The Anti-Marcionite Prejudice of Scholars

[Secret Alias]

The idea that Chrestos has no relevance to the discussion of who Jesus was or what the gospel was is obviously really about keeping Marcion out of the religion. You can see it in members who participate at the forum. It reminds me of the Secret Mark discussions. The same people who say "it's not worthy to consider the legitimacy of the letter to Theodore" don't like this "kooky" idea either. "Everyone knows Jesus was the Christ, that he was a real person, that he was born in Nazareth etc etc." It's so fucking annoying. They want to limit the discussion of who or what Jesus is to the "facts" believed by their ancestors. I don't know whether they have limited mental capacity and CAN'T IMAGINE other possibilities other than "sanctioned truths" or whether they are just the kind of people who never stray from the path set by them when they were ten years old (I suspect the latter).

So we know the Marcionites called Jesus "Chrestos." Let's look at Tertullian's discussion of "Marcion's Christ" (undoubtedly a nomen sacrum in the original Greek of Irenaeus). In Book Four there is a clear notion of "Jewish messiah" versus "Chrestos" of Marcion. We read in chapter 7:

Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, sub illa utique condicione quae ex utraque parte condicta sit. Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum qui Tiberianis temporibus a deo quondam ignoto revelatus sit in salutem omnium gentium, alium qui a deo creatore in restitutionem Iudaici status sit destinatus quandoque venturus. Inter hos magnam et omnem differentiam scindit, quantam inter iustum et bonum, quantam inter legem et evangelium, quantam inter Iudaismum et Christianismum. Hinc erit et nostra praescriptio, qua defigimus nihil Christo dei alterius commune esse debere cum creatore, ceterum creatoris pronuntiandum si administraverit dispositiones eius, si impleverit prophetias eius, si adiuverit leges eius, si repraesentaverit promissiones eius, si restauraverit virtutes eius, si sententias reformaverit, si mores, si proprietates expresserit. Huius pacti et huius praescripti, quaeso te, lector, memineris ubique, et incipe recognoscere aut Marcionis Christum aut creatoris.

"This will be the intention and form of our little work, under the condition which has surely been agreed upon by both parties. Marcion established that there is another Christ, who in the times of Tiberius was once revealed by the unknown God for the salvation of all nations, and another who is destined by the creator God for the restoration of the Jewish state, to come at some point. He divides between them a great and complete difference, as much as between justice and goodness, between law and gospel, between Judaism and Christianity. Hence, our prescription will also be this, by which we assert that nothing should be common to [XC] of another god with the creator, yet the creator should be proclaimed if He has managed His arrangements, fulfilled His prophecies, aided His laws, represented His promises, restored His virtues, reformed His judgments, manners, or properties. Please remember this pact and prescription, reader, everywhere, and begin to recognize either Marcion's [XC] or the Creator."

It's hard not to want to punch these people in the face. What gives them the right to declare Marcionism as "illegitimate" and unworthy of serious consideration. Clearly the Marcionites juxtaposed their "Chrestos" against the royal messiah of the Jews. Why are the people dragging their feet about whether or not "Chrestos" has "legitimacy"? What is it some "atheist plot" to prove their mothers and fathers were losers? It is utterly impersonal. There was a sizable portion of earliest Christianity which assumed CORRECTLY that THE Messiah was a Jewish general who would conquer the world on behalf of Yahweh.

[Secret Alias]

It's just so fucking annoying that we can't even agree to allow Marcion a seat at the fucking table when we are discussing what a nomen sacrum read in full might mean:

Iam nunc et qua destructor creatoris nihil magis gestisset quam a spiritibus ipsius agnosci et divulgari prae timore; nisi quod Marcion deum suum timeri negat, defendens bonum non timeri, sed iudicem, apud quem sint materiae timoris, ira, saevitia, iudicia, vindicta, damnatio. Sed et daemonia timore utique cedebant. Ergo timendi dei filium confitebantur, occasionem habitura non cedendi, si non timendi: et ille iussu et increpitu ea expellens, non suasu qua bonus, timendum se exhibebat. [8] Aut numquid ideo increpabat quia timebatur, nolens timeri? Et quomodo ea volebat excedere, quod nisi timore non facerent? Cecidit ergo in necessitatem qua disparem se naturae suae ageret, cum posset ut bonus semel eis parcere.

Now, indeed, in that the destroyer of the Creator had nothing more to perform than to be recognized and divulged by his own spirits out of fear; except that Marcion denies that his god is to be feared, defending that only the good is not to be feared, but the judge, before whom are the subjects of fear: wrath, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But even the demons surely yielded to fear. Therefore, they confessed that the Son of God is to be feared, having an occasion not to yield, if not to fear; and by commanding and rebuking them, he showed himself to be feared, not by persuasion as a good person. Or was he reproving them because he was feared, unwilling to be feared? And how did he want them to depart from there, which they would not do unless from fear? Thus, he fell into a necessity where he acted differently from his nature, when he could have shown mercy to them as a good being.

And we don't even need a dictator to shut these university departments down. The universities are doing it themselves. They aren't really objective.

Nam et bonus, inquit, praeterea sciens omnem qui lepra esset liberatus solemnia legis executurum, ideo ita praecepit. [11] Quid tum? Perseveravitne in bonitate, id est permissione legis, an non? Si enim bonus perseveravit, nusquam4 destructor erit legis, nec dei alterius habebitur, cessante legis destructione per quam alterius dei vindicatur. [12] Si non perseveravit bonus, destruendo postea legem, falsum ergo testimonium postea collocavit apud illos in curatione leprosi; deseruit enim bonitatem, dum destruit legem. Malus iam quando legis eversor, si bonus cum legis indultor. Sed et eo quod indulsit legi obsequium, bonam legem confirmavit. Nemo enim malo obsequi patitur. [13] Ergo et sic malus, si obsequium malae legi indulsit, et sic deterior, si bonae legis destructor advenit. Proinde si ut sciens omnem qui lepra liberatus esset ita facturum ideo praecepit munus offerre, potuit et non praecepisse quod sciebat ultro futurum. In vanum ergo descendit quasi legem destructurus, cum cedit obsecutoribus legis. Atquin quasi sciens formam eorum magis ab ea avertendos praevenire debuerat, si in hoc venerat. Cur enim5 non tacuit, ut homo solo suo arbitrio legi obediret? Tunc enim aliquatenus posset videri patientiae suae praestitisse. [14] Sed adicit etiam auctoritatem suam exaggeratam testimonii pondere. Cuius iam testimonii, nisi legis assertae? Certe nihil interest quomodo firmaverit legem, sive qua bonus, sive qua supervacuus, sive qua patiens, sive qua inconstans, dum te, Marcion, de gradu pellam. Ecce praecepit legem impleri. [15] Quocunque modo praecepit, eodem potuit etiam illam praemisisse sententiam, Non veni legem dissolvere sed adimplere. Quid ergo tibi fuit de evangelio erasisse quod salvum est? Confessus es enira prae bonitate fecisse illum quod negas dixisse.

"For even the good," he says, "knowing furthermore that all who were freed from leprosy would fulfill the solemnities of the law, therefore he commanded thus." What then? Did he continue in goodness, that is, in permitting the law, or not? For if the good continued, nowhere will he be the destroyer of the law, nor will he be considered as another god, with the cessation of the destruction of the law by which another god is vindicated. If the good did not continue, by subsequently destroying the law, then he gave false testimony later among them in the healing of the leper; for he abandoned goodness when he destroyed the law. He is already evil when he overturns the law, if he is good while he indulges the law. But because he allowed obedience to the law, he confirmed the good law. For no one allows obedience to evil. Therefore, if he indulged obedience to an evil law, he is evil, and so worse, if he came as the destroyer of a good law. Consequently, if he commanded to offer the gift because he knew that all who were freed from leprosy would act accordingly, he could have also not commanded what he knew would happen voluntarily. Thus, he descended in vain as if he were going to destroy the law, when he yielded to the supporters of the law. But if he had come for this reason, he should have prevented them more from that course of action, as if knowing their disposition better. For why did he not remain silent, so that man might obey the law of his own accord? For then he could have somewhat shown his patience. But he also adds to the weight of his testimony his exaggerated authority. Whose testimony now, if not that of the asserted law? Certainly, it makes no difference how he established the law, whether as good, or as superfluous, or as patient, or as inconsistent, as long as I remove you from your position, Marcion. Behold, he commanded the law to be fulfilled. However he commanded, he could have also prefaced that sentence, 'I did not come to dissolve the law but to fulfill it.' What, then, was your reason for erasing from the Gospel what is salvific? For you have confessed that he did what you deny he said, out of goodness."

[Secret Alias]

Are the humanities so debased that a group of inner "elites" can just ignore one piece of the puzzle of early Christianity? This is what DEI departments are accused of by MAGA people. But what MAGA people don't realize is that the entire humanities has this weird habit of "delegitimizing" opinions they don't like. So with the case of whether the nomen sacrum XC COULD be Chrestos.

Sed quoniam discipulos non constanter tuebatur, sed excusat, quoniam humanam opponit necessitatem quasi deprecatricem, quoniam potiorem honorem sabbati servat non contristandi quam vacandi, quoniam David comitesque eius cum discipulis suis aequat in culpa et in venia, quoniam placet illi quia creator indulsit, quoniam de exemplo eius et ipse tam bonus est, ideo alienus est a creatore?

But since he did not consistently defend his disciples, but rather excuses them, since he sets forth human necessity as if it were an intercessor, since he observes the greater honor of the Sabbath not to be violated rather than to be rested, since he equates David and his companions with his disciples in both fault and pardon, since he is pleased because the Creator has indulged, since he himself is so good from his example, is he therefore alienated from the Creator?

These fucking pieces of shit won't even ALLOW for the possibility that Marcion read the gospel in a particular way. Is it by rational argument? No it is simply by burying their heads in the sand and "not being persuaded" by whatever the other side says. Like their pouting is a fucking rational argument.

Quasi non creatori competat, qua utrumque praestanti, et bonum deum et iudicem, ut quia praemiserat in benedictionibus benignitatem, subiceret etiam in maledictionibus severitatem, amplitudinem disciplinae utriusque instruendae, tam ad benedictionem sectandam quam ad maledictionem praecavendam. [5] Nam et ita praemiserat: Ecce posui ante vos benedictionem et maledictionem: quod etiam in hanc evangelii dispositionem portendebat. Alioquin qualis est ille qui, ut suam insinuaret bonitatem, creatoris opposuit asperitatem? Infirma commendatio est quae de alterius destructione fulcitur. [6] Atquin opponens asperitatem creatoris timendum eum confirmavit. Si timendum, magis utique obaudiendum quam neglegendum, et incipit iam Christus Marcionis creatori docere.

As if it were not fitting for the Creator, who excels in both, the good God and the judge, to precede with kindness in blessings, to also assert severity in curses, for the purpose of instructing the breadth of discipline in both, so that one may follow the path of blessing as well as guard against the curse. For indeed he had thus preceded: "Behold, I have set before you blessing and curse," which also portended this arrangement of the gospel. Otherwise, what sort of person is he who, to insinuate his own goodness, opposes the severity of the Creator? It is a weak commendation that relies on the destruction of another. But by opposing the severity of the Creator, he confirmed that he is to be feared. If he is to be feared, certainly he should be obeyed rather than ignored, and Christ of Marcion now begins to teach obedience to the Creator.

They seek to win debates through posturing as "the wise," "the calm," "the rational" but really their ulterior motives are to just "run out the clock" knowing that as long as no one ACTUALLY LOOKS what is written in works like Adversus Marcionem their Christ remains the Christ:

Si deo Marcionis adscribetur benedictio in mendicos, eiusdem imponetur et maledictio in divites, et erit par iam creatoris, tam bonus quam et iudex, nec erit iam discrimini locus quo duo dei fiunt,3 sublatoque discrimine supererit unum deum renuntiari creatorem.

If blessing is attributed to the god of Marcion for the poor, then the same curse will be imposed on the rich, and thus the god of Marcion will be equal to the Creator, both in goodness and in judgment, and there will no longer be a place for distinction where two gods are made; and with the distinction removed, there will remain only one God to be acknowledged, the Creator.

The idea that objective research into the truth is what defenders of the status quo are after is absolute garbage. They just like things a certain way. They aren't even interested in listening to what their own Church Fathers are saying about Marcion:

Nunc si qui voluerit argumentari creatorem quidem fratribus dari iussisse, Christum vero omnibus petentibus, ut hoc sit novum atque diversum, immo unum erit ex his per quae lex creatoris erit in Christo. Non enim aliud Christus in omnes praecepit quam quod creator in fratres. Nam etsi maior est bonitas quae operatur in extraneos, sed non prior ea quae ante deberet in proximos. [11] Quis enim poterit diligere extraneos? Quodsi secundus gradus bonitatis est in extraneos qui in proximos primus est, eiusdem erit secundus gradus cuius et primus, facilius quam ut eius sit secundus cuius non extitit3 primus. Ita creator et secundum naturae ordinem primum in proximos docuit benignitatem, emissurus eam postea in extraneos, et secundum rationem dispositionis suae primo in Iudaeos, postea et in omne hominum genus.

Now, if anyone wishes to argue that the Creator indeed commanded kindness to brothers, but Christ to all who ask, as if this were something new and different, in fact it will be one and the same of those by which the law of the Creator will be in Christ. For Christ commanded nothing different to all than what the Creator commanded to his brothers. For although the goodness which operates towards strangers is greater, it is not prior to that which ought to come first towards neighbors. For who indeed could love strangers? But if the second degree of goodness is towards strangers, while the first is towards neighbors, then the second degree will be of the same, whose first is also, more easily than it will be of one whose second has not been the first. Thus the Creator taught kindness first to neighbors according to the order of nature, intending to later extend it to strangers, and according to the plan of his arrangement, first to the Jews, and then to all mankind.

[Secret Alias]

It's exhausting to argue just to be heard. This is historical experience of the Jews in a white man's world. Like look at the Disputation at Barcelona. It wasn't a level playing field. It was like, you're lucky we just don't kill your Jew ass. I am serious. And people pretend that these patterns don't go on today. The idea that Peter and I have to ARGUE that Chrestos MIGHT be a possible reading of the nomen sacrum. He just plods along thinking that progress is possible. It's not possible. The people who persist in only reading the nomen sacrum as Christos know they have the advantage and they aren't even trying to listen to an alternative point of view.

I mean how much work has Peter done. And what's the reaction been from the people who persist on only reading the nomen sacrum as Chrestos. Mute. Just keep plodding along. Hoping that Peter stops investigating and moves on to another topic.

Surely, it is INTERESTING to introduce a new wrinkle to the study of nomina sacra. No? But it is ignored. Why? Because it challenges the presuppositions that many people have regarding "the preliminary studies already being settled." It's so FUCKING annoying. Having to BEG to get an audience. My people did this forever. "Hey Christians, maybe you might be interested in what we say about the messiah, given the fact that we invented the fucking terminology." Christians respond, "You didn't invent the terminology. The Messiah comes from God."

What do you do with this kind of obtuseness? The Messiah is whomever the Jews say he is. Just like the best hip hop music or urban music is rightly defined by "the streets." You know. It's not like God invented hip hop or messianic terminology. They were invented by specific cultures. But this persistence in making Christians having a say in Jewish terminology. Why? Why would not Aramaic and Hebrew speaking people have a say in a Hebrew terminology? It's baffling other than the fact that white people are both referees and players in the game. That's never good.

[Secret Alias]

BTW this section from Adversus Marcionem sounds suspiciously like Marcion held some version of Justin's two advent theory:

Ipsum decursum scripturae evangelicae ab interrogatione discipulorum usque ad parabolam fici ita invenies contextu sensus filio hominis hinc atque illinc adhaerere ut in illum compingat et tristia et laeta et concussiones et promissiones, nec possis separare ab illo alteram partem. [14] Unius enim filii hominis adventu constituto inter duos exitus concussionum et promissionum necesse est ad unum pertineant filium hominis et incommoda nationum et vota sanctorum, qui ita positus est in medio ut communis exitibus ambobus, alterum conclusurus adventu suo, id est incommoda nationum, alterum incipiens, id est vota sanctorum, ut, sive mei Christi concesseris adventum filii hominis, quo mala imminentia ei deputes [15] quae adventum eius antecedunt, cogaris etiam bona ei adscribere quae ab adventu eius oriuntur, sive tui malueris, quo bona ei adscribas quae ab adventu eius oriuntur, cogaris mala quoque ei deputare quae adventum eius antecedunt. Tam enim mala cohaerent adventui filii hominis antecedendo quam et bona subsequendo. Quaere igitur quem ex duobus Christis constituas in persona unius filii hominis in quam utraque dispositio referatur. Aut et creatorem optimum aut et deum tuum asperum dedisti natura. [16] In summa ipsius parabolae considera exemplum. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. Si enim fructificationes arbuscularum signum aestivo tempori praestant, antecedendo illud, proinde conflictationes orbis signum praenotant regni, praecedendo illud. Omne autem signum eius est <cuius et>8 res cuius est signum, et omni rei ab eo imponitur signum cuius est res.

You will find the course of the gospel scripture from the disciples' questioning to the parable of the fig tree in such a way that the context of the sense adheres to the Son of Man from here and there, so that it is woven into him, both the sorrows and joys, the upheavals and promises, and you cannot separate either part from him. For with the advent of one Son of Man established between two outcomes of shaking and promises, it is necessary that both the Son of Man and the troubles of the nations and the desires of the saints pertain to one. He is positioned in between in such a way that, common to both outcomes, his advent will conclude one, namely the troubles of the nations, and initiate the other, namely the desires of the saints. Thus, whether you grant the advent of the Son of Man who is mine, you are compelled to attribute to him the impending evils which precede his advent, as well as the goods arising from his advent. Or if you prefer yours, you are compelled to attribute to him the goods arising from his advent, as well as to reckon the evils which precede his advent. For as many evils adhere to the advent of the Son of Man by preceding as do goods by following. Therefore, consider which of the two Christs you establish in the person of the one Son of Man, to which both arrangements should be referred. Either you have attributed the best Creator or your own harsh god by nature. In summary, consider the example of the parable itself. Look at the fig tree and all the trees: when they have borne fruit, people understand that summer is near; likewise, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. For just as the fruitfulness of trees provides a sign of summer approaching, preceding it, similarly, the conflicts of the world foreshadow the sign of the kingdom, preceding it. However, every sign belongs to that of which it is a sign, and every thing is assigned a sign by that to which it belongs.

[Secret Alias]

But regarding this forum, Baley, there is a division between two main groups of participants. Those who want to keep the basic paradigm the same as what we inherited from our ancestors (the New Testament canon, the Church Fathers being "good guys" heretics ignorable "bad guys") and those who want to break new ground and not take anything for granted with respect to whom is telling the truth or who is bad. Unfortunately a lot of the latter people are crazy. That's just how it is. But in the former group they have topics which begin with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Pauline letters as inherited by the Church Fathers as basically "true" and then it's our job to work from these basic building blocks. That's fine I guess. But every once and while it is worth remembering that this is bullshit. It's like the Middle East situation. The Israelis want to start history from 1947. The Muslims from the Muslim conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries. I am sure the Greek Orthodox community wants to date things from before that. Where does the truth lie? This is for everyone to decide. But it has to be recognized that these debates inevitably end up with fist fights or worse because talking really doesn't solve anything if each party isn't listening to what the other side is saying.

[Secret Alias]

There seems to be a chrestos pun here in what survives of Irenaeus's anti-Marcionite treatise translated by Tertullian into Latin:

Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus vita ut bonus donatur, Christus vero iustissimus ut homicida morti expostulatur. Sed et duo scelesti circumfiguntur illi, ut inter iniquos scilicet deputaretur. Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum,1 Marcion abstulit, respiciens psalmi prophetiam: Dispertiti sibi sunt vestimenta mea, et in vestitum meum sortem miserunt.

Indeed, Barabbas, the most guilty, is granted life as if he were good, while [XC], the most just, is demanded for death as if he were a murderer. Moreover, two criminals are even placed beside him, so that he might be reckoned among the wicked. His clothing, indeed, was clearly divided by the soldiers, and part of it was granted by casting lots, which Marcion removed, considering the prophecy of the psalm: "They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."

You have to go back to Philo where the division of "mercy" and "justice" in the godhead has the Jewish Alexandrian refer to the god Chrestos. Marcionism is an extension of Alexandrian Judaism, just like Christianity.

[Baley]

I'm glad you elaborated on the reasons for your frustration, as the invectives and the threats do not contribute to the value of your arguments. Furthermore, yes, I can see how your quote could be explained as a pun on chrestos. Very interesting.

[Secret Alias]

Thank you. Mental instability and creativity. Thin line.

Here's another interesting one.

Quid enim tam malignum quam nolle prodesse cum possis, quam utilitatem cruciare, quam iniuriam sinere? Totum denique creatoris elogium in illum rescribetur qui saevitias eius bonitatis suae mora iuvit. Nam in cuius manu est quid ne fiat, eius iam deputatur cum fit. Homo damnatur in mortem ob unius arbusculae delibationem, et exinde proficiunt delicta cum poenis, et pereunt iam omnes qui paradisi nullum caespitem norunt. Et hoc melior aliqui deus aut nescit aut sustinet.6 Si ut ex hoc melior inveniretur quanto creator deterior haberetur,6 satis et in isto consilio malitiosus, qui et illum voluit oneratum, operationibus eius admissis, et saeculum in vexatione detinuit. Quid de tali medico iudicabis qui nutriat morbum mora praesidii et periculum extendat dilatione remedii, quo pretiosius aut famosius curet?

For what is more malicious than not wanting to help when you can, than to torment utility, than to allow injustice? Indeed, the entire praise of the Creator will be rewritten for someone who has aided in delaying His acts of kindness with acts of cruelty. For whoever has the power to prevent something from happening, is already considered responsible when it does. Man is condemned to death for the taste of a single little tree, and from there offenses proceed with punishments, and now all those who know nothing of the turf of paradise perish. And some better god either does not know or tolerate this. If, in order to find someone better from this, how much worse the Creator would be considered, there is enough malice even in that plan, which both wanted to burden Him and detained the age in vexation by allowing His actions, and allowed the age to linger in vexation. What judgment will you make of such a physician who nourishes illness by delaying aid and extends danger by delaying remedy, in order to treat it more expensively or famously?

Evans: For is there anything so malicious as to refuse to do good when you have the power, to put usefulness on the rack, to allow wrong to continue? Thus the whole indictment they bring against the Creator has to be transferred to the account of that one who, by this check on his own goodness, has become a party to the other's savageries. One in whose power it is to prevent a thing happening is held to blame for it when it does happen. Man is condemned to death for picking from one paltry tree, and out of that proceed sins with their penalties, and now people who have not known so much as one single sod of Paradise are all of them perishing: and a better god, if you please, is either unaware of this or puts up with it. If his intention was that out of this he himself might obtain a better repute the worse the Creator was supposed to be, even in this device he has displayed no little malice, in having tolerated the Creator's activities and kept the world in distress because he desired the Creator to be held to blame.

utilitatem cruciare = crucify utility?

[billd89]

You have to go back to Philo where the division of "mercy" and "justice" in the godhead has the Jewish Alexandrian refer to the god Chrestos. Marcionism is an extension of Alexandrian Judaism, just like Christianity.

This is a very intriguing claim, would you please elaborate? I understand the Two Powers division as 'Creation' and 'Justice' -- but I'd like more info on Creation = Mercy, or what have you.