Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Let the text speak. According to the Marcionites, only Paul knew the truth by revelation.

This is what the Pauline Epistles say, this is what the Church Fathers say, this is what the myth of Eznik says.

Seeing that he had been condemned by his own laws for killing Jesus, the Lord of Creation pleaded that he had killed Jesus unknowingly and offered in retribution to give Jesus all those who believe in him to take where he pleased. After Jesus left the Lord of Creation, he appeared to Paul. He revealed to his apostle the compensation, and thereafter, Paul preached that Jesus "redeemed us for a price." This, then, is the basis of Marcion's doctrine as we have come to know it. Eznik of Kolb

"With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1.

The epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, starts with a demand that Paul had exclusively the true gospel by revelation.

Galatians 1
1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

You have many problems. The Pauline letters were not composed during the lifetime of Marcion.

Acts of the Apostles contradict the timeline in Galatians. Paul did confer with Flesh and blood in Acts 9 before he preached among the heathen.

"Against Marcion" by Tertullian was unknown by the Church writers up to at least the end of 4th century and "Against Heresies" is a massive forgery most likely composed AFTER both Marcion and Irenaeus were dead.

No manuscipt has ever been found and dated or will be found that can show Marcion knew of and had the Pauline letters in his possession.

We have the same pattern. All writers who claimed Marcion was aware of the Pauline letters are after Marcion was long dead.

Eznik of Kolb just happens to be a 5th century writer.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 07:22 AM

Marcion was a dualist.

According to Justin Martyr, chapter 26, The First Apology.

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
Eznik of Kolb just happens to be a 5th century writer.

You are behind the curve. You should have known that from the first sentence of the OP.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Chrestos is NOT Jesus. That is so basic. Once Marcion preached about Chrestos he did preach ANOTHER Son.

I expected that you would at least know the difference between Chrestos and Jesus Christus.

But what about the Codex Sinaitucus?

"As to the ancient manuscripts, they all have the word in all three places and their testimony is identical – with one critical exception. The best and earliest codex of all, Sinaiticus, has instead of Christianoi (Xristianoi/), Chrestianoi (Xrhstianoi/) – and it has this reading in all three places where the word occurs. Therefore it is impossible, in spite of the Nestle-Aland tentative suggestion for Acts 26:28, for it to be an itacism (i.e., a popular misspelling based on third/fourth century shifts in pronunciation, something of which this manuscript is, it is true, replete). For one thing, I find no parallel for changing a long "i" (iota) to a long "e" (eta) in this manuscript (and the unusual spelling would not have happened three times by mistake). Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible "tics". But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented. Moreover, the empty space left by the erasure is, in all three cases, not filled up. This shows that without any question the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately meant to write "Chrestian" in all three instances; it was not a mistake. The plot thickens when we consider that two of the earliest secular references to Christianity, Tacitus, Annales 15.4, where Tacitus talks about the Christians being persecuted by Nero as "Chrestians", and Suetonius, Claudius 25, referring to Claudius' expulsion of the Jews mentions a certain "Chrestus" as responsible, we find precisely the spellings one would predict if these authors (or their sources) were deriving their information from the same tradition which the spelling of Sinaiticus suggests.

http://ichthys.com/mail-the-name-Christian.htm

The two titles "Chrestus" or "Chrestian" are referred to in the following written sources: Tertullian (AD 210), The Eighth Sibyl (AD 200), Theophilos of Antioch (AD 170), Marcus (AD 145), Apocalypse of Elijah (AD 100), Suetonius (AD 124) and Tacitus (AD 116). There is even a disputed inscription (now lost) from Pompei (AD 79) that is believed to have contained a reference to this lost title of Jesus.

Again, Christians like to play off the spelling of "Chrestus" as an insignificant misunderstanding on the part of pagan Romans. But "Chrestus" appears in the earliest Bible we have so "Chrestus" cannot be an early pagan Roman misunderstanding. "Chrestus" is the word early "Christians" (Chrestians) used to refer to their god.

Why is this important?

"Firstly the hero of Marcion's Bible was called Isu Chrestos - not Jesus. An important point here is you don't see "Jesus Christ" in second century texts. So in the Bible of Marcion of Sinope "Isu Chrestos" appears instead of "Christ" and "Jesus". Also in the archaeological fragments mentioned earlier the scribes used the letters "IS" wherever Jesus Christ now appears. The inscription "Isu Chrestos" can still be seen on the oldest surviving Christian "Synagogue" in Syria.

http://www.marcion.info/

The earliest date we have for Marcion is Polycarp's comment that Marcion was teaching in 115 AD. But use of the word "Chrestus" precedes Marcion by 65 to 75 years. It would seem, therefore, that the above set of dogma was the original set of orthodox beliefs. How else can we explain the widespread popularity of Marcionism just 23 years after 115 AD, the date Polycarp was willing to admit Marcion arrived on the scene?

Writing in 138 AD, Justin Martyr said that Marcionites could be found in "every nation." Could someone just make up a theological system in his head and 23 years later threaten the primacy of the supposedly established orthodoxy of Catholicism? Marcion must have piggy-backed off of a pre-existing theology, the dogma accompanying belief in Chrestus, the god of the Chrestians as long ago as 40 AD...just seven years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ and a good two decades before Paul arrived in Rome.

"Nobody knows how the Church of Rome was established. Neither the Book of Acts nor the writings of the early Fathers explain how Christianity arrived in Rome. As has been discovered, Suetonius, the Roman historian, mentions the expulsion of followers of Chrestus from Rome, during the time of Emperor Claudius c. AD 40-50. This indicates that a flourishing Christian community existed in Rome, even before Paul went to Corinth or Ephesus in AD 49. By the time of Nero (AD 54-68), the Christian community in Rome was already of a considerable size."

http://www.firstnewtestament.com/ori..._christian.htm

It would seem that the earliest expression of what we call "Christianity" was not what we know it to be today. It would appear that once the Catholics gained supremacy, the earliest orthodoxy was repainted as heresy and the heresy of Catholicism was declared to be the original orthodoxy.

Later Christian scribes literally erased the "e" from "Chrestus" and "Chrestianos" and replaced it with an "i". And, as we know, later editions of the Bible replaced "Chrestus" with "Christus" and "Chrestianos" with "Christianos".

But, as we have seen, the Catholic church failed to cover all of it's tracks. Catholic scribes failed to erase all evidence of the original god of Christianity, Chrestos, the God of Marcion.

These are comments worthy of serious discussion. However, there are members that have their own hidden agendas that will do anything to disrupt that discussion.

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 07:51 AM

but if the person who wrote that Simon had a statue at Rome and be wrong about that (it was a statue of a Sabine deity) why should we trust him about Marcion? Ephrem and Eznik lived and breathed alongside real Marcionites. You can see that reflected in their writings. Our "expert" Church Fathers in the West were just copying out old information about the sect in an altered form. the only Western to ever claim to have met a Marcionite is Polycarp and that story is apocryphal.

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Marcion was a dualist.

According to Justin Martyr, chapter 26, The First Apology.

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

When was Marcion a dualist? How do you know Marcion was a dualist and that he was a dualist in the time of Justin?

Do you have any or know of any actual recovered dated manuscripts from Marcion or about Marcion?

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

but if the person who wrote that Simon had a statue at Rome and be wrong about that (it was a statue of a Sabine deity) why should we trust him about Marcion? Ephrem and Eznik lived and breathed alongside real Marcionites. You can see that reflected in their writings. Our "expert" Church Fathers in the West were just copying out old information about the sect in an altered form. the only Western to ever claim to have met a Marcionite is Polycarp and that story is apocryphal.

Ephrem corroborated Justin Martyr's claim about Marcion.

Justin claimed to be a contemporary of Marcion

Most remarkable, Justin Martyr only mentioned TWO things about Marcion which was specifically confirmed by Ephrem.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

Ephraim's "Against Marcion III

Quote:

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

Marcion did NOT accept the God of the Jesus cult as the Creator and Preached Another God and another Son--NOT the God of the Jews and Not Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews.

Marcion preached about a God that was Greator than the God of the Jesus cult.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Marcion was a dualist.

According to Justin Martyr, chapter 26, The First Apology.

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

When was Marcion a dualist? How do you know Marcion was a dualist and that he was a dualist in the time of Justin?
Do you have any or know of any actual recovered dated manuscripts from Marcion or about Marcion?

When I write that Marcion was a dualist, I mean that Marcion did not accept that God the Father of Jesus was the Creator. He preached two gods.

Marcion preached the God of the Jesus was greater than the god of the Jews, the law giver.

And so did Paul. We find that Marcion was an ultra-Paulinist.
And we find that the Marcionite Paul was also a dualist.

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

In 2 Cor. 4:4, we read “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ…” I take that as a direct statement of dualism.

The "Lord of Glory" was crucified by unnamed "Archons of the Aeon". 1 Cor. 2:8. Tertullian interpreted this as secular authorities, and traditional scholarship has followed his lead ever since. But Tertullian’s interpretation was in reaction to Marcion's, which identified the responsibility belonging to the Demiurge and his minions. Tertullian, AM 5.6.

We find the Demiurge in Ephesian 2:2, ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, the “Prince (Archon) of the power of the air”, and his minions in 3:10 ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ αῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις “the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”

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.

We read of the Elementals of this world (Cosmos, gk.kosmou) which hold human beings in bondage. "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements (stoicheia) of the Cosmos:" Galatians 4;3. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (gk stoicheia), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Galatians 4:9. Who are these elements, "which are by nature no gods" (Gal. 4:8), which the Galatians formerly worshipped? These "elements" are the spirits which inhabit the heavenly spheres.

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 10:04 AM

The bottom line is the following - all our Western sources have two opinions about the Marcionites side by side - i.e. that Marcion was (i) a radical dualist and (ii) that he held to the early Jewish notion notion of the two divine names (God and Lord) corresponding to two powers of mercy and judgement - save for Justin.

Irenaeus will say in one breath that Marcion was a dualist and then in the next breath that he held to the Jewish understanding. Tertullian will accuse Marcion of being a dualist and then that he was too close to Judaism (even re-directing Justin's Against the Jews against the Marcionites). Hippolytus (or the author of the Philosophumena) principally argues that Marcion held that the two powers were love and hate (rather than good and evil) save for a sentence or two in Book Seven which seems to correspond to the dualist nonsense (probably added by a later editor).

So as you go down the list of sources you have Justin's original claim filtering down and influencing every source but then - to be fair - you have this other understanding which is consistent from the very beginning.

Then you have a mass movement of Marcionites to Osroene, Armenia and lands to the East for reasons that have never been explained but paralleled by the movement of the Mandaean sect. Did the bar Kochba revolt cause this movement? Did the first Jewish revolt? Whatever the case weird Jewish sects end up in these lands to the point at least that the Marcionites become 'Christian' - i.e. assume exclusive use of this name (krestiana) - in most of these places.

When Orthodox Christian witnesses then report about the Marcionites from these places - not just Ephrem and Eznik but also older sources that trickled into Eusebius in Syriac - we see a much better portrait of the sect which consistently reinforces the Marcionites as a Jewish sectarian group developed from the dual (but 'dualistic') names of the divinity in the Jewish scriptures.

It comes down to whether Justin was as wrong about Marcion as he was about Simon Magus which seems utterly reasonable - or perhaps - that Justin's writings were interpolated. When you have one source that stands completely out of step with all the others chances are that person is wrong.

On the influence of Marcion in Osroene Ephrem Hymn 23 Against the Heresies:

Quote:

Even before Bardaisan was, and Marcion was spoken of,
Let us go to the earliest, who are older than Marcion,
And let us see how the first churches were named,
And we want to be named by that name,
And to remove and discard the naming with later names.

Lieu writes "the strength of Marcionism in Persian-held Mesopotamia is also amply attested in the writings of the Syriac fathers beginning with ‘Aphraat’ in the fourth century and it was explicitly condemned by the Catholicos Simeon bar Sabba`e who suffered martyrdom under Shapur II (c. 339)." The evidence for Marcionitism being the official form of Christianity at this time comes from the Life of Mar Apa see J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans l’empire Perse, sous la dynastie Sassanide (224–632) (Paris, 1904), 163–91

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 10:22 AM

And let's not forget the real reason why this information from Eastern sources isn't used by Western scholars. It has nothing to do with the date of these sources. These men are terribly insecure (as most of us are when we are vulnerable). They can't work in this language (= Syriac) so they prefer the sources which testify in languages they have proficiency (i.e. Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius etc.). It's laughable but a parallel example existing in Samaritanism where the sources are principally in Arabic. Some of the greatest 'authorities' of Samaritanism until recently couldn't read a sentence from an Arabic newspaper let alone early Samaritan Arabic. When I asked my friend Benny (who is a Samaritan) over dinner how is it possible to write on Samaritanism when you can't read Arabic he laughed and rolled his eyes to heaven. The only English translation of the most important book in the tradition (= the Mimar Marqe) was made by someone who could read Arabic but was clueless about Samaritan Aramaic (which the oldest texts of the Mimar are preserved). Benny laughed about that too. 'Don't take it too seriously). But do you know how many 'authoritative' statements have been made about the Samaritans by people who don't even have the necessary languages to make those presumptions? My teacher Professor Ruaridh Boid is one of a handful of Samaritan scholars who could function in ALL the languages necessary to make presumptions. But guess what? The people who have developed most of the nonsense you read about the Samaritans could read the language in which most of the material is available in (= Arabic). Benny only respects Boid. And with good reason. The same thing happened in antiquity with respect to the Marcionites. Never underestimate the significance of language deficiency.

04-01-2013, 07:22 AM	#22
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Marcion was a dualist. According to Justin Martyr, chapter 26, The First Apology. "And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2013, 07:51 AM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	but if the person who wrote that Simon had a statue at Rome and be wrong about that (it was a statue of a Sabine deity) why should we trust him about Marcion? Ephrem and Eznik lived and breathed alongside real Marcionites. You can see that reflected in their writings. Our "expert" Church Fathers in the West were just copying out old information about the sect in an altered form. the only Western to ever claim to have met a Marcionite is Polycarp and that story is apocryphal.

04-01-2013, 10:22 AM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And let's not forget the real reason why this information from Eastern sources isn't used by Western scholars. It has nothing to do with the date of these sources. These men are terribly insecure (as most of us are when we are vulnerable). They can't work in this language (= Syriac) so they prefer the sources which testify in languages they have proficiency (i.e. Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius etc.). It's laughable but a parallel example existing in Samaritanism where the sources are principally in Arabic. Some of the greatest 'authorities' of Samaritanism until recently couldn't read a sentence from an Arabic newspaper let alone early Samaritan Arabic. When I asked my friend Benny (who is a Samaritan) over dinner how is it possible to write on Samaritanism when you can't read Arabic he laughed and rolled his eyes to heaven. The only English translation of the most important book in the tradition (= the Mimar Marqe) was made by someone who could read Arabic but was clueless about Samaritan Aramaic (which the oldest texts of the Mimar are preserved). Benny laughed about that too. 'Don't take it too seriously). But do you know how many 'authoritative' statements have been made about the Samaritans by people who don't even have the necessary languages to make those presumptions? My teacher Professor Ruaridh Boid is one of a handful of Samaritan scholars who could function in ALL the languages necessary to make presumptions. But guess what? The people who have developed most of the nonsense you read about the Samaritans could read the language in which most of the material is available in (= Arabic). Benny only respects Boid. And with good reason. The same thing happened in antiquity with respect to the Marcionites. Never underestimate the significance of language deficiency.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.