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

[Secret Alias]

Want to hear a funny story about Detering? It is customary for human beings to congratulate each other on the occasion of the birth of their child. Do you want to know what this guy told me when my son was born? He made it seem I had betrayed Marcion by having a child. Really like most of the Marcionites could even have sex let alone a baby with someone.

[lsayre]

Is it possible that Marcion is merely a strawman of the Patristics just as for Ebion?

[Stuart]

Is it possible that Marcion is merely a strawman of the Patristics just as for Ebion?

Yes and no. The problem with that opinion is Marcionites do refer to a founder and as one who was a bishop:
[box = white] DA 1.9 Megethius (Marcionite says): “Marcion is my bishop” (ἐπισκοπός μου / episcopus meus)[/box]
This is a position too consistent throughout the depiction of Marcionites in the Church Fathers to be ignored.

I admit I do not buy into the "Mountain Man" type conspiracy theories of a vast controlled church hierarchy that always towed the line and built up diversions. Stephen Huller pushes just such a conspiracy theory here, which is the primary reason his views are largely dismissed. But these did work for his hero Robert Eisenman in selling books. So who knows, it might yet work for him. (It's all very Erich von Däniken like IMO, whether it's a Flavian or Constantinian conspiracy we are talking about.)

A more likely solution, is that like Valentinus, Marcion is a moniker, rather than an actual personal name. Paul and Justin clearly fit into that category. In fact it has been pointed out that several (most) of the Church Fathers and supposed early Popes bear names that are more moniker than personal. But as for a philosophy, and a sect, it is too consistent to be ignored. That the same positions can be found supported by the NT text itself, makes arguments that the sect did not have a significant role in the formation of scripture questionable at best.

I think a healthier way to look at the subject is to consider it a significant stream within one of the two pre-Catholic camps (proto-Orthodox and Heretical is how I classify them), who differed over everything from church organization and authority to what texts were acceptable to the properties of God the father. The leaders names are legendary, much like the NT characters. The association of the legend and the writer may or may not be strong, just as with any NT author and legend. The same also applies to Church Fathers of the pre-Nicene era --- this point is often forgotten.

[Jax]

Is it possible that Marcion is merely a strawman of the Patristics just as for Ebion?

Yes and no. The problem with that opinion is Marcionites do refer to a founder and as one who was a bishop:
[box = white] DA 1.9 Megethius (Marcionite says): “Marcion is my bishop” (ἐπισκοπός μου / episcopus meus)[/box]
This is a position too consistent throughout the depiction of Marcionites in the Church Fathers to be ignored.

I admit I do not buy into the "Mountain Man" type conspiracy theories of a vast controlled church hierarchy that always towed the line and built up diversions. Stephen Huller pushes just such a conspiracy theory here, which is the primary reason his views are largely dismissed. But these did work for his hero Robert Eisenman in selling books. So who knows, it might yet work for him. (It's all very Erich von Däniken like IMO, whether it's a Flavian or Constantinian conspiracy we are talking about.)

A more likely solution, is that like Valentinus, Marcion is a moniker, rather than an actual personal name. Paul and Justin clearly fit into that category. In fact it has been pointed out that several (most) of the Church Fathers and supposed early Popes bear names that are more moniker than personal. But as for a philosophy, and a sect, it is too consistent to be ignored. That the same positions can be found supported by the NT text itself, makes arguments that the sect did not have a significant role in the formation of scripture questionable at best.

I think a healthier way to look at the subject is to consider it a significant stream within one of the two pre-Catholic camps (proto-Orthodox and Heretical is how I classify them), who differed over everything from church organization and authority to what texts were acceptable to the properties of God the father. The leaders names are legendary, much like the NT characters. The association of the legend and the writer may or may not be strong, just as with any NT author and legend. The same also applies to Church Fathers of the pre-Nicene era --- this point is often forgotten.

I would love to know more about this, and links and information about this would be very welcome.

Lane

[Secret Alias]

The problem with that opinion is Marcionites do refer to a founder and as one who was a bishop:

Really? This is evidence that Marcionites said something? De Recta in Deum Fide? So ... you think this is an actual Marcionite confessional? Explains a lot. This is the problem with this 'Marcionophiles.' They believe it because it is written

Want to see another 'dialogue' featuring Marcion? One exists between Tertullian and Marcion. Let me cite some of the material:

Marcion:Ah, good morning, brother. Did you have a good night's sleep?

Tertullian:Your accommodation is indeed comfortable. (offering him an apple) Would you like one? (takingtheappleandeatingit)These are really good apples.

Marcion: That's because they come from a good tree, my friend.https://books.google.com/books?id=KRzRB ... 22&f=false

What is the difference between this Dialogue and the Dialogue of Adamantius? Many centuries. But they are equally fake.

[Secret Alias]

Sorry for the delay. I tied up completing the German to English translation of Dr. Detering's "Die gnostische Deutung des Exodus und die Anfänge des Josua/Jesus-Kultes" (The Gnostic Interpretation and Exegesis of Exodus). It's off getting reviewed now --- I have a bonus English only section covering 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 which Dr. Detering and I have had some back and forth on about how it fits the patterns (he basically forgot about, or rather didn't consider the passage when he was putting this together). Anyway that was eating up my time.

You know who else has translated Detering's work and speaks German - Rene Salm:

The Fabricated Paul. by Dr. Hermann Detering. Edited and translated by René Salm

[Secret Alias]

And from what I remember Stuart - when it is convenient - denigrates the value of the Dialogue of Adamantius. Oh yes, I forgot - these Marcionophiles are consistently inconsistent when it comes to their beloved Marcion. Whenever they run out of material from the utterly reliable Tertullian of Carthage they 'forget' how much they hate the Dialogues of Adamantius. On Monday when confronted with contradictions between Adamantius and Tertullian, they reject Adamantius. On Tuesday when Adamantius says something they want to believe - then they embrace Adamantius.

[Secret Alias]

Oh here is one example - there are dozens more in our forum of Stuart's inconsistency with this text:

"... as does Dialogue Adamantius 5.23, but D(ialogue) A(damantius) is unreliable and only in the Greek making it a dubious source)." posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=66950

Ah but we aren't afraid of embracing 'dubious sources' in the service of our Lord and Master Marcion. You need Adamantius to provide precious 'historical' information about your holy boogeyman:

The problem with that opinion is Marcionites do refer to a founder and as one who was a bishop:
[box = white] DA 1.9 Megethius (Marcionite says): “Marcion is my bishop” (ἐπισκοπός μου / episcopus meus)[/box]

You go girl! Keep embracing these sources which you fully admit are 'dubious' and 'unreliable.' One day you will admit it isn't just the sources. Your holy 'anti-Jew' Marcion is also 'dubious' and 'unreliable' - a deliberate caricature fashioned by the Church Fathers to make the heretics seem dubious and unreliable.

[Secret Alias]

Anyone who has ever honestly dealt with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE for the Antitheses inevitably agrees with Harnack - we haven't a fucking clue what these 'Antitheses' were or whether or not they even existed. Harnack (p. 57):

The uncertainty that remains here (with the Antitheses), however, does not create any inconvenience in dealing with the question of Marcion's spiritual and intellectual legacy.

[Secret Alias]

Scherbenske displays the typical scholarly double-speak - on the one hand we have no clue what was in the Antitheses, on the other we can know something about the text:

While the loss of the Antitheses makes identifying its genre difficult, references to the argumentative content, form, and targeted audience suggest that this work conformed to theisagogic genre.24 Our knowledge of the Antitheses' content provides the most important evidence for its connection to the isagogic genre: this text primarily comprised antithetical statements illustrating Marcion's fundamental theological themes.

Indeed even though neither Adamantius nor Epiphanius mention these supposed 'Antitheses' by name Scherbenske feels 'confident' he can reconstruct this 'lost book' by pooling together 'antithetical' statements related to Marcion in all these writers:

Tertullian and Adamantius's antithetical statements and Epiphanius's notes and refutations align with the following characteristics of the isagogic genre: simple straightforward style and content, presentation of definitions, discussion of previous authorities, and rudimentary content designed for an initiate audience. These statements convey general themes and summarize Marcionite doctrine in a straightforward antithetical format wherein the simple juxtaposition of these statements

Can anyone imagine this sort of idiocy going on in other fields - using sources which don't support the existence of a particular text or individual merely because 'it helps' us 'fill in the gaps' in our knowledge of a mysterious 'thing' (= the Antitheses) mentioned in Tertullian? I will say it again, Marcionite studies SUCKS!