Paul and Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:42 am

Curious the way those names appear in Hegesippus:

Σιμωνιανοί = (those of Simon)
Κλεοβιηνοί
Λοσιθιανοί, = (those of Dositheus)
Γοραθηνοί

Μασβωθεοι
Μενανδριανισταὶ (those of Menander)
Μαρκιανισταὶ (those of Mark)

Καρποκρατιανοὶ (those of Carpocrates)
Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ (those of Valentine)
Βασιλειδιανοὶ (those of Basilides)
Σατορνιλιανοὶ (those of Satornilus)

It's weird the way the endings change by the end. Clearly the last group were added by another writer.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Irish1975 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:03 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:57 am
No one can deny the core 'thing.
Clearly something called Marcion existed in antiquity. But it is equally true that 'Marcion' is also called Marcellina in parallel reports http://traditionalcatholic.net/Traditio ... 04-07.html. Similarly the Cappodocian fathers identify Marcion as 'Mark' i.e. Marcus of Irenaeus's report AH 1.13 - 21. Also Hegemonius and Justin reference Marcion as Marcian or Marcellus.

There seem to be a number of reports which preserve the same individual or tradition by slightly different names:
Irenaeus (and his tradition) - Marcion (I take the explicit references to 'Marcion' in Justin as Irenaean additions)
Justin, Serapion of Antioch - Marcian
Hegesippus - Marcellina
Hegemonius - Marcellus
Irenaeus/Philosophumena/Cappodican Fathers - Mark
He’s everywhere. And nowhere. The Keyser Söze (/ˈkaɪzər ˈsoʊzeɪ/ KY-zər SOH-zay) of earliest Christianity!

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:55 am

What is alleged is that:

1. there is a consistent chain from Justin as to the existence of Marcion - i.e. (a) Marcion references in Justin Apology (b) Irenaeus Against Heresies (c) Tertullian and then (d) others who relied on Irenaeus.
2. but there is evidence that Justin's writings were altered c. 195 CE - i.e. the time Irenaeus was active. Even Craig Evans admits that. And Irenaeus makes specific reference to the fact that he is following Justin's example. So the idea comes to the fore that our texts of Justin might have reshaped by Irenaeus.
3. in Dialogue however 'Marcionites' are called Marcianites. Hegesippus the story of Marcion coming to Anicetus is told as if Marcion was Marcellina. He mentions Markists or Marcianists also. So too Serapion.

Given that all the writers in (3) existed either before or alongside Irenaeus the idea that Irenaeus was determined to reference the group as Marcionites or followers of Marcion. That was his stamp on the tradition or understanding.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:57 am

Also there are the legends that make up the Acts of Peter tradition that Peter went to Rome to convert a follower of Simon Magus named Marcellus the senator. These traditions influenced Hegemonius.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:54 pm

It is worth taking a second look at Serapion of Antioch:
It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion's literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.

2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows:

3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.

4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.

5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.

6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on. So much in regard to Serapion.
Carriker's conclusions:
The library at Caesarea thus contained Serapion's Letter to Domnus, Letter to Pontius and Caricus, and letters to some unidentified persons, as well as a treatise critical of the Gospel of Peter.
Indeed Eusebius's transcription of the letter appears to be faulty near the conclusion, Serapion's words being preserved in Greek as follows:
Ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, καταλαβόμενοι ὁποίας ἦν αἱρέσεως ὁ Μαρκιανός, ὃς καὶ ἑαυτῶι ἐναντιοῦτο, μὴ νοῶν ἃ ἐλάλει, ἃ μαθήσεσθε ἐξ ὧν ὑμῖν ἐγράφη, ἐδυνήθημεν γὰρ παρ' ἄλλων τῶν ἀσκησάντων αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τοῦτ' ἐστὶν παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν τὰ γὰρ πλείονα φρονήματα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, χρησάμενοι παρ' αὐτῶν διελθεῖν καὶ εὑρεῖν τὰ μὲν πλείονα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου τοῦ σωτῆρος, τινὰ δὲ προσδιεσταλμένα, ἃ καὶ ὑπετάξαμεν ὑμῖν
As Lampham notes "'meanness of spirit' (μικροψυχίαν) had been generated in the community and Serapion's first visit had failed to detect the underlying cause of the problem. On reflection, and with the benefit of expert advice, he recognized that he had been duped by certain of the brethren whose minds 'lurked in some hole of heresy' (αἱρέσει τινὶ ὁ νοῦς αὐτῶν ἐφώλευεν) influenced, as they were, by a certain Marcianus. His second visit would soon put matters right. The other matter of particular interest in Eusebius' account is that the Bishop of Antioch seems to have taken exception not to certain interpretative changes to the canonical text, but rather to a number of additions (προσδιεσταλμένα) to it." (Lampham, Peter the Myth and the Man p. 16)

Lampham also brushes aside those who claim that someone other than the leader of the Marcionite sect is meant here saying "it is often suggested that this Marcian was not the heretic of Pontus, but the leader of a Docetic sect at Rhossus. It should be noted, however, that twice previously (HE 4.22.5 and 5.) Eusebius has used the term 'Marcianists' in connection with Marcion, the founder of the well-known heretical sect." (ibid) Yet the truth is that this is not the only difficulty with this passage. It would seem to have been very badly translated from Syriac into Greek and so Schaff acknowledges great difficulties with his translation saying that "the interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty. The Greek reads τουτέστι παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν, (τὰ γὰρ φρονήματα τὰ πλείονα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας), κ.τ.λ. The words τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ are usually translated “who preceded him,” or “who led the way before him”; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this interpretation, and moreover the αὐτοῦ seems to refer not to Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which has just been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the reference of the ἐκείνων, which is commonly connected with the words τῆς διδασκαλίας, but which seems to belong rather with the φρονήματα and to refer to the διαδοχῶν τῶν καταρξαμένων. It thus seems necessary to define the τῆς διδασκαλίας more closely, and we therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words “of that school,” referring to the Docetæ just mentioned."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:01 pm

If this analysis is correct it would seem that Serapion might have misunderstood the Papian report about the gospel of Mark's relationship to Peter or conversely what Clement says about Mark writing a gospel of Peter and a gospel of Mark. The manner in which Papias and Clement retell the same material in slightly different ways allows Serapion to be yet a different version.
For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read.
So he got there and the church put forward a purported 'gospel of Peter' and Serapion is now showing a correction of his original opinion FOR OUTSIDERS. Why else would a letter like this have ended up at Caesarea? Clearly he wrote the letter and sent it out to show he was orthodox.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

maryhelena
Posts: 1711
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by maryhelena » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:58 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:57 am
The way I liken it is as follows. For any of the people at this forum who led normal lives and got married had kids etc. Arguments happen. They usually happen over a series of events which in their rawest form have mutual agreement. Look at Falwell's latest chapter:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jerry-falwel ... l-911-call

The details are spelled out. No one can deny the core 'thing.' But the details, names etc. are in dispute. The same thing is true with 'Marcion.'

Clearly something called Marcion existed in antiquity. But it is equally true that 'Marcion' is also called Marcellina in parallel reports http://traditionalcatholic.net/Traditio ... 04-07.html. Similarly the Cappodocian fathers identify Marcion as 'Mark' i.e. Marcus of Irenaeus's report AH 1.13 - 21. Also Hegemonius and Justin reference Marcion as Marcian or Marcellus.

There seem to be a number of reports which preserve the same individual or tradition by slightly different names:
Irenaeus (and his tradition) - Marcion (I take the explicit references to 'Marcion' in Justin as Irenaean additions)
Justin, Serapion of Antioch - Marcian
Hegesippus - Marcellina
Hegemonius - Marcellus
Irenaeus/Philosophumena/Cappodican Fathers - Mark

So, Stephan, 9 years on - any new developments on your theory that the teachings/writings of a literary Marcion are connected to the writer of gMark, hence, in your theory, to Marcus Julius Agrippa ? Plain English please as you know very well that I don't have knowledge of Greek.

maryhelena. post 452 (FRDB Dating Paul thread)

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

''And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.''


Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)


Stephan Huller. post 550 (FRDB Dating Paul thread)

Well here's the breakthrough I think that will help explain the name Marcion. I've been working at this for over twenty years (since I was at York University and I asked my professor of Aramaic studies how to explain the name - he suggested the idea of a Greek diminutive). While it is interesting to follow the idea in Ephrem of some sort of a relationship between Marcion and the Semitic root mrq, this may well be one of Ephrem's typical attempts at faux etymologies. The problem is the 'ion' suffix - it can only be Greek. But the other idea I have pursuing - viz. the idea that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite NT) has some new legs given the number of appearances of the term Κλήμεντίων to describe the collection of writings ascribed to Clement. I noticed it appears in this critical edition of what is commonly called the Pseudo-Clementine writings. Apparently one manuscript refers to the body of writings as the Κλήμεντίων (MS Regio 940).

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13076
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:55 am

The older I get the less I know. But here's what I am still stuck on.

1. If Mark wrote the most productive gospel how could it have been so productive without there being an established exegesis which accompanied it? An example. Socrates was whatever the historical Socrates was. Plato's Socrates was part of a Platonic system. But Mark's Jesus has no Markic school of interpretation? Suspicion: either Irenaeus's Mark community or his Marcion community was likely that Markic tradition.

2. if you take the texts at face value there were two eyewitnesses to Marcion: Justin (nearly) and Polycarp. Justin's witness is suspicious. Can be argued to have been added to the original testimony. Polycarp's is even more problematic. Irenaeus says that he only saw Polycarp once when he was a young boy (dubious to begin with). So when did Irenaeus learn about Polycarp's face to face encounter with Marcion? If we imagine it was timed to Marcion's visit to Rome (probable but not certain) the claim might have been developed to correct Hegesippus's Marcellina reference. After all the citation of Hegesippus material in AH 3 can be read as if Irenaeus attributed it to Polycarp (i.e. that Polycarp was the one who preserved the line of succession from Rome). That's also the location of the face to face encounter between Polycarp and Marcion emerges.

3. Most of the witnesses I cite lived 150 - 190 CE. Assuming that Marcion lived to 160 CE how could there be so much uncertainty with respect to his actual name?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

davidmartin
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by davidmartin » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:09 am

hey SA maybe you know the answer to this
In Hegeseppius there's the seven sects among the people (the Christian ones) eg Simonians, Masbothæans, Goratheni
Once i found an author who tried to figure out the etymology of some of these names and i couldn't find it
who are these Goratheni and these Masbotheans that are otherwise unknown?
don't suppose you remember who it was?

davidmartin
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Paul and Marcion

Post by davidmartin » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:44 pm

OK here's some guesswork on the Goratheni for what it's worth

Gora seems to mean 'man' and/or 'great' in Aramaic
Menander in Greek means strong man
Since Hegeseppius says Menandrists spring from one of the earlier seven sects it could be it was from the Goratheni which might have meant 'great men'
If so that would date Samaritan 'Menander' to some early time say <70 as a successor to Simon as Justin says he was
In this role he had an Apostle Paul style routine - he isn't the great power but he is it's saviour/messenger which is interesting
As to doctrines - little is known. Probably taught spiritual resurrection only

"was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, (Μαρκιανισταί) and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians"

I tried the same trick on Masbotheans. There is an Aramaic name Masabala / Masbala / Masbalos. Couldn't find out what this means
Not unless it somehow means 'Markoseans' from whom sprang the 'Marcionites'. Some dude online recons there is no Marcion only a 'Mark' in the above

Post Reply