The Results of Previous Studies of Marcion Are Worthless

[Secret Alias]

It is difficult to believe then that:

1. there were ANY witnesses to 'Marcion' before 180 CE
2. that chief of the 'witnesses' against Marcion was Irenaeus who obviously corrupted both Hegesippus and Justin so as to secure his story about the existence of a 'historical Marcion' c. 180 CE. Polycarp was Hegesippus, he is not a separate witness.
3. Clement of Alexandria, the next earliest known witness to Marcion from which any writings survived drew his knowledge of both those of Marcion and those of Carpocrates from the writings of Irenaeus.

[Secret Alias]

I think the question of the historical existence of Marcion bears a striking relationship to the question of the historicity of Jesus. What is the likelihood of Marcion being a historical individual? The oldest reference to Marcion would be a complicated question. Hegesippus seems to have mentioned Marcion but only if you could the 180 CE edition of the Outlines as a genuine representation of the original chronology. In the earliest reference he is 'Marcellina.' This is from the 147 CE edition of the text. What then is the value of Irenaeus telling us that Justin also attests to Marcion (from Adv Haer and copies of 1 Apology that almost certainly passed through the same 'editing process' as that which made reference to the boundaries of Arabia and Syria from 195 CE inserted into the Dialogue) as well as Polycarp? Are these 'solid' witnesses or proof of non-existence? I say the later. There never was a Marcion as understood in the Church Fathers (i.e. a heretic who came to Rome under Anicetus to seduce the Church from its original state of virginity). We can almost be certain of that.

[Charles Wilson]

Nice stuff, SA.

Then, what of the Controversy of "Paul" and the "Original Letters of Paul" held by "Marcion"?

CW

[Secret Alias]

The source material behind Tertullian and Epiphanius's list is likely to be that commentary on a gospel harmony written by someone in Justin's circle (the text behind Against Marcion Books 4 and 5). The ur-text was not written against Marcion but only came to be identified as such through the manipulation of Irenaeus. Irenaeus cites Justin as having written a work against Marcion and that text made its way to Tertullian (via Irenaeus) in the manner of the common material behind Against the Jews and Against Marcion 3. Once again with that material it begins as something other than a treatise against Marcion (i.e. against the Jews) and in the final draft Marcion's name becomes associated with the argument. But it wasn't so originally. It is hard to explain why the Jewish material becomes rededicated 'against Marcion' other than the fact that what is identified as 'the Marcionites' was a strangely resilient 'Hellenized' Jewish offshoot. But so is Marcellina's sect when you reconstruct the whole venerating-statues-of-philosophers-while-celebrating-an-orgiastic-Passover-thing. It's Hellenized Judaism. The current orthodoxy (Irenaeus's religion) is a bizarre attempt to wipe out the Platonizing Judaism of Philo by means of monarchianism. It seems a very 'American' argument (hence it's stupidity). It goes something like 'Jewish only worshiped one god' hence the Hellenized Jewish tradition is corrupt and evil. But the Pentateuch makes clear there were two gods! There have been morons throughout history. Indeed stupidity is the rule rather than the exception.

[Secret Alias]

Another thing worth mentioning. It occurred to me this morning as I was anticipating a visit by my friend Benny the Samaritan that the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew name 'Moses' (mosheh) as Mushi. Doesn't that mean that the Samaritan name Mark (marqeh) as Marqi? Apparently not. He is Marqe. But something isn't right here. Will have to discuss with Benny why the he is pronounced differently. But the ων in Μαρκίων is much easier to explain than the current suffix ίων. It's the iota that gives us problems.

[MrMacSon]

...The oldest reference to Marcion would be a complicated question. Hegesippus seems to have mentioned Marcion, but only if you could the 180 CE edition of the Outlines as a genuine representation of the original chronology. In the earliest reference he is 'Marcellina.' This is from the 147 CE edition of the text.

What then is the value of Irenaeus telling us that Justin also attests to Marcion (from Adv Haer and copies of 1 Apology that almost certainly passed through the same 'editing process' as that which made reference to the boundaries of Arabia and Syria from 195 CE inserted into the Dialogue) as well as Polycarp?

Are these 'solid' witnesses or proof of non-existence? I say the later. There never was a Marcion as understood in the Church Fathers (i.e. a heretic who came to Rome under Anicetus to seduce the Church from its original state of virginity). We can almost be certain of that.

Good stuff. I presume -

• "What then is the value of Irenaeus telling us that Justin also attests to Marcion ... as well as Polycarp?"

means

"What then is the value of Irenaeus telling us that Justin also attests to Marcion ... as well as [Irenaeus telling us about Justin supposedly attesting to] Polycarp?"

[MrMacSon]

It is difficult to believe then that:

1. there were ANY witnesses to 'Marcion' before 180 CE
2. that chief of the 'witnesses' against Marcion was Irenaeus who obviously corrupted both Hegesippus and Justin so as to secure his story about the existence of a 'historical Marcion' c. 180 CE. Polycarp was Hegesippus, he is not a separate witness.
3. Clement of Alexandria, the next earliest known witness to Marcion from which any writings survived drew his knowledge of both those of Marcion and those of Carpocrates from the writings of Irenaeus.

Do you mean -

"It is difficult to believe then that

• "1. there were ANY witnesses to 'Marcion' before 180 CE.
  
  "2. Chief of the 'witnesses' against Marcion was Irenaeus. Irenaeus obviously corrupted both Hegesippus and Justin so as to secure his story about the existence of a 'historical Marcion' c. 180 CE.

"Polycarp was Hegesippus, he is not a separate witness.

"Clement of Alexandria, the next earliest known witness to Marcion, from which any writings survived, drew his knowledge of both those of Marcion and those of Carpocrates from the writings of Irenaeus."

??

[Secret Alias]

It's hard to avoid getting the sense that the obsession with 'Marcion' derives its origin from Irenaeus, even when the texts supposedly predate the Church Father. He can be identified as 'correcting' Hegesippus, adding 'Marcion' in place of Marcellina. He drives the narrative that Polycarp was an anti-heresiologist like himself when Florinus's association with Polycarp makes that doubtful. He is the only witness for Justin being against Marcion aside from the texts that survive in his name, but those texts were corrected at the time of Irenaeus. Not a convincing argument for the existence of Marcion. Marcion was by contrast IMPOSED on the earliest literature of Christianity for reasons that are too difficult to understand right now.

[MrMacSon]

Marcion as a heretic is likely to be a strawman misrepresentation of the Church to hide that the Marcionite community seems to be the first to have had a collection of the Pauline epistles, and may even have been the origin of them.

[Secret Alias]

For me at least, the beginning of my doubts about the beginning of Marcion's historical existence started when I attempted to construct I biography for some stupid attempt at authoring a book many years back. I looked at where other scholars started to reconstruct an account of the life of Marcion. The obvious beginning is the salacious details of his 'seduction of a virgin in Rome.' We read at the very start of Epiphanius's description of Marcion:

He was a native of Pontus—I mean of Helenopontus and the city of Sinope, as is commonly said of him. In early life he supposedly practiced celibacy, for he was a hermit and the son of a bishop of our holy catholic church. But in time he unfortunately became acquainted with a virgin, cheated the virgin of her hope and degraded both her and himself,4 and for seducing her was excommunicated by his own father. For because of his extreme piety his father was one of those illustrious men who take great care of the church, and was exemplary in the exercise of his episcopal office.

Though Marcion begged and pleaded many times, if you please, for penance, he could not obtain it from his own father. For the distinguished old bishop was distressed not only because Marcion had fallen, but because he was bringing the disgrace on him as well. As Marcion could not get what he wanted from him by fawning, unable to bear the scorn of the populace he fled his city and arrived at Rome itself after the death of Hyginus, the bishop of Rome. (Hyginus was ninth in succession from the apostles Peter and Paul). Meeting the elders5 who were still alive and had been taught by the disciples of the apostles, he asked for admission to communion, and no one would grant it to him. Finally, seized with jealousy since he could not obtain high rank besides entry into the church, he reflected and took refuge in the sect of that fraud, Cerdo.

And he began—at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue—to put this question to the elders of that time: "Tell me, what is the meaning of, 'Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made.'" On hearing this the good and most sacred elders and teachers of God's holy church gave him the appropriate and fitting answer, and equably explained, 'Child, 'old bottles' means the hearts of the Pharisees and scribes, which had grown old in sins and not received the proclamation of the gospel. And ‘the old garment’ received a ‘worse rent’ just as Judas received a further rent through his own fault and no one else's because, although he had been associated with the eleven apostles and called by the Lord himself, he had grown old in greed and had not received the new, holy, heavenly mystery's message of hope. For his mind was not in tune with the high hope and heavenly call of the good things to come, in place of worldly wealth and vanity, and the love of passing hope and pleasure.'

'No,' Marcion retorted, 'there are other explanations besides these.' And since they were unwilling to receive him, he asked them plainly, 'Why will you not receive me?' 'We cannot without your worthy father's permission,' was their answer. There is one faith and one concord, and we cannot oppose our excellent colleague, your father. Becoming jealous then and roused to great anger and arrogance Marcion made the rent, founding his own sect and saying, 'I am going to tear your church, and make a rent in it forever.' He did indeed make a rent of no small proportions, not by rending the church but by rending himself and his converts.

But he took his cue from that charlatan and swindler, Cerdo. For he too preaches two first principles. But adding something to him, I mean to Cerdo, he exhibits something different in his turn by saying that there are three principles. One is the unnameable, invisible one on high which he likes to call a 'good God,' but which has made none of the things in the world. Another is a visible God, a creator and demiurge. But the devil is as it were a third god and in between these two, the visible and the invisible. The creator, demiurge and visible God is the God of the Jews, and he is a judge.

The way most scholars have dealt with the challenges of this passage is to 'cut off' the bit about the seduction of the virgin - seeing that as metaphorical - but leaving most of the rest intact i.e. the visit to Rome in Anicetus, the encounter with the 'elders,' and the doctrinal bits. Many even accept that he was the son of a bishop.