At In First Principles 2.5.4, Origen cites two main Marcionite proof-texts which, as they involve exegesis, may well derive from the Antitheses.
(1) "But once again they recall us to the words of scripture, quoting that famous/notorious question [famosissimam quaestionem] of theirs. They say : it is written that 'a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit; for a tree is known by its fruit' [cf. Matt.7.18, Lk.6.43]. What do you make of this, they say ? What sort of a tree the Law is, is shown by its fruits, that is, by the words of its precepts. For if the Law is found to be good, undoubtedly we shall believe that he who gave it is a good God; if, however, it is just rather than good, we shall think of <its> God as a just lawgiver."
Origen counters this by citing Paul (of course, it has to be Paul) : " 'The law then is good, and the commandment holy and just and good' [Rom.7.12]. It is plain from this that Paul had not learned the doctrines of those who separate the just from the good." The logion is not an indicator of two Gods, but has a natural meaning equivalent to Lk.6.45, 'the good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.'
(2) "There still remains to them the passage in the gospel, which they think is as it were specially given to them for a shield, where the Lord said, 'None is good save one, God the Father' [cf. Mk.10.18, Lk.18.18]. This, they say, is the proper description of the Father of Christ, who is a different being from God the creator of all things, to which creator, Christ gave no title indicating goodness."
Origen concludes his rebuttal : "Clearly, then, he whom they think to be the good God is said in the gospels to be just. And when time permits we shall be able to collect still more passages where in the New Testament the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is called just, and where in the Old Testament the creator of heaven and earth is called good."
■■■■■
It is notable how these two proof-texts, and Origen's counter-arguments, underlie discussions where they are not directly quoted. In particular, in the Homilies on Ezekiel, the moral ethic of (especially) the Marcionite teachers, what we might call their 'lived' teaching, causes Origen a real problem. Such that, essentially, he has to repudiate the 'by their fruits shall ye know them' argument he was happy to deploy in (1).
For Origen, "God frees his people by means of an austere way of life [conversationem austeram], one that shrinks from pleasures." (Hom.Ezek.3.5.1)
Thus he can seize on any lack of moral 'hardness' as a concomitant of heresy : "Such, however, are the words of the heretics, in which there is no stern way of life [conversatio rigida]. You will find that the disciples of Valentinus are dissolute in their character, not aiming at anything strong, not aiming at anything manly; and similarly also the followers of Basilides - he, moreover, even teaches <them> to refuse shamelessly, as it were by order, anything connected to martyrdom." (Hom.Ezek.3.4.2)
The Marcionites, the third member of the triumvirate customarily associated by Origen, do not figure here. Which is tacit confirmation of general acknowledgement that they were 'sound' on martyrdom (Tertullian, Adv.Marc.1.27, Eusebius, H.E.5.16.21).
Indeed, their moral ethic is so admirable that Origen has to go to extreme lengths to disassociate their 'lived teaching' from their doctrines; eventually, in a bizarre parody of (1), a quasi-Marcionite second 'god' returns to the 'two fruits' exegesis, only this time in the form of the devil :
"Next : 'You took the multi-coloured garments and covered them.' The 'multi-coloured garment' is here too <the subject of> one passage in the scriptures, where we 'clothe ourselves with the bowels of mercy, of goodness [benignitatis; χρηστοτητα], of humility, of gentleness, of patience, to bear with each other ' [Col.3.12,13]. If we mutilate and rip to pieces these multi-coloured garments and beautiful cloaks, which God has bestowed on us, and wrap them around false teaching in order to deceive people, there is no doubt that we are covering idols with multi-coloured garments.
"But you will understand what is being said, if I set forth the matter itself more clearly. Look at some Marcionite, I ask you, or a disciple of Valentinus, or indeed a defender of whatever heresy you like, and consider how he clothes his idols, that is, the fictions which he himself has composed, with gentleness and chastity, so that his words, ornamented by the goodness [bonitate] of his way of life, may creep more easily into the ears of his audience. And when he has done this, understand that he has taken up a multi-coloured garment of excellent habits and lifestyle and has thrown it over the idols which he himself constructed. And in my opinion, at least, the heretic with a good [bonae] way of life is much more harmful, and has more power in his teaching than does the one who brings disgrace on his teaching by his lifestyle. For one who lives a wicked life does not easily attract people to his false doctrine, and is not able to beguile the naïveté of his audience by means of a shadow of sanctity. The one who is corrupt in his discourse and contrary to salvation in his teachings, but has well-ordered and adorned habits, is doing nothing other than receiving the multi-coloured clothing of good [boni] practices and a tranquil lifestyle and putting them around his idols, the better to beguile his audience.
"Therefore, let us painstakingly beware of heretics who have an excellent lifestyle : perhaps it is not God but the devil who has taught them their way of life. For just as bird-catchers put out certain <kinds of> enticing bait, in order to catch birds more easily through an appeal to the pleasure of their palates, so also, to speak a little audaciously, there is a certain <form of> chastity that belongs to the devil, that is, <one that serves as> a snare for the human soul, so that through chastity and gentleness and righteousness of that kind he may be able to catch <souls> more easily and trap them in the net of false discourses. The devil fights using diverse kinds of stratagems, in order to destroy the wretched, and he grants a good [bonam] way of life to the wicked so as to beguile the spectators, and thus he brands a bad conscience into the good [bonis]." (Hom.Ezek.7.3.1-2)
■■■■■
While we have to peer through the gauze of Jerome's Latin translation here, the χρηστοτης of the Colossians citation allows us a glimpse of an intellectual fencing match involving the Αγαθος Θεος, Christ as Χρηστος, and the social reality that a Marcionite impresario was the very model of a 'holy man'. It was perhaps this 'lived teaching' which was his most attractive argument.
(1) "But once again they recall us to the words of scripture, quoting that famous/notorious question [famosissimam quaestionem] of theirs. They say : it is written that 'a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit; for a tree is known by its fruit' [cf. Matt.7.18, Lk.6.43]. What do you make of this, they say ? What sort of a tree the Law is, is shown by its fruits, that is, by the words of its precepts. For if the Law is found to be good, undoubtedly we shall believe that he who gave it is a good God; if, however, it is just rather than good, we shall think of <its> God as a just lawgiver."
Origen counters this by citing Paul (of course, it has to be Paul) : " 'The law then is good, and the commandment holy and just and good' [Rom.7.12]. It is plain from this that Paul had not learned the doctrines of those who separate the just from the good." The logion is not an indicator of two Gods, but has a natural meaning equivalent to Lk.6.45, 'the good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.'
(2) "There still remains to them the passage in the gospel, which they think is as it were specially given to them for a shield, where the Lord said, 'None is good save one, God the Father' [cf. Mk.10.18, Lk.18.18]. This, they say, is the proper description of the Father of Christ, who is a different being from God the creator of all things, to which creator, Christ gave no title indicating goodness."
Origen concludes his rebuttal : "Clearly, then, he whom they think to be the good God is said in the gospels to be just. And when time permits we shall be able to collect still more passages where in the New Testament the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is called just, and where in the Old Testament the creator of heaven and earth is called good."
■■■■■
It is notable how these two proof-texts, and Origen's counter-arguments, underlie discussions where they are not directly quoted. In particular, in the Homilies on Ezekiel, the moral ethic of (especially) the Marcionite teachers, what we might call their 'lived' teaching, causes Origen a real problem. Such that, essentially, he has to repudiate the 'by their fruits shall ye know them' argument he was happy to deploy in (1).
For Origen, "God frees his people by means of an austere way of life [conversationem austeram], one that shrinks from pleasures." (Hom.Ezek.3.5.1)
Thus he can seize on any lack of moral 'hardness' as a concomitant of heresy : "Such, however, are the words of the heretics, in which there is no stern way of life [conversatio rigida]. You will find that the disciples of Valentinus are dissolute in their character, not aiming at anything strong, not aiming at anything manly; and similarly also the followers of Basilides - he, moreover, even teaches <them> to refuse shamelessly, as it were by order, anything connected to martyrdom." (Hom.Ezek.3.4.2)
The Marcionites, the third member of the triumvirate customarily associated by Origen, do not figure here. Which is tacit confirmation of general acknowledgement that they were 'sound' on martyrdom (Tertullian, Adv.Marc.1.27, Eusebius, H.E.5.16.21).
Indeed, their moral ethic is so admirable that Origen has to go to extreme lengths to disassociate their 'lived teaching' from their doctrines; eventually, in a bizarre parody of (1), a quasi-Marcionite second 'god' returns to the 'two fruits' exegesis, only this time in the form of the devil :
"Next : 'You took the multi-coloured garments and covered them.' The 'multi-coloured garment' is here too <the subject of> one passage in the scriptures, where we 'clothe ourselves with the bowels of mercy, of goodness [benignitatis; χρηστοτητα], of humility, of gentleness, of patience, to bear with each other ' [Col.3.12,13]. If we mutilate and rip to pieces these multi-coloured garments and beautiful cloaks, which God has bestowed on us, and wrap them around false teaching in order to deceive people, there is no doubt that we are covering idols with multi-coloured garments.
"But you will understand what is being said, if I set forth the matter itself more clearly. Look at some Marcionite, I ask you, or a disciple of Valentinus, or indeed a defender of whatever heresy you like, and consider how he clothes his idols, that is, the fictions which he himself has composed, with gentleness and chastity, so that his words, ornamented by the goodness [bonitate] of his way of life, may creep more easily into the ears of his audience. And when he has done this, understand that he has taken up a multi-coloured garment of excellent habits and lifestyle and has thrown it over the idols which he himself constructed. And in my opinion, at least, the heretic with a good [bonae] way of life is much more harmful, and has more power in his teaching than does the one who brings disgrace on his teaching by his lifestyle. For one who lives a wicked life does not easily attract people to his false doctrine, and is not able to beguile the naïveté of his audience by means of a shadow of sanctity. The one who is corrupt in his discourse and contrary to salvation in his teachings, but has well-ordered and adorned habits, is doing nothing other than receiving the multi-coloured clothing of good [boni] practices and a tranquil lifestyle and putting them around his idols, the better to beguile his audience.
"Therefore, let us painstakingly beware of heretics who have an excellent lifestyle : perhaps it is not God but the devil who has taught them their way of life. For just as bird-catchers put out certain <kinds of> enticing bait, in order to catch birds more easily through an appeal to the pleasure of their palates, so also, to speak a little audaciously, there is a certain <form of> chastity that belongs to the devil, that is, <one that serves as> a snare for the human soul, so that through chastity and gentleness and righteousness of that kind he may be able to catch <souls> more easily and trap them in the net of false discourses. The devil fights using diverse kinds of stratagems, in order to destroy the wretched, and he grants a good [bonam] way of life to the wicked so as to beguile the spectators, and thus he brands a bad conscience into the good [bonis]." (Hom.Ezek.7.3.1-2)
■■■■■
While we have to peer through the gauze of Jerome's Latin translation here, the χρηστοτης of the Colossians citation allows us a glimpse of an intellectual fencing match involving the Αγαθος Θεος, Christ as Χρηστος, and the social reality that a Marcionite impresario was the very model of a 'holy man'. It was perhaps this 'lived teaching' which was his most attractive argument.
Statistics: Posted by mbuckley3 — Wed May 15, 2024 11:09 am