Marcion and Monarchia

[Giuseppe]

Clearly Celsus is reproducing a report from the 'great Church' about the existence of numerous heresies.

Improbable. He is claiming clearly an independent knowledge. He is satisfied to point out the extreme variety of the christianities of the his time just as modern Atheists do today.

His knowledge of those maintain the Christian god (= the Father) is different from the Jewish god is from a source like or explicitly identified as Irenaeus. And what does Celsus really say that isn't true. Did the Jews in the period identify Yahweh as the god seen on Sinai - yes. We know this from the earliest Jewish commentaries on Exodus (where the two powers controversy is explicitly referenced)

.
Celsus talks of opposition: dualism, not ditheism. And that dualism there was only after the 70.

because he is not actually out in the world meeting and greeting all the different persecuted Christian sects.

but which persecution do you mean? There was no persecution of Christians. Only the mainstream Jews who were simply distancing themselves from the Christians. Acts is historical at least in this sense.

[Giuseppe]

Again I want to emphasize that you can't just say 'witness X' supports my interpretation without doing the proper ground work. We don't have Celsus's original report only Origen's reaction to it (and likely not even Origen's reaction but Origen's reaction reworked by Eusebius who has a consistent interest in Celsus throughout his writing even if it is not explicit). Without that 'firsthand context' you can't be sure where Celsus is drawing his source information from in most cases. But the parallels with Irenaeus are noteworthy as his echo of Justin Martyr.

are you aware that your "operation truth" (to make say to Celsus the exact contrary of what he seems to day) is both titanic and grotesque?

[Secret Alias]

The idea that Celsus used Christian source material is well attested in the literature. It's just you who are stuck reading oddball books from the 19th century who don't know this. An example - https://books.google.com/books?id=ERbbr ... an&f=false In fact he makes EXPLICIT reference to orthodox Christian literary material such as the Dispute of Jason and Pascipus (or whatever the second guys name was) as well as Jewish source material against Christians (viz. Books 1 and 2). The idea that Celsus was walking around hunting for meetings with the very Christians he speaks of as being 'hunted' by the authorities is just ludicrous.

[John T]

You are an apologists for Marcion, I got that.

Allow me one derogatory statement. How can I be an apologist(s) for Marcion when all the Marcionophiles accuse me of heresy? No I am not an apologists for Marcion. My interest in Marcion is twofold:

1. I am fascinated by the development of early Christianity and as Marcionism seems to have had 'the earliest canon' it is important to study Marcionism or Marcion
2. I don't think that most scholars understand or nuance the early Patristic reports about Marcion. They assume that because Judaism was monotheist or monarchian that the attack against Marcion can be read in a straightforward manner. In other words, 'Marcion hated the god of the Jews.' But that's not what the Church Fathers say for the most part. It's just a way of 'making sense' of the material viz. it is a product of the limited intellect or limited depth of knowledge of most scholars.

So let's move on:

But what is your source for what Marcion considered normative Judaism before the war?

Ok I am going to lose it here. Why do ask such a stupid question? What is MY SOURCE for what Marcion considered normative? I don't know what to do with your question. The question isn't what did Marcion consider - i.e. it's not about Marcion - it's about Judaism. What evidence do we have for what Judaism was in the second century or even the first century for that matter? We know that from the earliest Samaritan sources and reports about a second god or angel, we know from the earliest Jewish commentary on Exodus, we know from a plain reading (= R Ishmael) of the original text of Exodus, we know from a plain understanding of the use of names (viz. Elohim and Yahweh) and the earliest Jewish account of how those names were used (Philo) that the religion of the Pentateuch had at least two gods. In other words, all the strongest evidence supports a binary godhead.

The fact that the surviving tradition cites sources favorable to its position that there is only one god of Israel does not dispute this POV. We should expect that if there was a Judaism survived down to our times as a ritualized worship of homosexuality for instance that it would cite interpretations supporting that position. For instance if the Donmeh in Izmir were the only Jews left on the planet owing to some massive successful extermination of Jews we could simply start from the Donmeh and project their rather idiosyncratic beliefs back on to the Jews of the Common Era. As silly as this argument might seem it is amazing how modern Judaism with its idiosyncratic behavior (most notably the sanctity of the temple, gemara etc) dominates the picture of how 'life must have been like' for Jews or what Jewish culture must have been like in the Common Era.

To this end we have to start not with what the neo-rabbinic tradition TELLS US Judaism was like or what Judaism is but rather what the Pentateuch and only the Pentateuch tells us what Judaism is, was and always should be - and that is an ancient veneration of two gods mostly closely paralleled in the Persian religion at the time of the writing of the Pentateuch viz. Mitra and Ahura Mazda.

As I understand it the schema was one god residing in the highest heavens and only being heard as a voice and another god walking and behaving like an anthropomorphic entity 'in whose image and likeness' Adam was formed and who was seen by the ancient Israelites on Sinai. This is the obvious and only starting point for understanding the Pentateuch. There can be no real debate about this other than for the purpose of aligning research along post-Common Era 'orthodoxies' for the sake of preserving their sanctity and authority and moreover denying the obvious - viz. that these orthodoxies were the result of Imperial efforts to bring all religions in line with monarchianism in the late second and early third centuries as demonstrated by Brent in his exhaustive (and mostly ignored) research.

As far as my sources, I understand Christians and Jews before the war were still in agreement with Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29.

So the only way of interpreting the Shema is that 'Yahweh' and 'Elohim' are different names describing the same underlying monotheistic divinity? How do you reconcile that with our earliest Jewish exegete being Philo of Alexandria? Was he just too stupid to see the self-evident nature of what your point or is it the other way around?

You just couldn't stop yourself could you?

Still, all of your insults aside, thank you for finally exposing yourself.

Now we have confirmation on how little you know on what you claim to know. It is clear you have little understanding of Marcion and his brand of Gnosticism.

Now that you finally got that out of your system, are you ready to expose yourself on how little you know about Marcion's Gnosticism in relationship to Zoroastrianism as well? If so, start a new thread because as I warned, I'm done on this thread.

John T

[Secret Alias]

It is clear you have little understanding of Marcion and his brand of Gnosticism.

Of course I don't presume to know as much as you do but I do my best to keep up.

[Secret Alias]

you know about Marcion's Gnosticism in relationship to Zoroastrianism

If you could demonstrate that you know any substantial knowledge of the Iranian religious tradition I would be amazed. The idea that you could connect a can of beans to Zoroastrianism let alone a complex subject like Marcion that would be a whole other thing. But then again you don't have any problem because you don't think reading the Church Fathers requires any caution at all. Just 'connect the dots' between what they say and what you want to believe ...

[Giuseppe]

The idea that Celsus used Christian source material is well attested in the literature. It's just you who are stuck reading oddball books from the 19th century who don't know this. An example - https://books.google.com/books?id=ERbbr ... an&f=false In fact he makes EXPLICIT reference to orthodox Christian literary material such as the Dispute of Jason and Pascipus (or whatever the second guys name was) as well as Jewish source material against Christians (viz. Books 1 and 2). The idea that Celsus was walking around hunting for meetings with the very Christians he speaks of as being 'hunted' by the authorities is just ludicrous.

you are too dogmatic when you insist that Celsus could *only* hear about Marcion from proto-catholic sources. The Marcionite Church was a public sect (not for only insiders).
In 5:61 he says clearly that he knows independently what was embarrassing for his proto-catholic readers (and for you): the existence of Christian dualists. There is no reason to think otherwise. There were marcionite propagandists as well as proto-catholic propagandists and Celsus knew both. To prove the contrary you should show a very strong case of which you evidently are missing. The onus probandi fall on your shoulders.

In addition, April DeConick has proved that also the author of proto-John hated the god of the Jews. The marcionites were only some of the Gnostics.

[Secret Alias]

The Marcionite Church was a public sect (not for only insiders)

Another assertion. Celsus says that Christian associations were secret. What evidence is there that Marcionism was different or Celsus "forgot" to mention this exception. Let me guess, you have no evidence! You just like to think it was true to suit your argument. First time!

[Giuseppe]

The secrecy of a cult is inversely proportional to his popularity. Marcionism was diffuse as well as catholicism and therefore it was platonism for the masses.

[Secret Alias]

Garbage in garbage out ... but once again no actual evidence.