The Reasons to Believe Some/Much of What the Church Fathers Report

[Secret Alias]

1. Irenaeus's report about the aeons of the Valentinians = stuff found at Nag Hammadi
2. the Philosophumena talks about the Marcosians reading about what Irenaeus wrote about them and complaining and the author admitting their complaints on the issue they raised - therefore (a) there were followers of Mark and (b) they read Irenaeus
3. Clement cites Marcosian material verbatim in Stromata 6 as true doctrine as such Irenaeus cites from real source material
4. things Eznik cites as "things Marcionites say" are echoed in early Armenian "orthodoxy"
5. the rampant plagiarism in early Patristic sources shows they used sources rather than had a natural gift for making up stuff
6. the Church Fathers show no signs of originality or creativity so they lack even the basic ability to make stuff up
7. the closest skill Irenaeus demonstrates which might resemble invention is when he develops a cento poem out of Homer (if it was his own handiwork). Still not a demonstration of true creativity.
8. their position is at war with creativity. The heretics are acknowledged to be more clever/original. They fight for what they argue is established doctrine. Creative people want freedom the ability to invent. They tend to recycle the same boring things and take it as a point of distinction that they have no originality
9. what establishes their doctrine is the "Old Testament." They argued the gospel and its interpretation has to be limited or restricted by what was predicted with respect to the coming Messiah by the Jewish writings. To do this they consulted arguments from what were "heretics" like Justin and Papias in order to see how Jesus was predicted by the "dominical logia" (cherry picking of course because there were a lot of stupid arguments) and limiting "the truth" or orthodoxy to the best arguments found in the early second century.

At the very least there is a predictability here which makes them useful sources on Christian antiquity. Better, more reliable than modern interpreters who are more like the heretics.

[robert j]

Did Marcion’s people in Pontus really cut-up their dead parents along with sheep to devour at their feasts? Was Marcion really fouler than any Scythian, more deceitful than the Ister, more savage than even the beasts, a monster who quenched the light of his faith and lost the God whom he had found?

I think most careful readers of today recognize that Tertullian was a douche-bag, and yes he really did sling all that mud and more in his opening passages of his Five Books Against Marcion.

As for Irenaeus, he did provide, for example, a lot of detailed information about the system of the Valentinians, though I suspect at the time there were various versions of Valentinian thought. We are fortunate for the Nag Hammadi cache to have extant examples of Valentinian oriented texts.

But for Marcion and the Marcionites, as well as for some others identified as heretics, we only have the polemics of the Church Fathers.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian accused Marcion of butchering the letters of Paul. That terminology in Tertullian was probably derived from Irenaeus. Did Marcion actually, physically, cut-out portions of the letters? Or was the accusation based upon selective use and alternate interpretations of the letters by the Marcionites?

Clement of Alexandria was a contemporary of Tertullian, and careful readers of Clement will readily observe that he absolutely adored Paul. Paul was his hero. Clement used mostly philosophical arguments when he argued against Marcion and other heretics, and he accused the heretics of selective use and interpretation of the writings. But in his eight long books of his Stromata and in his other extant texts, Clement never once accused Marcion or other heretics of editing or changing in any way the letters of his beloved Paul.

In his relatively recent and even-handed attempt to reconstruct Marcionite texts, BeDuhn reported that (The First New Testament, 2013) ---

As far as we can tell, the Marcionites read identical versions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians (“Laodiceans”), Philippians, and Philemon, while very minor differences affected their reading of Galatians …. (pp. 208-209)

BeDuhn explains the apparent discrepancies one might find when relying on the polemics of Tertullian and his ilk ---

Our ability to reconstruct the First New Testament is hampered by the nature of our sources, all of which are polemical attacks on Marcionite views written by leaders of other forms of Christianity. They make no attempt to quote every word of Marcion’s text, and even when they do quote, they do not do so exactly. Rather, they cite that which is relevant to their argument … (p. 34) (underlining mine)

To ignore the volumes of data found among the apologetics and the polemic arguments of the Church Fathers would of course be foolish. But finding some critical middle ground will continue to be elusive.

[Giuseppe]

To ignore the volumes of data found among the apologetics and the polemic arguments of the Church Fathers would of course be foolish. But finding some critical middle ground will continue to be elusive.

can we agree at least that Marcion and/or the Marcionites hated YHWH?

Only so I can explain all that embarrassment by Tertullian and co. There is no other way.

[mlinssen]

To ignore the volumes of data found among the apologetics and the polemic arguments of the Church Fathers would of course be foolish. But finding some critical middle ground will continue to be elusive.

can we agree at least that Marcion and/or the Marcionites hated YHWH?

Only so I can explain all that embarrassment by Tertullian and co. There is no other way.

There are thousands of possibly ways, Giuseppe.
But when I first looked at the sheer volume of anti-Marcionite writings I became immediately clear that the roles were reversed: this was not a bunch of dominant wolves closing in on one single person for centuries - this was countless packs of howling and whining hyenas losing ground, time after time, to one single steadfast movement.
The pain is so evident in their writings, the hurt - the knowledge that they are willing to say anything that needs to be to said; Justin Martyr accusing "Trypho" of getting Isaiah's parthenos wrong - that's all you need to know really, to know exactly what their business case is, how the situation is, and how far they are prepared to go

How can you not see that but instead focus on such incredibly irrelevant data as a supposed god in the supposed writings of Marcion?
Nothing what they say can be trusted - certainly not when you see that they disagree with each other on two thirds of all Marcionite material

[Secret Alias]

can we agree at least that Marcion and/or the Marcionites hated YHWH?

No. I don't know if any of you are married. I doubt many are. This is what I liken the "hatred" to be like. Let's say there's a couple. One loves Chinese food. The other is ok with it but not every special occasion. The one who loves it will make the indifference seem like dislike. Everything in life is context.

[Peter Kirby]

can we agree at least that Marcion and/or the Marcionites hated YHWH?

No. I don't know if any of you are married. I doubt many are. This is what I liken the "hatred" to be like. Let's say there's a couple. One loves Chinese food. The other is ok with it but not every special occasion. The one who loves it will make the indifference seem like dislike. Everything in life is context.

This analogy is too good. Please stop spying on us.

[MrMacSon]

4. things Eznik cites as "things Marcionites say" are echoed in early Armenian "orthodoxy"

What early Armenian orthodoxy? Could it have been influenced by Marcionism?

5. the rampant plagiarism in early Patristic sources shows they used sources rather than had a natural gift for making up stuff

They often rewrote sources for to benefit their bent

6. the Church Fathers show no signs of originality or creativity so they lack even the basic ability to make stuff up

Justin Martyr was quite creative, especially if he preceded or was contemporaneous with the writing or finalising of the gospels

[Giuseppe]

Nothing what they say can be trusted - certainly not when you see that they disagree with each other on two thirds of all Marcionite material

to use an analogy, I see the orthodoxy a woman who has been victim of a rape. The trauma she has received is so great, that she can't remember more her previous state of innocence. Everything is defiled, in her vision of herself, by the nocive effects of the received violence.

So a community that has invented "Jesus Barabbas" could only be a community that has been traumatized very a lot by the news about a Jesus Son of Unknown Father who had said: All who have come before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:8)

[mlinssen]

Nothing what they say can be trusted - certainly not when you see that they disagree with each other on two thirds of all Marcionite material

to use an analogy, I see the orthodoxy a woman who has been victim of a rape. The trauma she has received is so great, that she can't remember more her previous state of innocence. Everything is defiled, in her vision of herself, by the nocive effects of the received violence.

So a community that has invented "Jesus Barabbas" could only be a community that has been traumatized very a lot by the news about a Jesus Son of Unknown Father who had said: All who have come before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:8)

That is a very dangerous and inept analogy to use, especially given the fact that they're lying and cheating about basically everything: they most certainly are not a victim, but an abusive perpetrator themselves

Best compare it to the USA and Vietnam: even though the former were the most dominant and powerful party by far - on paper - they just kept losing. And the loss of face was something that drove them off the wall really

Only thing is that this time they did win, in the end, after many centuries

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus uses source material:

1. Clement's Stromata or the source behind it
2. Valentinian treatises(s)
3. Hegesippus
4. Papias
5. Justin

Not to mention his massive influence. How could an ancient witness like this be ignored?