Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 11-30-2010, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian Moll

...as Harnack identified Marcion’s (alleged) distinction of a just and a good God with Paul’s distinction of Law and Grace, and thus concluded that Paul’s theology formed the Ausgangspunkt for Marcion’s doctrine (III/IV). However, since we have found this distinction to be absent from the arch-heretic’s system of thought, the conclusion must be considered erroneous, too.

I gather that Moll is referring to Marcion (arch-heretic), but, how does Moll ascertain Marcion's system of thought, in order to regard as erroneous, Harnack's theory?

I remain confused....

avi

Moll does it by an 'overview of the sources'.

Quote:

......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.

An interesting footnote:

Quote:

Footnote to page 54

It should be noted in this context that Irenaeus is aware of the distinction between a just and a good God, but he clearly attributes it to Cerdo (Adv.haer.I.27,1). This is all the more interesting as in the preceding chapter we have considered the possibility that Cerdo and his followers joined Marcion’s movement. Maybe it was they who brought the idea of a just God into the Marcionite system.

I think what Moll is about is making a case for the original Marcion doctrine - the evil god verse the good god. A distinction that seems to have been sidelined with the just god and good god of later developments. He then goes on to make the point that Marcion and Paul are not two peas in the same pod but two quite different fish altogether....Whereas, seemingly, re Harnack, Marcion and Paul were almost bedfellows - that's how I'm reading him. Marcion looked to Paul for support - but methinks Paul would not have gone where Marcion was heading...

Quote:

Page 86

If, however, Marcion had to virtually force his own ideas upon Paul, it leaves us with the question why he included the Apostle in his canon. This question brings us to the subject of Paul’s position within the Early Church. Harnack’s depiction of Marcion as the loyal follower of Paul goes hand in hand with his view that Paul’s teachings were widely unknown in Marcion’s time. This way Harnack could portray Marcion as the one who made Paul known to the public in the first place. However, Andreas Lindermann in his impressive monograph has conclusively shown that such a view cannot be retrieved from the sources. Paul had always been an authority with the Church, and was certainly used, but not ‘revived’ by the heretics......

These insights bring us back to our initial question why Marcion was so keen on using Paul’s writings in his canon, and provide us with the answer to that question, too. Marcion wanted to claim the Apostle’s reputation for his own movement. In other words: Marcion did not make Paul an authority, he made use of his authority.

avi · 11-30-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think what Moll is about is making a case for the original Marcion doctrine - the evil god verse the good god. A distinction that seems to have been sidelined with the just god and good god of later developments. He then goes on to make the point that Marcion and Paul are not two peas in the same pod but two quite different fish altogether....Whereas, seemingly, re Harnack, Marcion and Paul were almost bedfellows - that's how I'm reading him. Marcion looked to Paul for support - but methinks Paul would not have gone where Marcion was heading...

Thank you very much, maryhelena, and for whatever it is worth, (probably what you paid) I agree with you.

How can anyone conflate Marcion and Paul, unless Paul ALSO describes in his epistles, this notion of good god and bad god?

It makes no sense to me. Perhaps I am not supposed to be able to comprehend this concept.....

To my provincial way of thinking, Harnack's idea that Marcion depended on Paul's writings (reiterated by stephan huller) is nonsense. I am not even sure that the evidence supports the idea that Paul's writing was even extant at the time of Marcion, but I would defer to aa5874 on that issue, if he is still around......

avi

dog-on · 11-30-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think what Moll is about is making a case for the original Marcion doctrine - the evil god verse the good god. A distinction that seems to have been sidelined with the just god and good god of later developments. He then goes on to make the point that Marcion and Paul are not two peas in the same pod but two quite different fish altogether....Whereas, seemingly, re Harnack, Marcion and Paul were almost bedfellows - that's how I'm reading him. Marcion looked to Paul for support - but methinks Paul would not have gone where Marcion was heading...

Thank you very much, maryhelena, and for whatever it is worth, (probably what you paid) I agree with you.

How can anyone conflate Marcion and Paul, unless Paul ALSO describes in his epistles, this notion of good god and bad god?

It makes no sense to me. Perhaps I am not supposed to be able to comprehend this concept.....

To my provincial way of thinking, Harnack's idea that Marcion depended on Paul's writings (reiterated by stephan huller) is nonsense. I am not even sure that the evidence supports the idea that Paul's writing was even extant at the time of Marcion, but I would defer to aa5874 on that issue, if he is still around......

avi

Hmmm, well I think Paul is pretty clear:

Quote:

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e]

avi · 11-30-2010, 08:35 AM

Thank you dog-on, but what has your otherwise excellent rejoinder to do with the question of the

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualistic nature of Marcionism?

Many groups held dualistic beliefs, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Such views gave rise to some theology of the "incarnation" that were declared heresies. Most scholars agree that the Bible teaches that both the material and the spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good....

Does this impetus correspond to Paul's focus? I don't think so......

avi

show_no_mercy · 11-30-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you very much, maryhelena, and for whatever it is worth, (probably what you paid) I agree with you.

How can anyone conflate Marcion and Paul, unless Paul ALSO describes in his epistles, this notion of good god and bad god?

It makes no sense to me. Perhaps I am not supposed to be able to comprehend this concept.....

To my provincial way of thinking, Harnack's idea that Marcion depended on Paul's writings (reiterated by stephan huller) is nonsense. I am not even sure that the evidence supports the idea that Paul's writing was even extant at the time of Marcion, but I would defer to aa5874 on that issue, if he is still around......

avi

Hmmm, well I think Paul is pretty clear:

Quote:

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e]

I also think that Paul himself was a dualist; if not this might be a Marcionite interpolation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Cor 4.4

The god of this age has obscured the minds of the unbelievers, in that they are unable to clearly see the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

dog-on · 11-30-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you dog-on, but what has your otherwise excellent rejoinder to do with the question of the

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualistic nature of Marcionism?

Many groups held dualistic beliefs, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Such views gave rise to some theology of the "incarnation" that were declared heresies. Most scholars agree that the Bible teaches that both the material and the spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good....

Does this impetus correspond to Paul's focus? I don't think so......

avi

Avi, suppose for a second that Marcion was a literalist, in that he read the LXX as literal and true history.

As I said in my earlier post, it would not be unthinkable that a literal reading of the Jewish scriptures might lead one to believe that the deity described therein was, let's say, less than a nice guy.

Now, suppose that Marcion then compares this with the Pauline concept of the divine nature. Do you think that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the character of the divinity Paul referred to had little in common with the divinity portrayed in the LXX?

Again, supposing that Marcion was a true literalist, can you see where such a dualistic view kinda makes sense?

maryhelena · 11-30-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you dog-on, but what has your otherwise excellent rejoinder to do with the question of the

Does this impetus correspond to Paul's focus? I don't think so......

avi

Avi, suppose for a second that Marcion was a literalist, in that he read the LXX as literal and true history.

As I said in my earlier post, it would not be unthinkable that a literal reading of the Jewish scriptures might lead one to believe that the deity described therein was, let's say, less than a nice guy.

Now, suppose that Marcion then compares this with the Pauline concept of the divine nature. Do you think that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the character of the divinity Paul referred to had little in common with the divinity portrayed in the LXX?

Again, supposing that Marcion was a true literalist, can you see where such a dualistic view kinda makes sense?

I think a dualistic view of life only makes sense if that dualism is a positive dualism. Thus, if there is any negative dualism within the writing of Paul that negative dualism, a winner take it all dualism, is a reflection of spiritual/theological/intellectual reality not 'matter', not issues of flesh and blood that relate to actually living in the material world.

Perhaps its here that Marcion came unstuck. The question of evil in the world and the question of god. Rather than just giving short shift to the idea of god (and take an atheist position.

..) he came up with the idea of an evil god. And for him that evil god was the god of the OT. But since, as later developments re his ideas suggest, his negative dualism, his evil god and his good god, was itself problematic in regard to the Law. In other words - living in a material world, dealing with 'matter', required not a negative dualism but a positive dualism. Not a winner take it all - but a win/win positive dualism. And for the Marcionites, not being prepared to take a win/win positive dualistic approach to the question of 'evil' in matter, in the material world (good and bad in all of us....) they went for a tripartite system.....

Quote:

Page 55

3. We have seen that the idea of a just God attributed to Marcion is always combined with a tripartite system, in the form of either ‘good God-just God-evil matter’ or ‘good God-just God-evil God’. As Marcion’s original doctrine, however, was without doubt dualistic, the figure of the just God must have been introduced by his followers.

Considering the reason for this development, it seems that the main problem which led to the division among the Marcionites was this: their first God combined two fundamental features, he was Creator and Lawgiver.....That the world was evil was the one unifying belief of all Marcionites at all times, and in order to explain the origin of this evil, it seemed only logical to assume an evil Creator as the cause of this status, in accordance with the idea that only a bad tree brings forth bad fruit....Once they went down that road, however, they had to face the conundrum how the Law could have been given by an evil God, a problem which already compelled Plotemy to introduce a third figure ......Another solution presented itself from Platonic philosophy, as Ephraem Syrus remarks. The Creator could be just and therefore the Law could be just as well, if he had to use already existing (evil) matter to create the world. Thus the Creator was absolved from being responsible for the world’s status. Another group of Marcionites apparently chose to follow Ptolemy’s idea of a tritheistic system, with the good God, the just Creator/Lawgiver, and an evil God instead of evil matter. It is obvious that (from a Marcionite point of view) only a tripartite system of though leaves room for a just God. A good and just God together can alone offer no answer to the crucial issue of the origin of evil. In other words, one axiomatic principle of Marcionite thinking is: there has to be at least one evil player in the game.

my bolding

pinkvoy · 11-30-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That Marcion derived his opinion of Yahweh from a rational reading of the OT does not seem too far fetched. That Marcion may have viewed the god described therein as Just, (of course, he made the law), though in fact, evil, seems to be a pretty good description of the referenced deity in the Bible sitting on my shelf.

What I would disagree with is that Marcion could not have found this exact idea within the writings of Paul. In fact, even with all the, imo, later catholic gloss and anachronistic gospel overlays, I find such an idea is still evident in Paul.

Where does Paul allude to OT Jehovah as evil

aa5874 · 11-30-2010, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you dog-on, but what has your otherwise excellent rejoinder to do with the question of the

Does this impetus correspond to Paul's focus? I don't think so......

avi

Avi, suppose for a second that Marcion was a literalist, in that he read the LXX as literal and true history...

Suppose he did not.

There are sources of antiquity that made claims about Marcion. You should READ what sources say about Marcion.

"First Apology" LVIII

Quote:

....And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

Let us NOT suppose, based on Justin Martyr, Marcion PREACHED ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

[........Now, suppose that Marcion then compares this with the Pauline concept of the divine nature. Do you think that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the character of the divinity Paul referred to had little in common with the divinity portrayed in the LXX?

Again, supposing that Marcion was a true literalist, can you see where such a dualistic view kinda makes sense?

You cannot suppose your OWN history.

Look at "Refutation of All Heresies" by Hippolytus.

Quote:

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.

And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.

This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions—namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship.

For what does Empedocles say respecting the plan of the world? Even though we have previously spoken (on this subject), yet even now also, for the purpose, at all events, of comparing the heresy of this plagiarist (with its source), we shall not be silent...

We have APOLOGETIC sources that claimed Marcion plagerized EMPEDOCLES not the Pauline writings, gLuke, gMark or the Gospels.

This is "Against Celsus" 2

Quote:

...After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.

The authors who claimed Marcion used the Pauline writings did NOT even know who wrote the Epistles and when they were written.

The writers who claimed "Paul" wrote the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon may be right since there is NO credible external historical source that can account for the Jesus Cult BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Let us NOT suppose. There are APOLOGETIC sources that mention that "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke.

"Church History" 3.4.8

Quote:

..8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”...

It would appear that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings or ALTERED the Gospel and furthermore the supposed early letters under the name "Paul" are forgeries or fraud. The Jesus story was fabricated after the Fall of the Temple.

dog-on · 12-01-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That Marcion derived his opinion of Yahweh from a rational reading of the OT does not seem too far fetched. That Marcion may have viewed the god described therein as Just, (of course, he made the law), though in fact, evil, seems to be a pretty good description of the referenced deity in the Bible sitting on my shelf.

What I would disagree with is that Marcion could not have found this exact idea within the writings of Paul. In fact, even with all the, imo, later catholic gloss and anachronistic gospel overlays, I find such an idea is still evident in Paul.

Where does Paul allude to OT Jehovah as evil

In so many words, he doesn't. However, in not so many words, in a lot of places, I suppose.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.