FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-29-2011, 09:51 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

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:

Quote:
They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the Æons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: Every male that opens the womb. Exodus 13:2; Luke 2:23 For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering Æon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, And He Himself is all things; Colossians 3:11 and again, All things are to Him, and of Him are all things; Romans 11:36 and further, In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead; Colossians 2:9 and yet again, All things are gathered together by God in Christ. Ephesians 1:10 Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture. (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.3.4)
Now compare with the comparing of the closing words of Romans with Exodus in Methodius Oration on Simeon and Ana 3:

Quote:
Then, after your hymn of thanksgiving, we shall usefully inquire what cause aroused the King of Glory to appear in Bethlehem. His compassion for us compelled Him, who cannot be compelled, to be born in a human body at Bethlehem. But what necessity was there that He, when a suckling infant, that He who, though both in time, was not limited by time, that He, who though wrapped in swaddling clothes, was not by them held fast, what necessity was there that He should be an exile and a stranger from His country? Should you, forsooth, wish to know this, you congregation most holy, and upon whom the Spirit of God has breathed, listen to Moses proclaiming plainly to the people, stimulating them, as it were, to the knowledge of this extraordinary nativity, and saying, Every male that opens the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord. Exodus 31:19 O wondrous circumstance! O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! Romans 11:33 It became indeed the Lord of the law and the prophets to do all things in accordance with His own law, and not to make void the law, but to fulfil it, and rather to connect with the fulfilment of the law the beginning of His grace."
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 is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 09:57 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
IF you read my OP closely you might see why: Marcion is charged with purposefully creating a new religion. Why does anyone do that?
But give me another example in history of someone 'taking out' material rather than 'adding new material'

Quote:
If he rejects the OT outright, why wouldn't he remove material as he sees fit?
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.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 11:17 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
2. Do the Marcion epistles of Paul include any references to the existence of a Supreme God and a (lesser) Creator God? If not, can we not conclude that Marcion derived his own belief system regarding that without reliance on Paul?
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.
Quote:
In whom the god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of the [good] God, should shine unto them.
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.

Quote:
But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion] argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it properly enough was unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil Himself. Tertullian against Marcion Book V.
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 is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 12:28 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
3. I read that Marcion rejected the OT. What exactly does that mean? Did he remove all quotations from it in his NT canon?
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
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 12:32 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

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

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 12:56 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

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:

Quote:
1) the Marcionites 'retained' some of the OT references but not all of the 'original' Catholic text
2) the reason they only partially erased the material is never explained
3) the Marcionites also clearly engage in scriptural exegesis of the OT (Daniel 2 immediately comes to mind)
4) the Marcionites apparently were so interested in the OT that one of their own, Theodotian, translated the Hebrew text into Greek for them.
5) the Marcionites clearly referenced OT personalities and prophets (Daniel again most notably) and merely thought that they were 'holier' than those of the past
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.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 01:05 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
This archived thread Marcion and the text of Paul may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle
Hi Andrew,

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

Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 02:40 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
But give me another example in history of someone 'taking out' material rather than 'adding new material'
I don't know of one.

Quote:
Quote:
If he rejects the OT outright, why wouldn't he remove material as he sees fit?
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.'
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..
TedM is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 02:46 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
He comes up with two Gods instead of the One that Jews and Christians worshipped. Marcion created his own religion.
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.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-29-2011, 02:50 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
He comes up with two Gods instead of the One that Jews and Christians worshipped. Marcion created his own religion.
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.
Sorry, just read your post on it. Sure goes against the 1st commandment, so I don't know what to think.
TedM is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:47 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.