The Great Secret Behind the Alexandrian Tradition's Refusal to Use the Term Μαρκιωνισταί

I know a lot of my readers must wonder why I keep delving into the minutae with respect to the Marcionites.  The answer is that every scrap of information might provide a clue, might represent a path that we lead us to previously unknown understandings about the lost tradition.  In short - we simply don't know where each little bit of information might lead us. 

I find it very interesting that the term Μαρκιωνισταί - 'Marcionites' - is never used by Origen.  He only cites the term in his allusion to Celsus reference to an original reading in the Hypomnemata ascribed by Eusebius to Hegesippus.  Yet the term there was originally Μαρκιανισταί or 'those of Mark.'  It is Origen who obscures the original meaning, not Celsus, Origen saying that Celsus "makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion."

As we have noted before the term Μαρκιανισταί is also used by Justin.  But starting with those who organized and compiled Irenaeus's writings in the third century, the term Μαρκιωνισταί is used to describe a heresy associated with Marcion not Mark.  In the Martyrdom of Polycarp for instance we read:

λέγει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο· ὅτι συναντήσαντός ποτε τῷ ἁγίῳ Πολυκάρπῳ Μαρκίωνος, ἀφ ̓ οὗ οἱ λεγόμενοι Μαρκιωνισταί, καὶ εἰπόντος· Ἐπιγίνωσκε ἡμᾶς, Πολύκαρπε, εἶπεν αὐτὸς τῷ Μαρκίωνι· Ἐπιγινώσω, επιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ σατανᾶ

He [Polycarp] mentions this fact also, that when Marcion, after whom the Marcionites are called, met the holy Polycarp on one occasion, and said 'Recognize us, Polycarp,' he said in reply to Marcion, 'Yes indeed, I recognize the firstborn of Satan. [Martyrdom of Polycarp Moscow Manuscript 23.4] 

It is unfortunate seems unfortunate that all surviving references to 'Marcionites' in Irenaeus are now preserved in Latin.  But then we notice another funny thing.  Even these Latin references almost never reference the related term Marcionitae that appears throughout Tertullian's anti-Marcionite writings.  Only one reference to Marcionitae appears in the hundreds of pages of Irenaeus's Against Heresies in iv.2.2:

Again, our Lord Jesus Christ confesses this same Being as His Father, where He says: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth."  What Father will those men have us to understand [by these words], those who are most perverse sophists of Pandora? Whether shall it be Bythus, whom they have fabled of themselves; or their Mother; or the Only-begotten? Or shall it be he whom the Marcionitae or the others have invented as god (whom I indeed have amply demonstrated to be no god at all); or shall it be (what is really the case) the Maker of heaven and earth, whom also the prophets proclaimed,--whom Christ, too, confesses as His Father,--whom also the law announces, saying: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord thy God is one God?"

In fact this reference is something of anomaly in Irenaeus when we compare it to the consistent use of 'those of Marcion' (eos qui sunt a Marcione) in the rest of Against Heresies (AH ii.1.4, ii.31.1, iii.4.3, iii.12.12, iii.14.4, iv.8.1, iv.13.1, iv.34.1).  AH v.26.1 makes reference to 'disciples of Marcion' or quemadmodum qui a Marcion sunt but the point remains the same.

The question which stands before us now is what can we make of Irenaeus's sole mention of Marcionitae?  Irenaeus certainly did not write the material that became Against Heresies in Latin.  So the translator has clearly reading something in a Greek or Syriac manuscript that led him to write eos qui sunt a Marcione in Latin in those eight instances and something else that became the Marcionitae reference.  I would argue that the Latin Marcionitae is derived from an original reference which read Μαρκιανισταί or 'those of Mark.'  The reason I say Μαρκιανισταί instead of Μαρκιωνισταί (or 'Marcionites') is because of there is clearly a sense in the reference that Irenaeus is referring back to something he has said before and Irenaeus never once explains the Marcionite interpretation of this or any other gospel passage.

So it is that we see that when Irenaeus cites Matthew 11:25/Luke 10:21 it is in the familiar orthdoox reading -"I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth."  The reality is however that there were a great number of variant readings for this passage aside from the heretics.  Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.25 reads "Gratias, enim inquit, ago et confiteor, domine caeli, quod ..." or 'I thank you, and affirm You, Lord of heaven ..'  Clement of Alexandria as we shall demonstrate undoubtedly also had a similar reading but either avoids making specific reference to it or it was 'corrected' by later scribes.

Yet interestingly Irenaeus only attacks the Marcosian interpretation of this passage and not only connects it to the invention of another gospel beside the Creator but also cites the orthodox form of the saying to help bolster his case against the heresies:

But they adduce the following passage as the highest testimony, and, as it were, the very crown of their system:--"I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Even so, my Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, or the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." In these words they affirm that He clearly showed that the Father of truth, conjured into existence by them, was known to no one before His advent. And they desire to construe the passage as if teaching that the Maker and Framer [of the world] was always known by all, while the Lord spoke these words concerning the Father unknown to all, whom they now proclaim. [AH 20.3]

There can be no doubt that this is passage that Irenaeus was alluding to AH 4.2.2 and this necessarily means that the Latin Marcionistae is actually derived from Μαρκιανισταί - 'those of Mark' rather than Μαρκιωνισταί 'those of Marcion.' 

Why is this significant?  This follows a very clear pattern which seems to indicate that the term 'Marcionites' developed from Μαρκιανισταί.  It is interesting that nowhere in the surviving Greek text of Irenaeus does the original form of 'Marcosians' survive.  Instead Epiphanius provides us with Μαρκώσιοι on his own.

I think we can finally see once again why Gregory of Nazianzus understood that the Marcionites and the Marcosians were one and the same sect.  They both go back to an original heretical understanding of a gospel associated with Mark which contained many of the references from Matthew and Luke.  Irenaeus interestingly says that the gospel of Mark in his day contained this periscope. [AH 4.6.1]  All of this helps explain why Clement is so reluctant to cite the 'Lord of heaven' reading which must have appeared in his Alexandrian copies of the gospel of Mark.  Just take a look at the way he introduces this saying.  It reinforces the exact 'heresy' (i.e. that no one knew the Chrsitian god until Jesus):

'Of late, then, God was known by the coming of Christ,' [Instructor 1.6 (twice), 1.8, 1.9]

'And He first announced the good righteousness that is from heaven, when He said ...,' [Instructor 1.28]

'It is He [Christ] who reveals the Father of the universe to whom He wills, and as far as human nature can comprehend,' [Strom. 5.13, 7.10, 7.18, Dives 7.]

Indeed as I have noted before almost every time he cites the text he reflects some aspect of Irenaeus ascription of 'heresy' to the 'Marcosians' (cf. Exhort 1.1, Instructor 1.5).  Notice also that Irenaeus emphasizes that this saying is the absolute favorite of the 'followers of Mark.'  This is by far the most frequent gospel narrative cited in the writings of Clement who has been demonstrated by Schaff to cite verbatim Marcosian documents cited in Irenaeus. 

At some point the world will recognize that all of this points to the Alexandrian St. Mark being Mark the heretic in Irenaeus.  Until then we will have to settle for just acknowledging that Marcus and Marcion were one and the same.