stephan huller

Ever since I read Harris's article http://books.google.com/books?id=42Y...hodius&f=false identifying the Valentinian treatise cited in three ancient texts (Methodius On Free Will, Maximus On and Adamantius's Dialogue) as Marcion's Antitheses I have been gathering everything that has ever been written about this problem and have come across a familiar problem - scholarship stinks. What I mean by that is Harris is a smart guy. He read Robinson's sucky article and accurately pointed out why it sucked. Harris also came up with some very plausible arguments in favor of identifying the material as Marcion's lost Antitheses.

Robinson on the other hand never read Zahn's article (which I can't find yet but am going to pick up at the library). But Harris and Barnes both offer critiques of that attempt to ignore reality. Nevertheless when most people come around to writing about this strange situation - i.e. three texts copying out the same material - they end up agreeing with Robinson's assessment that everyone copied Methodius. I find this utterly implausible. It is a sophisticated mountainman argument dating a text cited by Eusebius as being second century and arguing it 'must be dated' to the early fourth century for no other reason that our earliest surviving Greek manuscript reflects this time frame.

The point of this thread is to say that I don't think that anyone actually did what I did here http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...ook-of-de.html - that is simply lay the three texts side by side (I am still waiting for my copy of De Recta in Deum Fide from Amazon to arrive). When you do that you realize at once that neither Barnes nor Robinson did this cut and paste exercise for if they did they couldn't have claimed that 'it is obvious' that Eusebius's text is 'really' Methodius.

When you take a careful look you can see that Methodius actually cut out or edited the original Marcionite interest in the 'origin of evil' out from the text. In other words, Eusebius is citing a second century/third century text written by someone named Maximus, that text stands behind the Dialogue of Adamantius and Methodius's On Free Will. Barnes comes closest to saying this but he falls into the trap of 'agreeing' with Robinson that Eusebius's Maximus text is copied from Methodius. If he had simply laid out the three texts side by side he couldn't say that.

Barnes also comes closest to Harris original (and subsequently ignored thesis that it is Marcionite) by saying that the Adamantian Dialogue is the ultimate source of the material. Maximus might have written the original dialogue. But it is amazing that in the course of many, many studies of the three texts no one cites Harris's observation that Tertullian seems to cite the same treatise as Marcionite. Barnes is one step away from coming from a more developed Harris thesis that Maximus might have written a Marcionite treatise which was turned around in an original lost Marcionite treatise which cited the Antitheses.

My point here is not to tout my own theory (which isn't finished yet) but rather to say that:

(a) I don't think that anyone actually lined up the three texts from top to bottom
(b) how is it that virtually all scholars who have ever studied this get away with 'mountainmanisms' (i.e. making a second century treatise a fourth century treatise with the wave of a magic wand)
(c) how is that everyone gets away with ignoring Harris's theory?

I did not believe that there even was an Antitheses of Marcion before I read Harris. As such he managed to convince me. I may be an idiot but surely anyone who writes on the subject should be obligated to at least mention Harris's theory in passing as so little has been written on the subject.

I think a lost and very significant work of Marcion has managed to survive through the ages and I think the theory at least deserves to be considered within the context of the tripartite 'agreement' of Methodius, Maximus and Adamantius (there have been discussions of Harris's thesis in the context of Marcionitism but they mostly ignore the three text problem).

I also wonder that while Megethius derives from the Greek for 'greatness' is it close enough to maximus (μέγιστος is the actual translation) to argue for some sort of relationship?

stephan huller

I took the time to copy out most of the articles I was reading at my blog.

Here is the original passage in Adamantius - http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...lentinian.html

Here is Barnes 1979 article - http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...ximus-and.html

Andrew Carriker's sort of sucky article - http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...methodius.html

The beginning of Robinson's article (in his book on the Philocalia) http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...-parallel.html

Pretty's attempt to explain the parallels (citing Robinson) and Eusebius's citation of Maximus in Prep. Evan 7.27 http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...deum-fide.html

Pretty's summary of the earliest witnesses to Adamantius - http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...-recta-in.html

stephan huller

Yet another http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...racter-of.html

I guess what I am noticing (again) is how much tunnel vision there exists in this field. Dunderberg is obviously well read and learned. Yet he is so intent on employing Methodius to fill in gaps in our knowledge of Valentinus and Valentinism that he is blinded to the other possibilities. Everything he says about the Valentinian character of the text can be said a list of other Platonizing Christians from the period. He says this at one point but somehow ignores it long enough to develop a very weak case for treating this text as 'Valentinian.'

stephan huller

The bottom line here is that I have read over seven books on this tripartite 'agreement' - this ancient text buried at the bottom of Maximus, Methodius and Adamantius and have nothing substantial to work with. Dunderberg does provide me with two witnesses who say the text is Platonic rather than Valentinian. He also helps explain the Platonic terminology in a way that is quite good. I am just amazed how little work has went into this little gem of a text. Everyone keeps ignoring Harris's interpretation which I think is the strongest and most imaginative (strange to use those terms in the same sentence).

Roger Pearse

I'm interested in this question of a long parallel passage in three authors, but I'm not clear what you're saying. Could you baby-talk us into it?

stephan huller

how can they accept that maximus is not from when eusebius says he is for starters? how was it established that methodius isn't derived from maximus when he lived at the dawn of the fourth century and maximus at the dawn of the third? this is so obvious. but everyone "agrees" to ignore eusebius's explicit testimony. how was that accomplished?

stephan huller

what about the fragment of maximus "proves" that it derives from methodius when a time machine would be required for that to happen?

Sheshbazzar

This is intriguing. I understand that you would not have a text with the 'cut out' or 'edited' material present.
Could you provide a brief synopsis (in layman's terms) of what it is that is present in the surviving text that leads you to conclude that the 'origin of evil' portion(s)? were edited out?

Just wish to ascertain whether delving deeper into studying this matter would be worth the effort.
You've drawn the eye, to the matter, now can you help us focus on what you are seeing?

stephan huller

I don't understand the question. I provided a link to my blog. You can see Methodius and Maximus side by side. Methodius is late third century early fourth century, Maximus is late second century early third century according to Eusebius. If you take your index finger and go down the 'Maximus' column you will see that Methodius does not pick up all of the 'Maximus' information. There is a significant question on the origin of evil which is clearly related to the title of the work = Concerning Matter

I don't know if you would be interested in tracking down this heretical treatise mentioned in Maximus, Methodius and Adamantius. I find it interesting. The real point of interest for this thread is that if Maximus is the most original of the three THEN the opponent is not Valentinian (or Valentinus). The reference to VAL or the like only appears in Methodius. What I find interesting is that scholars pull a mountainman when it is convenient for them to do so - i.e. ignore Eusebius's explicit dating of Maximus to the late second century/early third century and argue that the text instead can't be earlier than the fourth century.

Barnes disposes of this argument because he demonstrates that Rufinus's translation came from the third century (i.e. when persecutions were active and repeated under one Emperor). Nevertheless most ignore Barnes, ignore Harris. Why? Most do so to rescue a testimony about Valentinus which is clearly dubious.

Sheshbazzar

My principal interest in this matter is the obtaining of information further verifying that Christians, the Christian religion, and discussions of Christian beliefs did in fact exist within the 2nd century CE time-frame, contrary to theories promoted by some that Christianity was unknown, and that Christianity and all Christian writings were fabricated in the 4th century and latter, as products of a deliberate massive conspiracy, fraud, and deception.

The conspiracy theorists have to assign all Christian writings to a late date, your posts seems to point to the use of early material that would indicate early 2nd century origins (Marcion)
The more known, the less credible their conspiracy claims.


.