Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-04-2011, 09:30 AM | #1 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Marcion split from Galatians 4:21-31
DCH - don’t know if this quote is of any interest. It seems that the original Marcion belief was dualistic, a good god and an evil god. Only later did the idea of the just god take hold.
The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk) Quote:
An earlier thread on the book by Sebastian Moll - some other quotes from the book are there. Amazon has no book view - but google books does. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....70#post6610970 |
|
09-04-2011, 09:48 AM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Whatever. Common misunderstanding which is is easily dispelled by the passage in Irenaeus. Moll's analysis isn't very good generally. It just so happens that the Tertullian narrative is preferred to all other accounts undoubtedly because its the most straightforward.
|
09-04-2011, 09:57 AM | #3 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-04-2011, 10:25 AM | #4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
There have been more than thirty people who have had substantive things to say about Marcion. Moll is the least noteworthy. Why fixate on him? Let me guess (a) there's a Google book preview and (b) it's the only thing you`ve read as a result
|
09-05-2011, 12:01 AM | #5 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
Quote:
Very strange bedfellows 'Paul' and Marcion.....:frown: Quote:
|
|||
09-05-2011, 12:19 AM | #6 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
|
|
09-05-2011, 12:38 AM | #7 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Mary Helena, Please can you read more than one book on a subject before posting comments on that subject. Better yet familiarize yourself with at least some of the primary sources. You'll see what a fool Moll is. Would you buy a car from this guy? Moll is a theology major and he's like ten years old. Yes he's written about Marcion and published in notable magazines. But that's the problem with Marcion. It's very difficult to say something authoritative about Marcion if you start scrutinizing the sources. On some level, in order to become an 'authority' on Marcion you have to try to reconcile the first reference in Irenaeus Book 1 Chapter 27, the two references in Justin and the material in Tertullian which identifies Marcion as a dualist with the reference in Book Three of Irenaeus, the Philosophumena, Ephrem, Eznik and other sources where he simply juxtaposes a better god against the Creator and assumes the Devil is not the Creator. The easy way out is to say 'the oldest evidence suggests that Marcion was a dualist' but this is a lie. Irenaeus has two contradictory reports within his Against Heresies. Similarly not all of Tertullian's reporting agrees with the dualistic claims that are often cited. I am not convinced that Tertullian ever actually met a Marcionite. The evidence is pretty clear he just recycled pre-existent reports about the tradition written in different languages and translated them (loosely) and with embellishments of his own into Latin. But Moll is in the business of scholarship so he has to deal with something definite. No one wants to publish things where the facts are open ended and ultimately inconclusive. So it is with Marcion. He has to make it seem as if 'the facts' point to something definite about the tradition. But they don't. He's just got to pretend like things are so certain to get published. I was going through his resume and look at some of the make work projects he's published: Quote:
Quote:
There is no 'life of Marcion' All the reports are hostile. No one should publish a paper on Marcion unless it is really narrowly defined like - a particular Marcionite reading or some fundamental Marcionite interpretation of a passage which is attested in more than one source. The only paper I ever read about Marcion that was worth anything was William's paper a few years back. The stuff this guy has published - the one paper and the book - is the work of a ten year old. How does a child know what is possible or how to separate what is likely from what is fiction when he hasn't even lived life yet. They should have a rule about letting children impersonate adults. |
||
09-05-2011, 01:25 AM | #8 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
And, actually, in this forum - dealing with christian history - any new ideas re Marcion need to be investigated. - Sebastian Moll's position on Marcion is, as far as I'm aware, the latest such scholarly work on this heretic. The Real Messiah, by Stephan Huller (or via: amazon.co.uk) |
|||
09-05-2011, 01:31 AM | #9 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
What is this business about 'sticking with someone.' Why don't you actually read the original material about Marcion and make your own mind up based on actual evidence?
And my criticism has nothing to do with a broader theory about who Marcion or Paul might be. You want to believe the standard story about Paul, make up your own - fine with me. The portrait of Marcion which emerges from the Church Fathers is a hostile caricature of something or someone. How can someone write a 'life' of supposed historical figure based on this evidence? The idea that so many people at this forum will acknowledge that Jesus is a wholly mythical figure and then support the historical existence of Marcion is absolutely ludicrous. The evidence for a historical Jesus is much, much stronger than this stuff. For one we actually have documents which claim to be connected to associates of Jesus, who touched his body etc. There are no direct eye-witnesses of Marcion. Irenaeus says that Polycarp met and condemned Marcion. But what is that worth? In the same breath he says that John and an equally dubious heretic named Cerinthus met in a bath house while the roof was about to cave in on them. If you ever read Abul Fath (fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler) about half the stories about heretics feature roofs collapsing on their followers. Irenaeus's claims about Polycarp were undoubtedly challenged and refuted by Florinus. This is the worst sort of evidence being produced here - much, much worse that anything associated with the historical evidence for Jesus. It's a joke. How many books have been written about Valentinus and how many of them make reference to the fact that Tertullian explicitly says that the very same Valentinians deny they were ever students of someone named 'Valentinus.' The production of books is without end so let's hope for the deforestation of the planet. Please stop developing posts about Marcion. You are totally ignorant about the subject matter. Continuing to prattle on about things you know nothing about calls into question the depth and breadth of your familiar interests at the forum. |
09-05-2011, 02:37 AM | #10 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
Oh, and lets not forget - the one that brought Marcion into this thread - was you, Stephan Huller. And lets also keep in mind, Stephan, that you are not an impartial critic of Sebastian Moll's book on Marcion - you have your own published theory re Marcion, Paul and Agrippa II - a theory that the findings of Sebastian Moll re Marcion would seriously question. That is the issue here Stephan - not my participation on this forum. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|