SIMON MAGUS & MARCION (CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION)

SIMON MAGUS AND MARCION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER

ONE.               INTRODUCTION     

                        I.                    THESIS STATEMENT

                        II.                 HISTORY OF RESEARCH

                        III.               METHODOLOGY

                        IV.              SIGNIFICANCE  

TWO.              SIMON MAGUS

I.          INTRODUCTION

II.         SIMON’S BIOGRAPHY

A.  Simon’s Origin

B.  Simon’s Education

C.  The Sect of John the Baptist

D.  Simon’s Journeys and Activities

E.  Simon in Rome

F.  Simon’s Death

III.       SIMON MAGUS IN EARLY WRITINGS

A.  Simon in the Acts of the Apostles 8:4-25

     1.  Philip and Simon (Acts 8:4-13)

     2.  Peter and Simon (Acts 8:14-25)                        

B.  Simon in the Church Fathers

     1.  Simon in Justin Martyr

     2.  Simon in Irenaeus

     3.  Simon in Clement of Alexandria

     4.  Simon in Tertullian

     5.  Simon in Hippolytus

     6.  Simon in Origen

     7.  Simon in Eusebius

     8.  Simon in Epiphanius     

C.  Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines

    1.  Simon in the Homilies

    2.  Simon in the Recognitions

D.  Simon in the New Testament Apocrypha

      1.  The Acts of Peter

      2.  The Acts of Peter and Paul

      3.  The Acts of Paul

      4.  The Apostolic Constitutions

      5.  The Didascalia Apostolorum

      6.  The Epistula Apostolorum

      7.  The Legenda Aurea     

E.  Simon in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews

IV.       CONFRONTATION BETWEEN SIMON MAGUS AND PETER

A.  The Acts of the Apostles

B.  The Pseudo-Clementines

      1.  The Homilies

      2.  The Recognitions

C.  The New Testament Apocrypha

     1.  The Acts of Peter

     2.  The Acts of Peter and Paul

     3.  The Apostolic Constitutions

     4.  The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome                      

V.        FROM SIMON TO SIMONIAN GNOSTICISM

A.  The Theological Aspects of Simonian Gnosticism

     1. The Origin of Simonian Gnosticism

     2.  The Evolution of the Simon Legend

     3.  The Simonian Use of Myths

     4.  Simon’s Apophasis Megal_

     5.  The Theology of Simonianism

B.  Is Simon a Gnostic?

C.  Successors of Simon Magus

     1.  Menander

     2.  Saturninus

     3.  Basilides

     4.  Carpocrates

     5.  Valentinus

     6.  Cerdo

VI.       CONCLUSION

THREE.          MARCION

                          I.                 INTRODUCTION

II.         MARCION’S BIOGRAPHY

A.  Date and Place of Marcion’s Birth

B.  Marcion’s Activities in Asia Minor

C.  Marcion’s Arrival at Rome and Activities

D.  Marcion’s Death 

III.       MARCION IN EARLY WRITINGS

A.  Marcion in Polycarp

B.  Marcion in Justin Martyr

C.  Marcion in Irenaeus

D.  Marcion in Clement of Alexandria

E.  Marcion in Tertullian

F.  Marcion in Hippolytus

G.  Marcion in Origen

H.  Marcion in Eusebius 

I.  Marcion in Epiphanius

IV.       MARCION’S CANON

A.  Marcion’s Motive of Reconstruction of the True Gospel

B.  The Gospel of Luke

C.  Marcion’s Pauline Corpus

     1.  The Composition of the Apostle Section

     2.  Marcion’s Texts

D.  The Orthodox Reaction

     1. The Orthodox Church Leaders’ Dilemma

     2.  The Formation of the Christian New Testament Canon

     3.  The Emergence of the Book of Acts and Pastoral Epistles

     4.  Other Influences of Marcionism on the Orthodox Church

V.        FROM MARCION TO MARCIONISM

A.  The Theological Aspects of Marcionism

     1.  Dualism

     2.  Docetism

     3.  Asceticism

     4.  Mythology and Cosmology

B.  Is Marcion a Gnostic?

C.  Marcion’s Church

D.  Marcion’s Successors

     1.  Lucian  

     2.  Apelles

     3.  Megethius

     4.  Prepon

     5.  Tatian and the Encratites

E.  Later Development of Marcionism

VI.       CONCLUSION           

FOUR.             SIMON MAGUS AND MARCION: TWO FIGURES OF PAUL

                          I.                  INTRODUCTION

II.         THE ANTI-PAULINE EVIDENCES IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

A.  Anti-Simonian/Anti-Marcionite and Anti-Pauline Evidences

     1.  The Ebionites and Their Gospels

     2.  The Source Documents of the Pseudo-Clementines

     3.  The Basic Document of the Pseudo-Clementines

     4.  The Pseudo-Clementines

     5.  Some Other Anti-Pauline Evidences                 

B.  Anti-Simonian/Anti-Marcionite but not Anti-Pauline Evidences

     1.  Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians

     2.  The Acts of Peter

     3.  The Acts of Peter and Paul

     4.  The Acts of Paul

     5.  The Apostolic Constitutions

III.       SIMON MAGUS AND PAUL

A.  Important Issues that Tie Simon Magus and Paul

     1.  Buying Motif

     2.  Laying On-Of-Hands

     3.  Confrontation of the Main Body of the Church

     4.  John the Baptist versus the Herodian Family in Josephus

B.  Attacks on Paul Under the Guise of Simon Magus

IV.       MARCION AND PAUL

A.  Important Issues that Tie Marcion and Paul

     1.  Dualism

     2.  Docetism

     3.  False Apostle(s) Controversy

     4.  Confrontation with the Main Body of the Church

B.  Attacks on Paul Under the Guise of Marcion

                         V.                 SIMON MAGUS AND MARCION

A.  Heresiologists’ Attempts to Tie Simon Magus and Marcion

     1.  Marcion as a Simon’s Follower via a Certain Cerdo

     2.  Both Simon and Marcion as Imitators of Empedocles

     3.  Both Simon and Marcion as Radical Paulinists

B.  Simon/Simonians and Marcion/Marcionites

     1.  Simon and Apelles

     2.  Marcion and Saturninus

     3.  Marcion and the Simonians

     4.  Valentinus and the Simonians                 

VI.       CONCLUSION

FIVE.              CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY                  

ABBREVIATIONS

Books

Church Fathers:

       Polycarp

       PolyPhil           Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians

       Justin Martyr    

       1 Apol             First Apology

       2 Apol             Second Apology

       Irenaeus

       AH                   Adversus Haereses (=Against the Heresies)

       Clement of Alexandria

      Strom                Stromateis(=Miscellaneous)

       Tertullian

       AM                   Adversus Marcionem (=Against Marcion)

       De Carne        De Carne Christi(=On the Flesh of Christ)

      De Praes         De Praescriptione Haereticorum(=On Prescription against Heretics)

       Pseudo-Tertullian

       Haer               Adversus omnes Haereses (=Against all Heresies)

       Hippolytus

       Ref                  Refutatio (=Refutation of All Heresies) or Philosophumena

       Origen

       De Prin          De Principiis (=On First Principles)               

       Eusebius      

       EH                 Ecclesiastical History (or Church History)

       Epiphanius

                   Pan               Panarion

New Testament Apocrypha:

AAn                Acts of Andrew         

AP                   Acts of Paul

APt                  Acts of Peter

APtP               Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

AC                  Apostolic Constitutions

DA                  Didascalia Apostolorum (=Teaching of the Apostles)

EA                   Epistula Apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles)

MPt                 Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter

Pseudo-Clementine Literature and Related Documents:

AJ                    Anabathmoi Iakobou (=Αvαβαθμoι Iακωβoυ:  Ascents of James)

Cont                Contestatio (or Adjuration)

EpCl                Epistula Clementis(=Epistle of Clement to Jamaes)

EpPt                Epistula Petri(=Epistle of Peter to James)

G                     Grundschrift (=Basic Writing)

H                      Homilies

KerygmataPt   Kerygmata Petrou(=Κηρύγματα Πέτρoυ: Preachings of Peter)

PeriodoiPt       Periodoi Petrou(=Περίoδoι Πέτρoυ: Journeys or Travels or Circuits or Peregrinations of Peter)

PraxeisPt         Praxeis Petrou(=Πράξεις Πέτρoυ: Ebionite Acts of Peter)

R                      Recognitions

Journals

AJT                 American Journal of Theology           

ATR                Anglical Theological Review

CBQ               Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CH                  Church History

ET                   Expository Times

HThR              Harvard Theological Review

JBL                 Journal of Biblical Literature

JBR                 Journal of Bible and Religion

JHC                 Journal of Higher Criticism

JTS                  Journal of Theological Studies

NHS                Nag Hammadi Studies (Leiden, 1971-)

NT                   Novum Testamentum

NTS                New Testament Studies

RB                   Revue Biblique

RBn                 Revue Bénédictine

RHE                Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique

RHR                Revue de l’Histoire des Religions                   

RSR                Religious Studies Review

SC                   Second Century

TR                   Theologische Rundschau

VigChr            Vigiliae Christianae

ZNW               Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZRG                Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte

ZThK              Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

I.   THESIS STATEMENT

       In this book I investigate the relationship among three fascinating figures in early Christianity: Paul, Simon Magus, and Marcion. Simon Magus, a contemporary of Paul, and Marcion, who was active in the first half of the second century, were the targets of attacks by heresiologists such as Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian and some Jewish Christian groups who lived in the second half of the second century and thereafter. Or, rather, Paul was deliberately attacked under the names of Simon Magus and Marcion. Why and in what capacity did Paul’s opponents use the names of Simon and Marcion to attack him?

       In Acts 8:9-24 Simon appears as a magician who desired the great power of the Holy Spirit. He followed Philip and later Peter and John for that purpose. Around 150 C.E. Justin observed that the Simonians in Rome worshiped Simon and his companion Helen as Zeus (the first god) and Athena (the first thought) or Korê (the Holy Spirit) (1 Apol 26). For Justin, this type of thinking, also referred to as Simonianism, seemed to be outside Christianity.

       Later, Irenaeus brought this non-Christian Simonianism into Christian conversation to degrade it as a secondary practice within Christianity.  Irenaeus implicitly linked Simon with Paul by stating:  “... But he (=Simon) believed still less in God and greedily intended to rival the apostles so that he might appear famous. ...” (Adversus Haereses [AH hereafter] 1.23.1).^[1]  More explicitly, he connected Paul’s doctrine of ‘salvation by grace of Jesus Christ’ (cf. Eph. 2:8-9) with the Simonian doctrine of ‘salvation by grace of Simon Magus.’^[2] 

       The Pseudo-Clementines mainly portrayed Simon Magus as “an enemy” who resembled Paul. To this group of Christians, Paul had never been a friend. Before his conversion, Paul, as “Saul,” almost killed James, the brother of Jesus, on the top of the Temple. After his conversion, Paul, as “Simon,” exposed his arrogance. He attempted to challenge the Jerusalem authority with his magical power, his dreams and visions, and his “false” apostleship. To those who belonged to this Pseudo-Clementine circle, Paul’s claim of apostleship was “simony.” As Simon Magus wanted to buy the power of imparting the Holy Spirit (as well as the gift of healing) with his money, so did Paul the authority of apostleship.  As Peter rebuked Simon in Acts 8:20-21, so did he also rebuke Paul-like Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines. Yet, as Simon, without repenting to God, greedily intended to rival the apostles so that he might appear famous (cf. AH 1.23.1), so did Paul also boldly rival the apostles (cf. Gal. 2:6-8) so that he might become “the apostle of the Gentiles and heretics” including Marcion. Furthermore, Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines, like Marcion, claims that there is, in addition to the creator of the world, another God who is “incomprehensible and unknown,” “unrevealed,” “the highest Father,” “the Father of Jesus.”   

       Marcion, a shipowner from Pontus, regarded himself as  a disciple of Paul. He propagated two gods--the just (or righteous) Creator of the world and the good (or benevolent) Father of Jesus Christ. He was the first person who formed a Christian New Testament canon which consisted of the Gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul. From the middle of the second century, the Marcionite church had been an enormous threat to the “orthodox” Roman church. As many believers were attracted to the doctrines and teachings of Marcion and his disciples and joined them, the Marcionite Christians, according to some scholars, allegedly outnumbered the Roman “orthodox” Christians for some time.     

       Heresiologists attempted to link Marcion with Simon via Cerdo, a Syriac Gnostic. As Justin connected Marcion with Simon in a certain way by placing his name, along with Menander, in the same section where Simon’s name appears (1 Apol 26), so did Irenaeus connect him with Simon in his AH 1.27.4:  “... We have necessarily made mention of him (=Marcion) at present that you might know that all those who in any adulterate the truth and do injury to the preaching of the Church are the disciples and successors of Simon, the magician of Samaria. For although they do not acknowledge the name of their teacher in order to mislead others, yet it is his doctrine they teach. ...”^[3]  Irenaeus further states: “Cerdo(n), too, Marcion’s predecessor, himself arrived (at Rome) in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. ... Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. ...”^[4] Was Marcion a disciple of Simon Magus via Cerdo as Irenaeus claimed? Did he not acknowledge his teacher’s name to mislead people? Did he claim Paul as his only apostle (and teacher) because Paul was really Simon in disguise as the Pseudo-Clementines implicitly claimed (and as H. Detering also argues)? Did Marcion really come to Rome for his doctrines and teachings to be recognized by the Roman church? My study will attempt to answer these questions.

       Why did some heresiologists, the Pseudo-Clementine circle, and the Ebionites vehemently attack Paul using Simon and Marcion even after Paul was claimed to be an “orthodox” apostle?  The Pseudo-Clementine circle of Christians were probably extreme Petrine Christians who were still not pleased with Paul’s “claimed” apostleship and his epistles which more than any others were being adopted as the books in the Canon.  In competing with Christians of the Pauline school, they, as Petrine school Christians, wanted to maintain or to regain their hegemony.  They tried to degrade Paul by equating him with Simon. They also wanted to degrade Marcion, the ardent follower of Paul, by connecting him with Simon Magus, the father of all heretics.

II.  HISTORY OF RESEARCH

       With the exception of the study of H. Detering no modern study has been undertaken  regarding the complicated relationship between Paul, Simon Magus, and Marcion.  In most cases, Simon Magus and Marcion have been studied separately.

       Concerning whether Simon Magus was a Gnostic, E. Haenchen asserts that he was a full-fledged Gnostic even before he came into contact with Christianity.^[5]  G. Lüdemann also claims that “the Gnostic system of the Simonians that must be assumed for the middle of the second century seems to have been presupposed already in Acts 8.”^[6]  But G. Filoramo argues that Acts itself does not tell anything of possible Gnostic aspects of Simon’s teaching.^[7]  That is, Luke’s use of epinoia (ἐπίvoια, the intent in v. 22) is not the attribution to Simon whom Philip and Peter encountered in the 30s but his observation of the second century Simonians’ Gnostic Simon. If Acts was not written in the middle (or early second half) of the first century, the author’s knowledge of the “Gnostic Simon” tradition would not be surprising. K. Beyschlag asserts that the Simonian Gnosticism only appeared much later, in the second century, and ought to be understood as a branch of Christian Gnosticism, not as a primary stage earlier than Christian Gnosticism, which had prepared for it.^[8] He clearly explains that the historical Simon, who was not a Gnostic, may have been “gnosticized” later on.

       Reading Irenaeus’AH, R. M. Grant cautiously claims that “the Simonians actually were radical Paulinists, at least in some measure, and that at a later point the Ebionites recognized this fact and attacked Paul through Simon.”^[9]  He argues that Simon’s followers mentioned by Irenaeus evidently borrowed the expression from Ephesians (2:8-9) and thus they apparently had “some collection of Pauline letters and perhaps Gospels as well.”^[10]  If this were the case, there might be little distinction between the Simonians and the Marcionites in the middle of the second century.

       R. Eisenman suggests that Luke and other second century Christian writers would probably borrow the name Simon from Josephus’ Antiquities which was written around 95 C.E. to connect him with the existing mythical traditions. He points out that it may be probable that Peter visited Caesarea not to convert Cornelius and his family (Acts 10) but to confront Simon Magus (or Paul) to debate the issue of fornication (unlawful marriage of Felix with Drusilla).^[11] 

       In the modern history of research Adolf von Harnack was the first person to undertake serious study on Marcion, attributing to him an equality with Augustine and Luther. He stresses Marcion’s originality in assessing Paul and rejects any connection of Marcion with Gnosticism. But some recent scholars criticize that Harnack’s enthusiasm for Marcion also has misled people in understanding Marcion and Marcionism.  He tried to make the Marcion story plausible within the framework of historicity of the anti-Marcionite apostolic fathers’ witnesses although a great portion of them were legendary, i.e., “unhistorical,” using his imaginative reconstruction about the parts that were not mentioned by the fathers.  Thus, he could not escape from exposing some “historical” conflicts on Marcion’s activities  in Asia Minor and Rome and the beginning of the Marcionite church  in his restored story of Marcion when he put all pieces together on one plate (of the picture puzzle).

       Most modern scholars who have studied Marcion simply follow Harnack’s dating and claim that Marcion came to Rome around 140 C.E. and became a disciple of Cerdo, and was then expelled from the Roman church precisely in 144.  But, as R. J. Hoffmann points out, Marcion’s coming to Rome for recognition from the Roman church  is legendary and thus questionable.  If Hoffmann’s early dating of Marcion’s birth around 70 C.E. or earlier is correct, it would be very probable for him to have been well known in Asia Minor by 130 or earlier.^[12]  As Marcion’s doctrines and churches flourished in Asia Minor and in other regions by 140, he did not need Cerdo as his teacher.  From the silence of Marcion’s contemporaries (Polycarp, Justin Martyr) and the inconsistent and vague testimonies by the later fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius) regarding Marcion’s visit to Rome, we may conclude that the apostolic fathers were not sure about when and whether or not Marcion came to Rome.  Indeed, that Marcion did not come to Rome at all is a more probable theory. As “Marcion’s Paul” who flourished in Asia Minor did not (have to) go up to Jerusalem for recognition from the Jerusalem Council, so Marcion did not (have to) go to Rome for recognition from the Roman church.  Instead, Marcionism probably came to Rome circa 140, but it was condemned as “heresy” a few years later. However, Marcionism flourished under the episcopate of Anicetus (158-169) according to Irenaeus, and also under the episcopate of Eleutherus (177-191) according to Tertullian.  

       Marcion’s understanding of revelation differed from that of his Gnostic contemporaries, using the theology of Paul as a frame of reference.  Marcion’s use of Paul, according to Hoffmann, was essentially conservative in the strict sense of that term:  “1) he did not carry the thought of the apostle to the metaphysical extremes of the Alexandrians, and in some cases, 2) he seems to have refused Gnostic interpretations of Paul’s thought, even at the cost of conserving its ambiguity.”^[13]  Yet, in stressing the originality of Marcion’s approach to Paul, one cannot assume that he was not familiar with, or influenced by, the Gnostic exegesis of Paul and the gospels.^[14]

       J. Knox, examining Marcion’s role in the formation of the New Testament, states that Marcion’s canon perhaps corresponds to the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew canon.^[15]  Marcion’s “Gospel” was probably a primitive form of the Gospel of Luke, and the “Apostle” consisted of ten letters that were attributed to Paul, excluding the Pastorals.^[16]  Knox asserts that Marcion’s canon provided the structural principle and became the organizing idea of the Catholic New Testament.  Could the Catholic Canon have ever emerged without Marcion’s canon?  The Catholic Canon eventually might have formed, but it should have been quite different from the current one in its contents. The Pauline epistles might not have been included at all.      

       H. Detering identifies Paul with Simon and rejects the authenticity of all the Pauline epistles.  He suggests that Marcion’s true apostle Paul was no other than Simon Magus.  He claims that by the middle of the second century there was no historical Paul but only the “legends of Paul.”  Marcion (or Marcionites), the faithful spiritual disciple of Simon, then, wrote the Pauline letters, thinking Simon his spiritual (grand-)father in mind (also partly thinking  his own missionary journey throughout Asia Minor in mind). Detering’s assertion that Marcion’s Paul in his Pauline letters is Simon is obviously different from the Tübingen scholars’ view of Simon in the Pseudo-Clementine literature as a caricature of Paul. He states:  “Accordingly, Simon meets us in the Marcionite-Gnostic literature as Paul, while in extreme Jewish-Christian circles Paul is represented as Simon, or even as the Antichrist or ‘hostile man’.”^[17]  His thesis is fancy and attractive, but not persuasive in its logic. He does not follow most of the church fathers’ testimonies, but for his thesis purpose he should adopt their “intentional” testimony that Marcion was a successor of Cerdo, who then was the disciple of Simon.  That is, he needs Cerdo to make Marcion a faithful disciple of Simon.  Furthermore, to justify Marcion’s authorship of Galatians, he makes Marcion’s visit to Rome and excommunication by the Roman church historical facts.^[18]

III.  METHODOLOGY

       In the first part of this study historical criticism and textual analysis will be employed as the principal methods of research.  My study starts with the primary sources, i.e., the writings of the heresiologists such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus in the second and the third centuries and the Pseudo-Clementine literature. In my analysis, I will compare and contrast the testimonies of those witnesses and find consistencies and inconsistencies of their records.  In so doing, I will try to determine why there might be inconsistencies among them.

       In the second part of this project, I will probe the contemporary studies related to these issues. I will critically review the previous studies conducted on Simon Magus and Marcion to determine their strengths and weaknesses. I will then attempt to answer underlying issues and questions about the relationship among Paul, Simon Magus, and Marcion, and their influences on the early Christian movement in the first two centuries.

IV.  SIGNIFICANCE

       Why does further study on Simon Magus and Marcion who were judged as “heretics” long time ago still need to be undertaken?  Since the discovery of the Gnostic Scriptures in Nag Hammadi in 1945, more resources on early Christianity are now available.  However, only limited studies on Simon Magus and Marcion have been done in the 1980s and 1990s.  With more available resources my study will show and reinterpret how the Simonian Gnosticism and Marcionism influenced Catholicism and what roles they played, competing with Catholicism, in the second century Christian movement and canonization of the New Testament.

       This study will demonstrate that Paul was not an apostle of the “orthodox” church from the beginning of the Christian movement.  Rather, he was the only apostle for the “heretics.”  If during his life time Paul had been well known and well accepted as an apostle among the churches in Rome, Greece (Macedonia and Acaia), and Asia Minor, why was his name mentioned only rarely until the late second century?

       Why did Paul who was so active in the 50s and 60s disappear from the scene and then all of a sudden reemerge as a person who endorsed a controversial issue in the second half of the second century? This study is to explain the gap between the first century Christianity and the second century Christianity. My study will probe W. Bauer’s thesis which asserts that there was an enormous diversity of beliefs among “orthodox” and “heretical” churches and among Christians in early Christianity. The beliefs of no particular group had attained real preeminence, and, as a matter of fact, “heresy preceded orthodoxy.”

       Who were really Paul, Simon Magus, and Marcion? Who was a “historical” figure and who was a “mythical” or “legendary” figure?  What relationships did they have? Why did the heresiologists try to relate them altogether or in pair(s)? My study will contribute further understanding of Paul the apostle and the New Testament epistles that are attributed to his name.

---

^[1]See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (p. 88) and S. Pétrement, A Separate God (p. 235).

^[2]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3.

^[3]In Justin’s 1 Apol 26 the names Simon, Menander, and Marcion are listed in that order; in Irenaeus’ AH 1.23-27 Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Cerdo, and Marcion are listed in sequence.

^[4]Irenaeus, AH 3.4.3.

^[5]E. Haenchen, “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?,” ZThK 49 (1952), pp. 316-349.

^[6]G. Lüdemann, “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” NTS (1987), p. 425.

^[7]G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, 1990, p. 148.

^[8]K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die Christliche Gnosis, 1974, p. 70.

^[9]R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 1959, pp. 88-89.

^[10]R. M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 1993, p. 6.

^[11]R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 534, 543.

^[12]R. J. Hoffmann, “How Then Know This Troublous Teacher? Further Reflections on Marcion and His Church,” The Second Century,” Fall 1987-88, 184. See also his Marcion. G. May, in favor of Harnack, harshly criticizes Hoffmann’s early dating: “Hoffmann has him (=Marcion) being born fifteen years earlier (Harnack’s dating: 85 C.E.) and has him beginning his activity two or three decades earlier than Harnack (Harnack’s dating of Marcion’s activity beginning: around 140 C.E.). ... It is full of improbabilities and methodological errors; I consider it a failure.” (May, “Marcion in Contemporary Views,” The Second Century, Fall 1987-88, 131. 

^[13]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 183.

^[14]Ibid., p. 183.

^[15]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 1942, p. 2.

^[16]See D. S. Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” JBL 108/3 (1989), p. 480.

^[17]H. Detering, The Falsified Paul. Early Christianity in the Twilight, 1999, p. 174 (D. Doughty,   p. 126).

^[18]Ibid., p. 153 (D. Doughty, p. 109).