How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?

[Secret Alias]

You are saying that your interpretation of it is that passage is that Hippolytus believed that Marcion used the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, and according to Hippolytus his version of those writings did not say the things that Marcion claimed they did. Essentially correct?

2. I am saying the author of the Philosophumena read Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses and corrected his account of the heresies perhaps even including Justin as a heretic. I don't understand what you mean here:

and according to Hippolytus his version of those writings did not say the things that Marcion claimed they did.

[rgprice]

1. Don't think Hippolytus is the author.

That's ok, I don't think "Mark" was the author of the Gospel of Mark, but I still say Mark anyway

I am saying the author of the Philosophumena read Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses and corrected his account of the heresies perhaps even including Justin as a heretic.

Maybe, but he's pretty complementary of Irenaeus, even though he does correct him in on the details of the rituals of Marcus. From Book 6:

And inasmuch as these statements are trifling and unstable, it does not appear to me expedient to bring them before (the reader. This, however, is the less requisite,) as now the blessed presbyter Irenaeus has powerfully and elaborately refuted the opinions of these (heretics). And to him we are indebted for a knowledge of their inventions, (and have thereby succeeded in) proving that these heretics, appropriating these opinions from the Pythagorean philosophy, and from over-spun theories of the astrologers, cast an imputation upon Christ, as though He had delivered these (doctrines).

I don't know why you think the writer is correcting Irenaeus's association of Marcion's Gospel with Luke though. He states:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigento. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also today will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil— why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles?

And then goes on to say:

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship — that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil.

That surely doesn't come from Mark. The closest thing we find to this is in Luke, just as Irenaeus says.

[Secret Alias]

That's ok, I don't think "Mark" was the author of the Gospel of Mark, but I still say Mark anyway

What the fuck was this? So you think "Hippolytus" appears somewhere on the manuscript. I don't know if I can continue to do this.

[Secret Alias]

I don't know why you think the writer is correcting Irenaeus's association of Marcion's Gospel with Luke though.

I see. So the Philosophumena mentions the disconnect between Marcion and the gospel of Mark because ...

[Secret Alias]

I don't know why you think the writer is correcting Irenaeus

It's an established position based on the author's treatment of the Marcosians.

[Secret Alias]

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship — that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.

τούτοις κατακολουθῶν Μαρκίων τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν παντάπασι παρῃτήσατο, ἄτοπον εἶναι νομίζων ὑπὸ τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ ὀλεθριωτάτου νείκους γεγονέναι τὸν λόγον τὸν τῇ φιλίᾳ συναγωνιζόμενον, τουτέστι τῷ ἀγαθῷ, ἀλλὰ χωρὶς γενέσεως »ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος« κατεληλυθότα αὐτὸν ἄνωθεν, μέσον ὄντα κακοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ, διδάσκειν »ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς«.

This part is loosely cited from Irenaeus. But put through the "spin" of Marcion borrowing from Empedocles. But the Marcionites are originally associated with the gospel of Mark, or cite from the gospel of Mark and argues that what they teach isn't according to Mark. The Greek is very choppy.

[Secret Alias]

The author of the Philosophumena knows Irenaeus's argument about Marcion cutting the birth narratives from Luke. He's aware of it but doesn't mention any cutting. He just says Marcion entered the world without "genesis" and is also aware of a claim to Mark by the Marcionites which is a correction of Irenaeus. Mark also features an entrance of Jesus into the narrative without genesis.