Toto

What doesn't make sense about Marcion? Why would heresiologists invent him or his philosophy?

What is so unusual about Justin, representing one faction of Christianity, not spending any time on the details of some other heretical Christian's writings?

Not that any of this really matters. But I don't see why you think there is a problem, or why this problem is worth the time you spend on it.

stephan huller

I think it is foolish to argue that the beliefs of Marcionites are wholly made up. In many ways, they represent the only sensible interpretation of the gospel material. Why would Irenaeus devote so much energy to a non-existent sect. The only question I have ever raised is with respect to the name Marcion and the Marcionites. IMO the earliest sources seem to indicate the sect was originally known as the Marciani or 'those of Mark.'

Roger Pearse

His recension of the New Testament is quoted extensively by Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem books 4 and 5.

In the surviving writings of Justin, I presume? But Justin's work against Marcion is lost, as are most of Justin's works. I'm not sure why we should expect that, in his two apologies (directed to pagans) and his dialogue with Trypho (directed to Jews), he should name the works composed by Marcion, or Valentinus, or whoever.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Duvduv

That's what the ancient propagandists say, and in any event it is all second hand and there is nothing remaining (if there was anything) so it's not useful to build whole histories based on the early church propaganda. The entire existence of any 2nd century movement is built on a house of cards. They can quote here or there and tell you this or that, but it proves nothing given the sources.....

Duvduv

I never said he did not exist, but simply that all that is known about him is from the claims of the propagandists. Why should he have been any more alive than Paul or Jesus?

outhouse

why would people state "shame on Marcions eraser" to a mythical charactor

Roger Pearse

Surely this position is not specially about Marcion, or Justin; you have, on this argument, no belief in history at all? You make an argument based on what Justin does not say; but then you propose to ignore him if he said it, to ignore what he said according to others, and indeed no doubt to disregard his existence too.

I believe your argument has fallen into the trap of obscurantism here, therefore, because it basically consists of convenience -- accept whatever is convenient, reject whatever is not.

It is always possible to find a reason to disregard all the evidence, and then argue "history is mostly bunk." But of course no educated person does so.

We must argue our case from evidence, not by trying to disregard it. If we do the latter, the critical will always dismiss what we have to say, just because of that basic methodological error.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Duvduv

Not at all. I am simply pointing out the LIMITATIONS of relying on the biased claims of ancient propagandists/heresiologists where there is no evidence or corroboration from anywhere. Especially when the tries to tie such poor writing such as the Apology to a sect in the second century, barely a century after "Justin's" Jesus lived, with so little information to go on about their sect and community between the mid 1 century and mid-second century.

And here you have all types of writers telling us today what Marcion believed and what was in his epistles etc. when in fact these descriptions have as many holes in them as swiss cheese. ...........

Roger Pearse

When you get tired of being ignored, read what I wrote. It will tell you WHY you are being ignored.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Duvduv

I really don't know what you are talking about, but you sound like you work for some politically correct movement or party.