andrewcriddle

Moll uses as evidence for Marcion as strict dualist the letter to Flora by Ptolemy ie in this passage the others taking the contrary course are regarded by Moll as the followers of Marcion.

IMO he is right although I am dubious how far Ptolemy should be regarded as an accurate and unbiased witness to Marcionite beliefs.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

How do you determine who is right? Please, explain the process?

I really don't understand how such ambiguity can be shown to be either right or wrong.

Something is NOT right with what you write.

stephan huller

Yes, to establish a thesis wholly from a questionable reference in Ptolemy where Marcion is not named is perplexing in itself. Yet it goes beyond this. Origen explicitly says that his understanding of Marcion takes into account the distinction between pure Marcionitism and the beliefs developed by his students (insofar as 'both' are disproved by and seem to reject to Rom 1:24). Origen is at least aware that both groups exist.

In Irenaeus's case there is no such distinction but Marcion is again identified as 'dividing' the godhead into mercy and justice. It is difficult to make sense of why Tertullian thinks Marcionitism is this radical dualism but here is a suggestion.

If we take into account the existence of later students why isn't it equally true that some of these schools of thought became dualistic? Take a look at the example of Marcus in the Dialogues of Adamantius. In other words Marcionitism began with the benign division of the godhead suggested by Irenaeus (our earliest source) and Origen (our most knowledgeable witness) and virtually every other knowledgeable witness in the later period and that from within this tradition a radical dualistic interpretation first espoused by Marcus the Marcionite in the Dialogues and later manifested itself in the person of Mani. This would help explain why Mani went to Osroene thinking that Marcion (= Lat. Marcellus) would embrace Marcionitism (cf. Coptic Manichaean Psalter). He grew out of a radical form of Marcionitism which developed in the third century.

stephan huller

And it is not as if the earliest strata of material in Tertullian's Against Marcion doesn't recognize the true Marcion:

It is just that a later editor has layered over the original material the later understanding of Marcion as a dualist. There are literally dozens of 'just and good' identifications of Marcion's godhead in Tertullian. Moll just ignores them too.

As such, ALL early Patristic writers witness the 'just and good' dichotomy in the Marcionite godhead but only a select few have been reworked to emphasize the 'good and evil' god dichotomy. Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, Origen, Adamantius's portrait of Megethius, Ephrem, Eznik all only know Marcion as the 'guy who divided God' into just and good principles.

stephan huller

A great resource for Marcionite references I just uncovered online;

http://people.virginia.edu/~rtb3w/re...mary.Texts.pdf

dog-on

It is almost as if Moll wishes to avoid the issue of the obvious contradiction caused by supposing a single deity that has, both, perfect justice and perfect mercy as two of it's characteristics.

It is much easier to simply refer to good and evil, nebulous, but perhaps a bit more safe.

DCHindley

If one travels back a few levels in the URL, one finds out there is a great interface with Perseus maintained by the University of Chicago. Ever since Tufts University, which hosts Perseus, changed to their newer interface, I've found it extremely difficult to use and I often cannot easily find the language Tools.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/

DCH

stephan huller

And of course once we acknowledge that ALL the sources acknowledge that Marcion 'divided' the godhead into mercy and judgment the truth about Marcionite similarity to Judaism is finally realized. For both Philo and the early rabbinic tradition speak of exactly this - i.e. two powers in heaven, one merciful and the other of judgment. In other words, Marcion was closer to Judaism - the real Judaism of the start of the Common Era- than anything in the Catholic tradition.

andrewcriddle

It seems that Marcion and his followers became formally separate from the proto-orthodox some time before there was any formal split between the proto-orthodox and the Valentinians.

Moll suggests that this was because Marcion's distinction between the God of the Jews (the world creator) and the Father of Jesus was more drastic than was the case with the Valentinians.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I don't think that the powers of mercy and judgment in Philo and the early rabbis can be regarded as separate divine beings.

(In the kabbalah they can be regarded as separate beings but that is a later development.)

Andrew Criddle