Marcion's Association with the Age of Antoninus: An Argument Stemming from the Acta Pilati Rather Than Direct Evidence

[Secret Alias]

The association of Marcion with the reign of Antoninus Pius, frequently cited in patristic sources, has often been misunderstood as being directly linked to Marcion’s personal activities. However, it seems more plausible that this association arises from an interpretation developed from the Acta Pilati, rather than any explicit or direct influence of Marcion during this period.

Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem 1.19, provides an important clue when he ties Marcionism to the reign of Antoninus. The chronology he uses — calculating 115 ½ years between Tiberius and Antoninus — is often dismissed as imprecise, but when considered in the light of Acta Pilati, it reveals an alternative framework of understanding. Tertullian seems to have used this document, which falsely dated Christ’s crucifixion to the 7th year of Tiberius (circa 21 CE), to develop this timeline.

This association between Marcion and Antoninus was likely not about the man Marcion himself, but rather about the influence of Marcionite ideas within the Roman world in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt. The failure of Jewish messianism following Bar Kochba's defeat created an environment where alternative Christianities, like Marcionism, gained ideological traction. The Roman victory over Jewish forces symbolized, for many, the failure of the Jewish religious system, paving the way for what Marcionites saw as the true, merciful God of Jesus to take center stage.

The use of Acta Pilati by both Marcionites and early Christians allowed this 115 ½-year calculation to persist. The fact that Tertullian’s calculations don't match exactly with the historical dating of Jesus or Marcion only underscores the idea that this is a literary construction based on these documents, rather than an actual historical memory of Marcion’s activity.

Additionally, Roland Bainton’s connection of Tertullian’s use of the dog-star Sirius further ties this timeframe to symbolic and calendrical events. Bainton points out that Antoninus’s rule was dated to the rising of the dog-star (July 137 CE). The near-contemporaneous dating in Acta Pilati — starting the 115 years and half a month calculation from January 6, 22 CE — aligns not with Marcion’s actual life but with a symbolic reconstruction of history.

In other words, the Marcionites used the Acta Pilati to frame the rise of their understanding of Christianity as a legitimate alternative to the Jewish tradition that had been discredited by the Bar Kochba revolt. Thus, Marcionism’s celebration of the Antonine age was not about Marcion personally but about the triumph of their worldview over the failure of Jewish messianic hopes. The age of Antoninus became the age where the Roman Empire and its gods, as well as Jewish religion, were definitively shown to be inadequate, allowing the Marcionite god of mercy to emerge victorious.

In conclusion, when we examine the chronology provided by Tertullian and understand its basis in Acta Pilati, it becomes clear that the association of Marcion with the reign of Antoninus is more about the reception of Marcionite ideas — specifically their rejection of Jewish law and their alternative view of Christ — than about Marcion’s actual presence or influence in that period. This interpretation highlights the use of historical events and documents like the Acta Pilati to construct religious narratives that supported Marcionite theology in the broader Roman context.

What do others think about the role of documents like Acta Pilati in shaping our understanding of early Christian sects like Marcionism? Could this represent a broader trend in how historical narratives were manipulated for theological purposes?

[maryhelena]

The association of Marcion with the reign of Antoninus Pius, frequently cited in patristic sources, has often been misunderstood as being directly linked to Marcion’s personal activities. However, it seems more plausible that this association arises from an interpretation developed from the Acta Pilati, rather than any explicit or direct influence of Marcion during this period.

Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem 1.19, provides an important clue when he ties Marcionism to the reign of Antoninus. The chronology he uses — calculating 115 ½ years between Tiberius and Antoninus — is often dismissed as imprecise, but when considered in the light of Acta Pilati, it reveals an alternative framework of understanding. Tertullian seems to have used this document, which falsely dated Christ’s crucifixion to the 7th year of Tiberius (circa 21 CE), to develop this timeline.

This association between Marcion and Antoninus was likely not about the man Marcion himself, but rather about the influence of Marcionite ideas within the Roman world in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt. The failure of Jewish messianism following Bar Kochba's defeat created an environment where alternative Christianities, like Marcionism, gained ideological traction. The Roman victory over Jewish forces symbolized, for many, the failure of the Jewish religious system, paving the way for what Marcionites saw as the true, merciful God of Jesus to take center stage.

The use of Acta Pilati by both Marcionites and early Christians allowed this 115 ½-year calculation to persist. The fact that Tertullian’s calculations don't match exactly with the historical dating of Jesus or Marcion only underscores the idea that this is a literary construction based on these documents, rather than an actual historical memory of Marcion’s activity.

Additionally, Roland Bainton’s connection of Tertullian’s use of the dog-star Sirius further ties this timeframe to symbolic and calendrical events. Bainton points out that Antoninus’s rule was dated to the rising of the dog-star (July 137 CE). The near-contemporaneous dating in Acta Pilati — starting the 115 years and half a month calculation from January 6, 22 CE — aligns not with Marcion’s actual life but with a symbolic reconstruction of history.

In other words, the Marcionites used the Acta Pilati to frame the rise of their understanding of Christianity as a legitimate alternative to the Jewish tradition that had been discredited by the Bar Kochba revolt. Thus, Marcionism’s celebration of the Antonine age was not about Marcion personally but about the triumph of their worldview over the failure of Jewish messianic hopes. The age of Antoninus became the age where the Roman Empire and its gods, as well as Jewish religion, were definitively shown to be inadequate, allowing the Marcionite god of mercy to emerge victorious.

In conclusion, when we examine the chronology provided by Tertullian and understand its basis in Acta Pilati, it becomes clear that the association of Marcion with the reign of Antoninus is more about the reception of Marcionite ideas — specifically their rejection of Jewish law and their alternative view of Christ — than about Marcion’s actual presence or influence in that period. This interpretation highlights the use of historical events and documents like the Acta Pilati to construct religious narratives that supported Marcionite theology in the broader Roman context.

What do others think about the role of documents like Acta Pilati in shaping our understanding of early Christian sects like Marcionism? Could this represent a broader trend in how historical narratives were manipulated for theological purposes?

Stephan, many years ago, on FRDB, many posts were made on Marcion and Paul. I'm not going to rehash all of that, ideas develop for all of us. I'll just make a point on using the Acts of Pilate and 21 c.e. dating for the gospel passion story.

One can use numbers in connection to many historical events - ie how many years between this and that. In the case of the numbers attributed to the Marcionites, 115 and a half years, I don't think it is useful to run them from 21 c.e. Why ? Because the 21 c.e. dating is based upon the gospel Jesus figure - a figure for which there is no historical evidence. As it is we have Luke with different dating.

Here is a suggestion. Antoninus Pius ruled from 138 - 161 c.e. (around 23 years) Thus, as with dating the Jesus passion story to different dates during the 23 years of Tiberius - the Marcionite 115 years can fall anywhere within these years. The latest date would be 161 c.e. (Kokkinos using late in the time of Tiberius).

If one counts back 115 years from 161 c.e. one arrives at around 44/45 c.e. The death, re Josephus numbers, of Agrippa I (Marcus Julius Agrippa). Josephus has applied OT prophecies to Agrippa I, indicating he viewed the historical figure of Agrippa I as being relevant to his interpretations of OT prophecies. One of these prophecies being the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Josephus, by placing the death of Agrippa I around 44/45 c.e (yep, Tacitus gives 49 c.e. but that is another debate) has used the 20th year of Artaxerxes I regarding Nehemiah and the building of the walls of Jerusalem. 490 years between the 20th year of Artaxerxes I in 445 b.c. to 45 c.e.

Now, to my mind, this allocation of the Marcionites 115 years has more going for it than applying them to a theological passion story in the Acts of Pilate. And, as far as I'm aware, there is no Jewish necessity that a messiah figure has to be crucified. (if one views, as I do, that the gospel Jesus figure is a composite literary figure - then there is no need for it's individual historical figures to all be crucified. - a point made by George Wells, his Galilean figure was not crucified). Gospel stories are all very well, but if it's early christian history we are after, it's not gospel stories, in and off themselves, that will move the debate forward.

As for dating Marcion - the FRDB threads spent much time on this problem. I think we both agree, that in the time of Antoninus Pius, it was the writing of Marcion, his influence that was 'alive', that was active, that was still being followed. Dating Marcion and dating Paul ? Perhaps, like the gospel composite Jesus figure, the Paul figure is likewise a composite figure. An early and a late 'Paul'. (I remember David Hindley's two voices in 1 Cor.15) In other words, two traditions, early and late, have in Acts, been fused together. Was the early 'Paul' linked to Marcus Julius Agrippa (Agrippa I). and the later 'Paul', post 70 c.e. linked to Marcus Julius Agrippa II) ? If it's 'Paul' that the Marcionites reverenced - then it would be this double tradition - an early and a late 'Paul' that they upheld. (Agrippa II died - seemingly - prior to Josephus)

Anyway, Stephan, something to think about. History is one thing - NT stories something else.

============

Josephus on Agrippa I (Marcus Julius Agrippa)

Antiquities book 18 ch.6

“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”

“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”

Genesis 41: 41-46

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Antiquities book 19 ch.7

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….

Daniel 9: 25

..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….

Antiquities book 19 ch.8

…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.

Numbers 24:17

I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A sceptre shall rise from Israel,

=================

[Secret Alias]

the Marcionite 115 years can fall anywhere within these years.

It's not just "115." It's a VERY specific year. It's like the difference between telling your friend after a vacation, "you owe me a thousand bucks" and "you owe me 983.45." In the first case it seems as if you are making a general "rounding off." In the second case it sounds like you made an exact accounting. These things should be factored. This calculation by the author of Adversus Marcionem is a calculation between TWO exact events. No doubt about that.

The dating of Marcion to the start of Antoninus Pius’s reign is confirmed by sources like the Chronicle of Edessa. But the tricky part isn’t really about when Marcion lived—it’s about how Tertullian calculated Jesus' time. Tertullian says:

“I’m certain that Marcion was an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus is about 115 and a half years and half a month. That’s how long they claim between Christ and Marcion. Since, as I’ve proven, it was under Antoninus that Marcion introduced this god, it’s clear that the god of Antoninus’ time wasn’t the same god from Tiberius’ time.”

Basically, he’s arguing that the god Marcion introduced wasn’t the same one preached by Jesus. What’s interesting is why the Marcionites seemed to favor the Antonine era—it wasn’t long after Roman armies had wiped out Jewish resistance. For the Marcionites, Jesus was more about the power of mercy in the godhead, and current events were proving that the old Jewish religion had failed.

Historian Roland Herbert Bainton even links this Antonine date to the rise of the “dog star,” Sirius, referencing Adversus Marcionem. Ptolemy’s Almagest dated Antoninus’s rule to July 20, 137 CE, and subtracting Tertullian’s 115 ½ years brings us to January 6, 22 CE. That’s pretty close to what the Acts of Pilate suggested about Jesus’ crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, around Passover of 21 CE.

Marcionism thrived because of the fallout from the Bar Kochba revolt. The idea that Marcion “hated” Jews probably came from the widespread anti-Jewish sentiment at the time. Marcion’s views weren’t isolated—many people in the Empire, including Jews, saw Judaism as a religion in decline. However, it’s oversimplified to say Marcion just invented a sect to match his ideas. The dating in Adversus Marcionem 1.19 shows that the Marcionites used contemporary events to shape their religious worldview.

And here’s the kicker: Irenaeus and Tertullian criticized Marcion for beliefs that, in 207 CE, seemed outdated, but back in 137 CE, they would have made perfect sense. The fact that Irenaeus and Tertullian were writing decades after these events makes their critiques almost laughable. Irenaeus used a falsified edition of Hegesippus to condemn Marcion, and Tertullian’s “research” was likely based on Irenaeus’s writings. There’s no evidence Tertullian had access to any actual Marcionite documents. He probably didn’t know any real Marcionites—just like he didn’t know much about the Valentinians or Hermogenes. The idea that Tertullian carefully researched Marcion enough to write five volumes on him is, honestly, kind of ridiculous. He was just plagiarizing earlier writers and putting his own spin on things.

[maryhelena]

the Marcionite 115 years can fall anywhere within these years.

It's not just "115." It's a VERY specific year. It's like the difference between telling your friend after a vacation, "you owe me a thousand bucks" and "you owe me 983.45." In the first case it seems as if you are making a general "rounding off." In the second case it sounds like you made an exact accounting. These things should be factored. This calculation by the author of Adversus Marcionem is a calculation between TWO exact events. No doubt about that.

Stephan. There are no exact dates for the Jesus crucifixion stories. Acts of Pilate only give a year. Luke allows for placing his crucifixion story anywhere within the last 7 years of Tiberius and Pilate.

Run with the Acts of Pilate dating by all means. After all, is that not what interpretation allows for - remembering of course that other interpretations will be presented.

[Secret Alias]

Please stop. Official acts would have dates. Documents pretending to be official documents would likely have dates. Eusebius references the contemporary use of the Acta Pilati to date the crucifixion to the 7th of Tiberius. The Acta Pilati dated the crucifixion among other things related to Jesus.

[maryhelena]

Please stop. Official acts would have dates. Documents pretending to be official documents would likely have dates. Eusebius references the contemporary use of the Acta Pilati to date the crucifixion to the 7th of Tiberius. The Acta Pilati dated the crucifixion among other things related to Jesus.

Stop what ?

You opened a thread and you asked = What do others think about the role of documents like Acta Pilati in shaping our understanding of early Christian sects like Marcionism?

I responded.

You don't like my response.

However, you don't have an exact date related to the Acts of Pilate and its 7th year of Tiberious passion story.

Consequently, I fail to see how you can utilize it's Jesus passion story if you are after an exact application of the 115 and a half years.

[Secret Alias]

You're response is illogical because the only thing that Eusebius tells about the Acta Pilati is that they were used for chronology. Do you get my point now? Stop making this unnecessarily personal. I've shown you what the facts are. Make of it what you will.

[maryhelena]

You're response is illogical because the only thing that Eusebius tells about the Acta Pilati is that they were used for chronology. Do you get my point now? Stop making this unnecessarily personal. I've shown you what the facts are. Make of it what you will.

Foolish me attempting to engage with the request in the OP.
What do others think about the role of documents like Acta Pilati in shaping our understanding of early Christian sects like Marcionism? After 14 years I really should have known better....

[Secret Alias]

I just don't understand what you are attempting to prove here. Clearly:

A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum anni fere cxv et dimidium anni cum dimidio mensis. Tantundem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marcionem

is an exact measure of time. No one uses fractions and odd numbers like this if they are "rounding off" numbers. To that end, in order to have an exact number like this you have to have two exact markers from which the exact time span was derived. What do you think the two markers are?

[Secret Alias]

Let's drop the idea of the Acta Pilati being involved. Contemporary sources date the beginning of the age of Antoninus Pius to July 22, 137. As such:

"A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum anni fere CXV et dimidium anni cum dimidio mensis. Tantundem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marcionem."

"But from Tiberius up to Antoninus are about 115 years and half a year with half a month. They place the same amount of time between Christ and Marcion."

I wanted to figure out exactly which year of Tiberius's reign Tertullian is referencing, so I did some calculations.

Given that Ptolemy's Almagest dates the start of Antoninus's rule to July 20, 137 CE, and Tertullian mentions a time span of 115.5 years and half a month between Tiberius and Antoninus, I set out to find the starting date.

Here's how I broke it down:

115.5 years equals 115 years plus 6 months.
Half a month is approximately 15 days (assuming a 30-day month).
So, the total time span is 115 years, 6 months, and 15 days.
Starting from July 20, 137 CE:

Subtract 115 years: brings us to July 20, 22 CE.
Subtract 6 months: brings us to January 20, 22 CE.
Subtract 15 days: brings us to January 5, 22 CE.
According to this calculation, Tertullian is referencing January 5, 22 CE.

Now, considering that Tiberius reigned from September 14 CE to March 37 CE, the 15th year of his reign (when John the Baptist began his ministry according to Luke 3:1) would be around 28/29 CE. However, January 5, 22 CE falls in the 8th year of his reign.

There aren't any widely recognized significant events in that specific year related to Jesus's ministry. It's possible that Tertullian was using a different starting point, perhaps associating the date with another event, or there might be a textual or scribal error in the numbers provided.

The point here is that whatever explanation for the date you come up with it contradicts the "fifteenth year of Tiberius" of Luke. The Marcionites did not have a gospel which referenced the fifteenth of Tiberius as the start of Jesus's ministry.