Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:34 am

Secret Alias wrote:And since spin seems to be confident in his abilities maybe he can explain Epiphanius's Μαρκώσιοι
I don't have an explanation for Μαρκώσιοι with its omega-sigma-iota, but at the same time I can't see that it has anything to do with our matter concerning Marcus, Marcius and Marcianus. Can you?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:30 am

Well not pertinent to the immediate context of our 'sub-discussion' but since the context is (a) Christian sects and (b) what the adjective associated with the praenomen Marcus it is of interest. The question for me at least (with respect to Μαρκώσιοι) is whether Epiphanius found the name in his Greek MS of Irenaeus. If it was it makes it difficult for me to argue that 'Marcianus' in Defense of the Apostolic Preaching = 'of Marcus.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:36 am

It would appear from the evidence so far:

1. cognomina could be formed from both praenomina and nomina.
2. Christian name identification was unique with its apparent preference for praenomina
3. at least one prominent authority who has seen thousands of inscriptions says that Marcus is one such praenomina which formed cognomina.
4. scholars of early Christianity (Lipsius) have understood the various Christian references to Marciani to = 'those of Marcus' (what else could they be referring to? An otherwise unknown Marcius?)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
spin
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:03 pm

Secret Alias wrote:It would appear from the evidence so far:

1. cognomina could be formed from both praenomina and nomina.
Sloppy. We know that cognomina were formed from nomina. We know later some praenomina were taken as nomina and cognomina by non-Romans. We also know that some cognomina were taken over without concern for meaning or origin of those cognomina. But from praenomina to cognomina, what is the direct evidence?
Secret Alias wrote:2. Christian name identification was unique with its apparent preference for praenomina
What does that mean and in what exact context of nomination does it have meaning?
Secret Alias wrote:3. at least one prominent authority who has seen thousands of inscriptions says that Marcus is one such praenomina which formed cognomina.
Trajectory needed, not opinion.
Secret Alias wrote:4. scholars of early Christianity (Lipsius) have understood the various Christian references to Marciani to = 'those of Marcus' (what else could they be referring to? An otherwise unknown Marcius?)
So what? Why should a Dutchman writing in around 1590 no matter how learned have any impact in this discourse? What evidence did he have to help you? That's the only thing that would matter.

This seems like another one of those efforts to convince yourself that you can use an unverifiable etymology.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:28 am

But we deal with probabilities all the time in these discussions. In a recent post in another thread you mention the two uses of kurios. I think that is an interesting theory. I am not sure how true it is/what the probability is for it being true. Why is what I am proposing any different? True you haven't relied upon another person's opinion for the argument on behalf of your theory. But in order to argue on behalf of any understanding for what is or isn't possible with respect to the construction of cognomina you'd have to spend hours and hours looking at inscriptions. I don't have the time to do that. I am waiting for this book from Kajanto because he did that.

I am interested in why Kajanto came to a conclusion regarding the praenomen Marcus that supports the idea that it rather than Marcius was responsible for some of the examples of Marcianus as a cognomen. At the same time no one I MEAN NO ONE argues that cognomina CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED FROM PRAENOMINA. No one.

As a participant in this discussion I wonder whether we are trying to 'win' arguments or merely establish what is possible, likely or even what is more or less probable.

To this end, as I wait for the book to arrive Marcianus from Marcus is certainly possible, I think it might be likely (I don't know I haven't read the book) but again certainly possible given the number of -ianus endings I provided for praenomina that usually end with -us. To argue that EVERY -ianus cognomina was derived from a variant -ius praenomen out of the hundred examples in the book I linked to is simply beyond ludicrous. And moreover still the number of -ianus groups within early Christianity that derive from praenomina ending in -us is also too common in the earliest sources (Hegesippus, Justin).

And for this I'd have to say that we have to acknowledge the following with respect to the OP's claim that Irenaeus's Marcianus = 'those of Marcus'

i) it is possible that Irenaeus was simply addressing someone whose cognomen was Marcianus
ii) it is possible and it is usually understood that Irenaeus was addressing an individual whose cognomen was 'Florinus'

Nevertheless there is an odd and consistent emphasis within Christianity to address individuals by the praenomen. The names of the the disciples, apostolic men, all the books of the New Testament, all the early Patristic writers are almost inevitably preserved in association with a praenomen. Eleanor Dickey (1) reports that when Romans were named by a single name, the praenomen was used only 6% of the time. However the praenomina in the NT are

1. Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23)
2. Gaius (3 John 1)
3. Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37, 39, Philemon 24, Col 4:10).
), whom I take to be different from the Mark of Acts.
5. Lucius and other variants (Acts 13:1, Rom 16:21, Philemon 24, Col 4:14).
6. Titus (Gal 2:1,3; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; 2 Tim 4:10; Tit 1:4).
7. Gaius (Acts 20:4)
8. Gaius (Acts 19:29)

Others will find more Lukes and fewer Marks, but will arrive at a similar total number of people. The only (presumed) non-believer who is given a Latin praenomen is:

9. Publius (Acts 28:7-8), who hosted Paul and his companions in Malta.

The same pattern extends through the second century. While you don't like speculation the facts of the matter are that Christianity was centered around an adoption rite (baptism) whereby one left father and mother and because a son of God, a brother to other brothers in the household of God. This to me is the most-likely explanation to why praenomina were the preferred identification markers of Christians in the early period.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:27 am

Secret Alias wrote:1. Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23)
"Gaius", 1 Corinthians 1:14 is suspicious. I believe that is is possible to provide a link back to the Historical here:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."

The chain starts at Acts 6: 5, 15

[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.
...
[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Octavian was the "Proselyte of Antioch", which makes this an inverted List of Caesars, which makes "Stephen"...

Change "Caius" to "Gaius", etc. and Suddenly!, you've got a Change in Christianity! Ummm........./s

1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17 (RSV):

[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

There was mischief afoot! Look at verse 17. Here is another "He was speaking of the Temple of His Body" moment:

"...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power..."

This is cognitively vacuous. People will manufacture a meaning for this and not see the magician's hand hide the Family name for "Stephanas" in full view of the crowd.

"MUCIA'NUS, LICI'NIUS, three times consul in a.d. 52, 70, and 75 respectively, must have passed, by adoption, from the Mucian to the Licinian gens..."

I cannot make the leap here - It's not on my Job Description - but there might be some other Business going on.

CW

User avatar
spin
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by spin » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:10 pm

Secret Alias wrote:In a recent post in another thread you mention the two uses of kurios. I think that is an interesting theory. I am not sure how true it is/what the probability is for it being true.
Start with the linguistic context. Paul for example was not writing in a literary vacuum, yet whenever he quotes HB he uses κυριος for YHWH. This is how one can see reference to YHWH in the diaspora. Paul also notes that there is one god (the father) and one lord (obviously not #2, Jesus), so he is certainly no binitarian. As a pastoral writer he does not intend to confuse his assemblies through opaque language. We have to waive later christian usage of the word and consider how the word is used in the literary/linguistic context. In doing so, I find no way that κυριος #2 can bear reference to anyone but god before Paul began writing and there is no general hint that he uses it so, except conveniently in two passages that are of questionable veracity, where κυριος has to be read as a reference to Jesus. You normally don't choose to use the same term for two distinct referents without distinguishing between the two referents through usage, though we know that later writers basically did just that due to ideology.
Secret Alias wrote:Why is what I am proposing any different?
Your theory does not come from the evidence, but from conjecture.
Secret Alias wrote:True you haven't relied upon another person's opinion for the argument on behalf of your theory. But in order to argue on behalf of any understanding for what is or isn't possible with respect to the construction of cognomina you'd have to spend hours and hours looking at inscriptions. I don't have the time to do that. I am waiting for this book from Kajanto because he did that.
You need to demonstrate your theories have support beyond the word of someone without substantive evidence.
Secret Alias wrote:I am interested in why Kajanto came to a conclusion regarding the praenomen Marcus that supports the idea that it rather than Marcius was responsible for some of the examples of Marcianus as a cognomen. At the same time no one I MEAN NO ONE argues that cognomina CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED FROM PRAENOMINA. No one.
Has anyone produced evidence that any cognomen was constructed from a praenomen qua praenomen??
Secret Alias wrote:As a participant in this discussion I wonder whether we are trying to 'win' arguments or merely establish what is possible, likely or even what is more or less probable.
As you are still wondering that, it's best I stop my participation in the conversation with this post.
Secret Alias wrote:To this end, as I wait for the book to arrive Marcianus from Marcus is certainly possible, I think it might be likely (I don't know I haven't read the book) but again certainly possible given the number of -ianus endings I provided for praenomina that usually end with -us. To argue that EVERY -ianus cognomina was derived from a variant -ius praenomen out of the hundred examples in the book I linked to is simply beyond ludicrous. And moreover still the number of -ianus groups within early Christianity that derive from praenomina ending in -us is also too common in the earliest sources (Hegesippus, Justin).
I don't think we've established one single cognomen with a "-ianus" rather than a "-anus" on an "i"-stemmed nomen. The issue may become clouded with non-Roman appropriation of Roman names and the lack of meaningful connection to those names, but talking specifically of cognomina we have not found one example of a true "-ianus" suffix.
Secret Alias wrote:And for this I'd have to say that we have to acknowledge the following with respect to the OP's claim that Irenaeus's Marcianus = 'those of Marcus'

i) it is possible that Irenaeus was simply addressing someone whose cognomen was Marcianus
ii) it is possible and it is usually understood that Irenaeus was addressing an individual whose cognomen was 'Florinus'

Nevertheless there is an odd and consistent emphasis within Christianity to address individuals by the praenomen.
Is it meaningful to call them praenomina? The bearers of the names weren't Roman, so the distinctions between praenomina, nomina and cognomina don't seem appropriate talking about non-Romans whose social status would exclude them from the society where such distinctions had meaning.
Secret Alias wrote:The names of the the disciples, apostolic men, all the books of the New Testament, all the early Patristic writers are almost inevitably preserved in association with a praenomen. Eleanor Dickey (1) reports that when Romans were named by a single name, the praenomen was used only 6% of the time.
We aren't talking about Romans, so how is her data relevant to this discourse?
Secret Alias wrote:However the praenomina in the NT are

1. Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23)
2. Gaius (3 John 1)
3. Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37, 39, Philemon 24, Col 4:10).
), whom I take to be different from the Mark of Acts.
5. Lucius and other variants (Acts 13:1, Rom 16:21, Philemon 24, Col 4:14).
6. Titus (Gal 2:1,3; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; 2 Tim 4:10; Tit 1:4).
7. Gaius (Acts 20:4)
8. Gaius (Acts 19:29)

Others will find more Lukes and fewer Marks, but will arrive at a similar total number of people. The only (presumed) non-believer who is given a Latin praenomen is:

9. Publius (Acts 28:7-8), who hosted Paul and his companions in Malta.

The same pattern extends through the second century. While you don't like speculation the facts of the matter are that Christianity was centered around an adoption rite (baptism) whereby one left father and mother and because a son of God, a brother to other brothers in the household of God. This to me is the most-likely explanation to why praenomina were the preferred identification markers of Christians in the early period.
You're right: I don't like speculation. In medicine, "confabulation" indicates "the unconscious filling of gaps in one's memory by fabrications that one accepts as facts". I need an analogy to "confabulation" for filling of gaps in one's theory.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:14 pm

Your theory does not come from the evidence, but from conjecture.
There is conjecture in any theorizing. One person's 'conjecture' is another person's 'theory.' The 'evidence' is that there is a group consistently identified as being in some form the Marciani within the context of well-known sects (i.e. those who hear about in Irenaeus) but there is no heretic named Marcius known from Irenaeus or any other source but quite clear there is a well-known Marcus. The evidence demands some sort of conjecture. Either we conjecture that the Marciani were followers of a prominent Marcius (these 'Marciani' are first in one of the early Patristic sources) or we conjecture that Marciani derives from Marcus or we conjecture something else. But conjecture is demanded based up the evidence.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:21 pm

You need to demonstrate your theories have support beyond the word of someone without substantive evidence.
Again, you make it seem as if the only possibility for the Marciani is that they derive a person with the cognomen Marcius. This is silly. In one of your subsequent comments you say that the names of early Christians aren't really praenomen because the individuals aren't Roman. Then you say elsewhere that the Gospel of Mark has frequent examples of 'Latinized-Greek.' So when these Greek speaking early Christians were identifying sects you say it isn't possible or even likely that they (or one particularly influential among these early Christians) couldn't have simply fastened -ianus on to the name of one of the prominent heretics when this is exactly what we see over and over again (the Simoniani, the Menandriani the list goes on and on).

There are so many of these praenomina-based (or whatever you what to call this 'first name' by which all early Christians seem to have been identified by) sects ending in -iani I sometimes look at my keyboard and wonder what I am supposed to do to justify their existence. The praenomina + -iani sects are the rule not the exception in the earliest period. Marciani (or whatever other variant exists) only makes to be read as 'those of Marcus.' The alternatives are just more incredible and far fetched.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:25 pm

We aren't talking about Romans, so how is her data relevant to this discourse?
But don't all the heretics end up 'appearing' in Rome? Simon and his statue. Cerdo, Valentinus and the Valentinians, Marcion. Who knows where 'Marcus' was from. Indeed Latin is at the core of these group identification terminology, for the most part. We are trying to reconstruct what is very much a Roman-based witness of a number of heretics who are simply identified by a praenomen and whose sects seem to simply be their first name + iani/ianus (and the Greek equivalent).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: John2, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests