Duvduv

Claiming the unproven existence of a Marcion in the 2nd century is crucial to so many in establishing antiquity for Christianity. Yet if so much of what the church apologists wrote is considered hogwash regarding theology and history, why would their claims of history not be considered hogwash?
They claim a first century Jesus and Paul, and this is dismissed. But when they advocate a second century Marcion with little to prove, it is acceptable as gospel truth.
The same could be asked about a second century Justin, with all the unanswered questions of context.

maryhelena

So, lets have it from those who propose that Marcion is historical and those who uphold "a fictitious 'Marcion".

Cards on the table, please....

Toto

Just as there were Christians with no historical Jesus Christ, there could be Marcosians with no historical Marcion.

maryhelena

Marcion, as detailed via the early church writers, is beginning to look, to me, more and more like a pseudo-historical story.

I'm just interested in the two sides of the Marcion issue to state their case - simply - not a thesis.....

stephan huller

The bottom line here is that there are believers who basically believe that there was a relatively simple development of Christianity through our known sources. In other words:

a) Jesus was a historical man who
b) passed on his teachings to a group of disciples and who in turn
c) founded the 'true Church' (or if these believers want to sound scientific = 'the Christian tradition which eventually triumphed')

At the periphery of this historical development we have various heretical groups which have been passed on to us, mostly through an ever expanding heretical compendium usually identified as 'Against the Heresies' or some such title. The first author associated with this literary text is Justin but clearly Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Epiphanius and others expanded or developed the original enterprise.

If everyone pretty much agrees on this basic starting point here are the questions which divide people or rarely get asked:

1. did the individual heresiologists actually witness first hand any of the heretics they wrote about?

This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. In the case of Simon Magus for instance and other first century heretics the answer is obviously no. None of the Church Fathers mentioned above could possibly have witnessed the existence of Simon Magus firsthand. But the same also goes for Marcion. Justin could have 'seen' Marcion but it is clear from his writings he did not. The only person who is ever claimed to have 'seen' Marcion 'face to face' is Polycarp and even this is something of a problem because:

i) it is reported to us secondhand
ii) the witness, Irenaeus, is the worst sort of witness (= an extreme partisan and a liar)

Yet more problematic than this is the fact that the testimony about Polycarp meeting Marcion 'face to face' is wrought with other difficulties.

Irenaeus's claim to faithfully represent Polycarp's teachings and Polycarp's 'witness' would certainly have been challenged by his contemporary at Rome Florinus. Whether that challenge would have included the existence of Polycarp is another question. But clearly if Florinus is a better witness to Polycarp's actual beliefs than Irenaeus (and there is good reason for accepting this) then it is at least believable that part of the misrepresentation of Polycarp's beliefs included his alleged encounter with Marcion.

stephan huller

Now in favor of the existence of this 'Marcion of Pontus' is - IMO - the fact that Lucian in his Passing of Peregrinus makes mention of a leader of the Church previous to 'Peregrinus' who is 'of Pontus.' He doesn't mention the name 'Marcion' specifically but it can be understood to at least reference the basic framework of the 'Marcion of Pontus' story especially if Peregrinus is understood to Polycarp (which I believe is true and have argued as such in a little paper).

Also important to note is the fact that Lucian seems to know about the Ignatian corpus which however he applies to Peregrinus rather than a separate figure named 'Ignatius' living in an earlier period. The fact that Peregrinus and Polycarp both obsess over securing a fiery martyrdom for themselves would explain how the name 'Ignatius' arose. Nevertheless it would stand to reason that a generation after Lucian or contemporary with Lucian a series of efforts were made to establish this 'Ignatius' as a separate figure from Polycarp - indeed someone for whom Polycarp wrote on behalf but was ultimately distinct from Polycarp.

This development took place over many distinct forms - the short Syriac texts, the long and then longer Greek texts show a systematic expansion of an original core correspondence which I believe started with the historical 'Polycarp' identifying himself as 'the fiery one' and 'angel' (= seraph in Aramaic, nurono in Syriac, Ignatius in Latin) who was preparing to die for the people.

stephan huller

If this preliminary understanding of who 'Polycarp' - our only actual eyewitness for the historical existence of 'Marcion' - is uncertain then how much less the exact details about the heretic. More problematic is the fact that for most of Irenaeus's writings he does not even name Polycarp. He identifies him as 'the elder' and the like lending credibility to the basic idea that Polycarp was the stranger (= Peregrinus) reported by Lucian. Nevertheless Lucian's reference to a predecessor of Polycarp's - 'a man of Pontus' - remains problematic.

Is Lucian merely reporting the existence of the Marcion of Pontus tradition already c. 160 - 170 CE? I think so. One would think that this would derive from the same sources which Lucian used to ascertain other details about 'Peregrinus' - thus the very same circles who were responsible for 'letters from the underworld' (i.e. posthumous forgeries) developed in the name of Peregrinus/Polycarp/Ignatius. Thus the 'Marcion of Pontus' tradition was old but may well still be fraudulent or ultimately inaccurate. Nevertheless it is old which is important and must cause us to hesitate before completely rejecting Marcion as 'spurious.'

Marciwn can in certain forms - especially what we might call 'Jewish Greek' of the first century - represent the designation of a group. We see appellations such as 'Herodiwn' (= those of Herod), Agrippiwn (= 'those of Agrippa') etc in first century inscriptions. It could also be a diminutive (= 'little Mark'). The bottom line is that there is so much uncertainty we are forced to hesitate from saying anything definitive about Marcion and his tradition (= the Marcionites or 'those of Marcion). One of the many reasons despite my studying the tradition for over twenty years I've never published anything on it.

maryhelena

OK - so it's all hearsay regarding the figure of Marcion...

No smoke without a fire I suppose - and someone lit that fire i.e. the big heresy that the early church writers found to be so disastrous. So, a troublemaker - not just different views within an acceptable doctrinal frame - but out and out heresy to the ears of the orthodox.

And the heretics? Ideas generally are not committee based - hence an arch-heretic, whether historical, or pseudo-historical, would be necessary for their own origin story. If Marcion is ahistorical, then any geographical setting - far away from Rome or Jerusalem - would reflect the wide distance between the heresy and the orthodox.

And of course, once the Marcionite origin story is up and running (like the gospel JC story) then it gathers more tall tales in it's retelling...

Of course, the Marcion story, like the JC story, is only a vehicle, as it were, for the load of 'truth' or 'heresy' that it's been designed to carry. The actual history, the origins, of that 'truth' or 'heresy' lie outside of the stories.

And that seems to be about it....

stephan huller

There is a clear 'Marcionite' phenomenon but it is difficult to say what that represents

maryhelena

Yes, that's probably the most important point (re early christian origins) that the Marcion stories are old.

As for all the names involved with the transmission of the Marcion story - hearsay after hearsay...