stephan huller

Again how can you expect me to find a historical witness REFUTING something that was unknown to them. It would be like saying 'find me a Samaritan source rejecting the existence of Simon Magus.' The Samaritan sources know nothing about Simon independent of what their Byzantine masters claimed about Simon. As such I suspect that Simon Magus had no real existence. It would be like saying 'find me a Jewish source rejecting John the Baptist's existence.' But the rabbinic tradition does not know anything about this alleged 'John the Baptist' so I suspect that John the Baptist is fictitious. It would be like saying find me a Jewish Christian source denying the existence of Ebion the head of the Evionim.

I don't have to provide a witness from antiquity that says that someone did exist or in order to question their existence. I think the majority of people at this forum think that Ebion is a fiction. I know from personal experience that the majority of contemporary Samaritans think that Simon Magus is a fiction.

There are a number of these historical enigmas because we are dealing with a very small number of sources to begin with. Tertullian says that almost all Valentinians denied the existence or distanced themselves from the existence of a 'Valentinus' (Against Valentinians iv).

To carry on as you do denies the polemic nature of the Patristic writings against the 'heresies.' Already 'Marcion' is compared to a fictitious offspring of a fictitious being when he is first introduced to the world. Maybe Marcion is just as illusory as Satan.

What I am arguing for is the idea that a confusion - deliberate or otherwise - crept into the discussion of the heresies. Irenaeus's attacks the followers of Mark. By the third century when his writings (cf. Photius) and the writings of other third century Patristic writers were being 'corrected' and preserved for posterity 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites' gets introduced into the equation.

If we assume that Irenaeus's 'barbarous language' (AH i.preface.2) was Aramaic then it is easy to explain this 'confusion.' The same is true for the writings of Justin.

There are examples of misreadings of 'those of Mark' for 'those of Marcion' in the writings of Justin.

I have also demonstrated that Marcion is a very, very rare name. No notable person in history ever possessed this name before Marcion of Pontus to my knowledge. A search of Google Books led nowhere.

There is a nexus of information which should cause open-minded people to question the existence of Marcion. The similarities between 'those of Mark' and 'those of Marcion' and the similar spelling of those names only adds to this situation.

stephan huller

And one more thing. We have no surviving writings from the Marcionite tradition as well which is significant. It is impossible to 'prove' anything about the Marcionites. We have a completely hostile group of Catholic Church Fathers saying things ABOUT the Marcionites. On occasion (i.e. extremely rarely) we have a citation of what the Marcionites actually believe from these same sources and out of this very, very small pool there are a small number of statements which can be used to demonstrate that their understanding of Marcion is incompatible with our own. Take Eznik's statement for example:

The apostle, he says they are unutterable stirrings the words he heard, and Marcion, said: "Me, I heard them!"

And Eznik adds:

So? Is it to the apostle, who takes these words that we must listen as unutterable, or Marcion, who, once he has debased them, they are made to mere topical pass these words?

We have so little information about the actual beliefs of the Marcionites from their own sources - how can anyone be sure what it was they believed or who this person identified as 'Marcion' by hostile Patristic writers really was?

I am certain that every reasonable person will agree it was very different from our own assumptions about 'Marcion,' 'Paul' and 'Mark.'

The quote is from Maries and Mercier's French translation of Eznik in the Patrologia Orientalis Tome XXVIII:

Mais Paul, disent-ils, a ete ravi au troisieme ciel, et a entendu ces paroles indicibles, celles-la que, nous, nous commentons, precisement, en nos predications!

Ce Marcion donc, à supposer qu'il soit un de ces hommes, il s'ensuit que, pour lui aussi, indicibles etaient ces paroles, pour lui qui, et homme l'est assurement, et le pire de tous les hommes, lui qui, non content d'avoir abandonne la verite de l'Esprit, s'asseoit encore, va fables ravaudant!

Et le voila à tel point enhardi par l'esprit qui a fait Satan ce qu'il est, fair choix d'une moitie, la prendre, et, l'autre moitie, comme rebut, la jeter à l'abandon; mêmement pour ce qui est des Epitres apostoliques elles aussi; et l'Ancien Testament, en sa totalite, le repudier, comme si, dans sa pensee, c'etait la le don d'un coquin et point d'un bon!

L'Apotre, lui, dit qu'elles sont inénar rables les paroles qu'il a entendues, et Marcion, lui dit: "Moi! Je les ai entendues!"

Alors? est-ce l'Apotre, qui, pour indicibles, tient ces paroles, que l'on doit ecouter, ou Marcion, qui, une fois qu'il les a ravalées, fait, au rang de simples topiques passer ces paroles?

My rough translation:

But Paul, they (the Marcionites) say, has been enraptured to third heaven and heard unspeakable words, ones that we, we comment, precisely, in our sermons?

This Marcion then, assuming he is one of those men (as the Marcionites claim), it follows that these were unspeakable words were for him, a man who is assuredly the worst of all men, he who, not content to have abandoned the truth of the Spirit, himself sets about again to spread vile fables!

And there he is so emboldened by the spirit that made Satan, that is, to choose to take (only) a half (of the gospel), and the other half, to throw it away as junk. Likewise for what is the apostolic epistles also, and he repudiates the Old Testament in its entirety, as if in thinking, it was the gift of a roguish and not of a good god!

The apostle, he says they are unutterable stirrings the words he heard, and Marcion, said: "Me, I heard them!"

So? Is it to the apostle, who takes these words that we must listen as unutterable, or Marcion, who, once he has debased them, they are made to mere topical pass these words?

stephan huller

Oh BTW the reference in the Eznik quote is 2 Cor chapter 12

aa5874

Well how do you EXPECT me to confirm YOUR character of antiquity? What is his name, again? What did he write? What source knows nothing him???

It is like I can't find YOUR character of antiquity. How do I REFUTE what I cannot find?

I think you are engaged in FUTILITY.

Have you ever considered that the majority of people may think that YOUR Marcion SUBSTITUTE may be FICTION?

It really does NOT matter to ME what the MAJORITY think. ALL I need is the source of antiquity that can show that Marcion did NOT exist as described by Justin Martyr.


But, when I examined "Against Valentinus" 4 I have some difficulty locating what you claimed.

This is what I found in "Against Valentinus" 4

It seems that "Tertullian" is claiming Valentinus did EXIST.
To carry on as you do denies the polemic nature of the Patristic writings against the 'heresies.' Already 'Marcion' is compared to a fictitious offspring of a fictitious being when he is first introduced to the world. Maybe Marcion is just as illusory as Satan.

So essentially you are claiming only what you imagine is true since you have discredited the sources of antiquity that may have been able to corroborate the existence of YOUR character. What his name?

How can I REFUTE what you call confusion? How is it you are NOT confused about your MARK even when you use Justin Martyr whose writings supposedly are filled with confusion and fiction?

Please give me YOUR pristine credible source of antiquity that showed Marcion in Justin did not exist but was YOUR man called Mark.

I have NOT prevented you or anyone from questioning anything.

It is just that I am being OPEN-MINDED and have QUESTIONED your theory.

Do you have a problem when OPEN-MINDED people question you?

OPEN-MINDED people have questioned me and I show them my sources of antiquity for my theory IMMEDIATELY.

And that is EXACTLY why I post.

I want people to question me. So far so good.

Once your theory cannot withstand inquiries then it should be abandoned.

stephan huller

Oh come on, this is becoming so disingenuous (part of the reason I typically don't participate in these forums). You somehow omit the lines which immediately precede your citation:

I say we know most fully their actual origin, and we are quite aware why we call them Valentinians, although they affect to disavow their name. [I tell you] it is true, they have departed from their founder [Valentinus] yet [in spite of their objections to this] their origin by no means destroyed; and even if it chance to be changed, the very change bears testimony to the fact ...

Then your citation follows and then Tertullian declares MOCKINGLY after the list of alleged Valentinians:

Valentinus, however, was as yet nowhere (as you say), and still the Valentinians derive their name from Valentinus.

Come on, this is a pathological argument on your part. There clearly ARE examples of people described as X saying 'no this is untrue.' So despite the Church Fathers saying X, Y and Z there are strong reasons to believe partisans when engaging in enemies they describe as nothing short of Satanic.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It has many colourful descriptions of Jews and Jewish practices. Not everything in this partisan work is untrue. Similarly Nietzsche's writings were arranged in a particular form for the Nazi party by his sister. Here, as I allege with the writings of Justin et al there is a mixture of authentic and inauthentic passages blended together for a particular agenda.

I don't understand your position. How can we be certain about who the Marcionites were if our only source for information comes from partisans who were their sworn enemies.

Busy watching the Germany - Australia match. Will follow up shortly

ApostateAbe

stephan huller, most of us here in this forum ignore aa5874. We all suspect that arguing on the Internet is generally a waste of time, and that is most clearly the truth with some of the loudest zealots.

jgreen44

Stephan,

Just wanted to say that I appreciate your presence here and find your theories intriguing.

Jon

stephan huller

The soccer match is pretty much wrapped up so let me say that I am unfamiliar with these forums as you know so I don't know why there is this sense that we have to choose between MY theory and accepting that everything is perfect with the account of the Marcionites in the Church Fathers.

My point is more complex than you give it credit. The accounts of the Church Fathers are richer and more contradictory than is typically acknowledged.

Yes, to be certain the writings attributed to Justin do witness the existence of a figure named 'Marcion' but it is undeniable also that this material was developed as part of an anti-heretical 'nexus' of materials. Look at how the five volume collection of Irenaeus always 'goes to' Justin to prove the existence of Marcion. When we see Hippolytus (Ref. 7:18) allude to a contemporary claim that the Marcionite gospel was 'according to Mark' and as I have shown the witness of Hilgenfeld (who is by no means a 'radical') that the name Μαρκίων is a diminutive of Μαρκος you have the beginnings of an alternative theory to blind acceptance of the surviving (partisan) sources.

There are other bits and pieces too. To be honest the two things that got the ball rolling in my mind was (a) the Muratorian Canon's witness of a Letter to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon and (b) William's article from a generation ago (when I was still in school) that many if not most of the Marcionite variants of 'Luke' immediately don't seem that strange if we compare them with Western readings of Mark (the Philosophumena's referencing Marcion's gospel of Mark immediately starts to look like the only honest reporting in the Church Fathers about 'Marcion').

Would be happy to talk about various 'Marcionite' practices - second baptism, baptism of the dead, a belief in a more perfect God than the Creator - and its parallels in Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians.

stephan huller

An example of a diminutive being used by a third century writer addressing someone else which gets developed into a whole new personage.

Eusebius notes of Rhodo the disciple of Tatian "In the same work, addressing Callistio, the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian." Hilgenfeld says that Rhodo is writing to Pope Callistus and using the diminutive form presumably in his opening address. Eusebius comes along and mistakes this as the name of another person named 'Callistio.' This would be a parallel example to how a figure called 'Marcion' might have been created from someone addressing a historical figure named Marcus in the diminutive form.

A parallel (but not entirely similar example) is the Samaritan writings always preserving people with Roman names with the suffix -h (he). Moshe Florentin argues that this peculiarity (not witnessed in Jewish Aramaic) is owing to the Samaritans using the genitive form (the genitive form is used in a number of situations including the way that the name of authors are preserves at the beginning of books).

Again Marcus might have developed into Marcion in the same way as Eusebius mistakes Callistio as a separate name from Callistus (according to Hilgenfeld).

aa5874

Your example is not really good. Eusebius supposedly lived and WROTE about 150 years after Tatian.

Justin Martyr wrote about Marcion while he (Marcion) was ALIVE and preaching.

Justin Martyr may have been a LIVING witness to Marcion.

Eusebius was a NOT a living witness to Tatian, Rhodo, Callistio or Callistus.


Listen to Justin in "First Apology" XXVI
This is Eusebius in "Church History 5.13.8