Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-29-2011, 08:11 PM

Most of my stuff comes from the top of my head but the Philonic reference is somewhere in On the Change of Names as well as elsewhere. My point with Exodus 3.6 is if it were a monotheistic reference it would simply read 'the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' I think Philo knows something. He's not just making stuff up.

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But give me another example in history of someone 'taking out' material rather than 'adding new material'

I don't know of one.

1) Orthodox heresiologists of the 4th and 5th century removing offensive bits and pieces from epitomes of Gnostic Acts and Gospels.

2) The 11th century Medici manuscript removal of the E and replacement with I.

stephan huller · 09-29-2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Orthodox heresiologists of the 4th and 5th century removing offensive bits and pieces from epitomes of Gnostic Acts and Gospels.

But they also added large quantities of material too. My point is that strictly speaking Marcion is accused of taking out not adding.

TedM · 09-29-2011, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am driving right now..

:notworthy:

Quote:

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."

I must confess that I have a very difficult time following you at times Stephan. Are you comparing the two quotes above, or are they two separate points? I want to understand where you are coming from but unfortunately need more breakdown, if you are amenable. Turning in for the night..

Thanks, Ted

maryhelena · 09-29-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Orthodox heresiologists of the 4th and 5th century removing offensive bits and pieces from epitomes of Gnostic Acts and Gospels.

But they also added large quantities of material too. My point is that strictly speaking Marcion is accused of taking out not adding.

Your point? Stephan your point is that:

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

So let me rephrase your above point: "My point is that strictly speaking Marcion Marcionites is are accused of taking out not adding". There now - that let's everyone know just where it is you are coming from....and what your point actually is.....

Ditch Marcion, substitute Marcus Julius Agrippa (II) as the head of the Marcionities - place the Marcionites, with Agrippa (II), prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. - which requires ditching the conventional dating for Marcion of 85 c.e. - 160 c.e. - which all means that the Marcionite theology needs to be cleaned up re their theory of a good god and an evil god......which means that the new scholarly study on Marcion needs to be discredited....

The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Marcion’s dualism forms without doubt the centre of his doctrine. The nature of this dualism does not seem to give rise to much doubt, either, ever since Harnack established his idea that Marcion distinguishes between a just and a good God, and thereby also established a scholarly consensus which lasted for almost a century. However, in the present chapter we shall see that this view is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning Marcion’s teaching, for the heresiarch’s distinction was in fact far less ‘protestant’ than Harnack imagined, as he simply distinquished between an evil god and a good God.

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective is due to his ‘Neoprotestant interpretation” of Marcion, it would be false to claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not provide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

page 85

2.2.1 Marcion’s Use of Paul

...As we have already seen in the preceding chapter, Marcionite doctrine is only related to Pauline teaching in terms of soteriology, and with substantial differences even in this field. But how is it then that Harnack was so convinced of seeing Marcion almost as a reincarnation of the Apostle? To answer this question, we shall take a look at a remark Harnack made about Marcion’s view of the Law, a remark which is exemplary for Harnack’s bias towards the arch-heretic” “M.s Stellung zum Gesetz unterscheidet sich also nicht stark von der des Paulus, wenn man die letzte Voraussetzung der beiden Gotter weglabt”. This argument is all fair and good, but it is like saying that Adam Smith’s concept of economy is close to that of Karl Marx, if one leaves aside Smith’s idea of the free market. Harnack’s fundamental misconception, which we have already encountered in the preceding chapter, comes to light again. The German scholar, in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation, wanted to focus on the New Testament and its message of love and forgiveness, thereby neglecting the testimony of the Old Testament. However, Marcion was the wrong role model for his plea. The Pontic did not neglect the Old Testament, but saw it as the testimony of the evil Creator who is opposed to the Father of Jesus Christ. Harnack may like it or not, but this evil God is as important for Marcion’s doctrine as the good God is. To leave aside this dualism of Marcion’s means to deprive him of the very centre of his theology. In the end, Marcion’s system was so radically different from the one of Paul that it seems unlikely to assume any substantial influence of the Apostle on the arch-heretic.

stephan huller · 09-30-2011, 12:32 AM

Just a question to the other panelists - if I find Mary Helena tiresome and annoying does it mean that I am a misogynist?

GakuseiDon · 09-30-2011, 01:24 AM

No. But I think anyone who pursues a topic passionately will be annoying to someone. Even I am apparently annoying to a few -- can you imagine it???

I actually enjoy reading both yours and Mary's posts. You are both coming from perspectives outside anything I've encountered, and you are both in the main respectful. That's why I hang around here. Good posting!

archibald · 09-30-2011, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Orthodox heresiologists of the 4th and 5th century removing offensive bits and pieces from epitomes of Gnostic Acts and Gospels.

But they also added large quantities of material too. My point is that strictly speaking Marcion is accused of taking out not adding.

Was that your point? :constern01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The more interesting argument is to understand why anyone would believe that someone would 'remove' material from a holy book rather than add new material. I can think of countless examples of the latter. I would like to hear of one verified example of an ancient religious person 'taking out' material from a holy Book.

maryhelena · 09-30-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Just a question to the other panelists - if I find Mary Helena tiresome and annoying does it mean that I am a misogynist?

Perhaps not a misogynist......but since you brought the matter up - while my postings might well be "tiresome and annoying" to you - your postings to me have often reflected a male chauvinist. I have never, in the few years I have been on FRDB, ever come across such chauvinist innuendo as I have from you. Your last such foray into sexual innuendo being so over the line that it was removed.....In fact, in all my many years of posting online - I have never been subjected to the sort of sexual innuendo - and character assassination - that you have dished out my way...

jakejonesiv · 09-30-2011, 06:22 AM

I will leave the more esoteric and subjective approaches to Marcion to others more in tune with that approach. In order to discuss the OP, we need a little background that will establish some guidelines to the relative importance of the Marcionite sect.

We know a great deal about Marcion from the Heresiologists. It is not a stretch to say we may know more about Marcion than any other second century Christian. Marcionism was such a grave threat to the proto-orthodox that most of the 2c-early 3c church fathers spent a great deal of time in attempts to refute his doctrines. For example, Tertullian wrote five books against him. Justin Martyr was contemporary with Marcion. 1 Apology 58, "...Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching ... preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son." We have the witnesses of Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Eznik. Celsus also knew of Marcion and used his writings to argue against Christianity. We know of several other works against Marcion for which no extant text survive; Justin's Against Marcion; Rhodo, Against the Heresy of Marcion; Theophilus of Antioch, Against Marcion.

Marcion was also contemporary with Polycarp. There was an alleged meeting between Polycarp and Marcion that is historically possible, but perhaps "too good to be true" to accept uncritically. Marcion met Polycarp on one occasion, and said "Dost thou know me?" Polycarp allegedly replied, "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."

Marcion was from Sinope in Pontus. Irenaeus AH 1.27.2; Tertullian AM 1.1. When Marcion emerged to the West, he carried letters of recommendation from his co-religionists in Pontus. (Latin prologue to the Gospel of John. Bauer, 91n33. cf Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe, pp. 6 f. [=325 and 334 f]. Also his Marcion, pp. 24, 11 * ff.

He was the son of a wealthy ship builder, and brought a donation of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman church. Marcion taught that Christianity was a completely new, unanticipated religion; the "Sudden Christ" (Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, and suddenly Christ! AM 3.2) from the "Unknown Father." Marcion brought with him a collection of ten Pauline epistles (the Apostilicon), and a gospel the Evangelion which was a substratum of Luke. Marcion also composed the Antithesis in which he attempted to prove that the God of Jesus, the Father, was not the same as the God of the Jews. This was done by juxtaposing OT passages along with NT from his canon. Some of the comparisons are hilarious and would surely have the proto-orthodox seeing red! Modern scholars might quibble with a few of Marcion’s observations, but these would be extremely hard to argue against in a debate setting. This demonstrates that Marcion taught that Christianity did not emerge from Judaism.

The impact of Marcion was huge. He forced the emerging catholic church to define its canon and doctrines, largely in response against his. One gains the distinct impression, that if it were not for Marcion, the church fathers would have had much less reason to write.

Take a look at how enraged Tertullian would become at the mere mention of Marcion’s name.

Quote:

"Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces?" Tertullian, AM 1.1.

No, I call that slander!

Marcion really hit a raw nerve with the proto-catholics, probably because he struck too close to home. He challenged the very basis of authority upon which the Roman church was built. Marcion was accepted for a time in Rome and a hearing was given to his doctrines before being rejected along with his money. But it is quite obvious that Marcion was representing an established alternate Christianity. The Marcionites rivaled the Catholics in most areas of the Roman Empire, and outnumbered them in many in the mid second century CE.

Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, wrote that his teachings were universal throughout the empire, "Marcion ... has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies." Yet even Justin admitted that Marcion was a Christian. "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58.

For the most part, Marcionite services were so similar to those of the proto-orthodox, that proto-orthodox Christians were warned to be careful not to attend a Marcionite service by mistake. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechisms 18.26).

Now, here a surprise if you haven’t seen it before. The earliest dated surviving inscribed reference, anywhere, to Jesus is Marcionite. And it is Jesus Chrestos not Jesus Christ!

N/A

It dates to 318 CE. Le Bas-Waddington, “Inscriptions Grecqueset Latines,” III, pp. 582f.; Harnack _Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott_, pp. 341 ff.; Blackman, _Marcion and His Influences_, pp. 4 ff. .
a sign over the doorway of a Marcionite building in a Syrian village:

Quote:

Συναγωγη Μαρκιωνιστων κωμ(ης)
Λεβαβων του κ(υριο)υ και σω(τη)ρ(ος) Ιη(σου) Χρηστου
προνοια(ι) Παυλου πρεσβ(υτερου) -- του λχ' ετους.

["The meeting-house (literaly Synagogue)of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Savior Jesus The Good (Chrestos). Erected by the forethought of Paul the elder -- In the year 630."]

It is dated to the early fourth century, in the year 318-319 C.E., 630 of the Seleucid era. It was discovered at Deir Ali (Lebaba), about three miles south of Damascus, by Le Bas and Waddington.

\9/ Insc. Grec. et Latines, 3. 1870, No. 2558, p. 582; cp. Harnack in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. (1876), pp. 103 f.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/religious_s...k/bk4ch3-1.htm

http://tinyurl.com/3p7flfc

The Marcionites were as well known for their steadfastness in the face of persecution. Tertullian, who was no friend to the Marcionites, mocked them for this.

Quote:

"When the censer is handed you, and you are asked to offer a few grains of incense, why not deny your fate? 'God forbid!' you cry; 'God forbid!'..." AM 1.27.

ThatTertullian would mock Marcionites for actions that were supposed to be of utmost piety amoung the proto-orthodox illustrates his bias and hypocrisy).

Eusibius tells us in EH 4.15 that the Marcionite prebster Metrodorus suffered the very same martryrdom by fire in the same persecution at Smyrna as the illustrious Polycarp. Indeed, there were very many Marcionite martyrs EH 5.16, including the Marcionite bishop Asclepius who was burned alive on the same pyre as the proto-orthodox Apselamus (Mart. Pal. c. 10). There was a Marcionite woman who was martyred under Valerian at Caesarea EH 3.12.

The persecution of the Marcionites was continued by Constantine. He absolutely forbid the Marcionites and other heretics to meet either in public or private. Their churches and private meeting places were confiscated and handed over to the catholic church. Eusebius Life of Const., 3.64. http://tinyurl.com/4s2nvws

One must wonder if this is not something else that the proto-orthodox stole from the Marcionites and applied to themselves. We have can see from the works of Joseph Turmel that the story of Ignatius rests on Marcionite underpinnings, which was converted into a proto-orthodox martyrdom.

Perhaps the story of Polycarp's martyrdom was "inspired" by that of the Marcionite Metrodorus; both are said to have persished by fire in Smyrna. Otherwise, why mention Metrodorus at all? "Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom. Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire." Eusebius, eH 4.15.46. And please note, Eusebius' source was a letter written to Pontus 4.15.2.

Remarkably, we see the same pattern repeated in the case of Apselamus and Asclepius.

Quote:

"On the eleventh day of the month Audynæus, which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Cæsarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, from the village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God. Though the judge and those around him besought him many times to have compassion on himself, and to spare his own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, preferring hope in the God of the universe to all things, even to life itself. A certain ASCLEPIUS, supposed to be A BISHOP OF THE SECT OF MARCION, possessed as he thought with zeal for religion, but “not according to knowledge,” ENDED HIS LIFE ON ONE AND THE SAME FUNERAL PYRE." Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 10. [Emphasis added]

.

Perhaps "Apselamus" was a corruption on the name of the Marcionite Bishop Asclepius. Perhaps it is mere co-incidence that Apselamus is an ascetic, one of the defining characteristics of the Marcionites? And that his name is immediatley redefined with the thoroughly "catholic friendly" name of "Peter"? After all, they were burned alive "on one and the same funeral pyre" suggesting a very close association if not identity.

"For some of the heresies have a great many martyrs; ... And first, indeed, those called Marcionites, from the heresy of Marcion, say that they have a multitude of martyrs for Christ; ..." Eusebius EH 5.16.21.

First indeed. :constern01:

Jake Jones IV

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

09-29-2011, 08:11 PM	#31
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Most of my stuff comes from the top of my head but the Philonic reference is somewhere in On the Change of Names as well as elsewhere. My point with Exodus 3.6 is if it were a monotheistic reference it would simply read 'the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' I think Philo knows something. He's not just making stuff up.

09-30-2011, 12:32 AM	#36
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Just a question to the other panelists - if I find Mary Helena tiresome and annoying does it mean that I am a misogynist?

09-30-2011, 01:24 AM	#37
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	No. But I think anyone who pursues a topic passionately will be annoying to someone. Even I am apparently annoying to a few -- can you imagine it??? I actually enjoy reading both yours and Mary's posts. You are both coming from perspectives outside anything I've encountered, and you are both in the main respectful. That's why I hang around here. Good posting!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.