RParvus

Julio,

Here’s one possibility: John’s Gospel may be a reworked version of the “Phaneroseis” (“Manifestations”) written by the ex-Marcionite Apelles. If so, there is no way Marcion would have accepted it as a legitimate gospel. Apelles deserted Marcion and rejected a number of significant Marcionite teachings (e.g. ditheism, docetism, rigorism, and Marcion’s canon). Moreover, Apelles obtained much of the material for his gospel from the revelations that his prophetess associate Philumena was allegedly receiving. It is likely Marcion would not have been impressed by such a prophetic source. As far as is known, Marcion did not place much stock in prophecy, did not claim to have received any revelations himself, and did not encourage prophesying gifts in his churches.

Best regards,

Roger

aa5874

It must be noted that Tertullian ADMITTED the writing he atrributed to Marcion was really an ANONYMOUS writing.

"Against Marcion" 4.2 In "Against Marcion", the author presented mis-leading information about the Pauline writings, he appeared not to know who were the Pauline writers and when the Pauline Epistles were written and it may very well be that the Epistles that Tertullian claimed were mutilated by Marcion were not even written when Marcion was alive.

Doug Shaver

What bothers me about any attempt to figure out anything that Marcion said, thought, or did, is that our only sources are Christians who regarded him as a heretic. I think we've all seen how reliable Christians can be when they talk about anybody who disagrees with them.

Julio

Yes, that's correct; and what we must always keep in mind regarding orthodox fathers, who did always defend their private ground, and were very territorial.
Marcion might have been a nice gnostic, with a sound program; at least better than those with an evil mindset that resulted in the suffering of millions across the centuries.
Apparently, his sect lasted for a while, even though surrounded by intense opposition, it appears.
You can still find some support for Marcion these days.

andrewcriddle

I agree that our sources for Marcion are biased.

However we have several important sources, some of which (eg Adamantius Epiphanius and Tertullian) seem independent of each other, and there is a substantial measure of agreement between them.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

What is very disturbing to me is that the information that CONTRADICTED "Against Marcion" by "Tertulian" has been KNOWN for over 1800 years and yet so-called scholars do not use the information to show that "Against Marcion" may have been non-historical or unreliable.

It would seem based on Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Origen that Marcion may not have written a SINGLE word about JESUS of the NT or the Pauline writings.

It makes far more sense that Marcion would plagerise those who propagated a similar doctrine to his than to mutilate and re-write the Pauline writings and gLuke which should have been in existence for about 100 continuous years before Marcion and known throughout the Empire.

And even more disturbing is that "Tertullian" did not know what Paul actually wrote or when he wrote. "Tertullian" thought "Paul" wrote the Pastoral Epistles BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

DCHindley

Good morning Andrew,

Are you aware of resources that lay out the various accounts on Marcion's Gospel or his versions of the letters of Paul, and even better if they are laid out in columns so the differing accounts can be compared and contrasted?

Tertullian	Epiphanius	Adamantius
Statement 1	Statement 1	Statement 1
Statement 2	Statement 2	Statement 2
Statement 3	Statement 3	Statement 3
Statement 4	Statement 4	Statement 4

One problem I am seeing in my efforts to evaluate several reconstructions of Marcion's Galatians is that editors seem to pick and choose and I am not fully aware of what detail they have decided not to use.

DCH

andrewcriddle

Hi David

I'm not aware of a full analysis but John J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (or via: amazon.co.uk) (CBQMS 21; Washington, DC: CBAA, 1989).
may be relevant. Clabeaux's work is discussed in archive thread Marcion and the Text of Paul

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Thanks for that link. Very interesting.

I can get hold of a copy through a form of interlibrary loan available in this state.

DCH

aa5874

But, your post is most mis-leading.

You CANNOT show at all that Epiphanius was INDEPENDENT of Tertullian.

The substantial agreement between Epiphanius and Tertullian may be the EVIDENCE that they are NOT independent of each other.

Epiphanius supposedly lived and wrote about 150 years AFTER Tertullian so it is almost impossible to verify your claim that Epiphanius seemed independent of Tertullian.