Marcionites thought Jesus wasn't 'Christos'?

[Secret Alias]

Now with regards to:

1. dates the Marcionites to a period of intense messianic speculation.

There are a lot of good reasons to suppose that Marcionism was connected with the bar Kochba revolt. It [the rebellion] seems to be at the heart of Celsus's discussions. The Marcionites seemed to emphasize that the rebellion disproved Judaism. It might even be true that Marcionism preserves an even older witness to Jewish messianism i.e. that associated with the Jewish rebellion c 70 CE. It might have been a little bit of both. In other words, the world history from 70 - 138 CE proved to Marcionites that the Jews got it wrong with regards to THE messiah. Not that the Marcionites thought Jesus was THE Christ. But that, like the Samaritans, THE Messiah was incompatible with the true and perfect religion.

[Secret Alias]

2. orthodox Christianity (i.e. the people who identify Jesus as THE Messiah) came from a Jewish culture which disappeared.

But I think the Marcionites appealing to what would become the "traditional" Jewish understanding of THE messiah and saying THIS is what THE messiah is. The Jews wait for the one who comes who was predicted in the Tanakh. It has to be recognized that the Pentateuch does not witness for THE messiah. The culture that produced this document did not expect a human descendant of David. They expected an occultated Moses. There is no doubt about this and there is enough in Christianity to know that this "Shilo" figure who was Jesus likely is more original than the son of David expectation. Why? Because I think this is Marcionism. Look at the passage in Adversus Marcionem where Tertullian has the Marcionites say that the Pentateuch raise Moses to a figure greater than his God. This is a valid criticism of early Judaism. Jesus is undoubtedly identified with the divine being Marcionites thought was properly superior to Moses. Christianity has a "complex" relationship with Moses.

[Peter Kirby]

Now with regards to:

1. dates the Marcionites to a period of intense messianic speculation.

There are a lot of good reasons to suppose that Marcionism was connected with the bar Kochba revolt. It [the rebellion] seems to be at the heart of Celsus's discussions. The Marcionites seemed to emphasize that the rebellion disproved Judaism. It might even be true that Marcionism preserves an even older witness to Jewish messianism i.e. that associated with the Jewish rebellion c 70 CE. It might have been a little bit of both. In other words, the world history from 70 - 138 CE proved to Marcionites that the Jews got it wrong with regards to THE messiah. Not that the Marcionites thought Jesus was THE Christ. But that, like the Samaritans, THE Messiah was incompatible with the true and perfect religion.

It does seem like more people should be picking up on these threads.

Even the people who like to "get into" Marcion show up either in Harnack (he's a Luther) or Freke&Gandy (he's a pagan) garb.

[Secret Alias]

By saying that Jesus was the Chrestos I think that we are dealing with an expectation for the return of the divine being who glorified Moses to glorify all of humanity when the lines of Jewish kings died out. Hard to make this Shilo understanding compatible with a Davidic messiah. I know that people don't like gematria but Shilo = 345 = Moses = haShem (or Shemah Samaritan Aramaic). You can't under estimate the significance of 345. The entire Samaritan tradition is founded on this number. The Marcionites, by calling Moses "the God Man (Ish)" undoubtedly imply in my opinion a contact with Hebrew. We see this in the frequent (Tertullian) discussion of the angelic visitors of Abraham as providing an example of Jesus's corporeality (or incorporeality in the case of Marcionism). There seems to have been intense focus on these "Men" (and thus "Man") to demonstrate "Man" and "Men" who looked like people but were really divine. The Marcionites thought "Jesus" looked like a man but was a god. He didn't have a mother or father. He could fly and pass through crowds. What more do you need to know? "Jesus" was the divine being who glorified Moses and then Moses wrongly took all the credit for what God had wrought. This seems to be an important line of thought in Marcionism. Could this God Man have also been the Messiah? I don't think so. But could he have been the Chrestos because he was Shilo, the Man who belonged to God, God's Man Ishu, His Man האיש שלו = = the Man who belongs to Him. Shilo = שלו the Aramaic possessive pronoun which in Greek was

[GakuseiDon]

Can we get a definition for the term "the Christ"? Is it related to the predictions in the Jewish Scriptures? If Marcion meant a Christ that wasn't related to the predictions of the Jewish Scriptures (e.g. restoring the Jewish Kingdom), what does "the Christ" mean?

I think you're in danger of mixing etic (outsider accounts) and emic (insider accounts) definitions.

That is the very point I'm making. I think other people are mixing up the definitions. I'm trying to clarify! I'm not making an argument in the OP, but asking the question about whether the Marcionites "plainly reported to have denied that Jesus was the Christ". Obviously it isn't a simple question, since it depends on what we mean by "Christ" and "the Christ".

Most especially with:

Cyrus was Great was "a" Christ, not "the" Christ. - GakuseiDon

Says who?

Says the Septuagint:

Isaiah 45.1 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed [Christos], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him..."

Paul? Ignatius? Justin? Irenaeus? Clement? Tertullian? Origen? Eusebius? The Marcionites? The Valentinians? The Manichaeans? Do you see the problem here? The only people so far who I know for sure think along these lines are you and other modern scholarly (and, to underscore SA's point, mostly modern Christian) persons.

Isaiah 45.1 is as clear as can be. Perhaps you may be reading more into the term that is there, which is the very problem you highlighted about mixing definitions?

Was Cyrus "the Christ"? No, I think we can decide that "the Christ" is the one 'prophecised' in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Again, I'm not trying to mount an argument at this point, but trying to get some clarity about definitions.

Am I allowed to take this modern perspective (which may have some ancient precedents) and assume that Paul, or Ignatius, or Justin, or Irenaeus, or Clement, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Marcion... and, actually, all of the above [!!??]... thought of Cyrus as "a" Christ? No! Absolutely not.

Are we supposed to assume that they all made a distinction like this between "the Christ" and "a Christ"? Of course not!

I think we would have to assume that they all made a distinction between "the Christ" and "a Christ", since others are called "Christos": Saul (1 Sam 26:9) and the prophets (Pro 105:15)

Can we get a definition for the term "the Christ"?

I'm not sure if we can get just one definition.

And that's a problem. We can disagree over a definition, no problem with that. But if no definitions about a term is possible, how can we say anything about arguments using that term?

Again, I'm not trying to mount an argument at this point, just trying to clarify things.

What I mean when I say that someone "believed that Jesus is the Christ" is that they would have translated those words into their language (in Greek, ho Christos, the Christ) and affirm that Jesus is the Christ. It's an affirmation. I don't put limitations on what they could mean by that. If someone affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, then I would say that they believed that Jesus is the Christ. If they didn't, then I don't.

surely we should regard Marcion's Christ as "a" Christ - GakuseiDon

Surely not! This is a question for the Marcionites (even though it is hard for us at our remove to find their answer), not for you to answer by deduction based on your definitions.

My own personal definitions:

"Christos" = a "Christ"
"The Christ" = the Christos who will re-establish the kingdom of David (Jewish version) or establish the Kingdom of God (Christian version and probably Marcionite version)

No problem at all if anyone disagrees with my definitions! I'm happy to use any definition, as long as it is clear.

The most direct way to answer it would be: do they regard Jesus to be only Christos/Chrestos in an adjectival sense or as one of many ("a" christ/chrest as you would put it), or would they say that he is "the" Christos/Chrestos in a much more definite, particular, titular or nominal way? I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question or poorly phrased. It's not something that I've ever considered independently of your line of thought, which is based on your definitions, retrojected back onto the Marcionites.

I will say that, if I accepted your argument, that this would point towards an understanding of "a Christ" among the Marcionites (on your assumption that the word is "Christos"), and if I also accept the premise that Marcionites believed Jesus to be "the Christos/Chrestos" (which I never considered to be in doubt before now)...

You have developed an argument that Marcionites believed Jesus to be the Chrestos. Congrats.

If that's what it leads to, I'm happy with that! But again, I'm not trying to develop an argument at this point, other than clarifying definitions.

[Leucius Charinus]

The Church Fathers don't want their audience to take an interest in Marcionism or any of the sects they opposed. When you see how exaggerated their coverage was of the Arians it is not hard to see that the Marcionite account was likely garbled and exaggerated.

How can we be sure that the Church Fathers were not the fathers of false flags? Their coverage of the sects they opposed (Marcionite or Arian) were likely garbled, exaggerated or fabricated in part. That's correct.

Or -- just as likely -- fabricated from whole cloth; centuries after the supposed opposed sects had disappeared beneath the tsunami of orthodoxy. The glorious victors were writing their glorious history. There was no peer review. They had no peers. They had a monopoly business.

[Secret Alias]

How can we be sure that everything that comes out of your mouth is a waste of time? Experience.

[Leucius Charinus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_ain%27 ... lady_sings

[Secret Alias]

20 years of absolutely worthless posting.

[Peter Kirby]

Most especially with:

Cyrus was Great was "a" Christ, not "the" Christ. - GakuseiDon

Says who?

Says the Septuagint:

Isaiah 45.1 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed [Christos], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him..."

Paul? Ignatius? Justin? Irenaeus? Clement? Tertullian? Origen? Eusebius? The Marcionites? The Valentinians? The Manichaeans? Do you see the problem here? The only people so far who I know for sure think along these lines are you and other modern scholarly (and, to underscore SA's point, mostly modern Christian) persons.

Isaiah 45.1 is as clear as can be. Perhaps you may be reading more into the term that is there, which is the very problem you highlighted about mixing definitions?

Was Cyrus "the Christ"? No, I think we can decide that "the Christ" is the one 'prophecised' in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Again, I'm not trying to mount an argument at this point, but trying to get some clarity about definitions.

Am I allowed to take this modern perspective (which may have some ancient precedents) and assume that Paul, or Ignatius, or Justin, or Irenaeus, or Clement, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Marcion... and, actually, all of the above [!!??]... thought of Cyrus as "a" Christ? No! Absolutely not.

Are we supposed to assume that they all made a distinction like this between "the Christ" and "a Christ"? Of course not!

I think we would have to assume that they all made a distinction between "the Christ" and "a Christ", since others are called "Christos": Saul (1 Sam 26:9) and the prophets (Pro 105:15)

I think you're doing it again, more forcefully, when it comes to taking an "etic" (outsider) perspective and assuming it can be overlaid onto every single one of these people to reach their "emic" (insider) understanding. You're using the Septuagint and (your) logic to argue:

they all made a distinction between "the Christ" and "a Christ" - GakuseiDon

Some problems being:

(a) assuming that they shared your logic
(b) assuming that they would have even had the notion of the distinction between "the Christ" and "a Christ," as described, that could be reached as a conclusion of this kind of logic
(c) assuming that they read these passages and considered them to be relevant to their idea of "the Christ" in the first place (and implicitly, of course, that they were thinking of "the Christ")

Then concluding that they all, inescapably, made a distinction like this between "the Christ" and "a Christ."

I would assume that they had some kind of logic, but that doesn't mean they leaned on these passages or framed the conclusion your way.

Sidebar:

If someone didn't lean on any of these passages, then, of course, the argument dissolves and doesn't reveal any of their thoughts. Here are two different models under which the passages aren't as relevant as you suppose:

(a) SA's model is that the Marcionites had a Torah/Pentateuch or Samaritan understanding of the scriptures. Not a "Septuagint" understanding of the scriptures. Also - of course - SA's model has them thinking of the Chrestos, anyway, which is another way the passages wouldn't be relevant.

(b) Another model is that the Marcionites were only dabblers in the scriptures. Without having a firm sense of a canon, that they were attracted to the narratives of Genesis to construct a mythos with influence from Hellenistic thought. And - of course - they too may have had the Chrestos in mind instead.

I understand that your thought experiment here is based on an assumption that the word is "Christos" and looking at those consequences, but we can of course be reminded of the hypothetical nature of that line of thought. It's a hypothesis that the word was "Christos" for them. More than that, it's not necessary, even in that hypothesis, that they accepted the whole Septuagint as relevant here.

Because this is all so extremely hypothetical, I'm going to start talking about someone other than the Marcionites, to try to ground this in some kind of reality, of those who we know accepted the Septuagint and who we know were thinking about "Christos." So this post is no longer about Marcionites and it's now about a different kind of ancient Christian, one who accepted both.

I would assume that these ancient Christian themselves could have had various different approaches, and some might have thought just the way that you present it, some may have thought differently, and some may not have recognized any argument like this as valid.

One way (and not the only other way) in which Septuagint passages could be read is typology. Here is a passage showing a typology-based reading:

Although [Jesus] was led to the sacrifice as a sheep, yet He was not a sheep. Although He was a lamb without a voice, yet indeed He was not a lamb. The one was a model. The other was found to be the finished product. … Hence, the sacrifice of the sheep and the sending of the lamb to slaughter and the writing of the Law each led to and ushered in Christ, for whose sake everything happened in the ancient Law and even more so in the new gospel. Indeed, the Law ushered in the gospel. The old ushered in the new, both coming forth together from Zion and Jerusalem, and the type in the finished product, and the lamb in the Son, and the sheep in a man, and the man in God.

Melito of Sardis, On the Passover, 4, 6-7

Melito of Sardis believed Jesus to be the Christ. Now let me extrapolate about this hypothetical ancient Christian I have in mind, not necessarily Melito of Sardis. This hypothetical ancient Christian could have subordinated all of these Septuagint references to "his anointed" under the banner of typology, as a "model" and "unfinished product" whose purpose was to prefigure the real thing, the Christ, Jesus. Anyone who is God's anointed in the Old Testament would, in this sense, be "a type of the Christ," a foreshadowing of the one and only Jesus Christ, and not himself independently anything like what is suggested by the phrase "a Christ." On this understanding, there would not be a multiplicity of Christs; the Christ would not be divided; there would not be another Christ. There would only be the one, the Christ, and God would be setting up foreshadowing by putting into the world and into the Law and the Prophets these unfinished resemblances of the Christ, preparing man for the revelation of the Christ.

In other words, on this model, there would not be a category of "a" Christ into which Jesus or anyone else could be slotted. There would not even possibly be any more that could be "a type of the Christ," after the arrival of the Christ. There would just be the Christ, with his prefigurements in scripture. Anything else would be what the Gospels call a "false Christ."

This doesn't have to be logical to us. The idea that we can impose our logic on everyone of the past is problematic.

Of course, there's also a simpler approach here. It would not be too much to suppose that the ancient Christians were not so dense that they could not distinguish between any use of the word "anointed" (in Septuagint usage), and the idea of a person who is "the Christ" - and, further, they would not necessarily need to construct the category of "a Christ" to comprehend those usages. They show awareness that Jews sometimes had a practice of anointing. They themselves often have a practice of anointing. So another coherent approach is to take a stand that someone can be anointed without being "a Christ." They could still retain the singularity of the concept of "the Christ," while allowing that there may be many people who are anointed, including some of the figures of the Old Testament. They don't have to think of them as "Christs," or of them individually as "a Christ." Your argument assumes that they would have this conceptual category, but they don't need to. And if they didn't have it, they certainly wouldn't arrive at it by following the same argument that you do.

These are only two possibilities that occur to me, but it would surprise me if there weren't more.

Despite all this, it's certainly possible that your argument describes how someone, or some people, thought. But this?

they all made a distinction between "the Christ" and "a Christ" - GakuseiDon

And that, therefore, all of them had the category of "a Christ" into which to put an object of their religious system?

It's only so much imposition.

I should respond to your other points / questions separately.