|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
So we have gone through all the writings about Marcion which have ever been used to argue for the heretic espousing a 'radical dualism' (two gods, one good one evil) and found there is no supporting evidence for that POV. The closest we get is the accusation that the Creator 'created evil' - but as we have already shown this is not the same thing. Through it all Tertullian is very careful to demonstrate that the Marcion still maintains that the Creator is the 'just god.'
The beginning of the dualist Marcionite claims is the Philosophumena. But even here it is a misrepresentation of Empedoclean belief. The actual origin of the dualist tradition is found in the De Recta in Deum Fide (= Dialogues of Adamantius) but even here the idea comes through the backdoor.
The original Marcionite - Megethius - promotes the tripartite division of the godhead. But then suddenly at the very point Megethius is explaining the parable of the two trees the debate is suddenly ended and a new Marcionite is introduced named.
Quote:
Meg. Just as the Gospel declares (Mt.7:18; Lk.6:43): "No evil tree can produce good fruit, neither (can) a good tree produce evil fruit". Behold how two lords become apparent.
Observe how there are two natures and two lords.
Ad. By which means it does not even pursue this association, but from this you assume to supposing that it will gain to you support? But I declare what the scripture says: "No one can", it says, "serve two lords; for either the one he will hold hate and love the other, or he will hold to the one, and hate the other. You cannot serve God and mammon".
Eutr. What is this "mammon" mentioned?
Ad. It refers to "money" in the gentile language. Even as it was commonly spoken, that (2 Pe.2:19) "whoever is slave to it is in bondage to it". And for that reason Christ warned not to strive for money, nor to become a slave for mammon, but to God only should he rely. "For all", it says, "who commit sin are servants to sin".
Eutr. If mammon is a particular nature, Megethius, and holds a particular principle, it is money, no longer should it be two or three principles, but many. For how much easier can you speak of even the sun having its own nature, and the moon and the stars and the winds and the waters. Thus do you speak of money having its own principle and its own nature?
Meg. I do not say that, but Christ said that "An evil tree cannot produce good fruit, nor a good tree produces evil fruit".
Ad. Of that which you refer even a pea brain would not discern natures, but it would be related of men. For if it should speak of nature, by no means would it have named fruit, because a ripened nature is impossible. And he shows from the Gospel concerning the children of men that judgement is that spoken and not of nat ure or principles. For he says (Mt.7:15): "They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves; from their fruits you shall recognize them". And again (Lk.6:45; Mt.15:19): "A good man from (his) good treasure brings forth good, and an evil man from (his) evil treasure brings forth evil. For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. For from the heart proceeds evil reasonings". You see that the Lord said that from the one nature of men proc eeds good and evil.
Meg. The Lord did not say this.
Eutr. And what other evidence should we require?
Ad. You say that nature is unchangeable; but in the Gospel it is written (Mt.3:9) that he is able to raise from stones sons of Abraham. Thereupon, tell me also this: formerly what kind of tree was the apostle Paul, good or evil? Respond.
Meg. This is not inquired from Paul.
Ad. He was formerly a persecutor, afterwards he was made an apostle. Thus how could an evil tree be made into that which is good? And as contrary as Judas, alongside is the apostle, if without doubt he is a good tree. Therefore how, was he made to bring forth, evil-bearing fruit?
Closing Narrative:
And at this, along with the shouting from all (the audience), defeated Megethius, amidst the commotion, withdraws in accordance to the (allotted) time.
The End of the First Disputation.
|
Rufinus has broken his translation into five parts, whereas whereas the Greek MSS remain undivided. The translation following has been broken up into five parts following the Latin text. As Petty notes "Marcus is definitely said in the Greek text to be a Marcionite. As he stands for two ruling principles, not three (like Megethius), he may in this respect represent his master more faithfully. Yet he also would seem to have deviated from Marcion somewhat: Marcus's principles are The Good and The Evil, whereas Marcion himself postulated the Good God and the Inferior God (See Lietzmann, History of the Early Church, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 251-252, for details, also H.E.W. Turner, Pattern of Christian Truth, op. cit., p. 123). It is possible that the author deliberately created this character to indicate that by his time (the end of the third century) the Marcionite movement had developed or split up into a number of sects, each differing from one another, and all deviating from Marcion himself, in some way or another. For the choice of name, see my introduction. A, 3. At the time 'Adamantius' was being composed, most of the Marcionite sects were being absorbed in Manichaeism, although Marcionites were still a force to be reckoned with in the area where the dialogue was probably written (southern Asia or Syria).
Quote:
MARCUS (a Marcionite): I maintain that there are not three Principles, but two2 — Good and Evil.
ADAMANTIUS. Are the two Principles self-originate and without beginning, or did none have a beginning of existence, while the other did not?
MK. Both are self-originate and without beginning.
AD. Are the two Principles finite or infinite?
MK. Infinite.
AD. Then the Good and the Evil Principles extend out on every side (for the infinite must be everywhere)?
MK. The Good and the Evil Principles are on all sides.
(62) AD. Well, then, they are intertwined and adhere to one another.
MK. They are not intertwined, nor do they adhere to one another.
AD. But that which stands apart from something is not everywhere. So how can two infinitely great things exist, and yet be separated from each other? We find that things separated one from the other necessarily have an end. Where there is an end, there is also a beginning; and vice versa, b Such things, then, will not be thought of as without beginning or without end. And the area that encloses must needs be greater than the things enclosed.
EUTROPIUS. If the two Principles exist separated from one another, we shall have to say that God exists in parts. But no right thinking person would believe in a God who exists in parts and has an end. And if Marcus and his party mean that the two Principles pass though one another, one of which is good, and the other evil, needs must be that the Evil shares with the Good, and the Good with the Evil.
2 MK. Each Principle has its own power.
EUTR. If each has his own power, presumably each has his own created beings; to whom, then, do you say humanity belongs — to the Good Principle or the Evil One?
c [MK. To the Evil One]3.
823a EUTR. How did the Good Principle seize those who belonged to the Evil One, if they both have equal powers?
MK. When the Good Principle saw that humankind was about to be condemned by the Evil Principle, He came and rescued them from the condemnation, and also granted remission4 and forgiveness of sins.
EUTR. Against whom had mankind sinned?
MK. Against the Evil Principle.
EUTR. Who will swallow your old-wives' tale! Can those who have sinned against their own master receive forgiveness of sins from someone else? 3 AD. Why do you and your party say that one of the Principles is Good, and the other Evil? Are these mere names, or do the Principles show themselves good or evil by the way each acts?
MK. By the very way each acts, one is revealed as Good and the other Evil.
AD. How is that?
(64) MK. Because the Good Principle saves, and the Evil One condemns.
AD. The Good Principle is so called because it saves?
MK. Exactly, for it belongs to the nature of the Good to save.
AD. Thus the cause of this Principle's goodness is the Evil One.
MK. How is that?
b AD. Because, if humanity, belonging to the Creator-God, had not sinned, the goodness of this Principle would never have appeared. For if no one had sinned, God would not have been called Good; thus the cause of His goodness has been shown to be the condemnation of sinners. In addition, if you say that He is good because He saves, it is clear that He was not good from the beginning.
MK. God is always good.
AD. When did he descend to save humankind?
MK. As it says in the Gospel: in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate.
AD. He descended in the six thousandth year after the Creator God had fashioned man. c How could He be good, when He had not saved any one for so long a time?
MK. He was always good.
EUTR. You said, Marcus, that the fact that He saves causes Him to be called good; you have admitted that He descended in the reign of Tiberius Caesar; it is clear then that He gained the title "Good" from the time onward that He saves.
4 AD. If this God is called good because He saves, the Creator God must also be considered good, for He also saves many, as the Law and the Prophets promise. So both alike save, but to you and your party one God appears good, and the other evil.
d MK. The Good God is good to all, but the Creator God promises to save those who obey Him.
AD. Does the Good God save all — even murderers and adulterers — or only those who believe on Him?
[MK. He saves those who flee to Him for refuge]
8. EUTR. If both Gods save those who obey them, and repudiate the unbelieving, what difference is there between the Good and the Evil God? An equal purpose is found in both!
MK. The Good God saves those who believe in Him, without, however, condemning those who have disobeyed Him, (66) while the Creator God saves those who believe in Him, e but judges and punishes sinners.
AD. So, in your view, the Good god judges no one?
MK. No One.
AD. If I should prove that the Good God does judge, would you be convinced that God is a Unity, and that there is not another?
MK. You cannot prove it.
AD. Would you be convinced by the Apostle?
824a MK. I would be convinced by my Apostolicon.
AD. I have your Apostolicon here, and I read: "God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel"
10. EUTR. By speaking of judgement, he refers to the judging of both the good and the bad — to the reward merited by the former, and the condemnation of the latter, the evil and the ungodly. It is evident that the judgement to take place according to the Gospel by Jesus Christ, by which also the secrets of men will be exposed, will confer the reward merited by both righteousness and unrighteousness
11. AD. Listen to the same Apostle: "I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him who has so done, b in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When you are gathered together along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver such a one to Satan for destruction"12. And he says again, "He who troubles you shall bear the judgement"13. From whom will be the trou- bler of the Church bear the judgement? Let Marcus answer: Will it be from the Good God or from the Evil One? If it is from the Evil One, both Christ and the Apostle will be shown to belong to the Evil One. If, however, judgement comes from the Good God the Good God is revealed as judge. Where, then, do we place the Scripture that says, "For whatever a man sows, that also will he reap?"1' c Where, pray, do we set the Saviour's declaration, "The measure you give will be the measure you get"15: and "Whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in (68) heaven"16. Also, "I came not to bring This too: "I came not to bring peace but fire"18: and this: "Woe to you scribes"?19 Take, again, the Apostle: "Seeing it is a just thing with the Lord to repay tribulation to those who afflict you: and to you who are afflicted rest." Who then is the One who repays the tribulation? d let Marcus answer, please!
MK. The Evil One.
EUTR. If the Evil One gives the tribulation, it is obvious that he also provides the rest [for the tribulation.]21 So since we receive from him both the tribulation and the rest, what need do we have of another God? It has been clearly demonstrated that God is a unity, and that He is Judge. It is therefore needless to take account of empty tales!
6 Meg: will explain this statement of the Apostle more clearly: "Seeing it is a just thing with God to repay tribulation to those who afflict you: and to you who are afflicted, rest": You must remember that I postulated three Principles: Good, Intermediate and Evil. Now then, the Intermediate Principle, when it obeys the Good Principle, gives rest, e but when it obeys the Evil One, gives tribulation.
AD. So the Intermediate Principle is servant to both the Good and the Evil Principle; it has no power of its own, because it is subject to both the others. Presumably it does nothing by its own inclination, but only what the Good or the Evil Principle desires. Please tell us then, by whose will the Intermediate Principle created mankind.
MEG. He created mankind by His own will: "I regret," He said, "that I made made." He repented then of making bad people, and wanted to condemn and destroy them. However, the Good Principle did not permit it, f but had mercy on the human race.
EUTR. This refusal to permit the destruction of what is bad does not belong to a good God. When the Creator God planned to destroy it, the Good God had mercy on the bad! Thus the Good God will be the author of evil. But we claim God to be good who destroys what is bad. He who does not desire the bad to exist is better by far than he who wants 825a to keep and save it.
MEG. Although they were bad, the Good God rescued humankind from the Evil One, and then changed and made good those who had believed in Him.
AD. Since you claim that the Good God rescued and changed mankind into goodness, tell us, then, what it was the Good God came to save: soul and body, or only the soul? God?
MEG. Only the soul.
AD. Does the soul belong to the Good God, or to the Creator God?
MEG. The soul is a breath of the Creator God; so when He had created it, He saw that it was evil and disobedient, and cast it out. But the Evil One noticed the soul cast out, and brought it back to himself. However, the Good God had mercy b and rescued the soul from the Evil One.
AD. After He had rescued the soul from the Evil One, did the Good God give it to the Creator God, or retain it himself? [MEG. He retained it.]
EUTR. Oh what great goodness — or rather, godlessness! Megethius says the Good God took the soul from the Evil One, so that He might rob the Creator God of His own "Breath"!
AD. Ask Megethius to demonstrate how it was that the Creator God cast the soul out and condemned it.
MEG. When man ate of the tree from which the Creator God had commanded him not to eat, then the soul fell under judgement, condemnation and destruction.
AD. Please read, Megethius, how the Creator God condemned the soul.
MEG. Read yourself what is written in Genesis.
AD. I will read the decree of the Creator God, which shows what it is that was condemned, the soul or the body. He speaks in this way, "Because you have harkened to your wife, and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded that from this tree only you were not to eat — since you have eaten from it, cursed is the earth in your labours: with sorrow you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles shall it (72) bring forth to you; and you shall eat the grass of the field. By the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread d till I return you to the earth out of which you were taken: for earth you are, and unto earth shall you return". Is this decree a condemnation of the soul or the body?
EUTR. The decree shows a condemnation of the body and not the soul, for it says, "Until you shall return to the earth out of which you were taken: for earth you are, and unto earth shall you return".
AD. What the Creator God condemned, this, Megethius says, the Good God saved! MEG. He put a curse upon him: surely this was condemning him?
AD. He did not curse man, but the ground. That is what it says: "cursed is the earth in your labors."
MEG: So then, man did not come from the ground?
EUTR. A moment ago you stated that the soul is a part, a "breath" of the Creator God; e now, however, you seem to have forgotten this, and claim that man was taken from the ground.
AD. So the Good God came to save the soul, although it had not been condemned?
EUTR. Therefore, if the body was condemned, yet according to Megethius and his party, it was not this that was to be saved, but the "breath" of him who condemned — that is, as they say, the soul — it is evident that He saved that which came from God and was part of Him, but gave no assistance at all to that which had been condemned and came from the ground!
8 MK. Your argument seems to have been well stated against Megethius, but it is no proof against our teaching. We do not speak of either "body" or "soul", but of "spirit", in harmony with what the Apostle says, "I have delivered such a one over to the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved"
AD. The spirit of Man: does it come from the Creator God or from the Good God?
MK. From the Good God.
AD. In that case, the Creator God and the Good God created man together.
MK. How is that?
826a AD. You said that the soul and the body come from the Creator God, but the spirit from the Good God, did you not?
MK. When the Creator God formed man and breathed into him, he could not bring him to perfection; but the Good God (74) above saw the figure turning about and palpitating: He therefore sent some of His own spirit and gave man life. This, then, is the spirit that we claim is saved.
AD. Do all humans have some of this spirit, or only those who believe in the Good God?
MK. He comes at the giving of thanks
AD. How is it then that you asserted that He had come down for humankind's salvation? Now, it appears, He no longer came to save Man, but His own spirit; now, the spirit of the Good God needs salvation! b What shameless presumption! Was the spirit of the Good God condemned by the Creator God along with man?
[MK. No.
AD. Then He came to save that which had not been condemned?
EUTR. Either the spirit sent from the Good God was condemned along with man] and it is better to obey the Creator God because he is more powerful (for he who is strong enough to condemn the spirit of the Good God will the more certainly condemn the human beings made by himself, because they are not obedient to him); or the spirit was not condemned, and it is absurd to declare that the Good God came for humanity's salvation.
MEG. The Good God, when He saw that the soul had been condemned, had mercy and came, but the Creator God decided to plot against Him, hence he resolved to crucify Him.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. When the Creator God saw that the Good God was annulling his law, he plotted against Him, not realizing that the death of the Good God would be the salvation of humankind.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. He chose it Himself, for He was not injured by death.
AD. Therefore the Creator God no longer plotted against Him! d
EUTR. Who would be so foolish as to say. If He Himself chose death, it is absurd to speak of a plot, but if the Creator God (76) compelled Him, then the Creator God himself was the cause of mankind's salvation, and not the Good God.
10 MK. Our party maintain from the Scriptures that the Christ who has come is not from the Creator God, but from the Good God, for He also abrogated the law of the Creator God.
AD. From what Scriptures do you propose to prove this?
MK. From the Gospel and the Apostle, for I do not trust Jewish utterances, which belong to another God.
e AD. So if I take my proofs from the Gospel and the Apostle, will you stop speaking blasphemy?
MK. I do not recognize either Law or Prophets. [Pretty translation p. 78 - 87]
|
|
04-08-2013, 06:17 PM
