Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-08-2011, 11:11 AM

And in case you aren't convinced of Bird's theological background - from recent blog posts. On the infallibility of scripture:

Quote:

The Chicago Statement provides the best exposition of inerrancy to date and one that tries to nuance the term where it needs to be. If I had to choose between "errancy" and "inerrancy", I'd choose inerrancy any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Still, I am reminded of the words of Howard Marshall who said that if you need fifteen pages to define one word, may be you should just get a new word. I have an old explanation in mind: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation ... All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (LBC 1.1-2).

on his choice of who he will pray with:

Quote:

I genuinely believe that good progress has been made in Catholic-Protestant relations since the Reformation. This is evidenced by the Evangelicals and Catholics Together as well as the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification which were positive moves forward (see Richard Mouw's quotation from Charles Spurgeon on Spurgeon's trip to a Catholic Church). I can honestly say that I'd rather worship and pray with an Orthodox Catholic than with a Liberal Protestant. I believe in the Reformation and yet recognize that the definition of a Christian in Rom 10:9-10 is broader than my own doctrinal statement.

The point here is that Moll's thesis depends on the 'infallibility' of the information provided us by the Church Fathers. That's what this is all about for Bird and I would argue even Moll. Moll pretends Irenaeus 'agrees' with him and that all those Eastern Fathers are ignorant, swarthy people prone to mistakes and delusional behavior.

There is an inherited notion about the identity of Marcion which goes against everything that people like Ephrem and Eznik say, the difficulty being of course that Ephrem and Eznik actually came into contact with Marcionites. Their opinion is informed. The same cannot be said for Eusebius, Epiphanius and the fourth century Fathers. Now I have demonstrated that Irenaeus and even Tertullian do not contradict the knowledgeable opinion of the Eastern Fathers. How then can we justify perpetuating rumors and uninformed opinions at the expense of eyewitness testimony? As with many things in the Church the preference for 'our Fathers' is fundamentally rooted in a cultural - and even racial or linguistic - bias.

Yet in this case it is even more ridiculous. It is not about what Irenaeus and Tertullian actually say but what we have learned to think that they tell us based on the biases of believers from the fourth to nineteenth centuries. It is these 'hangers on' who basically form Marcion into a proto-Manichaean. Even Ephrem can't do this when it would be quite advantageous for him to do so. And no one catches the perpetuation of this lie. Quite unbelievable really when you actually look at the original material.

maryhelena · 09-08-2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And in case you aren't convinced of Bird's theological background - from a recent blog posts. On the infallibility of scripture:

Quote:

The Chicago Statement provides the best exposition of inerrancy to date and one that tries to nuance the term where it needs to be. If I had to choose between "errancy" and "inerrancy", I'd choose inerrancy any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Still, I am reminded of the words of Howard Marshall who said that if you need fifteen pages to define one word, may be you should just get a new word. I have an old explanation in mind: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation ... All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (LBC 1.1-2).

on his choice of who he will pray with:

Quote:

I genuinely believe that good progress has been made in Catholic-Protestant relations since the Reformation. This is evidenced by the Evangelicals and Catholics Together as well as the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification which were positive moves forward (see Richard Mouw's quotation from Charles Spurgeon on Spurgeon's trip to a Catholic Church). I can honestly say that I'd rather worship and pray with an Orthodox Catholic than with a Liberal Protestant. I believe in the Reformation and yet recognize that the definition of a Christian in Rom 10:9-10 is broader than my own doctrinal statement.

The point here is that Moll's thesis depends on the 'infallibility' of the information provided us by the Church Fathers. That's what this is all about for Bird and I would argue even Moll. Moll pretends Irenaeus 'agrees' with him and that all those Eastern Fathers are ignorant, swarthy people prone to mistakes and delusional behavior.

Just for the record, the quotations are from the chapter: Shadows and Light, Marcion's (Mis)Construal of the apostle Paul: by Dr. Todd D. Still.

So, Stephan, if it floats your boat - feel free to go looking for some comments by Dr Still re his theological affiliations...:huh:

stephan huller · 09-08-2011, 11:53 AM

But I don't see where any of this leads. I don't even think you have a rational position on Marcion. My point is that it makes sense for Bird for support Moll's reconstruction because he couldn't give a flying fadoo about Marcion. Marcion is a distraction. The question for both Moll and Bird is the infallibility or at least the reliability of the Church Fathers and the scriptures. In that sense, people like them who see Marcion as a 'problem' (see how many times the word 'problem' is used in the sentence with Marcion by these people).

The 'solution' of course is to adhere to the portrait developed by people like Tertullian. This becomes 'the truth' about Marcion and their job becomes simply to 'uphold' this portrait not only against the portrait put forward by liberal theologians like von Harnack (hence my citation above) but also against the testimonies of fellow Church Fathers from the East which contradict this portrait.

Marciontism is a fascinating topic because it quite literally sits at the very limits of knowledge. There is a surprising amount of information. Nevertheless it is quite challenging to make it all fit. I am not at all happy with anyone who builds a wall around Tertullian and ignores the testimonies of Irenaeus, pseudo-Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Adamantius, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Eznik, Gregory Nazianzus and Jerome. Yet they have to do it because it demonstrates that the Church Fathers were fallible, that their information is not very reliable.

Tertullian is too important a witness to let fall victim to the truth.

andrewcriddle · 09-08-2011, 12:03 PM

On the question of whether Marcion was (thought to be) a dualist, one should consider Hippolytus Against All Heresies book 7
The account begins:

Quote:

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one

and continues with a comparison of Marcion to Empedocles, who is represented by Hippolytus as a dualist.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 09-08-2011, 12:13 PM

Yes, that is very true Andrew. Pseudo-Hippolytus does say that. But the testimony is so confusing that this is one of the reason Moll ignores it. Notice what Pseudo-Hippolytus says a little later about the beliefs of Marcion and the manner in which it continued from his teacher Cerdo and was ultimately perpetuated to his student Apelles:

Quote:

[he] affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic).

But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. [Philosophumena 7.25,26]

As I noted with the Tertullian material, a later editor is likely responsible for 'enhancing' the dualistic tendencies in Marcion.

Another difficulty of course is that the Philosophumena clearly employed Irenaeus's original understanding of the Marcionites which agrees with what I cited. In all cases the dualistic Marcion emerges in subsequent rewrites. It is generally acknowledged that our Philosophumena is not the same anti-heretical treatise penned by Hippolytus and known to Photius (which begins with Dositheus). Yet the two texts are related.

The Philosophumena is an expansion of that original syntagma in the same way as Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion is a (self-confessed) expansion of an original anti-Marcionite treatise written in 208 CE. It was in this later period that the dualistic information was introduced.

maryhelena · 09-09-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes, that is very true Andrew. Pseudo-Hippolytus does say that. But the testimony is so confusing that this is one of the reason Moll ignores it. Notice what Pseudo-Hippolytus says a little later about the beliefs of Marcion and the manner in which it continued from his teacher Cerdo and was ultimately perpetuated to his student Apelles:

Quote:

[he] affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic).

But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. [Philosophumena 7.25,26]

As I noted with the Tertullian material, a later editor is likely responsible for 'enhancing' the dualistic tendencies in Marcion.

Another difficulty of course is that the Philosophumena clearly employed Irenaeus's original understanding of the Marcionites which agrees with what I cited. In all cases the dualistic Marcion emerges in subsequent rewrites. It is generally acknowledged that our Philosophumena is not the same anti-heretical treatise penned by Hippolytus and known to Photius (which begins with Dositheus). Yet the two texts are related.

The Philosophumena is an expansion of that original syntagma in the same way as Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion is a (self-confessed) expansion of an original anti-Marcionite treatise written in 208 CE. It was in this later period that the dualistic information was introduced.

Stephan - you really need to put your cards on the table re your position on Marcion. Moll's book, which you are endeavoring to dismiss, is an attempt at providing a new picture of Marcion. A picture of Marcion that he is developing from the relevant literature. But, you Stephan, are rejecting that literature on Marcion - no, not just trying to deny Marcion's dualism regarding a good god and an evil god - but you are denying that the figure in the literature is a historical figure, Marcion from Pontus. For you that figure is an invention.....

Quote:

Marcion Was a Heretic Invented in the Third Century to Gloss Over the Controversies Associated with St Mark in Second Century Palestine

The bottom line for me, my friends, is that we can be fairly certain that Justin never wrote an Against Marcion, nor did Irenaeus - despite what the testimony of the present edition of Against Heresies has to say about that. Noe we have Jerome admitting that a great many spurious texts were written in the name of Modestus, thus cast doubt on the 'Against Marcion' associated with the writer. Why is it so unlikely given the forgery, manipulating and editing associated with the Against Heresies tradition that a third century editor was trying to prove that a great number of third century witnesses knew about the existence of a fictitious 'Marcion' the head of the Marcionites?

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-in-third.html

Stephan, if you believe in a "fictitious 'Marcion'" - then, obviously, what this figure's dualism involved is only of academic interest. The details of this "fictitious" figure's dualism can only be relevant for you if you are seeking to reject the "fictitious" figure but want to retain the teaching/theology that has been attributed to this "fictitious" figure. In that case, whether that teaching/theology centers upon a negative dualism - as in a good god and evil god - or in a positive 'dualism' of a good god and a just god - becomes a major issue for you. In other words - your rejection of Moll's findings re Marcion is a reflection of your commitment to your own theory. Nothing wrong with that of course - except in this case - your theory is very much a fringe theory. Something that you have, earlier in this thread, thrown at Moll.

The mythicists on this forum are upfront - they lay their cards on the table re what position they are arguing from. I suggest, Stephan, that it would greatly facilitate discussion on Marcion if you were to do likewise.

stephan huller · 09-09-2011, 02:51 PM

If you want to start a thread on my theories about Marcion be my guest. It would make me very happy.

stephan huller · 09-10-2011, 10:43 AM

Jaap Mansfield rejects pseudo-Hippolytus's reconstruction of Marcion's alleged dualism as 'incorrect':

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Yi...arcion&f=false

The proper understanding of Marcion, says Mansfield, is found in the other sources.

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

09-08-2011, 11:53 AM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But I don't see where any of this leads. I don't even think you have a rational position on Marcion. My point is that it makes sense for Bird for support Moll's reconstruction because he couldn't give a flying fadoo about Marcion. Marcion is a distraction. The question for both Moll and Bird is the infallibility or at least the reliability of the Church Fathers and the scriptures. In that sense, people like them who see Marcion as a 'problem' (see how many times the word 'problem' is used in the sentence with Marcion by these people). The 'solution' of course is to adhere to the portrait developed by people like Tertullian. This becomes 'the truth' about Marcion and their job becomes simply to 'uphold' this portrait not only against the portrait put forward by liberal theologians like von Harnack (hence my citation above) but also against the testimonies of fellow Church Fathers from the East which contradict this portrait. Marciontism is a fascinating topic because it quite literally sits at the very limits of knowledge. There is a surprising amount of information. Nevertheless it is quite challenging to make it all fit. I am not at all happy with anyone who builds a wall around Tertullian and ignores the testimonies of Irenaeus, pseudo-Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Adamantius, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Eznik, Gregory Nazianzus and Jerome. Yet they have to do it because it demonstrates that the Church Fathers were fallible, that their information is not very reliable. Tertullian is too important a witness to let fall victim to the truth.

09-09-2011, 02:51 PM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If you want to start a thread on my theories about Marcion be my guest. It would make me very happy.

09-10-2011, 10:43 AM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Jaap Mansfield rejects pseudo-Hippolytus's reconstruction of Marcion's alleged dualism as 'incorrect': http://books.google.com/books?id=8Yi...arcion&f=false The proper understanding of Marcion, says Mansfield, is found in the other sources.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.