stephan huller

I am driving right now but I just want to say that I have a suspicion that ALL of the Patristic material that has come down to us from the second century has suffered from heavy interpolation - mostly done in the third century. Anyone should be able to see this with respect to Clement, Ignatius, Justin. 1 Clement is simply too long to be the original epistle. So too the Dialogue with Trypho. The key sign for me is when arguments become 'pastoral.' What I mean by that is that the author 'wanders' like a shepherd with no apparent purpose (not the original meaning of the term).

I think for instance that Irenaeus's Against Heresies for example should be taken as an extreme example. I have always wondered what caused this monstrosity to take shape. It is such an ugly tome. Who was the intended audience? My supposition is that it was created after Irenaeus died as a kind of collection of 'lectures' with heavy interpolation.

The point is that ALL the early Patristic material has suffered from heavy interpolation. Origen is another example. Even Clement. I have a strong suspicion which no one would take seriously right now, that the writings of 'Methodius' might well represent Clement's original attacks against Origen disguised as someone else. There's a lot more to it than I can get into here but just look at the evidence for 'Methodius' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodius_of_Olympus.

Now look at this statement in Irenaeus (not specifically about Clement) but the Valentinians:

Now compare with the comparing of the closing words of Romans with Exodus in Methodius Oration on Simeon and Ana 3:

What I am saying, and it is quite revolutionary in the study of Patristic literature, is that at some point in the third century, the vast writings of early Christians from the second and third centuries were completely overhauled. Look at Tertullian. His opinions change from treatise to treatise which is said to be attributable to his shift from 'orthodoxy' to 'Montanism.' Yet it isn't that simple. His arguments in On Monogamy are completely contrary to those made in Against Marcion on the issue of marriage. His Against the Jews clearly is a working of something written by Justin Martyr. Against Hermogenes is clearly a reworking of Theophilus of Antioch's treatise of the same name. Against the Valentinians is a reworking of material which eventually went into Against Heresies. Against Marcion 3 is another reworking of that text from Justin Martyr. Books 4 and 5 is derived from a Syrian Christian who used a canon like Ephrem the Syrian (before Ephrem). The list goes on and on.

The point then is that BOTH NT and Patristic literature was interpolated and reworked in the third century. Marcion represents something BEFORE the interpolation process of the third century.

stephan huller

But give me another example in history of someone 'taking out' material rather than 'adding new material'

But you don't understand Judaism. Read Deuteronomy chapter 32. Everything points to the revelation of someone better than Moses. Moses is a 'type.' When the one who is to come comes, what use would there be for the poor copy of what the Muslims call 'the perfect revelation,' 'the perfect religion.'

I get so annoyed with this argument. Look at Islam. Moses is respected, even revered but the Pentateuch is rejected. Why doesn't this paradigm make any impression? The European model is the one that doesn't make sense. How could Christ come but we still live under the authority of what was 'waiting for the messiah'? Mzungus just don't get it. They're religion is senseless because it was based on political power (empire) rather than understanding. It didn't have to make sense.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

OK, on to #2 of the OP.

Another great question. I am having a hard time keeping up with you.

Marcion’s Ephesian/Laodiceans 3:9 does not have εν before τω Θεω. The Creator/Demiurge is ignorant of the administration of the Mystery of Christ. Thus the Marcionite text would translate “which from the beginning of the world has been hidden from the god who created all things.” Tertullian, AM 5.18.1.

The term “God the Father” it is itself a hint toward dualism, since it can only with difficulty be derived from the Jewish scriptures.

2 Cor. 4:4 looks like a direct statement of dualism to me. The god of this world, is most naturally the creator of it, Yahweh, aka the Demiurge. I can’t make sense of it unless Christ is the image of another god, the “good” god. I inserted [ good] below to make my interpretation clear, it is not part of the text. Thus God the Father is wholly wise, benevolent and good, like Ahura Mazda. Evil is produced by the “god of this world” (think of Angra Mainyu).

Col. 1:13 is explicitly dualistic with opposing "kingdom of darkness" verses the "Kingdom of the Son." This, I think tilts the argument Marcion's way, with two supernatural dominions being headed by two gods. But let’s continue.

We find the warning not believe even "an angel from heaven" if it contradicts the Pauline gospel (Gal. 1:8). The Law was given by angels (Gal 3;19), and the Ten Commandments are "the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones" 2 Cor. 3:7. How then can Christ be a creature of Yahweh?

According to the 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jesus came incognito and was put to death unjustly "which none of the Archons of this Aeon knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
According to Tertullian, Marcion interpreted the archons (princes) as evil spiritual powers, agents of the Demiurge.

N/A

Good grief, I have lost my train of thought, I had a couple of other points and I can’t remember them now! I just read a great post that Stephan made while zipping thorugh traffic and I would have wrecked three times in the first pragraph.

So I will just end by pointing to Marcion’s Antithesis. This certainly has the feel of a debate primer, and I suspect that it was used exactly that way by Marcion’s followers. Modern scholars might think some of the points are silly, but they would be extremely hard to answer in a public debate. No wonder the Church Fathers hated Marcion so much!

Here is a review of the Antithesis according to Daniel Mahar . http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm
Harnack did a nice job recreating the "Antithesis." http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/adler/...ts/Marcion.pdf

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

It is a little more nuanced than that.

Marcion and his followers were in agreement with the Jews that there was absolutely no prophecy of Jesus in the Jewish scriptures. Marcion advocated a very literal reading of the Jewish scriptures that 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).

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 anti-Semite here? Tertullian!

This meant that Marcion thought that the "OT" had no value for Christians. Thus none of the hateful business of stealing the Jewish scriptures away from the Jews in order to prop up the Christian church. This is what the proto-catholic opponets of marcion engeged and, much antisemitism was the result.
So it may not have been so much that Marcion remove quotations, but that he didn't feel the pressure to add them.

However, we should keep inmind that Marcion did regognize that the "OT" had value, but for Jews only! He taught that the Jews had their own Messiah, yet to come, but it was not Jesus. For this reason, Marcion with perhaps the aid of Valentinus wrote his own Psalms to be used in liturgy rather than the Davidic psalms of the OT. Marcion's version of Luke 23:2 was "We found this fellow [Jesus] perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets". The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. http://tinyurl.com/codxma The Judaic Christ would gather out of dispersion the people of Israel. AM 3.21. In this, he and the Jews agreed. Marcion advocated that Judaism and Christianity had nothing in common. The opponents of Marcion (and his legendary Apostle Paul) were not Jews, but Judaizers.

N/A

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

This archived thread Marcion and the text of Paul may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

A point which deserves to get noted. In almost every reference to Marcion that I can think of 'the Jews' are - at least from the point of view of the Fathers writing about the Marcionites - positively viewed by the Marcionites themselves. In other words, Marcion is never identified as being hostile to the Jews per se. The argument is very complex:

So when we start with this understanding, the old model of claiming 'hostility' as the motivation just doesn't cut it. I would argue that the Pentateuch itself makes the very case of the Marcionites - i.e. that the Israelites ultimately made a covenant with a subordinate divinity. This was Philo's reading, Philo was a Jew and Philo agrees with Marcion. As such, Marcion was not anti-Jewish.

The problem is in fact that most NT scholars haven't a fucking clue what Judaism is, was or will always be. That's the only difficulty. How can someone claim that Marcion was anti-Jewish when they don't even know what Judaism was at the turn of the common era? A case in point, the Dosithean sect is said to have had a variant Pentateuch and likely eschewed the rest of the Jewish scriptures.

Another example. The 'Judaism' of all Sephardic Jews and many European Jews is developed from what one might call 'kabbalah.' In that system IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the God which made a covenant with Israel was not the highest God. So what the fuck is the matter with people? Do we define Judaism in an absolutely artificial manner (i.e. 'the religion which believes that the Israelites made the covenant with the one and only God') and then turn around and argue that everyone who argues against that position is 'anti-Jewish'?

Kabbalah is based on the idea that the lowest of the ten spheres was made manifest at Sinai. The Pentateuch makes clear that Israel screwed up with one God by making the Golden Calf and then received a kind of consolation prize. Come on, people should just keep their mouths shut if they don't bother to read what is actually in the Pentateuch. What is the basis to their opinions then?

Answer - what 'passes for Judaism' among theologians. So what is taken to be Judaism is quite circular, self-serving and utterly detached from history, text and reality. But what do people want? Do people actually want to study the Jewish writings, Samaritanism, Karaite tradition before making a judgement on 'what Judaism is' and how Marcion 'hated it'? Of course not. They want to be heard.

Lesson 1 - beware of systematizers.
Lesson 2 - keep your mouth shut and spend a couple of years reading Jewish interpretative texts.

THEN MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT MARCION.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

I remember that one! A trip in the "way back" machine to early 2006.

Jake

TedM

I don't know of one.

Your points are well-taken. But, Marcion goes beyond saying the OT has been replaced. He comes up with two Gods instead of the One that Jews and Christians worshipped. Marcion created his own religion. As such he was not orthodox in his thinking, and it is a short step from that to 'fixing' whatever he found wrong with current works to further his new religion. Another potential 'give-away' is the claim to 'secret knowledge'. Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith, if you ask me.

Having said all that, I am in AWE at both yours and Jake's depth of knowledge about these issues. Thanks for your input.

Time permitting I'll check out the link Andrew just gave..

stephan huller

Are you not listening to what I am saying? The 'two gods' (one better and one merely good) were pre-existent in the writings of Philo. Philo was Jewish. Hence, there was no invention, only an original appropriation not recognized by scholarship slavishly devoted to the sanctity of the Church Fathers who make a false accusation/attribution. Read Against Marcion Book Two and I defy you not to see a critique of Philo.

There was no 'invention.' Philo opens the door to 'better' and 'worse' within the Jewish godhead (hence the Samaritan traditions avoidance of using hypostases to describe the godhead AFTER it was well established in their literature so too with respect to Judaism where it reappears forcefully in medieval kabbalistic literature). As I said - how do people think they can pass judgment on whether or not Marcion 'innovated' when they don't even know what Judaism is? The argument is based on the idea that Christianity as we know is the form 'most naturally' developed from Judaism. Not true.

Read the Pentateuch (especially what happens AFTER the Israelites leave Egypt) THEN pass judgment on Marcion.

TedM

Sorry, just read your post on it. Sure goes against the 1st commandment, so I don't know what to think.