CHAPTER
THREE
MARCION
I.
INTRODUCTION
In the first half of the second century,
there emerged two prominent Christian movements among non-Roman Christian
groups. One form of Christianity was
various schools (or sects) of Gnosticism, among which Valentinian Gnosticism
was most successful. The other form was
Marcionism led by Marcion, a radical Paulinist, who wanted to be called a
disciple of Paul. Marcion rejected the
Old Testament and the Jewish roots of the church and propagated two gods, the
just (or righteous) Creator of the world and the good (or benevolent) Father of
Jesus. Marcionism accepted an
abbreviated version of the Gospel of Luke[1]
and ten (redacted) Pauline epistles as its canon. In formation of Christian canon, the person
Marcion (or Marcionites) can never be ignored although he frequently has been
defamed by the “orthodox” or “conservative” Christian circles. The Marcionite
church from the middle (or earlier) of the second century on had been an
enormous threat to the “orthodox” Roman church.
As many people were attracted to the teaching of Marcion and his
followers and joined them, they outnumbered the Roman “orthodox” Christians for
a certain period of time.
It is difficult to trace back and figure
out who Marcion really was, what his understanding of Paul was, what made him
have the idea of two gods, what his or his followers’ canon precisely included
and what its exact contents were. We
only depend upon his opponents--Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, etc.--most of whom were not his
contemporaries but who lived sometime after Marcion was gone and only
confronted and refuted Marcion’s followers.
In the early twentieth century, Harnack was the person who overestimated
Marcion, putting him an equality with Augustine and Luther. But, some recent scholars think that
Harnack’s enthusiasm for Marcion also has been misleading people in
understanding Marcion and Marcionism.
II.
MARCION’S BIOGRAPHY
A.
Date and Place of Marcion’s Birth
From Marcion’s opponents’ witnesses till
now, there has been a consensus that Marcion was born in Sinope of Pontus, the
most important Hellenistic commercial city on the south seashore of the Black
Sea. But, concerning the date of his
birth, there is variance, as early as 70 and as late as 95 C.E.[2] Marcion’s occupation was a shipowner,[3]
like his father who was also said to be a Christian bishop there. Some sources affirm (although it is
questionable) that Marcion was expelled (or excommunicated) from his home
church because of his heretical views.[4]
B.
Marcion’s Activities in Asia Minor
Marcion’s activities as a Christian
teacher in Asia Minor was little known, but we conjecture that he might have
been very active during 110-139 C.E. or until later time period in some parts of Asia Minor and had earned
some reputation there. If the early
dating of his birth is correct, it is probable that he and his teachings would
have been well known (yet not full-fledged) among Christian communities in Asia
Minor beginning the early second century.
Irenaeus and Eusebius mentioned Polycarp’s encounter with Marcion on one
occasion presumably in Rome, calling him, “a first-born (=πρωτότoκoς) of
Satan,” upon Marcion’s request for recognition.[5] But the place where Polycarp met Marcion
could be somewhere in Asia Minor (e.g., Ephesus, or even Philippi in
Macedonia). And, as Harrison points out,
the false teacher in Polycarp’s two letters to the Philippians, of which date
was around 130 C.E. (Harrison’s dating is 133; Lightfoot’s dating is 110 or 118
C.E. shortly after Ignatius’ martyrdom) might be Marcion.[6] Furthermore, Hoffmann argues that if C.
Thompson ’s claim that the heretics envisaged in 2 Peter 3:16 are Marcionites
were correct, then “by 130, Marcion was confronted with a situation in which
not only Paul’s stature in the churches was threatened, but even the ability of
the churches to understand the rudiments of his theology.”[7] But, in this case, the problem is how we date
this 2 Peter.
Justin remarked around 150 C.E. (or
153-155 according to C. Cosgrove) that Marcion’s teaching had spread to every
nation, and (what is more significant) recorded his surprise that “the famous
heretic is even until now alive and teaching his disciples to believe in some
other God greater than the Creator.”[8] Hoffmann suggests that this indicates that
for some years prior to the date given by Irenaeus for Marcion’s encounter with
Cerdo, Marcion had been teaching his ditheistic doctrines throughout Asia
Minor. He claims that Marcion’s ditheism
must have surfaced in the East at least by the time of Justin’s. By the time of 140 C.E. (or even 120 C.E.
according to Hoffmann) Marcion’s “heretical” theology and teaching became certainly
full-fledged.[9] Most scholars who studied Marcion, following
Harnack, date the beginning of Marcion’s church right after his being
excommunicated from the Roman church in 144.
But, if this were the case, Justin would exaggerate too much because it
was impossible or improbable for anyone who was excommunicated to establish
churches, making disciples in every nation, all over the world (even in Asia
Minor) at that time within a decade. If
Justin’s statement were true and made actually in around 150, then Marcion’s
church must have started far before 144 , that is, 110-130 C.E. By 144, it should have been well established
and spread throughout the areas of Asia Minor.
Then, one may argue that Marcion did not have to go to Rome to be
recognized for his teaching from the Roman church. Hoffmann claims that it is therefore
impossible to correlate Justin’s testimony with Irenaeus’ assertion that
Marcion came to Rome around 150 (or even before, say, 139-140 as most scholars
who follow Harnack are repeatedly saying) became a disciple of Cerdo, and
thereafter began to teach what he had learned.[10] It has been held that Marcion’s heretical
activity cannot have begun very long before he came to Rome, since otherwise
the Roman church would have been aware of his heresy and would not have
admitted him to its membership even for a while. But, this may not be a correct argument, if
we consider that there were no fixed standards by which heresy was clearly
identified until the second half of the second century.[11] J. Knox suggests that if Marcion had not yet
made explicit his attitude toward the Scriptures and toward the Creator God, he
might have been teaching for years without being recognized as a false teacher,
and claims that even the denunciation of Polycarp, Marcion’s contemporary, was
one Christian’s judgment of another.[12] Another possible argument is that Marcion’s
teaching was really widespread as Justin stated some years later, and his name
became notoriously well known by 140 C.E.; Marcion did not come to Rome at all;
Only later anti-Marcion fathers, beginning with Irenaeus, insisted that Marcion
came to Rome for recognition from the “so-called” orthodox Roman church, but
was rejected after all; but their assertion was not true at all. His
contemporary opponents--Polycarp and Justin Martyr did not mention Marcion’s
activities in Rome at all. Justin, who
taught at Rome in the reign of the emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.) and
wrote his 1 Apology there probably around 150 C.E., does not give us any
hint about Marcion’s activity in Rome and excommunication from the Roman
Church. Why was Justin, who was fully
aware of the danger of Marcion’s heretical teachings and activities, silent
about Marcion’s activities in Rome? What
does this mean? It means that Justin
neither knew nor heard of Marcion’s stay in Rome.
There is a high probability that they
preserve the memory of Marcion’s teaching activity in Asia Minor. It is interesting to notice that Marcion’s
canon possessed no Pauline epistle entitled Ephesians and there is no
Marcionite prologue to Ephesians, suggesting that the Marcionites either did
not know or did not wish to preserve the memory of Paul’s activity or did perhaps
their own activity in that city. And, of
course, any reference to the Ephesians is missing in the earliest manuscripts
of this writing. We know only that the
Marcionite prologist considered Philippi, Laodicea, and Thessalonica strong in
the faith of the true Apostle, Paul. R.
J. Hoffmann suggests that the testimony of Filastrius and the anti-Marcionite
prologist evidence another line of attack against Marcionism, one which depends
not on the historical gap between Marcion and the apostles, but on the reckoning
that Marcion’s teaching is an aberration of Ephesian orthodoxy.[13]
C.
Marcion’s Arrival at Rome and Activities
1. Did Marcion Come to Rome?
Did Marcion come to Rome? If Marcion really came to Rome, when was
it? There is disagreement among
heresiologists about the date of Marcion’s arrival at Rome. Provided that Marcion came to Rome as
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claimed, then there would be several
possible dates for his arrival at Rome:
One is during the episcopate of Hyginus (139-143 C.E. according to
Eusebius; 136-140 according to Harnack)[14]
as most scholars dated, and the second is during the reign of Pius (143-158
according Eusebius; 140-155 according to Harnack)--after the death of Hyginus
as Epiphanius recorded,[15]
and the third is during the reign of Anicetus (158-169 according to Eusebius;
155-166 according to Harnack; 154-166 according to Hoffmann) as Irenaeus
stated.[16] But their statements were not quite
clear. There is yet another date
available which seems to be a little bit too late date to believe: that is, Tertullian states, “For it is
evident ... that they (Marcion and Valentinus) at first were believers in the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the Church of Rome under the episcopate of
the blessed Eleutherus (the 12th bishop of Rome: 177-191 according
to Eusebius; 174-189 according to Harnack), ...”[17] It clearly shows that how inaccurate the
apostolic fathers’ testimonies were.
Most modern scholars who studied Marcion dated his arrival 139 or 140 C.E.,
simply following Harnack’s dating.
If Irenaeus’ testimony about Marcion’s
visit to Rome were correct, i.e., if he really meant that Marcion came to Rome
(under Anicetus) and flourished under Anicetus, then Marcion’s coming to Rome itself
would be impossible. By the time of
155-160, he was at his very old age, from 60 up to 90 years old, depending upon
how we date Marcion’s birth (70 to 95 C.E.).
Marcion and his teaching should have been famous and well-recognized
among churches in Asia Minor, and thus he would not have needed any recognition
from the Roman church as well as from Polycarp.
Hoffmann also does not believe Marcion’s visit to Rome: “It is implausible that he ever ventured to
Rome with the expectation of gaining approval for his ideas from its bishop.”[18] He thinks that the tradition of Marcion’s
activity in Rome was made-up by the later “orthodox” church leaders to
denigrate Marcionism as a derivative (from Cerdo) and unapproved doctrine. If Marcion ever visited Rome in his life
time, as almost all heresiologists insist, I think that he would visit there
far before 140, say, between 110 and 120 C.E. while he was still young, not to
be recognized by the Roman Church but to trace the courses of Paul’s journeys
up to Rome. As ‘Marcion’s Paul’ did not
need to be recognized by the Jerusalem Church in the first century, so did
Marcion need not to be recognized by the Roman Church in the second
century.
From the silence of Marcion’s
contemporaries (Polycarp, Justin Martyr) and the inconsistent, vague
testimonies by the later fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius)[19]
about 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 assertion.
Marcion must have been well recognized in Asia Minor and his notorious
name was reached even to the Roman church, far before 140. That’s why Justin Martyr around 150 C.E.
mentioned Marcion’s flourishing activities twice without exaggeration in his 1
Apology: “And there is Marcion, ...,
who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some
other god greater than the Creator. And
he, ..., has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, ...” (26); “...
the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny
that God is the maker of all things ...” (58).
As “Marcion’s Paul” who flourished in Asia Minor did not (have to) go up
to Jerusalem for recognition from the Jerusalem Council, so did not Marcion
(have to) go to Rome for recognition from the Roman church.
If Marcion really did not come to Rome,
then why did the apostolic fathers keep claiming that Marcion arrived at Rome
around 140 C.E. (or even at a later date) and flourished there around 150s or
160s (according to Irenaeus) or even 180s (according to Tertullian)? Why did Tertullian, who claimed that Marcion
was excommunicated from the Roman church in 144 C.E. in one place,[20]
state that he flourished under the episcopate of Eleutherus, the 12th
bishop of Rome?[21] I think that Marcionism, not Marcion, indeed
arrived at Rome around 140 C.E. and gained its membership there for a while
before it was condemned by the Roman church (around 144 or so). But, even after the Roman church condemned
Marcionism, its power and influence had not ceased. Rather, Marcionism kept flourishing under
Anicetus (158-169 C.E. according to Eusebius; 155-166 according to Harnack;
154-166 according to Hoffmann) and later even under Eleutherus (177-191
according to Eusebius; 174-189 according to Harnack). So, when Tertullian states that Marcion
flourished under Eleutherus, he means Marcionism not Marcion. When the apostolic fathers fought against
Marcionism (the cases were the same with the other heresies), they had a
tendency to assert Marcion, its founder.
2.
Marcion and Cerdo
According to scholars who follow the
earlier dating of Marcion’s arrival at Rome, Marcion who came to Rome in 139
C.E. became associated more or less closely with Cerdo, a Christian Gnostic
from Syria. They think that Marcion’s
views and ideas, as they finally took shape, to a certain extent, were influenced
by Cerdo. But, how much Marcion was influenced
by Cerdo and whether it was before or after he compiled his canon have been
differently estimated. Yet, G. Lüdemann
regards that Irenaeus’ association of Marcion with Cerdo as tendentious.[22] It is more probable that Marcion had nothing
to do with Cerdo, whether he came to Rome or not.
According to Irenaeus and Tertullian,
Cerdo taught a distinction between the Old Testament God and the God proclaimed
by Jesus; the former being known (cognosci), the other unknown (ignorari);
the one righteous (justum), the other benevolent (bonum).[23] However, Epiphanius and Filastrius (or
Philastrius) claim that Cerdo distinguished between a good God and an evil God.[24]
P. Harrison attempts to show that
Marcion’s ditheism emerges fully-fledged only after the encounter with Cerdo in
Rome. But, Harnack argues that Marcion
had his originality and was independent of Cerdo’s influence.[25] I think that Marcion’s belief of two
different gods--God of Israel in the Old Testament and the unknown God, the
Father of Jesus was his own independent idea from his anti-Judaism or possibly
extracted from Paul’s Galatians. His
initial view of the dualistic gods was not Gnostic, as we see his teaching of
salvation through faith in Jesus Christ not through knowledge. Grant suggests that as Marcion systematically
established his teaching, he was under the influence of the Syrian dualistic
Gnosticism, as Cerdo came from Syria.[26] However, it seems to me that if Marcion’s
ditheism were ever influenced by Gnosticism, it would not be by Cerdo who was
said to come to Rome around 140 C.E., but by some other Syrian Gnostics, e.g.,
Saturninus or his disciples. If Marcion,
a shipowner, traveled around and stopped by Antioch of Syria, Paul’s home of
mission, in his earlier date, say around 110-120 C.E., he would have a good
chance to encounter some Syrian Gnostics.
Marcion probably exchanged his Pauline theological views with their
Gnostic docetism and dualism. As we will
see later in detail, Marcion’s asceticism and docetism are closely related to
those of Saturninus. Besides, Marcion may have studied some Greek philosophers
such as Plato, Heraclitus, especially Empedocles as Hippolytus claims and
Osborne supports it.[27] Yet, I think that his doctrinal system has
been decisively based on Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Luke.
3. Marcion’s Further Activities
Tertullian states that Marcion obtained
his membership in the Roman church by bringing 200(,000) sesterces into the
Roman Church, but that later, after several times of expulsion, he was
permanently excommunicated.[28] However, this is probably a legend, which is
totally untrue.
A. Harnack, with the most scholars who
accept his dating, “almost surely” states that the Marcionite church began in
July, 144 CE, shortly after Marcion’s excommunication in the same year.[29] Tertullian states in his Adversus
Marcionem (=AM) 1.19:
“Now, from Tiberius to Antonius Pius, there are about 115 years and 6½
months. Just such an interval do they
place between Christ and Marcion.” The
starting point of Tertullian’s dating is Christ’s appearance on earth,
according to Marcion: “In the fifteenth
year of Tiberius, Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the
spirit of saving health.” The fifteenth
year of Tiberius(14-37 C.E.) is 29 C.E. Thus, when you add 115 years and 6½
months, you will get 144 C.E. Or, more precisely looking, it is July, 144 However, how absurd it is! It is almost impossible to believe that
Tertullian’s dating is absolutely correct, as he claims somewhere else
differently.[30] How could it be possible, following
Tertullian, that a person who was an “orthodox” believer around 180 was
excommunicated precisely on July, 144?
Scholars decided to trust Tertullian’s date on Marcion’s excommunication
in his Adversus Marcionem(=AM) but to ignore his
dating on Marcion’s Christian life in Rome in De Praescriptione
Haereticrum(=De Praes).
Tertullian’s dating on Marcion’s excommunication from the Roman Church
does not match with the other heresiologists’ witnesses, either. Of course, they were not eye-witnesses. Their datings are only to support their
claims and logics. Irenaeus’ dating of Marcion’s
coming to Rome around 155 C.E., for instance, was to let Marcion encounter
Polycarp. He made his readers think that
Marcion came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, by saying, “Marcion,
then, succeeding him (=Cerdo), flourished under Anicetus.” He seems to state this way on purpose to make
Marcion’s encounter with Polycarp, who came to Rome in 155 C.E. to have a
conference with Anicetus, real.[31]
Some scholars suggest that Marcion met Polycarp probably in Rome at one
incidence, at which Polycarp recognized Marcion “the first born of Satan” when
Marcion asked Polycarp for recognition.[32] Irenaeus gave this kind of impression by
containing Polycarp’s visit to Rome in the time of Anicetus (158 according to
Eusebius; 153-155 according to Lightfoot; 154-156 according to Harnack) and his
encounter with Marcion in the same section of his AH 3.3.4. If
they met in Rome, the incidence should be around 154 or 155, shortly before
Polycarp was martyred.[33] But, by then, Marcion and his teachings were
wide spread and “notoriously” well recognized.
Marcion did not need Polycarp’s recognition. It seems to me that their “alleged”
confrontation is Irenaeus’ made-up episode to discredit Marcion by
subordinating him to the “orthodox” church authority. But, around that time of 155 C.E. (or a
little earlier, i.e. 150 or so), Justin claims that Marcion’s followers were
spread all over the world. If both
Harnack’s dating of the foundation of the Marcionite church as July, 144 and
Justin’s statement that was made in around 150-155 were true, Marcion must have
been a great evangelist as well as a religious genius. Yet, it does not seem to
be probable within such a short time period, considering his “allegedly” asking
for recognition to church leaders (e.g., Polycarp) in Asia Minor and to the
Roman church (if this were also true as early church fathers and modern
scholars neither suspected nor excluded) that ended up with failure.
A. Harnack suggests that during the five
years between 139(Marcion’s arrival at Rome) and 144 (Marcion’s excommunication
form the Roman church) Marcion produced his New Testament, i.e., his canon, and
his Antitheses in Rome.[34] But, concerning the possibility of Marcion’s
work of them in Asia Minor prior to his coming to Rome, Harnack left it open.[35] Seeing that Marcion did not come to Rome and
that Marcionism, which was already active in Asia Minor, arrived at Rome around
140, Marcion’s canon was probably formed earlier in Asia Minor and introduced
in Rome some years after Marcionism was spread in Rome.
Marcion prepared a canon for the use of
his disciples, and also composed an independent work, the Antitheses,
which was obviously an effort to make a constructive statement of his
theological position by articulating the contrast between the Law (or flesh)
and the Gospel (or love or Spirit), between the Jewish Scripture and revelation
in Christ, and between the known God, the Creator God of Israel, and the alien
unknown God, the Father of Jesus. It
seems to me quite true, as Knox points out, that underneath the Marcionite
antithesis between the God of justice and the god of love lay the Pauline
antithesis between the law and the gospel, the flesh and the Spirit.[36]
Tertullian states that “Marcion afterwards
professed repentance, and agreed to the conditions granted to him--that he
should receive reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom
he had been training for perdition,” but that “he was prevented (from the
completion of hid recovery) by death.”[37] But, it does not seem to be a true
statement. If Marcion really repented,
Tertullian’s personal vivid attack directly against Marcion (not against the
Marcionites) who died about 50 years ago does not make sense at all.[38]
D.
Marcion’s Death
Concerning Marcion’s death, there was no
clear evidence when and where and how he died.
But, scholars dated his death between 150 and 160 C.E. One source says that Marcion died a penitent,
yet an exile from the house of God.[39] Another tradition states that Marcion died
happily in reconciliation with the Roman church even though his followers,
Marcionites, went on their heretical way.
Hoffmann suggests that Marcion died in his homeland about 150 or that he
might have died a martyr’s death.[40]
III.
MARCION IN EARLY WRITINGS
A.
Marcion in Polycarp
Polycarp is alleged to have written a
letter to the Philippians informing that he or someone is willing to take their
letters to the church at Antioch, and that upon their request (13.2) he sends
them the copies of the Ignatian letters that he has been possessing. Concerning Polycarp’s letter to the
Philippians, P. N. Harrison claims that it is not one letter but two
letters--one (chapters 1 to 12 with/without chapter 14) is the “crisis letter”
and the other (chapter 13 without/with chapter 14) is the “covering note” for
sending the letters of Ignatius to the Philippian Church, also believes that
both letters were written by Polycarp himself.
According to Harrison, the “covering letter” was written about 115 and
the “crisis letter” about 135 C.E.[41] By the time of mid 130s, Marcion was thinking
of collecting (or redacting) the canonical letters of Paul and the Gospel
(Luke). If Polycarp’s letter were really written about 115 C.E., or if his
“crisis letter” were written about 135, the value placed on Marcion’s (or
Marcionites’) canon which is believed to have been compiled firstly between 140
and 150 C.E. in the history of canonization should be nullified or reduced
significantly. But, Marcion’s canon
might have been compiled earlier, say 120s-130s, than many scholars believe it
to have been compiled.
Polycarp in his Letter to the
Philippians(=PolyPhil) apparently knows several epistles of Paul
including 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, and Acts. Is it possible for Polycarp who lived in the
first half of the second century knew most of Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, Acts,
and the Gospels by the year of circa 115 or even around 135? Marcion’s canon which consisted of one Gospel
(Luke) and ten epistles of Paul was probably completed around 140 C.E. (or as
early as 120). Some scholars suggest
that Marcion’s canon was probably the first Christian canon, but that it does
not mean that his canon was the first collection of Pauline epistles, and
gospels and other epistles. It is also
probably true that there are some other earlier collections (among the
“orthodox” Christian circle) than Marcion’s collection. Or, there might be another possible
explanation. That is, Polycarp’s letter
may be posthumously redacted, say after 155 C.E. And, by that time, Pauline epistles, Acts, 1
Peter, and other Gospels would be available for the redactor.
Irenaeus in his AH 3.3.4
appears to think that the PolyPhil (cf. chapter 7) was written against
Marcion.[42] Quoting Irenaeus’ AH 3.3.4 that
contains Polycarp’s encounter with Marcion, Eusebius also gives a hint that the
PolyPhil is connected with Marcion.[43] Many scholars are convinced that in chapter 7
of this letter Polycarp is speaking against Marcion and his followers.[44] But W. Schoedel raises a question whether
chapter 7 has Marcion’s teaching in view.[45] Polycarp does not attack Marcion’s particular
doctrines here: Marcion’s doctrine of
the two gods, his rejection of the Old Testament.
Polycarp attacks the docetic views, the
denial of the cross, and the denial of a resurrection and of a judgment. Marcion denies neither the cross (although,
for Marcion, Christ’s death on the cross was only a seemingly event) nor a
resurrection and a judgment (although his resurrection and judgment were
different concepts). Thus, he doesn’t
deserve to be called “the devil” or “the firstborn of Satan.” Marcion, together
with all other docetists, deserves only to be called “anti-Christ” according to
Polycarp’s criteria of the heretics. However, this “anti-Christ” criterion is
not his own but of 1 John (4:3) and of 2 John (v. 7).
Irenaeus is the one who tells the story
of Polycarp’s recognition of Marcion as “the firstborn of Satan.” He tries to impress readers that the incident
happened later in Rome while Polycarp was visiting there. But, the incident was probably his own
creation for his own purpose of attacking the heretics powerfully in his own
time. If that incident really occurred
somewhere in Asia Minor (almost certainly not in Rome), then Polycarp would
call Marcion “the firstborn of Satan” not because Marcion belonged to this
Polycarp’s criterion of heretics but probably because that language--i.e., “the
firstborn of Satan”--was Polycarp’s trite expression against “heretics”
regardless of his restricted criteria.
Did Marcion come to disturb the church
at Philippi about 115 C.E.? It is not
improbable for Marcion and his followers to come to Philippi to spread their
doctrines in 115 (if we accept the early date of Marcion’s birth around 70 as
R. J. Hoffmann suggests) when the PolyPhil was supposedly written. Now, if the PolyPhil were really
written by Polycarp and if he were really attacking Marcion, he would not know
well about what Marcion’s teachings were.
Knowing that Marcion’s ditheistic teaching was being developed and that
Marcion and his followers did not deny a resurrection nor a judgment, it would
be an improbable misunderstanding by Polycarp, a leading figure of the
“orthodox” church in the first half of the second century. If Marcion’s “heretical” teachings were not
yet sprouting out by 115, which is plausible, then he should not be the object
of Polycarp’s attack.
Yet, there is a good possibility that an
“orthodox” heresiologist or a church leader between 160 and 170 who wanted to
attack Marcionites’ doctrine of the righteous God of Israel and the good Father
of Jesus in his own time, wrote the letter under the name of Polycarp to
retroactively refute their teacher Marcion on his docetism or false teaching of
resurrection and judgment.[46] The writer of the letter does not mention
Marcion and his dualistic teaching, thinking that Marcion’s teaching of dualism
had not yet fledged by that time. Instead, he indirectly attacks Marcion around
120-130 and the Marcionites in his own time of 160s by calling the docetists
(including Marcion) “anti-Christ” and by using Polycarp’s cliché--“the
firstborn of Satan”--against heretics.
B.
Marcion in Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr in his 1 Apology,
which he wrote in Rome around 150 C.E., states that Marcion is “even at this
day alive” (26). According to Justin
Martyr’s witness, Marcion seems to have been alive until that time. From the fact that Justin does not mention
Marcion’s stay in Rome, we may be able to say for sure that Marcion is not in
Rome around 150 and furthermore that he probably did not come to Rome at all. If Marcion had come to Rome around 140 and/or
had been staying there around 150 C.E., Justin, Marcion’s contemporary, surely
would have mentioned his stay in Rome.
As Peter’s coming to Rome is only legendary, so is Marcion’s coming to
Rome.
Justin states that Marcion “has caused
many of every nation ... to deny that God is the maker of this universe, to
assert that some other, being greater than He, has done greater works”;[47]
and that he is “even now teaching men to
deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the
Christ predicted by the prophets is his Son, and preaches another god besides
the Creator of all, and likewise another son.”[48] As we can see in this statement, Justin’s
knowledge on Marcion’s teaching is meager and imprecise. Marcion does not deny that the God of Israel
is the Creator of the universe and of all things. Marcion’s foreign God has not done anything
yet except sending Christ to save the souls of human beings. It is not quite clear whether or not Marcion
preaches another Son or another Christ.[49] But Marcion’s Christ has come not to fulfill
the prophecies of the Old Testament but to fulfill the foreign God’s will.
C.
Marcion in Irenaeus
Whereas Justin Martyr mentions the
sequence of Simon Magus--Menander--Marcion in his 1 Apology (26),
Irenaeus lists the names of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides,
Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Nicolaitans, Cerdo and Marcion in
his AH 1.23-28. Irenaeus
claims that all the Gnostics he reported including Marcion are the disciples
and followers of Simon, “even though they do not acknowledge the name of their
teacher in order to mislead others.”[50] He calls them “the Simonians.”[51]
Irenaeus regards Cerdo as Marcion’s
immediate predecessor.[52] According to Irenaeus, Cerdo took his system
from the followers of Simon Magus and came to Rome during the episcopate of
Hyginus (139-143 according to Eusebius; 136-140 according to Harnack). He distinguishes the unknown Father of Jesus
Christ from the known God of the Old Testament. Whereas the God of Israel is
righteous (or just), the Father of Jesus is benevolent (or good).
Irenaeus tries to connect Marcion with
his teacher Polycarp. Irenaeus’
statement in his AH 3.4.3 concerning Marcion’s visit to Rome or
prosperity in Rome is obviously inaccurate.
His statement is artificial and is only intended to make Polycarp’s
encounter with Marcion in Rome possible and plausible. Polycarp’s visit to Rome in 155 C.E. under
the episcopate of Anicetus was probably a historical fact. But, Marcion never visited Rome. By 155 C.E., Marcion himself was probably
already dead (as late as 160). One thing for sure, Marcion in 155 did not need Polycarp’s
recognition at all, because by then his name is very notorious among the
“orthodox” church leaders and he gained enormous number of followers, and his
teachings were wide spread in the whole Asia Minor and even in Rome.
Irenaeus claims that while Polycarp was
staying in Rome he “caused many to turn away from the heretics (=Valentinus,
Marcion and others) to the church of God, proclaiming that he had received this
one and sole truth from the apostles.”[53] Considering Polycarp’s attitude towards
heretics in general and his short time span there to discuss the Easter matter
with Anicetus, this claim does not seem to be true. Right after this statement, Irenaeus mentions
two different episodes of his predecessors that are connected each other, one
episode of John and Cerinthus and the other one of Polycarp and Marcion. In the latter episode, Polycarp recognized
Marcion as “the first-born of Satan” without hesitation and without admonition.[54] Irenaeus provides a (biblical) ground for his
teacher’s stubborn behavior: “Such was
the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even a
verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, ‘a
man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing
that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself
(Titus 3:10-11).” It is odd that
Irenaeus, a Johannine successor via Polycarp, cites a (deutero-)Pauline saying
instead of John. While “Paul in Titus”
includes a concessive phrase (“after the first and second admonition”),
Irenaeus interprets this as “against holding even a verbal communication” to
support Polycarp’s “ultra-conservative” response to Marcion. Then, how could Polycarp cause those who were
Marcionites, Valentinians, or other Gnostics to return to the church of God?
Furthermore, Irenaeus states ambiguously
about Marcion’s coming to Rome:
“Marcion, then, succeeding him(=Cerdo), flourished under Anicetus.”[55] Why does Irenaeus claim that “Marcion
flourished under Anicetus” while it is probable that Marcion did not come to
Rome at all? It seems to me that
Irenaeus had a strong intention to discredit the doctrines and teachings of the
Marcionites who had been more flourishing by the time of Irenaeus. One way that he could think of was to let
Polycarp encounter Marcion and degrade him and his teachings during his visit
to Rome at the time of Anicetus. Thus,
Irenaeus, who states that Polycarp visited Rome during the episcopate of
Anicetus (probably 155 or possibly 154 C.E.), “ambiguously but intentionally”
also claims that “Marcion flourished under Anicetus.”
The famous two episodes, John versus
Cerinthus and Polycarp versus Marcion, might possibly be Irenaeus’ own
creations.[56] The creation of “the first-born of Satan”
episode is to link Polycarp to John, who also had a similar episode with
Cerinthus at a bath-house in Ephesus, if the latter were not Irenaeus’ own
creation.[57] Right after he told the episode of John and
Cerinthus, Irenaeus continues the episode of Polycarp and Marcion without
telling its source and place, as if he were the first witness and happened in
Rome during Polycarp’s stay there according to the example of John and
Cerinthus. Then, Irenaeus, in the same section,
mentions his awareness of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, trying to
demonstrate the authenticity and authority of his statement, endorsed by his
teacher, Polycarp’s powerful letter.[58] It seems to me that a “very orthodox” church
father, Irenaeus is not a dependable person here. E. Renan also states: “Irenaeus transmitted to us the
image--doubtless often false, yet at the same time, in many respects very
vivid--of the last days of the apostolic world, whose setting sun he had, in a
sort of way, been a witness of.”[59]
D.
Marcion in Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis(=Strom)
connects Marcion and his followers with the Greek philosophers such as
Pythagoras (580?-500? B.C.E.), Heraclitus (500?-? B.C.E.), Empedocles (494-434
B.C.E.), and Plato (427?-347? B.C.E.).
According to Clement, Marcion’s followers consider natural processes are
evil as they were derived from evil, and from unrighteous Creator.[60] Interestingly, instead of regarding the
Creator as righteous (or just), Clement observes that Marcionites’ Creator in
his time as “unrighteous.” He criticizes
the Marcionites that although they choose not to marry in their irreverent war
with the Creator God, they still use the food he has produced, and they still
breathe the Creator’s air.[61] He also argues that Marcion’s followers
derived their “blasphemous” doctrines from the Greek philosophers,[62]
and that Marcion derived his “strange” doctrines from Plato without
acknowledgment or understanding.[63] The Marcionites regard the soul as divine,
and dragged down here onto earth as to a place of punishment. Souls that have become embodied need to be
purified.[64] This doctrine is from the Platonists and
Pythagoreans.
E.
Marcion in Tertullian
1. Adversus
Marcionem(=AM: Against Marcion)
Tertullian begins his book I of Adversus
Marcionem(=AM) with assaulting Marcion with his
acrimonious pen, stating:[65]
Nothing,
however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born
there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the wagon-life of the
Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon,
darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than
its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more,
the true
Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion’s
blasphemies. Marcion is more savage
than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a
greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic
mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces?
Tertullian’s attack on Marcion is so
severe that we may not expect from him any fair treatment for Marcion. Marcion introduced two Gods, one the Creator
and the other the Father of Christ, according to Tertullian, gaining the first
idea from Jesus’ saying in Luke 6:43 and the Creator’s declaring in Isaiah
45:7.[66] Tertullian calls Cerdo an abettor of
Marcion’s blasphemy. He refutes Marcion’s
two Gods that “God is not, if He is not one.”[67] According to him, as the conscience of all
men acknowledge, “God is the great Supreme, existing in eternity, unbegotten,
unmade, without beginning, without end.”[68]
Tertullian argues that the true God is neither unknown nor uncertain.[69] He claims that the true God will never be
hidden nor be wanting. God will always
be understood, always be heard, even be seen, in whatsoever way He wills.[70]
Tertullian in AM 1.19
states: “Of this teacher(=Marcion) there is no doubt that he is a heretic of
the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus
Pius, there are about 115 years and 6½ months. Just such an interval do they
place between Christ and Marcion.” On
the basis of Tertullian’s statement here (“115 years and 6½ months”), most
scholars headed by Harnack, who studied Marcion, insist for sure that Marcion
was excommunicated in 144 (and some scholars adding the month, saying,
“(probably) in July.” I was so surprised at their consensus in their dating on
Marcion’s excommunication, whereas the early church fathers had no consensus of
opinions among themselves on Marcion’s coming to Rome and departing there. I wonder how the most modern scholars are so
sure about the year (and the month) of his excommunication and the initiation
of his church, whereas Marcion’s coming to Rome itself is not a sure fact, and
furthermore, whereas Tertullian was an inconsistent and thus unreliable
historian, if we may call him “an historian.”
Tertullian points out that Marcion’s
special and primary work is the separation of the law and the gospel.[71] Marcion’s Antitheses intends to
suggest that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law from
the diversity of the two documents which contain the law and the gospel. Tertullian argues that the God of the gospel
“could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but
must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the
gospel and the law.”[72] Providing that Tertullian believes that
Galatians is the work of Paul, his assertion that Marcion is the author of the
breach of peace between the gospel and the law is not quite right. He should have blamed Paul for that breach.
As a matter of fact, he implicitly or sometimes explicitly criticizes Paul, for
instance, calling him “apostle of heretics.” Although Christ came before
Galatians which clarifies the separation of the gospel from the law, Galatians
points out that the separation between the law and the gospel was initiated by
the coming of Christ (cf. Gal. 3:23-25; 4:1-5).
Tertullian states that the peace (which could maintain by not separating
the gospel from the law) “had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ’s appearance
to the time of Marcion’s audacious doctrine.”[73]
However, this statement is not true.
During his lifetime Paul had to fight against Judaistic Christians to
defend his Gospel (or the Gospel of Christ).
Tertullian denies that “the goodness of
Marcion’s God is rational, on this account first, because it proceeded to the
salvation of a human creature which was alien to him.”[74] I think that this is a critical weakness of
Marcion’s doctrine on the good alien God.
This gives a cause to Celsus to raise objections against Marcion’s God.[75] And Peter in the Recognitions also
addresses this issue to Marcion-like Simon, saying that the alien God will not
be angry (if he is good), “because, when we were strangers to him, we have not
fled to him, but have remained with our own Creator.”[76] If Marcion’s alien good God has nothing to do
with the human creation, but he wants to save some of them who show their faith
through Christ, who sneaked into the land of the Creator by clothing himself
with a human body that the Creator provides for his creation, such salvation
will surely be problematic. According to
Eznik (or Esnik), an Armenian bishop in the middle of the fifth century, the
later Marcionites introduced a purchase theory.
It seems to me that with this purchase theory they tried to resolve this
weakness of Marcionism. I will further
discuss this later when I deal with Eznik’s Destruction of False Doctrines
for a later development of Marcionism.
Tertullian questions about God’s
goodness without righteousness (or justice):
“For how is it possible that he should issue commands, if he does not
mean to execute them; or forbid sins, if he intends not to punish them, but
rather to decline the functions of judge, as being a stranger to all notions of
severity and judicial chastisement? For why does he forbid the commission of
that which he punishes not when perpetuated?”[77] I think that Marcion’s good God uses a
different kind of justice when he saved Cain, the Sodomites, and the Egyptians
who believed in Jesus when he descended into Hades, and did not save Abel,
Enoch, Noah, and other righteous people.[78]
Tertullian in Book 2 of his AM
tries to demonstrate that the Creator, whom Marcion calls Demiurge, is the true
and good God. Marcion raises questions:[79]
If God
(the Creator) is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why
did he permit man to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the
law into death? For if he had been good and so unwilling that such a
catastrophe should happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was
to come to pass, and powerful enough to hinder its occurrence, that issue would
never have come about, which should be impossible under these three conditions
of the divine greatness. Since, however, it has occurred, the contrary
proposition is most certainly true, that God must be deemed neither good, nor
prescient, nor powerful. For as no such issue could have happened had God been
such as He is reputed
--good, and prescient, and mighty--so has this issue actually
happened, because He is not such a
God.
Not only Marcion but also many doubters
raise the above questions which are really difficult to answer. Although Tertullian replies that God gave
human beings free will, this answer doesn’t seem to be enough to satisfy them.
Marcion rejects the bodily substance of
Christ, as the good God, the Father of Christ, is most remote from the deceits
and fallacies of the Creator.[80] Tertullian makes a cynical remark that
Marcion’s Christ “was not what he appeared to be, and feigned himself to be
what he was not--incarnate without being flesh, human without being man, and
likewise a divine Christ without being God!”[81] As Christ’s body was a phantasmal body, his
sufferings were not real but only phantasmal. And, furthermore, his death was
phantasmal, which is different from other Gnostics who claim that Christ was
separated from Jesus and ascended to the Pleroma without experiencing
death. I think that this is another
weakness in Marcionism which emphasized its followers’ faith in Christ who came
to the people, lived among the people, suffered and died and was resurrected
for the people, not fleshly (or bodily) but phantasmally. Tertullian also raises a question: “If his (=Christ’s) flesh is denied, how can
his death be affirmed? For death is the
particular experience of flesh, which by means of death is turned downwards
into the earth from which it was taken:
such is the law of its own Creator.
But if the death is denied, as it is when the flesh is denied, neither
can there be assurance of the resurrection.”[82]
Tertullian in Book 4 of his AM
tries to prove that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New Testament by
doing expository on the Gospel of Luke which Marcion regards as the only true
(Paul’s) Gospel. Tertullian, however,
thinks that the Gospel of Luke possessed by Marcion and his followers is
adulterated or mutilated in various places.[83] To degrade Marcion and his selection of the
Gospel of Luke, Tertullian devaluates Luke, the author of the Gospel and Paul,
his master, by stating:
Luke
was not an apostle but an apostolic man, not a master but a disciple, in any
case less than his master, and assuredly even more of lesser account as being a
follower of a later apostle, Paul, to be sure: so that even if Marcion had
introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single
document would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of
his predecessors.[84]
Tertullian’s logic does not seem to me
to be persuasive very much. Why one
single Gospel “would not be adequate for our faith” when the other two
Gospels--Matthew and Mark--are not much different from the Gospel of Luke?
To criticize Marcion and his doctrine,
Tertullian again chooses to discredit his ‘only true apostle,’ Paul:[85]
Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he
rebukes even apostles) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel,” as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of
Christ, labors very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published
as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for
his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even if he
censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a
manifest reason.
According to Tertullian, Marcion’s claim
that Paul is the only true apostle is based on his rebuke of Peter and other
false apostles. Tertullian thinks that
Paul’s rebuke of Peter is not from his superiority to Peter but from his being
in the rudiments of grace.[86] Tertullian explains that when Paul became
mature in his faith later, he himself accepted several different conducts that
“he might gain all--to the Jews, as a Jew, and to them that were under the law,
as under the law” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20-23).
He also thinks that Marcion’s separation of the law and the gospel is
due to his misunderstanding of the relationship between Peter, the apostle to
the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Marcion’s antithesis between the gospel and
the law is justified by the contention of Paul with Peter. In his assertion,
Tertullian is hostile not only to Marcion but also to Paul in some places to a
certain extent.
Marcion distinguishes two Christs--one
who in the time of Tiberius was suddenly revealed by the unknown foreign God
for the salvation of all nations, and the other who is ordained by the Creator
God and is yet to come for the restoration of the Jewish kingdom.[87] Marcion interposes a great and absolute
separation between these two, such as that between justice and goodness,
between the law and the gospel, and between Judaism and Christianity.[88]
Tertullian in Book 5 examines Marcion’s Apostolikon
in the order of Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Laodiceans (as
Marcion thought that the destination of Ephesians was Laodicea; cf. Col. 4:16),
Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.
Marcion did not include the Pastoral Epistles because either he did not
know them or he did not think that they were Paul’s epistles. Marcion chose Galatians as his first book
among Pauline epistles to demonstrate the absolute antitheses of the God of law and the God of salvation, of
the Creator, the known just God of the Old Testament and the Father of Christ,
the unknown good God, and of the law and the gospel. Tertullian defends that Paul in Galatians
does not preach a new God but the Creator God, and that the Creator God is the
Father of Jesus Christ. He tries to
prove that Paul is a successor of the work of Jesus Christ and his immediate
followers such as Peter and John. That
is why Paul went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years in order to confer with
the apostles there about the rule which he followed in his gospel lest he
should be running or had run in vain (cf. Gal. 2:1-2).[89] Whereas Marcion emphasizes Paul’s superiority
to the other apostles, Tertullian seems to acknowledge Paul as an subordinate
apostle to Peter, John, and James, and others who were directly called by
Jesus.
2. De Praescriptione Haereticorum(=De
Praes: On Prescription Against Heretics)
Tertullian states that heresies are
instigated by philosophy. Marcion’s
“better god” came from the philosophy of Plato and his asceticism from
Stoicism.[90] He calls Marcion the zealous student of
Stoicism.[91] I think that Tertullian may be right in part
in that Marcion, like most of Christian thinkers at his time, could have been
well influenced by Greek philosophers such as Plato, Empedocles, and others.
His reading of Paul with his knowledge in Greek philosophy probably initiated
him to produce his doctrines of ditheism, asceticism, etc.
Tertullian, who shows inconsistency in
his dating on Marcion throughout his writings, apparently seems to be incorrect
here in his dating on Marcion: “For it
is evident that those men(=Marcion and Valentinus) lived not so long ago,--in
the reign of Antoninus (138-161 C.E.), for the most part,--and that they first
were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome
under the episcopate of Eleutherus (177-191 according to Eusebius; 174-189
according to Harnack), until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with
which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.”[92] Tertullian was an excellent rhetorician and
Christian scholar, but he was a terrible historian. How could Marcion be the believer under the
episcopate Eleutherus, when Justin spoke of the prevalence of Marcion’s
teaching and his church, around 150, almost thirty years ago before
Eleutherus? The same “terrible” Tertullian
tries to demonstrate his “seemingly” precision on dating in his AM 1.19,
as I already discussed.
Tertullian jokingly states: “Marcion afterwards, indeed, professed
repentance, and agreed to the conditions granted to him--that he should receive
reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom he had been
training for perdition: he was prevented, however, by death.”[93] This seems to me to be a comedy. It might be
Tertullian’s willful wish. If Marcion
had repented indeed and died with a broken heart because of his failure in
restoration of his followers to the Catholic Church, Tertullian’s refutation
against Marcion who died about fifty years ago would have been very cruel and
even absurd. Then, Tertullian should not
have said to Marcion like this: “Indeed,
Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood?”[94] The reality was that Marcion never repented
and his church was prospering and threatening the Catholic Church even at the
time of Tertullian.
3. De Carne Christi(=De
Carne: On the Flesh of Christ)
Tertullian states that Marcion denied
the nativity of Christ as well as the flesh of Christ.[95] For Marcion Christ did not wear the flesh
that belonged to the Demiurge, the God of the Old Testament. Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but
suddenly appeared from the heaven in the fifteenth year (that is, 29 C.E., cf.
Luke 3:1) of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (14-37 C.E.).
Marcion’s Christ lived and died, and was
resurrected as a phantom. Tertullian
defends Christ’s flesh in birth, life, crucifixion, death, and in
resurrection. He asks a question to
Marcion who died about 50 or 60 years ago:
“Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground
that, as a mere phantasm, He was incapable of experiencing them? ... But answer me at once, you that murder
truth: Was not God really
crucified? And, having been really crucified,
did He not really die? And, having
indeed really died, did He not really rise again?”[96]
4. Pseudo-Tertullian’s Contra Omnes
Haereses(=Haer: Against All Heresies)
This is not a Tertullian’s work but is
attributed to him. Pseudo-Tertullian in his Contra Omnes Haereses(=Haer)
confuses Cerdo with Marcion. His
description on Cerdo in Haer 6.1 is really on Marcion:
He(=Cerdo)
introduces two first causes, that is, two Gods--one good, the other cruel[97]: the good being the superior; the latter, the
cruel one, being the creator of the world.
He repudiates the prophecies and the Law; renounces God the Creator;
maintains that Christ who came was the Son of the superior God; affirms that He
was not in the substance of flesh; states Him to have been in a phantasmal
shape,
to have not really suffered, but undergone a quasi-passion,
and not to have been born of a virgin,
nay, really not to have been born at all.
A resurrection of the soul merely does he approve, denying that of the
body. The Gospel of Luke alone, and that
not entire, does he receive. Of the
Apostle Paul he takes neither all the epistles, nor in their integrity. The Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse
he rejects as false.
Pseudo-Tertullian is brief in explaining
about Marcion in Haer 6.2, as he already mentioned him under the
name of Cerdo. He introduces an episode
of Marcion’s seduction of a virgin at his home, Pontus, which we can find
neither in Irenaeus nor in Tertullian but only in Epiphanius (Pan
42.1.4) and is probably a made-up story.
Pseudo-Tertullian regards Marcion as a mere disciple of Cerdo who
exactly follows his teacher’s doctrine, by saying, “his(=Marcion’s) assertions
are identical with those of the former heretic(=Cerdo) before him.”[98]
F.
Marcion in Hippolytus
Hippolytus asserts that Marcion’s tenet
is not new nor out of the Scriptures, but that he obtains it from a Greek
philosopher Empedocles (494-434 B.C.E.), son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.[99] According to Hippolytus, Empedocles suggests
that “all the elements out of which the world consists and derives its being,
are six: two of them material, (viz.,) earth and water; and two of them
instruments by which material objects are arranged and altered, (viz.,) fire
and air; and two of them, by means of the instruments, operating upon matter
and fashioning it, viz., discord and friendship.”[100]
Among these six, the first four--earth, water, fire, and air--are related to
Simon Magus, and the last two--Discord and Friendship--are related to Marcion,
his good God and just (or bad) God.
According to Hippolytus, Empedocles asserts that “there are four
perishable gods, (viz.,) fire, water, earth, and air”, and that “there are two
(gods) which are immortal, unbegotten, (and) continually hostile one to the
other, (namely) Discord and Friendship.”[101]
Whereas Tertullian states that Marcion’s
asceticism is influenced by Greek Stoicism, Hippolytus claims that Marcion took
his asceticism from Empedocles.
Hippolytus insists that Marcion’s prohibition of marriage, procreation
of children, and abstinence from meats follow the teaching of Empedocles, who
asserts that matrimony separates unity and makes plurality, and that one who
eats meats may eat any body that might be a remnant of a soul which has been punished
by the Demiurge.[102] Marcion imagines that he can annoy the
Demiurge or Creator, “if he should abstain from the things that are made or
appointed by Him.”[103]
Marcion affirms that the Demiurge of the
world is evil and that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the
Demiurge.[104] According to Empedocles, there is yet the
third principle, impartial (or just) reason (or logos), intermediate between
Discord and Friendship, an auxiliary to Friendship (or Love).[105] As we see here, when Hippolytus connects
Marcion’s two Gods with Empedocles’ two principles, unlike most other
heresiologists, he states that Marcion’s two Gods are an evil God and a good
God to insist that Marcion was influenced by Empedocles.[106] However, when he connects Marcion with Cerdo,
a Syrian Gnostic, he asserts that Marcion as well as Cerdo has a system of the
two Deities or principles of the universe--good and just[107]
or of the three Deities or principles--good, just, and matter.[108]
According to Hippolytus, some of Marcion’s disciples add a fourth principle to
the three existing principles--thus, good, just, evil, and matter. The good (Being or God) has made nothing at
all. Some of the Marcionites[109]
denominate the just one (or God) likewise evil, whereas others his only title
is that of just. This just (or just and
evil) God made all things “out of subjacent matter.”[110]
Hippolytus is not consistent in his assertion on Marcion’s Gods or principles
(of the universe). This inconsistency
means that he, like many other heresiologists, does not understand Marcion’s
and Marcionites’ systems of the principles or Deities quite precisely. Yet, he
refutes or underestimates the systems of Marcion or Marcionism, by attributing
them to Empedocles or Cerdo.
Marcion illustrates a docetic view of
Christ. That is, Marcion’s Jesus Christ,
the just Logos, intermediate between the two different principles of
good and evil (or bad), without “begotten,” descended from above in the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.[111] Christ appeared as a man though not being a
man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. Marcion asserts that Christ’s “manifestation
was only phantastic, and that he underwent neither generation nor passion
except in appearance.”[112] As the Demiurge as well as his work of
creation is evil, Jesus came down unbegotten, “in order that He might be
liberated from all (admixture of) evil.”[113] Christ has been liberated also from the
nature of the good God, “in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states
(Gal. 3:19), and as Himself acknowledges” (Matt. 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke
18:19). But, Christ’s independence from
the good God seems to be strange, as Hippolytus presents that Marcion adopts
this doctrine from Empedocles. Both in
Empedocles’ system and in Marcion’s system, the impartial reason (or just
Logos, i.e. Christ) is an auxiliary to Friendship (or the good God).[114] Marcion states that Christ is the Son of the
good Being (or God), and was sent for the salvation of the souls whom he calls the
inner man.[115]
G.
Marcion in Origen
Origen refutes Marcion in defense of the
“orthodox” church against Celsus’ criticism on Christianity in general. Celsus, according to Origen in his Contra
Celsum 6.53, raises the objections that are brought against Marcion
without observing that it is Marcion whom he is speaking of:
Why
does he(=Marcion’s unknown superior God) secretly send to destroy the creations
of this God? Why does he force his way in by stealth and beguile and lead
astray? Why does he lead off those whom,
as you say, the Creator has condemned and cursed, and carry them away like a
slave-dealer? Why does
he teach them to escape from their master? Why should they flee to the Father? Why
does he adopt them as his children without the consent their father(=the
Creator, Demiurge)? Why does he lay
claim to be the Father of the strangers?
Whether or not Celsus understands
Marcion’s teaching correctly, his questions seem to me to be legitimate. Why Marcion’s foreign good God who had
nothing to do with the creation of the Demiurge sent his Son to the earth to
save the souls of the believers? Unlike
the Gnostic Demiurge, Marcion’s Demiurge was not an angel who was sent by the
good God to create the universe and human beings. Thus, the foreign good God cannot claim even
the souls of human beings. If He carries
away the human souls from the Demiurge, He cannot be a good God but a stealer. I think that this may be one of the reasons
for Apelles to modify his master’s teaching.[116] According to R 2.57, Simon, who here
represents a Gnostic or Apelles in the middle of the second century, claims
that the human souls were made by the good supreme God, but were brought down
as captives into this world. It seems to
me that this allegation is a later one than Marcion’s teaching of the supreme
good God who had nothing to do with human creation, the flesh as well as the
soul.
H.
Marcion in Eusebius
Marcion in Eusebius is quoted from
Justin (1 Apol 26) and Irenaeus (AH 1.27.1-2, 3.3.4,
3.4.2). Following Irenaeus, Eusebius
confirms that Marcion succeeded and amplified the doctrine of Cerdo, who came
to Rome in the time of Hyginus (139-143) and taught that the God of the law and
the prophets was not the Father of Jesus, “for the former was known, but the
latter was unknown; the former was just (or righteous), whereas the latter was
benevolent (or gracious).”[117] Eusebius claims that Cerdo is responsible for
the Marcionite error (the error of the two Gods).
When Eusebius quoted from Justin’s 1
Apology he did not comment on Justin’s imprecise statement: “... he(=Marcion) has persuaded many of every
race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the Maker of this universe is
the Father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than He, was the
Creator (or has done greater works).”[118]
According to this quotation, the Father of Christ seems to be the God of the
Old Testament, whereas the Maker or Creator of the universe seems to be the
unknown superior God, who is greater than the God of the Old Testament, the
Father of Christ. But, this is not what Marcion taught. According to Marcion, the Father of Christ is
the unknown superior God, and he has nothing to do with the creation of the
universe. The God of the Law and the
prophets, who is inferior to the unknown good God, is not the Father of Christ,
but yet he is the Creator of the universe.
Eusebius’ another quotation from
Irenaeus is the famous episode between Polycarp and Marcion (cf. AH
3.3.4). When Polycarp encountered with
Marcion and was asked if he recognize him, he answered Marcion: “I recognize the first born of Satan!” Whether or not this episode is true is a
separate issue, but Eusebius seems to regard it as true. Eusebius, following
Irenaeus, apparently believes that this episode occurred in Rome. He connects this episode with Polycarp’s
letter to the Philippians. By doing so,
he gives an impression to readers that the heretics whom Polycarp referred in
his letter include Marcion.[119]
I.
Marcion in Epiphanius
I think that Marcion in Epiphanius is
very fictitious. Epiphanius probably
makes use of Irenaeus as his major source but he seems to add some other
sources and traditions on Marcion. Like
Irenaeus, Epiphanius also connects Marcion with Cerdo,[120]
but he does not explain in what aspect Marcion succeeded him. According to Epiphanius, Marcion’s church is
still existing in his time (the second half of the fourth century) “in Rome and
Italy, Egypt and Palestine, Arabia and Syria, Cyprus and Thebaid--in Persia,
too, moreover, and other places.”[121]
Epiphanius claims that Marcion came to
Rome after the death of Hyginus (139-143 according to Eusebius),[124]
which is a different witness from Irenaeus and Tertullian.[125]
Epiphanius, unlike Tertullian, states that Marcion was not permitted to the
Roman church.[126] Thus, according to Epiphanius, Marcion joined
the sect of Cerdo in Rome, and later founded his own sect. Whereas Cerdo advocates the system of two
principles or Gods, one just and the other one good, Marcion teaches the system
of three principles or Gods: a good God, a just God--the Creator and Demiurge,
and an evil God--the devil.[127] Epiphanius is different from Irenaeus who
states that Marcion as well as Cerdo has the system of two Gods, one good and
the other just (AH 1.27.1-2),[128]
and from Hippolytus who claims that Marcion has a two God system, one good and
the other one evil (or bad) (Ref 7.18-19).[129] Pseudo-Tertullian observes that Marcion as
well as Cerdo introduces two Gods or two first causes, one good and the other
cruel.[130] Some scholars think that these seemingly
different statements do not contradict each other.[131]
However, I do not agree with them. Is it
allowable to think that the second principle, i.e., the just God should include
the third principle, i.e. the evil or matter?
Is matter always evil? Is the
just God in good harmony with the evil or devil? I think that Epiphanius’ observation of the
three principles or Gods is of the fourth century Marcionites rather than of
Marcion himself.
The Marcionites allow baptism “to be
given as many as three times and more to anyone who wishes.”[132] Epiphanius thinks that it is because Marcion
incorrectly interprets what Jesus said:
“I have a baptism to be baptized with, and why do I wish if I have
already accomplished it” (Luke 12:50; cf. Mark 10:38); and again “I have a cup
to drink, and why do I wish to if I have already fulfilled it?”[133] Furthermore, according to Epiphanius, the
Marcionites permit women to give baptism, which regarded heretical then.[134]
Epiphanius quotes a mystery of Marcion
from Irenaeus’ AH 1.27.3:
The
Lord (=Christ) has even gone down to Hades to save, Cain, Korah, Dathan, Abiram,
Esau, and all the Gentiles who had not known the God of the Jews. But he has
left Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon there.
For they recognized the God of the Jews as maker and creator, he says, and have
done what is appropriate to him, and did not dedicate themselves to the
invisible God.[135]
Christ’s salvation of the wicked persons
in Hades by faith is probably a made-up story by Irenaeus.
Epiphanius criticizes the good God’s
work of salvation in the territory of the bad god by stating:[136]
How can
<the God who> does work--either a work of salvation, or the other
kinds--in the bad god’s territory be considered ‘good?’ For suppose the world
is not his, and yet he sent his Only-begotten into the world to remove things
which he neither begot nor made from another god’s world. It will follow,
either that he is invading some one else’s domain, or that he is poor and has
nothing of his own, and is advancing against someone else’s territory to get
things which he does not already have.
This is what Celsus also questioned and
criticized in his True Doctrine, although he did not know that this
belonged to Marcionism.[137] In the Recognitions, the Gnostic Simon
justifies the good God’s saving act by restating that the human souls were made
by the good God (not by the Demiurge) but they have been brought down as
captives into this world. I think that
this is a modification of Marcionism by later (Simonian) Gnosticism. Simon, however, does not explain why and how
the human souls have been brought down as captives while the superior God is
more powerful than the just God, the Demiurge.[138] Simon states that “It is not impious for the
sake of greater profit and advantage to flee to him(=the good strange God) who
is of richer glory.”[139] But, Peter’s assertion, I think, is more
persuasive here:[140]
If, as
you say, it is not impious to flee to s stranger, it is at all events much more
pious to remain with our own father(=the just God), even if he be poor. But if
you do not think it impious to leave our father, and flee to another, as being
better than he; and you do not believe that our God will take this amiss; much
more the good God will not be angry, because, when we were strangers to him, we
have not fled
to him, but have remained with our own Creator. Yea, I think
he will rather commend us the
more for this, that we have kept faith with God our Creator; for he will
consider that, if we had been his creatures, we should never had been seduced
by the allurements of any other to forsake him.
The good foreign God and his Christ do
not have any right to invade into the just God’s territory to carry the souls
up to their heaven if they have nothing to do with the Demiurge’s creation of
human bodies and souls. This seems to be
a critical weakness of Marcion’s doctrine of salvation by Christ who was sent
by the good unknown God.
Epiphanius lists Marcion’s Gospel and
Epistles. That is, the Gospel of Luke is
his only Gospel, and the Pauline Epistles are listed according to the following
order:
“1. Galatians. 2. Corinthians. 3. Second
Corinthians. 4. Romans. 5. Thessalonians. 6. Second Thessalonians. 7.
Ephesians. 8. Colossians. 9. Philemon. 10. Philippians.”[141]
According to Epiphanius, Marcion also has “parts of the so-called Epistle to
the Laodiceans,” thinking that the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistle to
the Laodiceans are two different epistles.[142] For the rest of the section against Marcion,
Epiphanius tries to demonstrate that Marcion’s text is fraudulent and
erroneous.
IV.
MARCION’S CANON
A.
Marcion’s Motive of Reconstruction of the True Gospel
Marcion thought that Peter, John and
James and other disciples could not be true apostles, and that only Paul was
the “true” apostle. Considering only
Paul as “the Apostle,” Marcion (or the Marcionites) attacked the Twelve
original apostles, claiming that they did not understand Jesus’ teaching and
gospel. However, it seems to me that
Marcion’s argument is not quite right:
Saying that the Twelve apostles were those who misunderstood Jesus’ true
gospel, it means that he claims that his “perfect” Jesus made a mistake by
choosing those stupid persons who could never understand the truth at all as
his apostles.[143] Marcion believed that the Twelve apostles had
initially brought about a tradition of false teaching in the Church, the only
remedy for which was the careful restoration of Paul’s gospel.[144] The raison d’etre of his own mission
was the belief that the church had received a gospel other than Paul’s (Gal.
1:6, cf. 1:23b) that contained errors and misunderstandings of falsifiers,
rather than the gospel announced by Paul in his letters. He found that the Pauline epistles were also
interpolated and tempered by Judaizing interests. He felt that the Jewish elements in Paul’s
letters were only secondary and that they should be removed. Thus, even in Pauline epistles cuts and restorations
had to be made.
Marcion’s canon is often said to be the
first “closed”[145]
canon of distinctively Christian writings.
It consists of two parts, “Gospel” and “Apostle,” as Knox suggests,
perhaps to correspond to the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew canon.[146]
Marcion’s “Gospel” was the redaction or a primitive form of the Gospel of Luke,
and the “Apostle” consisted of ten letters that were attributed to Paul,
excluding the Pastoral Epistles. The
Ephesians was replaced by the letter to the Laodiceans. According to R. J. Hoffmann, the failure of
Paul’s mission is the presupposition of Marcion’s reform.[147]
B.
The Gospel of Luke
As far as the gospels are concerned,
there should be only one gospel because Paul refers to only one gospel,
expressing “my Gospel” not “my gospels.”
He took it for granted that only one could be authoritative, and decided
that it must be the Gospel of Luke, finding the same Lord’s supper mentioned as
expressed in 1 Corinthians 11, and the obvious dualism (a good tree and a bad
tree in 6:43-44). But in its existing
form Luke’s text showed every sign of acknowledging the validity of the Old
Testament revelation and of assuming the continuity of the gospel with the word
spoken in time past to Moses and the prophets.
Marcion believed that the original text of Luke was the work of Paul
himself, and he therefore undertook to reconstruct the authentic text of Paul’s
gospel as it was before his uncomprehending friends and disciples had altered
it. Or, Marcion himself composed a
gospel, called “the Gospel of Luke” to reflect his view on Christ whom the
alien God sent for the human salvation and only in whom God revealed himself,
on the basis of Paul’s Gospel.
Marcion’s Gospel was less than
three-fourths of the Gospel of Luke in length.
Marcion seems to have used his version of Luke only as an evidence for
the separation of the Gospel and the Law.
As Hoffmann points out, the key verse of Marcion’s Gospel was Luke 6:43,
which he interpreted allegorically to refer to the two gods and the consequent
separation of the covenants: “No good
tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit”(Luke 6:43).[148] Knowing that Marcion rejected the allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament, it seems to me strange or inconsistent
that he interpreted this Jesus’ saying allegorically to compare the two gods
(“good” and “just” if not “bad” or “evil”).
Tertullian, Epiphanius, and other
ancient witnesses believed that Marcion had shortened and mutilated the
canonical Gospel, while the Marcionites denied this charge and accused the more
conservative churches of having falsified and corrupted the true gospel which
they alone possessed in its purity. But,
Tertullian’s charge (and Epiphanius does the same in his Panarion)
against Marcion does not seem to quite accurate.[149] On several occasions, Tertullian charged him
with omitting materials that do not appear in Luke: “...when he (=Jesus) makes it clear on his
first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but
rather to fulfil them (cf. Matt. 5:17).
Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation” (AM
4.7.4); “So then he has commanded the law to be fulfilled: in whatever sense he
gave this command, he can in the same sense have stated the principle, “I am
not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it” (cf. Matt. 5:17). “What good then
did it do you to excise them from the gospel a sentence which remains there
still?” (AM 4.9.15); “... on each occasion he insists by his
actions, “I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it (cf. Matt. 5:17),
even if Marcion has closed his mouth with this word” (AM
4.12.14). Furthermore, Tertullian even suggests to his “long-time-ago deceased”
foe, Marcion, to remove a couple of passages that are neither found in Luke
from the Gospel for his “heretical” purpose: “... to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the Gospel, ‘I am not
sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt. 15:24), and ‘It is
not <meet> to take away the children’s bread and give it to dogs’
(Matt. 15:26; Mark 7:27): for this gives
the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.”[150]
Why Tertullian made these mistakes? I
can think of several possibilities: First, Tertullian’s citation was not
accurate, because he did not have Marcion’s Gospel at hand; second, Tertullian
did this “on purpose” to do his job, making Marcion and his followers look bad;
third, Marcion’s Luke did not include the verse of Matthew 5:17 but contained
the passage of Matthew 15:24ff. whereas some later version of Luke at
Tertullian’s time included all.
Marcion’s followers seemed to have continued to change their texts after
the time of Marcion, as we read the testimonies of Irenaeus (AH
3.12.12) and Tertullian (AM 4.5.7).[151] As D. S. Williams points out, the content of
the Marcionites’ Luke at Tertullian’s time was different from that at
Epiphanius’ time: While Tertullian (AM
4.29.1-2) says, “Who is this that would have us not be concerned for our life,
... whose lilies and whose grass neither weave nor spin and yet are clothed by
him?,” Epiphanius states (Pan 42.11.31), “He (=Marcion) does not
have, ‘God doth clothe the grass’ (Luke 12:28).”[152] I think that Tertullian deliberately brought
out Matthew 5:17 whether or not it was included in the older version of the
Gospel Luke, because he thought that this “Jesus’ saying” would directly
contradict Marcion’s position.[153]
C.
Marcion’s Pauline Corpus
Marcion regarded Paul’s proclamation of
the Gospel as the only genuine one, and
as identical with the proclamation of it by Christ himself. Marcion rejected the rest of the Apostles as
Judaizers, and believed Paul to be the sole protector of the truth of the
Gospel. Harnack attributes to Marcion a
full understanding of Paul’s fundamental distinction of Law and Gospel, and
asserts that Marcion made this the starting-point of his own teaching.[154] Blackman doubts whether Marcion’s reverence
for Christ and his contrast of the new dispensation of grace with the old
legalism are comparable in richness of ethical content with the faith of
Paul. And von Soden denies this. The information we possess about Marcion--derived
from the accounts of opponents who were anxious to refute Marcion’s system--is
not enough to justify the assertions of either Harnack or von Soden.
1. The Composition of the Apostle Section
The Apostolikon section of Marcion’s
canon was composed of ten Pauline letters: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon, and
Philippians – in approximately, if not exactly, that order.[155] According to N. A. Dahl, the placement of
Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans as the first letters in the Pauline Corpus
is not exclusively Marcionite: the Old Syriac version has the same order.[156] Whether or not Marcion knew the Old Syriac
version, it seems to me that he placed Galatians first in the Apostolikon section
with his own obvious reasons. To him,
Galatians was the most important Pauline letter for his dualism (Law and
Gospel) and “only one” Gospel argument.[157] Marcion derived his dualistic concept of two
Gods out of an extreme separation of Law and Gospel. And, Galatians foremostly provides its
playground to anti-Judaistic Marcion.
Tertullian also agrees with Marcion about this: “We too claim that the primary epistle
against Judaism is that addressed to the Galatians. For we receive with open arms all that
abolition of the ancient law.”[158]
(AM 5.2.1). W. Farmer
suggests that the reason why Marcion gave Galatians the chief place in his Apostolikon
was because it provided him with “written apostolic authority for his regula.”[159] He adds that Galatians provided a textual
basis not only for Marcion’s doctrinal norm (=regula) but also for his
scriptural norm (=his καvώv of Scripture; cf. Gal. 6:16).[160]
Tertullian examined the ten epistles in
Marcion’s canon, one after another. Marcion
evidently had no epistle named “Ephesians.”
But it is clear that only the name was missing, for the letter itself
was plainly identical with the epistle which in Marcion’s canon bore the name
“Laodiceans.”[161] Tertullian explicitly affirms the identity of
the two letters, “Ephesians” and “Laodiceans,” and his commentary on
“Laodiceans” places it beyond any possible doubt. According to Knox, the Marcionite canon did
not contain these ten letters as ten separate items. The Corinthian letters and the Thessalonian
letters were presented as one item, respectively, and furthermore, perhaps
Colossians and Philemon under a single title.
Thus, the Marcionite Apostolikon section contained seven (letters
to the seven churches; parallel to John’s letters to seven churches in Rev.
2-3), or at most eight items.[162]
2. Marcion’s Texts
From time to time, some
scholars--Harnack, J.J. Clabeaux, U. Schmid, etc.--who undertook reconstruction
of Marcion’s text confronted the difficulty of the task: Marcionite’s texts can be recovered only from
the texts of Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and others; Of the words of
Marcion’s Scriptures only a very small proportion happen to be quoted in any of
our sources: It is notorious that in the
first few centuries exact quotation of Christian writings was no regarded as
being especially important; It has been clearly established that the text of
the Marcionite Scriptures underwent continuous and extensive changes after
Marcion’s own time.
Harnack finds that the following
passages of our Galatians in Marcion’s canon were “certainly” missing: 3:6-9;
parts of 3:10-12: 3:14a; 3:15-25; and 4:27-30. He also lists 1:18-24 and 2:6-9a
as “probably” missing.[163] J. Knox argues that there is no positive
evidence that 4:27-30 was lacking in Marcion’s Galatians, so that this passage
should be included in the doubtful category.[164] Harnack can find no evidence of large-scale
“omission” in either 1 and 2 Corinthians, although he is inclined to believe
that the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians may have been somewhat shorter
in Marcion’s canon than in ours.
Similarly there is no reason to believe that the Thessalonians,
Philippians, and Philemon differed extensively from ours. In Laodiceans (cf. Ephesians) Harnack only
notes that 1:21 and 6:2b-3 were “probably” missing and that the passage 5:28-32
was differently arranged, with verse 30 “perhaps” missing. And in Colossians Harnack is sure only that
1:15-17 read somewhat differently from the same paragraph in our own text. Marcion’s text of Romans, according to
Harnack, did not contain 1:17b; 1:19-2:1; 3:31-4:25; 8:19-22; 9:1-33;
10:5-11:32; and chapters 15 and 16.
Harnack’s conclusion is from that in most of these cases the passage is
merely passed over in the source.
Marcion did not think himself as an
innovator, but as a faithful disciple of Paul. If he found in one of the
epistles of Paul a statement which could not agree to what he knew to be the
true Pauline position, he considered it as an interpolation by Judaizing
editors or copyists. Thus, he made his
every effort to restore Paul’s original text by making necessary reductions and
editions. However, this is not all. According to Knox, some of the
“omissions”--more precisely, “missing”--are not omissions at all but genuine
primitive readings. Concerning Romans
chapters 15 and 16, no one has made a plausible suggestions as to why Marcion
should have cut these chapters off entirely.
Besides, there is abundant evidence that the Epistle to the Romans
circulated in this form very widely in the early church and among others than
Marcionites.[165] Thus, Marcion’s canon had a smaller version
of our current canon.
D.
The Orthodox Reaction
1.
The Orthodox Church Leaders’ Dilemma
The “orthodox” churches (Roman church,
principally) in the second half of the second century had to decide whether
they should claim Paul as their apostle or discredit him as an apostle of
heretics. Theologians of the first-half
of the second century intentionally did not refer to Paul in their works.[166] It seems to me that they did not refer to the
name of Paul not because they did not know him and his works, but because
Marcion claimed first Paul as his ‘true’ apostle (see also von Campenhausen). According to J. Knox, this silence,
especially as it seems deliberate, can most naturally be interpreted to mean
that in some churches at least Paul was under suspicion; and one of these
churches must have been the church at Rome.
Nevertheless, Paul was to be claimed as
their apostle since Paul’s letters were widely spread and circulated among the
churches in the middle of the second century.
In the Roman community itself, Paul was recommended as one of its early
leaders whose name was often associated with Peter’s in their tradition. To give him up to the heretics would have
involved an intolerable sacrifice. To
regard the letters of Paul as heretical would have been tantamount to regarding
more than half of Christendom as heretical.[167]
2.
The Formation of the Christian New Testament Canon
Could the orthodox canon have emerged in
the absence of the Marcionite canon?
Some may say “yes.” Although some
may disagree, many scholars think that Marcion indirectly forced the
compilation of the Christian canon, and that Marcion’s basic framework of the
two parts of “Gospel” and “Apostle” is seen in the “Gospels” (Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John) and “Apostles” (Acts, Pauline Epistles, and other Letters) in
the Christian New Testament. C. Cosgrove
suggests that “Justin would have found it necessary to deal with the question
of canon as posed by Marcion.”[168] But, Paul’s letters would be excluded in
Justin’s canon, if such existed, “in reaction to Marcion’s exploitation” of
Paul for heretical purpose.[169] More probable is that Justin knew nothing about
Paul or his writings. Irenaeus realized
that Marcion was right in one thing--that it was necessary to have a canon or
fixed list of authoritative writings of the New Testament. Although the theologians of the first half of
the second century were passive or silent to Paul’s letters in their reactions,
the orthodox church ultimately follow Marcion’s idea of apostolic authority in
their formation of the Christian canon.[170] Knox also states that Marcion’s canon
provided the structural principle and (became the) organizing idea of the
Catholic New Testament.
The non-Marcionite churches, as Knox
suggests, unwilling to allow that their regard for the apostolic documents was
in any degree less devoted than that of Marcion and other heretics, accepted
the principle of a distinctive Christian Scripture, but this “new” Scripture
was conceived not as replacing the old but as complementing and consummating of
it; these churches adopted the policy which enabled them to say to the
heretics: “We have all you have and
more. We have the Old Testament and the New.”[171] Knox claims that this method of answering the
heretics, not by rejecting their Scripture but by absorbing it into a larger
whole, not only explains the church’s acceptance of the principle of the New Testament
but also accounts, in considerable part, for the particular contents of the
Catholic canon.
3.
The Emergence of the Book of Acts and Pastoral Epistles
Marcion claimed that Paul was quite
independent of Jesus’ original disciples, whose “Jewish” apostasy had corrupted
the greater part of the church. He could
cite references in Paul’s letters to the “false apostles” and could point to
fairly plausible indications that it was Peter, James, John, and others of the
Twelve to whom he was alluding. For the
more conservative part of the church, to take Marcion at his word have meant
being forced to repudiate Paul. But,
conversely, to accept Paul meant to affirm with all possible vigor that the
Apostle to the Gentiles, far from being independent of the Twelve, had
acknowledged their authority, had been gladly accredited by them, and had
worked obediently and loyally under their direction. But the letters of Paul gave only meager
support to this view. A certain book
which, without reducing or disparaging Paul, subordinated him to the Twelve was
obviously required.[172] According to Knox, the Book of Acts which
admirably fills these needs was suddenly available to those who were engaged
about 150 C.E. in constructing the New Testament of the church. It begins with an account of Jesus’
authorization of the Twelve as his witnesses not only in Jerusalem and Judea
but also in Samaria and “to the end of the earth” and continues with the story
of their administration of their tasks as the official heads of the expanding
church. In due time Paul commences his
mission in association with Barnabas under the church at Antioch and thus
indirectly under the supervision of the Twelve (e.g., Paul’s visit to the
Jerusalem Council in Acts 15). It is
they to whom the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles is referred and
they who authoritatively pass on it, addressing to the churches of Syria and
Cilicia (and indirectly to Galatia) a letter on this issue which Paul and
Barnabas are directed to deliver. J. Knox claims that Acts serves the double
purpose of “exalting and idealizing Paul” and at the same time “definitely
subordinating him to the leaders at Jerusalem.”[173] However, D. Doughty suggests the possibility
of Acts having been written prior to Galatians and other Pauline letters. If this were the case, I think that Acts
could not have been written during the first of the second century when the
orthodox church leaders had still to make up their mind whether or not to
proclaim Paul as their apostle. Although
Paul was described as a subordinate figure to the Jerusalem leaders, even this
would not be permissible if the second century orthodox church leaders would
decide to discard him because he was the apostle to the heretics. As we observe well, in the first half of the
second century the orthodox church leaders were very reluctant to cite Paul’s
letters in their writings (even if they possessed Paul’s letters) due to their
“heretical” (Gnostic or Marcionite) opponents’ strong association with Paul’s
letters. If Acts were written prior to
“Marcion’s Galatians,” it should have been written in the late first century or
the early second century before the Marcionites or Gnostics were not yet
widespread throughout Asia Minor and Rome.
And if this were true, Marcion might have been motivated to compose or
modify Galatians to repudiate the author of Acts who subordinated his only
apostle, Paul, to the false apostles in Jerusalem, by writing Paul’s
(auto)biographical letter that contradicts the stories in Acts about Paul’s
relationship with the Jerusalem authority.
Less controversially, the Pastoral
Epistles would have emerged to affirm the orthodox church tradition, fixed
church order, and the parallelism of covenants.
As Knox hinted, if the Book of Acts and Pastoral Epistles were the
products of the mid second century by the orthodox church who became aware of
Marcion’s canon but wanted to reject him at any expenses, they would naturally
declare them as authentic and genuine.
If Knox is correct, it seems to me that their made-up authenticity can
be justified in the canonization process by apologizing themselves that their
efforts were to defeat and reject the heretics who blasphemed the Creator God
if not blasphemed Jesus Christ, his Son.
4. Other Influences of Marcionism on the
Orthodox Church
Marcion’s separation of two gods,
revelation of the alien God in Christ and other teachings let the church
describe their God more clearly. We see
the positive influence of Marcionism on the orthodox church’s creedal
expression of God as we see Irenaeus’ AH 2.30.9: “He is Father, He is God ... He is just, He
is good, ... He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom
Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the church
believes. ... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, He
is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is
revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him.”[174] Except that Irenaeus unified Marcion’s two
gods into one, Irenaeus’ description of God is very similar to Marcion’s
description of his alien unknown God, the Father of Jesus.
V.
FROM MARCION TO MARCIONISM
A.
The Theological Aspects of Marcionism
1. Dualism
(1) A Starting Point of the Marcionites’ Dualism
Marcion’s dualism is the best-attested
feature of his theology. Marcion’s dualism has a strong overtone of
anti-Judaism. Marcion’s dualistic theology matured and deepened after the
failure of the Jewish apocalyptic revolt (132-135 C.E.) led by Bar Kochba.
Besides, in Marcion’s mind, Jesus’ original apostles and their followers
erroneously believed that there is continuity between Judaism and Christianity,
between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Marcion wanted to alienate
Christianity from Judaism, the New Covenant through the Gospel from the Old
Covenant through the Law, the alien unknown good God, the Father of Jesus from
the known just God, the God of Israel as far as possible.
E. C. Blackman suggests that Marcion’s
dualism was the expression of what were to him “the fundamental facts of human
life.” According to Blackman, Marcion saw two principles at work in the
universe: The first is the principle of Justice or Law, inherent in the
universe and in fact the originator of it; the second principle intervenes and
overrules Justice, and it may be called Grace or Redeeming Love.[175]
If any man can come under the dominion of this second principle, then he is
delivered from the bondage of the first. Marcion found it easier to speak of
gods than of principles.
Marcion rejected allegorical
interpretation of the Scriptures and claims that the Jewish Christians
misunderstood the Gospel of Jesus. If allegorical interpretation is not
allowed, the God of Israel described in the Old Testament was vacillating:
after forbidding the making of images, he told Moses to set up a brazen
serpent. The Creator God was ignorant: he had to ask Adam where he was and
descended to Sodom and Gomorrah to discover what was going on. Furthermore, as
the Creator of Adam, God was responsible for the entrance of evil into the
world. God himself confessed “I created evil (or woe)”(Isa. 45:7: cf. Irenaeus’
AH 1.27.2). In addition, this Creator devised the humiliating
method of sexual reproduction, the discomforts of pregnancy, and the pains of
childbirth, the mere contemplation of which filled Marcion with nausea.
C. Osborne points out that Tertullian,
Hippolytus and Origen saw that the starting point of Marcion’s system of
dualism was the passage in Luke 6:43-44a about the trees of good and evil: “For
no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for
each tree is known by its own fruit.”[176]
The God of Israel who created evil (cf. Isa. 45:7) cannot be a good God. From
this, Marcion could derive the conclusion: As the Creator God is not a good God
(“just” [and/or “bad”]), there must be some other God than the Creator, and
that this good God, who had not known to Israel, should be the Father of Jesus
only in whom he revealed himself. If it were true that Marcion used this
passage in defense of his beliefs as his old opponents testified,[177]
Marcion’s view of the Creator, from the beginning, would have been not only
“just” but also “evil,” or his definition of “just” should have included
“evil,” at least in his interpretation of the Creator from this passage. But,
the problem is that Marcion, who rejected allegorical interpretation of the Old
Testament, used “allegorical interpretation” to draw his concept of two gods.
(2)
Influences from Greek Philosophy
Many scholars led by Harnack have
thought that philosophy was not one of the roots of Marcion’s thought.[178] Harnack’s defense for Marcion as fundamental
Paulinist is based on Col. 2:8, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by
philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to
elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” But, Harnack’s
and other followers’ view is in opposition to Marcion’s early orthodox
opponents’ witnesses.[179] Although I agree with Hoffmann when he points
out “that the church fathers should have regarded Marcionism as a form of
philosophical subversion suggests among other things their own increasing
attachment to philosophy,”[180]
there are too many analogies between Marcionism and Greek philosophy to deny
his influence from Greek philosophers.
Clement of Alexandria describes Marcion
that he “took the impulse for his strange doctrines from Plato without
acknowledgment or understanding.”[181] Clement claims that Plato “does not offer
Marcion grounds for thinking matter evil, when he himself speaks reverently
about the world,”[182]
although Plato saw “sexual intercourse as the origin of birth and rejected it
accordingly.”[183] Although Plato and other Greek philosophers
(Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, Empedocles, etc.) that Clement mentioned in his Stromateis
regarded birth as “something evil,” they did not attribute this evil to Creator
God, Demiurge. But, Marcion and his followers who got the idea that “birth is
evil” with some misunderstanding perhaps from Plato and/or other Greek
philosophers attribute this evil of birth to the Creator, the God of Israel.
And they forbid marriage, the source of birth, out of hatred of the Creator.
Drijvers suggests that Marcion’s Creator
can be compared to the Demiurgic God or power in Middle Platonism.[184] In this sense, Marcionism is very similar to
Gnosticism. The second century philosopher, Harpocration of Argos made a
distinction between a first god Zeus and a second Zeus who functioned as
Demiurge. According to Drijvers, the philosopher from Apamea called his second
God Maker, who has a close bond with Matter (=evil), the third God, but “the
second and third God are in fact one.”[185]
This is precisely what Marcionism, if not Marcion himself, saw its Creator, the
God of this world (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4) who was also the author of evil (or
matter). B. Aland also describes
Marcion’s Creator in a similar fashion: “Marcions zweiter Gott, der sog.
Gerechte, ist Schöpfer und Herr dieser Welt, einschließlich ihrer Engel,
... Das gilt so sehr, daß Marcion den Schöpfergott mit seiner Welt völlig
gleichsetzen kann.”[186]
Tertullian states: “At least let Marcion
admit that the principal term of his faith is from the school of Epicurus, for
to avoid making him an object of fear he introduces a dull sort of god, and
puts on loan even with God the Creator matter from the porch of the Stoics when
he denies the resurrection of the flesh, which in fact no philosophy admits.”[187] According to J. G. Gager, it was common among
heresiologists to dismiss their opponents merely by labeling them as
philosophers.[188] But, he
believes that Marcion was “familiar with Epicurean philosophy and borrowed from
it a key element in his argument for the existence of his higher god.”[189] Gager claims that Marcion’s rejection of
allegory was “part of his philosophical training and thus a contributing cause
rather than a necessary result of his attitude to the Old Testament.”[190] Tertullian cynically joked about Marcion and
his alien higher god, calling him “a sluggish and indifferent god,” from which
Gager made his point about the “impassiveness” or “passivity” of their
(Marcion’s and Epicurus’) gods, but I am not quite convinced with his argument.[191]
Now, I will turn to another reference to
philosophy. Hippolytus claims that
Marcion derived his system of dualism from Empedocles.[192] He called Marcion a disciple of
Empedocles. Hippolytus described
Marcion’s two gods as “two originating causes of the universe,” one is a
certain “good” [principle] and the other an “evil” one.[193] Hippolytus explained Empedocles’ two causes
of the universe, “Discord” and “Friendship.” Empedocles’ “Discord” corresponds
to Marcion’s “evil” (or “just” in Marcion’s term) God (or principle) and
“Friendship” to his “good” God (or principle).
But, Marcion’s just God had the power to control the “evil” matter (cf.
Isa. 45:7; Luke 6:43-44; 2 Cor. 4:4).
Irenaeus and especially Tertullian, for his argument purpose,
interpreted Marcion’s two contrasted gods as “good” and “just” (omitting or
minimizing the “evil”) to claim that Marcion’s two (“good” and “just”) gods are
not two indeed but “two aspects of the one supreme God,”[194] Hippolytus, on the other hand, emphasized the
“evil” cause (or god) to maximize the antithesis between the two gods (cf. Isa.
45:7; Luke 6:43-44a), for his own purpose to parallel Marcion’s two contrasted
gods with Empedocles’ two opposite causes of the universe.[195]
One serious question to raise is whether
Marcion’s Creator God is just or evil, if “just” cannot include “evil.” According to Harnack, Marcion’s Creator God
was is not bad (or evil) but just, and thus there is no direct opposition
between the Creator God and the Father of Jesus. And, Osborne suggests that “texts which
claimed that Marcion had an antithesis between a good God and an evil
Creator-God must therefore be a corrupt later form of Marcionism which had
introduced a dualism that was alien to the original position devised by
Marcion.”[196] However, I think that the opposite case is
more probable. That is, Marcion
originally claimed that the Creator God was evil or bad derived from the
passage of Luke 6:43-44a, but later Gnosticized Marcionites claim that the
Creator God is “just” which includes bad or evil. And thus Irenaeus connects Marcion with
Cerdo.
(3)
Yahweh versus Elohim in Philo
According to Philo and haggadists, who
lived in Alexandria in the first century, the name “LORD” (a translation of
Yahweh) in the Old Testament refers to “God’s activity as creator and judge,”
while “God” (a translation of Elohim) refers to “his goodness and mercy.”[197] However, later rabbis reversed the
interpretation, insisting that Yahweh referred to God’s love and mercy (Exod. 34:6),
whereas Elohim to God’s judgment. Thus, “justice” and “goodness” are two
different characteristics immanent in God himself. R. M. Grant claims that both Cerdo and
Marcion “transferred this distinction from the Old Testament to the story of
Jesus” and that ended up with two gods instead of one, which makes a good sense
to me.[198] Thus, “Yahweh” is the just God of the Old
Testament, and “Elohim” is the good God, the Father of Jesus.
(4)
The Just or Evil God of Israel and the Good God of Jesus
There are verses in the Pauline or
deutero-Pauline epistles which seemingly refer to contrasted deities: “The God of this world has blinded the minds
of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4); “He(=God) has
rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of
his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). The
dualism of flesh and spirit is plainly expressed in Paul’s writings, and does
not depend on the mind of the interpreter. But, at the same time, Paul’s
writings include passages which forbid a dualistic interpretation, and which
assign permanent validity to the Old Testament. Marcion convinced himself that
these were interpolations, and took the simple step of removing them. Or, it
may be argued that these passages were later “orthodox” additions after
Marcion.
The Creator God proclaimed by the Law
and the prophets is not the Father of Jesus Christ: the former is known, the
latter unknown. They are separated by an infinite gulf, and the Creator is
‘ignorant’ of the existence of the alien God. The unknown God had been revealed
by Jesus Christ as a God of love and mercy. Unlike other Gnostics, Marcion’s
Demiurge or Creator is quite independent and separate from the unknown foreign
God. For Marcion, Christ is the only mode of God’s revelation to the world; for
the supreme God is revealed in no other way than in Christ.[199]
But, if Jesus Christ were totally a new revelation of the true supreme unknown
“good” God, why did he appear “first” to the Jews, the chosen people of the
Creator, the “just” God not to the people other than the Jews, as Marcion
started his version of Luke, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, ..., Jesus Christ went down to
Capernaum, a city of Galilee”? Furthermore, as Tertullian argued or questioned,
why did the “unknown God’s Christ” appear in Galilee in correspondence with the
Old Testament prophecy that the “Creator’s Christ” would appear in Galilee?
(cf. Isa. 9:1-2).[200]
The alien God suffers in the person of
Jesus Christ, according to the terms of Creator’s law, in order to win
salvation for human beings. This alien
good God would accomplish not only the salvation of Israel alone but the
redemption of mankind from the Creator’s justice. But, again, why should the Israelites be so
important and special to this alien good God as they were to the Creator, God
of Israel, if the alien unknown God were different from the known God in the
Old Testament?
In contrast to the Creator, the alien
God exercises no providence or judicial power. The will of the alien God is to
release mankind from the law of sin and death to enable their salvation. His Son, Jesus came to save the souls of
mankind, who were created by the known Creator God. Mankind is thus the property of the Creator. Then, why did the alien God (and his Son)
want to save the human beings who were not created by him but the Creator?[201] How can the alien God be a good God when his
Son intruded the just God’s territory to rob (i.e., “save” in his term) his
children? Isn’t he also, in Marcion’s logic, no less cruel than the Creator
God? And what is his goodness if he saves
only those who receive him, while the Creator has blinded the minds of only
those who do not believe? Wouldn’t the just God also save those who believe and
receive him?
(5)
The Law and the Gospel
To Marcion, the Creator, was represented
by the Law and prophets, and the Redeemer by the Gospel. As the two Gods should be distinguished
clearly, so should be the Law and the Gospel.
He found it impossible to reconcile the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the
Law and prophets. When some writers
among the Twelve apostles and those who were influenced by the Twelve tried to
connect the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, Marcion believed, they
distorted the genuine truth of the Gospel of Jesus, in whom the unknown supreme
good God revealed his love and mercy. Only Paul, who preached the “one” Gospel
of the good God or of Christ, understood the genuine truth of the Gospel of
Christ. According to Paul, the old
dispensation of the Law and prophets was done away, even for the Jewish
Christians: “Old things are passed away,
behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17); “By the deeds of the law
shall no flesh be justified” (Rom. 3:20); “An end was made to our
relations with the law” (Rom. 7:6).
2. Docetism
Many Christians came near to docetic
views in their emphasis on the divine aspect of Christ’s nature. Irenaeus presented various forms of docetism
in his AH (1.24.2, 4; 3.16.1): 1) The man Jesus was the mere
receptacle of the spiritual being Christ, who descended upon him at the
baptism, as a dove, and left him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus
suffered, Christ remained impassible (Cerinthus, Separationism); 2) Christ’s
body was a mere phantom body, so that his birth, life and death alike--his
whole human life from beginning to the end--were only apparitional, not real
(Saturninus; Marcion may belong to this category except birth); 3) The
Valentinian doctrine, which conceded to Jesus Christ a body visible and capable
of suffering. This body, however, was
not material. It was not of the
substance of the Virgin, but was only conveyed through her as water through a
channel (Valentinus); 4) Simon the Cyrenian was crucified instead of
Jesus. Jesus exchanged external shapes
and appearances with Simon, and stood by the cross deriding, while the
crucifixion took place.[202]
In Marcion’s view human flesh, being
essentially earthy, could not be a dwelling place for the divine; he expressed
his contempt for it in gross language.[203] Birth, as a result of filthy sexual intercourse,
the method that the Creator provided, is something evil. Jesus Christ could not be born in this
way. He was a pure spirit, and the body
he assumed at his appearance on this earth was only a phantasm. The invisible substance of the good God could
not be manifested in this world. Marcion starts his (or Paul’s) Gospel with
Luke 3:1 as if Jesus had appeared suddenly as the emissary of the good God in
the year 29 C.E. from heaven as a full-grown man: “In the 15th year of Tiberius
Christ Jesus deigned to descend from heaven, (as) a saving spirit.”[204] In this belief, Marcion reflects Gnostic
theories of the descent of aeons or angels from the divine Pleroma to this
world. But it is also the distinctive
feature of his docetism, for it meant that he gave up altogether belief in the
birth of Christ and his growth from a child up to manhood. For most Gnostics it was the passion rather
than the birth of Christ which formed the main stumbling-block, since it
contravened the doctrine of the divine impassibility; but Marcion was mainly
concerned to deny the birth, because to admit that Christ had been born would
imply that he really belonged to the Creator.
His opponents were hardly justified in saying that according to him the
sufferings of Christ were only apparent, for Marcion in fact attached high
value to the reality of the crucifixion.
Tertullian ridiculed Marcion’s illogicality in denying the nativity
(=birth) while confessing the crucifixion.
The biblical basis of Marcion’s docetism may be found on Phil. 2:7, and
be it noted that it attributed full reality to Christ’s sufferings; it only
denied that Christ was born and had a material body.
Marcion’s docetic Christ, as a phantom,
“apparently” suffered on the cross, and “apparently” died, and “apparently”
went down to Hades to save Cain, the Sodomites, and other unjust persons in the
eyes of the Creator, and “apparently” rose again from the dead. Marcion’s
modalism would state that Christ raised himself.[205] Marcion and his followers emphasized Jesus’
passion on the cross, and faith in Jesus on the cross. But, what is meant by the passion of Christ,
who did not have a human body and his crucifixion was only phantasm? If the passion of Christ Jesus on the cross
had no reality, how could it be so important for believers’ faith?
3. Asceticism
The Creator God commanded the
mankind: “Be fruitful and multiply, and
fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28).”
Marcion and his followers tried not to comply with the commandments and
prophecies of the Creator God as much as possible. The Marcionite community was strict in its
rejection of marriage not to help the inferior Creator in his distasteful
business.[206] Yet, they gained their membership by actively
spreading their gospel and recruiting the people even until the 5th
century. They encouraged to avoid wine
and meat but to allow fish. Even if they abstain to marry and avoid to eat meat
and to drink wine, they still eat vegetables and breathe the Creator’s air, for
they are his works and dwell in his world, after all.
Marcion’s followers were said to have
surpassed the Catholics in discipline and austerities. They were brave in confession of their faith
in times of persecution and were willing to be martyred.[207] I think that it was partly because they did
not place much value on their bodies as a human body that was made of the
Creator’s dust from the ground (cf. Gen. 2:7) was an evil product. They denied the resurrection of the body.
4. Mythology and Cosmology
Many scholars say that (non-biblical)
mythology played a very little or no part in Marcion or Marcionism.[208] Only one noticeable mythological story is
Jesus’ descending to Hades.[209] After his apparent death--although it is
questionable what this docetic Jesus’ death means--when Jesus descended into
Hades, the sinners there such as Cain, the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and
others like them gladly heard him and were saved, but the Old Testament saints
including Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from
Abraham, and all the prophets, and like them who were pleasing the Creator God
of Israel did not run to Jesus, knowing that their God was constantly tempting
them, and did not partake in salvation.[210] This sort of mythology resembles the Old
Testament interpretation of the Cainite Gnostics.[211]
One criticism in this mythological story
to be made is that the Father of this Jesus is no better than the ‘just God of
Israel’ who gave salvation to those who believed in him. The Father of Jesus, the ‘good God’ also
gives salvation only to those who believe in him who is revealed in his Son,
Jesus, and does not give salvation to those who do not come to him through
Jesus. So, he is also nothing but another ‘just God’ in Marcion’s
definition. However, this may not be
true. Marcion who attempted to avoid any
mythological interpretation of Scriptures including the Old Testament would not
have said this. I think that this is a
made-up story by Irenaeus to make fun of Marcion.
Hoffmann points out that Marcion was
heavily dependent on Paul’s cosmology, and that he seemed to develop no
supplementary theory of the cosmos.[212] In Marcion’s understanding, the Creator is
the God of this aeon (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).
B.
Is Marcion a Gnostic?
Is Marcion a Gnostic? The answer to this question is up to how we
define Gnosticism. Early church fathers
put him and his followers into the category of the Gnostics. But, Harnack who was an ardent admirer of
Marcion disliked to categorize him as a Gnostic.[213] Unlike other Gnostics, for salvation, Marcion
insisted on the need of faith (not Gnosis) in Christ only in whom the alien God
revealed himself. In Marcionism, there
was no use of non-biblical myths or of a secret tradition. He did not teach about the descent and ascent
of the soul or the spirit. He saw that
God’s salvation is for all mankind not only for spiritual elites. Harnack wanted to call him a (critical)
biblical scholar or a (fundamental) Paulinist.
K. Rudolph points out that Marcion’s
anthropology is clearly distinguished from that of Gnosis.[214] For Marcion there is no relationship between
man and the unknown good God. The soul
as well as the body is the sole product of the Creator. According to Rudolph, Marcion is different
from other Gnostics in that there is the lack of mythological speculation and
his limitation to the Bible. G. May adds
another interesting distinction between other Gnostics and Marcion: “Whereas the Gnostics appeal to Christian as
well as extra-Christian texts and (secret) traditions ..., Marcion rejects any
form of oral tradition and relies solely on writings associated with the name
of Paul.”[215] In consideration of Gnostics’ emphasis on
secret traditions and Marcion’s distrust of all oral tradition, May regards the
Catholic solution to the problem of Christian tradition as “a middle path
between the extreme positions of the Gnostics and Marcion (or the
Marcionites).”[216]
Two of the most conspicuous general
characteristics of Gnosticism were dualism and docetism. Marcion’s dualism and
docetism, although very similar to those of Gnosticism, had their different
starting points from Gnosticism. Very
much attracted by Pauline letters and his distinction between the Law and the
Gospel, Marcion wanted to alienate the Gospel of love and salvation revealed in
(or through) Christ from the Law of righteousness and judgment as much as
possible. It seemed to him that the
message proclaimed by Paul is quite different from the message found in the Old
Testament. For anti-Semitic Marcion,
Christianity must not have anything to do with Judaism. Thus, the God who was revealed in Christ
should not be the same one with the Creator God, the God of Israel who was
revealed through the Old Testament prophets.
To him, only the alien God, who revealed himself in Christ is the true
God who is quite independent of the God of Israel who is a lesser God. These dualistic concepts were not his own
creation, but were found here and there in Pauline letters (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:4)
and the Gospel of Luke (e.g., 5:36f., 6:43), let alone from Cerdo and from
Greek philosophers (Empedocles, Plato, etc.).
The true God does not belong to this universe which was created by the
God of Israel, the Creator. He exists in
unknown aeon, and has nothing to do with flesh which only belongs to this
created world. Thus, Christ only in whom
the true God revealed his redemptive activity could not and should not have a
body, because having a bodily form means he subdued himself to a lessor God,
the Creator of this world. Christ could not be born in a human body. He just appeared in a phantasm coming from an
unknown aeon to liberate human beings from the bondage of the Creator who
forced them to live by the law under his control.
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.[217] Yet, in stressing (with Harnack) 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.
Marcion’s struggle with Paul’s theology
entailed struggling with the Gnostic interpretation of Paul as well as with the
emerging deutero-Paulinism of the orthodox.
But, his resolution of the struggle was as little Gnostic as
orthodox. This fact explains the general
sense of Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian that Marcion, dangerous as his
teaching was, ‘was of a different breed than the other heretics that he had not
quite fallen into the abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ,’ that in
some sense ‘Marcion spoke to believers and not to spiritual elites like the
Valentinians, and even that he died in grace, reconciled to the teaching of the
Church.’ Marcion’s desire to make Paul’s Gospel the norm and the center of
Christian teaching has no analogue in writings of the Gnostics themselves.
Yet, many modern scholars attempt to
connect Marcion with Gnosticism.[218] U. Bianchi points out some Gnostic elements
in Marcion--i.e., the subject of Gnosis, the Gnostic spirit-matter dualism, and
the docetism.[219] B. Aland pinpoints three Gnostic features in
Marcion--i.e., the self-designation of the Creator God, salvation of the soul
from this world, and the negative evaluation of the Old Testament.[220] K. Rudolph claims that even if Marcion’s teaching
about the two Gods “was based on an extreme understanding of the Pauline
teaching of law and gospel, the devaluing of the Creator God and of the
creation cannot be deduced from it.”[221] He further suggests that Marcion also stands
on Gnostic ground in his evaluation of the world and of matter, and that his
asceticism arises from the anti-cosmic attitude.[222] And, according to Filoramo, anti-cosmism is
regarded as an essence of Gnosticism.[223]
Although Marcion’s originality derived
his reading of Paul (and Luke) cannot be denied, his contact with Gnosticism
seems to be apparent. As many modern
scholars as well as early church fathers point out, Gnostic features in Marcion
are characterized by the Syrian dualistic Gnosis.[224] R. M. Grant suggests that they may have come
to Marcion from Cerdo, who was said to have come from Syria to Rome and to have
been influenced by Saturninus.[225] However, I don’t think that an attempt to tie
Marcion with Cerdo is quite appropriate.
By the time when Cerdo came to Rome, Marcion was an old man and
Marcionism became to spread over Asia Minor and other areas. And a decade later, Justin observed that
Marcionism was spread all over the world and flourished. If Marcion had been influenced by Cerdo
around 140 C.E. at Rome, it would have been impossible to form his theology and
spread it over throughout the world within such a short time period. Marcion’s contact with Gnosticism seems to me
to be far prior to Cerdo’s coming to Rome even if it is historical. I think that Marcion got association with
some Gnostics while he was traveling around cities in Asia Minor in pursuit of
Paul’s footsteps, probably with Saturninus (or his immediate disciples) around
110-120 at Antioch of Syria. Marcion’s
asceticism, docetism, and dualism are too close to those of Saturninus to deny
their association, although we may grant that
his theological starting point is different from that of
Saturninus. However, it is difficult to
say that Marcion was the recipient only of Saturninus’ doctrines. Saturninus (or his followers) would get some
Pauline ideas from Marcion. Thus, they were probably influenced each
other.
In summary, whether or not Marcion is a
Gnostic depends upon how we define Gnosticism.
If we define Gnosticism in a broad and loose sense, Marcion is
absolutely a Gnostic. But, if we define
it in a narrow and strict sense, Marcion may not be called a Gnostic.[226] Marcion actively propagated his radical or
fundamental Paulinistic tendency on the surface, but certainly included the
features of the Syrian Gnosticism and
Greek philosophy under the surface.
Even if Marcion is not a Gnostic,
Marcionism tends to proceed toward Gnosticism to supplement its shortcomings,
e.g., the rationale of the unknown good God’s salvific activity for the just
Creator’s human beings. Apelles revises
his master’s teaching and insists that the human soul comes from the good
God. According to Tertullian, Apelles
claims that the human souls were enticed by earthly baits down from their
super-celestial abodes by a fiery angel, the God of Israel, who then imprisoned
them within the sinful flesh.[227] Not only Apelles but also other Marcionites
adopted some Gnostic elements into Marcionism. Thus, the church fathers in the
late second century and thereafter see Gnostic Marcionism and regard it as a
Gnostic sect.
C.
Marcion’s Church
Unlike other Gnostics who considered
themselves as selected elite Christians, Marcion and his followers continuously
expanded their church by actively spreading their gospel and doctrines and by
recruiting new members. Marcionites’ rigid ascetic Christian life attracted
many people to their church. Foakes-Jackson states that “in the Marcionite
churches brotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies, and strict
evangelical disciplines were to rule.”[228]
Even the opponents of Marcionism were
amazed at the incredible prosperity of Marcion’s church. Justin witnesses Marcion’s successful spread
of his teaching (1 Apol 25, 58), and Tertullian reluctantly admits that
Marcion’s church fills the whole world (AM 5.19). The Catholic
church and its leaders in the 2nd and 3rd centuries regard Marcion’s
church as a great danger and threat.[229] Some biblical historians conjecture that in
numbers alone the Marcionites would probably surpass non-Marcionites in the
decades of the 160s and 170s.[230] Two centuries later, Epiphanius states that
even in his day (the late fourth century) the Marcionite sect is “still to be
found in Rome and Italy, Egypt and Palestine, Arabia and Syria, Cyprus and the
Thebaid (Upper Egypt)--in Persia too, moreover, and other places.”[231]
The inscription found from a Marcionite
church in a small Syrian village, Deir-Ali, south of Damascus identifies the
building as the “gathering place (or ‘synagogue’) of the Marcionites of the
village of Lebanon (or Lebaba) of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Good,
under the leadership of Paul the presbyter,” and is dated 318-319.[232]
G. R. S. Mead points out that it was “Chr_stos” not “Christos” in
the inscription. According to him, the
title “Christos” is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah, the Anointed one, and the
title “Chr_stos”
means “one perfected, the holy one, the saint.”[233] The Marcionite church survived up until the
middle of the 5th century or the 6th century,[234]
and Marcionism is still existent in the mind and thought of some critical
biblical scholars even today.
D.
Marcion’s Successors
1.
Lucian
Lucian, according to Pseudo-Tertullian
and Epiphanius, succeeded Marcion, and then Apelles after Lucian.
Pseudo-Tertullian does not mention any particular teaching of Lucian, only
saying that “he, wading through the same kinds of blasphemy, teaches the same
as Marcion and Cerdo had taught.”[235] According to Epiphanius, he rejects
matrimony and practices celibacy to repudiate the works of the Demiurge.[236] To Lucian, as to his master Marcion,
“matrimony is a source of prosperity for the Demiurge, through human
procreation.”[237]
2.
Apelles
Among Marcion’s followers, Apelles is
the most famous and excellent student.
However, his genius probably made him leave his master, Marcion. He
stayed for a while in Alexandria. K.
Rudolph and G. Filoramo suggest that he would join a Gnostic circle there.[238] S. Pétrement points out that he may have been
affected by Valentinianism.[239] Apelles forsook Marcion’s continence and even
Marcionism.[240] He left the Marcionite church and founded his
own community in Rome which spread parallel to that of his teacher as far as
the Orient, but which did not last beyond the 3rd century.
For Apelles there is only one true, good
God in the infinite upper regions. He
claims that the good God made many powers and angels including the Creator of
the world, the Demiurge, which is different from Marcion’s teaching but similar
to most Gnostic teachings.[241] Apelles separates the “God of the Old Testament”
into two figures. The righteous (or
just) Creator--the “Creator God”--was merely an angel (the great archon), and
the one who spoke to Moses--the “God of the Law”--was a further fiery, fallen
angel (the second archon). The Creator,
who was an angel, made the world in the imitation of the superior world. The “God of the Law” was the author of evil (praeses
mali, Tertullian).
The good God also created the human
souls.[242] By saying that the human souls were created
by the good God, Apelles gives the good God a better motivation for his
salvific activity for human beings.
According to Tertullian, Apelles explains that the human souls were
enticed by earthly baits down from their super-celestial abodes by a fiery
angel, the God of Israel, who then imprisoned them firmly within human sinful
flesh.[243] But, then, a question may be raised. What was the good God doing while the fiery
angel was enticing human souls in his superior heaven?
Concerning Christology, according to
Pseudo-Tertullian, Apelles claims that Christ had been neither in a phantasmal
shape nor in substance of a true body.[244] Instead, as Christ came down from the upper
regions, in course of his descent, Christ wove together for himself “a starry
and airy flesh (sideream sibi carnem et aëream contexuisse).”[245] In the ascent of Christ after his
resurrection, the several parts of his body which had been borrowed in his
descent dispersed. And he reinstated
only his spirit in heaven.[246] Apelles denies the resurrection of the
flesh.
Apelles’ Syllogisms demonstrates
that the book of Genesis refers to the evil Creator and tries to prove that
what Moses has written about God is not true but false. Apelles has another book called Revelations
or Manifestations (=Phaneroseis) of a prophetess, Philum_n_(=Beloved),
to whom, according to Tertullian, he cleaved, at the time a virgin but later
became an enormous prostitute.[247] Eusebius, following Apelles’ contemporary
Rhodo, takes more interest in his theology: “Apelles acknowledges one first
principle but says the prophecies come from a hostile spirit; he himself was
convinced by the declarations of an inspired virgin named Philum_n_.”[248] It seems to me that Apelles’ association with
Philum_n_ has
a parallel with Simon’s association with Helen.
It is known that he had, in his old age,
theological debates with a certain Rhodo from Asia Minor sometime in the reign
of Commodus (180-193 C.E.), about which Eusebius reports in some detail.[249] When he was involved in the debate with,
Apelles was an old man, suggesting that “it was far better not to argue about
doctrine at all, and for each man to stick to his own beliefs: those who placed
their hopes in the Crucified would be saved so long as they continued in good works.”[250]
Apelles started as a Marcionite and ended as a Gnostic.
3.
Megethius
According to F. T. Fallon, Megethius
modifies Marcion’s teaching in one respect.[251]
Megethius presents a three God or principle system, instead of two God or
principle system of his master: that is, a good God, a righteous God and an
evil God. To these Gods he then relates Christians, Jews, and pagans. Although
the pagans are related to the evil God, yet his main interest was in the pagans
rather than the Jews as the Redeemer came to liberate men from the evil God.
4.
Prepon
According to Hippolytus, Prepon, an
Assyrian, influenced by Empedocles, asserts that what is just constitutes a
third principle, placed intermediate between what is good and bad (or evil).[252] Empedocles asserts that the world is managed
by wicked (or evil) Discord (or Strife), and that the other world by good
Friendship (or Love). Discord (or
Strife) and Friendship (or Love) are the two different principles of good and
evil. He further asserts that
“intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial (or just) reason
(or logos), in accordance with which are united the things that have been
separated by Discord (or Strife), (and which,) in accordance with the influence
of Friendship (or Love), are accommodated to unity.”[253] The impartial (or just) reason (or logos), an
auxiliary to Friendship (or Love), is called “Musa (or Muse)” by Empedocles.[254] Prepon taught that Jesus was intermediate
between the good and evil deities and came down to earth to be liberated from
all evil.[255]
5.
Tatian and the Encratites
According to Irenaeus, Tatian, initially
a follower of Justin Martyr, composed his own standard of teaching and fell
away from orthodoxy after the martyrdom of Justin. Tatian related a myth about invisible aeons
similar to those of Valentinus. “Like
Marcion and Saturninus,” Irenaeus states, “he(=Tatian) declared that marriage
was corruption and fornication.”[256] He also abstained from the eating of meat and
the drinking of wine. Some say that
Tatian may be the founder of the Encratites.[257]
Irenaeus asserts that the Encratites
sprang from Saturninus and Marcion.[258] They “preached abstinence from marriage and
so made void God’s pristine creation, and indirectly reprove him who made male
and female for generating the human race.
They also introduced abstinence from what is called by them animal food,
being thus ungrateful to the God who made all things.”[259]
According to Eusebius, a certain Severus
put new strength into the sect of the Encratites, and consequently its members
have come to be called Severians after him.
The Severians or the modified Encratites, unlike Tatian or the original
Encratites, make use of the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels.[260] They ridicule Paul, and reject his epistles
and the Acts of the Apostles.
E.
Later Development of Marcionism
Eznik (or Esnik), an Armenian bishop,
who flourished in the middle of the fifth century, wrote a treatise entitled The
Destruction of False Doctrines, in which he devoted the fourth and last
book to the Marcionites at his time. Reading this, we may know that Marcionism
in its later stage proceeded much closer to Gnosticism or had a distinctive
Gnostic tendency. According to Eznik’s
description, the later Marcionites seem to have mythologized the original
Marcion’s teaching. Eznik’s description
of the Marcionite’s system is as follows:[261]
There were three different Gods--the
foreign supreme good God, the God of the Law, and Hylē, and three heavens. In
the highest, the good God dwelled; in the second (intermediate), the God of the
Law; and in the lowest, his armies (angels); and on earth (or beneath the
heavens), Hylē, who was called the power of the earth or root-matter. The world was jointly produced by the God of
the Law and Hylē. Having perceived that the world was very good, the God of the
Law desired to make man on it. Hylē gave him his body and the God of the Law
the breath of life, his spirit. Seeing that Adam was noble and worthy for
service, the God of the Law wanted to take Adam from Hylē and make him serve
him alone. Taking him aside, he said, “Adam, I am God, and there is none other,
and beside me you shall have none other god; but if you worship any other God,
you shall surely die.” When Adam heard this, he was afraid, and began to
withdraw himself little by little from Hylē. Later, Hylē found that the Lord of
Creation defrauded her and Adam withdrew himself from her. Then, she filled the
world with many gods in revenge, so that Adam’s offspring ceased to worship the
God of the Law. The Creator God, in his anger, cast men’s souls into Gehenna
(Hell or Hades) as they left their bodies, from Adam onwards.
Looking down from the highest (third)
heaven, the good God saw the miseries which men suffered through Hylē and the
Creator God. He took pity on them, and sent his Son to deliver them, saying,
“Go down, take the form of a slave and to be fashioned in the form of a man
among the sons of the God of the Law (cf. Phil. 2:8). Heal their wounds, and
open their blind, ..., then the Lord of God will be jealous and will instigate
to crucify you. And at your death, you shall go down to Hell. Then liberate the
captives you will find there, and bring them up to me.” As the good God
commanded him, Jesus freed the souls in Hell, and led them up to the third
heaven to his Father. And as the God of the Law was enraged, he tore his
clothes and the curtain of his temple in his anger. He darkened the sun and veiled the world in
black.
Then, Jesus descended the second time,
but now in the glory of his divinity, to enter into judgment with the God of
the Law on account of his death. When the Creator God saw Jesus, he knew that
there was another God beside him. And Jesus said to him: “I have a controversy
with you, but I will take no other judge between us except your own law. Is it
not written in your law that he who kills another shall be killed, and that he
who sheds innocent man’s blood shall have his own blood shed? Now give yourself
into my hands, that I may kill you and shed your blood, for I am innocent and
you have killed me and shed my blood.” And Jesus went on to recount the
benefits that he had done to the children of the Creator, and how he had in
return been crucified. Being condemned
by his own law without finding any excuse, the God of the Law was obliged to
confess to Jesus: “I was ignorant. I thought that you are a mere man and did
not know that you are a god. Because I sinned and killed you in ignorance, it
is granted you in return to carry away all those who believe in you, wherever
you will.” Then, Jesus, leaving him, took Paul with him, and showed him the
purchase price. And Jesus sent Paul to preach that we have been purchased with
a price (i.e. Jesus’ blood), and that all who believe in Jesus are sold by the
God of the Law to the good God.
Eznik states: “Not all the Marcionites
know all this, but only a few of them, who hand down the doctrines one to the
other by word of mouth. What the Marcionites usually say is simply ‘The good
Stranger--with a price he purchased us from the Lord of the Creation,’ but how
or with what he purchased them--that not all of them know.”[262] But, I do not think that his observation,
which has a Gnostic flavor, is correct for Marcion himself who excluded
religious elitism and was open-minded to any modifications and revisions to his
doctrines. E. F. Edinger states that Eznik’s account of the late Marcionite’s
system, which is “a purchase of property and an exchange of ownership,” “makes
the process of salvation a final transaction.”[263]
As F. C. Burkitt points out,[264]
I think that the purchase theory obviously belongs to a later development of
Marcionism. It seems to me that the
purchase theory in Marcionism was probably suggested to provide a rationale for
the good God’s saving activity of human beings as the original Marcionism had a
difficulty to answer for the question (raised by Celsus, Tertullian, and some
others) why and how the good God wanted to steal someone else’s property. However, the purchase theory of human beings
is nothing new. It is already not only
in Pauline epistles (1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23; Gal. 3:13) but also in other writings
(1 Pet. 1:18-19; 2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 5:9).
The later Marcionites only connected this with the good God’s salvific
motivation of human beings. But, there
is not much difference between the “orthodox” and the late Marcionites in their
application of this purchase theory. That is, whereas the “orthodox” taught that
Jesus purchased the believers from the Devil (or Satan) at the cost of his
blood, the late Marcionites taught that he purchased them from the God of the
Law, the Creator.
VI.
CONCLUSION
In the absence of any writings of
Marcion or his disciples and with only slanderous documents of his contemporary
and later opponents, it is almost impossible to evaluate Marcion and his
teachings and ideas objectively. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Hippolytus, Epiphanius, etc. wanted not to evaluate the Marcionites
appropriately, but to prove that they were wrong in their doctrines and
teaching and that the orthodoxy’s regula fidei was the correct one. As
they had done their jobs with animosity and prejudice, their analysis and
interpretations were so much biased. Although the apostolic fathers had done
well in Marcion’s doctrines as a whole, I feel that sometimes, they just
omitted and ignored some important ideas and thoughts of Marcion when they
misunderstood them.
Harnack, an enthusiast for Marcion,
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 “unhistorical,” using his imaginative reconstruction about the parts
that were not mentioned by the fathers (e.g., Marcion’s birth and death, his
detailed activities in Rome, etc.).
Thus, he could not escape some “historical” conflicts in his restored
story of Marcion when he put all pieces together on one plate (the jigsaw
puzzle).
From the silence of Marcion’s
contemporaries (Justin Martyr, Polycarp) and the inconsistent, vague
testimonies of the later fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius)[265]
about 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 go to Rome at
all is a more probable theory. Marcion
must have been well recognized in Asia Minor and his notorious name was reached
even to the Roman church, far before 140 C.E. That’s why Justin Martyr in
around 150 witnessed Marcion’s flourishing activities twice without
exaggeration in his 1 Apology: “And there is Marcion, ..., who is even at
this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater
than the Creator. And he, ..., has caused many of every nation to speak
blasphemies, ...” (26); “... the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is
even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things ...”
(58). As “Marcion’s Paul” who flourished
in Asia Minor did not (have to) go up to Jerusalem for recognition from the
Jerusalem Council, so did not Marcion (have to) go to Rome for recognition from
the Roman church.
Unlike Knox’s claim about the Book of
Acts, Marcion might have known the Book of Acts. Marcion who regarded the
Twelve as “false apostles” and only Paul as “the true Apostle,” could not
tolerate the story of Acts-his true Apostle Paul visited Rome to consult
certain matters (his gospel, observation of the Law and circumcision, etc.) to
the “foolish” Jerusalem authority and subordinated himself to James, Peter, and
John. He wanted to repudiate the
“shameful” story of his Apostle by rewriting or reconstructing Paul’s
biographical letter of Galatians. I
strongly felt that “Marcion’s Paul” in Galatians “should not go up to
Jerusalem.”[266] Some decades
later, the orthodox church fathers, who knew the story of Paul’s visit to the
Jerusalem Council, claimed the same (made-up) story about Marcion, i.e.,
Marcion visited Rome to be recognized by the Roman authority. I think that it would be rather Marcionism
which arrived at Rome around 140 C.E., but later was condemned by the Roman
church as “heresy” in or around 144 if there was any tradition on Marcion’s
excommunication by the Roman church.
Unlike the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 who accepted Paul as
“quasi-apostle” when he subdued himself to them, the Roman church in apostolic
fathers’ writings rejected Marcion as “heretic” when he did not subdue himself
but challenged them. Even if Knox were
right, we reached the same conclusion: the Roman church orthodoxy, who rejected
rebellious Marcion and “Marcion’s harsh Paul” in “Marcion’s Galatians,” created
“their mild subservient Paul” who was working very hard in compliance with the
Jerusalem Council in “their Acts.”
Regardless of the above consideration, I strongly believe that there
existed the prototype of Galatians that was written by Paul himself and made
Marcion attracted to Paul very much prior to both the Book of Acts and
“Marcion’s Galatians.” Whether or not
the original “Paul’s Galatians” included the story of Paul’s (two time) visit
to Jerusalem, that I am not sure. If
Paul’s Galatians did not include the story, Marcion would have needed to cut it
off to claim Paul as his “genuine Apostle” only who knew the true Gospel of
Jesus.
Marcion’s fascination toward Paul made
him an ardent student of Paul. He wanted
to do something more than what he found in Paul’s letters, thinking that his
letters were contaminated by some Judaizers who understood neither the gospel
of Christ nor Paul’s teaching. Marcion
made his enthusiastic work to restitute the genuine Paul and his writings
separating the true Gospel from the Old Testament Law and prophet, and the New
Covenant by Jesus Christ and his Father from the Old Covenant by the Law and
the Creator God of Israel. His
anti-Semitic motive well cooperated with Paul’s clear-cut proclamation of “only
one” Gospel, Syrian-origin Gnostic dualism, and the Greek philosophical view of
God(s) and Matter. It is almost certain
that Marcion’s teaching was influenced by Syrian Gnosticism and Greek philosophy
in his final version of dualism. Yet, it
is also perhaps true that Marcion delivered his Pauline ditheistic view,
doctrine of salvation, and asceticism to the Syrian Gnostics. Although Marcion always wanted to remain as a
faithful student of Paul and a dedicated protector of the true Gospel of
Christ, his complicated mind made him go a little bit too far that ended up
with creating two gods and docetic Christ who appeared to mankind as a phantasm
without birth, but awkwardly speaking, was “apparently” crucified, “apparently”
died, “apparently” went down to Hades, “apparently” rose himself up (modalism),
and “apparently” appeared again to his disciples, and “apparently” ascended
into heaven. Marcion, although labeled as “a heretic,” should be credited for
his first compiling work of canon. And,
because of him, the “orthodox” church felt that they should acquire their
“orthodox” canon and “orthodox” creedal statements about the Trinitarian “good
and just” God.
Marcionism, after Marcion’s death,
continued to be modified and came closer to Gnosticism in general as time went
on. Apelles, the most prominent disciple
of Marcion, discarded Marcionism and was converted to Gnosticism. The heresiologists--Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
Tertullian, and others--in the late second century or the beginning of the
third century observed and attacked Marcionism which was being Gnosticized. And
later, in the middle of the fifth century an Armenian bishop, Eznik witnessed
and criticized Gnosticized and mythologized Marcionism.
[1]Some scholars assert that Marcion’s Gospel of Luke was
original, and later “orthodox” church expanded it to a longer version.
[2]R. J. Hoffmann dates Marcion’s around 70 or even
earlier. In his article, he states: “Marcion was a contemporary of Polycarp of
Smyrna and was born around the year 70 at latest.” (R. J. Hoffmann, “How Then
Know This Troublous Teacher? Further Reflections on Marcion and His Church,” The
Second Century,” Fall 1987-88, Vol. 6, No.3, p. 184). If the early dating
of his birth, say, around 70 or so, were
correct, it would be very probable for him to have been well known in Asia
Minor by 130 or earlier. Then, there is a good chance that the false teacher in
Polycarp’s two letters to Philippians would be Marcion.
G.
May, in favor of Harnack, harshly criticizes Hoffmann’s early dating: “Hoffamnn
has him (=Marcion) being born fifteen years earlier (Harnack’s dating: 85 CE)
and has him beginning his activity two or three decades earlier than Harnack
(Harnack’s dating of Marcion’s activity beginning: around140 C.E.). ... It is
full of improbabilities and methodological errors; I consider it a
failure.” (G. May, “Marcion in
Contemporary Views,” The Second Century , Fall 1987-88, p. 131.)
[3]Tertullian, De Praes 30.
[4]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.2:
Knox suggests that “the charge that he was expelled from his home for seducing
a virgin” (Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.3; Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.4)
may be dismissed as mere slander; otherwise, Tertullian would not have been
silent, especially as Marcion emphasized a high morality; or seducing a virgin
in Pseudo-Tertullian and Epiphanius means seducing a church with false
teaching.
[5]Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,
4.14; Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians.
See
also R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion on the Restitution of Christianity, p. 34;
J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 9. In Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, the
false teacher in Philippi is a docetist, who does not confess the testimony of
the cross; he has been guilty of twisting the “logic of the Lord” to submit his
own purposes; he has denied resurrection and the judgment. As J. Knox points
out, the identification of this false teacher with Marcion is strong,
especially as Polycarp calls his heretic “the first born of Satan,” a phrase
which Irenaeus (and Eusebius) tells us was used by Polycarp in recognizing
Marcion on one occasion. One problem of this identification is that while the
docetic false teacher does not confess the testimony of the cross, Marcion does
not deny the faith through the cross of Jesus Christ.
[6]P.N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the
Philippians, 1936, pp. 268-269; Hoffmann, p. 39. Lightfoot objected to it.
According to Lightfoot, Polycarp’s attack on heretical opinions in his letter
§7 has been assailed as an anachronism: “Every one who confesses not that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is Anti-Christ; and whosoever confesses not the
testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of
the Lord to (serve) his own lusts and says that there is neither resurrection
nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan (cf. Irenaeus, AH
3.3.4).” The phrase, “the first-born of Satan” is an attack against docetism,
but docetism was nothing particular to Marcion. Furthermore, Polycarp was
silent about dualism. Lightfoot argues that “not only is there nothing
specifically characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies denounced by
Polycarp, but some of the charges are quite inapplicable.” Lightfoot’s other
argument is that while the letter was written immediately after Ignatius’
martyrdom (110 or 118 at latest), Marcion has not yet appeared above the
horizon. (J. B. Lightfoot [ed. & trans.] The Apostolic Fathers, Part
II, Vol. 1, pp. 584-484) If the early dating about Marcion’s birth (around 70
C.E.: cf. Hoffmann) is correct, Marcion would probably appear above the surface
by then, for sure. But, we need to study more carefully about Lightfoot’s other
arguments to decide whether or not the false teacher in Philippi was Marcion.
[7]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 99; C. H. Thompson,
“The Second Letter of Peter,” ICB, p. 931. 2 Peter 3:16: “There are some
things in them (=Paul’s letters) hard to understand, which the ignorant and
unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
[8]Justin, The 1 Apol 26; R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion,
p. 45; J. Knox, p. 8; C. Cosgrove, “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian
Canon,” Vigiliae Christianae, 36 (1982), p. 230.
Fifty
or sixty years later, Tertullian could say that Macion’s heresy (Marcionism)
filled the whole world.
[10]Ibid., p. 45.
[11]See also G. Lüdemann, “The History of Earliest
Christianity in Rome,” Journal of Higher Criticism, p. 116.
[13]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 253ff. Filastrius
asserts that Marcion was driven out of Ephesus by the blessed John the
Evangelist and the presbyters, and spread his heresy in Rome. This tradition is
also known by the anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of John (Hoffmann, p.
46).
[14]According to Eusebius’ list of bishops of Rome, the
order of 8th to 10th bishops of Rome were Hyginus
(139-143; cf. Harnack 136-140), Pius (143-158; cf. Harnack, 140-155), and
Anicetus (158-169; cf. Harnack 155-166; Hoffmann 154-166). However, for some
reason, Irenaeus and other early witnesses call Hyginus as 9th
bishop (including and counting Peter and Paul as 1st bishops), but
skipping Pius, call Anicetus as 10th bishop. See also Harrison, p.
280; Hoffmann, p. 34.
[15]According to Epiphanius, “Marcion arrived at
Rome after the death of Hyginus (139-143 CE).” (Panarion 42.1.7).
[16]Irenaeus states that “Cerdo...came to live at
Rome in the time of Hyginus (139-143 CE) who held the ninth place in the
episcopal succession” (AH 1.27.1 and 3.4.3), and that “Marcion, then, succeeding him,
flourished under Anicetus (158-169 CE), who held the tenth place of the
episcopate” (AH 3.4.3).
[17]Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticrum,
30. Hoffmann, who thinks that Marcion died in around 150 in his homeland or
somewhere in Asia Minor, claims that Marcion’s reconciliation with the Roman
Church (before his heretical activity there), by agreeing to certain conditions
laid down by Eleutherus (177-191 or 174-189) for his reception into the church
was a made-up fable. (R.J. Hoffmann, “How Then Know This Troubled Teacher?
...,” p. 185)
[18]R.J. Hoffmann, “How Then Know This Troubled Teacher?
...,” p. 184.
[19]Irenaeus, AH 3.4.3: “Marcion flourished under
Anicetus (158-169 or 154-166)”; Tertullian, De Prae. Haer. 30:
“They (=Marcion and Valentinus) at first were believers in the doctrine of
Catholic church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed
Eleutherus (177-191 or 174-189); Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.7: “He
(=Marcion) arrived at Rome itself after the death of Hyginus (139-143 or
136-140).
[20]Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.19.
[21]Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticrum,
30.
[22]G. Lüdemann, “Concerning the History of Earlier
Christianity in Rome,” Journal of Higher Criticism, 1995, pp. 115ff.
[23]Irenaeus, AH 1.27.1 and 3.4.2;
Tertullian, AM 1.2.
[24]Epiphanius, Pan 41.1; Filastrius, Diversarum
hereseon liber 44.
[25]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of
Christianity, p. 42.
[26]See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity,
p. 128.
[27]C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy,
1987.
[28]Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum
(=On Prescription Against Heretics), 30. Tertullian states that Marcion
brought into the Roman church 200 sesterces, Harnack corrects it to 200,000
sesterces (p. 17).
[29]A. Harnack, The Gosepl of the Alien God, p. 17;
R.M. Grant, Gnsoticism and Early Christianity, p. 127; H. Koester, Ancient
Christian Gospels, p. 36; K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 314, and so on.
For
instance, K. Rudolph states: “It is certain that Marcion appeared in Rome about
139/140 and attached himself to the local congregation to which he donated part
of his large fortune. Here he apparently finally elaborated his new teaching,
according to information from the heresiologists (mostly Irenaeus), under the
influence of the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo (Kerdon). Cerdo lived in Rome under the
Roman bishop Hyginus (in about 136-142). He advocated the antithesis, not
unknown to Gnosis, of the Old Testament God of creation and the “good God” of
Christ’s tidings. Marcion’s attempt to gain recognition for his views at a
synod in Rome failed, and he was rebuffed. This happened in July 144, a date
that for the Marcionites is the date of the foundation of their own church.
Apparently Marcion was indefatigable in working for the expansion of his newly
created church and theology in the Roman empire. Already in about 150 the
apologist Justin complains of his influence and puts him side by side with
Simon Magus and Menander.(Justin 1 Apology 26, 58) It may be assumed that Marcion died in about
160.” (P. 314). But, so called Chronicon Edessenum states: “In
the year 449 [of the Seleucid era, i.e., 137/138 C.E.] Marcion left the
Catholic Church. (H.J.W. Drijvers, “Marcionism in Syria: Principles, Problems,
Polemics,” The Second Century, Fall 1987-88, p. 153).
[30]The same Tertullian states that Marcion was a believer
under the episcopate of Eleutherus (177-191 according to Eusebius; 174-189
according to Harnack) (De Praescriptione Haereticrum, 30).
[31]Hoffmann also seems to be suspicious of Irenaeus’
account: “Marcion’s dates are thus arranged to coincide with the conference of
Polycarp and Anicetus in Rome (155).” (Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 34)
[32]A. Harnack, P. N. Harrison, and some other scholars do
not exclude the possibility of Marcion’s encounter with Polycarp in Asia
Minor.
[33]P. N. Harrison dated Polycarp’s martyrdom 155 C.E.(p.
269) and Lightfoot 155-156 (The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, Vol. 3, p.
335), while Eusebius dated his death 166/167.
[34]A. Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of The Alien God,
1924 (English trans. 1990), The Labyrinth Press, pp. 17-18.
[35]Ibid., p. 18.
[36]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 14.
[37]Tertullian, De Praes 30.
[38]Besides Tertullian, there are many opponents who
attacked Marcion and his teaching and ideas as late as the middle of the fifth
century (i.e., Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria). See Hoffmann, Marcion,
p. 33.
[39]Cf. Tertullian, De Praes 30. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Christian
Difficulties in the Second and Twentieth Centuries, 1903, p. 26.
[40]R. J. Hoffmann, “How Then Know This Troubled Teacher?
...,” p. 184.
[41]P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the
Philippians, p. 321.
[42]Irenaeus in AH 3.3.4 says: “... Polycarp
himself on one occasion came face to face with Marcion, and Marcion said ‘Don’t
you recognize me?’ He replied: ‘I do recognize the firstborn of Satan!’ ...
There is also a most forceful epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians,
from which both the character of his faith and his preaching of the truth can
be learnt by all who wish to do so and care about their own salvation.”
[43]Eusebius in EH 4.14 states: “Such is Irenaeus’
account. Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, referred to above and still
extant, has supported with several quotations from the First Epistle of Peter.”
[44]PolyPhil
7.1-2 states: “For ‘everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ came in the
flesh is antichrist’; and anyone who does not confess the testimony of cross
‘is of the devil’; and anyone who perverts the sayings of the Lord to suit his
own lusts and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment--that
man is the firstborn of Satan! Therefore let us give up the vanity of the crowd
and false teachings and return to the word handed on to us from the beginning,
‘being sober unto prayer’ and preserving in fasts, as the Lord said: ‘The
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’”
[45]W. R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp,
Fragments of Papias, 1967, pp. 23-26. See also L. W. Barnard, “The Problem
of Saint Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians,” Church Quarterly Review,
1962, p. 424.
[46]Poly.Phil
12:6 states: “Pray also for the Emperors (pro regibus), and for
potentates, and princes.” Hilgendeld claims that “the title emperors (or kings)
could have been used only after there were two emperors on the throne,
consequently for the first time only in the reign of Marcus Antoninus.” (Apostolischen
Väter, 1853, p.273, note 4; see also J. Donaldson, The Apostolic
Fathers, p. 183).
If
this is correct, there are two possibilities: The first possibility is that
Polycarp lived until the era of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), writing this letter
at least forty five years after Ignatius; death; the second one is that
somebody who was living during the Marcus Aurelius era wrote the letter under
the name of Polycarp. I think that the first possibility is not probable. If
Polycarp had been still living in 160s and had written this letter of crisis to
warn the Philippians against the prevailing heretics at the time of 160s, he
should have mentioned Marcion’s (or Marcionites’) dualism--i.e., the known just
God of Israel versus the alien good Father of Jesus Christ. But, Polycarp in
the letter was very quiet about dualism either of Marcionism or of
(Valentinian) Gnosticism. The second possibility is more probable. Someone who
was living in the era of Marcus Aurelius, located himself at Polycarp’s time
and situations right after the death of Ignatius and warned the Philippians
against the prevailing heretics in 115.
[47]Justin, 1 Apol 26.
[48]Ibid., 58.
[49]Tertullian in AM 4.6 states that
Marcion’s Christ of the good God is different from the Christ of the Creator.
[50]Irenaeus, AH 1.27.4.
[51]Ibid., 1.29.1.
[52]Ibid., 1.27.1-2, 3.4.3.
[53]Ibid., 3.3.4.
[54]Ibid., 3.3.4.
[55]Ibid., 3.4.3.
[56]F. W. Farrar is also suspicious of the authenticity of
the story (or stories). He states: “It is he(=Irenaeus) who gives the
altogether dubious, and probably quite apocryphal story of St. John and
Cerinthus. He tells us the same passage another story of Polycarp in which the
same spirit appears.” (Lives of the Fathers, p. 58).
[57]The Moscow Manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp
ad fin. also contains this episode: “22:4. And he (=Irenaeus) also says this
that once Marcion, from whom came the so-called Marcionites, met the holy
Polycarp and said: “Recognise us, Polycarp,” and he said to Marcion, “I do
recognise the first born of Satan (_Επιγιvώσκω, _πιγιvώσκω τ_v πρωτότoκov τo_ σαταvά).”
[58]Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4.
[59]E. Renan, The History of the Origins of
Christianity, Book 6, The Christian Church, p. 235.
[60]Clement of Alexandria, Strom 3.3.12.
[61]Ibid, 3.3.12.
[62]Ibid., 3.3.13.
[63]Ibid., 3.3.21.
[64]Ibid., 3.3.13.
[65]Tertullian, AM 1.1.
[66]Ibid., 1.2.
Luke 6:43 states: “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a
bad tree bear good fruit.” Isaiah 45:7
says: “I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe (or I make
peace and create evil, KJV), I am the LORD, who do all these things.”
[67]Ibid., 1.3.
[68]Ibid., 1.3.
[69]Ibid., 1.9.
[70]Ibid., 1.10.
[71]Ibid., 1.19.
[72]Ibid., 1.19.
[73]Ibid., 1.19.
[74]Ibid., 1.23.
[75]Celsus questions: “Why does he(=Marcion’s alien God)
send to destroy the creations of this God(=the Creator)? Why does he force his
way in by stealth and beguile and lead astray? Why does he lead off those whom,
as you say, the Creator has condemned and cursed, and carry them away like a
slave-dealer? ...” (Origen, Contra Celsum 6.53).
[76]R 2.59.
Peter further states: “Yea, I think he will rather commend us the more for
this, that we have kept faith with God our Creator.”
[77]Tertullian, AM 1.26.
[78]Irenaeus, AH 1.27.3.
[79]Tertullian, AM 2.5.
[80]Ibid., 3.8.
[81]Ibid., 3.8.
[82]Ibid., 3.8.
[83]Ibid., 4.2.
[84]Ibid., 4.2.
[85]Ibid., 4.3. Concerning Paul’s rebuke of Peter (cf.
Gal. 2:11-14), see also AM 1.20 and 5.3, and De Praes 23-24.
[86]Tertullian in AM 1.20 states: “Now they
adduce the case of Peter himself, and the others, ..., as having been blamed by
Paul for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel--that very
Paul indeed, who, being yet in the mere rudiments of grace, and trembling, in
short, lest he should have run or were still running in vain, then for the
first time held intercourse with those who were apostles before himself.”
[87]Tertullian, AM 4.6.
[88]Ibid., 4.6.
[89]Ibid., 5.3.
[90]Tertullian, De Praes 7.
[91]Ibid., 30.
[92]Ibid., 30.
[93]Tertullian, De Praes 30.
[94]Ibid., 37.
[95]Tertullian, De Carne 1.
[96]Ibid., 5.
[97]Pseudo-Tertullian’s view of the cruel Creator God is different
from Irenaeus’ and most modern scholars’ observation of Cerdo’s just Creator
God.
[98]Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.2.
[99]Hippolytus, Ref 7.1, 17-18.
[100]Hippolytus, Ref 7.17.
[101]Ibid., 7.17.
[102]Ibid., 7.18.
[103]Ibid., 10.15.
[104]Ibid., 7.18.
[105]Ibid., 7.19.
[106]Ibid., 7.17-19.
[107]Ibid., 7.25.
[108]Ibid., 10.15.
[109]Hippolytus does not seem to know who they are (whether
Marcion himself or some of Marcion’s disciples).
[110]Ibid., 10.15.
[111]Ibid., 7.19.
[112]Ibid., 10.15.
[113]Ibid., 7.19.
[114]Ibid., 7.19.
[115]Ibid., 10.15.
[116]According to Hippolytus (Ref 7.26,
10.16), Apelles claims that there is only one God who was good and supreme and
that there are three angels who proclaim themselves gods but not gods in
reality. The first one is just--the Creator of the universe, the Demiurge, and
the second one is fiery — the Law giver who spoke to Moses. And the third one
is evil--the one who is the cause of evil.
[117]Eusebius, EH 4.11.2; cf. Irenaeus, AH
1.27.1-2, 3.4.2.
[118]“The Creator” according to EH 4.11.9; “has done
greater works” according to 1 Apol 26.
[119]EH 4.14.9
states: “Such is the account of Irenaeus. But Polycarp, in his above-mentioned
epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant, has made use of certain
testimonies drawn from the First Epistle of Peter.”
[120]Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.1.
[121]Ibid., 42.1.2.
[122]Ibid., 42.1.4.
[123]The same story is found in Pseudo-Tertullian’s Haer
6: “After him(=Cerdo) emerged a disciple of his, one Marcion by name, a native
of Pontus, son of a bishop, excommunicated because of a rape committed on a
certain virgin.”
[124]However, Harnack dates Hyginus’ episcopacy as 136-140
so that his assertion on Marcion’s coming to Rome around 140 and his
excommunication from the Roman Church and the beginning of his own church in
144 makes sense.
[125]Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.7.
[126]Ibid., 42.1.7.
[127]Ibid., 42.3.1-2, 42.6.1-7.10.
[128]According to Irenaeus in AH 1.27.2, Marcion’s
just God was also the author of evil and desirous of war (cf. Isa. 45:7).
[129]The same Hippolytus states in Ref 10.15
that Marcion and Cerdo “lay down that there are three principles of the
universe--good, just, and matter.”
[130]Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.1.
[131]For instance, D. J. Unger states: “He(=Cerdo) taught a
dualism--the good God was the Father of Christ; the just God was the God of the
law and the prophets. Bareille, ‘Cerdon’ 2138-39, states that in Haer.(=
Refutatio) 7.37 (GCS 26.223) Hippolytus says that Cerdo held two
first principles--the first one being the good God and the other being the evil
God. But in Haer. 10.19 (GCS 26.279-80) he speaks of three
principles--the good, the just, and matter. This is, however, not a
contradiction. The evil and the just God are the same, namely, the Demiurge who
with the aid of matter created beings of his own image, though he did a bad
job. ...” (Note 3 to Chapter 27 of St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies,
p. 249).
[132]Epiphanius, Pan 3.6.1.
[133]Ibid., 3.9.10.
[134]Ibid., 42.4.5.
[135]Ibid., 42.4.3-4.
[136]Ibid., 42.6.1-2. According to Epiphanius, in the
system of Marcion’s three principles or Gods, the evil god (not the just God)
has the power to do evil and overwhelm the persons in the world (Pan
42.6.8).
[137]Origen, Contra Celsum 6.53.
[139]Ibid., 2.59.
[140]Ibid., 2.59.
[141]Ibid., 42.9.4.
[142]Ibid., 42.9.4.
[143]Irenaeus, AH 3.14.2: “To allege, then,
that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses,
and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ. For why did
the Lord send the twelves to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if these
men did not know the truth? ... Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to
whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but
the Father, who is in heaven? Just, then, as ‘Paul [was] an apostle, not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father,’ [so with the
rest;] the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to
them the Son.
Tertullian
states in AM 4.3.4: “If Marcion’s complaint is that the apostles
are held suspect of dissimulation or pretense, even to the debasing of the
gospel, he is now accusing Christ, by thus accusing those whom Christ has
chosen. ...”
[144]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 146.
[145]But each book of his canon is subject to be modified
in order to remove and correct Jewish (or Judaizing) Christians’ interpolations
and falsifications.
[146]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.2.
[147]R.J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 101.
[148]R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 115.
[149]D. S. Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” JBL,
108/3 (1989), p. 480.
[150]Tertullian, AM 4.7.5.
[151]Irenaeus states in AH 3.12.12: “Wherefor
also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the
Scriptures not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the Gospel
according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone
authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. ...”
Tertullian
states in AM 4.5.7: “So I should recommend his disciples either
to convert those (=other gospels), late though it be, into the shape of their
own, so that they may have the appearance of
being in agreement with apostolic gospels--for they are every day
reshaping this of theirs, as they are every day brought to account by us ...”
[152]D. S. Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” p.
480.
[153]W. R. Farmer, “Galatians and the Second-Century
Development of the Regula Fidei,” The Second Century 4:3 (1984),
P. 147. Farmer claims that Matthew and
Galatians embody the doctrinal norm of the two opposing parties, i.e., the
orthodox Christianity and the Marcionite Christianity.
[155]J. Knox, pp. 41-42, 45: Tertullian refers last to
Philemon after Philippians (AM 5.20-21), but Epiphanius puts Philippians
in the final place after Philemon (Pan 42.9.4, 11.8, 12).
[156]N. A. Dahl, “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to
the Pauline Letters,” Semeia, 1978, 12, pp. 253-254. It is attested by
the commentary of Ephraem and by a Syriac canon list.
[157]R. J. Hoffmann provides two reasons for Marcion to put
Galatians first in his collection of Paul’s letters: 1) “The anti-legalist
theme of Galatians was probably influential in Marcion’s decision”; 2) “A more
plausible explanation is that the Marcionites Galatians as a kind of
introduction to Paul’s theology, the letter most clearly represented the
Apostle’s own claims for the singularity of his gospel.” (R.J. Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 75).
[158]Tertullian, AM 5.2.1.
[159]W. R. Farmer, “Galatians and the Second-Century
Development of the Regula Fidei,” The Second Century 4:3 (1984),
p. 144.
[160]Ibid., p. 144.
[161]. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament,
pp. 40-41.
[162]Ibid., p. 42: Knox points out that there is one of
these brief prefaces, the so-called “Marcionite Prologues,” Ad
Cheiranthus and another Ad Thessalonicenses without any
indication that in each case more than one epistle is being introduced. N.A. Dahl points out that “according to the
Muratorian Fragment and many other sources, Paul, like John in Revelation,
wrote to seven churches and thereby to the whole church. (N.A. Dahl, “The
Origin of the Earliest Prologue to the Pauline Letters,” p. 252).
[163]A. Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God,
pp. 73f.
[164]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 49.
[165]Ibid., p. 51.
[166]Ibid., p. 115.
[167]Ibid., p. 116.
[168]C. H. Cosgrove, “Justin Martyr and the Emerging
Christian Canon,” Vigiliae Christianae, 36 (1982), p.220.
[169]Ibid., p. 226.
[170]Ibid., p. 226.
[171]J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 39.
[172]Ibid., p. 119.
[173]Ibid., pp. 119-120.
[174]W. R. Farmer points out that Irenaeus’ statement
reflects “a post-Marcionite situation at its three points in its teaching about
God: 1) He is the Father and Creator; 2) he is just and good; 3) he is
proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets and revealed by Christ.” (“Galatians and
the Second-Century Development of the Regula Fidei,” The Second
Century (1984), p. 156).
[176]C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy,
1987, p. 102.
[177]Ibid., p. 103.
Origen, De Princ. 2.5.4; Epiphanius, Pan
42.2 (In Epiphanius, I could not find this passage but the new wine-old
wineskins parable [Luke 5:37-39] and the parable of a patch of a new garment-an
old garment [Luke 5:36]); Philatrius, Hare. 17.
[178]A. von Harnack called Marcion “a fundamental biblicist
and opponent of all philosophy.”
(p.
103, English ed.)
[179]J. G. Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy,” Vigiliae
Christiane, 26 (1972) p. 54.
[180]R. J. Hoffmann, “How Then Know This Troublous Teacher?
...,” p. 175.
[181]Clement of Alexandria, Strom 3.3.21.
[182]Clement of Alexandria, Strom 3.3.19.4;
cf. Plato, Phaedo 62 B.
[183]Plato, Republic 1.328 D, 329 C.
[184]Han J. W.
Drijvers, “Marcion in Syria,” p. 162.
[185]Ibid., p. 163.
[186]B. Aland, “Marcion: Versuch einer neuen
Interpretation,” ZThK 70 (1973), p. 427.
Tertullian
criticized Marcion that he interpreeted ‘the world’ in Paul’s letters as
‘the lord of the world (=the Creator)’:
AM 5.5.7 (1 Cor. 1:20f.), 5.7.1. (1 Cor. 4:9), 5.11.5 (2
Cor. 3:14), 5.17.7 (Eph. 2:2), and also 5.4.15 (Gal. 6:14).
[187]Tertullian, AM 5.19.7.
[188]J. G. Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy,” p. 55.
[189]Ibid., p. 55. Cf. Tertullian, AM
2.5.1-2. Gager argues that “Marcion’s higher god breaks his passivity in order
to send/appear as Jesus Christ, the savior of all who turn away from the world
and its creator, whereas the gods of Epicuros are “saviors” only in the sense
that their total impassiveness serves as a paradigm for human conduct.” (p.
57).
[190]Ibid., p. 58. Gager points out that opposition to
allegory was not Marcion’s own and that its opponents included Plato,
Eratosthenes, Aristarchus and Epicuros.
[191]Elsewhere, Tertullian called Marcion “the zealous
student of Stoicism” (De Praes 30).
[192]Hippolytus, Ref 7.17-18.
[193]Ibid., 7.17.
[194]C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy,
p. 107.
[195]Ibid., p. 107.
[196]Ibid., p. 100.
[197]R. M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism, pp. 36 and
125.
[199]E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence, p.
98.
[200]Tertullian, AM 4.7.3-4: “Also what had
he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator’s Christ, for whom that
province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his
preaching? For Isaiah says: “Drink this first, ..., Galilee of the Gentiles, ye
people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land,
sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.” It is indeed to
the good that Marcion’s god too should be cited as one who gives light to the
Gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from
heaven--though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than
Galilee.
[201]A “Gnostic” answer is probably like this: The alien
God told an Angel to create the world and mankind. Then, after the Angel created the world and
mankind, he proclaimed that he was the Creator God, insisting that they
belonged to him. The alien God wanted to restore his ownership, and sent his
Son Jesus to complete this mission.
[202]Among four forms, 1) through 3) were stated in AH 3.16.1 and 4) in 1.24.4. See also Lightfoot
(ed. and trans.), The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, Vol. 1, pp. 377ff. and
p. 584ff. Saturninus also taught that Savior was without birth, without body
and without figure, but that in semblance he appeared a man (Irenaues, 1.24.2;
Hippolytus, 7.28).
[203]E. C. Blackman, p. 100; Tertullian, AM 3.10-11 “stercoribus infusa(=dark
dung). ...”
[204]Tertullian, AM 1.19. Omitting chapters
1, 2, and most of 3 and 4 ( nativity, the baptism and temptation, the
genealogy, and reference to Bethlehem and Nazareth), Marcion’s Gospel begins
with Luke 3:1 and 4:31: “In the 15th
year of Tiberius Caesar (3:1), Jesus Christ went down (or descended) to
Capernaum, a city of Galilee (4:31).” A number of scholars regard Luke chapters
1-2 as secondary. But see D. Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” JBL,
(1989), pp. 477-496.
[205]Harnack points out that “the entire Johannine
dialectic are in harmony with the Marcionite Modalism.” (p. 127, English ed.)
Filoramo points out that Marcion’s Christology is not docetism. Christ really
did suffer, even if it was in a particular body (A History of Gnosticism,
p. 165).
[206]Irenaeus, AH
3.3.12.
[207]F.J. Foakes-Jackson, Christian Difficulties in the Second
and Twentieth Centuries, p. 107.
[208]R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 12.
[209]Irenaeus, AH 1.28.3.
[210]Ibid., 1.27.3
[211]R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity,
p. 126.
[212]Tertullian, AM 4.7.
[213]Harnack lists some common agreements between
Marcionism and Gnosticism: 1) the rejection of the OT; 2) the conception of God
as the unknown; 3) the separation of the World-Creator from the highest God; 4)
the conception of God as the absolute Good; 5) the conception of the
World-Creator as some kind of intermediate being; 6) the acceptance of the
eternity of matter; 7) a docetic view of Christ; 8) the doctrine that the flesh
is not resurrected; and 9) a dualistic asceticism.
He
also lists some disagreements between Marcionism and Gnosticism: 1) in
Gnosticism religion is determined by Gnosis, in Marcionism by faith; In
Gnosticism an aristocracy of spiritual people is gathered, in Marcionism the
humble brethren are the called ones; 2) In Gnosticism God reigns in the abyss
and silence, in Marcionism God reigns as Christ; in Gnosticism the spirit of
mankind is kindred to the highest God, in Marcionism this God is the absolute
Alien and approaches us only through redemption; 3) In Gnosticism extrabiblical
myths predominate, in Marcionism they are absent; 4) In Gnosticism the doctrine
of the descent and ascent of the soul (spirit) is fundamental, in Marcionism it
is not to be found; in Gnosticism the spirit returns to its abode, in
Marcionism an Alien is supposed to become its abode; 5) in Gnosticism an
apostolic secret tradition is dominant, in Marcionism it is lacking; 6) in
Gnosticism the evil remain evil, in Marcionism they are capable of being
redeemed; 7) In Gnosticism one finds the magic of the mystery religions, in
Marcionism not so. (A. Harnack, p. 173
[english])
[214]K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 316. Later, Apelles
modifies his master, asserting that the human soul comes from the good God.
[215]G. May, “Marcion in Contemporary Views,” p. 146.
[216]Ibid., pp. 146-147.
[218]For detailed discussions among various scholars, see
E. Muhlenberg, “Marcion’s Jealous God.” (1979), pp. 93-113.
[219]U. Bianchi, “Marcion: Theologian Biblique ou
Docteur Gnostique?” VC 21 (1967), pp. 141-149. The major
difference of Marcion’s teaching from Gnosticism is his denial of divine spirit
in man.
[220]B. Aland, “Marcion: Versuch einer neuen
Interpretation.” ZThK 70 (1973), pp. 420-447.
[221]K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 315.
[222]Ibid., p. 316.
[223]G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 165.
[224]See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and early Christianity,
pp. 125-126.
[225]Ibid., p. 126; cf. Epiphanius, Pan
41.1.1.
[226]For further discussion, See M. A. Williams, Rethinking
“Gnosticism,” and for a more complicated and complete definition of
Gnosticism, refer to the “Final Document” that was made in the International
conference held at Messina, Italy, in 1966.
[227]Tertullian, De Anima 23.
[228]F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Some Christian Difficulties,
p. 137.
[229]See K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 317.
[230]J. J. Clabeaux, “Marcion,” in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, (ed.) D.N. Freedman, Vol. 4 (K-N), 1992, p. 516.
[231]Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.2.
[232]Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Seletae, II, 608, pp. 304-305. See also S. N. Lieu, Manicheism,
p. 38. According to G. R. S. Mead, the date is October 1, 318 C.E. (Fragments
of a Faith Forgotten, p. 249).
[233]G. R. S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten,
p. 249.
[234]R. L. Wilken, “Marcionism,” in The Encyclopedia of
Religion, (ed.) M. Eliade, MacMillan, Vol. 9, 1987, p. 196. F.J. Foakes-Jackson states that the
Marcionite church had almost disappeared by the sixth century, Some
Christian Difficulties of the Second and Twentieth Centuries, p. 108.
[235]Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.3.
[236]Epiphanius, Pan 43.1.5 and 43.2.1. Epiphanius states that Lucian’s objection to
matrimony is “Contrary to his master’s teaching” but Marcion taught the same
prohibition of matrimony for the same reason.
[237]Epiphanius, Pan 43.1.5.
[238]K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 316; G. Filoramo, A
History of Gnosticism, p. 166.
[239]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 49.
[240]Tertullian, De Praes 30.
[241]Epiphanius in Pan 44.1.4-6 quotes
Apelles’ discussion of his single first principle: “Now this Apelles and his
school claim that there are not three first principles or two, as Lucian and
Marcion thought. He says that there is one good God, one first principle, and
one power that cannot be named. Nothing here in this world is of any concern to
this one God--or first principle, if you prefer. However, the same holy and
good God on high made one other god. And the God who was created as another God
created all things--heaven, earth, and everything in the world. But he proved
not to be good, and his creatures not to be well made. Because of inferior
intelligence, his creatures have been badly created.
See
also Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.4.
[242]Tertullian, De Anima 23.
[243]Ibid., 23.
[244]Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.5.
[245]Ibid, 6.5.
[246]Ibid., 6.5.
[247]Tertullian, On Praes 30.
[248]Eusebius, EH 5.13.2. Beside Apelles, Rhodo
speaks of Potitus and Basilicus as followers of Marcion, who held fast to his
doctrine of two priniciples, while Syneros, as he affirms, led a school which
asserted that there were three “natures” (EH 5.13.3-4).
[249]Ibid., 5.13.
[250]Ibid., 5.13.5.
[251]F. T. Fallon, The Enthronement of Sabaoth, p.
84.
[252]Hippolytus, Ref 7.19.
[253]Ibid., 7.19.
[254]See also C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek
Philosophy, p. 323.
[255]Hippolytus, Ref 7.19.
[256]Irenaeus, AH 1.28.1; Eusebius, EH
4.29.3.
[257]See F. Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of
Christianity Vol. 2, p. 220.
[258]Irenaeus, AH 1.28.1.
[259]Ibid., 1.28.1.
[260]Eusebius, EH 4.29.5.
[261]The story of Eznik is retold in G. R. S. Mead , Fragments
of a Faith Forgotten, pp. 246-248 (a shortened version of Salmon’s
translation into French of Eznik’s treatise The Destruction of False
Doctrines) ; E. F. Edinger, The Psyche in Antiquity, pp. 50-52
(quoted from G. R. S. Mead); F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History, pp.
297-298; A. Harnack, The History of Dogma, p. 279 (footnote 2); C. S. C.
Williams, “Eznik’s Résumé of Marcionite Doctrine,” JTS 45(1944), pp.
65-73; R. M. Grant, Gnosticism, pp. 101-104 (quoted from C. S. C.
Williams). As the translations of G. R.
S. Mead (-E. F. Edinger), F. C. Burkitt, A. Harnack, and C. S. C. Williams (-R.
M. Grant) are a little bit different among themselves, I take relatively free
quotations from them.
[262]The quotation is from F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel
Story, p.297.
[263]E. F. Edinger, The Psyche in Antiquity, p. 52.
Human beings initially had belonged to the God of the Law who had created them.
But, the good God purchased them at the purchase price of Jesus’ blood.
[264]F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel Story, p. 298.
[265]Irenaeus, AH 3.4.3: “Marcion flourished
under Anicetus (158-169 or 154-166)”; Tertullian, De Praes 30:
“They (=Marcion and Valentinus) at first were believers in the doctrine of
Catholic church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus
(177-191 or 174-189); Epiphanius, Pan 42.1.7: “He (=Marcion)
arrived at Rome itself after the death of Hyginus (139-143 or 136-140).
[266]Tertullian, AM 5.3.1.
No comments:
Post a Comment