Working my way through Paula Frederickson’s Ancient Christianities but I have a fundamental question that she does not address. How did the Marcionites justify the idea of a second god being over the overly-just god who created the world, as neither Paul nor the Gospels (nor Jesus to the extent we have evidence) ever said anything of the sort? With all available sources there was always just one God so what source did Marcion cite to get two? Or did he just make it all up through his own logic without sources?
LXX
Genesis 1:24
και ειπεν ο Θεός ποιησωμεν
ειπεν is a singular verb, 3rd person, imperfect or aorist thingy tense.
ο θεός is a singular noun, nominative case, masculine gender, 2-1-2 declension
But, ποιησωμεν is a plural verb, 1st person, future tense.
And said the God, let us make
~~~~~they should’ve removed the μεν so it was ποιησω, I make
The singular noun with plural verb don’t quite add up to 1. Most days that is. I live in Iowa and don’t pay much attention to it. 🫢
It sort of makes sense. The God of the OT commands some pretty troubling stuff, so if you start with the premise that God is good, it isn’t too hard to see how someone could conclude the the God portrayed in the the OT is not the real God. I guess I mean that, it depends on what commitments you take as the foundation of your theology.
Yes it “sort of makes sense” but is there ANY source for the notion? Jesus never mentions a second god. He prays to THE god. The Jewish god. Paul never mentions TWO gods. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John- none of them mention a second god. Josephus- nope. John Of Freaking Patmos makes up all kinds of stuff – no second god. They all worship “God.”
So Marcion just thinks it “sort of makes sense” and unilaterally proclaims a fundamental change to the whole Theology?
Well, Paul and Jesus sorta.
Looking at 1 Philippians 2:11,
η δοχα as defined in the Little Liddell is not necessarily only defined as “glory”. It’s also an opinion, belief, a notion, a fancy, vision, reputation, good report, credit, honor, glory, splendour.
ISBN 1-84356-026-7
και πασα γλωσσα: dative case, feminine, singular, 2-1-2
εξομολογησηται οτι: verb, passive voice, 3rd person
κυριος Ιησους Χριστος : nominative, singular, masculine, 2-1-2
εις δοξαν : accusative
Θεου πατρος : genitive
δοχαν (noun, accusative case, feminine, singular, 3-1-3) it’s a noun because if it was an adjective; it should match genders, but it don’t so it’s a separate noun.
I will claim there that Father (genitive case, singular, 3-1-3) is an adjective and not a noun.
Passive voice verb: Everything switches direction from the Active Voice direction.
The dative case gives to the accusative case to the nominative case. The accusative feminine noun δοξαν goes to nominative.
🤨Translation: η δοχα of the father-like God goes to Lord Jesus Christ by means of all languages confessing.
And I’ve about had enough of this Ancient Greek koine. It might be more worthwhile in the long run to only focus on modern Greek.
Right we here get all the academic-gnosticism reasonings, but how do you explain Marcion to normal folks who have not read books by Bart, etc.?
In contrast, Ebionites are easy to explain. Jesus/Christ was Jewish so to be Christian you must be Jewish first. Most will disagree with the notion, but also most will understand it. “What part of the Bible supports that” is the response. It’s like when Bart distinguishes John from the Synoptics – if Jesus really said he was God, why did the synoptics omit that? Likewise, if Jesus ever thought there were two gods, he would have said so, right?
Similarly, Docetism makes sense – he just appeared. No big stretch. Folks disagree but understand the basis of it.
But, Marcion thinking there are two gods – that sounds bizarre and made-up. Bart says Marcion says “Jesus had nothing to do with the Law, since he represented a different God from the one who gave the Law” – well that is not only the opposite of what the gospels say, but also is totally unsupported by anything that we have now. “The proto-orthodox guys censored it” is all we have to go on?
No it is not a far-fetched idea. It is a perfectly logical idea to you and me. But how to explain it to modern people?
Me: Some thought Jesus came from a second higher god and had nothing to do with the law.
Them: but that’s not what the Bible says. What was his evidence for that notion?
Me: “it was not a far-fetched idea in a polytheistic pagan world”
Them: “BS”
Me: Some thought Jesus came from a second higher god and had nothing to do with the law. . . . Them: “BS”
I’m not entirely clear what you are trying to convince them of. Are you trying to illustrate the fluidity of early-second century Christian belief and show that there was a period before orthodoxy had achieved hegemony?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)