The Jesus Memoirs

I am going to resume regular blogging in January or February, but I wanted to note that I am co-chairing the SBL section on “Paul and Pauline Literature.” The call for papers for the international conference will be opened on December 5 and will close on January 15, so here are the sessions that I am running for the conference:

In consultation with the “Apostolic Fathers and Related Christian Literature” and “Biblical Interpretation in Early Christianity” units, the first session looks for papers on the question of whether there was Christian literature that was arguably composed before the circulation of Marcion’s Apostolikon that exhibits demonstrable literary dependence on select Pauline letters. Proposals need to consider both the range of dates assigned to a specific Christian text, particularly whether it is most plausibly dated before the date of Marcion’s literary activity, and the evidence for an intertextual relationship between that text and select letters in the Pauline corpus.

The second session invites papers that will reopen the debate over the reasons for the similarities and differences between the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts. One question is whether the portrayal of Paul in the book of Acts has been shaped by the author’s possible access to particular epistles from Paul or to an early collection of Pauline epistles, or if the author drew on personal memories or oral traditions about Paul. Another question is whether the portrayal of Paul in the book of Acts is more aligned with certain academic reconstructions of Paul’s theology, such as the “Paul within Judaism” perspective, than with others.

The final session is an open one. Any papers examining exegetical issues within the Pauline Epistles, or discussing different methodological approaches to them, are welcome.

If you are interested in these topics, I hope that you will send a paper abstract or will check out the sessions if you happen to be in Adelaide in July. I will return to my blog series on the ancient testimonies about Marcion at some point in the new year.

I have not yet discussed Tertullian and Epiphanius, our major sources for reconstructing Marcion’s edition of Paul’s letters and Gospel, on the blog. Since they wrote much more material on Marcion and the critical English translations of Tertullian’s Against Marcion (see also his Prescription Against the Heretics) and Epiphanius’s Panarion have been posted online, I will not reproduce everything that they wrote. Instead, I will focus on their key comments about Marcion’s biography and theology. I will also try to produce a rough list of potential references to Marcion’s Gospel that they note, but this list will just be a general overview rather than an in-depth comparison between the wording of the Patristic writers and their sources. I doubt that I will ever publish my own critical reconstruction of Marcion’s “canon,” but I would of course want to do close work in the original languages and engage the most important scholarly reconstructions (see my bibliography here) if commenting on specific passages in the Gospel or Pauline epistles in Marcion’s possession and what bearing they have on the debate over whether Marcion edited these texts or not. I will return to this series sometime in January after enjoying a nice Christmas holiday with my family.

I have noted the fourth-century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea’s citations of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyon comments about Marcion in the previous posts. Eusebius also quotes from the five books of Hegesippus’s Memoirs, which included the “Marcionites” in his list of heretics in Ecclesiastical History 4.19.6. No further information is given about Marcion, so I will not quote it, but it is worth listing Hegesippus (identified by Eusebius as a Jewish Christian) as another hostile second-century witness to Marcion’s movement. Eusebius identifies other second-century bishops who were critical of Marcion’s theology, such as Dionysius of Corinth (4.23.4), Theophilus of Antioch (4.24.3), Philip of Gortyna (4.25.1), and Irenaeus of Lyons (4.25.1; 5.8.9). He notes others who wrote against Marcion or his followers, such as Modestus (4.25.1), Bardaisan (4.30.1), Rhodo (5.13.1), and Hippolytus (6.22.1).

The final summary about Marcion (transliterated Markion) in the anonymously authored Refutation of all Heresies is in 10.19 and the English translation is reproduced below:

“Markion of Pontus and Kerdon his teacher also determined that there are three principles of everything: a good being, a just one, and matter. Some of these disciples add a fourth principle, speaking of a good being, a just one, an evil one, and matter. Yet all of them claim that the good principle made nothing at all. It was the just principle – whom some call evil and others simply just – whom they claim created everything from underlying matter. He made it not skillfully but irrationally, for it is necessary that generated beings resemble their maker. Consequently, they use the Gospel parables (for instance, ‘it is not possible for a good tree to bear bad fruit,’ and so on), claiming that these verses were written in refernece to the things Markion perversely assumes. Christ is son of the Good and was sent by him for the salvation of souls. He calls him ‘the inner human,’ claiming that he appeared as a human but was not human, that he appeared as enfleshed but was not enfleshed – that he manifested himself in appearance, enduring both birth and his suffering only in appearance. He denies the resurrection of the flesh. He says that marriage is corruption. He leads his disciples into a Cynic-like lifestyle. By this means, Markion supposes he can grieve the Artificer by abstaining from his products and ordinances.”

• M. David Litwa, Refutation of All Heresies: Translation with an Introduction and Notes by M. David Litwa (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 729, 731.

This translation can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online. Litwa also notes that he had not produced a critical edition of the Greek text, but points out that the single manuscript on which books 4-10 is based is available online.

After discussing one of the followers of Marcion [transliterated here as Markion] named Prepon, the author of the Refutation of all Heresies returns to Marcion’s Christology in this excerpt from 7.31.5-7:

“Closely adhering to these doctrines, Markion entirely rejected the birth of our Savior, supposing it absurd that the Word that strives together with Love (that is, with the Good) be born in subjection to the bodily formation of destructive Strife. Rather, without birth ‘in the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar,’ The Word – a being between good and evil – descended from above and taught in the synagogues. Since the Word is an intermediate between good and evil, he says, he is freed from all evil nature. Yet the Artificer is evil, Markion claims, along with his products. For this reason, Jesus came down unborn, he says, to be free from all evil. But he was also free, he says, of the good nature so as to be in between, as Paul declares, and as Jesus himself agrees: ‘Why do you call me good? One is good.’ These are the views of Markion, by which he deceived many. By using the theories of Empedokles and by adapting the philosophy invented by that man to his own theory, he concocted a godless heresy.”

• M. David Litwa, Refutation of All Heresies: Translation with an Introduction and Notes by M. David Litwa (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 561, 563.

This translation can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online. Litwa also notes that he had not produced a critical edition of the Greek text, but points out that the single manuscript on which books 4-10 is based is available online.

Hippolytus is commonly identified as the author of Refutation of All Heresies, but this attribution is debated, so I will just refer to this early third-century Roman writer using M. David Litwa’s label “Refutator.” I will omit the Refutator’s case for how Marcion was allegedly influenced by the Greek philosopher Empedocles, which is part of the larger argument that every heresy was based on Greek philosophy, and note the information that this author provides about Marcion. The first quote is from 7.29.1 and 7.30.1-2 (note that Litwa uses the transliterated name Markion instead of Marcion):

“Markion of Pontus was much more insane than these men. After dismissing the majority views, he rushed on to what is more shameful. He positive two principles in the universe: one good and another evil. Supposing he snuck in something new, Markion established a school, bristling with rebellion and the Cynic (‘dog-like’) way of life (since he was so belligerent)… So when Markion or one of his dogs barks against the Artificer, proffering arguments from his Antithesis between Good and Evil, one must say to them that neither Paul the apostle, nor Mark the Maimed-Fingered announced these teachings – for not one is written in Mark’s Gospel. Their source, rather, is Empedokles son of Meton from the city of Akragas. Despoiling him, Markion concealed up until the present time the fact that he purloined the structure of his entire heresy from Sicily and transferred it word for word to the Gospel accounts. Come now, Markion, just as you have constructed an antithesis between good and evil, so today I will make my own antithesis, closely attending to your purloined dogmas! You say that the Artificer of this world is evil. Do you not then veil the theories of Empedokles as you instruct the church? You call the God who destroys the products of the Artificer ‘good.’ Do you not openly proclaim to your pupils the gospel of Empedokles’s Love parading as ‘the good God’? ‘You prevent marriage’ and childbearing, and you tell people ‘to abstain from eating foods that God created for believers and those who know the truth.’ Do you then conceal the fact that you teach the Purifications of Empedokles? You truly follow Empedokles in every respect when you teach your disciples to abstain from food so as not to eat a corpse, the remains of a soul punished by the Artificer. Following the doctrines of Empedokles, you dissolve marriages joined by God so that the work of Love might be preserved for you one and undivided. (For marriage, according to Empedokles, divides the one and makes many, as I have shown).”

• M. David Litwa, Refutation of All Heresies: Translation with an Introduction and Notes by M. David Litwa (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 539, 541, 557, 559.

This translation can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online. Litwa also notes that he had not produced a critical edition of the Greek text, but points out that the single manuscript on which books 4-10 is based is available online.

Thanks to Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.6.2 and 5.26.3), we know that Justin Martyr wrote a lost treatise against Marcion. I will provide the quote from 4.6.2, because the original Greek is also partly quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 4.18.9:

“Justin well said in his book Against Marcion, ‘I should not have believed the Lord himself had he proclaimed a God other than the Creator.’ But since from the one God, who made this world and formed us and contains and administers everything, the only Son came to us, recapitulating in himself what he had formed, my faith is firm in him and my love unshakeable toward the Father, since the Lord provides us with both faith and love.”

• Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (The Early Church Fathers; London: Routledge, 1997), 145.

“Well does Justin say in his book Against Marcion: ‘I would not have believed the Lord himself, if he had announced any other than our Maker and Creator and Nourisher. But since the Only-begotten Son came to us from the one God who made this world and fashioned us, and contains and administers all things – thus recapitulating in himself his own handiwork – my faith towards him is firm, and my love toward the Father is unchangeable, since God grants us both.”

• Dominic Unger and Scott D. Moringiello, St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies (Books 4 & 5) (New York: Newman, 20024), 23.

“… for Irenaeus quotes his works, doing so in the fourth book Against Heresies in these very words: ‘And well does Justin say in his treatise against Marcion that he would not have believed the Lord himself had he preached a God other than the Creator.”

• Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Volume 1: Books 1-5 (Loeb Classical Library 153; London: Harvard University Press, 1926), 373.

“Many works of his are extant and were quoted also by earlier writers. In Book 4 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes: ‘Justin said it well in his treatise against Marcion that he would not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another god than the Creator.”

• Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 156.

“Consequently, Irenaeus calls his words to mind, adding these very words in the fourth book of Against Heresies: ‘And Justin says it well in his composition against Marcion, that he would not be convinced by the Lord himself if he spoke of another god besides the demiurge.'”

• Jeremy Schott, The History of the Church: A New Translation (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), 205.

I also will not cover other references to Marcion in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies, which provide refutations of his teachings but do not give more information about him. In 4.13.1, Irenaeus argues that the antitheses in Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., “you have heard it said… but I say to you”) do not support the view of Marcion’s followers that Jesus opposed or abrogated Moses’s commands, 4.33.2 challenges Marcion’s belief in two gods and denial that Jesus was born and raised in the flesh, and 5.26.2 condemns the followers of Marcion for blaspheming the Creator in rejecting the words of the prophets.

The literary context of the next quote about Marcion in Against Heresies 3.4.3 is that Irenaeus was trying to show how “heretical” teachers (e.g., Valentinus, Cerdo, and Simon) were succeeding by “heretical” followers (e.g., Valentinians, Marcion, Menander and other “Gnostics”). Here is Irenaeus’s information about Marcion, which also dates Cerdo to the time of the Roman bishop Hyginus (ca. 138-142 CE) and Marcion to the time of the Roman bishop Anicetus (ca. 157-168 CE):

“Cerdo, who was before Marcion, also lived under Hyginus, who was the eighth bishop. Though he often came into the church and did penance, he finished thus: sometimes teaching in secret, sometimes doing penance, finally convicted for what he wrongly taught and removed from the community of the brothers. Marcion, who succeeded him, flourished under Anicetus, the tenth to hold the episcopate…”

• Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyon (The Early Church Fathers; London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 127-28

“Cerdon, too, who was prior to Marcion, lived under Hyginus, the eighth bishop. He came in the Church and made a confession, but continues on in this wise: sometimes he taught in secret, then again made a confession. Finally he was exposed concerning what he was teaching falsely, and he apostatized from the assembly of the brothers. Marcion, who succeeded him, flourished under Anicetus, who was the tenth bishop…”

• Dominic J. Unger and M. C. Steenburg, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against The Heresies: Book 3 (Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Newman, 2012), 35-36

These translations can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online.

The fourth-century historian Eusebius primarily depended on Irenaeus for his information about the “heretics” in Ecclesiastical History 4.7.1-15 and 4.11.1-10, though he quotes both Justin and Irenaeus when discussing Marcion. Here is Eusebius’s citations from Against Heresies 3.4.3 in Ecclesiastical History 4.11.1:

“Cerdo, who before the time of Marcion, in the days of Hyginus, the ninth bishop, had come to the church and confessed, went on in the same way, sometimes teaching heresy, sometimes confessing again, and sometimes convicted by his evil teaching and separated from the assembly of the brethren.’ This he says in the third book against the heresies.”

• Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Volume 1: Books 1-5 (Loeb Classical Library 153; London: Harvard University Press, 1926), 327.

“‘Cerdo, before Marcion’s time, in the days of the ninth bishop, Hyginus, also joined the Roman church and confessed his faith. But then he went on in this way: sometimes he taught in secret, sometimes publicly, and another time he was convicted of false teaching and expelled from the Christian community.’ This comes from Book 3 of Against Heresies.”

• Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 142.

“‘Cerdon, who preceded Marcion, came into the church and made confession during the time of Hyginus, who was ninth bishop, and went on, teaching in secret for a time, then making confession once again, before he was then accused for the wicked things he taught and separated from the assembly of brothers.’ He says this in the third book of Against Heresies.”

• Jeremy Schott, The History of the Church: A New Translation (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), 186.

These translations can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online.

In Against Heresies 3.3.4, Irenaeus is vouching for his teacher Polycarp, the former bishop of Smyrna, as a more reliable witness of what was taught by the apostles than Valentinus, Marcion, and other “heretics.” He mentions some anecdotes about Polycarp’s time in Rome when Anicetus was the bishop (ca. 157-168 CE), about Polycarp’s predecessor John “the Lord’s disciple” and his enemy Cerinthus, and about Polycarp’s interaction with Marcion. He writes about the last encounter as follows:

“And when Polycarp himself once met Marcion, who ran to him and said, ‘Recognize us,’ he answered, ‘I do recognize you, firstborn of Satan.'”

• Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyon (The Early Church Fathers; London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 126.

“Polycarp himself, when Marcion met him on one occasion and said, ‘Recognize us!’ gave this reply: ‘I do recognize you as the firstborn of Satan.'”

• Dominic J. Unger and M. C. Steenburg, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against The Heresies: Book 3 (Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Newman, 2012), 34.

These translations can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online.

Eusebius also quotes this tradition in Ecclesiastical History 4.14.2:

“And Polycarp himself when Marcion once met him and said, ‘Recognize us,’ answered, ‘I do, I recognize the first-born of Satan.'”

• Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Volume 1: Books 1-5 (Loeb Classical Library 153; London: Harvard University Press, 1926), 339

“Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him and asked, ‘Don’t you recognize me?’ replied, ‘I do indeed: I recognize the firstborn of Satan!'”

• Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 146

“And once, when Marcion came into sight and said, ‘Recognize us?’ the same Polycarp replied, ‘I recognize you! I recognize the first-born of Satan.'”

• Jeremy Schott, The History of the Church: A New Translation (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), 191

These translations can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online.

The previous post presented Irenaeus’s summary of Marcion’s theology. The quote from Against Heresies 1.27.4 that follows it and will be reproduced here singles out Marcion as a greater threat than other “heretics” and Irenaeus’s beliefs about the ultimate origin of “heresy”:

“But since this Marcion is the only one who openly dared to circumcise the scriptures and attack God more shamelessly than all others, we shall write against him separately, refuting him, with God’s help, from his writings and from those words of the Lord and the Apostle which he respected and uses. For now we have to mention him so that you may know that all who in any way adulterate the truth and harm the church’s preaching are disciples and successors of Simon the Samaritan magician…”

• Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyon (The Early Church Fathers; London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 96

“Now, since this man alone was openly so bold as to mutilate the Scriptures and to calumniate God more impudently than all others, we will answer him separately and expose him by his own writings, and also from the discourses of the Lord and the apostles and the apostles which he himself kept and used, and thus with God’s grace we shall overthrow him. We have necessarily made mention of him at present that you might know that all those who in any way adulterate the truth and do injury to the preaching of the Church are the disciples and successors of Simon, the magician of Samaria…”

• Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against The Heresies: Book 1 (Ancient Christian Writers; New York: Newman, 2012), 92

This translation can be compared with the translation that is in the public domain and accessible online.