Duvduv

The problem is among those who build sand castles based on alleged certainty that he did exist, and that Marcion did exist, and of course, that Marcion wrote the "Antitheses" as the church says he did.
And then of course we know that even the secular academics also claim Justin allegedly lived at the same time as Marcion in the same city, and yet writes NOTHING about the books, texts or canons of this Marcion.

Toto

This has been gone over before, but you keep asking the same question without engaging with the explanation.

stephan huller

And what's stupid is that duvduv should know that almost every aspect of Marcionitism is witnessed by rabbinic sources as existing in the age - i.e. those who argue against meat and wine consumption, radical sexual abstention, antinomian ideas, two powers in heaven. I don't understand this insistence that Marcion did not exist merely because the sources don't date from the time of Marcion. The exact same situation exists within the rabbinic tradition (i.e. we don't have the 'original' Mishnah of Judah ha Nasi or Meir (wherever we find a Mishnah where a law is stated with no name mentioned, it is said to be Meir's Mishnah) but he's perfectly content with that. It's a deranged logic which is to say, it doesn't developed from rationality but passion. Is Elisha ben Abuyah a historical person? Probably. Was this his actual name? Probably not. But Meir had a heretical teacher and this is the name we use to describe him because it appears in our sources.

Duvduv

Can anyone please translate into English what Stephan is talking about??

Duvduv

Excuse me, Toto, but I am not the first or the last person who has restated positions or facts on this forum, especially since the reality on the ground never changes. The fact is that secular scholars are as bound up to Church claims and propaganda as those who religiously adhere to them even if the secularists are a bit more flexible on the edges.

In my humble opinion all the reconstruction of Marcionism is based purely on speculation without any actual facts at all, and is really a waste of time. However, I can imagine it keeps some folks employed at universities. That's fine. We all need to make a living.

Toto

And you are not the first person who has been called on it.

You are not just restating a position. You are ignoring the responses to your position and not providing a counter argument. This is not a recipe for a productive discussion.

Toto

Translation: you are not impressing him with your rhetorical powers.

Every doctrine or practice or argument that is attributed to Marcion can be found in rabbinic sources (where?)


Examples are given.

Translation: you are being inconsistent, selectively skeptical.

Translation: your arguments are driven by an agenda, not by rationality.

Is there a question about this?

Duvduv

I have repeatedly stated that historical matters like this cannot be EMPIRICALLY proven despite the remonstrations of secularists. I rely on elements of FAITH in my views of historical matters and I don't deny it, but SO DO secularists who should be honest enough to admit it. If they have FAITH that Marcion existed (because there is no empirical evidence that he did) they should ADMIT it, especially since their faith relies on the Church spokesmen.

stephan huller

No they don't have faith in anything. A good scholar can't simply ignore evidence because it is inconvenient. There has to be a reason why rabbinic sources make mention of the influence of Akher. There has to a reason why Christian sources make reference to Marcion. And then there has to be a reason why rabbinic sources reference Akher at the same time that Christian sources make reference to Marcion. The two traditions are related. We can almost certain about that because they appear in very similar contexts (i.e. a general interest in 'two powers in heaven' associated alternatively with Sadducees, Samaritans, heretics or Epicureans in the early second century). Read Segal's work on the subject - 'Two Powers in Heaven.' You can't accept one (= Akher) without accepting the other (= Marcion). That's intellectual dishonesty.

stephan huller

Alan Segal on Marcion:

Marcion must be mentioned as an example of Christian dualism. He is often classified as a gnostic, but his gnosticism is of such an individual kind that he would be better defined as a radical, Pauline Christian with gnostic affinities. Almost all our information about Marcion is derived from the church fathers, who were hardly complementary, but not necessarily totally inaccurate. When the rabbinic description of "two powers" heresy warrants it, Marcion's thought will have to be investigated. If growing knowledge of the Hellenistic world has widened the field of candidates for the identification of "two powers" heretics, the passage of time has also brought more sophisticated tools for study of the primary texts themselves. [p. 25]