stephan huller

I am telling you, when Nietzsche went crazy he was sobbing with his arms wrapped around a half-dead horse. With me it will be while developing this article for a respected journal on the Alexandrian Church being the real Marcionite tradition of history. Everything that has been written about Marcion is so stupid and near sighted. Just one example of my many discoveries demonstrating that Clement's Apostolikon was related (or identical) with the Marcionite recension:

Clement cites 1 Cor 3.17 as:

Tertullian similarly in Against Marcion:

There so many of these. The question now is whether I can turn this around to prove that Secret Mark is the Marcionite gospel. Of course I think I can, but I'm crazy. That's par for the course.

DCHindley

But,

If Alexandrian Christianity was essentially Marcionite, why are there no fragments of clearly Marcionite mss of the letters of Paul in the garbage dumps of Egypt?

DCH

stephan huller

By the same logic the lack of Marcionite fragments could be used to prove the sect never existed anywhere

DCHindley

Reductio ad absurdum ... Egg-pit is the only place where early fragments are being found in any abundance, due to dry climate. The lack of Marcion recension fragments there is more likely evidence that his movement did NOT have a presence there.

DCH

stephan huller

Clement of Alexandria's works have only survived from an original examplar in Caesarea of Cappadocia. http://books.google.com/books?id=27U...andria&f=false

Very few people think that Clement wrote any of the works that survive from this city. Shit happens. In the same way that Clement of Alexandria's works do not survive in Alexandria, it should not completely surprising that Marcionite manuscripts have not been recovered from Alexandria. In the same way as Clement was originally from Alexandria most scholars acknowledge that Marcionites were in great numbers in Egypt. If you can read French, the best source on this is Dorival, Les débuts du christianisme à Alexandrie in Leclant J. (ed.), Alexandrie: Une mégapole cosmopolite, Paris, p. 157-174. According to Dorival the Marcionites were a significant part of the Christian fabric of the city, one of five sects that had a presence there since 117 CE.

I don't understand your point. There were Marcionites in Egypt and Alexandria in particular. Jerome says that Origen's patron Ambrose was both a Marcionite and tells us that he was deacon of the Alexandrian Church. Do the math. Marcionitism seems to have reconstituted itself in Osrhoene in the late second and third centuries. There seems to be some indication that the tradition became the official orthodoxy there and as such it is reasonable to assume that Marcionites who did not embrace the Great Church of the Roman Empire moved there and took their manuscripts with them. Manichaean documents survive because they ultimately established themselves in a later period and likely never reconciled with the Great Church.

DCHindley

On what authority do you say this? Based on this book, I can only find evidence for their presence in the 4th century (via the Life of Pachomius and Epiphanius). Yes, Clement mentions Marcion in Stromata 7.17, but that ambiguous statement doesn't prove he was in Alexandria, only that he was an "old man" when the heretics Theudas and Simon were young men.

Well, I happen to be an auditor by profession, so I "do the math" all the time. Twenty two years of ferreting out inconsistencies between accounting records has taught me how to also do it between texts.

What Eusebius says is "... Ambrose ... held the heresy of Valentinus" before being converted by Origen (Church History vi.18.1).

Jerome says against this that "Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite [was] afterwards set right by Origen, [and] was deacon in the church" (De Viris Illustribus 56, 61).

Doesn't that seem a little .. um ... thin? Jerome is not known for getting all his facts straight. Look how he screws up the details of Eusebius' account of the books written by Clement of Alexandria when he lists them in de Vir. Ill. 38 (even Photius follows these errors, relying on a Greek translation of Jerome's original Latin).

It is one thing not to find a secret gospel of Mark, but no copies of a clearly Marcionite version of a letter of Paul? Yet we have plenty of proto-orthodox copies.

DCH

Stromata 7.17

Likewise they [i.e., the heretics] allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he [i.e., Theudas] was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus

56 Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite but afterwards set right by Origen, was deacon in the church, and gloriously distinguished as confessor of the Lord. To him, together with Protoctetus the presbyter, the book of Origen, On martyrdom was written. Aided by his industry, funds, and perseverance, Origen dictated a great number of volumes. He himself, as befits a man of noble nature, was of no mean literary talent, as his letters to Origen indicate. He died moreover, before the death of Origen, and is condemned by many, in that being a man of wealth, he did not at death, remember in his will, his old and needy friend.

61 … Ambrosius, who we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion, to the true faith, urged Origen to write, in emulation of Hyppolytus, commentaries on the Scriptures, offering him seven, and even more secretaries, and their expenses, and an equal number of copyists, and what is still more, with incredible zeal, daily exacting work from him, on which account Origen, in one of his epistles, calls him his “Taskmaster.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Eusebius, Church History vi.18.

1. About this time Ambrose, who held the heresy of Valentinus, was convinced by Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

stephan huller

Yes, we can go at this all day. Origen clearly had a copy of the Marcionite version of Romans while writing his own Commentary on Romans. Unlike other Church Fathers his knowledge comes from direct contact with the MS (see comments on the ending of the letter). I am sorry but I am having problems with my dlvr.it feed for my blog. My mind is preoccupied. But there are examples of Origen attacking unnamed heretics (commonly taken to be Marcionites) especially during his discussion of Romans chapter 1 which also apply with respect to Clement.

The argument is very similar to what is demonstrated above (i.e. Origen says the heretics reject the idea that God caused humanity to be depraved). Clement's citation of the same section shows his Romans erased the offending material. Above he 'changes' God will destroy the offenders with the Marcionites. In other parts of the Stromata he disagrees with Origen again saying the same thing.

Just read Clement and Origen's statements about Romans 1:24 side by side and try to come to another solution than I am proposing. Notice what is missing from this 'block citation' of Romans chapter 1 here in Clement:

and how Origen repeatedly insinuates that the Marcionites 'had difficulties' with this passage but never goes so far as to say they specifically 'excised' it:

Hagit Amirav, Rhetoric and tradition: John Chrysostom on Noah and the flood takes Origen as citing a Marcionite objection to the passage "Origen comments that the paradox which is entailed by this type of exegesis did not escape the notice of the 'heretics' or more precisely, the Marcionites [who see this] presents a major paradox, since it implies that irrational people become even more irrational — which is difficult to perceive as a corrective divine punishment." p 99. Why then doesn't Origen tell us that the Marcionites cut the material? Why doesn't he identify Clement as a Marcionite? I wonder whether the turbulent age Origen was living in plus his patron's status as a 'lapsed Marcionite' (or heretic at least) didn't have something to do with it.

My feeling has always been that Origen was making up his 'tradition' as he was going along. Yet there must have been an existing Alexandrian tradition, something older than him which didn't use the 'latest edition' of the scriptures coming out of Rome (Pope Fabian is the first non-Alexandrian to cite from chapters 15 or 16 of Romans; I take Zahn's literal reading on Rufinus's statement with respect to Marcion's 'cutting up' this chapter).

stephan huller

And then on the other side of the equation, I have been going through line by line Clement's text of Romans and 1 Corinthians. I have already completed the work with Romans and noticed that uncanny similarities exist between a shadowy Church Father named Methodius whom we know very little. I think they are related figures.

This is a very special section because it goes to the heart of the apparent differences between the Marcionites and the Orthodox. I have noticed that most of the references to this chapter in Clement's writings appear in the 'problematic' Book Three of the Stromata which was deliberately not translated into English in Philip Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers. The original material must not only have problematic for modern editors of the writings of the Church Fathers but in fact the ancient scribes who have preserved the Stromata down to the modern age. There is very compelling evidence in this chapter that a later editor 'corrected' not only Clement's original reference to the beginning of Chapter Seven of 1 Corinthians but in fact that the same process occurred in the writings of Methodius of Olympius. The reason for this revision of the original testimony is simple - the original text of 1 Corinthians known to both Clement and Methodius preserved the apostle as preserving a much stronger rejection of marriage, more in keeping with Marcionitism, the original Pauline tradition.

I cannot account for the reason why Clement and Methodius should share a common reading of the opening of Chapter Seven with Basilides. The only commonality I can find between the two men is a hostile or at least ambivalent attitude towards Origen. Origen's complete silence with respect to Clement being his teacher is perhaps one of the most puzzling things in all of Patristic literature. Nevertheless careful examination of Origen's writings actually reveals at least a couple hostile references to Clement's interpretation of the New Testament (which we will examine later).

For the moment it is enough to note that both Clement and Methodius's surviving manuscripts make witness to the opening line of 1 Clement 7 as:

There can be absolutely no doubt that Clement knew this reading and that it is was the reading which appeared in the contemporary Alexandrian collection of the Pauline writings. For more than once Clement makes reference to it as we see for instance in Stromata 3.51.4 it plainly stated that:

Indeed a little later we hear again Clement make reference to:

In each case, Clement makes it plain by implication that he thought what is now 1 Cor 7.5 - i.e. 'to prevent Satan from tempting you' immediately followed what is now 1 Cor.7.1 i.e. 'every man should have his own wife.'

The very same construction appears quite interestingly in Chapter 11 Book Three of Methodius's Conuiuium:

Indeed what is most interesting about these references is that they are immediately followed by what appears to be an editors hand 'correcting' the apparent 'mistake' in overlooking 1 Cor 7.2 - 4.

In the very next chapter of Methodius's work we see the editor go out of his way to deny that he did not know or was ignoring 1 Cor 7.2 - 4 by having him announce:

It is worth noting that the very same thing happens in Clement after the unmistakable omission of 1 Cor 7.2 - 4. The editor has Clement 'strengthen' his 'commitment to marriage' by making reference to material that was apparently unknown in Christian manuscript in late second century Alexandria. Indeed it is worth adding that Origen is the only ante-Nicene witness to 1 Cor 7.4.

Indeed if we discount this last section as a later addition to Methodius's original work, it is incredible to see how remarkably similar Clement and Methodius's citation of the rest of the chapter are. After both men 'skip over' to the material in 1 Cor 7 - 9 Methodius skips down to 1 Cor 7.25 - Clement pretty much does the same thing avoiding any reference whatsoever to 1 Cor 7.24 (aside from one other obvious addition we shall discuss later).

stephan huller

It is not only Clement, Methodius, Basilides and likely Marcion who had this 1 Cor 7.1,5 reading as the opening words to chapter seven but also Tatian:

stephan huller

Tertullian (or his source) in Against Marcion gives an overview of his 1 Corinthians 7. The standard English translation for many years lists the allusions as follows:

The references in Clement to 1 Corinthians [STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., 3e éd., GCS 52 (1960) pour les livres 1-6 ; STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., TREU U., 2e éd., GCS 17 (1970), 3-102 pour les livres 7-8] reflect the same pattern. If we ignore the 1 Corinthians 1;5 introduction (and its subsequent emendation) we see the following references:

The very same pattern of the text clusters is apparent in Methodius's treatment of the material in chapters 11, 12 and 13 of the Conuiuium Book 3. I have already discussed Methodius's citation of the 1 Cor 7.1;5 opening and its subsequent 'clarification' by a later editor. The rest of the material that follows is remarkably similar to what we have been seeing:

I find the parallels between the three witnesses quite remarkable, the manner in which only a few section are consistently cited by these 'anti-Origenist' writers, where as in Origen's own writings almost every line is cited. The list from Biblindex.fr for instance for passages cited by Origen is:

Irenaeus by contrast