stephan huller

I happen to be a regular reader of Roger Pearse's site and have noticed that he has developed an interest in Marcion after attending a Patristics conference in the U.K. He asks - in reference to von Harnack's very influential works on the study of Marcionitism - in his most recent post at his wonderful blog "isn’t it curious how many people talk about Marcion online, yet have not troubled to make available the raw materials?"

If he was just limiting his comments to the original Patristic texts that are not online he is one hundred percent correct. We need a site which presents all the information that has come down through the ages about Marcion and the Marcionites. While it would be certainly nice to have von Harnack's observations available in English, he has caused so much damage to the proper study of the tradition especially with regards to his denying Marcion what was certainly his original identification as the father of the gnostikoi of ancient Christianity.

The various stories that have come down to us about Marcion are mostly legendary. The so-called 'Marcionite Church' for instance was supposedly founded by a historical individual named 'Marcion' from Sinope (Modern Turkish Sinópi). Von Harnack was absolutely correct in assigning the Marcionite Church as the first to establish Christianity on the firm foundation of a definite theory of what is Christian based on a fixed collection of Christian writings with canonical authority.

It is universally acknowledged that the Marcionite Church was an extremely ancient tradition of Christianity which denied the history promoted by the canonical Acts of the Apostles. It is also universally acknowledged that the Marcionite Church was extremely hostile to the authority of St. Peter. As such they must have had a very different model for the development of the early Church, completely abandoning the entire paradigm presented in Acts.

The problem of course is that it is difficult for us to be entirely certain what exactly this 'Marcionite sect' actually believed and practiced given that all our information about them comes from the hostile witness of the Fathers of our existing Church. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff in the reports of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian and the rest? The inherent subjectivity of such an endeavor leads most to throw their hands up in the air and drift back to our inherited assumptions about a Church of Peter and Paul in Rome even though we know ABSOLUTELY, CERTAINLY and without question that we are guilty of an injustice against the Marcionite tradition who vehemently opposed these very same inherited notions of our ancestors.

The reason the Marcionites matter is because we can't be sure what the truth is until we hear all sides from the original dispute. The Marcionites repeatedly must maintained that an episcopal tradition founded on Peter's throne in Rome - or Antioch for that matter - had nothing to do with the true founding beliefs of the original Church. What did they posit in its place? Where was the center of their Christian universe? These are good questions and however scholarship decides to answers those questions will ultimately reshape the whole study of the development of early Christianity.

The problem is that these questions are not being asked. Scholarship has always felt compelled to ignore the very existence of these ancient objections merely because of the inherent difficulties involved in ascertaining what it was the Marcionites were arguing for.

One would think then that the scientific approach to the study of earliest Christianity would say something to the effect of "the following is the story of the development of the early Church according to our earliest Roman sources notwithstanding a contemporary objection of the Marcionites that the following is utterly spurious and false ..." Instead what is essentially the Roman version of history is cited without even so much as a caveat leading to the perpetuation of the status quo.

The truth is that the debate over Christian origins is dominated by two polar opposite points of view - i.e. atheists who want to dig up any scrap of evidence which 'disproves' Christianity and believers who want to bolster the faith. Coming to terms with the actual beliefs and practices of the Marcionites doesn't quite suit the purposes of either camp so they are basically left as a kind of historical abstraction.

Yet the Marcionites absolutely critical to make sense of the true origins of Christianity. They answer the essential question - if not Rome and St. Peter then what else, where else could Christianity have originally have been conceived? The answer is quite certainly that the Marcionites testify that Christianity developed as a highly philosophically inclined Jewish messianic sect in Alexandria. In other words, the gospel did not originally grow from the lowest rungs of the social ladder but rather as even its earliest critics will admit 'a misunderstanding' or misapplication of Plato to traditional Jewish interests.

That Jews took an immediate interest in the writings of Plato once they came into contact with them is beyond question. Indeed it is startling to go back and read how close Plato's philosophical interests are to traditional Jewish theological concerns. Nevertheless there is one noticeable difference - Plato advocated the radical idea that the truly great divinely appointed ruler could only emerge if he suspended the authority of the old laws and instead tapped into γνωστικὴ ἐπιστήμη (i.e. "knowledge to influence and control") which guided the framers of laws in throughout the ages.

Of course most of us are probably familiar with the late derivation of this Platonic concept where certain Christian individuals are identified as possessing this same 'art of knowing' and thus identify themselves as 'gnostics.' Our earliest pagan critic of Christianity, Celsus makes specific reference to this phenomenon and does so with a very clear connection to the terms original context in the Platonic writings adding i.e. that those who identified themselves by this term understood themselves to stand 'above the law' owing to their communion with a higher authority out of which the various laws developed imperfectly.

Celsus was clearly a well traveled pagan writer who had visited a number of places in the Empire before stumbling upon and writing about the contemporary Christian controversies in Rome in the middle of the second century. As with the Marcionites our only information about the details of Celsus's original work comes from the hostile report of a Christian writer. Nevertheless our source infer that the Marcionites are specifically referenced as one of the Christian sects which identify themselves by the Platonic term gnostikoi.

Von Harnack - like most other Patristic scholars since his very influential work in the field - simply wasn't familiar enough with the original Platonic material to make a proper judgement. I have to admit I wasn't either until my recent vacation. I saw Plato's Politikos on sale at a local university bookshop and I decided to bring it along and read it over and over again by the pool.

I always knew that almost all of Clement of Alexandria''s references to Marcion connected him to Plato (especially in book three of the Stromata).

The realization that Marcion was likely the figure who stood ABOVE all the gnostics of earliest Christianity (because his real identity goes back to the historical St. Mark) became very obvious when as soon as I reached the conclusion of the work.

The point here is that von Harack would never have concluded that the Marcion "cannot be numbered among the Gnostics in the strict sense of the word" if he had actually read Plato's Politikos. I am sure he never read this work which effectively introduced the highly technical Greek term gnostikos to the world. If he had he would have seen what I saw. I am sure that if any of you are at all familiar with the writings of Tertullian Against Marcion you will see it too.

As I noted von Harnack's error is quite easy to identify. In making this statement he has gone beyond the original Platonic meaning of the term which meant as we noted the ideal leader who abrogates the law in order to tap into the sacred divine source behind the various legal ordinances and settled instead for the derived meaning of the term used in the Church Fathers which meant something like 'speculative science.'

Indeed I would make the case that not only Marcion but all the early leaders within Christianity before the establishment of the Roman tradition identified themselves as 'gnostikoi.' Not only does Celsus's testimony suggest this, Clement of Alexandria - writing from the last generation of the second century - most explicitly presents Christianity as a religion promoted by and developed for 'gnostics.'

What is absolutely clear is that by very time Clement was still employing what must have been a very old Alexandrian appropriation of the term gnostikos, another much more influential Christian writer named Irenaeus was using Celsus's report as a pretext to tighten controls over who or what doctrine could be identified as properly Christian. The title of his treatise really says it all - the Conviction and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called.

Irenaeus wrote a number of treatises or 'lectures' over the course of his life which were later assembled into this five volume work, likely by a close disciple. Throughout these treatises there is a systematic assault against those claiming to be gnostikoi however Irenaeus seems unwilling or unable to define the term in terms of its original Platonic context. Instead he seems to expand its meaning to include any Christian who claims to have any direct knowledge of God beyond what has been established in the canonical scriptures as a liar or a disreputable cheat and argues instead that only the understanding of those same sacred writings developed by authoritative commentators WITHIN the established apostolic Church should be recognized.

In other words, Irenaeus essentially plays with the term gnostikos for a specific political purpose. There may be many claiming to be gnostokoi - i.e. claiming to have been in contact with a superior power - but the gnosis each of them claims to have received from this divine source is easily discredited because it is "absurd and confused and cannot be reconciled with the truth." So it is that the Christian use of the Platonic term gnostikoi is dispensed with - the conflicting claims of the various teachers disproves the whole 'gnostic tradition.'

Someone like von Harnack who was utterly unfamiliar with the original Platonic context of this term gnostikos had his understanding shaped by Irenaeus. This is very unfortunate because it misses the whole point of Plato's use of the term.

Here are some notes from Jowett's translation of the Politikos, I thought might be interesting for my readers. With regards to the term gnostikos:

The imaginary ruler, whether God or man, is above the law and is a law to himself and others. Among the Greeks as among the Jews, the law was a sacred name; the gift of God, the bond of states. But in the Politikos of Plato, as in the New Testament, the word (nomos) has also become the symbol of an imperfect good, which is almost an evil. The law sacrifices the individual to the universal, and is the tyranny of the many over the few (compare Republic). It has fixed rules which are the props of order, and will not swerve or bend in the extreme cases. It is the beginning of political society, but there is something higher - an intelligent ruler, whether God or man, who is able to adapt himself to the endless varieties of circumstances. [p. 34]

It is immediately obvious to anyone who reads this that might have a little familiarity with the Marcionite tradition how these ideas were taken over by this the first school to have a systematic interpretation of the New Testament. Yet it is Plato's use of one particular image over and over throughout his writings (and especially in the Politikos) which clearly remains embedded in the surviving description of the Marconites which can at least be liberated and used to demonstrate that the understanding of Marcion as THE gnostikos of earliest Christianity wasn't simply theoretical - it stands at the core of the existing reports even its original significance was lost Tertullian.

Marcion is always identified as a naukleros (ship master) and the frequency of these references has always puzzled scholars. Schaff notes that "Marcion is frequently called 'Ponticus Nauclerus,' probably less on account of his own connection with a seafaring life, than that of his countrymen, who were great sailors (cf. Against Marcion i. 18. (sub fin.) and book iii. 6). [pp. 284, 325.] He is described as nautes and nauclerus by Rhodon and Tertullian. There can be absolutely no doubt that these terms are Platonic in origin. New Testament and Patristic scholars have to get out more http://books.google.com/books?id=OSz...0plato&f=false

I will cite from the Blackwell Guide to Plato's Republic before referencing my notes from the Politikos. Given that the ship is a Platonic image for the state (see above):

Who exactly is aboard Plato's ship? Plato mentions “sailors” (nautai), "voyagers" (ploteres), a "shipowner" (naukleros), and a true and false "steersmen" (kubernetes). The quotation marks signal that the English nouns are only rough renditions of the Greek; none of the Greek terms has an exact English equivalent. The nautai on Plato's ship are clearly sailors, though the word is occasionally also applied to passengers (Epistle VII.347a2; Sophocles Philoctetes 901). The naukleros, in spite of the customary translation of his name, was not necessarily the ship's owner; he might only have use of the ship under a charter, which could be for a given period of time or in perpetuity (Casson 1971: 315 n 67) - a nicety that we shall henceforth ignore. In Plato shipowners are usually mentioned together with merchants (emporoi) (Protagoras 319d3; Politicus 290a1; Laws VIII.831c6.842d3), their chief clients. A shipowner makes his living by transporting a merchant and his goods from one port to another, if he is not a merchant himself transporting his own goods (Xenophon, Oeconomicus 8.12; Hellenica 5.l.21.10). As the owner or charterer of of his ship he hires the steersman (Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.6.38) and determines who and what comes aboard (Epistle VII.329e2 - 3,346e7 - 347a3; Thucydides I.137.2). The shipowner and steersman would no doubt discuss route and weather conditions together. In the vivid account of Saint Paul's voyage as a prisoner to Rome, the shipowner and steersman are pictured as jointly counseling, while safely in harbor, the leg of the voyage that was to end in shipwreck at Malta (Acts 27.11). Once under way a ship was apparently under the command of its steersman. In the Memorabilia (3.9.11) Socrates remarks, at any rate, that “on a ship the man who knows [ie the steersman] rules, and the shipowner and all the others on the ship obey the man who knows." [p. 191]

The important thing for us to remember is that the adjective gnostikos was first coined by Plato with reference to a kind of science which was exemplified by the κυβερνήτης (steersmen, pilot) which ran the ship. He may have received his instructions from the ναύκληρος but when he was captaining his ship he acted completely independently. To this end one might argue that the heretical tradition viewed the original Logos - the Creator - as the imperfect κυβερνήτης. He lacked the true γνωστικὴ ἐπιστήμη and so could not properly instruct his children and gave them instead imperfect laws.

In the Dialogues of Adamantius there is a telling reference where Marcion is identified as the ἐπίσκοπος of the Marcionite tradition. I am not sure that this had the same sense as it did in the orthodox tradition where there were countless 'bishops' in every see. I suspect the Marcionites imagined their founder as the 'overseer' of a tradition which had many gnostikoi - 'Marcion' or 'Mark' being the effective ναύκληρος over a fleet of sees. It is interesting to note that in Plato Δίκη - the principle that stands above all laws - is described as 'ἐπίσκοπος' (Laws 872.e3).

If we look at Clement's use of the term gnostikoi it must have been the equivalent to the Catholic use of 'bishop.' It is worth noting that the term 'bishop' was only introduced in Alexandria with Demetrius near the end of the second century. So what other than gnostikoi could have been the original term?

It is worth noting that there might even be a Platonic origin for the idea of a shipmaster of Pontus. In Gorias Socrates says "And if you despise the swimmers, I will tell you of another and greater art, the art of the pilot, who not only saves the souls of men, but also their bodies and properties from the extremity of danger, just like rhetoric. Yet his art is modest and unpresuming: it has no airs or pretences of doing anything extraordinary, and, in return for the same salvation which is given by the pleader, demands only two obols, if he brings us from Aegina to Athens, or from Pontus or Egypt, at the utmost two drachmae, when he has saved, as I was just now saying, the passenger and his wife and children and goods, and safely disembarked them at the Piraeus, — this is the payment which he asks in return for so great a boon; and he who is the master of the art, and has done all this, gets out and walks about on the sea-shore by his ship in an unassuming way."

stephan huller

A few references in Tertullian where Marcion is identified as a nauclerus:

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design. So then, nauclerus out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ.b If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. [Against Marcion 5.1]

Thereupon they left their boats and followed him, with understanding of one who had begun to do in fact what he had said in words. It is quite another thing if he made a pretence of choosing them from the Association of Shipmasters, because he was sometime going to have as his apostle Marcion the naucleros. [Against Marcion 4.9]

So then, since heretical madness was claiming that that Christ [i.e. Jesus] had come who had never been previously mentioned, it followed that it had to contend that that Christ was not yet come who had from all time been foretold: and so it was compelled to form an alliance with Jewish error, and from it to build up an argument for itself, on the pretext that the Jews, assured that he who has come was an alien, not only rejected him as a stranger but even put him to death as an opponent, although they would beyond doubt have recognized him and have treated him with all religious devotion if he had been their own. It can have been no Rhodian law but a Pontic one, which assured this nauclerus that the Jews were incapable of making a mistake respecting their Christ; although, even if nothing of this sort were found to have been spoken in prophecies against them, human nature alone and by itself, wide open to deception, might have persuaded him that the Jews could have made a mistake, being men, and that it would be wrong to use as a precedent the judgement of persons who had likely enough been mistaken [Against Marcion 3.6]

Marcion we know for a nauclerus, not a king or an emperor. [Against Marcion 1.18]

Where was Marcion then, that nauclerus of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? [Prescription 30]

avi

Ignoring your continued attempt to belittle those who followed the supposed teachings of Marcion, whoever he may have been, by referring to them, disparagingly as "marcionites", instead of the more neutral, less pejorative, more authentically Greek, term, "Marcionists",
I find that you repeat, again, in this thread, the same notion that Irenaeus wrote this, and Irenaeus wrote that, and therefore this, and therefore that, and so on, without defining your original source....

Please identify your source for this observation:

In another thread, I have asked this question, thus far without response:

Where is this, only extant copy, of a Latin version of his work, ostensibly crafted in wood?

How was it discovered?
When was it discovered?
Who has dated this piece of wood?

What are the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the Armenian copy?
How do we know whether the Armenian copy was made from the Latin, or the (supposedly) original Greek?

If one simply read this quote of yours, above, then doesn't it seem to be consistent with the idea that "Irenaeus" is a fictitious character, designed well after the fact, i.e. third or fourth century invention?

Does it make sense to argue at length about this or that subtle nuance, regarding someone whose writings are corrupted?

avi

mountainman

Would you mind providing a brief outline of who you think "All the Gnostics" were in the middle of the second century?
And were they disturbed soon after by the "Meditations" and/or the reported "persecutions" of Marcus Aurelius?
Where did the Gnostics fit into society at that time? Alexandria? Rome? Trier? Pergamum? Aegae?
In a nutshell - Who were they, and did they have "churches" or temples?

Clivedurdle

I'd be interested in your views of Pagels.

On Plato, I think it is very important to note the very different views of Socrates and Plato.

Elijah

Good catch in the statesman! There does seem to be an ideological similarity between Plato and his ideal society in having a king with no laws which corresponds with Paul’s Christianity. I will be using that.
Little confusing for me, here especially with the Greek, not sure exactly what you are trying to say. For me, Gnosticism comes from Plato and his recollection of forms leading to salvation. The reincarnation process and overcoming it was tied into gaining or pursuing knowledge. Re-gathering the forms we lose at birth. The intellectual side was real to the Platonist and the Logos was an orderer or divider of the universe depending on if you were coming from chaotic matter needing order or a unified “One” that needed dividing.

It’s like human reason can either divide things up in a world that is actually one unified entity or it can try to bring order to a universe that is actually chaos in motion; it just depends on your philosophical outlook. But in the case of the Logos this is divine reason actually doing this on a cosmic scale that you can become aware of from using your ability to perceive the intellectual side which creates the basis of Plato’s duality.

As far as Marcion being a Gnostic. I haven’t read the works against him so just coming from wikifacts I don’t think that he would technically be considered a Gnostic though I do think he was promoting Gnostic beliefs in the early Church. By that I mean that like Paul he was a believer in Plato’s unknowable god and may have had a problem with matter as well but unlike Paul he wasn’t going to give the Jews the benefit of the doubt that they were worshiping a rational understanding of God. It’s like the argument with Origen against Celsus where he isn’t willing to read the texts allegorically. To them if God is talking and they are making sacrifices to him then they are worshiping a superstitious understanding of God… period.

Problem with this in the early church is that they tried to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah by using the prophets of the Old Testament as predicting him so you couldn’t say that they were worshiping a false god if you are using their predictions. This is why I think the big argument wasn’t about him saying that gnosis was the way to salvation instead of the orthodox “faith in Jesus”.

I think this mainly because he was a fan of Paul and his big contribution is basing being elect on faith instead of works or gnosis. It would be easy enough for him to edit out the references that were positive towards the Old Testament’s understanding of god or validated it somehow but it would be hard for him to edit the texts to say that knowledge instead of faith was the key to salvation. Like what DCHindley(Sp?) here did with Paul’s letter in reverse. There he cut out the references to Jesus and was left with a text that still made sense but now was an ideology where faith in their God is the key to salvation instead of Jesus. I can see cutting the Jesus or God parts and still having something that makes sense but if he was changing it from faith to Gnosis he would have to do some major rewriting and same thing if the orthodox had to rewrite a Gnostic Paul.

stephan huller

.

If you read the Politikos you will see that the most frequent analogy to explain the ruler who possesses the gnostic faculty is that of the pilot of a ship. The ship is the city, the pilot the ruler - the perfect ruler is understood to rule not with laws but with the gnostic faculty that connects with the supernal power that helped establish the laws.

The term naukleros also figures in the writings of Plato. He is not the pilot but the master of the pilot.

The term episcopos also figures in the writings of Plato. The term is applied to Dike (Justice) to imply that Dike watch over the world as that supernal power.

The Catholic use of the term episcopos isn't overtly Platonic but the Marcionite use of the term is. Marcion is the source (episcopos) of the various Marcionite church leaders according to Megethius. My guess is that the Marcionite Church had one bishop - Mark/Marcion - and many officials called by a different name. As an interesting parallel the Alexandrian Church had only one bishop until Demetrius (or 189 CE). I think the two traditions are related because Marcion = St Mark.

So if the various Marcionite church officials weren't called 'bishops' (episcopoi) what was their title? I think it was gnostokoi based on Clement of Alexandria's use of the term and the parallels with Alexandrian tradition and Marcionitism (i.e. Mark is the source of all the Alexandrian Popes etc.).

If the Markan tradition identified its bishops gnostikoi then naukleros as an epithet of Marcion makes sense because a naukleros was a figure in command of a number of piloted ships.

The alternative is that they were called kubernetes a term which eventually forms into a word meaning 'governor' (our English word is directly related to the Greek). The implication is still the same - the reason that the Church Fathers are ridiculing the apparent ritual identification of Marcion as a naukleros is because the Marcionite church as a whole was developed very closely from the original Platonic ideas still evident in Alexandrian Christianity. The Church as a whole looked like a fleet of belonging to a shipmaster

Elijah

I read it and I’m not seeing the Gnostic ruler aspect. Maybe it’s the translation or me.

“STRANGER: And shall we say that the violence, if exercised by a rich man, is just, and if by a poor man, unjust? May not any man, rich or poor, with or without laws, with the will of the citizens or against the will of the citizens, do what is for their interest? Is not this the true principle of government, according to which the wise and good man will order the affairs of his subjects? As the pilot, by watching continually over the interests of the ship and of the crew,—not by laying down rules, but by making his art a law,—preserves the lives of his fellow-sailors, even so, and in the self-same way, may there not be a true form of polity created by those who are able to govern in a similar spirit, and who show a strength of art which is superior to the law?” Statesman

Law or lawless; ruling the people willingly or by force is the dualities expressed, not ruling with law or (vs) Gnosticism but maybe there is some interpretation to be done around “making his art law”. Or another section you may be pulling from?

Are there some other examples of them using ship pilots or whatnot as followers of Plato like walking with Aristotle or is it that he had a Greek name when he should have had something else? Or a onetime thing since he was the leader of the movement?

The pool is pretty limited to draw from when trying to make analogies so all the major professions at the time are going to be found in his work at some point or another. Like the weaver, herdsmen and physician are used as examples to make points about the ideal king in the Statesman. I think you could make a better case that Plato’s divine herdsman is an influence on the Jesus parables about being a herdsman for his flock but I would still think it is more likely they just don’t have a lot to choose from when trying to make their points.

If Clement identified Marcion’s bishops as Gnostic then that would be some evidence but it seems from reading the complaints about him that he isn’t a Gnostic in the sense that knowledge equals salvation somehow. He did have what we consider Gnostic beliefs in that the intermediary god was evil and matter was bad. But where he was still orthodox was that faith was the key to salvation but may have been more like the Muslim in reverse where they are against Polytheism he was for separating the Gods into one good and bad.

For if any one, following Marcion, should dare to say that the Creator (Δημιουργόν) saved the man that believed on him, even before the advent of the Lord, (the election being saved with their own proper salvation);” Stromata

Clement sounds like more of the Gnostic then the people he is arguing against in his support of Plato and his saying knowledge helps defend the faith and faith helps find the truth.

”Some, who think themselves naturally gifted, do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic; nay more, they do not wish to learn natural science. They demand bare faith alone, as if they wished, without bestowing any care on the vine, straightway to gather clusters from the first.” Stromata

Like I said, I think the main problem with Marcion was simply him saying that the God of the Jews was evil made them predicting Jesus impossible so that thinking had to go. (There was also the issue with matter and if the divine would have a body) It wasn’t that he was promoting Gnosticism other than the knowledge that the Jew’s god was evil. It’s obvious from the trinity that they wouldn’t have had a problem with leaving monotheism but you couldn’t say that the Jew’s god was evil. You can’t say Abraham wasn’t saved or worshiping a false god and the scriptures didn’t predict Jesus.

”1. Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that "he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." Irenaeus Against

"Ye search the Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And ye are not willing to come unto Me, that ye may have life."(6) How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him, unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? "For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also have believed Me; for he wrote of Me;" Irenaeus Against

”Now I shall simply say, in opposition to all the heretics, and principally against the followers of Marcion, and against those who are like to these, in maintaining that time prophets were from another God” Irenaeus Against

On your Marcion is Mark theory; if you do what Irenaeus suggest Marcion did with Luke’s gospel do you get something close to Mark?

”he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father.” Irenaeus Against

Also if the GMark that Marcion produced was a narrative then he is more likely to be on the orthodox’s faith side because it’s an illustration of how the faith started. If what he cut it down to was something like Gthomas where his sayings are reworked for a Gnostic take then it would support your theory better.
A little side not about Plato and the Faith issue. The author of Hebrews, which sounds Platonically influenced states faith as this:

11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Which sounds like how Plato defines being initiated here.

”SOCRATES: Take a look round, then, and see that none of the uninitiated are listening. Now by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence.” Theaetetus

stephan huller

There is a lot in this post Elijah and I am busy at work but let's start at the beginning. The Marcionite gospel isn't always identified as Luke. Read the Philosophumena which says that Marcion's gospel is said to be according to Mark. Read Origen's frequent reference to Johannine elements in the Marcionite tradition (i.e. identifying the Apostle as the Paraclete). Also the story connected with Papias that Marcion was John's secretary (see Eisler's Enigma of the Fourth Gospel).

The Marcionite wasn't a shorter version of Luke. This is what was promoted by someone associated with Irenaeus. Why this is said I don't know but it clearly isn't true.

With regards to Clement's testimony, it is universally acknowledged that in Platonic thought the gnostikos is an adjective not a noun. It is a faculty possessed by the perfect ruler. Later at the time of Clement it develops into a title. Who are the Christian 'gnostics'? Given the Platonic foundation of Alexandrian thought it is impossible to imagine that the context doesn't in some sense mean a figure like a 'bishop' - i.e. a leader of a Christian 'polis' within the greater cities and towns of the Empire.

There is a quote I will dig up from Origen which makes this clear without using the specific term 'gnostikoi.' The leaders of the various Christian community in the Empire were argued to be the 'perfect rulers' foretold by Plato (as opposed we must imagine to all the wicked Roman Emperors whom the Egyptian and Syrian Christians were eager to abandon whenever a better offer came along). The fact that we have learned to take gnostic to mean the ancient equivalent of 'Madame Blavatsky' doesn't matter. The terminology is Platonic and artificial. Clement couldn't have used the term in the way that we use it.

I am not argue that only the Marcionites identified their 'bishops' as gnostikoi. I am saying that the Marcionite tradition was related to the Alexandrian Church and that Clement's identification of gnostikoi in Alexandria CAN ONLY MEAN figures like a 'bishop' - i.e. perfect rulers in various cities. There is no other possibility.

When you look at the earliest 'bishops' in the ante-Nicene period (cf Lucian of Antioch) the pattern emerges that they appear as rich and powerful men who quite literally supported a community of Christians out of their largess. This is essence of Clement Qui Dives Salvetur. The example of Zacchaeus proves that Jesus didn't want the rich to simply give up all their money like the pagan philosophers demanded.

Instead the idea is they were supposed to become the embodiments of the Platonic ideal - i.e. those who were later called gnostikoi. They would quite literally be rulers of a Christian polis within the various communities of the Empire supporting the poor, taking care of the sick, the widows etc.

Indeed I was surprised to see again in the Life of Pionius that Polycarp himself is portrayed as a wealthy man. Irenaeus brushes aside criticism from some Christians that the Catholic Church was in the pocket of Commodus because - as he rightly notes - they are only perpetuating a pattern established from the time of Jesus of living off of and building communities around wealthy benefactors.

I would argue that from the beginning the Catholic Church was designed to live off the largess of the Roman state.

Moreover the example of Mark in Egypt in Eusebius's testimony and elsewhere is worth noting. Mark doesn't pool together money from believers but himself BUILDS monasteries and the great Church of Alexandria.

I think he is the original paradigm of the Christian gnostikoi. Marcion is similarly described i.e. a wealthy benefactor

The pattern is uncanny. Christianity is not what we have been led to believe it was.

Clivedurdle

Norman Davies A History of Europe (or via: amazon.co.uk) quotes Gibbon that the period 90 - 200 CE was in fact "the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous."

Gnosticism was really a completely separate matter to xianity, but because it borrowed was regarded as a xian sect and heresy.

Separate religions is an idea of Judaism and Xianity - before hand you would worship the gods of your local town, and change gods if you moved.

Davies talks of xianities in the main cities around the med.

Davies writes "Heresy...can only exist if the accusers believe in their own dogmatic monopoly of the truth"

p205