Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-04-2011, 10:26 PM

I don't understand why people even speak about 'the OT' or 'the NT' in situations like this. Religion is for most traditionally minded people about the liturgy and tradition. Judaism and Samaritanism are defined by the redemption. So too Marcionitism and early Christianity. Let's look again at what the Philosophumena says about the context of the passage:

Quote:

"If ye hasten to fly out of Egypt, and repair beyond the Red Sea into the wilderness," that is, from earthly intercourse to the Jerusalem above, which is the mother of the living; "If, moreover, again you return into Egypt," that is, into earthly intercourse, "ye shall die as men." For mortal, he says, is every generation below, but immortal that which is begotten above, for it is born of water only, and of spirit, being spiritual, not carnal. But what (is born) below is carnal, that is, he says, what is written. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." This, according to them, is the spiritual generation. This, he says, is the great Jordan which, flowing on (here) below, and preventing the children of Israel from departing out of Egypt--I mean from terrestrial intercourse, for Egypt is with them the body,--Jesus drove back, and made it flow upwards. (Philosophumena Book 5 On the Naasenes)

In other words, it might be about the destruction of Jerusalem. Who knows. But it was certainly filtered through the most fundamental concept in the Judeo-Christian tradition - the redemption.

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No, the obvious answer is that the Marcionites used Sarah as a type for the revelation of the true covenant. Sarah has her child after Hagar. Hagar is associated with Arabia, the place the Israelites received their (imperfect) covenant (because of the sin of the golden calf). The Israelite religion was ultimately established later after Moses death and the crossing of the Jordan at another mountain where the Abrahamic covenant was established (with Sarah). That's the formula. It is very old, rooted either in Sadducee or Samaritan interest in the locale around Gerizim. This probably accounts for the Catholic editor adding the reference to Jerusalem (ie to obscure the mountain vs mountain juxtaposition)

Stephan, 'Paul' changed the context, the application of the Hagar and Sarah allegory. He changed it from an earthly context to an intellectual context; from earthly Jerusalem to heavenly Jerusalem.

Marcion, from the quotations in the DCH chart - did not do this. He did not change the context. ie the interpretation or application of the allegory. A change of context that allowed 'Paul' to confine a negative dualism, between Hagar and Sarah, to a purely intellectual context. Marcion did not do this - resulting in his retaining a negative dualism in his good god/evil god theology - and leading to his rejection of JC as being predicted by the (Jewish) prophets. ie. the creator god of the OT was his evil god. That evil OT god was not a god of the free woman who was to produce the promised son.

Yes, Marcion was correct in his argument. There was indeed a problem - but his solution to the problem was in serious error. 'Paul' had the correct solution - not Marcion.

Quote:

'Paul' had the correct solution

Galatians is the Magna Carta of Religion.

-

Whatever that means - *religion* - big can of worms there re definitions......

However, 'Paul' - lets even clarify that, later 'Paul', is the Magna Carta of christian theological/intellectual ideas - albeit ideas hindered by the intellectual world of his historical situation.

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't see how [you, Maryhelena,] can know this [that Paul interpreted the Ishmael-Isaac story right and Marcion missed the point] based on the information provided.

I don't think Paul changed anything. It was the Catholic tradition which altered the epistles.

I don't think Marcion was that heretical. Rather I think he was made into a boogeyman in order to scare people away from the logic of what he was saying. The orthodox and the Marcionites weren't that far apart.

Galatians 4:21-31 of Marcion per Tertullian	Galatians as received
[21] No parallel	[21] Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman;	[22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).
[23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:	[23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].
[24a] which things are allegorized"	[24a] Now this is an allegory:
[24b]"for these are the two covenants,"	[24b] these women are two covenants.
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"	[24c] One is from Mount Sinai,
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --	[24d] bearing children for slavery
[25] No parallel	[25] But Hagar is Sinai, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"	[26a] But the Jerusalem above is free,
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"	26 and she is our* mother*.
[27] No parallel	[27] For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)
[28] No parallel	[28] *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*
[29] No parallel	[29] But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
[30] No parallel	[30] But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."	[31] So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

So Marcion's version is something like:

[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; [23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:
[24a] "which things are allegorized"
[24b] "for these are the two covenants,"
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."

The best we can say is that Marcion sought to explain his beliefs by choosing a story from the OT. Marcion was supposed to have commissioned several serious studies of the OT, and his Antithesis drew on it as well. However, he does not appear to be using OT passages as proof texts.

But just what the heck is that "covenant from Sinai that genders to bondage" and another "(covenant) that genders what is the mother of us all" supposed to mean? No syrupy sweet "excuse" explanations, or gobbltygook about Paul's rhetorical genius, please. One can read virtually anything into this short text!

Two covenants:

1) the covenant of bondage - our flesh, our physical bodies that are not free from death.
2) the covenant of freedom - our spirit, our intellect, the mother of us all, the 'mother' that gives us intellectual freedom, a freedom that enables us, as human beings, to flourish - even though, physically, we are still in bondage to the eventual death of our physical bodies.

Quote:

I think, though, that it does fit with the known descriptions of Marcion's theology well enough: The Demiurge creates the visible world, and demands that the men he created in it worship him alone on punishment of death, typified by the commandment, handed down on Sinai, that "thou shalt not have any gods before me." The solution to this untenable situation is the rescue mission by the Good God's christ. Sinai is your τύπος goodly sir.

The (proto-)orthodox version is much more complicated. It has a reversal of meaning from (flesh = slavery/promise = freedom) to (present day Jerusalem = slavery/the Jerusalem above, our mother = freedom), in other words hijacking the meaning itself. If we take Paul to have flourished in the mid 1st century CE, it is clear that the "present Jerusalem ... is in slavery with her children" likely refers to the fate of the inhabitants of Jerusalem captured by Titus in 70 CE. It relates to a later addition, and this is why I feel confident to segregate the text into two strata, two strata that are at odds with one another.

Strata One:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).

23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].

28 *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*

Strata Two:

[24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 *But Hagar* is *Sinai*, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is *our* mother.
27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)
29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. 30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)

31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.]

Marcion's version spans both these strata (vs 22-23 strata one, and vss 24,26,31 strata two). Either Marcion selected passages from the orthodox version without reference to this plurality of independent messages (i.e., cut down the orthodox version) or the orthodox created from Marcion's sparse text a narrative that contains the plural message at odds with one another (i.e., built up Marcion's version).

DCH

Or, there was an early and a late 'Paul'. Leading to the situation where the writings of the later 'Paul' have been fused with those of an earlier 'Paul'.

Which 'Paul' is Marcion interested in - certainty not the later 'Paul' - and not because of any ideas that later 'Paul' was years after Marcion. Theologically, Marcion and later 'Paul' are miles apart re the Marcion idea of a good and an evil god. Early 'Paul' - even here Marcion is out of line - no early 'Paul' is going to be going where no Jewish theology would go, then or now - to the notion of an evil OT god. Yes, that OT god went about advocating the slaying of the enemies of his people - ah, but he protected his own. Even in dire straits - the people of the OT god would never label their god as evil - for heavens sake - even when he punished them by letting them go into slavery in Egypt and Babylon - he does not forget them but sends their deliverer. Only a non Jewish person could be so limited in understanding as to fail to see that the OT god was not an evil god. Evil was, and is, within us all - not in some up there sky god. The OT god is a god of a specific time and place. And yes, that god concept was about to be updated - by removing that god theory from having any connection to a historical time and people, to a purely intellectual/heavenly, new Jerusalem context. A context in which there would be neither Jew nor Greek. Marcion missed the boat - or should that be flight.....

Two 'covenants' that are still in force today. Flesh and spirit, Law and freedom. Two elements of our human nature. No choice between them - both Christians and Jews need to learn to live with that reality. They both have something to offer in understanding out human nature - as well as understanding the 'conflict' between the OT and the NT. The Law, the 'flesh', has not been superseded by the spirit - intellectual freedom can only exist alongside, in partnership with, our fleshly bodies. The NT changed focus - it does not deny the 'flesh' - (that gospel JC is very useful.......)

OK - now I'll get off my soapbox......

dog-on · 09-05-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Galatians 4:21-31 of Marcion per Tertullian	Galatians as received
[21] No parallel	[21] Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman;	[22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).
[23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:	[23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].
[24a] which things are allegorized"	[24a] Now this is an allegory:
[24b]"for these are the two covenants,"	[24b] these women are two covenants.
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"	[24c] One is from Mount Sinai,
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --	[24d] bearing children for slavery
[25] No parallel	[25] But Hagar is Sinai, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"	[26a] But the Jerusalem above is free,
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"	26 and she is our* mother*.
[27] No parallel	[27] For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)
[28] No parallel	[28] *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*
[29] No parallel	[29] But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
[30] No parallel	[30] But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."	[31] So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

So Marcion's version is something like:

[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; [23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:
[24a] "which things are allegorized"
[24b] "for these are the two covenants,"
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."

The best we can say is that Marcion sought to explain his beliefs by choosing a story from the OT. Marcion was supposed to have commissioned several serious studies of the OT, and his Antithesis drew on it as well. However, he does not appear to be using OT passages as proof texts.

But just what the heck is that "covenant from Sinai that genders to bondage" and another "(covenant) that genders what is the mother of us all" supposed to mean? No syrupy sweet "excuse" explanations, or gobbltygook about Paul's rhetorical genius, please. One can read virtually anything into this short text!

Two covenants:

1) the covenant of bondage - our flesh, our physical bodies that are not free from death.
2) the covenant of freedom - our spirit, our intellect, the mother of us all, the 'mother' that gives us intellectual freedom, a freedom that enables us, as human beings, to flourish - even though, physically, we are still in bondage to the eventual death of our physical bodies.

Quote:

I think, though, that it does fit with the known descriptions of Marcion's theology well enough: The Demiurge creates the visible world, and demands that the men he created in it worship him alone on punishment of death, typified by the commandment, handed down on Sinai, that "thou shalt not have any gods before me." The solution to this untenable situation is the rescue mission by the Good God's christ. Sinai is your τύπος goodly sir.

The (proto-)orthodox version is much more complicated. It has a reversal of meaning from (flesh = slavery/promise = freedom) to (present day Jerusalem = slavery/the Jerusalem above, our mother = freedom), in other words hijacking the meaning itself. If we take Paul to have flourished in the mid 1st century CE, it is clear that the "present Jerusalem ... is in slavery with her children" likely refers to the fate of the inhabitants of Jerusalem captured by Titus in 70 CE. It relates to a later addition, and this is why I feel confident to segregate the text into two strata, two strata that are at odds with one another.

Strata One:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).

23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].

28 *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*

Strata Two:

[24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 *But Hagar* is *Sinai*, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is *our* mother.
27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)
29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. 30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)

31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.]

Marcion's version spans both these strata (vs 22-23 strata one, and vss 24,26,31 strata two). Either Marcion selected passages from the orthodox version without reference to this plurality of independent messages (i.e., cut down the orthodox version) or the orthodox created from Marcion's sparse text a narrative that contains the plural message at odds with one another (i.e., built up Marcion's version).

DCH

Or, there was an early and a late 'Paul'. Leading to the situation where the writings of the later 'Paul' have been fused with those of an earlier 'Paul'.

Which 'Paul' is Marcion interested in - certainty not the later 'Paul' - and not because of any ideas that later 'Paul' was years after Marcion. Theologically, Marcion and later 'Paul' are miles apart re the Marcion idea of a good and an evil god. Early 'Paul' - even here Marcion is out of line - no early 'Paul' is going to be going where no Jewish theology would go, then or now - to the notion of an evil OT god. Yes, that OT god went about advocating the slaying of the enemies of his people - ah, but he protected his own. Even in dire straits - the people of the OT god would never label their god as evil - for heavens sake - even when he punished them by letting them go into slavery in Egypt and Babylon - he does not forget them but sends their deliverer. Only a non Jewish person could be so limited in understanding as to fail to see that the OT god was not an evil god. Evil was, and is, within us all - not in some up there sky god. The OT god is a god of a specific time and place. And yes, that god concept was about to be updated - by removing that god theory from having any connection to a historical time and people, to a purely intellectual/heavenly, new Jerusalem context. A context in which there would be neither Jew nor Greek. Marcion missed the boat - or should that be flight.....

Two 'covenants' that are still in force today. Flesh and spirit, Law and freedom. Two elements of our human nature. No choice between them - both Christians and Jews need to learn to live with that reality. They both have something to offer in understanding out human nature - as well as understanding the 'conflict' between the OT and the NT. The Law, the 'flesh', has not been superseded by the spirit - intellectual freedom can only exist alongside, in partnership with, our fleshly bodies. The NT changed focus - it does not deny the 'flesh' - (that gospel JC is very useful.......)

OK - now I'll get off my soapbox......

I try not to confuse "Just" with "Evil".

A Perfectly Just God, the Demiurge and a Perfectly Merciful God, the Father. A perfectly Just and Merciful God is, of course, a logical contradiction.

dog-on · 09-05-2011, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, even back then, the move away from the evil god being the OT god, towards this god becoming the just god, seems to have caused some confusion....

You know, maryhelena, I would venture so far as to say that, if one is looking for the impetus for Christian origins, this issue may have been a primary driver once someone came up with the concept of an omnibenevolent deity.

Perhaps a Platonist reading the LXX?

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, even back then, the move away from the evil god being the OT god, towards this god becoming the just god, seems to have caused some confusion....

You know, maryhelena, I would venture so far as to say that, if one is looking for the impetus for Christian origins, this issue may have been a primary driver once someone came up with the concept of an omnibenevolent deity.

Perhaps a Platonist reading the LXX?

Yes, the reality of evil in the world - that we humans can do god awful things to ourselves and others - is an ongoing issue. But the Marcoin approach - an evil sky god - is beyond any sort of rationality.

Indeed, ideas involving dualism have much merit - human nature demonstrates that we are not just flesh. Our mind has it's own agenda; while having to take cognizance of our fleshly limitations - it's also free to soar to the heights of intellectual freedom, free from the cares of the flesh.

dog-on · 09-05-2011, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You know, maryhelena, I would venture so far as to say that, if one is looking for the impetus for Christian origins, this issue may have been a primary driver once someone came up with the concept of an omnibenevolent deity.

Perhaps a Platonist reading the LXX?

Yes, the reality of evil in the world - that we humans can do god awful things to ourselves and others - is an ongoing issue. But the Marcoin approach - an evil sky god - is beyond any sort of rationality.

Indeed, ideas involving dualism have much merit - human nature demonstrates that we are not just flesh. Our mind has it's own agenda; while having to take cognizance of our fleshly limitations - it's also free to soar to the heights of intellectual freedom, free from the cares of the flesh.

Like I said, I do not think the word Evil is appropriate, as I do not think that the demiurge was viewed as evil, per se, but as Just, (the lawgiver...).

stephan huller · 09-05-2011, 12:35 PM

I am not sure if Clement is citing a variant text of Galatians 4:30,31 but it is interesting to take a closer look at it. Clement writes immediately after citing the beginning of Galatians chapter 4:

Quote:

For if the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free, at least he is the seed of Abraham, though not of promise, receiving what belongs to him by free gift. [Strom 1.11]

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας, ἀλλὰ γοῦν σπέρμα ἐστὶν Ἀβραὰμ τὸ μὴ ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας, τὸ ἴδιον εἰληφὸς δωρεάν.

The two possibilities here are Genesis 21:10 LXX:

Quote:

καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Αβρααμ ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην ταύτην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς οὐ γὰρ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ μου Ισαακ

and/or Galatians 4:30, 31:

Quote:

ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

I think I will look at DCH's chart from Against Marcion Book 5.

maryhelena · 09-05-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Let's get back to the original OP. Moll says this in the paper cited by Mary Helena:

Quote:

While his negative view of the world and, accordingly, his hatred for the God of the Old Testament form the center of Marcion’s theology

So how can we construct his interest in the typology of Sarah as representing something allegedly 'opposed' to and separate from the covenant at Sinai? It's absurd. Moll has just taken his sources uncritically. There is no 'hatred' of the OT in Marcion. This was developed by the early Church Fathers (late second/third century) to obscure the fact that his message was of the messianic completion of the Law rather than any 'hatred.' Marcion didn't just 'erase' OT passages - many 'positive' or at least 'accepting' of the connection with Christ were 'retained.' The argument just doesn't work. The reality must have been that the Catholics just continued to pile on the scriptural references and then accused the Marcionites/Marcion of erasing their handiwork.

In the Genesis storyline it is the free woman, Sarah, that wants rid of the bond woman, ie the free woman ‘persecutes’ the bond woman.

‘Paul’ is saying this is an allegory - and within that context of allegory, ‘Paul’ has done a reversal. ‘Paul’ says that it is the one born according to the flesh, the child of the bond woman, who is to persecute the one born of the spirit. He has achieved this reversal by utilizing a new context, a spiritual context, the Jerusalem above. An intellectual context in which a negative dualism has value.

Marcion is going with ‘Paul’s reversal - but not the spiritual Jerusalem, not the intellectual context. For Marcion, the reversal is down here in physical reality. Ie the son of the bond woman is persecuting the son of the free woman, the son of the promise. ‘Paul’ says Hagar represents the covenant of Mount Sinai. Marcion says, OK, that’s fine with me - and that means that the god of that Mount Sinai covenant is an evil god. The Law is evil because man cannot keep it. In other words, Marcion has retained the negative dualism of the Genesis story of Hagar and Sarah - albeit with the addition of ‘Paul’s reversal of the original persecution storyline. The failure of Marcion to move along with ‘Paul’ to the new spiritual context for the application of the Sarah and Hagar storyline - allowed him to develop his theory of the evil god. The evil god of the Mount Sinai covenant was persecuting the son of the free woman. The fancy intellectual footwork of ‘Paul’ still left, for Marcion, the problem of the reality of evil in the world in which he lived. His solution was his dualism of a good god and an evil god.

stephan huller · 09-05-2011, 12:40 PM

Where do you get that Marcion is talking about persecution? Where does Marcion say that the Creator is evil? Why would he use an example from Genesis to illustrate the 'evil' of the God that inspired it? Why chose Hagar to epitomize evil? No one is evil in the narrative. Hagar is pitiable. Sarah always exemplified virtue. Doesn't work. Here is everything Tertullian says about this:

Quote:

Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham— though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else: for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations. And the very fact that he speaks of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free—does not this establish the fact that he who sets free is he who has been the possessor? Not even Galba ever set free another man's slaves: he would find it easier to let free men out of prison. So then liberty will be a boon from him under whom there has been the servitude of the law. And rightly. It was not seemly that men set free should again be bound under the yoke of servitude which is the law: for the psalm had now been fulfilled, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us, after the rulers were assembled into one against the Lord and against his Christ. As then they were now exempt from bondage, he was insistent on rubbing off from them the brand-mark of bondage, which was circumcision: and this by the authority of the prophets' preaching, for he remembered it was said by Jeremiah, And be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart: because Moses also said, Circumcise the hardness of your heart,m which means, not your flesh.

We might think that slavery was evil but the ancient world did not. The point here is that:

a) Marcion 'kept' the reference to Genesis chapter 21
b) it was used to exemplify the messianic redemption of Israel
c) part of that 'redemption' likely included castration or full emasculation - how does one remove the 'brand-mark' (= corona) of a circumcised penis? Origen went through it. Rumor had it he and others like him poured some chemical on their privates.

There is nothing in here to indicate 'hatred' of the Creator or that he was evil. Nothing. Mankind is merely being recreated after the image of the Most High God (= Adam Kadmion) who was bisexual (i.e. both male and female) or a hermaphrodite. That's it. Instead of being made in the image of the lower god who has a wife (cf. the cherubim in the temple) Jesus came to make the world androgynous (cf. similar allusions in the Gospel of the Egyptians etc.).

All this shows is that they went from 'good' (cf. Genesis chapter 1) to perfect. The same idea exists in Islam albeit without the radicalism.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.