Toto

Some off topic posts on the existence of Christianity in the second century have been split off here

DCHindley

Stephan,

I've taken the time to "lay out," as you say, the three texts you mention in the OP. By the way you describe the situation, I would think that all three texts overlap to some significant degree.

But all I see are overlaps between Methodius and the Dialogue of Adamantius, or overlaps between Methodius and Maximus, but never all three at the same time.

Methodius and Maximus are definitely both presenting the same Socratic style dialogue on the nature of the creator of the cosmos, matter and evil. It is actually very well done (well, I can at least follow it) with clear allusions to Platonic metaphysics. While this Dialogue is supposed to be between Valentinus and an orthodox Christian, the metaphysics seem closer to Marcionite metaphysics as related by Eznik of Kolb.

What Methodius holds in common with the Dialogue of Adamantus is a chaotic and confused account of how Valentinus was supposed to have become perplexed by the way evil coexists with the beauty of nature.

Just look at it! There are five different accounts all spliced together (see color coding):

Methodius, (On Free Will)	Adamantius (On the Right Understanding of God)
So, with some such thoughts of the fair order of things, I returned home.	So thinking in some such way on how well the world was ordered, I was returning home.
But on the day following, that is today, as I came	But on the next day [that is, today], when I arrived,
I saw two beings of the same race— I mean men—	I saw two men — of the same race, let me emphasise —
striking and abusing one another;	wrangling among themselves, and abusing each other!
and another, again, wishing to strip his neighbour.	Another, again, was trying to strip his neighbour.
And now some began to venture upon a more terrible deed;	Some were beginning to dare things even more terrible,
for one stripped a corpse,	for a man plundered a buried corpse,
and exposed again to the light of day	dragging it to the surface and the light of the sun,
a body that had been once hidden in the earth,
and treated a form like his own with such insult	thus insulting a form like his own,
as to leave the corpse to be food for dogs;	and leaving the dead as food for dogs.
while another bared his sword,	Another man bared his sword
and attacked a man like himself.	and attacked a person similar to himself.
And he wanted to procure safety by flight;	The latter tried to save himself by flight,
but the other ceased not from pursuing,	but his assailant kept on pursuing him,
nor would control his anger.	and would not restrain his wrath.
And why should I say more?	I do not need to say more:
It is enough that he attacked him,	the pursuer reached the fugitive
and at once smote him with his sword.	and struck with the sword,
So the wounded man became a suppliant to his fellow, and spread out his hands in supplication,	d Although his victim held out supplicating hands,
and was willing to give up his clothing,
and only made a claim for life.
But the other did not subdue his anger,	the attacker did not abate his anger.
nor pity his fellowman,	Showing no mercy to one of his own race,
nor would he see his own image in the being before him;	nor recognizing himself in the image of the other man,
but, like a wild beast,	he was like a wild beast,
made preparations with his sword for feeding upon him.	and began his devouring by means of the sword.
	So great was his wrath,
And now he was even putting his mouth to the body so like his own,	that even now he was putting his mouth to a body like his own.
such was the extent of his rage.
and there was to be seen one man suffering injurious treatment,	Another could be seen despoiling an injured man;
and another immediately stripping him,	he had stripped him of his clothes,
and not even covering with earth the body	without even covering the body with earth.
which he denuded of clothing.
But, in addition to these, there was another who, robbing others of their marriage rights, wanted to insult his neighbour's wife, and urged her to turn to unlawful embraces, not wishing her husband to be father to a child of his own.	84la On top of all this, a fellow came forward with the intention of fondling7 his neighbours wife, thus robbing another man of his marriage. Refusing the husband the right of lawful fatherhood, he was urging her to an illicit union.
After that I began to believe the tragedies, and thought that the dinner of Thyestes had really taken place;	So now I began to believe the Tragedies... [It seemed to me that the Thyestean Banquet had really happened].
and believed in the unlawful lust of Oinomaos,	I credited even the drunken lust of Oenomaus,
nor doubted of the strife in which brother drew the sword on brother.	and no longer doubted the rivalry by which brother drew sword on brother.

DCH

stephan huller

I don't understand the color coding but Adamantius continues a little further:

That is the end of my ability to see the text for now. I am getting the book Tuesday by Amazon.

stephan huller

I noted what you say at my blog but I didn't have the rest of the Dialogue of Adamantius. I was waiting to see how far it goes. Nevertheless I thought it was significant that:

1. Methodius presents the 'Marcionite part' as continuing into the 'Platonic part'
2. Methodius removes or does not contain a significant chunk dealing with the 'problem of evil'
3. Eusebius doesn't say he is citing the whole of the treatise of Maximus just a portion that happens to relate to what he just cited from Philo.
4. No one doubts that the original treatise resembled the form of Methodius

I just think that it is silly to 'redate' Maximus to the fourth century. If we let things stand IMO we have a second century/early third century treatise that develops from Marcionitism in some way. I was waiting for the rest of Adamantius to know exactly how it developed from Marcionitism (i.e. whether Maximus might himself have been a Marcionite or neo-Marcionite).

I think we can eliminate the 'Valentinian' layer. But is the Platonic layer Marcionite?

stephan huller

But again to get back to the OP. Here is why scholarship sucks here:

1. everyone ignores Harris's paper even though he is the closest to being right IMO
2. the crass attempt by some Valentinian scholars to eek out another Valentinian witness which leads to
3. completely ignoring Eusebius's dating of Maximus and Maximus lack of reference to a Valentinian participating in the debate.

In other words, this is only a witness to Valentinism if you make Maximus a fourth century writer so all these assholes pretend no one is looking and act as if Maximus is a fourth century witness (i.e. after Methodius). That really blows

stephan huller

Nevertheless it is amazing to have found what Harris (and I) think is a witness to Marcion's Antitheses. As I said earlier I didn't use to think there was a such a text. Now we have found a part of it, I think.

stephan huller

I am looking at the Latin text, David. I think there may be some overlap.

stephan huller

I just got it in the mail. There definitely is overlap throughout

stephan huller

i think it can be argued that:

1 the original Dialogue only involved a Marcionite probably named Megethius (cf Anastasius of Sinai)
2 the Valentinian was only introduced to provide context (i.e. "un-Marcionite" context) to the citation of the Antitheses
3 there appears to be places in the Valentinian section where material found only in Maximus (i.e. not Methodius) is found
4 Megethius "reappears" in the section which immediately precedes and immediately follows the Valentinian section (= Marinus)

I think this text demonstrated the text demonstrated exactly what the Marcionite beliefs were (i.e. that they were different then that claimed by Irenaeus, so it had to be altered

stephan huller

The first step toward incorporating the rest of Adamantius (notice how the parallels carry over into the section including Maximus):

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-part-one.html