Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

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

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Secret Alias »

Epiphanius used Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians for his understanding that Marcion allowed for three baptisms:
However, it may have arisen by a number of possible routes: Firstly, Epiphanius had already copied from Irenaeus the Marcosian doctrine of an initial baptism for repentance, modelled on that of John the Baptist, along with a second cleansing for perfection, purportedly justified by the words of Jesus in Luke 12.50, a prooftext that he also attributes to Marcion at this point (Pan. 34.19.3–6; Irenaeus, AH I. 21.2).69

69 Epiphanius says that Marcion (but not Marcus) appealed to Mark 10.38 as well as to Luke 12.50; he makes no reference to Luke 12.50 in his conspectus of Marcion’s ‘Gospel’, and neither does Tertullian.
(Lieu file:///C:/Users/world/Downloads/Marcion_and_the_Making_of_a_Heretic%20(1).pdf)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Secret Alias »

Do people start to see how these reports about the heresies are mostly hearsay and innuendo? Why should the account(s) of their gospel and canon be different? It's all second and third and fourth hand information.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Apparently Agapius, a Manichaean of the fourth century (who also adopts the "name of Christian"), shows how several of the things said of Marcionites had currency with him also:

He dedicates them to a woman named Urania, whom he proclaims is an initiate of the same philosophy as himself.

He thus teaches and supports everything that is the opposite of Christianity: he places opposite God an evil principle which exists of itself for all eternity; he calls it sometimes 'nature', sometimes 'matter', sometimes again 'Satan', 'devil', 'master of the world', 'god of the age', and he gives it multiple other names. It is by necessity, and in spite of themselves, he claims, that men sin; the body belongs to the domain of evil, and the soul to that of God and it is (what insanity!) consubstantial with God. He pours derision on the Old Testament, Moses and the Prophets; he goes so far, the wretch, as to speak evil of the Forerunner; he ranges them together with all that is said and done in the Old Testament (O, the impiety!) on the side of the evil principle that is opposed to God.

...

He imagines that it is necessary to abstain from meat and conjugal connection as if they were infamous things; him, the most infamous of all! In rejecting wine also because it leads to drunkenness, our author does not take into account that it is not wine that intoxicates, but the fact of using it without measure or regard for decency, in the same way as the abuse of any food or water is harmful.

...

The utility of his impious and valueless treatise is solely to confuse and to the shame of those who are attached to the impious belief of the Manichaeans and to his own.

Make a checklist: well-regarded women, an evil principle, the body evil, the soul that of God, derision on the Old Testament, evil of the Forerunner (John?), the OT on the side of the evil principle, abstaining from meat, abstaining from conjugal connections, rejecting wine.

Either these precepts attributed to Marcionism came to him by way of an ascetic version of Manichaeism that was influenced by it, or possibly he fused them himself in a conversion from being a follower of Mani's teaching to Christianity, thinking of a form of Marcionite teaching as that which truly is Christian (the name he used for himself).

From Photius 179: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... otheca.htm
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Secret Alias »

Manichaeans yes. Not sure about Marcionites
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:23 pm Apparently Agapius, a Manichaean of the fourth century (who also adopts the "name of Christian"), shows how several of the things said of Marcionites had currency with him also:

He dedicates them to a woman named Urania, whom he proclaims is an initiate of the same philosophy as himself.

He thus teaches and supports everything that is the opposite of Christianity: he places opposite God an evil principle which exists of itself for all eternity; he calls it sometimes 'nature', sometimes 'matter', sometimes again 'Satan', 'devil', 'master of the world', 'god of the age', and he gives it multiple other names. It is by necessity, and in spite of themselves, he claims, that men sin; the body belongs to the domain of evil, and the soul to that of God and it is (what insanity!) consubstantial with God. He pours derision on the Old Testament, Moses and the Prophets; he goes so far, the wretch, as to speak evil of the Forerunner; he ranges them together with all that is said and done in the Old Testament (O, the impiety!) on the side of the evil principle that is opposed to God.

...

He imagines that it is necessary to abstain from meat and conjugal connection as if they were infamous things; him, the most infamous of all! In rejecting wine also because it leads to drunkenness, our author does not take into account that it is not wine that intoxicates, but the fact of using it without measure or regard for decency, in the same way as the abuse of any food or water is harmful.

...

The utility of his impious and valueless treatise is solely to confuse and to the shame of those who are attached to the impious belief of the Manichaeans and to his own.

Make a checklist: well-regarded women, an evil principle, the body evil, the soul that of God, derision on the Old Testament, evil of the Forerunner (John?), the OT on the side of the evil principle, abstaining from meat, abstaining from conjugal connections, rejecting wine.

Either these precepts attributed to Marcionism came to him by way of an ascetic version of Manichaeism that was influenced by it, or possibly he fused them himself in a conversion from being a follower of Mani's teaching to Christianity, thinking of a form of Marcionite teaching as that which truly is Christian (the name he used for himself).

From Photius 179: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... otheca.htm
....an evil principle associated with the Marcionites...

It's there in religion, it has been there from the beginning. From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to the war gods of ancient Egypt and Rome.
List of war deities

From whichever hand the Marcion antithesis is from, it's existence via the writings of early church 'fathers', indicates that the evil god principle was alive and well. After all - anyone, even today, studying the OT god would find Dawkins depiction consistent with what is in the OT writings. The hue and cry from Stephan Huller over Sebastian Moll's scholarship regarding Marcion's evil god is nothing short of hysteria.

page 47

Marcion’s dualism forms without doubt the centre of his doctrine. The nature of this dualism does not seem to give rise to much doubt, either, ever since Harnack established his idea that Marcion distinguishes between a just and a good God, and thereby also established a scholarly consensus which lasted for almost a century. However, in the present chapter we shall see that this view is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning Marcion’s teaching, for the heresiarch’s distinction was in fact far less ‘protestant’ than Harnack imagined, as he simply distinguished between an evil and a good God.

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective is due to his ‘Neoprotestant interpretation” of Marcion, it would be false to claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not provide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Marcion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

Two basic principles reside within human nature. Our desire to seek a positive dualism between man and man and our individual intellectual evolution which requires a negative dualism. We make gods in our own image - we reflect theses two basic human principles in the gods we create. That the OT god was an evil god, a god of negative dualism, is not a mark against Judaism. Context, time and place all play their part in which god is dominant in history. Early christianity chose to allow a positive dualism a dominant role. (thought one could say it has never entirely succeeded - as ancient Judaism never succeeded in denying a god of positive dualism among the chosen people - dominance, prominence being the overall identifying feature at any given historical time).

(as for the notion that Marcion's two gods were a just god and a good god - that's later gobbledygook. A good god is just. A just god is good.............what this nonsense does do it deny the very principle, the evil principle, that has brought human existence to it's intellectual heights. Seems to me that there is some reluctance over the very word 'evil' in connection with god ideas - it's a bad idea, the 'devil' will scare the children - while the adults shut down their ability to think.)

Where are we today in this god business ? Well, I would say it's high time the evil god started showing up - otherwise Western civilization, christian civilization, is on the road to irrelevance. Ah - christian heretics lets hear it from you.....a modern day Marcion - now that would put the fear of god into today's church 'fathers'.....
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Secret Alias »

There are two reports in the Fathers. The two powers in Marcion are Good and Evil or Good and Just. The latter is obviously correct. Life is boring Boring always wins.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 4:55 am There are two reports in the Fathers. The two powers in Marcion are Good and Evil or Good and Just. The latter is obviously correct. Life is boring Boring always wins.
Thr problem is that one version is sterile. .....while the earlier Marcoin version has potential for intellectual development and evolution.

Yep one version is boring while the other is full of expectation...... :D
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Peter Kirby »

I have been wondering where we can situate an "Against Marcion" that accuses him of mauling the Gospel (Matthew). Here are the known candidates:

Justin Martyr of Rome (ca. 160)
Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 170-180)
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180-190)

In favor of Justin: nothing really. Justin does not show clear knowledge of canonical Matthew. Justin does show knowledge and use of various texts, with none of the later concern for that which is apocryphal. Justin knows of narratives that disagree with Matthew, using them with no concern. Justin does not regard these texts as scripture, thus making it difficult to imagine him being overly concerned with their exact text. Justin instead focuses on the traditional scriptures. This method of proof is seen in the Dialogue and influences Tertullian's first revision of the Latin Against Marcion, which consists of two books, our 1 and 3. Justin's stamp is on book 3, although it has itself received revisions in Tertullian's second and third versions.

In favor of Theophilus of Antioch: everything. Theophilus quotes solely from Matthew as "the Gospel." Theophilus includes John among the "writings," as in the "prophets and the writings," in addition to the Law. Theophilus doesn't quote from Mark (which must have existed, if Markan priority over Matthew is true) or Luke. Theophilus wrote a well-regarded work in Greek "Against Marcion," as referenced by Eusebius. The location of Antioch is consistent with use of Matthew (thought to be written there), docetic ideas (Serapion his predecessor and the Gospel of Peter), and Marcionite thought (given the examples it in the Syrian east).

In favor of Irenaeus of Lyons: precious little. The hypothesis requires an earlier stage of thought for Irenaeus never witnessed in his writings. Irenaeus is of the opinion that Marcion used Luke (not Matthew). Irenaeus proposes a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus quotes from Matthew most often but Luke second most and nearly as much. All the criticism that applies (mutatis mutandis) to condemn Luke as well as gMarcion would be daft from the view of a fourfold Gospel. Irenaeus himself seems busier with Valentinians.

So I am thinking that Theophilus would necessarily compare the Gospel of Marcion to Matthew, since he regards Matthew as "the Gospel" and wrote "Against Marcion." This much is evident. The other candidates are not evident, and from what is known of those authors, such an approach did not fit their authorial aims.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:34 am I have been wondering where we can situate an "Against Marcion" that accuses him of mauling the Gospel (Matthew). Here are the known candidates:

Justin Martyr of Rome (ca. 160)
Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 170-180)
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180-190)

In favor of Justin: nothing really. Justin does not show clear knowledge of canonical Matthew. Justin does show knowledge and use of various texts, with none of the later concern for that which is apocryphal. Justin knows of narratives that disagree with Matthew, using them with no concern. Justin does not regard these texts as scripture, thus making it difficult to imagine him being overly concerned with their exact text. Justin instead focuses on the traditional scriptures. This method of proof is seen in the Dialogue and influences Tertullian's first revision of the Latin Against Marcion, which consists of two books, our 1 and 3. Justin's stamp is on book 3, although it has itself received revisions in Tertullian's second and third versions.

One possibility is that Justin knew and valued a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Justin compared Marcion's Gospel to this harmony and criticised Marcion for leaving bits out. Some of the bits that Justin complained about being omitted came from Matthew but Justin was uninterested or unaware of this.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Enough of "Textual Criticism"! What Do People Imagine Marcionism Looked Like If You Visited Their Synagogues?

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is something to consider Peter. In the section just before Jesus's visit to the synagogue of Nazareth/Capernaum:
Yet since both that locality and that function of enlightenment do according to the prophecy have their bearing upon Christ, we at once begin to discern that it was he of whom the prophecy was made, when he makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them.b For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation. But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping,4 a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity?
This is Matthew chapter 5 followed by Matthew chapter 15. Why is this material here? Chapter 15 is a long ways from the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke. The answer is the Gospel Harmony of Ephrem where this material from chapter 15 is placed in same section from Luke 4 - chapter 5. What does this mean?

Let's suppose that we don't know the answer. The one thing we do know is that Against Marcion is not a straight forward examination of Luke and Marcion's gospel. This fits with what we are told in the beginning - in the incipit - where the text is said to have been written and rewritten three times with more than one author. This fits the general pattern in Tertullian. He plagiarized. But more importantly one of the layers used an Eastern Gospel Harmony.
Post Reply