DCHindley

When we read "Law" we have to consider whether Marcion reacted to the works of the Creator (Jehovah) as expounded in the five books of Moses ("The Law"), or the Law of Moses itself. I am inclined to think it is the former, not the latter. In rhetoric, a redirection derails the actual arguments being attacked to similarly phrased arguments about something completely different, usually something dear to the heart of the listeners. Here, in Galatians 4, the likes of Tertullian divert an argument/statement about the nature of two of Marcion's principals (The Good God freeing trapped souls, and the Creator God imprisoning souls through the commandment given on Mt Sinai to worship no other gods) to arguments about freedom from the Jewish Law through the redemptive work of the proto-orthodox Christ. Marcion's Christ delivers souls from Hades, not freedom from the Law of Moses!

DCH

maryhelena

Stephan, the comparison of Marcion and the Galatians account.

Marcion has referenced the Genesis account of Abraham. That storyline, the Genesis storyline re Abraham and his two sons, from the bond woman and the free woman - is what he is referencing - as is 'Paul'.

Sure, Marcion does not mention 'evil' in connection with his version of Galatians. The question of Marcion's evil god has come up in a discussion of his theology - something that needs to be understood in any discussion of Marcion - especially as it relates to any comparison between Marcion and 'Paul' - which is something that you initially raised in this thread.

stephan huller

DCH very nice summary. I don't think it is that complicated its just Philo with a little twist - the god who gave the law is the Logos and ultimately repents from his original mistake (= creation, hostility, giving of the law whatever you want it to be). The same idea exists in Judaism with respect to Metatron, the angel of the presence save for the 'twist' - i.e. the divine metanoia.

Galatians also speaks of the Law as pedagogue. This may well have been Marcionite too. We just don't know.

It is important to note that the Marcionites were also slaves to their god (i.e. you were bought with a price). It's not that simple. Slavery was an accepted part of life in the ancient world. The freedom here is not American freedom but freedom from the Law. The gospel message was originally appealed to Jewish proselytes (cf. Against Marcion Book Three). Marcion is said to have been very close to Judaism and Jewish ideas and preferred the Hebrew (Masoretic) text to the Septuagint (= Ephrem). One can't just assume the Catholic paradigm. Marcionitism was a wholly different paradigm.

Sinai is mentioned here because it is the place the Law was given. This is what 'Sinai' means to the Jews and Samaritans. It is not about the 'freeing of souls' principally. 'Freedom' means 'freedom from the law.'

The Samaritans have a special service on the Wednesday before Pentecost to commemorate the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses. The day is called ywm mqrth 'Day of Scripture', or ywm m 'md hr Syny [yom mammad ar Sini] 'Day of Standing on Mount Sinai.' Prayers are said in the synagogue from midnight Tuesday to 6:00 pm on Wednesday. On Pentecost the the second pilgrimage of the year takes place.

The Exodus is the original 'redemption' from slavery. Now the Apostle said Jesus came for the redemption of those redeemed by Moses. Ephrem and Eznik all make clear this is a 'slave purchase.' The slave is 'redeemed' from his master but is transferred to a new Lord. The followers of the messiah and the followers of Moses are both slaves to two related but ultimately different gods but the Marcionites believe that the god of the law originally repented and realized he was wrong. At one time he thought he was all there was. But there was a superior divinity above him who he learned about through the events of the Passion.

stephan huller

Burkitt on Marcionite redemption:

The only real difference between the Marcionite and the orthodox forms of the story is that where the Marcionites speak of the God of the Old Testament, the orthodox speak of Satan. In either case, it is the Adversary of Jesus. The Marcionites taught that by the sacrifice of the Cross our Lord bought us from the dominion of the God of the Law, the orthodox taught that by the sacrifice of the Cross our Lord bought us from the dominion of the Devil. And I cannot help feeling that there is a definite reason why the Marcionite form of the doctrine may be the more original, and that the story which enshrines the doctrine may have originated among the Marcionites, if it does not come from Marcion himself. For Marcion was constrained to explain how the Good God came to have any concern at all with mankind. The orthodox Christian might believe that Jesus Christ came in the fulness of time, in accordance with the eternal purpose of God for His Creation. But, according to Marcion, man originally owed no allegiance to the Good God. Man was the handiwork of the Just God, and owed Him allegiance; it was necessary therefore to explain how man's allegiance was transferred to the Good Stranger.

But the most curious part of the story, from the point of view of the history of ideas, has yet to be told. The belief that the Redemption was essentially an act by which Man was bought by God from the Devil prevailed among theologians during the first 10 centuries of Christianity. It was accepted by S. Irenaeus, by Origen, by S. Augustine. But at last it fell into discredit, and a new theory took its place. The author of the new theory was as far removed from heresy as it is possible to be. Anselm was a prince of the Church in his lifetime, and now he is a canonized Saint. This great philosophical thinker was profoundly dissatisfied with the current view of the Atonement. He felt it unworthy to represent God as giving the Devil his due : the redemption of man must be something wholly accomplished and transacted by the Divine Personality, not something paid away by God to some one else. And so Anselm elaborated the famous theory by which the sacrifice of Christ was represented as a debt paid by God's Mercy to God's Justice. This thought is very near akin to the leading idea of Marcion. In Anselm's system, which was accepted by the mediaeval Church, and is very commonly held even now among Protestants, God's Justice and God's Mercy are eternal principles which play separate and opposing parts.

S. Anselm speaks of the eternal Justice of God, and, on the other hand, of the eternal Mercy of God at last manifested in Christ ; Marcion spoke of the God of the Law, and of the Good and Kind Stranger who sent His Son. I cannot see that there is any real difference. ' If we searched all space,' says Luthardt, ' we should discover only the gospel of power; if we surveyed all time, only the gospel of righteousness. Only in Jesus Christ do we learn the gospel of grace.' This characteristic sentence from an orthodox Lutheran theologian, quoted with approval by Canon Ottley in his article on the Incarnation in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible ii 465, seems to me a piece of unadulterated Marcionite doctrine. [source]

dog-on

The issue, in my opinion, was based on the idea of perfection and how this concept was applied to God.

A perfectly just god that is, at the same time, a perfectly merciful god is a logical contradiction, therefore the god can be either perfectly just, or perfectly merciful, but not both.


Again, evil, per se, really has nothing to do with it. If anything, Marcion perhaps considered the creator to have been ignorant with regards to it's actual place in the pecking order.

Imperfection cannot spring from perfection. As the creation is imperfect, so the creator. However, the Christian god is perfect, thus a problem.

(However, it is easy to see how the concept of the demiurge later transformed into the Christian Satan.)

maryhelena

Yes, very big problem - that christian god of love! Still a big problem today, as it was back then. At least Marcion gave it a shot. The whole 'evil' element is perhaps a bad choice of words by Marcion, as reported. But there again if the creation, man, can turn his hand to evil - then man's creator also has a hand in that evil. So it's around the houses we go...

DCHindley

If I might be so presumptuous as to turn my face from Marcion, who I don't think had anything to do with the creation of the Pauline canon, and return to issues stated in my early posts, I divide this pericope into two strata:

Naturally, I've thought about where these two groups originated before they came into contact with one another to produce these edited Pauline letters.

Paul's movement, I believe, was born in the circles of the retainers and slaves of Hellenistic Jewish households, probably those of Herodian princes and princesses.

But what about the interpolator's circle? Clearly it had something to do with those associated with a Jesus who was crucified by the Romans as "King of the Jews." Critics say that the "resurrection" experience of these followers made them believe he was now alive in heaven with God, ready one day to return and inaugurate the kingdom of God on earth. But what caused them to transform this Jesus into a divine redeemer? There are clues, such as the charge that Jews "pursued" them, but that they were ultimately enslaved, and there are several other "anti-semitic" statements in the Paulines, all of them in strata I would identify as "strata 2."

Let's see how good we are at identifying when, and where this "pursuit" occurred in history!

No soft fuzzy answers, please. And yes, I think I know.

DCH

Toto

The Marcion digression has been split off here at the request of the thread's originator.

If I have missed a post or moved one in error, pm me.

DCHindley

Just to clarify where I intend to go with this thread, and why I split off the discussion about Sebastian Moll, I intend to compare Gal 4:21-31, and some other passages in Paul & the Gospels, to events in the Jewish War that show how both Jews and Gentiles, former neighbors and friends, became very cruel to one another, including killing of moderates from the other faction who had even allied themselves with the former.

It is eerily reminiscent of the atrocities that erupted in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in the last couple decades. This I think can explain why Christians (almost all Gentiles) developed a somewhat cynical or even antagonistic attitude towards Jews, but at the same time seemed to know a lot about their holy books.

DCH

stephan huller

IMO it is possible that the context was the Jewish War. The gospel was clearly rooted in that historical event. So it seems only natural that the exegesis of that text would make reference to that event too. I just don't know how you would prove it.