Μάρκος δέ τις, ἀφ' οὗπερ οἱ Μαρκώσιοι καλούμενοι, ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενος καὶ ἕτερα παρὰ τούτους τολμήσας κακὰ τῷ κόσμῳ ἐξήμεσ · τούτους γὰρ διαδέχεται τοὺς περὶ Σεκοῦνδον καὶ Ἐπιφάνη καὶ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνον, εἰς περισσοτέραν δὲ ἀγυρτώδη συνάθροισιν ἐπήρθη. γύναια γὰρ καὶ ἄνδρας παρ' αὐτοῦ πεπλανημένα τε καὶ πεπλανημένους ἐπηγάγετο, ὑποληφθεὶς ὁ ἐλεεινὸς διορθωτὴς εἶναι τῶν προειρημένων ἀπατεώνων, μαγικῆς ὑπάρχων κυβείας ἐμπειρότατος. ἀπατήσας δὲ τοὺς προειρημένους πάντας καὶ τὰς προειρημένας προσέχειν αὐτῷ ὡς γνωστικωτάτῳ καὶ δύναμιν τὴν μεγίστην ἀπὸ τῶν ἀοράτων καὶ ἀκατονομάστων τόπων ἔχοντι, ὡς πρόδρομος ὢν ἀληθῶς τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου ἀποδέδεικται
One Marcus, from whom come those called Marcosians, was influenced by these others, but dared to teach something different than they did, and vomited evil into the world. He succeeded those of the school of Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy and Valentinus, but was inspired to gather a further crowd of tramps. For the wretch attracted female and male dupes of his own, and was supposed to be a corrector of the cheats we have mentioned since he was the most adept in magical trickery. But because he deceived all these men and women into regarding him as the most gnostic of all and possessed of the greatest power from the unseen, ineffable realms, he has truly been shown to be the forerunner of the Antichrist. [Epiphanius Panarion 34.1]
Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jew— the asp, as the adage runs, from the viper — and henceforth vomit forth the virulence of his own disposition, as when he alleges Christ to be a phantom. Except, indeed, that this opinion of his will be sure to have others to maintain it in his precocious and somewhat abortive Marcionites, whom the Apostle John designated as antichrists, when they denied that Christ had come in the flesh; not that they did this with the view of establishing the right of the other god (for on this point also they had been branded by the same apostle), but because they had started with assuming the incredibility of an incarnate God. Now, the more firmly the antichrist Marcion had seized this assumption, the more prepared was he, of course, to reject the bodily substance of Christ [Against Marcion Book 3.3]
there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. [Latin text of Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.13.1]
While I haven't been able to find a reference to 'vomiting' yet, the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism shares a number of features with Irenaeus's report on the Marcosians. Indeed some passages are almost verbatim (i.e. the pairing of Luke 12:50 with Mark 9:40). Yet most striking of all is this discussion of the coming of 'antichrists' (= false Christs) and their miracle working from the Anonymous Treatise:
those who, on account of false Christs, perchance have refused to believe, of whom the Lord says, Take heed that no man lead you into error. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall lead many into error. And again He says: Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or lo there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, even the very elect shall be deceived. And these miracles, without doubt, they shall then do under the name of Christ; in which name some even now appear to do certain miracles, and to prophesy falsely. But it is certain that those, because they are themselves not of Christ, therefore do not belong to Christ, in like manner as if one should depart from Christ, abiding only in His name, he would not be much advantaged; nay, rather, he is even burdened by that name, although he may have been previously very faithful, or very righteous, or honoured with some clerical office, or endowed with the dignity of confession. For all those, by denying the true Christ, and by introducing or following another— although there is no other at all— leave themselves no hope or salvation; not otherwise than they who have denied Christ before men, who must needs be denied by Christ; no consideration for them being made from their previous conversation, or feeling, or dignity, equally as they themselves have dared to do away with Christ, that is, their own salvation, they are condemned by the short sentence of this kind [Anonymous Treatise 12]
There can be no doubt that this is yet another parallel to the same original material shared by the beginning of Irenaeus's report on the Marcosians and the Justinian material related to Marcion cited by Tertullian in Book Three. The Anonymous Treatise also compares those who have another baptism with Anaxilaus (cf. what follows in Irenaeus).
It is worth comparing this last text to what purports to be a recycling of Irenaeus's original report on the Marcosians in Book Six of the Philosophumena. The reality is that a lot of material from Against Heresies does not appear here and - in turn - a lot of material not found in Against Heresies is preserved in the Philosophumena which actually quite resembles the Anonymous Treatise such as this note which takes an interest in 'fallen presbyters':
Such and other (tricks) this impostor attempted to perform. And so it was that he was magnified by his dupes, and sometimes he was supposed to utter predictions. But sometimes he tried to make others (prophesy), partly by demons carrying on these operations, and partly by practising sleight of hand, as we have previously stated. Hoodwinking therefore multitudes, he led on (into enormities) many (dupes) of this description who had become his disciples, by teaching them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin, but beyond the reach of danger, from the fact of their belonging to the perfect power, and of their being participators in the inconceivable potency. And subsequent to the (first) baptism, to these they promise another, which they call Redemption. And by this (other baptism) they wickedly subvert those that remain with them in expectation of redemption, as if persons, after they had once been baptized, could again obtain remission. Now, it is by means of such knavery as this that they seem to retain their hearers. And when they consider that these have been tested, and are able to keep (secret the mysteries) committed unto them, they then admit them to this (baptism). They, however, do not rest satisfied with this alone, but promise (their votaries) some other (boon) for the purpose of confirming them in hope, in order that they may be inseparable (adherents of their sect). For they utter something in an inexpressible (tone of) voice, after having laid hands on him who is receiving the redemption. And they allege that they could not easily declare (to another) what is thus spoken unless one were highly tested, or one were at the hour of death, (when) the bishop comes and whispers into the (expiring one's) ear. And this knavish device (is undertaken) for the purpose of securing the constant attendance upon the bishop of (Marcus') disciples, as individuals eagerly panting to learn what that may be which is spoken at the last, by (the knowledge of) which the learner will be advanced to the rank of those admitted into the higher mysteries. [Philosophumena 6.36]
Indeed in the chapter which follows, the author of the Philosophumena admits that Irenaeus's treatise was incomplete noting that the Church Father "having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices." [ibid 6.37]
How can it be argued that all this material is unrelated when a close examination demonstrates that it must go back to some common source associated with Alexandria?
The idea that the material about Marcion derives from a common source with the material regarding Marcus is strengthened by a number of considerations here. Not only are both Marcion and Marcus said to 'vomit' their evil in the world and this statement is made in connection with Marcus and the Marcionites connected with the figure of the 'Antichrist' but more importantly there is absolutely no doubt that Tertullian's Third Book Against Marcion is itself derived from a much earlier treatise associated with Justin Martyr (a common source for this text and another Tertullian work Against the Jews). Once the door is opened to an origin with the circle of Justin for both treatises the idea that the original source was written in Syriac or Aramaic (cf. AH 1.21 and its corrupt transmission of Aramaic prayer formulas) supports the idea that the confusion between 'the Marcosians' and 'Marcion' goes back to the term Marcioni:
Hebrew MRQ + YWN + IM = "those of Mark" Aramaic MRQ + YWN + I = "those of Mark" Pronunciation is Mar-qi-yo-ni-yim and Mar-qi-yo-ne
It should be also noted that in Tertullian's report it is emphasized that 'Marcion' denied Jesus was a human being where as 'Marcus' in Irenaeus presents himself as the Christ 'in place' of Jesus. But the ideas are ultimately rooted in the same notion.
