The Proper Starting Point to Understand Where, How and Why the Catholics Invented the Idea of 'Marcion'

I received the following comments at a post I wrote earlier today and have decided to answer the question over a few posts. Here is the question from Bill:

I'm not quite clear on your proposed relationship between canonical Mark and Marcion's Gospel. Isn't it the case that Marcion's Gospel is much closer to canonical Luke than canonical Mark (only shorter)? Tyson Chandler and others suggest that Marcion used an Ur-Luke and that canonical Luke added Luke 1-2 and other material to Ur-Luke. I don't really get your association between canonical Mark and Marcion. I'd be interested to hear your source critical ideas on this.

I started with Marcion twenty five years ago. Marcion was my gateway to Christianity. I think that 'Marcion' will always remain the context from which I reference the surviving Christian faith.

I will tell you that the first thing I noticed about Marcion years ago was Polycarp. Polycarp appears to be our ultimate source on Marcion. I can't help but get the feeling that when Irenaeus cites this story about Polycarp rejecting Marcion it seems to be done in such a way that it was a well known story. Yet strangely Irenaeus did not include it in Book One when he was dealing with all the heresies. He left it instead for a section in Book Three - likely written a decade later - which deals with apostolic authority.

The point is that 'Polycarp' provides the ultimate context for any investigation into the origins of 'Marcion.' You can't start in the middle like most scholars - even the great scholars like von Harnack - and assume that Marcion is a 'real person.' You have to scrutinize the CONTEXT of the story where Marcion first makes his appearance and when you do so it is impossible not to see him as anything other than a garbled reference to Mark.

The starting point of all of our knowledge about 'Marcion' comes in this short story plopped int the middle of a narrative about the 'true apostolic authority' in Rome. The terseness of the story is reminiscent of rabbinic narratives. It comes without a proper introduction because it serves a specific purpose within the context of the running narrative.

'Marcion' is a caricature. He is nothing more than yet another heretical boogeyman trying to 'seduce' the Church. Yet in this story there is something very important - an overarching issue of 'recognition' which is usually just brushed over in the narratives.

'Marcion' wants to be recognized as the onlyborn or firstborn of God. When we read the context of the story again you'll see that Polycarp's 'firstborn of Satan' must have come as a response to Marcion's original request. It is the earliest and only 'thing' we know about the heretic. Indeed according to Irenaeus IT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MARCION. Marcion is wants to be recognized as embodying apostolic authority but his is a fraudulent claim.

Against this backdrop Irenaeus introduces Polycarp who is a witness to those who knew the Lord best. This is strange at first glance for when we look at what immediately precedes the Marcion story Irenaeus develops an argument for the primacy of the Roman Church.

What is so strange about introducing Polycarp at this juncture is that one would think that Irenaeus could introduce some native Roman witnesses to the antiquity of the claims of the Church. Yes he gives a list of bishops of the city but if he could have provides external witnesses to the authority of Rome here one would have expected them to have been presented where the story of Polycarp now appears.

The argument that Irenaeus ends up developing is that not only is there an apostolic succession at Rome but that Polycarp - who is not a bishop of any city - was a witness of John in the same way as the Roman bishops were heirs to Peter. I know that this line of reasoning works wonders with people who have already been 'baptized into the faith' but it is hardly the kind of thing that could provide the necessary proof that there was a Roman succession from Peter.

Indeed Irenaeus never once uses Polycarp as a witness to this effect (he couldn't because Florinus a rival figure in the Roman Church would have called him out on it). His point instead is that Polycarp could provide proof that 'Marcion' was a fraud. This is whole other argument which seems at first glance to have nothing to do with the argument for Roman primacy. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing that propagandists routinely engage in - i.e. confounding the argument against a rival argument with the case for the authenticity for one's own views.

So let's start at the beginning again. We have to flesh out the real historical identity of Polycarp (which I think I have done at another article at Hermann Detering's site).

It is enough for us now to pull one idea from that discussion - Pionius' identification of Polycarp's Semitic origins. I happen to think that the strange Greek name Polycarpou is a literal rendering of the Aramaic Ephraim and this helps explain why the eastern Church identifies itself by this name. But that too is another argument for another time.

The important thing for us to do right now is to see that the original conversation which Irenaeus attributes as having taken place between Polycarp and Marcion undoubtedly took place in Aramaic. If Polycarp is deliberately literal rendering of Ephraim then Marcion is certainly a garbled back-formation of the Aramaic Marqione.

I have written about this almost every week of the existence of this post. Marcion's real name was Mark just as Polycarp was Ephraim.

I will take up this argument in more detail later but let's look again at Irenaeus' remembrance of that meeting in Rome allegedly between the two men saying that Polycarp:

was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou recognize me?" "I do recognize thee, the first-born of Satan."

The question of all questions of course (which never gets answered by other zcholars) is what was it that 'Marcion' to be recognized as?

Anyone can see that Marcion is asking to have his authority 'recognized' but if that was all that was work here Polycarp's response would have been a simple 'no.' The fact that Irenaeus emphasizes Marcion as the FIRSTBORN of Satan has to be factored into any discussion.

The firstborn of Satan is of course the serpent - in Hebrew na'as. Now if we just assume that Polycarp picked the 'firstborn of Satan' reference out of nowhere we have Marcion asking to have his authority recognized and then Polycarp says I recognize you as a snake.

There is something missing here. The conversation doesn't seem to develop naturally.

It is worth noting that Marcion only makes an appearance in Irenaeus' writings AFTER the appearance of a heretic named 'Mark.' Marcus takes up the largest part of any heretic in the original contents of Book One of Against the Heresies. It is well established that Against the Heresies developed organically over the reign of the Emperor Commodus. Book One originally did not contain the stuff that fills up chapters 22 to the conclusion. This is where 'Marcion' now appears and it was added later.

When Irenaeus begins to employ the name 'Marcion' by Book Two of Against the Heresies he stops taking about the heretic 'Mark' or better yet speaks about him in the past tense (i.e. as something or someone he referred to in Book One). Irenaeus never adds a word about the belief of the heretical community devoted to Mark but interestingly Hippolytus while recycling the original material in Book One of Irenaeus' compendium has to acknowledge that not only was the heretical community devoted to Mark still alive and in the church but furious with Irenaeus for misrepresenting the beliefs of their community.

Who else can the 'followers of Mark' be other than the Alexandrian community of St. Mark of which Clement of Alexandria was a prominent member? I have cited the arguments for identifying Clement as a Marcosian but the truth is that a number of scholars have written on this subject long before me (I just didn't recognize it at the time).

The point now is that Irenaeus HAD TO SHIFT GEARS and stop bashing the 'heretics of Mark' because - as Hippolytus notes - there was a great backlash against the misrepresentations of the community in his original work. As such Irenaeus started using the term 'Marcion' to denote the same heresy - and more over - defining the community as those 'adherents of Mark' who denied the authority of Luke (i.e. the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles).

This is why Clement could ultimately be admitted into the Church. He accepted Luke and Acts but also continued to show a preference for Mark. Indeed Clement was more than happy to bash this phantasmal boogeyman 'Marcion' and slip in new bits of information which contradicted the orthodox account (i.e. that Marcion was converted in the apostolic age and was much older than Valentinus and Basilides.

Clement knew there was no Marcion but was thankful that his 'Mark' was being left intact in spite of Irenaeus' initial efforts. Hippolytus nevertheless can reference the situation that Mark really stood behind this 'Marcion':

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. [Hippolytus Refutation of ALL Heresies vii. 18]

The point is that while Hippolytus is clearly DENYING the claims of some that Marcion wrote the Gospel of Mark, it shouldn't be hard to figure out who it was that SUPPORTING these claims (i.e. the Marcionites themselves). As I have noted before Marqyone = 'those of Mark' in Aramaic; 'Marcion' was developed as a back formation in a parallel way to the manner in which 'Ebion' becomes the leader of the Eviyonim.

So getting back to the story about Marcion meeting with Polycarp in Rome I happen to think that the business about him being 'the firstborn of Satan' HAS TO BE a response to Marcion's pre-existent claim to being the firstborn or only-born of God. In other words, Marcion asks to be recognized as 'the firstborn Son' of God the Father and Polycarp says no, I only recognize you as the firstborn of Satan.

The confirmation for this view is what Irenaeus originally said about the heretic Mark long before citing this story about Polycarp. He said that Mark claimed to be the only-begotten of God [Irenaeus AH xiv.1] The whole concept of the 'only-born' is a Greek translation of the Hebrew yahid.

The Hebrew word yahid is used to Isaac's role as the only born of Abraham. Aquila translates the term as monogenes but the LXX employs agapetos. I have written extensively on the subject of the agape ritual which I think stems from the original Alexandrian interpretation of the Passion as a 'modern akedah' where Jesus was sacrificed as the ram and the beloved disciple - Mark - was released owing to voluntary sacrifice.

I have written an academic paper proving that the throne of St. Mark which the Venetians stole from Alexandria in 828 CE was the original Episcopal throne of the St. Mark's See. The Pope who sat in the chair representing the authority of St. Mark is depicted against a backdrop of a sacrificed ram. The suggestion is clearly presented that not only was St. Mark the original yahid but that all who followed him were so too.

All of this is interesting of course but a little distracting from the original point of this post.

Irenaeus identifies the encounter between 'Marcion' and Polycarp in Rome as occurring during the reign of Anicetus. The traditional dates for Anicetus are given as 150 to 167. Eusebius clearly says that a certain 'Celadion' was sitting on the throne of St. Mark during the reign of Anicetus' successor Soter. The tradition identifies a certain 'Markianus' as the ruler of Alexandrian Christianity during the Polycarp's encounter at Rome.

I find it terribly interesting that Marcianus might well have been the source for the whole caricature of the 'Marcionites.' Marcianus certainly means 'of Mark' or 'belonging to Mark.' It is not the only time that Marcianus appears in place of Marcion or indeed Markianoi and Markianistai appears in the place of Markionistai (Harnack Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, p. 31 sqq.)

I am not even sure that the person that Polycarp is alleged to have encountered in Rome was actually named 'Marcianus.' I would be just as convinced that Polycarp might have met Cerdo or any one of the Alexandrian Patriarchs who sat in the throne of St. Mark. The point is still the same.

Indeed look at the context again of that story of Polycarp refuting 'Marcion.' It is clearly placed in the context of apostolic authority. Let's quote the WHOLE SECTION in full:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou recognize me?" "I do recognize thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even 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." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles [Irenaeus AH iii.2.1 - 4]

Think of all the STUPID books that have been written on the subject of Marcion, the Marcionites, Polycarp OR THAT HAVE JUST MADE REFERENCE TO THIS PASSAGE FOR THAT MATTER. No one has so much as connected the question of authority that manifests itself in the back and forth between 'Marcion' and Polycarp with that of the rivalry THAT MUST HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA, THE SEE OF ST. MARK and Rome.

I find this so frustrating, my friends, it is sometimes difficult to contain myself. I am not asking my readers to accept the authority of the Alexandrian claims to primacy. I am just asking them to recognize that it puzzling that Irenaeus NEVER SO MUCH AS RECOGNIZE that the church of Alexandria EVEN EXISTS.

It is so bad my friends that scholars like J Harold Ellens deny that there was even an Alexandrian Church in this position with any connection to St. Mark owing to this lack of evidence.

All that I am trying to do is offer another explanation for why Irenaeus and Hippolytus and all the rest of the late second and third century Church Fathers avoid mentioning St. Mark and the Alexandrian See. There was a war on this faith ever since the original New Testament canon was stolen from them and used to build the emerging claim to the primacy of the Roman Church beginning in the Commodian period.

The original gospel, written by Mark but which never openly referenced Markan authorship - cf. it's title 'the Gospel of Jesus ...' etc was followed by the Epistle we call 'to the Corinthians,' 'to the Galatians,' 'to the Romans' and the rest. As I have noted here at length this original gospel resembled the Diatessaron used by Ephrem and the Epistle to the Corinthians was originally identified by the Marcionites as 'to the Alexandrians'

When you factor in the substitution of the four 'separated' gospels and the name change of 'to the Corinthians' we find ourselves already at the collection of writings reflected in the Muratorian canon.

Have to go, but I will deal with the specifics of the Marcionite gospel and its relation to Mark in a subsequent post. Have to watch 'The Other Side of the Mountain Part II.' The worst movie in history, I suspect ...