From Mark to Marcion

[stephan happy huller]

I wrote to the man who wrote the article cited above and asked him about the name Marcion. Here was his response:

Thank you very much for your mail.
You are right: the name Μαρκίων derives from the Latin "Marcus". But it is neither Samaritan nor Egyptian; it is purely Greek. In Greek,especially in the Post-Classic period, ίων is a very productive nominal formant, used also in constructing personal names. The formant is simply added to the root irrespectable of the fact if the root ends in a consonant or a vowel. As far as personal names are concerned, the ίων formant is frequently added to a thephoric element, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων, Δίων (from Δι-ίων), Σαραπ-ίων, Ἁνουβ-ίων, Δημητρ-ίων, Μην-ίων, Ἀρ-ίων, etc. The ίων formant has somewhat diminutive meaning, thus Ἀπολλων-ίων actually means "The small Apollo" (in the sense: "He is like Apollo"), Δίων - "The small Zeus", etc. Μαρκίων can be analyzed as Μαρκ-ίων, "The small Marcus" ("the one who is like Marcus"). The name may refer to a person with the name Marcus, e.g. the father of the man who bears the name Μαρκίων. I insist on the fact that ίων names are not an Egyptian particularity; it is an overall Greek phenomenon.
I hope this helps you
Best regards
Adam Lajtar

So I am back to my original hypothesis developed from the day I asked my Aramaic professor in York University about a Syriac origin for the name. He said similarly 'it looks to me like a Greek diminutive.'

[stephan happy huller]

On the other topic, and example of the use of the Latin and Greek vocative form of Marcus in Irenaeus (directed at the heretic of the same name):

Idolorum fabricator, Marce, et portentorum inspector
Astrologiae cognitor et magicae artis,
Per quae confirmas erroris doctrinasy Signa ostendens his.
qui a te seducuntur Apostaticae virtutis operationess quae tibi praestat tuus pater satanas
Per angelicam virtutem Azazel facere, Habens te praecut sorentr contrariae adversus Devm neqnitiae.
Et hacc quidem amator Dei senior.
Nos aulem reliqua mysteria eonim, quae sunt longa, conabiniur breviter expedire, et ea quae multo tempore sunt occultata, in manifestum producere. Sic enim fit, ut facile argui et conviuei possint ab omnibus

εἰδωλοποιὲ Μάρκε καὶ τερατοσκόπε,
ἀστρολογικῆς ἔμπειρε καὶ μαγικῆς τέχνης,
δι' ὧν κρατύνεις τῆς πλάνης τὰ διδάγματα, σημεῖα δεικνὺς τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ πλανωμένοις,
ἀποστατικῆς δυνάμεως ἐγχειρήματα,
ἃ σοὶ χορηγεῖ σὸς πατὴρ Σατὰν ἀεὶ δι' ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως Ἀζαζὴλ ποιεῖν, ἔχων σε πρόδρομον ἀντιθέου πανουργίας.
καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης·
ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς μυσταγωγίας αὐτῶν μακρὰ ὄντα πειρασόμεθα βραχέως διεξελθεῖν καὶ τὰ πολλῷ χρόνῳ κεκρυμμένα εἰς φανερὸν ἀγαγεῖν. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν γένοιτο εὐέλεγκτα πᾶσι. [Adv Haer 1:13.6]

How does anyone deny that there is relationship between the heretic Marcus and Marcion given the identification here of Marcus as born from Satan' (= 'which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish'). The identification isn't isolated in the section on Marcus. A little earlier it is said that Marcus and his associates send forth spirits that appear to be divine (i.e. from 'God') "but such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church." [ibid 1.13.4] And again, we are told a little later that "this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith." [ibid 1.21.2]

I don't know how this description of Marcus can be viewed as being separate from 'Marcion' a little while later in the section which deals with Polycarp's alleged encounter with the heretic:

And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou recognize me? "I do recognize thee, the first-born of Satan."

[stephan happy huller]

My response:

Hi Professor

Thank you for the explanation. I had a similar point of view from my Aramaic professor back in Canada when I was much younger. Two questions (perhaps this could lead to an article from you on the subject).

1. would you agree with Hilgenfeld's short discussion http://books.google.com/books?id=D1gtAA ... BD&f=false

Dass Μαρκίων ein Deminutivum von Μαρκος ist, schliesse ich auch aus dem Verhaltniss von Εὐρυτίων zu Εὔρυτος (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (bei Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) zu κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So möchte ich auch an den von dem Verfasser der Philosophumena so angefeindeten κάλλιστος, romanischen Bishof 217 - 222, denken, wenn Rhodon bei Eusebius KG, V, 13, 8 κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων genanne wird. Um so mehr werden die Μαρκιανοί welche Justinus Dial. c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 vor Valentinianern, Basilidianern, Satornillianern, u.s.w. erwahnt, Marcioniten sein. Ebenso wird man in dem Muratorianum Z 82 - 84 zu lesen haben: quia etiam novum psalmorum librum Marciani (= Marcionitae) conscripserunt.

2. is it correct to associate this with ίων use in Greek as a comparative?

Thank you so much

Stephan

[stephan happy huller]

And back to the other topic - the identification of the Marcionite god with Azazel, Origen has an interesting reference too to consider:

Moreover (the goat), which in the book Of Leviticus is sent away (into the wilderness), and which in the Hebrew language is named Azazel, was none other than this; and it was necessary to send it away into the desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on it the lot fell.

I remember a Church Father - Barnabas? - who identifies Jesus in a similar manner i.e. with the scapegoat. In other words, it is not necessarily an Enoch reference alone.

[stephan happy huller]

Another email from a respected academic who has taken a great interest in the study of Marcion.

thanks for the wonderful emails (your own and the one by Adam Lajtar). Like you, I am also intrigued by the proximity of Marcion and Mark, and I do not think that, if my reconstruction is correct (in the meantime Prof. Klinghardt also seems to believe that Marcion is the source for Mark, although, if I am not mistaken, he still thinks that Marcion has used an older gospel), a plagiariser (or the people around him) of Marcion who wants to better his Gospel consciously may have put the greater Mark to it. How the special relation of Mark with Egypt comes about needs further exploration, and I know you are working on this for a number of years already,