Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity

[davidbrainerd]

Irenaeus consistently says that Psalm 2 makes reference to Jesus's Passion, the Marcionites (and likely Justin) denied this. The situation might be more complex than I have understood. Yet we have to be clear about the implications of what the testimonies are saying - Jesus, the heavenly being, was not the subject of messianic prophesy. Only Christ, the one who comes after him in some sense was known to the Jews.

O how shocking that a rival god unknown to anyone, even to the creator himself, would not be the subject of prophecy by said creator nor be known to the Jews before he revealed himself! Poor SA just can't wrap his head around it. Obviously a previously unkown god should be the subject of prophecies given by the creator god who didn't know he even existed! because how else can you make the crazy Huller Kabbalah work? You've gotta make that unkown god prophecied before he was known! Lol.

[Secret Alias]

He's well known for literal interpretation

This is bandied about by scholars but it's not as explicit as you think. $20 to you if you can find an early source that actually this. It's inferred from the frequent appeal of Patristic sources to 'spiritual' interpretation of various scriptures and a subsequent allusion to the Marcionites denial of THAT interpretation. But that doesn't mean that Marcionites didn't have 'tradition' (which is what kabbalah means). Of course the Marcionites had 'tradition' that went outside of the literal word of the page. Everyone does even the Samaritans who are the 'guardians' of literal accuracy.

[Secret Alias]

O how shocking that a rival god unknown to anyone, even to the creator himself, would not be the subject of prophecy by said creator nor be known to the Jews before he revealed himself

But would all Jews for instance have shared the Qumran expectation that Yahweh would appear in their midst (i.e. on the earth)? Many things that are believed by one community are 'surprises' to other communities. If for instance the Jews accept a body of prophetic scriptures which the Samaritans denied surely they too would say that their opponents were 'surprised' or unaware because of their refusal to accept this or that prophecy. The underlying argument seems to be that the Marcionites accepted Jewish scriptures as having spiritual power of prophecy and that 'Christ' (whoever that was) was accurately foretold in the Jewish writings (not a mean feat!). The difference seems to be that the coming of a second power 'Jesus' wasn't foretold by the messianic prophesies used by the Jews. But that doesn't mean in any sense that the Jewish scriptures might not have also made reference to Jesus or perhaps even foretold his coming too (I am not saying that they did but rather that the criticism that is associated with Marcionites is only limited to a set of 'messianic prophesies' which were correctly applied according to the Marcionites to 'Christ').

[Secret Alias]

Another example the Jews and Samaritans argue that the Pentateuch points to different places as the maqom of God, the place where sacrifices must be made even though they both share a holy text which is almost identical. Of course the Samaritans have the correct interpretation. Everything points to Gerizim as the place of God. Nevertheless Jews have written a wealth of things attacking the Samaritans and their holy place. There is no reason not to think that the debate between Marcionites and their rivals wasn't basically the same as those which survive between Samaritans and Jews.

[Secret Alias]

You've gotta make that unkown god prophecied before he was known

But the idea of what is 'unknown' is relative. For instance, you can be a citizen of a country and not know the scope of its laws i.e. what is or isn't illegal. You might not even know who the first presidents of the United States were despite being an American citizen. The argument then over whether Washington ever chopped down a cherry tree becomes infinitely more complicated if one of the two Americans debating the myth doesn't know who George Washington actually was. Indeed if we sank to a level of illiteracy in this country where most Americans didn't know who George Washington was or had a mistaken understanding of who he was, it would very likely that someone revealing the identity of George Washington would be revealing an 'unknown' commodity much as heretical Christians did with respect to their 'Father' god. I don't think for instance that it can be successfully argued that Philo did not know the Marcionite god. But perhaps a Pharisee - a member of a 'separate' and less erudite community - might not have accepted that his ancestors held the existence of two powers in heaven. Perhaps there were other Jewish communities which held fast to only one god. Again you haven't thought through your position and your position lacks the nuance required to take into account the sophistication and complexity of all Jewish, Christian and Samaritan groups in the early period of Christianity.

[davidbrainerd]

O how shocking that a rival god unknown to anyone, even to the creator himself, would not be the subject of prophecy by said creator nor be known to the Jews before he revealed himself

But would all Jews for instance have shared the Qumran expectation that Yahweh would appear in their midst (i.e. on the earth)? Many things that are believed by one community are 'surprises' to other communities. If for instance the Jews accept a body of prophetic scriptures which the Samaritans denied surely they too would say that their opponents were 'surprised' or unaware because of their refusal to accept this or that prophecy. The underlying argument seems to be that the Marcionites accepted Jewish scriptures as having spiritual power of prophecy and that 'Christ' (whoever that was) was accurately foretold in the Jewish writings (not a mean feat!). The difference seems to be that the coming of a second power 'Jesus' wasn't foretold by the messianic prophesies used by the Jews. But that doesn't mean in any sense that the Jewish scriptures might not have also made reference to Jesus or perhaps even foretold his coming too (I am not saying that they did but rather that the criticism that is associated with Marcionites is only limited to a set of 'messianic prophesies' which were correctly applied according to the Marcionites to 'Christ').

So you want to make the Marcionites say that Jesus was prophecied in the OT despite Tertullian saying they said he wasn't.

The difference seems to be that the coming of a second power 'Jesus' wasn't foretold by the messianic prophesies used by the Jews. But that doesn't mean in any sense that the Jewish scriptures might not have also made reference to Jesus or perhaps even foretold his coming too

I see, so you want them to believe that Jesus was prophecied in the OT but just in some capacity other than being the Messiah. Too bad for you all the fathers say the Marcionites didn't believe Jesus was prophecied in the OT at all.

[Secret Alias]

So you want to make the Marcionites say that Jesus was prophecied in the OT despite Tertullian saying they said he wasn't.

I am saying we don't know what the situation was. The information is very complicated and difficult to make sense of. We have to look at all the evidence rather than make the evidence fit a convenient hypothesis.

[Secret Alias]

The starting point of your investigation should be - did the Church Fathers like Tertullian actually know who or what a Marcionite was? Did they have Marcionite scriptures before them? Had they any actual contact with Marcionites or - as I would argue - Adversus Marcionem was a loose Latin compilation of a number of Greek treatises written by other people which had some relationship with Marcionism - imagined or otherwise - but Tertullian himself had no firsthand knowledge of the sect.

[davidbrainerd]

So why, SA, do you hitch your theory to the Marcionites, for whom its an impossibility, and not to the Valentinians or some obviously kabbalistic sect that isn't constrained by literal interpretation of the OT?

[Secret Alias]

I have written and corresponded with many of the leading scholars on the subject of Marcion for the last 25 years. We've discussed many things but the focus of my research and my correspondences has never been about medieval Jewish mysticism. My point is that kabbalah is an Aramaic term which simply means 'tradition.' It has come to mean an abstract mystical tradition involving various 'powers.' But that's not what the word means. The word means 'tradition' plain and simple and surely the Marcionites like anyone else had 'tradition' and specifically an oral tradition to help explain the written texts in their religion. If there were Marcionites who spoke Aramaic (and there certainly were) they would have referred to this 'oral tradition' as qblh as we see in other Aramaic cultures http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1310. Indeed in Aramaic qbylh even means something approaching 'antithesis' - viz. opposite/complaint/accusation -

qbylh, qbyltˀ (qḇīlā, qḇīltā) n.f. complaint, accusation

1 complaint, accusation OfAPer, Nabatean, Qumran, JLAtg, PTA, Sam, Syr, LJLA. TAD A6.15 .5 : אף קבילה שלח עליך ‏ he has even filed a complaint against you. TAD A6.15 .11 : כן֗ כזי מספת קבילה תובא לא ישלח ע[ליך ‏ so that PN does not file a complaint against you again. 11QtgJob 25.4=34:28 : וקבילת ענין ישמע ‏ he hears the complaint of the poor. TgO Ex2:23 : וֻסלֵיקַת קְבִילַתהוֹן לִקדָם יוי ‏ . TN Gen6:13 : קבילת ‏ . TN Ex2:24 : קבלתהון/קוולתהון ‏ .

It would be interesting to see how qbylh was rendered in Greek. It may well be that the 'complaints' or 'objections' ascribed to Marcion about the Creator originated in 'traditions' of this sect.