Antithesis: What do we know of Marcion's 'Antithesis'?

[Secret Alias]

Instead of Scherbenske's 'optimism' (or recklessness) Lietzman characterizes the situation with the Antitheses as follows:

He wrote only a single work which he called Antitheses where he brought his teaching together. It has not been preserved, as can easily be understood in regard to a writing which was so subversive to the Church. We have to content ourselves with deducing the content from the notices contained in the writings of opponents, particularly in Tertullian's five volumes against Marcion.2 Literal quotation only very rarely occurs, so that we can form no idea of the literary quality of this extraordinary man.

This is pretty much the situation. As such I am not sure that there was ever a book called the Antitheses. I suspect that the Antitheses were a loose way of referring to the form of the Pauline letters in the Marcionite canon written as the whole canon was - by Marcion. It doesn't matter whether or not I am 'correct' - no one is correct. No one can know the unknowable. This whole field is stupid and filled with recklessness disguised as 'serious scholarship.' Just because you labor and sound serious doing something stupid, you are still engaged in doing something stupid. Marcionite studies is the stupidest stupidity in the stupid field of early Christian studies.

[Stuart]

// useless post whose greatest feature was were Stephen wrote the word Stupid in bold

I have asked the Mods to have Stephen Huller (Secret Alias) banned for 30 days, as a time out. I encourage anyone else who is fed up with his abuse to make the same request. I know there are about a dozen who have said so in PM. His attacks today, especially one Germans is unacceptable.

Stephen, as you do not like the subject of Marcionism, I suggest you act like a normal human being would and ignore threads the subject. It is clear you have a personal problem with the issue, which leads you to act like ass, and attempt to hijack thread after threat and bury any debate uinder 40 or 50 of your often senseless posts.

Again Mod, please give Stephen a time out. He is clearly a cyber bully and refuses to reform.

[Joseph D. L.]

Stuart, I don't see how you're in a position to tell others how to act or what threads they are and aren't allowed to participate in. That is not your place.

Stephan is a needed devil's advocate in a serious field with serious questions and filled with people who take themselves too seriously.

[Stuart]

Stuart, I don't see how you're in a position to tell others how to act or what threads they are and aren't allowed to participate in. That is not your place.

Stephan is a needed devil's advocate in a serious field with serious questions and filled with people who take themselves too seriously.

Stephen does not allow response. He buries it in an avalanche of posts. Were he to make one or two posts and allow for some back and forth I'd agree. It is not his view on the subject which bothers me, it is his bullying. He frequently uses belittling language and acts as if he is the final authority on anything he disagrees with. His attacks are often on the person and not the subject.

Huller often includes personal attacks on people he disagrees with. Today we saw a libelous and false set of accusations on his part toward a scholar I personally know and share significant correspondence with. He misrepresents what he has said with great ease it seems. The libelous attacks are why he should get a time out.

As for his beliefs, yes they are peculiar. But so are most people here. I have never had an issue with that. It is is his tactics and his abusing language that bother me. Today he crossed a line with verifiable lies about another person. That is what I object to.

[Secret Alias]

So the question of whether or not the Antitheses actually existed is verboten in an Antitheses thread?

[Secret Alias]

The question of whether Detering's views on contemporary Ausländer might be related to traditional German views of Ausländer and a unique and consistent interest in Marcion by German scholarship is /are fair questions. Even you admit he has complex views on immigration. You've certainly brought up personal matters in your attacks on me. I think you should know that music comes from a variety of sources.

[Secret Alias]

My guess is that to correspond "extensively" with Detering you'd have to be a native German speaker. His English isn't that good. You do realize that when you publish the translation of Detering's work you won't just be "Stuart" any longer.

[Secret Alias]

Stephen, as you do not like the subject of Marcionism

I don't dislike the subject of Marcion. I just think many engaged in the study are using the Patristic report about Marcion to further a personal agenda. I think the same thing about mythicists.

I do find it odd that Detering can be hyper-critical about all aspects of early Christianity but somehow leaves the central claims in the Patristic portrait of Marcion intact. That deserves more attention. I thought the same thing when I heard Grunwald debate Risen. It is always odd when critics have blind spots in their criticism. Why don't they question THIS.

Paul is fabricated but not Marcion. That strikes me as odd and deserving of more investigation. I wondered when listening to Grunwald about the financing for the Intercept. That's how I work. No conclusions. Just endless questions

[Peter Kirby]

This whole field is stupid and filled with recklessness disguised as 'serious scholarship.'

Could be worse. Between speculation that leads to multiple conflicting claims, and censorious politics that lead to a unified scholarly narrative, I will take the former any day! Both may involve a lack of conclusive evidence, but the former is a relatively healthy response to the lack of conclusive evidence. The latter is, unfortunately, all too common in all too many departments.

Sure, I understand that the basic reason for the relative health of the field is the fact that there are two distinct power bases funding research, the church (through seminaries) and the university, with very different motivations, but I will take it.

I also understand that by the raw numbers most in the field are far too conservative, but at least they know they don't have it locked up. They have to deal with the bogeyman of the "liberal scholar." They can't summarily defund them, shame them, and call it a day.

I also know that the so-called "liberal scholar" is hardly critical enough, as well. Would it be better to refrain from speculation at all? Perhaps, but that's not clear to me. While it is unlikely that we will uncover new evidence that allows us to resolve the conflicting opinions, isn't there some value in being able to explore the questions? Isn't that why we are here?

[lsayre]

It appears strange to me that in the (admittedly abbreviated) English translation of the 'Dialogues of Adamantius' (as presented here: http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/dialogues.htm), Megethius (the Marcionite), sans for one (unreferenced) quotation which can be seen to stem from Mark (I.E., Mark 10:18), quotes exclusively from Matthew, with Luke coming into view from the mouth of Megethius only within those passages shared between Matthew and Luke. Megethius also seems to effectively denigrate Mark and Luke, while also expressing that there is but one Gospel.

It appears to me that it is likely that Megethius' (representing the Marcionites) one and only accepted Gospel is (albeit quite possibly in the form of an earlier edition) what has come down to us as Canonical Matthew. This seems strangely opposed to the accepted view that the Marcionite Gospel was a truncation of, or earlier edition of, Canonical Luke.

That within 'DA' the sayings which Megethius seemingly quotes from Matthew (while presumably coming from Marcion's Gospel) frequently come in the from of 'Antithesis' leads me to speculate that Megethius' ur-Matthew may encompass within it the entirety of Marcion's 'Antithesis', as well as being the original basis for Canonical Matthew. This would place ur-Matthew in the position of being the very first Gospel to come into existence.

If I might try to heal the ongoing rift (while admittedly not understanding its foundation or nature), I see in the above areas of agreement with positions taken by both Stuart and Stephan. Stuart (if I have understood him correctly) believes that a proto-Matthew came first, as well as that Canonical Matthew contains within its chapter 5 some vestiges of the 'Antithesis', and Stephan has consistently argued that the Marcionite's often quote from a Gospel (presumably their own) which does not have verse parallels found in Luke, but rather goes back to either Mark or Matthew.