchases') slaves but adopts them as part of the greater Christian family (= 'the Church'). So we read:
Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [John 8:35 - 36]Of course in Roman culture purchased slaves received the nomen and praenomen of the master but not their cognomen. The implication was clearly that they were not 'really' a part of the family.
Christianity seems to have conceived of something radically different. The redemption ritual was nothing short of a full adoption by 'the Father.' So not only did the Marcionite Apostolikon reference "the Father (pater) from whom the heavenly family (patria) derives its name" (Eph 3.15 - 16) but we see in Clement of Alexandria a similar - albeit more veiled conception - viz. "the whole family runs back to God the Creator." (Strom 6.7)
Yet in Alexandria, then as now, Mark was the Father. Yes of course there was a father in heaven, but St. Mark, the man who established the line of patriarchs who shepherded his church was the 'father' of the Christian community. So we read in Severus of Al'Ashmunein's History of the Coptic Patriarchs repeated reference to this concept:
These patriarchs were the successors of the father and missionary, Saint Mark the evangelist [First Preface]The idea that Mark might have been 'the father' of the 'family of faith' in an abstract sense might not upset anyone. However it might be useful to go to our earliest report about the Alexandrian Church to see how far this concept of 'father' goes, not only with St. Mark but his earthly representative - the Pope.
Thus the inheritance of this power, which Christ gave to the great father and evangelist, Mark, the apostle, is carried on to his successor, the patriarch who sits upon his episcopal throne in the great city of Alexandria, in the midst of the regions where he preached [Second Preface]
The Acts of Peter of Alexandria make not only repeated reference to St. Mark as the 'father' of the community, but also his earthly representative - the Pope. In the early fourth century, Peter of Alexandria had abandoned the Papal throne and a certain Meletius had taken his place. The author of the Acts of Peter reference Meletius's actions as Pope still in terms of a father heading a family:
rending asunder the Catholic Church not only in the cities of Egypt, but even in its villages, he ordained bishops of his own party, nor cared he anything for Peter, nor for Christ, who was in the person of Peter. To him Arius, who was yet a laic, and not marked with the clerical tonsure, adhered, and was to him and his family most dear.My only point here is that a tradition which so emphasized the 'slavery' and 'redemption' (from the Law) and had an established prebytery with bishops and without question, a Patriarch who presided over the whole Church (presumably in Osrhoene by the late second century), the Marcionite tradition may well have originally identified its members - or more corrected had its members identified (perhaps mockingly) as the 'Marcella gens' or some such related terminology.
One other slightly related tangent. There is a story in the ninth century monastic culture in Ireland of at least one person adopting the name 'Marcellus' owing to his association with a bishop named 'Marcus.' The original story appears in a narrative written by Ekkehard where the pertinent section in Latin reads:
Moengal, postea a nostris Marcellus diminutive a Marco avunculo sic nominatus, hie erat in divinis et humanis eruditissimus etc. (Ekkeh. casus S. Galli cap. 1. Pertz II)The change of name is never explained but the adoption of the diminutive form of 'Marcus' is always noted by commentators:
Moengal, afterwards in the monastery called Marcellus, or " the little Marcus," seems to have made a powerful impression upon the monks by his great learning (Zimmer, the Irish Element in Medieval Culture p. 72)More work is needed of course but I think that something like this finally explains the primacy of the reference in Celsus. Once again 'Marcellian' and 'Harpocratian' are necessarily the original terminology, 'Marcionite' and 'Carpocratian' - the preferred terms into the early third century were deliberately developed to obscure the original point that Mark was the original head of the Christian family.
Moengal, accompanied him, whom they afterwards named Marcellus, as a diminutive from Marcus. (Todd, the Irish Version of the History Britonum p. 54)
Life at St. Gall under Marcellus, or the " Little Mark," as they called him in stately Latin (Hull, Early Christian Ireland p.155)
Moengal had arrived at St. Gall in 850 with his "uncle." Marcus, and from this association appears to have received the name " Marcellus," little Mark. (Transactions of the Irish Society of Inverness p 137)
The monks, thinking the Irish name Maengal somewhat uncouth, called him Marcellus, or the Little Mark, in contradistinction to Mark the greater, his uncle, the bishop. (Sabine The Lives of the Saints. p 66)
More to follow ...
