Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

[iskander]

Marcion wants to know how a perfect and loving god could be compatible with an imperfect and uncaring world.
One model says that god makes the bad and the good things that exist in this world.
Another model says that god makes the good things and satan is responsible for the bad things. Marcion calls satan by the name of demiurge , "euhemerizing the 'heresy'" means nothing.

You missed my point completely, which was Marcionism may not have had a Marcion.

Sorry about that

[Peter Kirby]

I'm a simple man, sometimes anyway. Justin Martyr said that Marcion was around. If that's not good enough, we should probably look for a different sort of hobby.

[MrMacSon]

Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

What Jusitin Martyr wrote could still be rhetorical (?)

[MrMacSon]

Furthermore, Ienaeus could also be a rhetorical device.

[Peter Kirby]

Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

What Jusitin Martyr wrote could still be rhetorical (?)

What does that mean?

[MrMacSon]

Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

What Jusitin Martyr wrote could still be rhetorical (?)

What does that mean?

From rhetoric - 'the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech & other compositional techniques'.

Marcion could be a 'figure of speech'; Justin Martyr's 'apology' "Against Marcion" is virtually unknown; - Eusebius implies he knows of it from "St Irenaeus" (yet 'Irenaeus' has a dubious 'history').

These could be layers upon layers of "compositional techniques" behind a lot of early christian 'history'. I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of what we hear about Eusebius has also been later embellished (Carrier thinks Eusebius was a 'doofus', and Pamphilus was more active than he's been given credit for).

Sure, those are speculations, but they have to be considered given the times and the eventual theocracy that predominated.

[Peter Kirby]

So this hypothesis depends on an additional hypothesis that the Apologies of Justin were not written by a historical Justin Martyr to his contemporaries?

If not, then in what sense would Justin write the passage referring to Marcion being alive (please look it up if you have to) if intended in a non literal sense?

If so, the requisite hypothesis about the authorship of the text comes into view foremost. Is it the best explanation of the evidence? Is it even close?

I understand how appealing it is to be a contrarian, especially with any hypothesis that seems to go up against an 'establishment', but we must also take care not to be reduced to indiscriminate obstinacy, lest the whole exercise lose all meaning.

[MrMacSon]

So this hypothesis depends on an additional hypothesis that the Apologies of Justin were not written by a historical Justin Martyr to his contemporaries?

No. I am not proposing an ahistorical Justin or that the 'Apologies' of Justin were not written by him.

If not, then in what sense would Justin write the passage referring to Marcion being alive (please look it up if you have to) if intended in a non literal sense?

• 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; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.
  
  Justin Martyr's First Apology

Sure, yet Martyr could still be referring to 'Marcion' there as representative of another theology.

If so, the requisite hypothesis about the authorship of the text comes into view foremost. Is it the best explanation of the evidence? Is it even close?

Not necessarily authorship of the whole text.

I understand how appealing it is to be a contrarian, especially with any hypothesis that seems to go up against an 'establishment', but we must also take care not to be reduced to indiscriminate obstinacy, lest the whole exercise lose all meaning.

Sure.

[MrMacSon]

I think Marcion is more likely than not to have been a real person based on all the data; but I have concerns about Ignatius (or, at least, Ignatius being an early 2nd century entity) and Irenaeus. I think one ought to address all these texts with an open mind, and consider where most knowledge of them is concentrated (often with Eusebius or later)

[Peter Kirby]

So this hypothesis depends on an additional hypothesis that the Apologies of Justin were not written by a historical Justin Martyr to his contemporaries?

No. I am not proposing an ahistorical Justin or that the 'Apologies' of Justin were not written by him.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

If not, then in what sense would Justin write the passage referring to Marcion being alive (please look it up if you have to) if intended in a non literal sense?

• 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; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.
  
  Justin Martyr's First Apology

Sure, yet Martyr could still be referring to 'Marcion' there as representative of another theology.

Matters of interpretation can be, in general, notoriously difficult to pin down and, perhaps, harder to argue over.

In this case, however, I don't understand what your suggested interpretation is even supposed to look like. Can you walk us through what you imagine this text is intended to be saying, under a scenario where it isn't talking about a real Marcion? (Simply throwing out "rhetorical" or "representative of another theology" doesn't help my imagination much.)

I am speaking of course of these two sentences:

"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."

I don't understand how you interpret this to refer to something other than Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is alive at the time of the writer (without cruel and unusual torturing of the sense of the words - and even then, I don't understand what the torturing technique is supposed to be). But you are certainly welcome to try to explain.

I think Marcion is more likely than not to have been a real person based on all the data

I agree, but that makes your position on the question of the interpretation of Justin Martyr's reference to Marcion harder to understand.

Honestly my best guess is that you formed the hypothesis (made the statement about the possibility of a "rhetorical" interpretation) without closely reading the passage at the same time, because that hypothesis simply has no connection that I can detect to what the passage says.