YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:19 am Another occurrence of ἐναντίος is found in 6:51:

If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?

But the god is not only "opposed" (ἐναντίος) , he is "accursed" (κατηραμένος) by these Christians:
perfect passive participle κατηραμένος in a passive sense, accursed (Wis. 12:11; (2 Kings 9:34); Plutarch, Luc. 18;

https://biblehub.com/greek/2672.htm

Again, it is impossible to imagine that the Good God works in secret alliance with the Accursed God, and not rather in explicit hostility/antagonism against him.

I note also that the creator was accursed by the adorers of the Good God, not even by Celsus, who limits himself merely to observe (just as Giuseppe, with a bit of caustic irony), the presence of this Christian dualism so embarrassing for the Great Church.
But Giuseppe, this isn't the issue. I'm not saying ἐναντίος has only one meaning, but that it is dependent on the surrounding context.

The context in Celsus isn't that clear to be honest, but it would be a big assumption to say that this is his meaning absolutely.

I'll even grant that your interpretation could be his intended meaning, but Celsus is writing at such a late period (I said 220 ad, but the consensus has him at 175 ad), and by that time Marcionites had evolved and Marcion himself had been dead for a long time.

Did the Marcionites eventually come to hate YHWH and Judaism? I guess, in the same way Catholicism came to regard Judaism as false. But it doesn't make sense for Marcion to attach himself to Judaism if there wasn't an ulterior motive for it.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

The surrounding context adds that the creator is κατηραμένος, "cursed" by the marcionites just as Satan is usually cursed by Catholics. I have no problems to define the same Catholics as dualists insofar they treat Satan as a "god of this world".

As to evolution from ditheism (=secret alliance between two gods) to dualism (=explicit conflict between two gods), I am skeptical about it. The use of Jewish scriptures to confute Jewish scriptures is not different from the Christian use of John the Baptist to confute the sect of John. But it is a non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Christians co-opted John by making him a mere precursor of the Christ, then the Christians "derived" from the Baptist sect.

Just as it is non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Marcionites co-opted the Jewish God by making him the "cursed" demiurge in their theology, then the Marcionites "derived" from the Judaism.

And then you have not only Marcion as hater of YHWH. You have to explain why Basilides hated YHWH, too. Too much haters of YHWH there out, sorry.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:47 pm The surrounding context adds that the creator is κατηραμένος, "cursed" by the marcionites just as Satan is usually cursed by Catholics. I have no problems to define the same Catholics as dualists insofar they treat Satan as a "god of this world".
That's nowhere in the surrounding context.

This is Origen's entire facsimile and commentary of Celsus with the surrounding context:

[Also I don't know what's going on with the NewAdvent site. I tried two different browsers and yet it will not copy the quotation marks. I've highlighted the portions of Celsus that Origin quotes for convenience. ]

Celsus then continues: The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same God; and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh; on which day, as the Scripture says, God ceased from His works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God rested, — a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the rest which is reserved after it for the people of God, the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: We give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do. However, as regards the conspiracies of brothers against one another, we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of the conspiracies of brothers against one another. Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of their return thence, which was not a flight, as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a flight; but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence.


If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that the books (of Scripture) were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart, because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for the Lord is that Spirit), the veil being taken away, he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term face being used figuratively for the understanding, as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the inner man, filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.

After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be admitted, then, that there are among us some who deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience. And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class who call certain persons carnal, and others spiritual,— I think he here means the followers of Valentinus — yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their natural constitution? And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law — and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings — what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled those of the multitude? He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.

He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.

In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous. And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. Moreover, he continues, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred. Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in harmony with His words, when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; and we would not utter all manner of things shameful to be spoken against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of such: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Moreover, we who know the maxim, Blessed are the peacemakers, and this also, Blessed are the meek, would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.

And just for added thoroughness, I went through the Greek for Origen's Contra Celsum. κατηραμένος does not appear, anywhere, in Book V. It does appear in Book VI, but as you'll see, the meaning is not what you're saying:

Νῦν δὲ διηγήσασθαι τὸν περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν λόγον, καὶ τίνα τρόπον διανενέμηνται αἱ φύσεις τῶν ἡμερῶν εἰς ἀμφότερα τὰ εἴδη, οὐ πρόκειται οὐδὲ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐξετάσαι· ὅλων γὰρ ἡμῖν συντάξεων χρεία εἰς τὴν διήγησιν τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας· ὅπερ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν πρὸ πλείονος χρόνου τῆς ἐνεστηκυίας πρὸς τὸν Κέλσον συντάξεως πεποιήκαμεν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸ πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἕξεως, ἧς ἐχωροῦμεν τότε, διαλαβόντες περὶ τῶν κατὰ Μωϋσέα ἓξ τῆς κοσμοποιΐας ἡμερῶν. Εἰδέναι μέντοι γε χρὴ ὅτι τοῖς δικαίοις διὰ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγέλλεται ἐν καταστάσει ἔσεσθαι ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ μὴ ἥλιος ἀλλ' αὐτὸς ὁ «κύριος φῶς» ἔσται αὐτοῖς «αἰώνιον, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δόξα» αὐτῶν. Παρακούσας δ' οἶμαι μοχθηρᾶς αἱρέσεώς τινος καὶ κακῶς διηγησαμένης τὸ «γενηθήτω φῶς» ὡς εὐκτικῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ εἰρημένον εἶπεν· Οὐ γὰρ δὴ καθάπερ οἱ τοὺς λύχνους ἐκ γειτόνων ἐναυόμενοι φῶς ὁ δημιουργὸς ἄνωθεν ἐχρήσατο. Καὶ ἄλλης δ' ἀσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως παρακούσας εἶπε καὶ τό· Εἰ μὲν ἐναντίος τις ἦν τῷ μεγάλῳ θεῷ θεὸς κατηραμένος ὁ ταῦτα ποιῶν παρὰ γνώμην τὴν ἐκείνου, τί αὐτῷ τὸ φῶς ἐκίχρα; Πρὸς ἃ τοσοῦτον ἀποδέομεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ὥστε τρανότερον ἡμᾶς ἐθέλειν τῆς ἐκείνων δόξης ὡς ἐσφαλμένων κατηγορεῖν καὶ ἵστασθαι οὐ πρὸς ἃ μὴ οἴδαμεν αὐτῶν ὡς ὁ Κέλσος ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἃ ἀκριβῶς γινώσκομεν, πῇ μὲν ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἀκούσαντες, πῇ δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἐντυχόντες.

On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings, nor of the manner in which the different kinds of days were allotted to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come when not the sun, but the Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be their glory. And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, Let there be light, as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours. Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light? So far are we from offering a defense of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.

In Book V Celsus is speaking of opposing Christian and Jewish groups, whose philosophies and theologies are themselves opposing.

In Book VI Celsus is being descriptive and Origen calls him out for not understanding what the heresies believe. Celsus is not singling out the Marcionites and could just as easily be talking about Valentians, who didn't acurse the demiurge, only that he was below a greater power (just like Marcion did).

That's that Celsus. You can not use him for your argument because, independent or not, he is not saying what you say he is.
As to evolution from ditheism (=secret alliance between two gods) to dualism (=explicit conflict between two gods), I am skeptical about it. The use of Jewish scriptures to confute Jewish scriptures is not different from the Christian use of John the Baptist to confute the sect of John. But it is a non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Christians co-opted John by making him a mere precursor of the Christ, then the Christians "derived" from the Baptist sect.
Dithism and dualism are not applicable to Marcion because he had a hierarchy of Archons, YHWH, Isu Chrestus, and finally the Father.

You're also ignoring that Marcion likeiwse co-opted John, even called him the greatest prophet who ever lived, and compared him to Elijah.
Just as it is non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Marcionites co-opted the Jewish God by making him the "cursed" demiurge in their theology, then the Marcionites "derived" from the Judaism.
There is no evidence from Marcion that says he cursed the demiurge, only that he was lower than a higher god.
And then you have not only Marcion as hater of YHWH. You have to explain why Basilides hated YHWH, too. Too much haters of YHWH there out, sorry.
Marcion didn't hate YHWH, and the only evidence we have for this and Basilides are from people who 1) hated Marcion and Basilides themselves, and 2) are writing decades and decades after Marcion and Basilides had died. That is not good evidence.

Cerinthus and Valentinus, whose systems are closer to Marcion's and Basilides's, also thought YHWH was demiurgos, but did not hate him. You are over estimating your beliefs. Hate is a pejorative that is not applicable to these discussions. Do Catholics hate YHWH because he is the God of the Jews? No. They re-interpreted him to make him more suitable for their theology. It's the same with Marcion.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Another foray into Microsoft paints:

Image
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

The evidence that Celsus was talking about Marcionites when he wrote:

If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?

...is in the fact that precisely there - and that is not a coincidence - he (=Celsus, not Origen) uses again the same Greek term enantios for "opposed". Hence I disagree strongly with you when you say that in that passage the marcionites are not meant. "Opposed" is a too much specific term to refer to the demiurge in the marcionite theology. Hence, the finding of "accursed" in the same phrase where "opposed" occurs, can only refer to the demiurge in Marcion's belief

In addition to that, there is not evidence of an evolution from ditheism to dualism as described by you. The onus probandi is on you, to prove it. And note that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the Celsus's Jew was speaking there, a Jew recognized by at least two scholars of my knowledge (of which one is a Christian and even a fool apologist) as lived in 150 CE. Potentially contemporary of Marcion.

When one "curses" x, then he hates x. Cursing is evidence of hating.

Hence, if the marcionites "cursed" the creator, then they hated him.

Therefore I think that I have confuted you.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:42 am The evidence that Celsus was talking about Marcionites when he wrote:

If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?

...is in the fact that precisely there - and that is not a coincidence - he (=Celsus, not Origen) uses again the same Greek term enantios for "opposed". Hence I disagree strongly with you when you say that in that passage the marcionites are not meant. "Opposed" is a too much specific term to refer to the demiurge in the marcionite theology. Hence, the finding of "accursed" in the same phrase where "opposed" occurs, can only refer to the demiurge in Marcion's belief
Celsus isn't talking about Marcion or Marcionites. Nor is he linking this to them. Again Celsus is being general and you are reading what you want into him.
In addition to that, there is not evidence of an evolution from ditheism to dualism as described by you. The onus probandi is on you, to prove it. And note that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the Celsus's Jew was speaking there, a Jew recognized by at least two scholars of my knowledge (of which one is a Christian and even a fool apologist) as lived in 150 CE. Potentially contemporary of Marcion.
Come again? I never mentioned anything about an evolution of ditheism to dualism. All I said was Marcion's theogony is hierarchical as opposed (see how I'm using it?) to dualist and ditheistic models. Cerinthians and Valetinians were also hierarchical.
When one "curses" x, then he hates x. Cursing is evidence of hating.
Okay?
Hence, if the marcionites "cursed" the creator, then they hated him.
Cursed in relation to what? What does that even mean? Curse can mean a number of things. To Catholics denying Jesus as flesh is as much as cursing him as denying his existence. And in the one single instance that Celsus uses κατηραμένος together with ἐναντίος, he is not referring to Marcionites singularly, and Origen even has to correct him that this IS NOT WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
Therefore I think that I have confuted you.
I think you haven't.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:01 am And in the one single instance that Celsus uses κατηραμένος together with ἐναντίος, he is not referring to Marcionites singularly, and Origen even has to correct him that this IS NOT WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
If you are conceding me that Celsus meant marcionites when he used "opposed" the first time in book 5 (and in reference to a god), then accordingly you have to concede me that Celsus meant marcionites when he used "opposed" the second time in book 6 (and in reference to a god), in the same phrase where "accursed" occurs. It is called logical coherence.

Second: you have to expel totally Origen from the discussion: he is a fool Christian apologist who doesn't deserve consideration at all here, according to your same principle that the Father of Church have to be not believed when they talk about heretics. Differently from Celsus, who is an independent witness of these heretics.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:01 am Curse can mean a number of things.
Curse can mean only a thing: hate.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:27 am If you are conceding me that Celsus meant marcionites when he used "opposed" the first time in book 5 (and in reference to a god), then accordingly you have to concede me that Celsus meant marcionites when he used "opposed" the second time in book 6 (and in reference to a god), in the same phrase where "accursed" occurs. It is called logical coherence.
You're conflating all sorts of presumptions to make this work:

1) Celsus's use of ἐναντίος is the metaphorical, secondary meaning
2) Celsus was referring solely to the Marcionites in Book V, chapter 61
3) Celsus is referring to Marcionites in Book VI, chapter 51

There is no logical coherence here. You are merely projecting your presuppositions about Marcion onto Celsus without letting him speak for himself.
Second: you have to expel totally Origen from the discussion: he is a fool Christian apologist who doesn't deserve consideration at all here, according to your same principle that the Father of Church have to be not believed when they talk about heretics. Differently from Celsus, who is an independent witness of these heretics.
Why should we dismiss what Origen says? This is really highlighting your inherent bias and prejudice against Christians and Jews.

Irenaeus can be considered an independent witness, and everything he says is absolute rubbish and offal. I also dismiss what Clesus says because he is writing at such a late period. It depends what the use is for.

We can dismiss the Torah as absolute mythology and folklore, but in the field of Biblical scholarship you still need it. You don't have to believe it to study it.

Origen and Clement seem to be the more honest writers in light of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Even Hippolytus came to regard his teacher as a liar.
Curse can mean only a thing: hate.
Not really. There are instances where God curses Israel, and even says he hates them, but he still loves them.

Why are you looking for consistency here? You above all others should know that there is no consistency in religion or the believers.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:21 am 1) Celsus's use of ἐναντίος is the metaphorical, secondary meaning
2) Celsus was referring solely to the Marcionites in Book V, chapter 61
3) Celsus is referring to Marcionites in Book VI, chapter 51
The thesis that has to be proved is: (1).
The premises (conceded by you and Ben, above) is: (2).
The proof derives from proving the truth of: (3). I prove that (3) is correct by pointing out the fact that it cannot be absolutely a mere coincidence, that Celsus uses "opposed" (enantios) in two different points, and even (!) as reference to a god. Therefore If Celsus talks about Christian who curse YHWH in 6:51, then he means these same Christians in 5:61, in virtue of the fact that the reference is made even there to an "opposed" god.

I am sorry, but you ignore the argument from a coincidence-that-is-too-much-impossible-to-be-a-coincidence.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:21 am There are instances where God curses Israel, and even says he hates them, but he still loves them.
Here we are talking about men cursing a god. Not the contrary. It is absolutely different.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Stuart »

Giuseppe,

The Marcionites were by no means the only sect that opposed the Jewish God, separating the Law Giver and Creator from the High God who was the father of Christ. This is a two edge sword for Celsus' commentary, degrading the certainty of both your argument and also greatly weakens the counter points by Ben and Joseph DL.

Joseph,

I looked at your first counterpoint to Guiseppe was flawed, quoting three passages from Luke attested in Marcion (although verses 16:30-31 were materially different than the reproduction you used -- they were either completely absent as seems to be the testimony of Tertullian and Dialogue Adamantius or abbreviated as found in Epiphanius' version (such is the ambiguity of the witnesses); this greatly alters the interpretation of the Lazarus and the Rich Man story.

The Cleansing of the Leper and the Transfiguration stories are paralleled in Matthew and Mark. For Giuseppe (or Markus Vinzent) this may be a problem because they insist upon Marcionite priority for even the ur-Gospel, for me and others in the Marcionite priority camp that priority does not extend to the ur-Gospel source. The Marcionite layer is an editorial layer, no different than later "Catholic" layers, which adjusted only elements that could not be explained and added stories and passages to bring out specific theological points important to their sects. In this respect the Marcionite Gospel is no different than the Marcionite versions of Paul's letters, an editorial layer on top of a hodgepodge of prior writings from various, often contradicting sectarian tracts. (Note, I firmly believe this also applies to the Church Father writings --even more so, as they did not enjoy any protection from Canon.)

So citing the Cleansing of the Leper and the Transfiguration stories as proof the Marcionites (note, I do not say Marcion, an important distinction) did not oppose YHWH is inherently flawed. The passages need only be explainable within Marcionite hermeneutics. The Transfiguration in particular presented no problem to the Marcionites, as the story shows three figures, the first prophet of YHWH Moses and the last prophet Elijah (John being reborn in the Synoptic use of Malachi the prophecy) talking to Jesus, then vanishing, leaving only Jesus as the true way. Peter then blurts out, "shall we make three tabernacles?" in the words of all three accounts "not knowing (i.e., not understanding the consequences of) what he said." Peter sees the three as equal, Jesus as from the same God, but the Marcionites (and of course the Gnostics) read this as the Jewish Christian (Catholic) misread. Similarly the offering as Moses commanded was "as a proof to yourself" or "as poof to the people" (i.e., Jewish Christians) in the cleansing of the leper was easily explained away. So no need for removal. (Note, John 12:29-30 gives a similar meaning for both the voice from heaven in the Transfiguration story and context for understanding the proof; it's not for Gnostic/Marcionite Christians but for Jewish/Catholic Christians).

The Marcionite author only adjusted or removed items -- no different than the later Catholic redactors -- that conflicted directly with his theology on a core point. The best example is the what happened to the source material that makes up the first 20 verses of Mark (well Mark 1:2-20, as in my estimation Mark simply versified the title of his source in by prefixing ἀρχὴ in verse 1:1). The calling of the fishermen was moved until after Jesus' arrival in Capernaum, and the Baptism story through verse 1:15 removed (and replaced by Luke 7:16-35). Why? Because in Marcionite theology they could not accept Jesus being Baptized by John, whom they agreed was Elijah reborn, as this would tie Jesus to YHWH. That the Marcionite author knew the Baptism story is given away in Luke 20:1-8, which only makes sense if the Baptism of Jesus is in view (if John's Baptism came from heaven then Jesus was approved by the Jewish God, and the chief priests realized this so didn't answer). There are other strong clues the author knew the Baptism. But it was too much a scandal so removed. But that is rare, and passages like Luke 20:1-8 show that problematic texts are often left in, something we see with chapter 8 of John that one would think a Catholic redactor would have purged of hostility to YHWH -- apparently they could harmonize it to Catholic theology.

The Lazarus story is also the result of even the church fathers misunderstanding of the role of Abraham in the Marcionite (and Gnostic) theology. He is considered the father of the Gentiles (symbolically Gnostic Christians) and the Jews (symbolically Judaizing Christians or Catholics -- us), so a bridge point of the two paths, the two Gods. This is why, like the Muslims, they flip the Isaac and Ishmael sacrifice story (see the Marcionite version of Galatians 4:22-31) at least symbolically. (Note, the Gospel of John is the first witness of Marcion's text not Justin, not Irenaeus, not Tertullian, not Polycarp -- his retelling of the Lazarus story, and his use of Abraham in chapter 8 gives insight into the way Marcionites and Gnostics understood Abraham).

While I do think Giuseppe goes way too far, your counter point using those passages to claim the Marcion did not oppose YHWH shows some holes in your logic concerning the composition methods of the gospels.
Last edited by Stuart on Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Post Reply