Perhaps the Answer to the Identity of 'Marcion' By Means of Gematria

[Secret Alias]

You'd think given my decades of interest in (a) Marcion and (b) gematria I would have put the two together. No. Oddly not the case.

So it was that today I was sitting in my chair muttering to myself again that I don't feel like working when I decided to finally calculate the numerological value of the name Μαρκίων

40 + 1 + 100 + 20 + 10 + 800 + 50 = 1021

I guess part of the reason I never added up the Greek letters of the name Marcion was that I - like Irenaeus - inherited an unconscious mistrust or dislike of Greek isometria. The facts are that no - or very few - Hebrew words are going to add up to something like 1021 so maybe in the past I did add up the letters and saw the large result and decided to pack it in.

But today was different. Today - perhaps given my fatigue - led me to consider what Greek words might add up to 1021. And lo and behold I pulled in a big fish almost at soon as I dropped my line in the water:

αποστολος

How can that possibly be a coincidence? Take the Marcosians for an example. They delighted in Greek gematria. It is apparently they who Irenaeus criticizes for using Greek letters to calculate the value of Jesus's name and arriving at 888. We know the Marcosians used the so-called Pauline writings. 'Marcion' is a subform of Marcus, the name of the leader of their sect. Hilgenfeld provides a number of examples where the ίων suffix was used as a term to mark intimacy and closeness.

One of the examples that Hilgenfeld uses is Rhodo's address to καλλιστίων preserved for us in the fifth book of the Church History. According to Hilgenfeld the addressee preserved as καλλιστίων is καλλιστος of Rome which definitely suits the context of the passage as summarized by Eusebius. After noting what Rhodo said against various Marcionites he discusses Apelles and Eusebius summarizes that portion of the work going on to say:

In the same work, addressing Callistio (καλλιστίων) the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. And he says that a book of Problems had been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian's problems. There is also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron.

If as Hilgenfeld suggests καλλιστίων is just the author's way of reinforcing his intimacy with Callistus of Rome it is significant that the context is a discussion of Marcion. The same or related Christian culture might well have addressed Marcus as 'Μαρκίων' (beloved Marcus) in the liturgy described or paraphrased by Irenaeus:

But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above ... Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them.

Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that Charis who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.

It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Charis, since the Father of all doth continually behold thy angel before His face. Now the place of thy angel is among us: it behoves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me [the gift of] Charis. Adorn thyself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that thou mayest be what I am, and I what thou art. Establish the germ of light in thy nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy." On the woman replying," I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy;" then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her," Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy." She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens. to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.)

Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own Chaffs. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.

The point is that the followers of Mark (a) used Greek gematria (b) took an interest in the writings of 'the apostle' and (c) were part of a broader culture which - according to Hilgenfeld - employed the ίων suffix as a manner of expressing one's intimacy with someone. Could this all have come together in a manner where 'Marcion' was identified as the 'apostle' and founder of Christianity? Something to think about. Seems to be just about the best explanation I've ever come up with for Mark = Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

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.

[Secret Alias]

Deininger wrestling with the same problem and coming away with different conclusions:

Die eine Auffassung lautet, daß es sich bei Kaisar¤vn um ein Deminutiv, die andere, daß es sich um ein Patronymikon handle, und dementsprechend ist teils von dem „kleinen Caesar“9, dem „Caesarlein“10 oder auch vom „Caesarsproß“11, „Caesarsohn“12, „Sohn des Caesar“13 als Bedeutung von griech. Kaisar¤vn die Rede1

and again:

Was läßt sich nun aber über die Bedeutung der Namensform Kaisar¤vn sagen? Hat man es mit einem Deminutiv oder einem Patronymikon zu tun? Hier ist zunächst soviel unbestreitbar, daß -¤vnAbleitungen von Eigennamen hauptsächlich auf -ow im Griechischen außerordentlich weit verbreitet und bereits dem homerischen Epos geläufig sind, wobei Kron¤vn (zu KrÒnow) für Zeus, den Sohn des Kronos, der bekannteste Fall sein dürfte. Daneben begegnet etwa Dardan¤vn (zu Dãrdanow) oder z.B. Phle¤vn (zu PhleÊw). Was eine hypokoristische Bedeutung von -¤vn betrifft (das in griechischen Ohren ohnehin mehr als ein Komparativ denn als Deminutivum geklungen haben dürfte), so scheinen sich die dafür in Anspruch genommenen Belege auf ganz wenige und schwerlich eindeutige Wortbildungen bei Aristophanes zu beschränken. So erscheint einmal im „Frieden“ (V. 214) das Wort ÉAttik¤vn, das dort meist als ‚pejoratives Deminutiv‘ zu ÉAttikÒw verstanden wird, obwohl der Text mancherlei Probleme aufwirft24. In den Ekklesiazusen ist es das Wort malak¤vn (zu malakÒw, V. 1058), das im Scholion ausdrücklich als ‚hypokoristisch‘ bezeichnet wird25, was freilich von modernen Erklärern nicht unbedingt übernommen wird2(p. 223) etc.

http://uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/do ... 131221.pdf

[Secret Alias]

And then of course the evidence or intimation that Tertullian knew that the Marcionites claimed Marcion was an apostle. There is something being copied out twice and reworked. An older source:

After such a fashion as this, I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if an apostolikos, side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us: if, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have the best reason to say) cease to live.

His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere, Marcion, ausus es, ne caro eius probaretur ex quo, oro te: exhibe auctoritatem: si propheta es praenuntia aliquid, si apostolus praedica publice, si apostolicus cum. apostolis senti, si tantum Christianus es crede quod traditum est: si nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, morere(Carne Christi 2)

compare:

And yet heresy, which is always in this manner correcting the gospels, and so corrupting them, is the effect of human temerity, not of divine authority: for even if Marcion were a disciple, he is not above his master: and if Marcion were an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach:a and if Marcion were a prophet, even the spirits of the prophets have to be subject to the prophets,b for they are not <prophets> of subversion but of peace: even if Marcion were an angel, he is more likely to be called anathema than gospel-maker, seeing he has preached a different gospel (Against Marcion 4)

Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis, negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat; cum et si discipulus Marcion, non tamen super magistrum; et si apostolus Marcion, Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus; et si prophetes Marcion, et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi, non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis; etiam si angelus Marcion, citius anathema dicendus quam evangelizator, quia aliter evangelizavit.

[Secret Alias]

At the core of the underlying text developed in two versions in Tertullian:

1. si apostolus praedica publice
if (Marcion you are) an apostle, preach publically

2. si apostolus Marcion, Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus
if Marcion (is) an apostle, Whether it were I, says Paul, or they, so we preach

The idea here is clearly that by the time Against Marcion was composed the issue at hand was textual criticism. In other words, the Marcionite canon had different readings which had to be aligned or explained as forgeries of a heretic named Marcion who lived after the time of the apostles. But interestingly the earlier version of the same passage associates 'the apostle' with secrecy and mysticism. The argument basically is - you can't call yourself an 'apostle' (= one who is sent) if you aren't preaching. Notice how Against Marcion inserts a passage from the new Pauline canon to make it clear that Paul 'preached.' This isn't at all clear from the first three chapters of the same work where the author speaks of coming with one message for everyone but a secret message for the elite. This stands behind numerous other statements in Tertullian including what is written in the Prescription. In other words, the identity of the apostle changed over time from a 'mystic' or 'secret' apostle to one who preached openly like the other apostles.

Notice that in the earlier formulation 'the apostle' stands far closer to a figure like Marcus of the Marcosians. As always too, the insertion of explicit citations of 'scripture' often take the place of problematic or contentious statements in the original.

[Charles Wilson]

The argument basically is - you can't call yourself an 'apostle' (= one who is sent) if you aren't preaching. Notice how Against Marcion inserts a passage from the new Pauline canon to make it clear that Paul 'preached.'

1 Corinthians 1: 17 (RSV):

[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Like that?

CW

[Secret Alias]

Well yes. The original meaning of "apostle" or Judeo-Christian anchoring of the term was Moses. Moses didn't preach. Just shows you the secondary revisionists of the canon were white.

[Secret Alias]

If such a thing as 'Marcion's apostlikon' existed. If that 'thing' had reality then by definition Marcion was the apostle or at least that is a very real possibility. Just think about the terminology. Think. There is a think called 'the Apostolikon.' Who's is it? To whom does it belong? Marcion. Who is the Apostle for whom the 'Apostolic' properly belongs? Paul? But why then is it Marcion's Apostolic? Surely it's Paul's Apostolic, right? But why is Marcion so intimately associated with the Apostolic? Surely someone other than Marcion identified the collection as 'Apostolic'? No. Not at all. It's always 'the Apostolic' of Marcion. Marcion's Apostolic.

Apostolic is the adjective. Apostle is necessarily the noun. In an abstract sense the Apostolic properly belongs to the Apostle in the same way that Jimmy's bicycle belongs to Jimmy. But the Apostolikon is always spoken of as Marcion's.

The interesting wrinkle is that in the orthodox canon 'the apostolic' emerges as an adjective which means 'not an apostle but a follower of the apostles.' Luke and Mark - the two gospels closest to Marcion and each identified in separate sources as 'Marcion's gospel' are 'apostolic' because owing to the arbitrary decision of orthodox mythmakers Luke and Mark weren't full apostles but followers of the apostles.

I suspect that the status of Luke and Mark was invented as a way of deflecting or changing the meaning of the term 'apostolic' - but that's another story.

The orthodox don't call anything other than Luke and Mark 'apostolic' in the natural sense of the terminology. The collection of apostolic letters are never called 'the apostolic' or - as far as I know - 'the apostolic' letters or writings. They will call the author 'the apostle.' In early literature he is most often identified as ho apostolos. But his writings are never the apostolic or apostolic. It's as if the orthodox are dancing around the terminology 'apostolic' in the same way as the Marcionites had 'original rights' to the name 'Christian' in Edessa.

The apostolikon is acknowledged to be a property of Marcion. But Paul is the apostle. There are hints that Marcion might have been considered to be the apostle or the name of the commonly held apostle. But Paul is the correct name of the apostle not Marcion. The writings belong to Paul and that's all. The most frequent way of citing the scriptures by the orthodox is 'the apostle says ...' or something to that effect. But the Marcionites seem to have associated the scriptures with the term 'apostolikon' and the orthodox replied by saying 'Marcion's apostolikon.'

[Secret Alias]

We get a clear idea of how the orthodox challenged the Marcionite identification of their own tradition as 'apostolic' in a section in Book 1 of Against Marcion:

For there were some who disputed about eating things offered to idols, others about the veiling of women, others about marriage and divorce, and a few even about the hope of the resurrection: about God, not a one. For if that question also had been in dispute, it too would be found in the apostle (et ipsa apud apostolum inveniretur), the more so as that on which the other things depend (vel quanto principalis) . But if it was after the time of the apostles that the truth suffered adulteration as regards the rule of God (Quodsi post apostolorum tempora adulterium veritas passa est circa dei regulam) it follows that in its own time the apostolic tradition suffered no adulteration as regards God's rule (ergo iam apostolica traditio nihil passa est in tempore suo circa dei regulam), and we shall be called upon to recognize as apostolic no other tradition than that which is today set forth in the apostolic churches (et non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editur). But you will find no church of apostolic origin whose Christianity repudiates the Creator (Nullam autem apostolici census ecclesiam invenias quae non in creatore christianizet). Or else, if these churches are taken to have been corrupt from the beginning, can any churches be sound? Shall they be those hostile to the Creator? Exhibit a single one which you suppose is apostolic, and you will have me convinced (Exhibe ergo aliquam ex tuis apostolici census, et obduxeris). Since then it is on all accounts certain that from Christ right down to Marcion no other god than the Creator was included in the statement of this mystery, this gives all necessary protection to my statement of case, by which I prove that the very idea of that heretical god originated with this separation between the gospel and the law; while there is support for my previous postulate that we may not accept as a god one whom a man has constructed out of his own mind—unless of course he is a prophet (nisi plane prophetes), and then it would not be of his own mind. Whether Marcion can be so called—well, proof of this will be required.

You get the clear sense here that (a) the Marcionite churches and the Marcionite tradition were called 'apostolic.' That the name was well known and the Marcionite's had clear possession of the name 'apostolic' - which is why the orthodox only use the terminology in a deliberate kind of obscufication.

So too the sudden and unexpected mention of Marcion 'being a prophet' seems to have obscured in my mind an original reference to Marcion being the apostle of his community. nisi plane prophetes likely originally read nisi plane apostolus. So:

For there were some who disputed about eating things offered to idols, others about the veiling of women, others about marriage and divorce, and a few even about the hope of the resurrection: about God, not a one. For if that question also had been in dispute, it too would be found in the apostle (et ipsa apud apostolum inveniretur), the more so as that on which the other things depend (vel quanto principalis) . But if it was after the time of the apostles that the truth suffered adulteration as regards the rule of God (Quodsi post apostolorum tempora adulterium veritas passa est circa dei regulam) it follows that in its own time the apostolic tradition suffered no adulteration as regards God's rule (ergo iam apostolica traditio nihil passa est in tempore suo circa dei regulam), and we shall be called upon to recognize as apostolic no other tradition than that which is today set forth in the apostolic churches (et non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editur). But you will find no church of apostolic origin whose Christianity repudiates the Creator (Nullam autem apostolici census ecclesiam invenias quae non in creatore christianizet). Or else, if these churches are taken to have been corrupt from the beginning, can any churches be sound? Shall they be those hostile to the Creator? Exhibit a single one which you suppose is apostolic, and you will have me convinced (Exhibe ergo aliquam ex tuis apostolici census, et obduxeris). Since then it is on all accounts certain that from Christ right down to Marcion no other god than the Creator was included in the statement of this mystery, this gives all necessary protection to my statement of case, by which I prove that the very idea
of that heretical god originated with this separation between the gospel and the law; while there is support for my previous postulate that we may not accept as a god one whom a man has constructed out of his own mind—unless of course he is an apostle and then it would not be of his own mind. Whether Marcion can be so called—well, proof of this will be required.

[Secret Alias]

For those who argue apostolos had nothing to do with the Hebrew equating of Moses as THE apostle Tertullian preserves

For Moses was an apostle, just as much as the apostles were prophets: the authority of these two offices must be regarded as equal, as proceeding from one and the same Lord of both apostles and prophets

I think Hebrews also says Moses was an apostle. So the claim of those trying to limit the meaning or distance the meaning of apostle from Jewish sources is unfounded