stephan huller

It's not whining and it has nothing to do with 'historicism' (which I think is a false category). The facts are (from what I can gather from conversing with him here) that Doherty's interesting - indeed fascinating - reconstruction of the Pauline epistles contradicts everything we know about early Christianity from the Patristic sources. That's cool I guess. Look at when Jobim developed bossa nova in the history of Brasilian music or jazz in America. People break the rules all the time and become the new rules.

If I wanted to develop a personal interpretation of the Pauline letters - perhaps as an atheist who felt bored or daunted by the task of actually reading the earliest sources - I'd probably latch on to this amazing innovation. But it can't be true. It can't be true that Marcionitism, Valentinianism, Basilidianism, Polycarpism and all the 'isms' of the second century thought one way and this beautiful creation of Doherty in modern times posits something else.

Like I said there are art movements and musical innovations and the people at the helm are considered heretics and then geniuses. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not arguing that Jesus was a historical person, so you can step in like the mythicist sheriff and dare me to a draw all you want - it will do you no good. But this idea of a supernatural Jesus who never appeared on earth simply has nothing to do with the actual history of how the New Testament was interpreted in earliest Christian antiquity.

stephan huller

Vork,

And on a personal note I've noticed this from you at this forum. When I criticize 'mythicists' for being uninformed about how the gospel and the Pauline letters were actually interpreted in antiquity you always want this to be a straight mythicist vs. historicist fight. This has nothing to do with it. The rabbinic tradition and early Christianity are similar in this one regard - there are documented schools of interpreting the scriptures. There are patterns which go back to very early authors and sages. The fact that Doherty - or perhaps you yourself - have chosen not to study them or become acquainted with their habits, is 'cool.' I don't think you will go to heaven or hell for 'transgressing' here. It probably allows both of you more creativity and the ability to think out of the box - and presumably make friends and influence people. But at the end of it is difficult for someone who has taken the time to read over and over how Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen approach the scriptures to abandon everything and posit completely new and unheard of concepts.

The point again is that Jobim is a genius. Louis Armstrong too. I will never be a Jobim or an Armstrong let alone a Frank Sinatra. But I am not looking for a personal faith in light of the evidence. I am just interested in what is most likely to be the truth based on the existing sources. So if you would like to set up a thread, why not set up one which argues that the best way to understand the gospel, the Pauline letters and the scriptures is to ignore what all the earliest sources tell us they say. That is an argument you are certainly not going to win.

Chili

That is why the consolation must be found in philosophy as the pilar of truth wherein all opinions come to rest, . . . as if it was the Tannenbaum with Mary at the top and all its branches under her. And then, of course She move to Rome and that seems to be the tragedy of all!

And so what else is new?

But Jesus was not Jobim or Louis Armstrong as genius in their own right, but Jesus is the way to set free the genus of man in each of us as human, and so will be same for all as he was already then.

And so yes, Jesus was historical with permanence in time itself to not remain in history of old when the story first was told.

tanya

But, have we been reading their texts, or rather, texts, attributed to them, but which have been altered significantly, to appease various political authorities, in the 1800 years since their deaths?
One reason, could be, that the "historical sources" have been irrevocably contaminated, doctored, mutilated, or revised beyond recognition. These "sources" are as unreliable as any document can be.

You build a huge argument on the "writings" of Marcion, but possess not even a single word of text authored by him, from which to quote.

I would like to write about the huge quantity of people murdered by Genghis Khan. How can I do that? Where do I find a source with that information?

I would like to know the catalogue of titles in the library at Alexandria, in 300 BCE, to know what sources of information Aristarchus had available, when he "discovered" heliocentrism. I can write for hours, but, in the end, what have I got for authentic source material?

ZIP. Nada. Nothing.

stephan huller

I truly don't understand this argument. A case in point. I live in Seattle, the city where Iron Chef Mario Batali was born and incidently where his father owns a restaurant called Salumi which specializes in making artisan salami (not suprisingly). My wife last night went to Metropolitan Markets (a locale equivalent of Whole Foods) and bought a mixed assortment of sliced salami from Salumi. It was very good especially the mole salami which is the house specialty.

Now I have never eaten at any of Mario Batali's restaurants, but I have a fair idea about what the experience would be like. He's Italian, he cooks Italian food, I have eaten some of the cured meats from his father's restaurant, my wife went through this insane period where she was attempting meals from his cookbook (and that of Julia Child and many others).

The point is that even without Marcion's text we have an idea of what it said just like - even though I have never eaten in a Mario Batali restaurant - I have a good idea what that experience would be like. I simply don't understand this constant refusal to let Marcion in the door. Marcion is no less unknown than eating at one of Mario Batali's restaurants.

But to follow the insane ramblings of many here, I should ignore or 'suspend judgement' on the Mario Batali dining experience even though I have never set foot in his restaurant. That's unbelievably severe. I know that I would like a Mario Batali restaurant even though I have never set foot in one. I don't get what everyone's problem is. It's like they simply don't want to get out of the cave of their own ignorance.

outhouse

Not only that there was enough written about him and his works, we can and have recreated what he followed.

tanya

Haha. My favorite restaurant, of all time, (No, not the Moti Mahal, in Delhi, that's also great, though) is Crank's. Probably only a few folks who love London, have even heard of it.

Possibly your wife knows of it....

Anyway. No. I disagree with your assessment here, Stephan.

Can you predict what Andrew, or Roger, or spin, or Shesh, or David, or Toto will write, on a particular topic, before they compose their rejoinder?

Sometimes, YES, you can. Sure, sometimes, you are able to predict they will scoff, or belittle, or berate, or commiserate, or praise, some aspect of someone's post. SOMETIMES. But, not always.

Would you put money on predicting their reply? I wouldn't. I don't know how they will reply. They are all predictably unpredictable. They are scholars. They are wise men and women. They know the literature. They know the arguments. They know the history. They know the contradictions. Yet, they are unpredictable.

Even on something as arcane as "Branch" from Zechariah, then from Philo, gives rise to heated debates and disagreements. Lots of opinions. A few facts. Misleading, distorted, and forged texts convey different, incompatible theories. Even though they have a body of literature available for inspection, on any given topic, I am unsure how they will respond.

But, with Marcion, we have a person about whom we know for sure, only one thing: His writings have disappeared. We know, for sure, nothing else.

I think you would have enjoyed Crank's, Stephan.....But, someone else, who knows you better, someone who had eaten there, could have a very different opinion. Who's correct, Stephan? Can anyone know the answer to that question, except, Stephan himself?

Without Marcion's own words, we have nothing but conjecture, hyperbole, and vitriol.

stephan huller

This is absurd. Let me put it to you another way. About a third of the Quran is unintelligible. Now by the logic of the anti-Marcionitists here if we uncovered second hand testimony of an early Sunni scholar about an early - but heretical - version of the Quran, it would have no value. None whatsoever. It should be ignored. You wouldn't need to pay any attention to this source because - 'Al Durrani', a Canadian born self-taught interpreter of the Quran from Kapuskasing, ON has 'already' figured out the meaning of the holy text by ignoring any insight into the original shape of the Quran and working with the received text as it is.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. What you are saying is that the alternative readings provided by any source should be ignored and we should instead focus on theoretically rebuilding what the original understanding must have been based on a hopelessly corrupt text (= the received text). This is so absurd but this is exactly what you are suggesting, all of you who refuse to consider the testimony of the Church Fathers about Marcion.

Why do you refuse? The only thing I can come up with is that you only want to find a convenient means of refuting the religion - establishing it as a firm commodity so you can bring it down. How else can this obtuseness be explained?

aa5874

That is like claiming we have nothing but conjecture, hyperbole, and vitriol about a mudered victim if nothing was left in writing.

We have lot sources of antiquity that mention Marcion--even supposed contemporaries.

It is the credibilty of the sources that will be of utmost significance just as in a trial where there is nothing from the victim.

We can easily determine what Marcion preached and taught once we have identified credible sources.

Who are the credible "witnesses" of Marcion's teachings?? Which Apologetic writings reflect the teachings of Marcion's??

Is it Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ephrem....????

Sheshbazzar

Can any of our resident Marcion experts quote one paragraph that they can trace to Marcion?

I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying that I'm not aware of such, if any such exists.

stephan here has suggested that Marcion's writings can be found and identified in the Pauline writings.
I ask him where? What verse or verses is it that you are suggesting stephan? I honestly really would be most interested to know.

Without anything tangible being presented the claim presently seems to be just so much blowing smoke.
Something to which one can neither rise in defense of, nor mount any dispute against.

How can one argue the validity of something that is unidentifiable and to all intents appears not to even exist?


aa mentions Apologetic writings but what of these can be trusted as being authentic?
Does it make sense to reconstruct a hypothetical Marcion from highly biased Apologetic writings, of which a large percentage display the characteristics of having been either massively tampered with, or outright forgeries?