Again according to Origen Celsus knows two groups, “Marcellians from Marcellina and Harpocratians from Salome” (Μαρκελλιανοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκελλίνας καὶ Ἁρποκρατιανοὺς ἀπὸ Σαλώμης, 5.62; Borret 1967–1976: 3.168). Origen also tells us that Celsus references other groups - i.e. "others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects" - and then adds as a kind of afterthought that Celsus "makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion (καὶ Μαρκιωνιστῶν, προϊσταμένων Μαρκίωνα).
The reason I find this so critical is that is clear that Origen has at least in the case of this reference to the Marcionites added the information that their 'leader was Marcion.' But what about the 'Marcionites' themselves? Did Celsus actually include mention of the Μαρκιωνιστῶν? Most commentators think that Celsus did reference the Marcionites. However it is equally clear that whenever Origen references 'anti-Marcionite' arguments in the True Account, Celsus never identifies the views as 'Marcionite' or belonging to a sect associated with Marcion ( ). Celsus applies them instead to Christian sectarians who are not of the 'great Church.'
Why does all of this matter? Because many people - including the author of this Wikipedia article on the Marcellians - have noticed that the Marcionites and the Marcellians bear striking similarities, most notably that their leaders came to Rome during the reign of Pope Anicetus. I have always noticed that both 'Marcion' and 'Marcellina' are diminutives of the Latin name Marcus. But let's hold on right there and take a second look at the entire original reference from Origen again:
He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the “power” of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.The important thing to see here is that there are only two references in the passage and they clearly must have appeared back to back in the original text of the True Word.
Origen says that "he next pours down upon us a heap of names" (εἶτα σωρὸν καταχέων ἡμῶν ὀνομάτων) the Greek implying that the names are thrown down without much in the way of explanation which is then followed by:
εἰδέναι τινὰς καὶ Σιμωνιανούς, οἳ τὴν Ἑλένην ἤτοι διδάσκαλον Ἕλενον σέβοντες Ἑλενιανοὶ λέγονταιIf the reader looks carefully he will see that the 'Simonians' are never explained by Celsus as being of a certain 'Simon.' It is Origen who does this for the reader. Similarly in the bit about the 'Marcellians' and the 'Carpocratians':
Κέλσος μὲν οὖν οἶδε καὶ Μαρκελλιανοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκελλίνας καὶ Ἁρποκρατιανοὺς ἀπὸ Σαλώμης καὶ ἄλλους ἀπὸ Μαριάμμης καὶ ἄλλους ἀπὸ ΜάρθαςMy guess is that it is Origen who fills in the detail that the Marcellians are 'of Marcellina.' The original text in Celsus undoubtedly was patterned after the Simonian reference - i.e. that there were "Marcellians and Harpocratians from Salome." Just look again at the reference to the Simonians and notice that the name of the original group is never mentioned.
I am now starting to suspect that this little bit of information might help explain why the careers of 'Marcion' and 'Marcellina' appear so similar. If the term Μαρκελλιανοὺς was just 'heaped' on the reader, one can imagine a situation where the editor of the Hypomnemata of Josephus (= Hegesippus) added a long section to the original chronicle which ended in 147 CE about a woman named 'Marcellina' appearing in Rome during the reign of Anicetus. For Μαρκελλιανοὺς could be associated with a person holding the masculine or feminine form of the Latin diminitive of the name Marcus. In other words, the group could have been 'of Marcellus' no less than 'Marcella' or 'Marcellina.'
Indeed in the fourth century canons against heresies we find the same collective plural apply to a group developed around a certain 'Marcellus of Ancyra.' The Council of Constantiniple imposed a special anathema on "
It is also worth repeating that the so-called 'Acts of Archelaus' surivive only in a garbled Latin translation. Yet Jerome tells us the text was originally written in Syriac and subsequently translated into Greek before our present Latin text. The document derives from the Marcionite epicenter of Osrhoene (cf. Walter Bauer) and references a 'Marcellus' of great renown, who lived in a previous age and established a network of churches across the world and whose spirit is still active in the church of Harran (and indeed whose 'house' is the church itself). This is how the Latin text references the name but the Greek ancestor had to have read 'Marcion.' What was in the Syriac original is anyone's guess.
Yet I am starting to think that we have at long last managed to disentangle the origin of 'Marcellina' and 'Marcion' preaching in Rome at the same time and the subsequent garbling of the original reference to 'Harpocratians' into 'Carpocratians' and ultimately a leader of that group called 'Carpocrates' (although not by Origen but Irenaeus or perhaps the editor of the Hypomnemata if he wasn't Irenaeus) The same thing must have happened to the name 'Marcellians.' The original reference was to a group associated with a certain 'Marcellus' not 'Marcellina.' Origen was just following the lead put forward by Irenaeus.
Of course all of this begs the question was Celsus's original work written in Latin? Could the long wait explain why Origen only responded to the text some seventy years after its original publication - i.e. it took that long to appear in a Greek translation? Just a thought ....
