Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 09-06-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Page 54: The Arch-Heretic Marcoin, by Sebastian Moll.

Conclusion

Let us categorise our observations about Marcion’s doctrine in regard to the distinction between different Gods.

1. All the contemporary sources as well as Irenaeus and Rhodo (who form the non-contemporary sources which are temporally closest) describe Marcion’s system as dualistic. There can thus be no doubt that the tripartite Marcionits system represents a later development after Marcion’s death, just as Rhodo and Hippolytus report.

2. Our earliest source about Marcion’s doctrine (Ptolemy) explicitly speaks of him distinguishing between a good and an evil God. This is confirmed by Irenaeus and at least not denied by any other of the earliest sources.

Footnote (40) It should be noted in this context that Irenaeus is aware of the distinction between a just and a good God, but he clearly attributers it to Credo (Adv.haer.I.27,1). This is all the more interesting as in the preceding chapter we have considered the possibility that Cerdo and his followers joined Marcion’s movement. Maybe it was they who brought the idea of a just God into the Marcionite system.

my formatting

Quote:

Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent.

2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

my formatting

YHWH claims to have created evil in the OT. The god of the OT does take delight in war, is infirm of purpose and is contrary to himself, all very well documented in the OT.

What is blasphemous about that?

It's Irenaeus who has that problem with Marcion and his god who is the author of evils....Yes, the OT god had some bad habits...

........but the OT god also had some redeeming qualities, especially towards his chosen people. Concentrating only on the 'evil' was just not kosher - particularly, from a christian perspective, that OT god has produced the perfect son to save the whole world. Much better to get Marcion to shut up and let sleeping dogs lie....not nice to expose the dirty linen in public....

Yes, obviously more involved than that - but that's the base line...

stephan huller · 09-06-2011, 01:42 PM

I don't know if people reading this realize how significant this discussion is. Open up any discussion anywhere on the subject of Marcion and you will see him portrayed as a dualist. I went along with this thinking that I had to develop an argument in favor of the eastern tradition to 'overturn' Irenaeus and Tertullian. As it turns out Tertullian's opinion is very different from Irenaeus. Tertullian represents what turns out to be the minority position which only became 'orthodox' through a unique set of historical circumstances. It is a major discovery and we have Mary Helena to thank for it. Seriously. The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

dog-on · 09-06-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

YHWH claims to have created evil in the OT. The god of the OT does take delight in war, is infirm of purpose and is contrary to himself, all very well documented in the OT.

What is blasphemous about that?

It's Irenaeus who has that problem with Marcion and his god who is the author of evils....Yes, the OT god had some bad habits...

........but the OT god also had some redeeming qualities, especially towards his chosen people. Concentrating only on the 'evil' was just not kosher - particularly, from a christian perspective, that OT god has produced the perfect son to save the whole world. Much better to get Marcion to shut up and let sleeping dogs lie....not nice to expose the dirty linen in public....

Yes, obviously more involved than that - but that's the base line...

The funny thing is that, in the end, most of Marcion's beliefs were adopted, just that two became one...or three actually...umm, I mean...one.

dog-on · 09-06-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't know if people reading this realize how significant this discussion is. Open up any discussion anywhere on the subject of Marcion and you will see him portrayed as a dualist. I went along with this thinking that I had to develop an argument in favor of the eastern tradition to 'overturn' Irenaeus and Tertullian. As it turns out Tertullian's opinion is very different from Irenaeus. Tertullian represents what turns out to be the minority position which only became 'orthodox' through a unique set of historical circumstances. It is a major discovery and we have Mary Helena to thank for it. Seriously. The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

Unless there is some other definition of dualism, I do not see how it could ever be applied to Marcion.

If anything, Christianity itself, via the merging of Marcion's independent actors, is a much better candidate.

DCHindley · 09-07-2011, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It would seem that even this [snipped] description of [of Marcion's theology by] Irenaeus, Marcion is the son of the Devil (= serpent), who separates the Jewish god from the Christian god but where the Jewish god is not the Devil. Hence there are three gods even here (i.e. the Good god, the Just god and the Devil). No one has noticed this before (not even me) and the fact that I am furiously typing this on my laptop while I have to get back to work makes me suspect that I might even be wrong (owing to the superficiality of my analysis). Nevertheless I will post this and hope that someone can prove me wrong.

Actually, I already did Stephan, when I summarized information from Esnig. He describes Hyle (pre-existent unformed matter) as being insulted when the Creator God insisted that Adam worship only him, in spite of the fact that the Creator could not have formed the world without Her, and that Adam withdrew from communion with Her. In an act of spite, knowing the Creator God was very strict and "just," Hyle filled the earth with many "gods" to tempt men to fall short of worship of the Creator God alone, and thus mankind fell into error and were condemned to death in Hades.

So, to Marcion the Creator is not himself evil (as in malicious, although he sure seemed vain), but it was Hyle (unformed matter, out of which the Creator God formed the cosmos) who by her nature, caused man to fall into error and suffer death imposed by the Just God.

More head spinning twists, eh?

DCH

stephan huller · 09-07-2011, 02:04 PM

Here's an example of what type of people cite Moll's study of Marcion - arch-conservative evangelicals like Michael Bird. http://books.google.com/books?id=LRk...20good&f=false

DCHindley · 09-07-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here's an example of what type of people cite Moll's study of Marcion - arch-conservative evangelicals like Michael Bird. http://books.google.com/books?id=LRk...20good&f=false

I think it feeds into the age old line that all heresies must be splinters from the "true" (proto)orthodox faith. Moll says that Marcion created his Good God due to a reactionary protest tantrum against the (true) Creator God of the proto-orthodox.

Simone Pétrement does something similar in her book le Dieu séparé: les origines du gnosticisme (1984, E.T. A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1990, 542 pages and available cheap). They were all copy cats or rebellious against God.

Her motivation, though, is to destroy any thought that some forms of the gnostic redeemer myth could predate the time of Jesus, which if true might make Christianity simply the syncronistic synthesis of Gnostic and Judean myths (in other words, like any other religion).

DCH

stephan huller · 09-07-2011, 04:50 PM

You wouldn't believe the number of people who avoid Marcion and other heretics because of similar assumptions. I mean really good scholars who have told me to the effect 'well I thought they were such and such so I wasn't interested.'

maryhelena · 09-08-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here's an example of what type of people cite Moll's study of Marcion - arch-conservative evangelicals like Michael Bird. http://books.google.com/books?id=LRk...20good&f=false

And the book says:

Quote:

page 96

"Although there has been any number of specialized studies on various aspects of Marcion's doctrine and canon since Harnack, not until quite recently has a major monograph appeared that purposes to challenge Harnack's construal and portrayal of Marcion. The stated intention of Sebastian Moll's published Edinburgh Ph.D. thesis is "to establish a new coherent portrait of Marcion," one that questions and corrects "the predominant view of Harnack." In brief, Moll seeks to undo four "Harnackian knots" relative to Marcion. Moll maintains, in contradistinction to Harnack, that Marcion differentiated between an evil god and a good god (as opposed to a just and a good god);......................"

page 97

"Furthermore, Marcion scholars have also argued recently that it is more accurate to describe his theological dualism as a juxtaposition of an evil god of the OT (as opposed to a "just" god per Harnack) with a good god of the NT. (Interpreters are also increasingly wary of attributing a "law"/"gospel" antithesis to Marcion, Harnack's claims notwithstanding.) If scholarly orthodoxies regarding the nature of Marcion's theological dualism are now being called into questions, scholars who study the heresiarch continue to concur that his dualistic construal of the divine was predicated upon his reading of the OT and the NT respectively."

Paul and the Second Century By Michael F. Bird, Preston M. Sprinkle (or via: amazon.co.uk)

stephan huller · 09-08-2011, 10:54 AM

I don't understand what we are arguing about. My point is that Bird is an arch-conservative evangelical. The people attracted to Moll's thesis are those who subscribe to a belief that our inherited understanding of the nature of the heresies is being challenged by “radical” interpretations. I am saying that none of the Patristic writers actually supports the inherited position. It just developed from a blurring of distinction between Marcion and Mani as early as the late third century (see my other thread). The real Tertullian of history did not believe Marcion was a radical dualist. Moll got his ideas from a section of text in Book One that appears almost immediately after a “confession” that our present text is a third revision where other people beside Tertullian were involved in the “correcting process.”. The section Moll gets inspired from no longer speaks of Marcion in the present tense (as with the other four books) but instead filters the account of Marcion through “modern dualistic heresies” who are likely Manichaean.

Indeed if you look at the Acts of Archelaus you'll see that the editors of Against Marcion cites the Manichaean reading (=evil fruit) rather than the Marcionite (= blemished, corrupt fruit)

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

09-06-2011, 01:42 PM	#52
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know if people reading this realize how significant this discussion is. Open up any discussion anywhere on the subject of Marcion and you will see him portrayed as a dualist. I went along with this thinking that I had to develop an argument in favor of the eastern tradition to 'overturn' Irenaeus and Tertullian. As it turns out Tertullian's opinion is very different from Irenaeus. Tertullian represents what turns out to be the minority position which only became 'orthodox' through a unique set of historical circumstances. It is a major discovery and we have Mary Helena to thank for it. Seriously. The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

09-07-2011, 02:04 PM	#56
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here's an example of what type of people cite Moll's study of Marcion - arch-conservative evangelicals like Michael Bird. http://books.google.com/books?id=LRk...20good&f=false

09-07-2011, 04:50 PM	#58
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You wouldn't believe the number of people who avoid Marcion and other heretics because of similar assumptions. I mean really good scholars who have told me to the effect 'well I thought they were such and such so I wasn't interested.'

09-08-2011, 10:54 AM	#60
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't understand what we are arguing about. My point is that Bird is an arch-conservative evangelical. The people attracted to Moll's thesis are those who subscribe to a belief that our inherited understanding of the nature of the heresies is being challenged by “radical” interpretations. I am saying that none of the Patristic writers actually supports the inherited position. It just developed from a blurring of distinction between Marcion and Mani as early as the late third century (see my other thread). The real Tertullian of history did not believe Marcion was a radical dualist. Moll got his ideas from a section of text in Book One that appears almost immediately after a “confession” that our present text is a third revision where other people beside Tertullian were involved in the “correcting process.”. The section Moll gets inspired from no longer speaks of Marcion in the present tense (as with the other four books) but instead filters the account of Marcion through “modern dualistic heresies” who are likely Manichaean. Indeed if you look at the Acts of Archelaus you'll see that the editors of Against Marcion cites the Manichaean reading (=evil fruit) rather than the Marcionite (= blemished, corrupt fruit)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.