Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 01:51 PM

And then the beginning of the section on Marcion in his book on the rabbinic tradition of 'two powers' in heaven:

Marcion has been seen as a prime candidate for the rabbinic polemic against two powers. l However, we have already seen evidence that the controversy has roots that go back considerably earlier than he. It is growing clear that the rabbinic texts present us with a palimpsest of different traditions. Yet the Marcionite polemic has certain characteristics which will affect our identification of the targets of the rabbinic polemic. We shall see that, although he and his followers were participants in polemics, Marcion's method makes it unlikely that he himself could have been the target of the rabbinic charges. [p. 235]

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 01:59 PM

More from the section:

By the time of Irenaeus, a legend had developed that Marcion had asked Polycarp for recognition as bishop only to be rebuffed by the words "I recognize you — as the first-born of Satan!" - The term "first-born of Satan" has a Hebrew equivalent (BKWR STN) which seems to have had a similar and contemporary use within Jewish exegesis — as a term of reproach for someone who did not follow the accepted tradition of scriptural (b. Yeb. 16a, j. Yeb. 3a). (In the rabbinic occurrence, the offender had followed Shammaite halakha.) Since the first-born of Satan is Cain, as we discovered previously, 4 the term probably alluded to the tradition we noted as early as Philo that the human race was descended from two different genealogies — the good from Seth and the bad from Cain. It seems likely that the term was developed in Jewish sectarian life and was later applied to Marcion. If we believe Harnack, (i there was good reason for this term of derision to have been applied to Marcion. What made Marcion extreme in his belief according to Harnack, and what would make him a good target for the term "first-born of Satan," was the idea that only those who had been rejected by the creator (e.g., Cain and his descendents) could be led out from the lower world by Christ, while Abraham and those justified by the creator must remain unredeemed. 7 Apparently Marcion accepted the traditions that those who did not follow the "orthodox exegesis" were descended from Cain, but he transvalued that tradition so that Cain became the ancestor of those elected of Christ, in turn, the messenger of a good, saving God yet unknown and unprophesied in the Old Testament. 8 Such common terminology between Jewish and Christian communities is important to us because it points to a relationship between them. [p. 235]

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 02:06 PM

I can't keep citing the material without breaking some copyright law but Segal is undoubtedly correct about a Jewish original for Marcionitism or at least Marcionitism developing from pre-existing 'two powers in heaven' traditions. I wish he had lived long enough to notice that Irenaeus and our other sources witness that Marcion held an understanding like Philo with respect to two powers in heaven - one of mercy the other of judgment. Indeed he would have seen the significance of this with respect to equating the Marcionite god with theos or 'God' in the Genesis narrative. Philo seems to indicate that Cain was saved by 'God' (not the Lord):

Quote:

Why then do you talk nonsense, saying, "If thou castest me forth from off the earth, and from thee I shall be hidden." For one might say on the contrary, if I remove thee from the earth by part of thee, then I will manifestly show thee my own image. And a proof of this is, thou wilt depart from before the face of God, but when thou hast departed thou wilt not the less inhabit thy earthly body. For Moses says, afterwards, "And Cain went forth from before the face of God and dwelt in the Earth," etc.

In Hebrew the face of God = the person of God as you well know. As I said before, that the non-Jews at the forum can only think of Marcion as a Christian heretic (= having nothing to do with Judaism from the period) is understandable. It's like me knowing what's proper etiquette among the Inuit. You have no excuse. You should know better. Your position is intellectually dishonest to the core.

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 02:12 PM

BTW this an example of where I owe Jeffrey a note of thanks. I forgot where I got the idea that Marcion was Jewish. I just take for granted that understanding is obvious to everyone.

jakejonesiv · 04-05-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

...I would propose an entirely different explanation for this text, at your link. I guess it is a complete hoax, a fabrication, based upon a need to justify the political suppression and consolidation. I cannot imagine that the very center of the Roman empire, degraded though it surely was, at that point in time, would nevertheless permit open collection of revenues aimed at building an infrastructure to support Marcionism.

Were they really so oblivious? I doubt it. Christianity had been proclaimed the state religion. Why would the rulers tolerate growth of a sect so obviously heretical?

The contrary:

Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics.

“Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven;

Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth."
Life of Constantine, Book 3, chapters 64-65.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 04-05-2013, 02:29 PM

The Marcionites were as well known for their stedfastness in the face of persecution.

Tertullian, who was no friend to the Marcionites, mocks them for this.

"When the censer is handed you, and you are asked to offer a few grains of incense, why not deny yout fate? 'God forbid!' you cry; 'God forbid!'..." AM 1.27.

Why Tertullian would mock Marcionites for actions that were supposed to be of utmost piety amoung the proto-orthodox? It illustrates his bias and hypocrisy.

Eusibius tells us in EH 4.15 that the Marcionite prebster Metrodorus suffered the very same martryrdom by fire in the same persecution at Smyrna as the illustrious Polycarp. Indeed, there were very many Marcionite martyrs EH 5.16, including the Macionite bishop Asclepius who was
burned alive on the same pyre as the proto-orthodox Apselamus (Mart. Pal. c. 10). There was a Marcionite woman who was martyred under Valerian at Caesarea EH 3.12.

"Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom. Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire." Eusebius, eH 4.15.46. And please note, Eusebius' source was a letter written to Pontus 4.15.2.

we see the same pattern repeated in the case of Apselamus and Asclepius.

"On the eleventh day of the month Audynæus, which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Cæsarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, from the village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God. Though the judge and those around him besought him many times to have compassion on himself, and to spare his own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, preferring hope in the God of the universe to all things, even to life itself. A certain ASCLEPIUS, supposed to be A BISHOP OF THE SECT OF MARCION, possessed as he thought with zeal for religion, but “not according to knowledge,” ENDED HIS LIFE ON ONE AND THE SAME FUNERAL PYRE." Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 10. [Emphasis added].

One must wonder, if martytrology is not something else that the catholics stole from the Marcionites

Jake

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 02:31 PM

It is amazing to see how close Segal gets to my position but in the end - undoubtedly because of the superficiality of his readings of the Church Fathers (he relies too heavily on Harnack's synthesis of Marcion's POV). Look at how close Segal comes to the inevitable conclusion that Marcion is Jewish:

Quote:

Because Marcion's writings have not come down to us directly, it isdifficult to draw firm conclusions about the scriptural passages whichwere most important to him. However, from the reports about the Antitheses which Harnack collected, some of Marcion's techniques ofexegesis and certain of his favorite scriptures can be inferred. Accordingto the church fathers he found those scriptures important which speak of the Old Testament god as the author of evil. This would includeIsaiah 45:7 (which Tertuliian placed at the center of his thought),but also Jeremiah 18:11 and the several other passages which discussthe power of God to do evil.

Still, Marcion does not want to describe the Old Testament god as purely evil. Rather, he wants to show thathis justice is inferior to the goodness of the New Testament god.Therefore, he emphasizes those aspects of Oid Testament narrative which imply divine ignorance or inferiority. The god of the Old Testament has to ask Adam where he is. He has to ask Adam and Evewhat they have done (Gen. 3:9). He has to ask Cain where his brother Abel is (Gen. 4:9).

He must descend in order to see what the outcry of Sodorn and Gomorrah signifies (Gen. 18:21). Marcion further points out that the Old Testament god does and says many contradictory things, showing that he is inconstant. For instance, he repents.

Now these passages turn out to be generally similar to thescriptural passages used by the critics of the Torah against whom boththe rabbis and Philo poiemicized. But they are not used by Marcion todevelop "two powers" arguments.In fact, Marcion seems to agree with the rabbis that one god speaksthrough the whole of the Jewish canon. The rabbis would say thatGod is both merciful or just. Marcion would say that he is by naturejust but this would include being cruel on occasion.

However muchthe rabbis disagreed with his opinion of the Old Testament and the character of the divinity described therein, they would not have used"two powers" arguments to defeat him. Marcion himself, in thecontext of his own thought, finds principal support from the sayingsof Jesus in Lk 16:13, (Mt. 6:24) and Lk 6:43 (Mt 7:18) which warnagainst serving two masters or against a divided household.

Accordingly, rabbinic and Mardonite beliefs appear similar enoughto Tertullian that he sometimes groups them both together:

It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, whathe ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: . . .

Also:

Let the heretic now give up borrowing poison from the Jew—theasp as they say, from the viper: let him from now on belch forth theslime of his own particular devices, as he maintains that Christ was a phantasm: except that this opinion too will have had other inventors, those so-to-speak premature and abortive Mardonites whom theapostle John pronounced antichrists, who denied that Christ wascome in the flesh but not with the intention of setting up the law ofa second god [alterius dens'] —else for this too they would have beencensured (by the apostle)—but because they had assumed it incrediblethat God (should take to him human) flesh.

Oh this is painful to watch. He's so fucking close to getting the honey pot. But for some reason he refuses to (a) read ALL the passages from Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian et al in the western tradition and more important (b) to compare them with the consistent portrait of Marcion as a Jewish dualist in Ephrem, Eznik and the rest of the eastern sources. Why I don't understand (no I do - he took summaries of what the Marcionites believed from Patristic scholars rather than doing what he see him do with respect to rabbinic sources - i.e. go through every fucking references line by line with a fine tooth comb).

If Segal had treated the Marcionite sources with the same zeal that he had the rabbinic sources he would have had the breakthrough that is sorely lacking in the book. More from Two Powers in Heaven on Marcion:

Quote:

Not only is Marcion's exegesis of scripture similar to the rabbinic exegesis in some respects, but also Tertullian, as an opponent of Marcion, exhibits many of the characteristics of "two powers" heresy which offended the rabbis. Of course, this is to be expected, in part, since Tertullian is usually seen to have developed his defense against Marcion out of writings which came down to him from Justin, Irenaeus, and Theophilus, all of whom have assumed candidacy for the charge of "two powers" heresy.

It also implies that some modalists may have accused Christian orthodoxy of believing in a second God in order to group it together with Marcionism. The exegeses typical of this heresy in Judaism thus came to be completely revalued in Christianity.As his use of "alterius deus" seems to imply, Tertullian can also use anti-dualism arguments against Marcionism which are familiar to us from rabbinic writings themselves:To such a degree is this justice, even plentitude of divinity itself . . .God Father and Lord, Father in clemency, Lord in discipline ... Thou shall love God and Thou shall fear Him . . . The same God who smites also heals: He kills and also makes aüve, He brings down, He rises up: He creates evil, but also makes peace. So that on this suggestion too I have to answer the heretics. "See," they say, "He himself claims to be the creator of evil things when He says: 'It is I who create evil' ..."
'
It is surprising to see Tertullian marshall what look like Philonic or rabbinic arguments against "two powers" to defeat Marcion. The backbone of the passage is Dt. 32:39 which was central to the rabbinicexegesis against "two powers." Nor is it the only time that Tertullian relies on this passage:Why need you explain a difference of facts as an opposition of authorities.

Why need you distort against the Creator those antitheses in the evidences, which you can recognize also in His ownthoughts and affection? will smite, He says, and will heal, I will slay, He says and also will make alive by establishing evil things andmaking peace,

In this case Tertullian might be relying on a rabbinic tradition directly or indirectly through other church fathers, who had used it in their battles with heretics.

Like I said duvduv, I can't accuse the goyim of willful ignorance because they just don't know the rabbinic sources. They can't see Marcion as a Jewish heretic because they are entrenched in their own inherited notions of what Judaism is (developed from ignorance) and what it is to be 'against the God of the Jews' (i.e. not realizing that there was an entrenched position within Judaism of 'two powers' heaven. You however should know better.

stephan huller · 04-05-2013, 03:15 PM

Segal's conclusions about Marcion:

Quote:

We are left with the conclusion that the rabbinic polemic against"two powers" may oppose Tertuliian's theology but could not have arisen to combat Marcion. In many respects Marcion's exegesis resembles some of the critics of the Torah in Philo's time. No doubt philosophical discussions about the nature of evil influenced him significantly. Many rabbinic traditions about justice and mercy may have had Marcion in mind. But the debate over "two powers" must be earlier than Marcion since Marcion's use of scripture, when relevant at all, presumes that the debate has already reached a certain stage. Since Marcion himself lived in the first half of the second century, we have more evidence that the debate antedates the earliest references in rabbinic literature and seems appropriate to the first century. Some of Marcion's followers,like Apelles, certainly become relevant to the polemic when they give up the radical dualism of Marcion and turn the inferior god into a helping angel or deus secundus. In this respect they are no different from a host of gnostic sects proliferating during this period. It is to gnosticism that we must now turn our attention

Bernard Muller · 04-05-2013, 03:21 PM

to duvduv,
Emphasis mine,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
IF there was no Tertullian in the second century, and there is no external evidence for his existence, or of that of Marcion,

So you think the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Clement of Alexandria are no evidence for the existence of Marcion?

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv · 04-05-2013, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to duvduv,
Emphasis mine,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
IF there was no Tertullian in the second century, and there is no external evidence for his existence, or of that of Marcion,

So you think the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Clement of Alexandria are no evidence for the existence of Marcion?

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard,

If Marcion goes, so do all of the Church Fathers. I think duvduv is comfortable with that.

He is engaged in an idiosyncratic Orthodox Jewish apologetics. He believes all the stories of the Old Testament are literally true. He is is quite willing to discuss any theory that discredits Christianity with the goal of promoting his version of Judaism as the only "true religion."

Jake

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2013, 01:51 PM	#941
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And then the beginning of the section on Marcion in his book on the rabbinic tradition of 'two powers' in heaven: Marcion has been seen as a prime candidate for the rabbinic polemic against two powers. l However, we have already seen evidence that the controversy has roots that go back considerably earlier than he. It is growing clear that the rabbinic texts present us with a palimpsest of different traditions. Yet the Marcionite polemic has certain characteristics which will affect our identification of the targets of the rabbinic polemic. We shall see that, although he and his followers were participants in polemics, Marcion's method makes it unlikely that he himself could have been the target of the rabbinic charges. [p. 235]

04-05-2013, 01:59 PM	#942
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	More from the section: By the time of Irenaeus, a legend had developed that Marcion had asked Polycarp for recognition as bishop only to be rebuffed by the words "I recognize you — as the first-born of Satan!" - The term "first-born of Satan" has a Hebrew equivalent (BKWR STN) which seems to have had a similar and contemporary use within Jewish exegesis — as a term of reproach for someone who did not follow the accepted tradition of scriptural (b. Yeb. 16a, j. Yeb. 3a). (In the rabbinic occurrence, the offender had followed Shammaite halakha.) Since the first-born of Satan is Cain, as we discovered previously, 4 the term probably alluded to the tradition we noted as early as Philo that the human race was descended from two different genealogies — the good from Seth and the bad from Cain. It seems likely that the term was developed in Jewish sectarian life and was later applied to Marcion. If we believe Harnack, (i there was good reason for this term of derision to have been applied to Marcion. What made Marcion extreme in his belief according to Harnack, and what would make him a good target for the term "first-born of Satan," was the idea that only those who had been rejected by the creator (e.g., Cain and his descendents) could be led out from the lower world by Christ, while Abraham and those justified by the creator must remain unredeemed. 7 Apparently Marcion accepted the traditions that those who did not follow the "orthodox exegesis" were descended from Cain, but he transvalued that tradition so that Cain became the ancestor of those elected of Christ, in turn, the messenger of a good, saving God yet unknown and unprophesied in the Old Testament. 8 Such common terminology between Jewish and Christian communities is important to us because it points to a relationship between them. [p. 235]

04-05-2013, 02:12 PM	#944
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	BTW this an example of where I owe Jeffrey a note of thanks. I forgot where I got the idea that Marcion was Jewish. I just take for granted that understanding is obvious to everyone.

04-05-2013, 02:29 PM	#946
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The Marcionites were as well known for their stedfastness in the face of persecution. Tertullian, who was no friend to the Marcionites, mocks them for this. "When the censer is handed you, and you are asked to offer a few grains of incense, why not deny yout fate? 'God forbid!' you cry; 'God forbid!'..." AM 1.27. Why Tertullian would mock Marcionites for actions that were supposed to be of utmost piety amoung the proto-orthodox? It illustrates his bias and hypocrisy. Eusibius tells us in EH 4.15 that the Marcionite prebster Metrodorus suffered the very same martryrdom by fire in the same persecution at Smyrna as the illustrious Polycarp. Indeed, there were very many Marcionite martyrs EH 5.16, including the Macionite bishop Asclepius who was burned alive on the same pyre as the proto-orthodox Apselamus (Mart. Pal. c. 10). There was a Marcionite woman who was martyred under Valerian at Caesarea EH 3.12. "Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom. Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire." Eusebius, eH 4.15.46. And please note, Eusebius' source was a letter written to Pontus 4.15.2. we see the same pattern repeated in the case of Apselamus and Asclepius. "On the eleventh day of the month Audynæus, which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Cæsarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, from the village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God. Though the judge and those around him besought him many times to have compassion on himself, and to spare his own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, preferring hope in the God of the universe to all things, even to life itself. A certain ASCLEPIUS, supposed to be A BISHOP OF THE SECT OF MARCION, possessed as he thought with zeal for religion, but “not according to knowledge,” ENDED HIS LIFE ON ONE AND THE SAME FUNERAL PYRE." Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 10. [Emphasis added]. One must wonder, if martytrology is not something else that the catholics stole from the Marcionites Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.