The Rigged Debate: Megethius and the Use of Orthodox Scriptures

The "Dialogue on the True Faith" presents a fascinating, albeit biased, account of a theological debate between Megethius, a Marcionite, and Adamantius, an orthodox Christian. The structure and conduct of this debate reveal significant biases and constraints placed upon Megethius, illustrating the inherent challenges faced by Marcionites when debating orthodox opponents.

The Introduction of Scripture

At the outset, Megethius offers to prove his theological position using the scriptures: "If you will permit me to speak, I will prove that there are three Principles: One, the God of the Law, another the Evil God, and I will show that it is so from your scriptures" (Pretty, p. 49). This statement sets the tone for the debate, indicating that Megethius would attempt to use orthodox scriptures to make his case.

However, as the debate progresses, it becomes apparent that Megethius is at a significant disadvantage. Adamantius and the judge, Eutropius, consistently favor the orthodox perspective. At one point, Adamantius explicitly states, "You know that you undertook to make your proof from our Gospel," highlighting the biased framework within which Megethius must operate.

The Role of the Judge

Eutropius, the judge, exhibits clear partiality towards Adamantius. This bias is explicitly acknowledged by Megethius: "It would appear that you are not an adjudicator but an opponent" (Pretty, p. 49). Adamantius responds dismissively, asserting that the truth naturally opposes falsehoods, further underscoring the one-sided nature of the debate.

The Use of Orthodox Scriptures

Throughout the dialogue, Megethius is compelled to engage with the orthodox canon. For instance, during a discussion about the names of the apostles, Megethius challenges the orthodox narrative: "Let the gospel be read and you will find that their names are not recorded." Eutropius orders the gospel to be read, and Adamantius asserts that while the names of the twelve apostles are recorded, the names of the seventy-two are not. This exchange highlights the constraints placed on Megethius, who is forced to debate within the parameters set by the orthodox scriptures.

The Debate Over Matthew and Luke

Interestingly, much of the debate revolves around the Gospel of Matthew. Megethius frequently references the Matthean antitheses to support his arguments, suggesting that the Marcionite antitheses might be derived from Matthew rather than Luke. This focus on Matthew is somewhat surprising, given the common association of Marcion's Gospel with Luke. However, the debate's constraints likely forced Megethius to utilize the available orthodox scriptures, resulting in a heavy reliance on Matthew.

The Rigged Nature of the Dialogue

The inherent biases and constraints of the debate are reminiscent of other historical theological debates, such as the Jewish-Christian debates. These dialogues were often rigged, allowing only a superficial appearance of fairness while heavily favoring the orthodox position. The "Dialogue on the True Faith" is no exception, with Megethius facing an uphill battle from the outset.

Conclusion

The "Dialogue on the True Faith" serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by Marcionites and other heterodox groups when engaging in theological debates with orthodox Christians. The biased framework, partial judge, and constrained use of scriptures all contributed to an inherently unfair debate. This context sheds light on the broader dynamics of early Christian theological disputes and the difficulties faced by those who deviated from the orthodox line.