Page 3 of 5

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:21 pm
by Secret Alias
And then you look at the last scriptural citation in the opening chapter of Adversus Marcionem there is the most forced 'anti-Marcionite' scripture of them all:
Adversus Marcionem 4.1 Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he says: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering" ----meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience,----it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety.
How on earth is Malachi 1 used against Marcion? Here is how Justin used the scripture:
Dialogue 138 - Justin: Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.' Malachi 1:10-12 Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place.
In my opinion the fact that the cited passage from Malachi has nothing at all to do with the main argument of introduction - i.e. that the Marcionites are condemned for holding two powers in heaven - fits a general pattern where 'stuff' from Justin was just stuffed into the anti-Marcionite introduction for reasons that don't immediately seem clear.

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:37 pm
by Secret Alias
Indeed look at the long introduction of Adversus Marcionem Book 4 and the 'clump' of scriptural citations drawn from Justin and ask yourself why was it necessary for the author to do this? How do any of the citations help introduce the work to the reader? I've highlighted what I consider to be the main argument of the author and left the scriptural citations alone just so the reader can see what I mean:
Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods----one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses." These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. And indeed I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator, and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. Long ago11 did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem"12 ----some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, "He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; "13 meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, "they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks; "14 that is to say, minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions productive of good fruit. [5] And again: "Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and my judgment for a light to the nations; "15 wherefore He had determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to David also) is unblameable, because "perfect, converting the soul"16 from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same Isaiah says, "For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land."17 [6] Because the New Testament is compendiously short,18 and freed from the minute and perplexing19 burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and clearly than the light itself? "Remember not the former things, neither consider the things of old" (the old things have passed away, and new things are arising). "Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring forth."20 So by Jeremiah: "Break up for yourselves new pastures,21 and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart."22 And in another passage: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt."23 [7] He thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: "Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you," adding "the sure mercies of David,"24 in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary, He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse.26 Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he says: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering" ----meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience,----it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety. For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which is not contrary.28 Of that very thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise. Why, in your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator's prejudice those examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and affections? "I will wound," He says, "and I will heal; ""I will kill," He says again, "and I will make alive" ----even the same "who createth evil and maketh peace; " from which you are used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact that the world, at all events, even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another. It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans exist in the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.
It is a most baffling situation. The author doesn't really attack Marcion but his (alleged) association with a document identified as 'the Antitheses.' In order to make his case - strangely - he takes a number of citations from Justin which were used to demonstrate that the religion of the Jews had come to an end - a very Marcionite point!

How on earth don't people see that Justin - rather than Marcion - and his anti-Jewish message which is the real object of Adversus Marcionem's anger?

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:56 pm
by Secret Alias
Compare what Adversus Marcionem does with Isaiah 2:
Long ago did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" ----some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, "He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people" meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. [Adversus Marcionem 4.1]
with what Justin said originally:
Now, sirs, it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion (Isaiah 2.3). Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone; Joshua 5:2; Isaiah 26:2-3 that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. 'For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;' Isaiah 65:1-3 He exclaims by Isaiah: 'I said, Behold Me, unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good, but after their own sins. It is a people that provokes Me to my face.' Isaiah 65:1-3 [Dialogue 24]
It's so obvious when you look at this - 'Against Marcion' is really 'Against Justin' and it all makes sense when you really think about it. Justin is clearly a 'two powers' guy and the author of the anti-Marcionite treatise - like Trypho - is really opposed to the idea of two powers. Why then doesn't the author tell the truth? Why doesn't he condemn Justin? Why does Irenaeus pretend that Justin was really 'against Marcion' like him?

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:12 am
by Secret Alias
Indeed look at exactly what the author of Adversus Marcionem accuses 'Marcion' of in the first words of the fourth book. One of the problems is the language of the author. It's very 'complex' (to put it mildly). Let's break it down:
Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own.
= Marcion made the commonly shared gospel his (suum fecit) by means of interpolation (interpolando)
Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses.
this is a very, very complicated sentence filled with a number of ideas and concepts which are difficult to absorb:

= in order to actually build up acceptance of this gospel Marcion devised for it as a kind of dowry, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition (ex contrarietatum oppositionibus), for this reason given the name (cognominatum) Antitheses

and

= (this work was) compiled with a view to such a severance (separationem) of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, no, diverse, gods one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses."

This is a very confusing section of text because - not only is this a long run on sentence - it is not clear whether it is Marcion or the author who entitles this work 'Antitheses.' But the sense is that there is another work which was used to explain the corrupt gospel. The two inferences this 'Antitheses' hoped to make clear for the reader are both present in Justin's works (i.e. that the gospel is the end of the law and the existence of two powers in heaven) but Justin never says Jesus is 'the god of the gospel but not the Law.' I do not believe the Marcionites ever made this distinction either and the appropriation of material from Justin into the work later supports this contention. This seems to have been an invention of the author - i.e. an exaggeration to obscure the real 'heresy' of the group, to make it seem less reasonable.
Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim,1 even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion
This is particularly difficult to understand. According to the author Marcion (a) 'interpolated' things into a commonly held gospel AND (b) wrote a work entitled 'the Antitheses.' The gospel on its own does not seem to support the claims of a separation between the law and gospel and further more two powers associated with each. This was accomplished through the Antitheses. How unusual then that the author would proceed to attack only the gospel and then the Pauline letters (something which isn't even mentioned here).

My solution is that the Pauline letters in an earlier form were arranged not into a number of letters (as we have them now) but in the form of a single 'antithetical' commentary. This is the only solution I can find for this original mention of Gospel + Antitheses and then the two part work ignores the Antitheses altogether and proceeds to deal with Gospel + Pauline letters.
So then I do admit that there was a different arrangement (ordinem) followed in the old dispensation under the Creator, from that in the new dispensation under Christ.
The idea that 'arrangement' (ordinem) is the difference between old and new is the understatement of the year. Ordinem is an important word for the author of the text. He stress that he follows the correct 'ordinem' in his approach to the gospel, the correct 'ordinem' of time from the beginning of the church. διαδοχή is an Irenaean concern and it is clear IMO that he is the author. The original word here is διαδοχή.
I do not deny a difference in records of things spoken, in precepts for good behaviour, and in rules of law, provided that all these differences have reference to one and the same God, that God by whom it is acknowledged that they were ordained and also foretold.
It is at this point that all the anti-Jewish material of Justin is presented back to back - as if it were an argument now for the existence of harmony between the law and gospel and one god rather than two. It would appear that Irenaeus originally attacked Justin's beliefs but ascribed all the offensive material to Marcion.

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:26 am
by Secret Alias
On these diadoche based arguments against Marcion deriving ultimately from Irenaeus see Lieu:
As the scene develops, Adamantius continues to force upon Megethius the label 'Marcionite', while the latter consistently resists this, refusing, when invited, to rank Marcion higher than Paul, and conceding only that 'Marcion was my bishop'. This for Adamantius is admission enough, introducing a succession (διαδοχή) not of bishops but of 'false bishops', going back to the artificer of schism (ὁ σχισματοποιός), Marcion' (16.16–18.2 [1.8]). Self-evidently it would be mistaken to draw a historical conclusion from this, namely that Marcion himself instituted a parallel church order; rather, the polemical strategy that originates with Irenaeus of asserting unbroken tradition has been clothed in the institutional form of contemporary politics in a new context. (p. 119)
So it was Irenaeus who said that the difference between the heretical churches and the Catholic ones comes down to διαδοχή. Clearly he too argued that the only difference between Old and New Testaments was διαδοχή - the argument now found in Tertullian's Latin translation as 'ordinem.' Elsewhere he speaks of the 'one blood' of all humanity in Adam, and his mention here of the 'transmission' (διαδοχή/successio) of human fleshly nature throughout the generations. Why the obsession with διαδοχή?

The concern comes up in philosophy where the heads of the schools were called 'successors' (διάδοχοι): they stood in a line of succession stretching back to the founder of the school, and the process of 'handing over' (παράδοσις/παραδίδωμι) the teaching and 'receiving' it (παράληψσις/παραλαμβάνω), were thought to guarantee that one could control the consistency of current teaching with the teaching of the school's founder. Of course the irony here was that Irenaeus was doing the exact opposite - he was taking Justin's words out of context and then using them to argue for the exact opposite purpose that Justin originally intended while claiming Justin as an ally. The diabolic nature of this sort of false 'centonizing' of Justin's writings is baffling to the mind. Irenaeus couldn't have really believed in Christian truth. He was only interested in arranging it according to a specific rigid assumption already mentioned.

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:32 am
by Secret Alias
It's one thing to take a bunch of musical sound bytes from your favorite artist and create a 'fan page' faithful to the original artists. It is another thing to take those same 'snippits' and rearrange them into a whole which absolutely rejected his artistic vision. How someone could have used Justin to support a position which went against Justin's beliefs is a massive mind-bender. Why Justin? Could it be that Justin really did write to the Emperor, that he attracted attention to Christianity and in the process himself? His works seemed to have been available to Celsus. Could they have been stored in the public library system? Is this why Justin was taken over and falsely appropriated? Even so, why attribute the 'bad arguments' to Marcion? Where did this concern come from?

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:38 am
by Secret Alias
These concerns with 'succession' come up throughout the history of philosophy. Marinus tells the story about Proclus
“For in order that the succession from Plato [ἡ Πλάτωνος διαδοχή] might be preserved without adulteration or impurity, the gods were leading him towards the custodian of philosophy.”
I think there is a high probability that Irenaeus had a philosophical background and that his concern with 'heresy' is another sign of that. Note how this concern was passed onto Eusebius:
Numenius had lamented the Academics' corruption of Plato's original διαδοχή, while the recovery of this true διαδοχή had been the ongoing project of Porphyry. Eusebius, indeed, offers in his work an alternative διαδοχή, that of the successors ofJesus Christ. Like Porphyry's Philosophical History, which traced the transmission of philosophy from Pythagoras to Plato within the larger context of Greek history and culture, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius traces the spread and transmission of true wisdom and its renewed revelation by the incarnate Word up to Eusebius's time. Entrusted from one generation to the next by bishops, teachers, and martyrs, Eusebius offers an account of uncompromised transmission of wisdom within the structures of the apostolic churches, despite the internal and external threats that assailed them (p. 192)
But where did this obsession originally come from? The answer must be that Christianity began as a clandestine movement and so lacked the orderly development - perhaps even had none to speak of originally.

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:39 am
by Secret Alias
The casting of the 'heresies' as sects of philosophy has always puzzled me. Surely this is at odds with any notion of 'primitive Christianity.' Of course this is precisely what modern commentators do - they say Irenaeus's Church was the 'primitive Church' fighting against the corruption of Christianity by various 'sects.' But that is not entirely accurate. Irenaeus's repeated stress on the διαδοχή of the true Church implies that it too was a kind of philosophical tradition. The emphasis that Justin Martyr was one of its leading members and Justin being a philosopher also supports this view. But most importantly, the constant emphasis on the monarchia of God is puzzling and ultimately incompatible with seeing the movement as merely a 'simple faith.' The idea seems to be:

1. Israel was always rooted in a 'faith' in a single power
2. Jesus came to spread that understanding to all people after the rejection of the Jews
3. the patriarchs, prophets and later the apostles and bishops represent an unbroken διαδοχή of the original faith in the monarchia of God

While it is true that Irenaeus speaks of illiterate barbarians holding this same 'faith' the heads of the church are nevertheless properly described in philosophical terms as the 'successors' διάδοχοι of the original doctrine.

What is so difficult about this identification of Christianity as a philosophical tradition is that it seems those who follow Irenaeus want it both ways. On the one hand when it suits them the Church is a 'philosophy' on the other hand it is the bad 'heretics' who have corrupted the original simplicity of the 'primitive Church.'

I think we suffer from this two-dimensional thinking when we assume that Irenaeus's Church was the continuation of the primitive Church. Irenaeus's battles with the heresies is very much a fight over who preserved the 'true διαδοχή' of Jesus, Jesus being defined at once as a man and a God.

I am not sure the Marcionites considered themselves to be a 'philosophy.' This undoubtedly goes to the heart of the curious statement in the Dialogue of Adamantius:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... on&f=false

It occurs in the very discussion where Lieu notes Adamantius has an Irenaean obsession with διαδοχή. I read the passage as saying the Marcionites saw the obsession with διαδοχή as a sign that it was the orthodox who were the philosophers. Perhaps Irenaeus developed this line of attack against the Valentinians specifically. However I am not sure that the Marcionites saw themselves as a 'philosophical sect' or Christianity as a 'philosophy' per se. I am not sure that Jews understood Moses and the patriarchs and prophets - or even their own religion - to be properly defined as a 'philosophy.' This may well have occurred late in the second century for reasons I can't very well fathom.

But the underlying 'take away' here is that the 'other' Christian traditions are 'heresies' per se because the Catholic Church represents the true philosophical διαδοχή of Israel. It would be interesting to see where this idea emerged in history? I know Josephus speaks about the various Jewish traditions as 'philosophies.' But is this identification coupled by the labeling of the Sadducees and the Essenes as 'heresies'? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong. What about Philo? Does he speak of the Jewish religion as a philosophy? Moses as Plato's ideal 'philosopher king' yes. What what about Judaism as a philosophical διαδοχή?

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:53 am
by Secret Alias
No Philo thinks of philosophy being compatible with oracular revelation but the Jewish religion is the latter and not the former:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qIto2 ... 22&f=false

The idea that Judaism = philosophy does not derive from Philo directly.

Re: Adv Marc Books 4 and Five and Justin Martyr

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:13 am
by Secret Alias
It seems to have been Clement of Alexandria who transformed Philo's ideas into 'the true philosophy.' See Osborne From Divine Oracles to True Philosophy:

https://books.google.com/books?id=TxU_w ... hy&f=false

All of which seems to assume that Irenaeus took matters one step further. If Clement's positioning of Christianity as the continuation of the 'true philosophy' which started with Moses and the patriarchs then the question becomes who preserved the true διαδοχή? I can't help but think that here and elsewhere Irenaeus is attacking Clement by means of Justin.