Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

This in Book 1 likely depends on Irenaeus or is from Irenaeus's hand:
He had, moreover, in one Cerdon an abettor of this blasphemy,--a circumstance which made them the more readily think that they saw most clearly their two gods, blind though they were; for, in truth, they had not seen the one God with soundness of faith
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

This section in Book One seems particularly incomprehensible to me:
for Moses' writings as a whole do not initiate knowledge of the Creator, but rather describe it from the beginning, so that its age must be counted from Paradise and from Adam, not from Egypt and Moses. And again, the great majority of the human race, though ignorant even of Moses' name, not to mention his written works, do for all that know Moses' God. In spite of the darkness of idolatry, and its wide dominion, men do distinguish him by the name of God, as though this were a proper noun—'God of gods', and 'If God grant it', and 'What God will', and 'I commit to God'. Evidently they know him, for they testify that he can do all things: and this they owe not to any books of Moses, for <man's> soul was there before prophecy.2 The knowledge inherent in the soul since the beginning is God's endowment, the same and no other whether in Egyptians or Syrians or men of Pontus. It is the God of the Jews whom men's souls call God. Abstain, barbarian and heretic, from setting up Abraham as older than the world. Even if God had been the creator of one family and no more, he was not of later origin than your god: even the men of Pontus knew him before they knew of yours. Accept then the pattern set by him who existed before you: if uncertain, accept from the certain: if unknown, accept from the well-known. God can never keep himself hidden, can never be unattainable: he must at all times be understood, be heard, even be seen, in such manner as he will. God has his evidences, all this that we are, and in which we are. Such is the proof that he is God, is the one God, this fact that he is not unknown, while that other one is even yet struggling after recognition.
If I understand this passage:

1. the author understands that the Torah was written at the time of Adam
2. humanity as such knows the Creator because they use the word 'God' as an expression in everyday speech.

This seems particularly far-fetched. The business about Abraham being older than the world is particularly intriguing. Not sure I understand where that comes from other than it seems to have contact with the Acts of Archelaus's notion of a pre-existent cult of Abraham in Harran. But the identification of the noun 'god' with Yahweh is particularly eye-opening. As stupid as this argument sounds it does account for much of orthodoxy. The Gentiles do not need initiation into Judaism. This is the basis to much of what emerges from the Roman religion. This is not what Marcionism preached. In fact Marcionism seems far more Jewish with its 'god of mercy' and 'god of justice.' The idea put forward by the author is that everyone already knows the god of the Jews because they use 'god' in the singular in everyday speech. Remarkable!

But we have to understand all of this countering a Marcionite argument which precedes the cited section:
For the fact is that ever since things have existed their Creator has become known along with them: for they were brought into being with the intent that God might be made known. Admittedly it is somewhat later that Moses before others is seen to have established the God of the world in the temple of his writings: but we need not on that account reckon that the knowledge of him was born along with the Pentateuch
This allows what follows to make sense. The reason the argument of the author is so bizarre is because he is desperately countering what is explicit from the Torah - namely that the text is essentially about the revealing of the Jewish god on Sinai. As such the 'Jewish god' is only as old as the Exodus. This in my mind explains:

a) the strange claim that Marcion depreciated the Creator and
b) the repeated emphasis that Marcion's god is so recent as to be a novelty

In other words, Marcion was saying that 'god' - the god the author calls 'the Creator' or Jewish god - was revealed recently. But interesting this leads to the repeated notion that Marcion's god was recent too.

Moreover we have to fit in what the author says about 'the true God.' God, he writes, wasn't revealed with Moses's Torah. No God has always been known to anyone that uses the expression 'God.' That's why he makes that bizarre argument that you don't need the Torah to know God. The reason he says this is plainly because the Jewish god is a novelty. The Jewish god is only as old as Moses, at least insofar as he reveals himself. You have to see this line of reasoning within Marcionism to make sense of the otherwise uncontextualized statement that repeats in Against Marcion that Marcion's god was unknown and only recently revealed. In other words, the author is building an argument on behalf of an 'ultimate God' that is beyond Moses. The monotheistic or monarchian god of the author is not 'caged in' by the Torah. He's always been known to barbarians, Egyptians, Syrians. Why does the author make this argument? Because Marcion's god is the Jewish god! Clearly Marcion's dualistic gods of mercy and justice are a difficulty because of the way Marcion reads the Torah.

In other words, Marcion is absolutely Jewish. He reads the Torah as if Abraham, the Patriarchs and Moses are the only people to know God (i.e. the twin gods of mercy and justice Elohim and Yahweh) are otherwise unknown to the world. They are very much like the way Tertullian describes Marcion's god - i.e. unknown. This is why the author makes the case that you don't need the Torah. Knowledge of the 'one god' - viz. the Jews never worshiped just one god - existed beyond the Torah. He was known at all times by anyone who called upon 'god.' The reason Tertullian has to make this weird and unexpected argument is because he knew that Marcion's god(s) was/were Jewish.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

To paraphrase Tertullian's (Irenaeus's) argument here:
1. Most people don't know Moses
2. But they do know 'God' because everyone uses 'god' in everyday speech
3. You can't base your arguments strictly on the Torah because no one knows the Torah outside the Jews
4. The Torah makes it seem as if the 'Jewish god' who Marcion says is a god of justice was only revealed to Abraham and his family and then the Israelites on Sinai
5. [Marcion shouldn't make this argument] because his god of mercy has only been revealed with the gospel
6. it is ridiculous to claim that a god was unknown to the world [as Marcion does with both his own god of mercy and the god of justice he shares with the Jews]
7. the Torah wasn't written at the time of Moses but at the beginning of creation
8. it's ridiculous to claim that God is only as old as Abraham because he was the first man to know and see god because Abraham wasn't a live at the time of Creation
9. there is a Supreme god who must be known to everyone and everything in the world.
These arguments seem to be dancing around the original JEWISH arguments of Marcion. 'Jewish' because they presuppose that the Torah is the 'map book' to history (a pagan or non-Jew wouldn't base his understanding of history based on this Jewish book).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

So one can argue that this is perhaps the most important chapter in the entirety of Against Marcion. What it does is essentially dispense with the argument that Marcion is 'anti-Jewish.' In fact Marcionism is clearly a form of Judaism. Let's look at the facts:

1. Jews base their understanding of history from the Torah
2. Marcionites base their understanding of history from the Torah
3. the author of Against Marcion is saying essentially 'you can't use the Torah as a canon for understanding history.'

Why does the author contradict the Jews and the Marcionites? Because the Jews and the Marcionites say that 'god' was known exclusively to 'Jews' before the modern (i.e. Commodian age). Both take the Torah literally as a road map of history. So the whole world was ignorant of who god (or the gods) were until Abraham, his sons and their descendants 'the Israelites.' The Jews believe this and the Marcionites believe this. Why did the Marcionites believe this? To believe Giuseppe, Stuart and their ilk they 'so hated' the Jews that they were willing to combat them 'on their own turf.' So you imagine some ancient precursors of the Nazis who become 'Jewish' to condemn the Jews and their god. This is plainly stupid. So what's at work here?

I think it is the Philonic understanding of the two names of god (Yahweh, Elohim) corresponding to two powers in heaven. This is what the Marcionites were 'stuck on' - viz. the original or at least very early or at least Alexandrian/Oniad understanding of the Torah. At some point - whether with other Jews or Tertullian or both (note Seagal's observation that Tertullian and the rabbis both attack the 'two powers' party with similar arguments/citations from scripture).

Note the next argument in Against Marcion 1.11:
'And so he ought to be' (Et merito), they (the Marcionites) reply: 'any man is better known to his own than to aliens.' (Quis enim non tam suis notus est quam extraneis?) I admit that: I insist on it. For how can there be anything alien to God, when any god there were could have nothing alien to him? For it is characteristic of God that all things are his, and all things his concern. If they were not, we should at once object, 'What then has he to do with things alien to him?' But we shall deal with this more fully in its own context. For the moment it is enough that one is proved to be nobody if nothing is proved to belong to him.
The context is clearly 'the Jewish god' here. The previous sentence was:
Such is the proof that he (the Creator) is God, is the one God, this fact that he is not unknown, while that other one is even yet struggling after recognition.
So the Marcionites are granting that the Jews belong to the god of justice. But note the word for 'better known' here is notus = 'to write down.' The Marcionites are acknowledging that the Torah is a valid 'notation' for the god of justice. The gospel then is the 'Torah' if you will of the other power, the power of mercy. There is no other way of interpreting this. It's plain as day. What Tertullian/Irenaeus want us to do is stop using the Torah in this way. We shouldn't see that the power of justice was only made known with Moses. This makes the revelation of the power of mercy in the modern (i.e. Common Era) less strange.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Charles Wilson »

Does this Argument show an understanding that there was a Book of John floating in the background?

John 1: 1 - 3 (RSV):

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;
[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

Well I mean only insofar as John borrowed the Oniad tradition of Philo which was the also the background for Marcion's two powers (Elohim = mercy, Yahweh = justice).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

The next arguments which follow in Against Marcion (chapter 11) demand some sort of contextualizing:
For the moment it is enough that one is proved to be nobody if nothing is proved to belong to him. For just as the Creator is God, and God beyond all doubt, for the reason that all things are his and that nothing is alien to him, so also any other is not a god, precisely because all things are not his, and therefore are alien to him. In fact, if the whole universe belongs to the Creator, I see no room at all for a second god: all things are fully occupied by their own begetter.
But clearly there were Jewish sects or sects known to rabbinic Judaism that posited 'two powers in heaven.' It is interesting that the author (Tertullian/Irenaeus) has no predecessors to draw from. If he were originally Jewish there could have been Jewish writers he could have drawn inspiration from. Irenaeus claims to know and be devoted to Justin but clearly Justin would have no problem with two powers and actively argues in fact that there are two powers. So the author is charting new ground here. He has decided to make the case that there is only one power wholly out of his own imagination.

If the same argument were to be made today you'd here the person declare - even the Jews only believe in one god. But the writer doesn't do that. His arguments are absolutely 'atheological.' He rarely cites scripture. He never cites the opinions of people who have studied the Torah for the last thousand years. He just looks out the window and makes what we might call 'naturalistic arguments' - i.e. the world is governed by a sole ruler. That's the extent of his argumentation, which is peculiar, given the fact that people had been studying the Bible for centuries. He doesn't cite the apostles or previous generations of Christian writers. Almost all his arguments come from nature.

Indeed Philo was well known to Christian writers. Philo was a Jew who was seen to be authoritative especially with his understanding that each of the divine names Yahweh/Elohim corresponded to two powers of justice and goodness. But the author seems to know nothing of even this most celebrated of Jewish authorities. He makes it seem as if Marcion's 'good god' was wholly without precedent:
If there is among created things any empty space for some divinity, evidently it must be empty for a false divinity. The truth is made manifest by the lie. All that great multitude of false gods ought somewhere to have found room for Marcion's god. This too I postulate after the pattern set by the Creator, that <this other one> ought to have been recognizable as a god by reason of his creation of some world and man and time of his own: for even this world's wrong-headedness has made into gods those who it acknowledges were once men, precisely because it appears that by each of them some provision has been made for life's utilities and pleasures.1 Thus then it was from the precedent God set, that there arose the
belief that it is a divine function to invent or discover something suitable and essential for human life. In this way even false divinity has borrowed proof of its existence from that which was already the proof of true divinity. One solitary little chick-pea of his own ought Marcion's god to have brought to light, and he might then have been proclaimed a sort of new Triptolemus. Else you have to propound some reason, a reason worthy of a god, why, if he exists, he has done no creating: because he would have created something, if he had existed, by our previous ruling, of course, that it is only because he has created all this that our own God's existence is clearly seen.
This last point is a point frequently made by Irenaeus - "Irenaeus, AH. II viii. i, 'Creation itself brings into evidence him who created it.' There is a pattern repeated throughout Book One as we shall see. The original author was Irenaeus.

But notice that Marcion's god is compared to Triptolemus, the god of the mystery religion at Eleusis:
In the archaic Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Triptolemus is briefly mentioned as one of the original priests of Demeter, one of the first men to learn the secret rites and mysteries of Eleusinian Mysteries: Diocles, Eumolpos, Celeus and Polyxeinus were the others mentioned of the first priests. The role of Triptolemus in the Eleusinian mysteries was exactly defined: "he had a cult of his own, apart from the Mysteries. One entered his temple on the way to the closed-off sacred precinct, before coming to the former Hekataion, the temple of Artemis outside the great Propylaia." (Kerenyi). In the 5th-century bas-relief in the National Museum, Athens (illustration), which probably came from his temple, the boy Triptolemus stands between the two Goddesses, Demeter and the Kore, and receives from Demeter the ear of grain (of gold, now lost). Porphyry (On Abstinence IV.22) ascribes to Triptolemus three commandments for a simple, pious life: "Honor your parents", "Honor the gods with fruits"—for the Greeks, "fruits" would include the grain—and "Spare the animals" (Kerenyi, p128).
So the Marcionite god - Jesus - is clearly also the god of the Christian mysteries in the same way Triptolemus presided over Eleusis. The fact that Tertullian keeps mentioning the 'hidden' aspect of the Marcionite god has something to do with his association with the mysteries.

We read in what follows:
Tell me, Marcion, was it, or was it not, your god's wish ever to become known at any time? Was it with any other intent that he came down, and taught, and suffered, and rose again, except that he might become known? Certainly, if he did become known, he was willing: for nothing could have been done with respect to him unless he had been willing. Why was he so intent upon providing evidence of himself by being put on display in the dishonour of flesh—a dishonour even greater if that flesh was no true flesh? For it adds to the disgrace if he made the substance of his body into a lie—and he even took upon himself the Creator's curse by being hung from a tree. How much more reputably could he have contrived beforehand for men to have knowledge of him by some evidences of his own craftsmanship, especially as he needed to become known in opposition to that one to whom since the beginning he had remained unknown because he had done nothing! For it is quite incredible that the Creator, ignorant, as the Marcionites allege, that there was another god above him, and affirming even with an oath that he himself was the only God, should have equipped the knowledge of himself with all these great works—knowledge which, on the assumption of his singularity he had no need to make this kind of provision for—yet that that more sublime god, knowing that the inferior God was so endowed, should have provided no handiwork to ensure his own recognition. Really it would have been his duty to create even more significant, even more impressive, works, so that through works he might be recognized as a god, like the Creator, and through more honourable works be seen to be more eminent and more noble than the Creator.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

So again, if we are to believe that Jesus was a historical Jew, you had 'Judaism' existing for centuries - a tradition which has the study of the law as its heart and soul - and then along comes the author of Against Marcion who as the cornerstone to his attack against the Marcionites begins by saying 'there is only one god and we don't need the study of the Torah to understand him ... and oh by the way, the Marcionites hate Jews, Judaism and the god of the Jews.' That's the perplexing thing about Against Marcion. It's not a defense of Judaism, the tradition of the Jews or the Jewish interpretation of the Torah. It is rather a defense of 'the one god' - the god of justice as the Marcionites call the god of the Jews - but not a defense of the Jews, Judaism or ANY traditional manner of worshiping the god of the Jews.

So who is this author? He is not a Jew. Yet he understands 'Judaism' in terms of a monotheistic devotion to the one god. But his manner of approach suggests he is a Gentile philosopher. All of which is curious because one of the traditional manners of ridiculing the 'sects' or heresies is that they are philosophers. Clement speaks in terms of the 'true philosophy' and 'gnostic' truths - terminology which was associated with heresy. But the author of Against Marcion basically begins Book 1 by staking out a philosophical position that the one god of the universe wasn't 'unknown' to previous generations but known to everyone who could utter the word 'god.' To this end, it stands to reason that anyone who 'knew' there was one ruler to the universe was a Christian - which is a position repeatedly reinforced in Tertullian (i.e. the human soul is naturally Christian and never ceases to be capable of apprehending divine truth: Apol. 17. 6, 'o testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae', the treatises de Testimonio Animae, de Came Christi 12, de Res. Carn. 3).

But this approach clearly transforms our understanding of Marcion's alleged 'anti-Jewish' outlook. The author sees a universe where Judaism is absolutely unnecessary. The history of Christianity is tied to Judaism only insofar as the Jews were prevented from worshiping other gods beside the Creator. Moses himself is somewhat a problematic figure. Abraham and the Patriarchs had the right way of approaching god. They forsook idols and only worshiped the 'one god' the one ruler of the universe. But Moses went beyond that and established a separate covenant for the Israelites. What the author of Against Marcion is proposing is something almost identical with the Imperial cult of the cosmokrator. What is required from humanity is to venerate the 'one ruler' of the universe. No dietary restrictions, no code of conduct, no sexual abstention. The Marcionites had all these things but were condemned because they failed to honor the most important rule - i.e. the veneration of one god.

To this end, Against Marcion provides us with a curious insight into the corruption of the early Church by the late second century. It's not that Christianity was 'taken over' by Judaizers. Instead it was the Marcionite understanding of two powers in heaven which 'stood in the way' of transforming Christianity into an appendage of the Imperial cult. The story of the gospel was not transformed. Jesus Christ trained men to venerate himself as the one ruler of the universe - it's 'king' - in order that, we presume, humanity would be prepared or awakened to accept the need for one ruler or king on the earth. There may have been an original understanding associated with 'the messiah' or some Jewish earthly king as intermediary step in earliest Christianity. But Irenaeus's own identification of the present age with Christians sitting in the Imperial court of Commodus as 'the year of favor' seems to provide the context for the full absorption of Christianity into the Imperial cult.

While it is true that we never hear it explicitly declared that the Emperor is Christ or Christians 'vicar' we must presume that the bishop of Rome assumed such a role and there are strong indications from the Callistus narrative in the Philosophumena that already in the age of Commodus Christians were working with the Imperial court. The genesis of how Christianity became absorbed by the Imperial cult is a fascinating topic. It is difficult to know how this actually took place. But it does appear at least on the surface that the driving force behind anti-Marcionism was the fact that two powers in heaven seemed incompatible with monarchianism.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

Again there is a basic lack of sensibility in the discussion in what follows. Apparently the author thinks it sensible that when the god of the Torah says in Deuteronomy 21:33 that 'cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree' he was prophesying about himself being cursed:
Tell me, Marcion, was it, or was it not, your god's wish ever to become known at any time? Was it with any other intent that he came down, and taught, and suffered, and rose again, except that he might become known? Certainly, if he did become known, he was willing: for nothing could have been done with respect to him unless he had been willing. Why was he so intent upon providing evidence of himself by being put on display in the dishonour of flesh—a dishonour even greater if that flesh was no true flesh? For it adds to the disgrace if he made the substance of his body into a lie—and he even took upon himself the Creator's curse by being hung from a tree.
The logic seems to be that the Creator said this because he knew he would be hung from a tree eventually. Moreover the crucifixion was intended - so the author argues - to 'bring into acquaintance' (gnostikos) the world with their Creator. This is understood to be a 'great work' (Deuteronomy 32:4):
How much more reputably could he have contrived beforehand for men to have knowledge of him by some evidences of his own craftsmanship, especially as he needed to become known in opposition to that one to whom since the beginning he had remained unknown because he had done nothing! For it is quite incredible that the Creator, ignorant, as the Marcionites allege, that there was another god above him, and affirming even with an oath that he himself was the only God, should have equipped the knowledge of himself with all these great works—knowledge which, on the assumption of his singularity he had no need to make this kind of provision for—yet that that more sublime god, knowing that the inferior God was so endowed, should have provided no handiwork to ensure his own recognition.
Now what to make of this passage? Was the author saying that the right interpretation of the crucifixion was that it was intended by the Creator to make himself known to the world? I don't think so as the author repeatedly argues that the Creator is known to everyone through his creation. He is clearly attacking the Marcionite understanding of the crucifixion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Post by Secret Alias »

At last now we are hitting upon something substantial. Paul somewhere says that the martyrs are the temples or tabernacles of the Christian god. They are made into the likeness of their Lord and then displayed as testimonies. This is clearly the understanding associated with the crucifixion. The difficulty associated with a physical body being needed to fasten 'Christ' onto the Cross is easily explained in a similar manner - viz. Jesus is not crucified (cf Irenaeus AH 3.11.7). He stands impassibly watching Christ crucified as a testimony to his own divinity after Christ was refashioned after in his image or likeness. But the purpose of the gospel was to say that the testimony was necessary, that humanity needed to be brought into acquaintance with a new god.

I am struck by the Philonic interpretation of Jacob at Bethel which was taken over by Clement and the Alexandrian Church. The understanding was that Jacob formerly adheres to the 'god of justice' but after Bethel (where he sees Yahweh on a perhaps saltire staircase) he swears himself to another god - Elohim, the god of mercy. The reason why seeing Yahweh suspended in the sky would cause Jacob to change allegiances to another god is never explained by Philo but it is explicitly acknowledged not once but twice. The idea seems to be that the crucifixion was another Bethel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply