stephan huller

The other possibility is that Polycarp was a Valentinian. Notice even Irenaeus tries in vain to get around Florinus's greater intimacy with Polycarp the man. The interest in John also seems to be common among Valentinians hence Irenaeus special interest in John while discussing Valentinians. There might never have been an actual break between the Orthodox and the Marcionites. The split may have been between the Marcionites and the Valentinians and Irenaeus was a reformer with Valentinian roots. Notice Polycarp reject Marcion but not Valentinus (unless Valens = Valentinus but that's a stretch)

stephan huller

Yes Andrew but clearly the two powers were distinct enough that Philo says that kurios was Jacob's god and the god of 'bad men' and theos was the god of Abraham and those seeking education and instruction. In other words, kurios already takes on 'separate' characteristics from theos or yahweh from elohim. Again, we are not talking about Marcionitism actually being a form of Judaism but an outgrowth from Philonic or Alexandrian Judaism.

The fact that the Marcionites had an Epistle to the Alexandrians and there is no discernible Catholic presence in Alexandria raises a number of interesting questions. So too with the endless (but ignored) reference to Marcion being influenced by Platonism. I think when I finish my article on parallels between the Marcionite and Clementine Epistle to the Romans this will be more apparent. It is noticeable that when Clement 'corrects' the Marcionite interpretation of Romans there is a basic assumption that they share the same text. With Origen by contrast the Marcionites are accused of cutting out portions of the 'true text' of Romans but interesting I find that those very passages (Rom 1:24, 8:19 -22) don't appear in Clement or are explicitly cut out when Clement cites from his Romans).

Getting back to the issue at hand, we should see that BOTH Clement and Marcion represent a development of Philo. As such it shouldn't be surprising that there are differences. It is hard to know how Marcionitism developed the ideas of the two powers but the answer probably lies in a careful reading of Tertullian Against Marcion Book Two. Also Ephesians chapter 2 is pregnant with possibilities. Who are the two that become one? Certainly the believer and Christ or the community of believers and Christ. But is there also some hidden agenda here that man was created in the image of wrath and only with Christ recreated after the image of mercy and goodness? I don't know but it would seem that if Marcionitism argued for 'reconciliation' between man and god, perhaps also the two powers also become one. This may be the 'insult' that so irked the Church Fathers (i.e. that the godhead of the Jews was imperfect before the coming of Christ).

One more thing, the Samaritans (and thus likely even the earliest Jewish tradition, the Sadducees) have a very strong notion of two epochs for humanity - i.e. the age of favor (rahuta) and the age of turning away (fanuta). The decisive historical turning point was the disappearance of the tabernacle at the time of Eli (Samaritan Book of Joshua 13.5). Isaiah makes reference to this concept so it was at one time was familiar to Jews. The concept is clearly referenced in Jesus's discussion with the Samaritan woman no less than the notion of the angels going up and down on the head of the Son of Man (i.e. that this individual has the sanctity that formerly resided on Gerizim.

One wonders if the concept was also associated with the two different powers of God and that with the appearance of Christ and the establishment of the kingdom of God a new era of reconciliation would begin. There is arguably some inkling of this in Irenaeus's discussion of the heretical interpretation of Isa 61.2.

Just some thoughts ...

judge

Stephan, it's a little bit strange that you accuse Moll of dishonesty yet, dont even quote him.

stephan huller

I am not accusing Moll of dishonesty. He does not misquote any sources. Its a dishonest premise.

judge

So Moll is making the claim which itself is dishonest, but Moll himself is not dishonest.
So, Moll, is merely ignorant?

stephan huller

Moll cites the sources accurately. He chooses to prefer one witness over all others. That witness is not the oldest, nor the most reliable witness to Marcion but rather represents the most familiar and most quoted source in the West undoubtedly because that source is preserved in Latin (Tertullian). At the very beginning of that five volume work Against Marcion there is this greeting to all readers:

Building a thesis based on this corrupt document (and one deliberately manipulated by the Catholics AWAY from its original opinion) is like building a house on sand.

The work itself happens to preserve the majority opinion about Marcion in world literature (i.e. that Marcion divided the godhead into mercy and justice) but layered on top of everything is this argument that Marcion was a radical dualist who thought the Jewish god was the Devil. As I said this opinion does manifest itself side by side the 'dividing the godhead into mercy and justice' report but the 'dividing the godhead into mercy and justice' is earlier (Irenaeus) and consistently found in all sources. Even in the Dialogues of Adamantius Megethius (the 'dividing the godhead into mercy and justice') appears first and is universally acknowledged to be the 'true Marcionite.' Marcus appears second in the dialogue, secondary and reactionary (he criticizes 'Marcionitism' for not holding fast to his proto-Manichaeanism).

Mani clearly was influenced by such 'radical dualistic' forms of Christianity. The Acts of Archelaus mentions some. However the real Marcion of history is not one of them. The real Marcion of history is portrayed as debating him (Gk Marcion = Latin Marcellus) in the narrative. Look carefully at all the references to 'Marcellus.' You'll see it soon I expect. All that has survived down to us is a corrupt copy made in barbarous Latin of a Greek translation of an original document written in Syriac (so Jerome says). At the core this is a Marcionite document.

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/Bauer/bauer01.htm

maryhelena

Oh my - so Stephan is now switching from accusing Sebastian Moll’s Marcionite scholarship from being “dishonest” to saying that it’s Moll’s premise that is “dishonest”. Shame on him for his original accusation which is highlighted in the title of this thread. Accusing a professional academic of dishonest scholarship is a very serious charge to be making - and would not go unchallenged if made by another professional academic. But this is the internet...(reminds me a bit of that fiasco on Dawkins where spin was accused, by TimONeill, of plagiarism........)

Actually, it’s interesting to see the developments in Stephan’s view of Sebastian Moll’s book - The Arch-Heretic Marcion.

And what is Stephan Huller’s own fringe theory on Marcion?

And that fringe position requires: 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....In other words; debating Stephan Huller on Marcion is debating with someone already committed to a published fringe theory - thus someone finding it necessary to attack and trash the Marcionite scholarship of Sebastian Moll.

Yes, of course any scholarly work can be questioned - but when the debate lowers itself to the sort of unscholarly accusations of “dishonest” Marcionite scholarship - then objectivity and rationality have fled the debate.

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=P3D...20moll&f=false

stephan huller

The thread is called 'Why Sebastian Moll's Marcionite Scholarship is Dishonest.' Nowhere do I accuse Moll of being a liar. Moll represents a complete revaluation of all Marcionite scholarship hitherto. This might not be immediately obvious to Anglophones who typically cannot read books written in German and Dutch. This book marks a low point in that tradition. It is superficial and is in my opinion a step backward. For those who want to read a contemporary scholar who marks a step forward in that tradition read Markus Vinzent's brand new work /Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I am quite familiar and friendly with Vinzent and other prominent German speaking Marcionite scholars (Schmid, Detering just to name a few). An article of mine appears on Detering's website and one of the aforementioned scholars is getting my new paper on Marcion published in an academic journal in 2013. If my understanding of Marcion was so 'fringe' it would see difficult to account for this.

And if Mary Helena really thinks that there is no grounds for seeing similarities between Marcus Julius Agrippa's theology and Marcionitism why doesn't she start a thread on this very topic and I will bring the evidence forward for her to 'scrutinize' (scrutinize being used here rather loosely of course given her lack of familiarity, language skills, and many other short comings).

I do not start such a thread because I did not come to this forum to promote my book. If she want to help, I can at least some value in our continued social intercourse.

maryhelena

This is what you set out in the title of this thread:

my bolding

The theology of Marcus Julius Agrippa??

And just what written source do you have for the theology of Marcus Julius Agrippa (II). Do you have one of those 62 letters that he supposedly wrote to Josephus??

No rational discussion is possible, no value achieved, in debating with someone who allows their personal, fringe, theories, to inhibit a rational discussion of Sebastian Moll's academic study of Marcion.

stephan huller

There is a theological position associated with Agrippa in the rabbinic literature and it is Marcionitism. Sebastian Moll's Marcionitism no less.