What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

[Secret Alias]

We're all used to the wild speculation that Marcion's god was a 'stranger' meant that he necessarily was hostile to the 'Jewish god' and the like. But the idea comes up time and again in discussions of Patripassianism and Arianism and the like where the 'otherness' of the Son is raised. One of the earliest references is in Tertullian Adv Prax 4:

Yet how can I, who derive the Son from no alien, but from the Father's substance, he does nothing without the Father's will and that he has received from the Father all authority. (Ceterum qui filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia patris , nihil facientem sine patris voluntate, omnem a patre consecutum potestatem).

and again a line later:

for I reckon the Spirit from no other than from the Father through the Son (quia spiritum non aliunde puto quam a patre per filium).

The point of course is that if the Marcionites held that the Son was not of the same substance from the Father (from the POV of the Patripassians at least) he would be arguing for the Father or Son as 'strangers' from one another. This is where the whole discussion of Marcion 'dividing' or 'separating' the godhead comes in time and again too.

[davidbrainerd]

We're all used to the wild speculation that Marcion's god was a 'stranger' meant that he necessarily was hostile to the 'Jewish god' and the like. But the idea comes up time and again in discussions of Patripassianism and Arianism and the like where the 'otherness' of the Son is raised. One of the earliest references is in Tertullian Adv Prax 4:

Yet how can I, who derive the Son from no alien, but from the Father's substance, he does nothing without the Father's will and that he has received from the Father all authority. (Ceterum qui filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia patris , nihil facientem sine patris voluntate, omnem a patre consecutum potestatem).

If you read Tertullian's arguments in the beginning of Adversus Marcionem carefully, he defines monotheism as one divine substance. There could be a billion persons in that substance, and to Tertullian it would still be one god. What makes two gods is the assertion of two separate divine substances. Since Tertullian well understand this theory, it makes no sense to suggest the Marcionites are being misunderstood on this point.

and again a line later:

for I reckon the Spirit from no other than from the Father through the Son (quia spiritum non aliunde puto quam a patre per filium).

The point of course is that if the Marcionites held that the Son was not of the same substance from the Father (from the POV of the Patripassians at least) he would be arguing for the Father or Son as 'strangers' from one another. This is where the whole discussion of Marcion 'dividing' or 'separating' the godhead comes in time and again too.

As pointed out above, Tertullian was well aware of the theory that a jillion persons in one substance is still only one god. Yet he presents Marcion as teaching that the Father and Son are both one god, of one substance, and the OT god is another god of a different substance. So your theory has no legs.

[Secret Alias]

If you read Tertullian's arguments in the beginning of Adversus Marcionem carefully, he defines monotheism as one divine substance.

This is getting laughable. You are quickly becoming a parody of an amateur scholar. Tertullian never once mentions 'monotheism.' I am not even sure if such a technical term ever arose in the first ten centuries of Christianity and if it did it was exceedingly rare. So - yes, I've read the entire book carefully (not just the beginning) and - no there is no mention of monotheism.

There could be a billion persons in that substance

But there wasn't so what's your point.

and to Tertullian it would still be one god.

Yes there is a funny David Allen skit about this very subject. Three is not one. It's not important what Tertullian or anyone else says on the subject - it's an ancient precursor to Trump's 'fake news.' Three is not one. Even Siamese twins are still two individuals not one.

What makes two gods is the assertion of two separate divine substances.

Yes that's exactly my point - something you apparently can't see or understand. ANY SECT which argues that the Father and the Son are separate would necessarily have postulated (in the manner of the criticism here) that one was 'alien' or 'another' to the other. The point is that the terminology used against Marcion might simply be a vestige of this sort of a critique (i.e. used by Patripassians against those who didn't 'fully' acknowledge one substance shared between Father and Son). It's all a matter of perspective.

Since Tertullian well understand this theory, it makes no sense to suggest the Marcionites are being misunderstood on this point

This is the stupidest thing you've said in the entire post. Tertullian isn't postulating a 'theory' for fuck's sake. He speaks throughout of a 'rule.' Tertullian's source for this text Against Praxeas is clearly Irenaeus who uses the same terminology. The point is that it is not a 'theory' or something which someone can have actual expertise (unless one is commenting on Tertullian's or Irenaeus's habit of making such wild claims). Tertullian simply raises his hands and says 'it's true.' And of course it is worth examining with respect to Marcion because the same sources (Irenaeus and Tertullian) raise there hands there and say 'it's true' too.

Tertullian and Irenaeus aren't 'scholars' or 'academics.' As a matter of fact they remind me a lot of you - they just make assertions and assume that everyone has to go along with what they say because it makes sense to them. It is nonetheless very curious how close the criticism of Marcion and the criticism of anyone who actually gives character to the obvious limits between the 'one nature' shared by Father and Son.

The Arians for instance agreed that there was one nature UP TO A POINT. The Son was still somehow 'less' than the Father. He was an instrument of the Father etc. If 'justice' and 'mercy' are distinct then each power in the Marcionite godhead has 'otherness' in relation to the other. There isn't absolute unity NOR CAN THERE BE as long as object A and object B ARE DESCRIBED AS HAVING DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS. It's that simple. Everything else is cheating.

[davidbrainerd]

Book 1 chapter 5 (and yes he is postulating a theory):

But on what principle did Marcion confine his supreme powers to two? I would first ask, If there be two, why not more? Because if number be compatible with the substance of Deity, the richer you make it in number the better. Valentinus was more consistent and more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities, Bythos and Sige,62 poured forth a swarm of divine essences, a brood of no less than thirty Aeons, like the sow of Aeneas.63 [2] Now, whatever principle refuses to admit several supreme begins, the same must reject even two, for there is plurality in the very lowest number after one. After unity, number commences. So, again, the same principle which could admit two could admit more. After two, multitude begins, now that one is exceeded. In short, we feel that reason herself expressly64 forbids the belief in more gods than one, because the self-same rule lays down one God and not two, which declares that God must be a Being to which, as the great Supreme, nothing is equal; and that Being to which nothing is equal must, moreover, be unique. [3] But further, what can be the use or advantage in supposing two supreme beings, two co-ordinate65 powers? What numerical difference could there be when two equals differ not from one? For that thing which is the same in two is one. Even if there were several equals, all would be just as much one, because, as equals, they would not differ one from another. [4] So, if of two beings neither differs from the other, since both of them are on the supposition66 supreme, both being gods, neither of them is more excellent than the other; and so, having no pre-eminence, their numerical distinction67 has no reason in it. Number, moreover, in the Deity ought to be consistent with the highest reason, or else His worship would be brought into doubt. For consider68 now, if, when I saw two Gods before me (who, being both Supreme Beings, were equal to each other), I were to worship them both, what should I be doing? [5] I should be much afraid that the abundance of my homage would be deemed superstition rather than piety. Because, as both of them are so equal and are both included in either of the two, I might serve them both acceptably in only one; and by this very means I should attest their equality and unity, provided that I worshipped them mutually the one in the other, because in the one both are present to me. If I were to worship one of the two, I should be equally conscious of seeming to pour contempt on the uselessness of a numerical distinction, which was superfluous, because it indicated no difference; in other words, I should think it the safer course to worship neither of these two Gods than one of them with some scruple of conscience, or both of them to none effect.

[Secret Alias]

I was discussing Against Praxeas and assumed that your comments applied somehow to what was being said in that treatise. But even if you apply them to Against Marcion it is clear that it is not proper to describe his monarchian ideas as a 'theory.' So let's start over again:

If you read Tertullian's arguments in the beginning of Adversus Marcionem carefully, he defines monotheism as one divine substance.

Well if there is only one God it would stand to reason that his essence consistent with his essence. My body in all its diversity is all part of 'me.' The difficulty with Christian doctrine is having to reconcile two powers (forget about the 'Holy Spirit') - the Father and the Son - with one power. Of course it is all nonsense. A Father cannot be a Son and vice versa. So you say this by arguing that Tertullian says that the Father and Son shared one substance and that he presents this as a 'theory.' I still disagree with your characterization of what you cite as a 'theory.'

The first is:

What numerical difference could there be when two equals differ not from one? For that thing which is the same in two is one. Even if there were several equals, all would be just as much one, because, as equals, they would not differ one from another.

I would agree that this is a statement of 'one nature' being shared by two powers but I would hardly describe it as a 'theory.' It is a statement of the faith that Catholics are supposed to accept and form a part of their creed recited every Sunday. Similarly this does not thing to further your case for Tertullian 'theorizing' about one shared divine nature:

in other words, I should think it the safer course to worship neither of these two Gods than one of them with some scruple of conscience, or both of them to none effect.

There is nothing 'theoretical' about Tertullian's beliefs. The truth has been settled. There is a shared divine nature between Father and Son (odd though that Tertullian never states things in respect to Father and Son only Marcionite 'characteristics' of the two powers, mercy and justice). This is the truth, the only truth. Nothing 'theoretical' about it.

[Secret Alias]

And here are the things I find strange about Adv Marc 1. Christians all referred to 'Father' and 'Son' as the two powers right? Have you ever counted the number of times 'Son' appears in Adversus Marcionem? Take a guess. If you guessed once you'd be right:

No better is Marcion's god, breaking his way into a world not his own, stealing man from God, son from father, foster-son from
nursing-father, servant from master, so as to make him undutiful to God, disrespectful to his Father, ungrateful to his foster-
Father, worthless to his Master ( Non aliter deus Marcionis irrumpens in alienum mundum, eripiens deo hominem, patri filium, educatori alumnum, domino famulum, ut eum efficiat deo impium, patri irreligiosum, educatori ingratum, domino nequam). [Adv Marc 1.23.8]

Now tell me honestly - you who just pick up the text and say 'Tertullian tells us everything we need to know about the Marcionites' - the paucity of references to 'the Son,' indeed if you look carefully THIS ISN'T EVEN A REFERENCE TO 'THE SON' BUT A SON i.e. the generic concept of 'being a son' - is quite remarkable.

Why does Tertullian (or Irenaeus before him) avoid referencing THE TWO POWERS in terms of Father and Son. Surely this became quite controversial a century later. Are you really trying to claim that THERE WASN'T SOME MARCIONITE CONTROVERSY ABOUT FATHER AND SON or as I would contend the Church Father was avoiding the issue entirely because some might side with the Marcionites.

[Secret Alias]

As a follow up to the last discussion NO REFERENCES TO 'THE SON' IN ADVERSUS MARCIONEM BOOK 1 and only three paltry references to the 'the Father.' There's the references in the last citation followed almost immediately by:

As a god is both eternal and rational, no less, I suppose, is he perfect in all things: for, Ye shall be perfect, as is your Father who is in heaven (Sed deus sicut aeternus et rationalis, ita opinor et perfectus in omnibus: Eritis enim perfecti, quemadmodum pater vester qui in caelis est). Produce the evidence of <your god's> goodness being perfect. [Adv Marc 1.24.1]

and then:

It lies with you whether you consent to accord him obedience, so as to appear to have given honour to your god: for he will not accept your fear. And in fact the Marcionites make it their boast that they do not at all fear their god: for, they say, a bad god needs to be feared, but a good one loved. Fool: you call him lord, but deny he is to be feared, though this is a term suggesting authority, and with it fear. Yet how shall you love, unless you fear not to love? Evidently he is not even your father, to whom would be due both love for affection's sake, and fear for the sake of authority: nor is he your lawful lord, for you to love for human kindness' sake and fear for the sake of discipline. [Adversus Marcionem 1.27.3]

Are you really trying to claim that there is nothing strange? No references to 'the Son' and the barest of references to 'the Father'? It simply can't be owing to the fact that the Marcionites held nothing controversial about the Son and the Father. Rather I would argue, what they held was absolutely controversial.

[Secret Alias]

In Book 2 there is but one section which references to 'the Son' and 'the Father' and it can be certainly held to imply that Jesus was the Father:

For we claim also that Christ has always acted in God the Father's name, has himself ever since the beginning associated with, and conversed with, patriarchs and prophets.1 He is the Son of the Creator, his Word whom by bringing him forth from himself he caused to be his Son. From then onwards he put him in authority over his whole design and purpose, reducing him a little below the angels,a as it is written in David. By this reduction he was brought by the Father to these (acts and experiences) which you disapprove of as human: for he was learning even from the beginning,2 by so early assuming manhood, to be that which he was going to be at the end. He it is who comes down (to inquire into Sodom), who asks questions (of Adam and of Gain), who makes request (of Moses), and swears with an oath. That the Father has become visible to no man is the testimony of that gospel which you share with us, in which
Christ says, No one knoweth the Father save the Son. It was he also who in the Old Testament had already declared, No man shall see
God and live,c thus pronouncing that the Father cannot be seen, while with the Father's authority and in his name he himself was the God who was seen, the Son of God. So too among us God is accepted in the person of Christ, because in this way also he belongs to us. Therefore all the (attributes and activities) you make requisition of as worthy of God are to be found in the Father, inaccessible to sight and contact, peaceable also, and, so to speak, a god philosophers can approve of: but all the things you repudiate as unworthy, are to be accounted to the Son, who was both seen and heard, and held converse, the Father's agent and minister, who commingles in himself man and God, in the miracles God, in the pettinesses man, so as to add as much to man as he detracts from God. In fact the whole of that which in my God is dishonourable in your sight, is a sign and token of man's salvation. God entered into converse with man, so that man might be taught how to act like God. God treated on equal terms with man, so that man might be able to treat on equal terms with God. God was found to be small, so that man might become very great. As you despise a God of that sort I wonder if you do honestly believe that God was crucified. How great then is your unreasonableness in the face of both one and the other of the Creator's courses of action. You mark him down as a judge, yet the sternness which is natural to a judge in accordance with the demands of the cases before him you stigmatize as cruelty. You demand a God supremely good, yet that gentleness which is the natural outcome of his kindness, which has conversed at a lower level in such proportion as human insignificance could comprehend,
you devalue as pettiness. He meets with your approval neither as great nor as small, neither as judge nor as friend. But what if these same characteristics are found to be in your god too? I have already, in the book assigned to him,3 proved that he is a judge, and as a judge necessarily stern, and as stern also cruel— if cruelty is the proper word.[Adv Marc 2.27]

It is quite shocking to notice that Tertullian never actually tells us what the Marcionites believed with respect to the Father and the Son. He keeps saying 'we (Catholics) believe this' to the Father and Son and confirming the Marcionites had it another way. Yet notice he never spells out what they believed.

[Secret Alias]

The more I think about it having Jesus as the Father unknown to the Jews has a certain poetic beauty about it. It seems to echo the sense of John 1:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him

The mission to the Gentiles makes more sense. It all seems to fit better if God doesn't just 'change his mind' about exclusively being devoted to the Jews, change his mind about giving the Law. It all starts to make sense if you don't understand that Jesus is the Son but the Father.

[lsayre]

If to Marcion Jesus was the Father, does this negate the entire "Two Powers" construct?