Toward the Origins of 'Marcion'

why did not Marcion touch them—either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. [Ideo et pseudapostoli, quod per falsum apostolos imitarentur] In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short, he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; [In quantum ergo emen- dasset quae fuissent emendanda, si fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse corrupta quae non putavit emendanda] though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt.[Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum] For if the (Gospels) of the apostles3611 have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. Si enim apostolica integre2 decucurrerunt, Lucae autem, quod est secundum nos, adeo congruit regulae eorum ut cum illis apud ecclesias maneat, iam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Denique ubi manus illi Marcion intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est apostolicis.

However, as the subject of our symposium is rhetoric, which is mainly opposed to any non-Atticizing tendency, let us now turn towards genuine Byzantine orators and begin with Nikephoros Basilakes, whose vocabulary shows features of a rather bombastic speech and who boasted of his special style, το βασιλακίζειν. Similar derivatives of personal names, normally not coined by their bearers themselves, do point to adherents or imitators of philosophers (Aριστοτ∊λίζω, Πλατωνίζω), of political or religious leaders (Aλ∊ξανδρίζω, Bαρλααμίζω, Bογομιλίζω, Παλαμίζω), but also of writers (Διωνίζω, Φιλωνίζω ['to imitate Dio Chrysostom', 'imitate Philo']).