Contextualizing Our Information About Marcion from the Church Fathers

[Secret Alias]

The more I read about Schelling's dissertation the more I see it as an indictment of modern scholarship of early Christianity. The question Schelling asks is:

1. how many witnesses to Marcion's canon do we really have?

As modern people we used to assume that no one or very few people lie. When for instance scholars accused Morton Smith of lying about his discovery of a manuscript at Mar Saba it was an incredible claim because in fact we assume that everyone else is telling the truth. For instance, Morton Smith actually discovered a manuscript and in order to be a liar must be understood to have falsely produced his manuscript. In the case of the Church Fathers there is no manuscript. There is in one case a claim of having a manuscript in their possession (Epiphanius) but in the case of Irenaeus and Tertullian there isn't even a claim that they have the actual Marcionite canon. This is what makes the Morton Smith accusation so outlandish. The same people who say he is lying, think that Irenaeus and Tertullian are telling us facts - even when they don't tell us explicitly they have in their possession the Marcionite canon!

The difficulty with thinking that Tertullian and Epiphanius saw the same canon is that their testimonies agree in very little. Epiphanius produces a textual differences but the passages are listed - Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and then 2 Corinthians. The document witnesses a Romans-first ordering of passages but is made in the context of Epiphanius arguing from a Galatians-first ordering of the Marcionite canon and Epiphanius adds subsequent documents by his own hand to reorder his 'eyewitness' to the Marcionite canon according to the Galatians-first ordering. Why does this disconnect exist? Why cite a 'firsthand witness' to Marcion's canon which starts with Romans and then argue for another ordering? Epiphanius thought Irenaeus was authoritative and had access to Against Marcion and wanted to develop a united front against the heresies.

2. how can Irenaeus and Tertullian be reporting to us the Marcionite interpretation of the NT without having their canon in their possession?

This is the craziest part of the whole scenario. This is where scholars go astray IMHO. They wrongly assume that the Church Fathers are 'like us' insofar as their arguments follow common sense guidelines. Let's start at the beginning. When we discuss things at the forum I assume that when 'Ben Smith' says something he is a person who is reporting things as he - as 'Ben Smith' - sees them. He might take a text and interpret it this way or that way. But when 'Ben Smith' says something it is for all intents and purposes assumed that what is published under 'Ben Smith' is 'Ben Smith.' The situation with the Church Fathers is a little different. The first difficulty is that one Church Father in particular - Tertullian of Carthage - has a habit of republishing things written by Irenaeus under his own name. This is the case with Against the Valentinians (= Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.1 - 13), On the Resurrection of the Soul (= Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.1 - 13) Against Marcion Book 3 (= Justin Martyr text behind Against the Jews), Against Hermogenes (= text of the same name by Theophilus) Prescription Against the Heresies (= Irenaeus Prescription Against the Heresies especially in light of a common use of a text of Tim 3:10 that only allows for one - not two - warnings against the heresies) and of course Against Marcion.

The point then is that Tertullian offers up what appears to be 'first hand' testimony against the heresies when the individual texts are taken at face value. But when you look at his comment in Against the Valentinians regarding Irenaeus "that very exact inquirer into all doctrines" it lays bare a difficulty. Tertullian is using Irenaeus's expertise and then passing it off as his own witnesses. What makes matters especially difficult is the fact that in Against Marcion Tertullian is seeming to fulfill Irenaeus's intention to "In another work, however, I shall, God granting refute them [the Marcionites and their falsification of the gospel and the writings of Paul] out of these [texts] which they still retain." (3.12.12) Scholars tend to see the connection between the one statement and the other but usually side with the idea that Tertullian did his own research. But these flies in the face of the actual situation with other texts. Indeed scholars (Quispel, Loofs, Skarsaune) are more than willing to argue that Against Marcion goes back to a text that Irenaeus mentions Justin Martyr wrote in Book Four of Against Heresies. Nevertheless the situation is obviously that what Justin wrote was modified by Irenaeus and then passed on to Tertullian rather than any direct transmission from Justin as Justin shows no signs of using the Pauline epistles.

So the point is that in laying down the Latin text of Against Marcion Tertullian necessarily used a text which was acknowledged to have been written by Justin (hence his incorporation of Book Three into the work recognizing Justin as the original author whom Tertullian is defending from the work of an 'apostate' who corrupted the original integrity) but also necessarily came under the influence of Irenaeus. Irenaeus must have added the Luke-based approach in Book Four and the familiarity with the Pauline Epistles. The editor who appears at the beginning of Against Marcion to say that he rescued the text from an apostate also comes forward later in the 'little opus' to add Book Three and divide/add Books Four and Five. Is this editor Tertullian or Irenaeus? At the very least it is clear that the argument in Against Marcion develops across many different versions of the text, all of which makes the argument from Luke and a Galatians-first ordering of the Pauline epistles so perplexing.

Is the Marcionite gospel 'Luke'? There are two puzzling arguments which have to be reconciled:

a) Marcion 'picked' Luke and corrupted it.
b) the Marcionite gospel has been fundamentally altered by means of Marcion's corruptions

Given (a) and (b) it is so very strange that Tertullian proceeds to basically cite Luke against Marcion with very few mentions of any corruptions. How many alterations of Luke does Tertullian mention? Less than three. What Irenaeus and Tertullian say quite explicitly is that Marcion knew all the gospels but only chose Luke. To this end we would have to assume that Marcion chose our canonical Luke and only Luke to develop his heresy. But this doesn't make sense. For instance if you don't like the virgin birth narrative and all the stuff about Jesus growing up why not just take Mark? Why take Luke and remove the birth narrative?

The answer necessarily is that there is something fundamentally artificial about the claim not only about the Church Fathers having the Marcionite canon (which only Epiphanius explicitly states) as well as the related claim that Marcion had the fourfold canon but chose only Luke to falsify. The argument must have originally been made by Irenaeus as part of his 'scheme' for an 'ideal' heavenly fourfold gospel. God established Matthew, Luke, Mark and John and the notion that four heresies would emerge - Ebionites, Marcion, Marcionites and Valentinus - as part of an unfolding plan of salvation. It doesn't make much sense from a 'history of Christianity' POV to say Marcion 'chose' Luke but from the point of view of explaining why the gospel has to be fourfold, it is absolutely necessary.

To this end Irenaeus must have argued from Luke against Marcion because of this little 'cosmic drama' that he invented. We can imagine Irenaeus writing a parallel text about the Ebionite errors from Matthew, the error of the Marcionites from Mark as well as Valentinus's false interpretation of John. It's not history but metaphysics and symbolism. Tertullian picked up on these arguments and developed them in Latin, Epiphanius saw the original Greek text and mistook or developed the original argument for the fourfold canon to mean Marcion's Apostolikon started with Galatians. The original text argued from Luke and the Galatians-first collection of Paul because the author (Irenaeus) used a collection like that.

[Secret Alias]

Statement 1: Sed alium iam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, ut professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum .... Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore, quasi ab assertoribus eius intexta: competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint. Tunc et illa constabit eodem vitio haereticae caecitatis erasa quo et haec reservata. Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, sub illa utique condicione quae ex utraque parte condicta sit (4.6.1 - 3)

I now advance a step further, while I call to account, as I have promised, Marcion's gospel in his own version of it, with the design, even so, of proving it adulterated ... Certainly that is why he has expunged all the things that oppose his view, that are in accord with the Creator, on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion. These it is we shall call to account, with these we shall grapple, to see if they will favour my case, not his, to see if they will put a check on Marcion's pretensions. Then it will become clear that these things have been expunged by the same disease of heretical blindness by which the others have been retained. Such will be the purpose and plan of my treatise, on those precise terms which have been agreed by both parties.

But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated ... It is certain, also, that with this view (regarding prefixing his antitheses and falsifying the gospel) he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects. Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question.

What I want people to see is that the plan for Against Marcion Book 4 is very strange. The claim is that:

1. Marcion had access to the fourfold gospel but only picked Luke and then
2. corrupted Luke according to another text 'the antitheses' which he prefixed to the front of his canon

This happened before Against Marcion was written. Now Tertullian says:

a) Marcion erased lots of material but
b) Against Marcion is only going to deal with the material which he retained
c) by focusing only on the material that is common to Luke and Marcion's gospel Tertullian can disprove the antitheses!

What a bizarre plan of attack! Just think about it. In essence then Tertullian is quoting from the orthodox edition of Luke. He claims to know what was erased and to deal only with what is left over - i.e. what was common to both traditions. But essentially then Tertullian arguing from his own text of Luke. There is no way to distinguish between Marcion and Tertullians own text at this point when you are arguing from the subset of 'things held in common' between both traditions and both gospels.

If you think that Tertullian is trustworthy, by all means, he 'must have had' Marcion's gospel, then did a minute examinations of all the passages which were deleted and then focused on what remained in the orthodox text of Luke. But still for all intents and purposes he is citing from his text of Luke. If you don't think Tertullian is trustworthy, he or Irenaeus could have taken the lazy route and simply worked from Luke carelessly (i.e. without referencing or knowing what the Marcionite 'deletions' were and pronounced a condemnation of the antitheses (because that was a foregone conclusion) from Luke. But:

i) where is the evidence that Marcion stole and corrupted Luke. It's just taken for granted without any proof
ii) if Marcion didn't steal and corrupt Luke surely the gospel couldn't have lined up exactly to Luke. What did Tertullian do with parallel but not exact references? Was it always cut and dry in terms of 'excising' material? What if only a sentence was removed, did he include the entire section in the subset of things shared between Luke and Marcion? What about a few words missing?

The bottom line is that the more you think about it it becomes apparent that Tertullian just took canonical Luke and used it to disprove Marcion. Unless Marcion is understood to have literally 'deleted sections' of Luke. If it was a word here or there, it becomes Luke against Marcion and the need for Tertullian to have actually had the gospel of Marcion becomes less important. Why do you need to have Marcion's gospel if a passage is left 'intact' but only a few words or sentences are missing?

[Secret Alias]

It's Tertullian's lack of interest in the theft or the adulteration of Luke which is most surprising. If I told 100 people that Against Marcion Book Four and Five are written on the subject of someone stealing and corrupting a holy texts of the Bible, they'd expect that the focus of the book was on condemning and proving the theft took place. However, Tertullian takes no interest whatsoever in establishing the robbery or the falsification. It's like it doesn't matter to him. His actual interest is in the beliefs of Marcion and in specific - the antitheses. So forget the crimes of theft and forgery. Not important. What is important is to take Luke - or what remains - and use that to disprove the antitheses!

Now if the antitheses are the focus of Tertullian's efforts you'd expect that we'd see some citations from that text 'affixed to the front' of the canon. Does Tertullian do that? No. Again no interest in crimes, no interest in the antitheses - in point of fact. Instead the interest is to prove by means of Luke that the antitheses don't fit Paul or the apostolic church. What a fucking joke! What kind of madness would have led anyone to write something so obtusely convoluted? The answer: that the author doesn't have the Marcionite canon is the only explanation. He has to take this ridiculous approach because his interest is in something else - to establishing Luke as the Marcionite gospel even though in a previous edition of Against Heresies (the Philosophumena) Mark is understood to be the Marcionite gospel.

[Secret Alias]

Notice that the first gospel reference doesn't mention an erasure:

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit (d)eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo-creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat

(Marcion) premises that in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee—from the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

We have two possible ways of explaining this start. Either Tertullian or Irenaeus had a copy of the Marcionite gospel and it started at 3:1 or he presumed that because of the material surrounding it:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”[a]

7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them.

19 But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20 Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.

The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted[a] by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’[c]”

9 The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10 For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[d]”

12 Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[e]”

13 When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.

If Tertullian knew the announcement from 'Isaiah' he doesn't mention it. It has been noted that he thinks John only appears later in the narrative. The lack of reference to his baptism is strange too. The fact that Marcion might have cut it might still prompt a response - a criticism - for his cutting out these passages from Tertullian. So too the Virgin Birth. The failure to mention the temptation narrative is odd too - even if it was just to say that Marcion 'cut' all these passages.

[Secret Alias]

This passage is difficult to explain as I don't see the word 'appear' or 'appeared' in this section of Luke. Does anyone know what Tertullian is talking about:

Did not then due order de-
mand that it should first be explained how he came down from
his own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not pass
censure on such matters as do not satisfy the claims of orderly
narrative, <but let it> always tail off in falsehood? So let us ask
once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere,2
whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and
in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let
him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which
no less is the Creator's. Next however, admitting that he came
down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. It is
no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used. 'Appear' sug-
gests a sudden and unexpected sight, <by one> who at some instant
has cast his eyes on a thing which has at that instant appeared.
To have come down, however—when that takes place the fact
is in view and comes beneath the eye: it also puts the event into
sequence, and enforces the inquiry in what sort of aspect, in what
sort of array, with how much speed or moderation, as also at
what time of day, or of night, he came down: and besides that,
who saw him coming down, who reported it, and who gave
assurance of a fact not easily credible even to him who gives as-
surance.

Harnack determined that ἐφάνη was the word which appeared in their commonly held gospel. But ἐφάνη does not appear in Luke. The closest example is what appears in Mark 16:9 https://books.google.com/books?id=cm6rD ... on&f=false

After Jesus had risen early on the first day of that week, he appeared (ἐφάνη) first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.

[Secret Alias]

Scorecard so far:

1. 7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing anything before 3.1. No mention of erasing
2. 7.2 non-Lukan passage which references Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T acknowledges the word appears in the gospel. Not in Luke
3. 7.3 T denies the Marcionite gospel portrait of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15:

Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be,168 he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee.

Not sure how to classify this reference. It is not about Luke. But does T think that it is in M's gospel. Remember the opening words in 4.6 are that he is citing all the passages M retains.

[Secret Alias]

1. 7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing anything before 3.1. No mention of erasing
2. 7.2 non-Lukan passage which references Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T acknowledges the word appears in the gospel. Not in Luke
3. 7.3 T denies the Marcionite gospel portrait of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15
4. 7.4 T accuses M of erasing Mt 5:17:

But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation

[Secret Alias]

1. 7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing anything before 3.1. No mention of erasing
2. 7.2 non-Lukan passage which references Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T acknowledges the word appears in the gospel. Not in Luke
3. 7.3 T denies the Marcionite gospel portrait of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15
4. 7.4 T accuses M of erasing Mt 5:17.
5. 7.5 T speaks of "from heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once."" which seems to outline the M gospel.
6. 7.6 T accuses M of erasing more from Matthew - Mt 15:24, 26

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," ----in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. But facts will satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[Secret Alias]

1. 7.1 Luke 3.1 T doesn't mention M erasing anything before 3.1. No mention of erasing
2. 7.2 non-Lukan passage which references Jesus appeared (ἐφάνη) somewhere. T acknowledges the word appears in the gospel. Not in Luke
3. 7.3 T denies the Marcionite gospel portrait of a heavenly descent and references Mt 4:14 - 15
4. 7.4 T accuses M of erasing Mt 5:17.
5. 7.5 T speaks of "from heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once."" which seems to outline the M gospel.
6. 7.6 T accuses M of erasing more from Matthew - Mt 15:24, 26
7. 7.7 The material which preceded Luke 3:1 is referenced. But notice no charge of deleting it appears:

And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue----one so abruptly appearing, so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus----that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places.

What's more significant and often ignored - the census was kept at the library of the Irenaeon, the temple of peace was burned down. in 192 CE the library burned down. These comments must have been written before 192 CE.

[davidmartin]

SA, Tertullian seems to say Marcion is purely docetic
Christ appeared out of nowhere - and he says 'how?'
No problem to a docetic to answer that - look at Paul's conversion, that's the incarnation right there and he's on earth in a body
Tertullian only says it doesn't make sense because he thinks Jesus had his own physical form, which docetists denied
The Gospel of Mark appears usable by a docetic, and so would Luke if it started after the nativity and so would John without the ending

The massive big deal that Tertullian makes of this point does mask the fact that there isn't so great a difference between docetic and non-docetic versions of Jesus, or else how could the docetic friendly Mark be in the canon?
It's the dualism against the creator that is his real problem he accuses Marcion of - and was he? Was he really a Gnostic? I doubt it. It suits his purposes to say it though, so he does