Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The basic problem we have is Christian texts appear in the mid-2nd century,

We don't know when the Christian texts appeared any more than the number of lovers my grandmother had. If we are going to be honest and fair we can't just throw out claims to know things that are insoluble.

a division [into] two distinct camps, over this very issue of the Jewish God and the unknown supreme God.

Is it a divide between two camps allied to one of two gods or is the division more sophisticated. For instance the unquestioned assumption among traditional scholars is that Jews were monotheists so there is A/ONE 'god of the Jews' juxtaposed against A/ONE 'god of Marcion.' According to Tertullian the Marcionites disparaged THE 'god of the Jews,' 'THE god of the Jews' because the Jews were as a block monotheistic.

Leaving aside the folly of this claim (namely that the Book of Exodus in its original form makes explicit TWO gods, one on Sinai and another speaking from heaven) and the fact that Jews and Samaritans knew that there were two gods of Israel not one let's acknowledge that Justin argues for the same existence of two gods of Israel. Irenaeus twists Justin into a herald for his notion of the 'true faith' = an absolute monism - but this is garbage. Irenaeus is also the source of the claim that the Marcionites were dualists (albeit not dualists in the manner we commonly associate with Marcion).

If Justin's circle were proponents of the same binary godhead and their gospel was very similar to the Marcionites then surely their binary godhead might also have been roughly similar. Tertullian's main charge (undoubtedly inherited from Irenaeus) is that the Marcionites are loathsome because they add another god beyond the Creator and say that he is absolutely good and supreme. I am not so sure this was that different from what Justin said in private. the differences between the circle of Justin and the circle of Marcion were less pronounced that their general similarities.

Barnabas is not part of the Marcionite text in verse 2:13

But surely the original texts of documents like the Epistle of Barnabas were not preserved. The texts were expanded and edited and reworked over and over again - like Adversus Marcionem. It's like - to borrow from Heraclitus- walking in a river expecting to find all the same fish there each time you walk. If you are going to be honest in this business you will have to admit the whole picture is going to be insoluble. It's the most annoying thing about scholarship - very insecure people who have a hard time dealing with reality. We aren't going to get an exact 'snap shot' of the Marcionite gospel or the harmony gospel of Justin. Time to grow some balls and deal with it.

How do we bridge back to the Jewish when the Marcionite Paul champions himself as a Gentile and the movement as not Jewish?

This has nothing to do with the current investigation. More like a revisiting of past statements I've made that you disagreed with.

Now when you argue that the church fathers, from this Judiazing wing of Christianity

I have simply argued time and again that the assumption that there was such a thing called 'THE (i.e. A/ONE) god of the Jews' lurks behind all the assumptions that have governed the study of Marcion since the beginning. THIS notion of yours [i.e. that there was 'THE (i.e. A/ONE) god of the Jews'] is actually derived from the Church Fathers and Irenaeus in particular. It is not a scientific or accurate claim about what ALL JEWS believed in the period. It's a stupid belief and a stupid claim given that the original text of Exodus found at Qumran, the Samaritans and the circle of R Ishmael (= the Sadducees) makes it explicit that Jews and Samaritans venerated two gods. Once you get out from beyond this stupidity the whole EITHER/OR at the heart of Irenaeus's argument is dismantled.

Justin was maybe arguing with one sort of Jew in the Dialogue but Trypho wasn't the prototype of ALL Jews or the text of the Dialogue was created out of bits and pieces of Justin's pre-existent works (like De Recta in Deum Fide comes from earlier source material). Justin was influenced by the kind of Jews (and more likely Samaritans) who venerated two gods. There was Jesus the god who met the Patriarchs and a superior God, the Father who didn't meet the Patriarchs. Irenaeus (via Adversus Marcionem) accuses Marcion of believing in a similar understanding of the godhead only he portrays this distinction between a supreme God and Jesus as being an innovation which came out of Marcion's own imagination. The god good is the Father (Mark 10). Jesus is another god and thus a second god whom the author of Adversus Marcionem repeatedly identifies with the Creator. Could Jesus have been a repentant Creator who kills himself out of regret for making the world and humanity? This is only one of many possibilities but Jesus is not the Good god. The Father is.

But back to your original point. So there wasn't a 'Judaizing wing of Christianity' only a monarchian wing which is presumed to be 'Jewish' or 'Judaism' per se because all Jews and all Jewish sects venerated only one God. Again it's time for everyone to grow up and learn something about the underlying forces that were reshaping both Judaism and Samaritanism and Christianity in the period.

My guess is that the Roman government encouraged Jews, Samaritans and Christians to abandon acknowledging what the text of Exodus explicitly said - namely that there were two powers in heaven. With the Jews R Judah haNasi was the traitor. With the Samaritans there was mass persecutions and prolonged misery until they adhered to venerating the heavenly monarchia (cf. Abu'l Fath's testimony much discussed at this forum). With the Christians there were mass persecutions and the extinction of the Marcionites among other sectarian groups.

The Imperial government didn't 'make' Christianity Jewish. Rather the Jews were the first group from Palestine to incorporate the Imperially sanctioned cult of heavenly monarchia (with a single all powerful Cosmocrator) in their traditionally binary religious form. The Christians were second and the Samaritans last. Hence the Samaritans suffered the most.

Exodus (especially in its original form preserved among the Samaritans and in fragments at Qumran) can't be read 'monotheistically.' Anyone who tells you there is one god of Israel is not reading what the text says. There was one god on the mountain and another speaking from heaven. What a coincidence that all three monotheistic faiths came to accept an impossible interpretation of the same text.

Secret Alias wrote:

a division [into] two distinct camps, over this very issue of the Jewish God and the unknown supreme God.

Is it a divide between two camps allied to one of two gods or is the division more sophisticated. For instance the unquestioned assumption among traditional scholars is that Jews were monotheists so there is A/ONE 'god of the Jews' juxtaposed against A/ONE 'god of Marcion.' According to Tertullian the Marcionites disparaged THE 'god of the Jews,' 'THE god of the Jews' because the Jews were as a block monotheistic.

Leaving aside the folly of this claim (namely that the Book of Exodus in its original form makes explicit TWO gods, one on Sinai and another speaking from heaven) and the fact that Jews and Samaritans knew that there were two gods of Israel not one let's acknowledge that Justin argues for the same existence of two gods of Israel. Irenaeus twists Justin into a herald for his notion of the 'true faith' = an absolute monism - but this is garbage. Irenaeus is also the source of the claim that the Marcionites were dualists (albeit not dualists in the manner we commonly associate with Marcion).

If Justin's circle were proponents of the same binary godhead and their gospel was very similar to the Marcionites then surely their binary godhead might also have been roughly similar. Tertullian's main charge (undoubtedly inherited from Irenaeus) is that the Marcionites are loathsome because they add another god beyond the Creator and say that he is absolutely good and supreme. I am not so sure this was that different from what Justin said in private. the differences between the circle of Justin and the circle of Marcion were less pronounced that their general similarities.

Justin is at least mid-3rd century compilation. We break down in communication every time you try to use him as authoritative.

Two camps are pretty straight forward:

1. Heretical (Marcionism is a subset of this camp, not the camp inclusive)
2. proto-Orthodox (includes a range of views about Christ and creation)

The basic point of division is not one, two or three or fifty Gods, but rather the assignment of properties to various Gods.

Fundamentally you fall in the heretical camp if the property of Creation and Justice do not belong to the High God. Since the creation is ascribed by all to the Law (f Moses) giving God, that means the Law and Prophets belong to the God of creation. Everything else derives from these points. Creeds, which are political statements that define what your camp can pledge to which another cannot (they are meant to delineate and differentiate, not include and unify) were derived from these difference as well.

It is not a binary division, rather a sliding scale. various teachers placed various attributes on one or the other of the Gods and demigods (or sometimes angels or archangels). But the basic dividing line was whether the Creator was the high God also. Both camps claimed the High God was the father of Christ. It was only the properties that differed.

The Pauline collection as best we can reconstruct it in Marcionite form, is not the product of a single sect, rather from a variety of subtly differing heretical sects. In this sense the concept of "Pauline school" applies, a variety of tracts and positions are presented, with varying degrees of acceptance of the OT for example, and varying opinions of the Creator (ranging from a basically benign Judicial God to the lying devil). The only certain fully Marcionite letter is Galatians, which was probably the lats one written, after the rise of the proto-orthodox counter mission complete with their own Gospel (IMHO a version of Matthew). The diversity of the Pauline collection even in Marcionite form is an indication of a long gestation period prior to publishing.

My basic view is the NT came about because of the evangelism of Marcion, the need for a material to spread his doctrine. This gave his apostles a decided advantage over other sects and especially the proto-orthodox. The Proto-Orthodox initially countered with the OT exegesis alone, but found they needed their own Gospel. Matthew fits that need better than any other. Everything was thus in reaction to the first published Gospel.

But in this scenario the camps existed and had begun their polemic debate before the publishing of any NT books in any form. The debate was not fixed from day one, but evolved. One side would come up with a position, and perhaps a written scripture to back up their position, and the other would counter based on that argument. For example, the 2nd or 3rd generation Marcionite teacher Apelles argued that Jesus flesh was borrowed from the elements as he passed down from the pleroma - a position Marcion never bothered with, and only had need when the proto-orthodox attacks had impact about Jesus having flesh, such as when he ate fish in Luke 24; prior to that argument there was no need to develop such a theory. You can explain nearly every NT position based on countering some polemic by one side or the other. By the time you get to the church father writings this process has gone on for a few generations and inconsistencies abound on all sides. Creeds, rituals, and traditions are created and developed to buttress each sect.

The Decian and the Diocletian persecutions were real and documented, including mundane items like raids on specific buildings and items confiscated. That basically no copies of anything prior to these events survived is testament to Roman thoroughness. It also contributes to the gaps in the text types and variants, such that we probably are stuck with many variants because non-interpolated texts ceased to exist. The same is true of Church fathers from prior to these events. Put bluntly we are looking into a spotty record before the 4th century, and very spotty before the 3rd, and likely nothing at all before the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Look at chapter 5 of Matthew and it's clear two camps are present. Look at Galatians and it's clear two camps exist. The Gospel of John chapter 8 barely hides the identity of the proto-orthodox as the Jews. This would have been obvious to anyone in the later half of the 2nd century (John I am convinced was written to counter Matthew, likely from a Valentinian splinter early on a trajectory toward what look like Bardaisan type beliefs).

This is where you go most astray for me, instead of looking at the internal Christian debate to explain items, you ignore the immediate situation and peek back into a dark past where anything can be made up to get to the present situation of the text. Context become whatever your decoder ring magically allows you to interpret. (Again your church father theories break down for similar reasons).

I think I covered too many points, far too shallow. But it was not meant as a systemic defense in depth of my views, rather a quick survey - no doubt with some holes -, so that you could understand the basic perspective I have and the resulting problems I see in your approach. Your positions are more supplementary than primary, based as they are on the derivatives. This is a statement of perspective, I'm not debating here.

Two camps are pretty straight forward:

I don't agree with this statement. In life things can be made simple and straight forward. But it is another matter when we try to get into the head of the writer. What is he really saying? What do you think is the underlying complaint against 'Marcion' in Book 1 of Adversus Marcionem? I have read this book over and over again. More times than I care to remember. The best summary of the main point of the author - his thesis - is that the Marcionites are to be condemned for having another god beside the one true god of the universe. A god who is independent of some divine monarchy, a unity of being, in the heavens. The author simply starts with monarchia as the beginning and end of god. There is no 'other god.' But this doesn't mean that the Marcionites exclusively venerated 'their god.' In fact we know from good sources that they held the existence of a tripartite godhead which wasn't absolutely unified. While you will throw back the argument that these sources are 'late.' I will counter with evidence from Irenaeus and other early sources. But this digression isn't necessary right now. Your problem is that you read book as saying that the Marcionites didn't venerate a second god beside their 'other god' who is distinct from the Jewish god. Can you point to a passage which says that the Marcionites were monotheists or exclusively venerated their 'other god'? I can point to many passages which said they divided the one true god into two powers.

If my friend and I get into a heated debate about where we want to eat out for dinner and I am a Muslim. I say halal pizza. My friend says the rib place. I might find eating at the rib place to be abominable. My friend might like both halal pizza and ribs but like ribs better. You can't necessarily take the perspective of the Muslim and assume it applies to his friend.