What "Expertise" Can a Scholar of Marcionism Actually Have?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: What "Expertise" Can a Scholar of Marcionism Actually Have?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:36 amOne can have authority in the field of Patristics. But is it a straight line from "what the Church Fathers said about Marcion and Marcionism" to "what Marcionism actually is"? If so then why do the testimonies of the Church Fathers disagree?
I would assume that's the point Moll refers to. The explanation of Marcionism by scholars like Moll considers the time element. In most Marcionite scholarship, it's assumed that Marcionism changed radically throughout its centuries long existence. It started as a proto-gnostic sect of Christianity that did away with any Judaic elements, and quickly changed to a full blown Gnostic sect after the death of its founder, with their texts in constant flow, even in later centuries. Moll assumes that this development fully explains differences in patristic sources. I guess he at least expects an explanation why you think this model must be wrong.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: What "Expertise" Can a Scholar of Marcionism Actually Have?

Post by maryhelena »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:36 am To Mary

The thread asks how can one have or prove expertise without have corroborative evidence to check that expertise. Yes it is true that the writings of the Church Fathers exist. One can have authority in the field of Patristics. But is it a straight line from "what the Church Fathers said about Marcion and Marcionism" to "what Marcionism actually is"? If so then why do the testimonies of the Church Fathers disagree?

Most of the testimonies about Marcion and Marcionism focus on textual criticism. Why is that? Is it because the Marcionites were virtually indistinguishable from "regular" Christians?


No straight lines Stephan. Textual Criticism, in my view, is not able to answer questions of meaning or motive. It's all a jumple of words.. Who wrote what instead of the story the words are attempting to articulate. My focus is the story, the why of the story. Specific words might throw some light but words can also mislead. Yes, we have to speculate sometimes in order to push forward research. Ideas. heresy if you like, are evidence of a brain seeking answers.. Doubt becomes essential in the onward move to a better understanding.

The church fathers inherited a story. That they had a seizure over ideas they attributed to someone they called Marcion is interesting. Today, scholars are finding that the gospel attributed to Marcion is nothing to fight over..... arguing where to place it in relationship to the synoptic gospels is the scholarly interest. The story gets sidelined when words become a primary focus.

Yes, 'evil god' is just two words. But two words strong enough to scare the Christians of today just as they did the church fathers of yesteryear.

However, the evil god idea, and let's not forget that it's ideas we are dealing with, is a god from ancient of days. A god of many names. A principle that has, as it were, stalked the planet forever. Our job in this 21st century is to acknowledge that a negative dualism, as a principle of human nature, operates with value only within an intellectual, a spiritual, a philosophical context. That, I would suggest, was the very essence of christianity. - until those church fathers became heresy hunters. Up against a Jewish interpretation of Jewish history they failed to grasp the philosophy behind the story they inherited.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What "Expertise" Can a Scholar of Marcionism Actually Have?

Post by Secret Alias »

I like Ulan. You see I am not just some resentful son of a bitch who rails against authority. I recognize authoritativeness. Ulan gave a good response. I am happy. I don't study these things in order to "settle" them necessarily. I like the process of making sense of things. Do you get the difference? I am not begging for someone to take this mess that is early Christianity and "organize it" in a way that "corrects" everything. I accept the messiness because history is messy.
Post Reply