Carrier on "gnosticism"

[Joseph D. L.]

It's been months since I engaged with a lunatic but that's not true. The only time 'Marcionites' or 'Marcion' come up in Against Celsus Origen does the reference. It is not a direct citation from Celsus only Origen telling us whom Celsus mentions. The Church Fathers are notably sloppy in that respect.

In a thread from a few months back I showed conclusively that he doesn’t know how to read Celsus or Origen and that his claim about Celsus and Marcion was utterly wrongheaded. But what do expect from an idiot like him? He and Carrier deserve each other (and Carrier hates him just as much as we do. )

[MrMacSon]

The issue, IIUC, isn't that Irenaeus identified a sect as Gnostic, or that Valentinus adopted the [heretical] principles of it, or even that many sects said they had gnosis - better gnosis, or more gnosis, etc., (all the gnoses) - it's that the term Gnosticism implies all these sects were homogenous and they could and can be treated as such, and as uniformly hereretical, so can (and ought to) be sidelined in the study of early Christianity.

That is an issue. But Carrier seems to have gone further when he claimed (and I am quoting here), "No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas." I believe Irenaeus has done exactly this: to wit, he has used that word ("Gnostic") of a group or sect, at the very least. He has a particular sect or group of sects in mind; he thinks they sprang from Simon Magus and Menander; he knows that Valentinus does not belong to them; and he calls them Gnostic and even claims that they call themselves Gnostic.

I don't disagree that statement by Carrier --that "No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas"-- is wrong (I'm not defending Carrier on that). But note (i) what I said; what you quote me saying here, in this post and in your post; (ii) that the first part of my comment is better contextualised than Carrier's; and (iii) that, in the latter part of my comment, I am putting what the general consensus of gnostic scholars is.

See http://westarinstitute.org/wp-content/u ... ticism.pdf

[Ben C. Smith]

The issue, IIUC, isn't that Irenaeus identified a sect as Gnostic, or that Valentinus adopted the [heretical] principles of it, or even that many sects said they had gnosis - better gnosis, or more gnosis, etc., (all the gnoses) - it's that the term Gnosticism implies all these sects were homogenous and they could and can be treated as such, and as uniformly hereretical, so can (and ought to) be sidelined in the study of early Christianity.

That is an issue. But Carrier seems to have gone further when he claimed (and I am quoting here), "No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas." I believe Irenaeus has done exactly this: to wit, he has used that word ("Gnostic") of a group or sect, at the very least. He has a particular sect or group of sects in mind; he thinks they sprang from Simon Magus and Menander; he knows that Valentinus does not belong to them; and he calls them Gnostic and even claims that they call themselves Gnostic.

I don't disagree that statement by Carrier --that "No ancient writer used that word of a group or sect or collection of distinctive ideas"-- is wrong (I'm not defending Carrier on that). But note (i) what I said; what you quote me saying here, in this post and in your post; (ii) that the first part of my comment is better contextualised than Carrier's; and (iii) that, in the latter part of my comment, I am putting what the general consensus of gnostic scholars is.

See http://westarinstitute.org/wp-content/u ... ticism.pdf

Cheerfully noted.

[Giuseppe]

It's been months since I engaged with a lunatic but that's not true. The only time 'Marcionites' or 'Marcion' come up in Against Celsus Origen does the reference. It is not a direct citation from Celsus only Origen telling us whom Celsus mentions. The Church Fathers are notably sloppy in that respect.

The following words are sic et simpliciter of Celsus, not of Origen and not even filtered by Origen:

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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

As to your fan called Joseph D.L., order him to be quiet, please.

[Secret Alias]

Where Celsus reference 'Marcion' or the 'Marcionites' in your passage?

[Giuseppe]

Where Celsus reference 'Marcion' or the 'Marcionites' in your passage?

Were't you to say who they were an only group?

At any case, here is the reference to Marcion:

He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour ridicule upon the subject, introducing "two sons of God, one the son of the Creator, and the other the son of Marcion's God; and he portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails; or that the Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage do not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out".

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm

How could Marcion adore both two gods so opposed among them? One can't serve two masters.

[Secret Alias]

The name 'Marcion' here clearly comes from Origen not Celsus. I've gone through the text with a fine tooth comb. 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites' are always referenced by Origen not Celsus.

[Giuseppe]

The quote gives among quotation marks the Celsus's words, including the name "Marcion":

"two sons of God, one the son of the Creator, and the other the son of Marcion's God; and he portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails; or that the Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage do not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out"

In addition, we see that Celsus has introduced in his own words the distinction between two sons of God:

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.

The simplest explanation is that also there Celsus means Marcion's dualism.

It is inconceivable how you can deny this clear evidence.

[Secret Alias]

No. You are using the translation. The actual text is as follows. I am going to bed but here quickly:

Εἶθ' ἑξῆς ἐπαναλαμβάνει πολλάκις ἤδη εἰπὼν τὰ περὶ τῆς γνώμης Μαρκίωνος, καὶ πῇ μὲν ἀληθῶς τὰ Μαρκίωνος ἐκτίθεται πῇ δὲ κἀκείνων παρήκουσεν· πρὸς ἣν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡμᾶς ἀπαντᾶν ἢ καὶ ἐλέγχειν. Εἶτα πάλιν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιφέρει τὰ ὑπὲρ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τὰ κατ' αὐτοῦ λέγων, τίνα μὲν ἐκφεύγουσι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τίσι δὲ περιπίπτουσι· καὶ ὅτε βούλεται συναγορεύειν τῷ φάσκοντι λόγῳ πεπροφητεῦσθαι αὐτόν, ἵνα κατηγορήσῃ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τῶν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, σαφῶς φησιν

After this he returns to the subject of Marcion's opinions (having already spoken frequently of them), and states some of them correctly, while others he has misunderstood; these, however, it is not necessary for us to answer or refute. Again, after this he brings forward the various arguments that may be urged on Marcion's behalf, and also against him, enumerating what the opinions are which exonerate him from the charges, and what expose him to them; and when he desires to support the statement which declares that Jesus has been the subject of prophecy — in order to found a charge against Marcion and his followers — he distinctly asks,

ὅτι πόθεν ἀποδειχθήσεται θεοῦ παῖς ὁ τοιαῦτα κολασθείς, εἰ μὴ περὶ τούτου προείρηται

How could he, who was punished in such a manner, be shown to be God's Son, unless these things had been predicted of him?

Εἶτα πάλιν παίζει καί, ὡς ἔθος αὐτῷ, χλευάζει δύο εἰσάγων υἱοὺς θεῶν, τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἕνα καὶ τοῦ κατὰ Μαρκίωνα θεοῦ ἕτερον, καὶ ἀναζωγραφεῖ αὐτῶν μονομαχίας, λέγων

He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour ridicule upon the subject, introducing two sons of God, one the son of the Creator, and the other the son of Marcion's God; and he portrays their single combats, saying:

αὐτὰς εἶναι ὡς τῶν ὀρτύγων, καὶ τῶν πατέρων θεομαχίας· ἢ διὰ γῆρας ἀχρήστους αὐτοὺς ὄντας καὶ ληροῦντας μηδὲν μὲν ἀλλήλους διατιθέναι, ἐᾶν δὲ τοὺς παῖδας μάχεσθαι.

that the Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails; or that the Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage do not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out.

Ὅπερ οὖν εἶπεν ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω, τοῦτο φήσομεν πρὸς αὐτόν· ποία γραῦς καταβαυκαλῶσα παιδίον οὐκ αἰδεσθήσεται τοιαῦτα λέγειν, ὁποῖα οὗτος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγρα φομένῳ ἀληθεῖ λόγῳ; ∆έον γὰρ αὐτὸν πραγματικῶς στῆναι πρὸς τοὺς λόγους, ὁ δὲ ἐάσας τὰ πράγματα παίζει καὶ βωμολοχεῖ οἰόμενος μίμους γράφειν ἤ τινα σκώμματα, οὐχ ὁρῶν ὅτι ἡ τοιαύτη ἀγωγὴ τῶν λόγων παρὰ τὴν πρόθεσιν τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐστι, βουλομένου καταλιπόντας ἡμᾶς χριστιανισμὸν προσέχειν αὐτοῦ τοῖς δόγμασιν. ἅτινα εἰ μὲν ἐσεμνολόγει, τάχα πιθανώτερα ἦν· ἐπεὶ δὲ χλευάζει καὶ παίζει καὶ βωμολοχεῖ, φήσομεν ὅτι ἀπορίᾳ σεμνῶν λόγων–οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν αὐτοὺς οὐδὲ ἠπίστατοεἰς τοσαύτην ἐνέπεσε φλυαρίαν

The remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself: What old woman would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such stories as he has inserted in the work which he entitles A True Discourse? For when he ought seriously to apply himself to argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and betakes himself to jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or scoffing verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our adherence to his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with some degree of gravity, would have appeared more likely to convince, whereas since he continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play the buffoon, we answer that it is because he has no argument of weight (for such he neither had, nor could understand) that he has betaken himself to such drivelling.

[Secret Alias]

And there is buried in the text of Against Celsus Origen acknowledging that Celsus doesn't distinguish between orthodox and Marcionites consistently