Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 09-04-2011, 09:30 AM

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:

Marcion’s dualism forms without doubt the centre of his doctrine. The nature of this dualism does not seem to give rise to much doubt, either, ever since Harnack established his idea that Marcion distinguishes between a just and a good God, and thereby also established a scholarly consensus which lasted for almost a century. However, in the present chapter we shall see that this view is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning Marcion’s teaching, for the heresiarch’s distinction was in fact far less ‘protestant’ than Harnack imagined, as he simply distinquished between an evil and a good God.

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective is due to his ‘Neoprotestant interpretation” of Marcion, it would be false to claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not provide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

my formatting

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

stephan huller · 09-04-2011, 09:48 AM

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.

maryhelena · 09-04-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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.

From the Sebastian Moll book description on Amazon.

Quote:

The main argument of Sebastian Moll's study is that previous scholarship has turned Marcion's exegesis of Scripture upside down. He did not find the inspiration for his doctrine in the teachings of the Apostle Paul, it is the Old Testament and its portrait of an inconsistent, vengeful and cruel God which forms the centre of his doctrine. Marcion does not understand the Old Testament in the light of the New, he interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old. This insight casts a new light on Marcion's place within the history of the Church, as the initiator of a fundamental crisis of the Old Testament in the second century.

my formatting

stephan huller · 09-04-2011, 10:25 AM

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

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is impossible to distinguish between Paul and Marcion in early Marcionitism. I would even go so far as to say the Catholics invented Paul to allow them to 'correct' Marcionitism (i.e. assume that there is 'wiggle room' between the New Testament and Marcion).

An alternative perspective on the theology of Marcion.

Quote:

Sebastian Moll: The Arch-Heretic Marcion

Page 47

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective is due to his ‘Neoprotestant interpretation” of Marcion, it would be false to claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not provide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

my formatting

Very strange bedfellows 'Paul' and Marcion.....:frown:

Quote:

page 85

2.2.1 Marcion’s Use of Paul

...As we have already seen in the preceding chapter, Marcionite doctrine is only related to Pauline teaching in terms of soteriology, and with substantial differences even in this field. But how is it then that Harnack was so convinced of seeing Marcion almost as a reincarnation of the Apostle? To answer this question, we shall take a look at a remark Harnack made about Marcion’s view of the Law, a remark which is exemplary for Harnack’s bias towards the arch-heretic” “M.s Stellung zum Gesetz unterscheidet sich also nicht stark von der des Paulus, wenn man die letzte Voraussetzung der beiden Gotter weglabt”. This argument is all fair and good, but it is like saying that Adam Smith’s concept of economy is close to that of Karl Marx, if one leaves aside Smith’s idea of the free market. Harnack’s fundamental misconception, which we have already encountered in the preceding chapter, comes to light again. The German scholar, in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation, wanted to focus on the New Testament and its message of love and forgiveness, thereby neglecting the testimony of the Old Testament. However, Marcion was the wrong role model for his plea. The Pontic did not neglect the Old Testament, but saw it as the testimony of the evil Creator who is opposed to the Father of Jesus Christ. Harnack may like it or not, but this evil God is as important for Marcion’s doctrine as the good God is. To leave aside this dualism of Marcion’s means to deprive him of the very centre of his theology. In the end, Marcion’s system was so radically different from the one of Paul that it seems unlikely to assume any substantial influence of the Apostle on the arch-heretic.

my formatting

dog-on · 09-05-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is impossible to distinguish between Paul and Marcion in early Marcionitism. I would even go so far as to say the Catholics invented Paul to allow them to 'correct' Marcionitism (i.e. assume that there is 'wiggle room' between the New Testament and Marcion).

Perhaps the Catholics simply corrected Paul. A much more expediant solution for the universalists.

stephan huller · 09-05-2011, 12:38 AM

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:

Jesus war kein Vegetarier, Berlin: Berlin University Press, 2011 Artikel

Jesus wasn't a vegetarian. Must read reading. And then before publishing that idiotic book he publish a single article on Marcion in a journal:

Quote:

“Marcion: A New Perspective on his Life, Theology, and Impact”, Expository Times 121/6 (2010), S. 281-286.

His life? What part of his 'life' are dealing with? The part about seducing a virgin? The part about bribing the church of Rome for a million dollars and then they gave the money back to him? Or maybe it might be the part about being a 'ship owner.' God this so fucking idiotic. I can't believe people get away with this.

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.

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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:

Jesus war kein Vegetarier, Berlin: Berlin University Press, 2011 Artikel

Jesus wasn't a vegetarian. Must read reading. And then before publishing that idiotic book he publish a single article on Marcion in a journal:

Quote:

“Marcion: A New Perspective on his Life, Theology, and Impact”, Expository Times 121/6 (2010), S. 281-286.

His life? What part of his 'life' are dealing with? The part about seducing a virgin? The part about bribing the church of Rome for a million dollars and then they gave the money back to him? Or maybe it might be the part about being a 'ship owner.' God this so fucking idiotic. I can't believe people get away with this.

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.

Stephan, oh Stephan - I know that what Sebastian Moll says in his book about Marcion brings your own published theory re Marcion and Paul and Agrippa II into question - so with that in mind - I'll leave you to your theory on Marcion - which I don't believe you have published in a scholarly journal - and I'll stay with Moll - until some other scholar publishes a rebuttal of Sebastian Moll.

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)

stephan huller · 09-05-2011, 01:31 AM

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.

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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.

Stephan, I am reporting this post - you are in no position to tell me what I can and cannot do on this forum. I am a member of this forum - and calling into question my participation here with "prattle on about things you know nothing about" and the "depth and breadth" of my interests in this forum - is beyond the standard of acceptable forum participation. Question Sebastian Moll by all means - with arguments not dismissal and ad hominem attack.

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
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-04-2011, 09:48 AM	#2
stephan huller 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, 10:25 AM	#4
stephan huller 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, 01:31 AM	#9
stephan huller 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.