The Marcionites Shared a Lot of Beliefs with Justin Martyr

[Secret Alias]

I don't know what happened to aa from the old forum. Maybe he's locked up in some Caribbean mental hospital. But he was on to something when he kept stressing the antiquity of Justin. Justin was the oldest Church Father. And Justin held a lot of similar beliefs with Marcion. Of course Irenaeus's copies of Justin's writings have Justin disown Marcion. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But they shared a lot of similar beliefs including (a) the interest in Chrestos (b) the idea of Jesus going into the underworld after his crucifixion to redeem the dead where (c) he would appear as a Man of War. Justin spoke about the two advents of Jesus, that first he would appear as this meek, kind man and then after the crucifixion he was the "Man of War" who invaded Hades. The Marcionites had the exact same beliefs or at least very similar beliefs. To that end we get the confirmation, I think, of the "shape-shifting" characteristic of the Marcionite "Chrestos" mentioned in Tertullian.

I am not agreeing with GDon. He hasn't even bothered to read the breadth of Marcionite literature and consider what is being said in all of this. Few people have. But if we were to take LSD and think about what Irenaeus is saying about Marcion here's what I think we would come up with.

1. Irenaeus was a fucking dogmatist. He was almost mentally ill to the degree with which everyone had to agree on even the minutest points with him. It wasn't like he lived from the time of Jesus and the "apostles" (Marcionite "Apostle"). Yes he gets around this by saying that he saw Polycarp in Asia when he was a boy (! what a fucking stupid argument) and Polycarp saw John and John was allegedly (no he wasn't) the apostle who was the beloved disciple of Jesus. This entire chain of logic is such bullshit we have to wonder how anyone bought into this.

2. Irenaeus as a dogmatist seems to really be attacking Marcion for dividing the godhead. This is often overlooked. His point ISN'T necessarily that Marcion ONLY say Jesus as the Chrestos or "kind power." Rather he objected to Marcion's thinking in terms of two powers PERIOD. In other words, Marcion really follows in the footsteps of Philo and Philo's exegesis of the Bible where Philo says:

a) there are two powers, "Lord" who is the god of bad men and is the power of punishment and "God" who is the merciful god and Jacob started his life attached to "Lord" but at Peniel gave up his allegiance and adopted "God" as his new beloved power.
b) these two powers appear at different times in the Bible to exemplify mercy and judgment.*

3. Marcion almost certainly was just following Philo's system where there were two powers but understood somehow how there was this underlying unity to the whole godhead. In other words, and I don't have proof that Philo believed this, that this one power manifest himself sometimes as "all kindness" and other times as "all judgment." Irenaeus tells us that the Marcionites were evil for "dividing" the godhead. But as sure as tap water can be "all cold" or "all hot" while still always being water, this heavenly power of Chrestos or Christos might have exhibited different characteristics with different advents on the earth.

In other words, Justin and Marcion may have thought that he was Chrestos during the gospel narrative and then after he is "killed" he becomes the Man of War (remember the Psalm cited by Justin) storms the underworld and then was understood to be preparing to destroy the temple.

Marcion and Justin may have believed that water can be "cold" or "hot" in different "advents."
Irenaeus was arguing (even against Justin) that all the powers were one ALL THE TIME.

Look at Irenaeus's understanding of the burning bush. Justin says it is just Jesus in the fire. Irenaeus says it is Jesus and his Father together in the fire. The Marcionites may have just agreed with Justin in so far as the power of God could change from "hot" to "cold" (like my wife) whereas (for philosophical reasons) Irenaeus emphasized a Sabellian like obsession where the full godhead as always present in the manifestation of Jesus wherever he appeared.

* if Philo took a time machine and went to Israel and present his understanding of the Bible he wouldn't be counted as a Jew.

[Secret Alias]

The point here is that we are never getting a glimpse of naked "Marcionism." While all information is filtered through the lens of the author reporting on the phenomena Irenaeus was so influential that his originally Sabellian worldview exaggerated the "heresy" of the Marcionites. For Irenaeus Jesus had to be indistinguishable from his Father. They were an absolute unity. It's like if you hear an ultra critical friend commenting on someone else's family. "That father is so overbearing, he smothers his children." If you never meet the family you might have a completely warped opinion of them if, your source (the ultra critical mom), was so liberal she allowed her children to do outlandish things (heroin, bring boyfriends to sleep over in their rooms etc). In other words, the criticism is necessarily grounded in the source. If the source had outlandish views the criticism might be entirely exaggerated.

[StephenGoranson]

"* if Philo took a time machine and went to Israel and present his understanding of the Bible he wouldn't be counted as a Jew."

If he went now he would be counted as a Jew if he had a Jewish mother.
If, in this impossible scenario, though this may not be the forum for such guess-opinions, what would he think of present-day Israel?

[Secret Alias]

How is Jewish mother going to be determined? LSD expands your mind. The point was that Philo's beliefs stripper of their antiquity have no place in modern Judaism.

[GakuseiDon]

Justin was the oldest Church Father. And Justin held a lot of similar beliefs with Marcion.

Yes. In his First Apology, his main criticism of Marcion was:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians...

THAT'S the main blasphemy by Marcion that Justin wants to point out to the pagans. Not anything about the life of Christ, that he had a birth into a human body or a childhood. But that the Creator of this world (Plato's Demiurge) was not the true god.

Of course Irenaeus's copies of Justin's writings have Justin disown Marcion. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But they shared a lot of similar beliefs including (a) the interest in Chrestos

Yes. And both Justin Martyr and Tertullian didn't care that pagans mixed up the names. Tertullian says it's all good (pun intended). But its clear that they both believed that their "Christ" was associated with "anointed". In Justin's First Apology, he quotes from Psalms 2:

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed...

The argument here seems to be that there were "Chrestians" and "Christians" and that there was some divide between them. I don't see that. I think early Christians didn't care whether they were called "Chrestians' or "Christians". There was no divide. BOTH names were acceptable. That seems to be the implication of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, at any rate, in their Apologies to the pagans.

Justin spoke about the two advents of Jesus, that first he would appear as this meek, kind man and then after the crucifixion he was the "Man of War" who invaded Hades. The Marcionites had the exact same beliefs or at least very similar beliefs. To that end we get the confirmation, I think, of the "shape-shifting" characteristic of the Marcionite "Chrestos" mentioned in Tertullian.

And how does Justin justify his idea of the two advents of Jesus? He spends chapter after chapter quoting from the Old Testament. In Dialogue with Trypho:

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all...

Marcion has similar beliefs to Justin Martyr. He used a Gospel that apparently had a Jesus walking around, interacting with Peter and the other disciples as an (apparently) ordinary human being. Take away the first sentence of a descent into Capernaum (which can be found in gLuke as well) and 'passing through crowds' and the orthodox Christians would have had no problems at all with Marcion's Gospel. I strongly suspect Marcion started with orthodox beliefs and revised his *Ev and Apostolikon from proto-orthodox beliefs. I find it less likely it went the other way around, though that seems to be the flavour of the day on this board.

I am not agreeing with GDon. He hasn't even bothered to read the breadth of Marcionite literature and consider what is being said in all of this. Few people have.

Are these the works of scholars about Marcion that you have continually blasted as being stupid, ignorant and unable to see past their own orthodox beliefs? Or just the ones that agree with you?

It's perfectly true I haven't read much scholarly literature around Marcion. I don't know anything about the ancient languages at all as well, so I am at the mercy of the English translations of ancient literature that are available. That's a large problem for the credibility of any of my analyses. But I do know those English translated ancient texts fairly well, and I try hard to argue from their perspective.

[Secret Alias]

Yes. In his First Apology, his main criticism of Marcion was:

Nope. Irenaeus's text of Justin which we inherited say this. Could well be filling a lacuna. Not sure Justin ever said anything bad about Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus certainly wanted to weaponize Justin against Marcion. But their beliefs are very close in many respects.

[Peter Kirby]

Justin was the oldest Church Father. And Justin held a lot of similar beliefs with Marcion.

Yes. In his First Apology, his main criticism of Marcion was:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians...

THAT'S the main blasphemy by Marcion that Justin wants to point out to the pagans. Not anything about the life of Christ, that he had a birth into a human body or a childhood. But that the Creator of this world (Plato's Demiurge) was not the true god.

Of course Irenaeus's copies of Justin's writings have Justin disown Marcion. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But they shared a lot of similar beliefs including (a) the interest in Chrestos

Yes. And both Justin Martyr and Tertullian didn't care that pagans mixed up the names. Tertullian says it's all good (pun intended). But its clear that they both believed that their "Christ" was associated with "anointed". In Justin's First Apology, he quotes from Psalms 2:

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed...

The argument here seems to be that there were "Chrestians" and "Christians" and that there was some divide between them. I don't see that. I think early Christians didn't care whether they were called "Chrestians' or "Christians". There was no divide. BOTH names were acceptable. That seems to be the implication of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, at any rate, in their Apologies to the pagans.

Justin spoke about the two advents of Jesus, that first he would appear as this meek, kind man and then after the crucifixion he was the "Man of War" who invaded Hades. The Marcionites had the exact same beliefs or at least very similar beliefs. To that end we get the confirmation, I think, of the "shape-shifting" characteristic of the Marcionite "Chrestos" mentioned in Tertullian.

And how does Justin justify his idea of the two advents of Jesus? He spends chapter after chapter quoting from the Old Testament. In Dialogue with Trypho:

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all...

Marcion has similar beliefs to Justin Martyr. He used a Gospel that apparently had a Jesus walking around, interacting with Peter and the other disciples as an (apparently) ordinary human being. Take away the first sentence of a descent into Capernaum (which can be found in gLuke as well) and 'passing through crowds' and the orthodox Christians would have had no problems at all with Marcion's Gospel. I strongly suspect Marcion started with orthodox beliefs and revised his *Ev and Apostolikon from proto-orthodox beliefs. I find it less likely it went the other way around, though that seems to be the flavour of the day on this board.

I am not agreeing with GDon. He hasn't even bothered to read the breadth of Marcionite literature and consider what is being said in all of this. Few people have.

Are these the works of scholars about Marcion that you have continually blasted as being stupid, ignorant and unable to see past their own orthodox beliefs? Or just the ones that agree with you?

It's perfectly true I haven't read much scholarly literature around Marcion. I don't know anything about the ancient languages at all as well, so I am at the mercy of the English translations of ancient literature that are available. That's a large problem for the credibility of any of my analyses. But I do know those English translated ancient texts fairly well, and I try hard to argue from their perspective.

FWIW it is apparent to me that you (and SA) are motivated by an intelligent, searching, and honest investigation of the texts and an attempt to understand them. I respect your efforts and the ideas that you have shared based on them.

[GakuseiDon]

Yes. In his First Apology, his main criticism of Marcion was:

Nope. Irenaeus's text of Justin which we inherited say this. Could well be filling a lacuna. Not sure Justin ever said anything bad about Marcion.

It's turtles all the way down. Okay. So what does it mean that the only criticism about Marcion in Irenaeus's text of Justin which we inherited isn't anything about the life of Christ, that he had a birth into a human body or a childhood, but that the Creator of this world was not the true god?

[Peter Kirby]

Yes. In his First Apology, his main criticism of Marcion was:

Nope. Irenaeus's text of Justin which we inherited say this. Could well be filling a lacuna. Not sure Justin ever said anything bad about Marcion.

It's turtles all the way down. Okay. So what does it mean that the only criticism about Marcion in Irenaeus's text of Justin which we inherited isn't anything about the life of Christ, that he had a birth into a human body or a childhood, but that the Creator of this world was not the true god?

Based on what you've said, it implies that there was one 'criticism' mentioned. It would be daring to conclude that there were no other criticisms that could be deployed from reserve.