The Results of Previous Studies of Marcion Are Worthless

[spin]

My point is simply - you haven't ever read Adversus Marcionem and thus don't realize how silly this whole "uncover Marcion's text of X" argument is.

My point is just as simple, you've shown regarding a few topics you're too biased to even read properly, let alone make intelligent assertions. You jump from one unfounded claim to the next without shame. This has gone on too long. Please leave alone anything I start—probably best if you left anything anyone starts—about Marcion. You will only fuck things up for everyone by dominating the subject through flooding threads with a sea of posts (usually lacking bibliography, to make them even more opaque) then go off in a huff as one can see in this thread. Outside of things Marcion and the rest of your related hobby horses, I'm sure you will continue to be a welcome contributor.

[Secret Alias]

So let me get this straight. You are in a better position to assess matters related to Adversus Marcionem because you have never read Adversus Marcionem. Interesting. What you have is a faith that the scholarship related to Marcion isn't a complete waste of time. That's not as crazy as it might sound. I have never published anything on Marcion. These other scholars certainly have. Moreover there is a tendency of amateur scholars to deride the learned whether out of bitterness, envy or whatever. So there is a danger that I am sounding alarm bells that don't exist.

Nevertheless I have read Adversus Marcionem more than any other book. I used to punish my son by making him read pages from the Dialogues of Adamantius. I've spent a lot of time on this stuff. That's why I recommend that you reorient your original thread to look at the apparatus by which the various authors have used to analyse Marcion. Once you do that you'll start to see that there is no controlled apparatus. It's all 'gut' - that is, the determining factor for whether a given passage is from Marcion or not is entirely subjective or non-existent - in other words every passage from a given NT text in Adversus Marcionem represents a 'hit' on the battleship of Marcion. Complete nonsense because it ignores the polemic nature of the original work - in other words, the author often times argues from HIS canon against Marcion. It also ignores the layered development of the current text which is explicitly attested in the introduction to be a three part composition. Sorry, I know too much.

[Secret Alias]

Mr Macson

What you have to understand about Adversus Marcionem that makes it such an odd text is that the author doesn't have a single 'thesis' and then the rest of the work unfolds according to the plan. There are at least two discernible 'theses' that form the backbone of the work. That's what makes the work so confusing and difficult to read.

Thesis 1 for Book 4 pops up in the first few lines that Marcion introduced:

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

There is in fact a few references to this idea of Marcion writing something called the 'Antitheses' (usually imagined to be a pamphlet of some sort that was 'nailed' (note the Protestant retrojection) to the front of the canon. Then a little later another thesis pops up:

Thesis 2 that:

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate

Scholars tend to treat this as a 'fact' rather than argument so they ignore the reality of the author introducing to competing theses in the first few lines of the book.

As it stands then you have to imagine that not only was there something called 'the Antitheses' which was written or invented by Marcion which has been lost to the sands of time but also that Marcion took Luke and transformed Luke into a gospel with no name by editorial excision. Is the gospel that Marcion 'edited' the very Antitheses mentioned in the first line? There is no answer for that. There is no explicit confirmation. Instead there is just this blanket statement regarding two 'literary acts' that Marcion perpetrated. So scholars generally take their starting point as being that the Marcionite canon was somehow made up of a letter or document posted to the front of a gospel. But it isn't that simple. The Antitheses could be the gospel or a part of the gospel, i.e. something that Marcion added to the gospel.

You'd expect that with this clumsy introduction that the work that follows would somehow follow from these two theses but this isn't the case either. What comes after is literally - at least at first blush - a section by section commentary on the gospel of Luke with an eye for correcting Marcion. Why is this odd? Because the principle mode of attacking isn't the citation of material that Marcion changed from Luke. No that would be too straightforward. The author as it stands spends most of his time citing passages from the Jewish Scriptures to demonstrate the proper context for understanding what is signified by Jesus's actions and statements. Indeed even though there are many references to the contents of Luke often times Matthew or some other gospel is mentioned and the strange charge that Marcion erased what was only said in Matthew from his gospel.

As many of you know Criddle and I take this to mean that the original gospel behind Adversus Marcionem wasn't Luke at all but a 'harmony' gospel (i.e. a single text with elements of Matthew and Luke and possibly Mark) fused together. Indeed scholars have long struggled over the 'Marcion cut Matthew' argument. If this is true then Thesis 2 is really a later addition to the work, a layer that was developed in the second or third generation 'mutation' of the original work. Indeed when we take a second look the pattern of arguing from the OT to properly contextualize Jesus's action and statements is the deeper stratum to the work. It seems particularly perplexing if, as is suggested by the introduction, the work is directed against Marcion (as Marcion is supposed to have argued that OT is bad or different from the NT).

What we have to see is that Thesis 1 is really a modification of the lost ur-Thesis to the entire work which is a running commentary on the proper manner of interpreting the gospel by means of the OT. Over time, the Marcionites became epitomized as the anti-OT party to the extent that an early commentary on how the 'harmony' gospel is properly contextualized in the OT became the basis for the most important anti-Marcionite polemic. In other words Thesis 1 is really a bending or manipulation of the original work. It isn't clear that the Marcionites actually denied the validity of the OT. This is a caricature of their original POV. At bottom though the ur-text of Adversus Marcionem must have been based on a harmony gospel which somehow resembled the gospel of the community of Marcion. Otherwise the development of such a strange thesis has no discernible sensibility.

So here is what I get from it all. The Marcionites must have argued that there were two powers. 'The god of the Jews' somehow inspired the OT. The Father however was superior to the god who inspired the OT. As such the gospel, which came from the Father, wasn't entirely 'in lockstep' with the OT. The revolution at the heart of the ur-text of Adversus Marcionem was that it systematically argued for the OT as the basis for the gospel. For some reason Marcion is eventually distinguished as putting forward two distinct powers one associated with the OT and the other associated with the NT and these two powers were mutually hostile powers. I doubt that this was the original Marcionite understanding. Instead I think that this was a caricature of their position. The stripping of nuance is the defining feature of caricature. A careful read of Adversus Marcionem demonstrates that the author is constantly engaged in such activity. He never cites Marcion directly. Why? The 'Marcion' of the text is a caricature of something, something which is forever removed from us.

The caricature of Marcion was introduced to the text in its second recension of the work (the original work being simply a commentary on the OT basis to the gospel). The third recension was the introduction of Luke as the gospel that was corrupted by Marcion by means of his Anitheses (which was introduced in the second version of the work). But the original work appears to be little more than a commentary on the OT basis to the gospel. When we turn to Book Five not surprisingly we find the consistent argument for the OT as the basis to the Pauline writings runs through that text too. Indeed there is also a 'Thesis 2' here as well - the argument that Paul had no other god but God the Creator. Again I think the original revolution at the heart of Adversus Marcionem was the thesis that the canon could be interpreted by means of the OT. This led to the second (monarchian) thesis but was independent of it. In short the original author accepted that there were two powers, like Justin because Justin was the original author of the treatise.

[Secret Alias]

And if 'Marcion' himself/itself was introduced into Irenaeus's revision of Hegesippus's original Outline (where 'Marcellina' originally stood as the person who came to Rome under Anicetus to spread division and hatred in the Church) we are even further removed from the original figure, the original understanding. The solution to everything of course would be if Hegesippus's original reference was to Marcia, the concubine of Commodus and this was changed into different 'deflections' of the original appellation of the historical 'female viper' - i.e. feminine diminutive of the Roman name Marcus. I know too little about what is possible with the construction of Greek hypocorisms (especially feminine ones). But just imagining things from 100,000 feet in the air it would explain everything if Hegesippus's reference was taken to be a disparaging reference to Marcia who had a great influence over the Church. Then Irenaeus, trying to flatter or disguise the hatred of the Church, transformed the name 'little Marcia' into a more obscure construct - Marcion. But again I have no idea what works or doesn't work with feminine hypocoristic constructions in Greek. It just helps explain why there is this strange 'flip flop' from Marcellina to Marcion from Hegesippus's text to Irenaeus's reference.

[spin]

So let me get this straight.

I really wish I could let you get it straight, but you are so messed up....

You are in a better position to assess matters related to Adversus Marcionem because you have never read Adversus Marcionem.

This is typical of you shooting off false assertions.

Interesting. What you have is a faith that the scholarship related to Marcion isn't a complete waste of time.

Another of these knee-jerk assertions.

That's not as crazy as it might sound.

What criteria are you able to muster for this assertion? And how much irony goes under your radar when you make it?

I have never published anything on Marcion. These other scholars certainly have. Moreover there is a tendency of amateur scholars to deride the learned whether out of bitterness, envy or whatever. So there is a danger that I am sounding alarm bells that don't exist.

Nevertheless I have read Adversus Marcionem more than any other book.

You need to widen your horizons.

I used to punish my son by making him read pages from the Dialogues of Adamantius.

That's just mean... if it were true.

I've spent a lot of time on this stuff.

I believe you. It's probably what causes your non-social reactions.

That's why I recommend that you reorient your original thread to look at the apparatus by which the various authors have used to analyse Marcion.

Here we are again. Trying to shape a discussion that was not really up to either of us to shape. You might have had your opportunity to provide your perspective, but youve proven incapable of rational discourse.

Once you do that you'll start to see that there is no controlled apparatus. It's all 'gut' - that is, the determining factor for whether a given passage is from Marcion or not is entirely subjective or non-existent - in other words every passage from a given NT text in Adversus Marcionem represents a 'hit' on the battleship of Marcion. Complete nonsense because it ignores the polemic nature of the original work - in other words, the author often times argues from HIS canon against Marcion.

Here is another example of you simply ignoring the OP that you've been bitching about. Here is what I said:

We have a partial text, extracted from a tendentious critic (Tertullian) whose aim is to quash Marcion's thought and activities. That text may not be a close reflection of Marcion, but a selective representation which allowed the critic to do his worst. Then again,... well... we just don't know.

It also ignores the layered development of the current text which is explicitly attested in the introduction to be a three part composition.

Had you been a reasonable participant, you might have been able to make a clear exposition of the idea of layered development so that it would have been of use to participants. But no, you chose petulance. (Incidentally, "layered development" is somewhat able to describe what I think is evident concerning the synoptic gospels.)

Sorry, I know too much.

You do know the problem of trees when you are standing in a forest trying to get a good view of it.

[Secret Alias]

Thank you for isolating the argument so we can examine it:

We have a partial text, extracted from a tendentious critic (Tertullian) whose aim is to quash Marcion's thought and activities. That text may not be a close reflection of Marcion, but a selective representation which allowed the critic to do his worst. Then again,... well... we just don't know.

Let's start with - do we have a partial text of Marcion's community? I say no. We don't have a partial text. I've read Book Five at least 50 times and I will say, we have a partial text belonging to the author or one of his predecessors and that author (either Tertullian or Irenaeus) out of which he makes arguments against Marcion. Not a partial Marcionite text here. The author presupposes that Marcion had Luke (in Book Four) and the orthodox Pauline canon (in Book Five) and argues that Marcion knows the truth but lies and misrepresents it through editorial falsification which is typical of Irenaeus's argumentation in Adversus Haereses. The prosecutor always extends his argument beyond what is factually provable in order to secure conviction. The author is not working from Marcion's text but his own, which he presumes is (a) Marcion's original and (b) alterations were made to Marcion's text to avoid the kinds of arguments being raised in the treatise. So again, I say the author is arguing from the 'true' text originally held in common with Marcion, not with Marcion's text.

The argument that we have a partial text extends only as far as the acceptance that Marcion falsified a true orthodox original. If you accept that then not just Tertullian (or Irenaeus) have a copy of Marcion's original text. We have access to it to in any translation of the existing New Testament canon and we too can see the text which Marcion reacted against with his falsehoods.

[Secret Alias]

Proof of that is that the author argues that Paul submitted to the authorities in Jerusalem. He doesn't say 'in Marcion's text' any more than he says it anywhere else in the treatise. Adversus Marcionem is one continuous drone where the author argues for Marcionite falsification from his own canon.

[spin]

Thank you for isolating the argument so we can examine it:

Actually, one would have thought that you'd already read the OP that you are whinging about. But no.

We have a partial text, extracted from a tendentious critic (Tertullian) whose aim is to quash Marcion's thought and activities. That text may not be a close reflection of Marcion, but a selective representation which allowed the critic to do his worst. Then again,... well... we just don't know.

Let's start with - do we have a partial text of Marcion's community? I say no. We don't have a partial text. I've read Book Five at least 50 times and I will say, we have a partial text belonging to the author or one of his predecessors and that author (either Tertullian or Irenaeus) out of which he makes arguments against Marcion. Not a partial Marcionite text here. The author presupposes that Marcion had Luke (in Book Four) and the orthodox Pauline canon (in Book Five) and argues that Marcion knows the truth but lies and misrepresents it through editorial falsification which is typical of Irenaeus's argumentation in Adversus Haereses. The prosecutor always extends his argument beyond what is factually provable in order to secure conviction. The author is not working from Marcion's text but his own, which he presumes is (a) Marcion's original and (b) alterations were made to Marcion's text to avoid the kinds of arguments being raised in the treatise. So again, I say the author is arguing from the 'true' text originally held in common with Marcion, not with Marcion's text.

The argument that we have a partial text extends only as far as the acceptance that Marcion falsified a true orthodox original. If you accept that then not just Tertullian (or Irenaeus) have a copy of Marcion's original text. We have access to it to in any translation of the existing New Testament canon and we too can see the text which Marcion reacted against with his falsehoods.

You're not really making sense in this last paragraph.

We have a partial text. You cannot argue against that, even in its ambiguity. And that text may not be a close reflection of Marcion. Why are you being such an oblivious sucker, having the words and still not reading them, though purporting to?? You are still ignoring me and shooting at your own ghosts. But fine. You have this overburgeoning need to be the only person who can talk about Marcion. You will be a limpet on anything that touches on the topic.

[Secret Alias]

Here are all the references to Marcion in Book Five:

1. For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed? [5.3.7]

Is this proof that the Marcionites had the words "resisted face to face" or the author reading from his own canon and asking for a clarification. Prosecutors use both tactics.

2. For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ."135 Fie on136 Marcion's sponge! [5.4.2]

Is this an argument for what is in the Marcionite canon? No, only for what wasn't in the Marcionite canon.

3. It is enough for us to have proved that He intended such an abolition, that so it may be affirmed that the apostle determined nothing to the prejudice of the Creator, since the abolition itself proceeds from the Creator. [8] But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text. [5.4.7]

Ok the name "Abraham" appeared in the Marcionite edition of this epistle (or this passage).

So that's your 'partial text' = a reference to Abraham. Here are the references to 'you' in the Galatians section:

1. However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel,65 since there is (on the hypothesis)66 another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! [6] But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel."68 It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said "angel" in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply69 an angel to the gospel of the Creator. [5.2.6]

This is not proof of what was in the Marcionite canon only a theoretical discussion of how a Marcionite might argued from a shared text.

2. So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions81 to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! [5.3.1]

Again nothing more than an inference from a shared text based on things ascribed to Marcionite belief.

3. Therefore he says: "Because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection not even for an hour."87 Let us only attend to the clear88 sense and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture will be apparent. When he first says, "Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,"89 etc., he gives us an insight into his reason90 for acting in a clean contrary way,91 showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act as he did. [4] But then92 I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded,93 if these false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty?

This most interesting. The present reading has not yielded but the text assumes the Irenaean reading. In other words, there are two layers to the text. The author argues from the Irenaean text and makes Marcion react to that text. Clear example that the author does not have the Marcionite text in front of him. Sorry, have to work.

[spin]

Talking underwater.

I'm off.