My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.
Here is Mitchell's summary:
Apparently, there were three separate editions of the treatise that were released over a period from around 198 to 212 ce. The second edition was actually an unauthorized release (Gamble 1995: 119; Larsen 2017: 375). Particularly relevant to the discussion here is the manner in which portions of the second edition were stolen, incorrectly copied (perhaps maliciously) and then circulated without Tertullian’s consent. The identity of the thief must have been known, for Tertullian gave unique details of the copyist’s later apostasy and he knew which sections of the composition were stolen and the extent of their corruption.
My notes:

1. The author posits the existence of FOUR not three texts (as per Mitchell) viz. (a) an exemplar which was never seen by anyone (b) a fuller text which was (c) corrupted by 'an apostate' and then (d) this corrected text.
2. The author begins by noting that what is now in Against Marcion contradicts his previous statements about Marcion and his beliefs.
3. The identity of the apostate is never identified by Tatian seems a likely candidate owing to the use of Justin in Book Three. Tatian is identified as an apostate. The implication would then be that the author is pretending to be Justin who - it is pretended - wrote a ur-treatise against Marcion (a syntagma or short treatise) as well as a lengthy treatise. NOTE: the idea that Justin would write a lengthy five volume treatise must have seemed dubious to contemporaries. A work against Marcion must have circulated in the third century from Tatian's circle which must have drawn on Justin's testimony. The author has now taken that Tatianic anti-Marcionite treatise and refashioned it AS IF it were originally written by Justin which wasn't true.
4. 'stolen' (amisi). Literally 'let go,' 'lost.' Harnack “I lost it, before it was finally published."
5. The apostate "shewed them to a group of people" (et exhibuit frequentiae). This is also translated 'published himself' by Abbott.

Why does the author instantiate the existence of a proto-text 'version 1' alongside a 'version 2' (i.e. the one stolen by the apostate)? Presumably this 'final edition' is more like the proto-text.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

It strikes me as very similar to Clement's story about Peter and the gospel of Mark. Peter hears about Mark writing a gospel and he doesn't approve or condemn it. The reason I bring this up is NOT BECAUSE this will segue into a discussion of Secret Mark but because there is an affinity with Papias's famous statement about Mark writing on his own authority (also a feature of Secret Mark but not unique to it). In Papias we are left with a statement - remarkably similar to Eusebius's citation of Clement - that Mark editorial decisions were tolerated by Peter. In Against Marcion there is an explicit statement of Mark's subordinate status as an 'apostolic' (a term used also describe either the Marcionite gospel or the entire Marcionite corpus) rather than an apostle. Mark's status as something less than apostle resonates with Paul's questioned status as an apostle except that Paul is confirmed as an apostle.

Why should Mark be less than an apostle but Paul is a full apostle when according to orthodox Christianity Paul DID NOT write a gospel but Mark did? This is very puzzling. In Samaritan tradition Moses is THE apostle because he wrote the Law. He is the 'sent for' one (= apostle) by God and among the things he was 'sent for' was to publish holy writ. But in orthodox Christianity Mark is subordinated even though he wrote the earliest gospel according to Papias. So Mark is Moses-like but not an apostle while Paul is an apostle. Both Mark and Paul have never seen Jesus. But Paul is said to have visions of Jesus. There does also seem to be an acknowledgement of some sort of visionary experience in Mark too. It is worth noting that in the Samaritan religion Mark is a gematria (I know it is the incorrect usage but it is how my grandfather spoke) for Moses = 345. Puzzling puzzling puzzling.

It is very tempting to suppose that Mark and Paul were originally the same person.

The Marcionites clearly thought Paul wrote the original gospel. The discussion in Against Marcion even makes note of a similarity between the Pauline gospel and the Marcionite gospel insofar as it began as 'the Gospel of Jesus' i.e. that it was anonymous/no superscript identifying the author. This is a point of contention in To Theodore as well i.e. a version of the gospel of Mark is in circulation which has Mark 'add' new material to an original composition (= the standard gospel of Mark). The only difference is that with Against Marcion the original version is secret, the expanded version stolen and apostates manufacture a corrupted edition of that expanded version - in this case Tatian presumably. With Mark, the original version supposed circulates widely, the expanded version by the original author is secret and a corrupt edition of the expanded version is corrupted by a presbyter in Alexandria on behalf of Carpocrates. Very curious parallels. It is almost as if Tatian is connected with secret Mark.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

It goes without saying THAT I DON'T BELIEVE the claims about the author being responsible for the original edition. So he made up a story based on something. That someone in Tatian's circle was responsible for an Against Marcion is clear from Eusebius:
4.16.7. And that he met his death as he had predicted that he would, in consequence of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by Tatian, a man who early in life lectured upon the sciences of the Greeks and won no little fame in them, and who has left a great many monuments of himself in his writings. He records this fact in his work against the Greeks, where he writes as follows: And that most admirable Justin declared with truth that the aforesaid persons were like robbers.

8. Then, after making some remarks about the philosophers, he continues as follows: Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and was wholly devoted to the love of money.

9. And he who taught that death should be despised, was himself so greatly in fear of it that he endeavored to inflict death, as if it were a great evil, upon Justin, because the latter, when preaching the truth, had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors. And such was the cause of Justin's martyrdom.
4.28 And as for Musanus, whom we have mentioned among the foregoing writers, a certain very elegant discourse is extant, which was written by him against some brethren that had gone over to the heresy of the so-called Encratites, which had recently sprung up, and which introduced a strange and pernicious error. It is said that Tatian was the author of this false doctrine.

1. He is the one whose words we quoted a little above in regard to that admirable man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been a disciple of the martyr. Irenæus declares this in the first book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows concerning both him and his heresy:

2. Those who are called Encratites, and who sprung from Saturninus and Marcion, preached celibacy, setting aside the original arrangement of God and tacitly censuring him who made male and female for the propagation of the human race. They introduced also abstinence from the things called by them animate, thus showing ingratitude to the God who made all things. And they deny the salvation of the first man.

3. But this has been only recently discovered by them, a certain Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin, and expressed no such opinion while he was with him, but after the martyrdom of the latter he left the Church, and becoming exalted with the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up with the idea that he was superior to others, he established a peculiar type of doctrine of his own, inventing certain invisible æons like the followers of Valentinus, while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and fornication. His argument against the salvation of Adam, however, he devised for himself. Irenæus at that time wrote thus.

4. But a little later a certain man named Severus put new strength into the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called, after him, Severians.

5. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles.

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

7. He has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works. In it he deals with the most ancient times, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew prophets were older than all the celebrated men among the Greeks. So much in regard to these men.
5.13 Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion.
1. At this time Rhodo, a native of Asia, who had been instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, having written several books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.

2. But hear what he writes:

Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. For Apelles, one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life and his age, acknowledges one principle, but says that the prophecies are from an opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by name Philumene, who was possessed by a demon.

3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, hold to two principles, as does the mariner Marcion himself.

4. These following the wolf of Pontus, and, like him, unable to fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. Of these, Syneros is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching say.

5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles. He speaks as follows:

For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, was refuted in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine, but that each one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were found doing good works. But as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one principle, as also our doctrine does.

6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:

When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus persuaded.

7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because, though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he taught.

8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, 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.

9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow.

So much concerning these.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

At this point the business about Marcion of Pontus starts but the identification of the Marcionites with the Massagetae is faulty as Herodotus identifies the tribe as "a great and powerful people dwelling towards the east and the sunrise, beyond the Araxes and opposite the Issedones." This is the Caspian Sea not the Black Sea. Also this is interesting:
In tantum enim haeresis deputabitur quod postea inducitur, in quantum veritas habebitur quod retro et a primordio traditum est. Sed alius
libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus haereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de praescriptione novitatis. Nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est, interdum ne compendium praescriptionis ubique advocatum diffidentiae deputetur, regulam adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis quaestio dimicatura est.

For that which is of later importation must needs be reckoned heresy, precisely because that has to be considered truth which was delivered of old and from the beginning. But a different work of mine will be found to maintain this thesis against heretics, that even without discussion of their doctrines they can be proved to be such by this standing rule concerning novelty. At present however, seeing that a contest cannot be refused—for there is sometimes a danger that frequent recourse to the short-cut of that standing rule may be put down to lack of confidence—I shall begin by sketching out my opponent's doctrine, so that no one may be unaware of this which is to be our principal matter of contention.
This would imply that the author wrote a work 'Against Heresies.' If we think the author was Tertullian Prescription Against Heresies is meant. But there is something strange here. The author is clearly pretending he is someone else. So the author has to be older than Tertullian.

The "adversus haereticos" work mentioned here clearly argues on behalf of orthodoxy as the "truth which was delivered of old and from the beginning" and then "that even without discussion of their doctrines they can be proved to be such by this standing rule concerning novelty." Holmes notes that libellus means "brief treatise." Clearly this can't be Irenaeus Against Heresies or Tertullian's Prescription Against Heresies which are long works. But Justin's Syntagma against All the Heresies is the work being cited here. It fits the context perfectly so the author is pretending to be Justin.

That 'syntagma' is the Greek original of libellus is demonstrated:

Ωριγένους περί ευχής σύνταγμα = Origenis De oratione libellus
Σύνταγμα περί της ποδάγρας = De podagra libellus incerti autoris
https://books.google.com/books?id=FK28D ... us&f=false

Many have sought to identify the "libellus" appended to Tertullian's De præscr . hæret . and the Σύνταγμα προς απάσας τας αιρέσεις of Justin.

There is also this discussion a work from antiquity entitled De bibliothecis syntagma:

The word syntagma is borrowed from Greek, σύνταγμα, a word whose basic meaning was “an arrangement, something that has been put together” (σύν + τάσσω). Already in Antiquity, the word could have the specific sense of “a treatise, work, book.”69 Any of these senses would suitably fit the usage in question. Schmook suggested that word syntagma in Lipsius's titles has the sense of “a critical examination of a subject, ”so we might
translate it here as “a treatise on libraries" as suggested by Walker or a "study on libraries."70 Walker points out that Lipsius referred to the work variously as “un petit traicté De Bibliothecis,” a tractatus, a libellusexiguus, and a Commentarium.71
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

I wonder if this:
Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus haereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de praescriptione novitatis.
acknowledges that Marcion did not appear in Justin's Syntagma Against All Heresies. There is good circumstantial evidence for this as Irenaeus's treatises adds two different references to Marcion (Against Heresies and the Philosophomena).
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2333
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by GakuseiDon »

That's fascinating, especially the identification of Tatian as the apostate who mangled Tertullian's work against Marcion.

Tertullian's attacks against Marcion are so devastating and comprehensive, that I distrust his use of Marcion's text. And of course, a lot of how we see Marcion today is derived from Tertullian.
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:34 am2. The author begins by noting that what is now in Against Marcion contradicts his previous statements about Marcion and his beliefs.
Does Tertullian say that though? It would make sense if Tertullian had gotten feedback from someone with better knowledge of Marcion's beliefs with regards to his first version of "Against Marcion", and so made corrections in a revised version. But I don't see Tertullian saying that his new work contradicts statements of belief attributed to Marcion in the old work.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

There seems to be a strong sense of the purported original author acknowledging that Marcion was not mentioned in Justin's original syntagma

Sed alius libellus = yet another short treatise
hunc gradum = this grade/step
sustinebit adversus haereticos = upholds against heretics
etiam sine retractatu = even without rewriting/reconsidering
doctrinarum revincendos,
quod hoc sint de praescriptione novitatis.

It is said that retractatus means to 'reconsider, redo' etc.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FbdMA ... an&f=false

"Da Tertullian als novator verborum bekannt ist stammen diese Ausdruke sicherlich von ihm. So Kann also unser Brief in Lateinischer Fassung erst nach ihm geschrieben sein."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

It would seem that Tertullian had a peculiar Latin where retractatus means to "re-treatise."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: My Lifelong Obsession with Against Marcion

Post by Secret Alias »

Some other appearances of retractus. Prescription 7:
Eadem materia apud haereticos et philosophos uolutatur, idem retractatus implicantur : unde malum et quare? et unde homo et quomodo? et quod proxime Valentinus proposuit : unde deus? scilicet de Enthymesi et ectromate. Miserum Aristotelen! qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi et destruendi, uersipellem in sententiis, coactam in coniecturis, duram in argumentis, operariam contentionum, molestam etiam sibi ipsam, omnia retractantem ne quid omnino tractauerit.

The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again68 by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Wretched Aristotle ! who established for them the dialectic art, so ingenious in the construction and refutation of propositions, so crafty in statements, so forced in hypotheses, so inflexible in arguments, so laborious in disputes, so damaging even to itself, always reconsidering everything, so that it never treats thoroughly of anything at all.

The same themes are pondered by heretics and philosophers : the same subjects of consideration are involved—Whence came evil, and why? and
Whence came man, and how? and—a question lately propounded by Valentinus—Whence came GOD? From Desire,6 forsooth, and an Abortion. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions,71 so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing72 even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of73 nothing!

The same Subjects are treated upon by Hereticks and Philosophers; and the same insuperable Difficulties occur to Both. From whence springs Evil, and what is the Cause and Principle of it? What was Man's Original, and how was he made ? And what Valentinus hath last of all proposed, whence is God ? And the Answer will be from the 29 Enthymesis and the 29 Ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who hath furnish'd them with Sophistry, skillful in forming and destroying Schemes, artful in it's Sentences, forced in it's Conjectures, |24 Difficult in it's Arguments, full of Equivocations, full of Strifes, Burdensome even to, and Inconsistent with itself, Retracting every Thing, that so it may not seem to have throughly handled and fully determined any Thing.
idem retractatus implicantur = the same re-treatised/re-written again and again.
Post Reply