maryhelena

And lets not forget this one.......

my bolding

The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

stephan huller

My point is not to "Judaize" Marcion. The sources note on a number of occasions that Marcion was dependent on Jewish ideas. Besides which, in case you forgot, we have ONE source about the Marcionites, Irenaeus (the Justin that has come down to us, no less than Polycarp, is Irenaeus's version of those authorities). Irenaeus is Tertullian's source as well as Epiphanius). Irenaeus is worse than a mere partisan, worse than a mere liar. He's a lying partisan with one objective and one objective alone - to wipe out the very things he is reporting on.

The proper analogy here is Mein Kampf as a source for Judaism.

Good luck on your attempt to find the real historical "anti-Jewish" Marcion.

stephan huller

Indeed I am glad to have the opportunity to address these ideas. Let me put it another way. If Marcion and Marcionitism are as you suggest - an 'antinomian' religion whollly directed against Judaism, then you have necessarily acknowledged that it must have been a secondary phenomenon, one that came after something older and Jewish. For it makes absolutely no sense to imagine that a narrative was established with typically Jewish concerns but written for an audience hostile to Judaism. Indeed it is madness.

Who was the audience for the gospel if not Jews? Where were these Greek speaking residents of the Empire who were familiar enough with Jewish concepts and writings but who hated the god of the Jews? The only possibility is that the gospel was directed at proselytes (= Tertullian Adv Marc 3).

Are we really supposed to believe that Paul wrote a gospel of hate, a dysangel if you will, directed against the Jews but built on a Jewish foundation? Only someone unfamiliar with the variety of Judaisms over the centuries could be effectively boxed in like this by Irenaeus.

The reality is that Philo witnesses the existence of a form of Judaism which is compatible with Marcionitism, one which has a hierarchy of 'gods' within a specifically Jewish context which could be manipulated by someone like Irenaeus (= a hostile party) into a claim of 'two gods' hostile against one another. Indeed many of the statements that Irenaeus makes about the Marcionites makes it sound as if the Marcionites were Philonic.

Again, your Marcion necessarily is an offshoot of something Jewish. There weren't enough anti-Semites in the Empire who would be familiar enough with Jewish concepts to have the gospel make sense to them or moreover 'to speak to them' (i.e. that they would change their life, castrate themselves and become Marcionites). It is more likely to believe that Marcionitism was a form of radicalized Judaism or Samaritanism one that was hostile against Judaism became in the second century and/or the creeping Jewish influence that Irenaeus's tradition represented. Remember the parallel controversy which accompanies the appearance of Marcion in Rome is Quartodecimanism (= the adoption of a lunar calendar in place of the original solar calendar of Christianity).

It isn't easier to image that Christianity (= Marcionitism) became infected with a 'Judaizing' offshoot than it is to believe that the ancient equivalent of Josef Mengele start anti-Jewish religion rooted in Jewish places, faces and concepts which caught on and ultimately inspired a faith which considered itself to rooted in Judaism. That's sheer madness.

aa5874

"Against All Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus must be or is likely to be a forgery.

It makes NO sense at all that Irenaeus could have argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age when Pilate was governor in the reign of Cladius while he was also aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters and also was a presbyter of the Jesus cult of Lyons.

Irenaeus claimed he was aware of Justin's writings and Justin did state that Jesus was crucified under TIBERIUS.

Justin Martyr's First Apology Now examine the supposed words of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus' Demonstration of Apostolic Teaching It is clear to me that the original Irenaeus did NOT know of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters to Churches because it is claimed quite clearly in gLuke that Jesus was baptised at about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius and that Paul preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected since 37-41 CE.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

Let's hold up just a second. I offered a definitive rebutal to your statement that Against Marcion 1.1 the "author admitted that he will INVENT a Marcion that was previously unknown."

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...1&postcount=58

You offered no response, but instead moved toward a grand conspiracy theory.

Do you now agree that AM 1.1 does not support your position? It is OK if you were confused on this point, even R. Joseph Hoffmann made the same mistake.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

You statement is utterly erroneous.

I deal with the ACTUAL statements from antiquity. I do NOT make stuff up. I am extremely serious and do NOT engage in imagination.

I have already shown you the very first chapter of "Against Marcion" and it states quite clearly that whatever was written about Marcion must NO LONGER be taken into account and that he will write a NEW account.

Justin Martyr wrote c 150 CE about Marcion and wrote NOTHING as found in "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian supposedly composed at least 50 years later.

Marcion wrote NOTHING in Justin--Marcion preached NOTHING about Jesus and Paul.

Justin's First Apology XXVI Justin's First Apology LVIII Surely what is written in the 5 books Against Marcion attributed to Tertullian is NEW because it is NOT known in the writings of Justin.

Tertullian's Against Marcion 1.1Tertullian's statements about Marcion are NOT in the writings of Justin.

That is a physical FACT--not a theory.

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephan,

I am not looking for luck and I don't think Marcion was anti-Jewish. The real antisemites were the ones who wanted to steal Jewish heritage and the Jewish scriptures and apply it to themselves.

Marcion taught that there were two Christs, with a separate path of salvation for the Jews. The Jewish Messiah was yet to come, Jesus was not he. Marcion advocated a very literal reading of the Jewish scriptures. This common sense approach ruled out the allegorical and figurative methods by which the proto-catholics found types and prophecies of Jesus. For example, Marcion's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14; 8:4 ruled out Jesus because his name was not Emmanuel and he was not warlike, AM 3.14-15. Marcion agreed with the Jews that the Judaic Christ would regather out of dispersion of the people of Israel. AM 3.21. The Jewish Christ would have his own Jewish millennium, as the Jewish scriptures prophesied. Marcion did not consider the god of the Jews (the Demiurge) as absolutely evil, just ignorant with an inflated sense of his own justice.


So why did Jesus come to be confused with the national Messiah of the Jews? It was the work of the proto-catholics who inapproprately snatched the Jewish scriptures for their own purposes, and fashioned a Christ for themselves out of the Jewish scriptures. This truly was tragic. Once the "true" meaning of the Jewish Scriptures were interpreted to point to the Christian Church (the seed of Abraham being Christ and all that nonsense), then the Jews were robbed of their own heritage, and then demonized to take their legacy.


As Tertullian phrased it, "Our heretic [Marcion] will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together." AM 3.8.1. Who is the antisemite here? Tertullian!



Both Judaism and orthodox Christianity couldn't be right about the Jewish scriptures. The result contributed to antisemitism. For the Marcionites, it simply was not an issue. They didn't need the Jewish scriptures.


Just to be clear, let me reiterate. I am not arguing that Marcion knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures. Indeed he did, as demonstrated by his Antithesis! Harnack did a rather good job of recreating it. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/adler/...ts/Marcion.pdf


Marcion & Marcionites are mentioned in more than twenty sources besides Tertullian: Justin, Irenaeus [Dionysus v. Korinth, Modestus, Melito v. Sardes, Theophil v. Antiochien, Miltiades, Proklus], Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Eznik. Celsus also knew of Marcion and used his writings to argue against Christianity. Augustin, Acta Archalai, Marcell v. Ancyra, Atanasius, Hegesipp, ClemenT of Alexandria, Rhodon, Bardesanes, Ephraem, Cyprian, Saturninus v. Tucca, Dionysius v. Rom, Laktanz, so called Dialogue of Adamantius, etc..

We should also note that the earliest extant church inscription is Marcionite and dates to 318 CE. http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=786

So, maybe all these sources got in cahoots to invent Marcion and the other heretics, such as Cerinthus. Or maybe these sources (Ireneaus, Tertullien, et. al) are themselves the forgeries of even later forgers in cahoots. Anything is possible. But for now, I am seing these conjectures as a way to "wipe the slate clean" so that other hobby horses, even more ephemeral, can have a trot.


"1 Peter" was written in the mid to late 2c. by the proto-orthodox author to evangelize the areas of the Marcionite strongholds "in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1:1). I don't think there should be any controversy in this observation. As Walter Bauer observed in "Othodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity," pages 172-173 Christianity was synonymous with heresy in these regions until nearly the 3rd century. The pastoral Epistles were written also to undercut Marcion, who knew nothing of them.

Best Regards,
Jake

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

All I can do is ask you to read it again.


Tertullian wrote three editions of "Against Marcion" and used the same Marcionite Apostilicon each time. Tertullian did not invent a new Marcion.

The problem was with his (Tertullian's) versions.

The first version of AM was too brief.
The second edition of AM was stolen by a brother who betrayed Tertullian who fraudulently made a transcription before it was complete, and introduced many errors.
These errors are to be credited to the "apostate" brother, not Tertullian or Marcion.
Thus, Tertullian is coming out with his new definitive version to overome the deficiencies of the previous two versions of "Against Marcion.".

What part of this do you not understand?

Jake

jakejonesiv

Here are a few of the early Christain sects deemed to be heretical by the proto-orthodox.
Any additions or corrections to the list would be appreciated. (And yes, it does pertain to the current discussion).

Alogi
Apellianists
Artemonites
Basilidians
Cainites
Capocratians
Cerdonians
Cerinthians
Cleobians
Dosithereans
Ebionites
Elchasaites
Encrites
Manicheans
Marcelinians
Marcionites
Menandrians
Montanists
Nazarenes
Nicolatians
Noetians
Novatians
Ophites
Praxeans
Saturninians
Sethians
Simonians
Theodotians
Valentinians

aa5874

Please, please, please!!! How did you determine which version of "Against Marcion" we have now??

How can you tell which one was produced by fraud and full of mistakes??

Which one is the first, the second or the third??

You may have duped yourself.

Do you not understand that it is claimed that ALL three versions are supposed to be in circulation??

Now, there is NO evidence at all that a writer under the name of Tertullian wrote 5 books "Against Marcion" in the History of the Church up to 392-393 CE OR after De Viris Illustribus was composed.

Do you NOT understand that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is UNPROVENANCED in the History of the Church for hundreds of years??

You do not understand that "Against Marcion" literally fell from the Sky.

Do you NOT understand that "Against Marcion" is contradicted by Multiple APOLOGETIC sources??

Please, you must do some background checks on Tertullian before you use "Against Marcion".

The abundance of evidence suggest that "Against Marcion" was composed hundreds of years after the 3rd century.