Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 12-08-2011, 08:06 AM

I think it is still somewhere in a pile of books and boxes in Toronto. I won't be in TO for at least a few months. Will let you know then

Roger Pearse · 12-08-2011, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think it is still somewhere in a pile of books and boxes in Toronto. I won't be in TO for at least a few months. Will let you know then

Thanks!

DCHindley · 12-15-2011, 04:55 PM

Recieved my copy of Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God (or via: amazon.co.uk) yesterday, and have to say I am happy with it.

Very "scholarly" yet very readable. Translator Robert A Pretty stays neutral on contentious issues for the main part, but occasionally a strong predisposition can be observed (e.g., the "two principal" versus the "three principal" version of Marcion's metaphysics).

The 33 page Introduction and the copious footnotes adds to and expands upon the information I had already posted from F A Hort's article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, (1877).

For example Hort:

In the Greek editions [he means those critical editions of Wettstein 1674; De la Rue 1733; and Migne 1857] the Dialogue is cut into five [sometimes arbitrary] sections [roughly corresponding to the 5 sections of Rufinus' Latin translation, first published by Caspari in 1833]; a perverse arrangement which disguises the true structure.

The MSS. (? all) with better reason divide into three dialogues, of which the former two answer to Sections I. II., and the third has three heads, (1) without a title, (2) On the Christ, (3) On the Resurrection. The last [head of dialogue three] corresponds with Wetstein's Section V.: his III. and IV. are arbitrary. [Pretty says "Rufinus has broken his translation into five parts, wheras the Greek MSS remain undivided," contradicting Hort. In a later footnote, Pretty says "The various manuscripts, [Latin] translations [from Greek MSS by Picus 1556; Petronius 1556; and Humphrey 1557] and editions of the Dialogue of Adamantius [see above] all show differences of divisions, most having either 3 or 5 (Migne has five)." As a result, it is unclear to me which of the 10 Greek codices are undivided and which might be divided into three sections. Hort thinks they all could be divided into three sections, but isn't sure. Pretty, based on the 1901 critical text of Bakhuyzen, not available to Hort in 1877, says variously they all were undivided yet implies alsewhere that some might be divided into three sections.]

Properly speaking the whole Dialogue falls into two parts, A (Sections I. II.) against two Marcionists, and B (III.—V.) against a Bardesanist: each part ends with a formal judgement by the umpire. [Pretty continues the last note cited above, saying "Examination of contents suggests a division into two parts: Part One with the Marcionites; Part Two with speakers holding Gnostic or similar views ... . This is supported by the fact that the adjudicator rises on only two separate occasions to close the discussion: [at the end of Rufinus' section two, but only in the Greek MSS, and again at the end of section five.]]

Sectioning of Rufinus' Latin Tr. (followed by Caspari)	Greek text as sectioned by Rue (followed by Bakhuyzen)	Three Section partition of some MSS/trans/editions	Sections by Content

I, 1-28	803-821e	I	A1
II, 1-21	822a-833e	II	A2
III, 1-13	834a-839e(?-some text is missing) pg 123	IIIa	B1
IV, 1-17	840a-850f	IIIb	B2
V, 1-28	851a-872	IIIc	B3

Fun, fun ... !

DCH

stephan huller · 12-15-2011, 05:02 PM

I have noticed that Methodius himself directs his energies against almost the same groups of Christians (Marcionites, gnostics) and tended to develop his ideas in the form of dialogues. I wonder if Methodius is the original author (= Adamantius).

stephan huller · 12-15-2011, 05:05 PM

I have mentioned this before but C Clifton Black notices something else about the Dialogues which is worth noting:

Quote:

This is a fabulous addition to the lore about Mark. Like many of our witnesses thus far, Adamantius is concerned to justify the apostolic character of Mark's Gospel. Unlike the majority, however, he appeals not to its Petrine background but instead to the Pauline corpus, the strand of tradition, examined in chapter 2, which has been by far the least exploited. Indeed, so "adamant" is "Adamantius" about the Second Gospel's apostolicity that, for the first time in our study, all distance between the Second Evangelist and his apostolic patron has been obliterated. Here Mark is promoted to the rank of apostle — which, in this discourse, is regarded as tantamount to having been "a disciple of Jesus."

How do we account for a presentation so unprecedented? The clues, I think, are woven into the fabric of "the dialogue" itself. Although Adamantius and Megethius differ on the authority of Mark and Mark's Gospel (as well as that of Luke), we might begin by observing how radically they agree on the argument's fundamental assumptions. Neither Adamantius nor Eutropius challenges the premises of Megethius's case: (1) the Gospels should have been written by "apostles" or "disciples of Christ"; (2) some record of that authorship, in particular the authors' names, should have been left in the Gospels, or elsewhere in scripture. In accordance with these mutually accepted axioms, Adamantius asserts (1) that Mark and Luke, no less than Matthew and John, are disciples of Christ, and (2) that the evidence for this claim resides in their inclusion among the seventy-two other missionaries whom Jesus reportedly dispatched en route to Jerusalem. Since Luke 10: 1 explicitly identifies none of these other apostles, Adamantius is proposing an invalid "argument from silence." However fallacious the logic, apparently the parties in the debate find the evidence of Luke 10:1 more relevant than an appeal to the Second Gospel's traditional attribution, "According to Mark." Indeed, that title or superscript is neglected altogether: as Megethius asserts (and Adamantius concedes), "Have the Gospel read and you'll find that these names" — Mark and Luke — "are not written in it."

But why the appeal to a proof text so filigreed as Luke 10:1? Evidently, Admantius is a tactician who believes that "the best defense is a good offense": the most powerful rebuttal is that which not only answers Megethius but also undermines the latter's own Marcionite warrants, which employed expurgated versions of Paul's letters and Luke's Gospel. Though allowance must be made for the apologists' own tendentiousness, Adamantius tacitly concurs with Irenaeus's complaint: "[Marcion] persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us" (Adv. Haer. 1.27.2). In this context the issue of authority has become bound up with particular claims of authorship, much as we witnessed in Clement's wrangling with the Carpocratians. Accordingly, Adamantius moves not just to any Gospel but to Luke's - and to a passage (10:1) whose wording is uniquely Lukan — to "find," from among that larger company of apostles, the two unnamed Evangelists. These two, Adamantius argues, in tandem receive their corroborative identification not merely from any scripture but from Paul himself (thus, the appeal to Col 4:10, 14). Most likely it is for this reason, then, that The Dialogue on the Orthodox Faith breaks with most patristic traditions elsewhere by summoning, as Mark's referee, Paul and not Peter: although Petrine traditions were conspicuously strong in Syria, the Pauline tradition about Mark was more directly serviceable for the defense against Marcionism that Adamantius was burdened to build.

In this matter, as at the end of the debate, Eutropius ruled in Adamantius's favor. Had one of Marcion's sympathizers constructed this dialogue, very likely a different verdict would have been rendered! Frustrated by the fragile assumptions and wobbly arguments that unfold here, many modern readers may be tempted to call down a plague on both houses. In our haste to disparage Megethius's and Adamantius's illogical sleights of hand, perhaps we should not overlook their minutely reasoned appeals to biblical evidence, including (for Adamantius) the figure of Mark, in the defense of orthodoxy. While Adamantius's construction of Mark is in some respects decidedly different from others that we have seen, ultimately his objectives and craftsmanship are similar: here, as elsewhere in early Christian testimony, the apostolicity and personality of Mark have been carefully tailored to clothe a particular body of religious and theological commitments — and, as sometimes happens, to strip another naked. [C Clifton Black Mark:Images of an Apostolic Interpreter ibid 150 - 152]

DCHindley · 12-15-2011, 05:23 PM

Pretty suggests the real author was one Maximus, a disciple of Methodius (a harsh critic of Origen), who sought to rehabilitate the reputation of Origen (=Adamantius) by putting orthodox statements in his mouth.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have noticed that Methodius himself directs his energies against almost the same groups of Christians (Marcionites, gnostics) and tended to develop his ideas in the form of dialogues. I wonder if Methodius is the original author (= Adamantius).

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

12-08-2011, 08:06 AM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think it is still somewhere in a pile of books and boxes in Toronto. I won't be in TO for at least a few months. Will let you know then

12-15-2011, 05:02 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have noticed that Methodius himself directs his energies against almost the same groups of Christians (Marcionites, gnostics) and tended to develop his ideas in the form of dialogues. I wonder if Methodius is the original author (= Adamantius).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.