Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber/Editor
Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg)
Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

250
 Sebastian Moll

The Arch-Heretic
Marcion

Mohr Siebeck
S M, born 1980; 2009 Ph. D., University of Edinburgh; Since 2008 Wissen-
schaftlicher Mitarbeiter at the Theological Faculty of the University of Mainz, Germany.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151539-2

ISBN 978-3-16-150268-2
ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)
Die Deutsche Nationalibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;
detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2010 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to repro-
duction, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was typeset by epline in Kirchheim/Teck using Minion typeface, printed by Gulde-
Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Otters-
weier.
Franz Fröhlke, meinem Lehrer
 It is better to fail in originality
than to succeed in imitation.
Herman Melville

Preface

Meet Marcion – this was more than just a title for my Master’s dissertation, it
was the beginning of a most intriguing project. Not many people were willing
to take me seriously when I proposed to present my dissertation in the form of
a theatrical play which showed a (fictional) meeting between Marcion and his
most ardent adversary Tertullian. However, not only was I awarded the title of
‘Master of Theology’ in the end; we even managed to perform the play at seve-
ral occasions, including the unforgettable performance at the XV International
Conference on Patristics Studies at Oxford 2007, featuring the incomparable
Marty Lunde and Paul Parvis as Marcion and Tertullian. The actors may have
gone off stage, but the wish to actually meet Marcion stayed alive and found its
(preliminary) end with this doctoral thesis.
Terms such as ‘thankfulness’ or ‘indebtedness’ are so stereotyped in a con-
text like this that they cannot adequately describe the nature of the relation to
my supervisor Dr Sara Parvis and her husband Paul. Both of them have sup-
ported me (and my occasional extravagance) from my first day here at the
University of Edinburgh, and it is certainly no exaggeration to say that without
them I would not be where I am today. Moreover, it was a great honour and
pleasure to work side-by-side with Dieter Roth, whose friendship as well as
expertise have been invaluable to me. I am also most grateful to Professor
Timothy Barnes, whose critical review contributed largely to the final version
of this thesis. However, I would also like to express my gratitude to my tea-
chers on the continent, prior to my time in Edinburgh, in particular Professor
Eric Junod of the Université de Lausanne, whose combination of German effi-
ciency and French charm made him a truly inspiring example.
Another big word of thanks is due to the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Vol-
kes as well as to the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the School of
Divinity at Edinburgh University for both their material and non-material sup-
port throughout my entire studies.
Finally, it is a great privilege to see my thesis published in the prestigious
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, a privilege which I
owe to Dr Henning Ziebritzki and Professor Jörg Frey.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo.

Mainz, October 2009 Sebastian Moll

 Contents

Abbreviations of Patristic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Robert Smith Wilson, Marcion: A Study of a Second-Century Heretic,
1932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Edwin Cyrill Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, 1948 . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Barbara Aland, „Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation“, 1973 . . 6
4. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, 1984 . . . 6
5. Gerhard May (ed.), Marcion and his Impact on Church History, 2002 . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I. Problems of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Polycarp’s Second Letter to the Philippians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. The Elder in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. The Carmen adversus Marcionitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

II. Marcion’s Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Where and when was Marcion born? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2. Was Marcion raised a Christian? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. What did Marcion’s education and professional career look like? . . . . . 28
4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5. What was Marcion’s relation to Cerdo? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6. How and when did Marcion actually break with the Church? . . . . . . . . 43
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
X Contents

III. Marcion’s Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1. The Evil God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.1 The Development of Marcionite Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.2 The Evil God as the God of the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2. The Good God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.1 The Testimony of the Gospel (according to Luke) . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.2 The Testimony of Paul. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3. Parallels to Gnosticism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.1 Traits which link Marcion to the Gnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2 Traits which separate Marcion from the Gnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

IV. Marcion’s Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

1. The Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

1.1 Marcion’s Literalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2. The New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.1 The Conspiracy Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.2 The Corpus Paulinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.2.1 Marcion’s Use of Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.2.2 The Content of Marcion’s Apostolikon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.3 The Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3. Marcion’s Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

V. Marcion’s Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

1. The Antitheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2. The Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3. Marcionite Psalms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4. The so-called ‘Pro-Evangelium’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

VI. Marcion’s Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

1. The Structure of Marcion’s Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
1.1 Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
1.2 Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 Contents XI

2. Marcion’s Position within his Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

3. The Members of Marcion’s Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.1 Membership Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.2 Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

VII. Marcion’s Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

1. The Old Testament before Marcion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
1.1 The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 120–140) . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
1.2 The Letter of Barnabas (ca. 130–138) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2. The Old Testament after Marcion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.1 Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora (ca. 150) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.2 Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (ca. 160) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2.3 Apelles’ Syllogisms (ca. 160–170) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
1. Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2. Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
 Abbreviations of Patristic Sources

Adam. Dial. Adamantius Dialogue

Adv. Herm. Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem
Adv. Marc. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem
Adv. haer. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses
Adv. omn. haer. Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus Omnes Haereses
Apol. Justin Martyr, Apologia
Bapt. Augustinus, De Baptismo
Barn. Letter of Barnabas
Carm. adv. Marc. Carmen adversus Marcionitas
Carn. Tertullian, De Carne Christi
Cat. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad Illuminandos
1Cle First Letter of Clement
Comm. Os. Hieronymus, Commentarii in Osee
Comm. Rom. Origenes, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos
Cypr. ep. Cyprian, Epistulae
De bapt. Tertullian, De Baptismo
De ieiun. Tertullian, De Ieiunio adversus Psychicos
De mart. Eusebius of Caesarea, De Martyribus Palaestinae
De mens. Epiphanius, De Mensuris et Ponderibus
De praescr. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum
De princ. Origenes, De Principiis
Dial. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho
Div. her. Filastrius, Diversarum Hereseon Liber
Haer. fab. com. Theodoret of Cyrus, Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium
Hier. ep. Hieronymus, Epistulae
Hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Hom. Ezec. Origenes, Homiliae in Ezechielem
Hom. Ies. Origenes, Homiliae in Iesu Nave
Hom. Lc. Origenes, Homiliae in Lucam
Hymn. c. haer. Ephraem Syrus, Hymni contra Haereses
Mart. Pion. Martyrium Pionii
Pan. Epiphanius, Panarion
Philad. Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians
Pr. Ref. Ephraem Syrus, Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan
Ref. Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium
Smyrn. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans
Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
Trad. ap. Hippolytus, Traditio Apostolica

All translations in this work, unless otherwise stated, are my own. Biblical quotations
are taken from the New International Version.
 Introduction

My first contact with Marcion was, as it was for so many people before me,
through the magnificent monograph by Adolf von Harnack¹. The work owes
its glory not only to the lifelong research Harnack put into it and the almost
complete collection of sources consulted, but also to Harnack’s talent as a writ-
er. The book casts a spell on the reader which is hard to escape from. The
author manages to paint a portrait of Marcion so lifelike that we almost have
the impression we knew him in person. In front of our eyes a man steps out of
the fog of history and enters the scene of our m odern world: we admire his
genius and straightforwardness, but we also feel sympathy for this tragic hero,
whose ideas were not accepted by the Church, merely because he was so much
ahead of his time.
Harnack obviously admires Marcion. In fact, he is even ‘in love’ with him:
„Er [Marcion] ist daher in der Kirchengeschichte meine erste Liebe gewesen,
und diese Neigung und Verehrung ist in dem halben Jahrhundert, das ich mit
ihm durchlebt habe, selbst durch Augustin nicht geschwächt worden.“² There
is absolutely nothing wrong with being fascinated by one’s subject, nor is it
wrong to express this fascination by a lively style of writing. However, when
fascination turns into admiration and love, one is seriously tempted to see
someone more the way one wants him to be than the way he actually was. It
is truly ironic that at the head of his first monograph on Marcion³, which Har-
nack wrote at the age of 19, he placed, as a motto, the following quote from
Goethe’s Faust, in which Faust wisely warns his assistant Wagner:
„Mein Freund, die Zeiten der Vergangenheit
Sind uns ein Buch mit 7 Siegeln;
Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,
Das ist im Grund der Herren eigener Geist,
In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln.“⁴

¹ Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 31996 (first edition 1921).
² Ibid., p. VI.
³ This monograph remained unpublished until recently and thus also remained without
any actual influence on Marcion scholarship, see following note.
⁴ Friedemann Steck (ed.), Adolf von Harnack: Marcion. Der moderne Gläubige des
2. Jahrhunderts. Der erste Reformator. Die Dorpater Preisschrift (1870), Berlin: de Gruyter,
2003, p. 1.
2 Introduction

This passage from Faust is well known among German historians as a warning
not to project their own thoughts and ideas too easily upon the historic per-
sonalities or situations they are dealing with. Unfortunately, this is exactly
what Harnack did, and this over-enthusiasm of his shapes our picture of Mar-
cion until this very day. Therefore, the examination of Harnack’s portrait of
Marcion and its phenomenal influence on subsequent scholarship shall serve
as introduction to my study, whereas the single features of Marcionite doctrine
relevant to it (Marcion’s distinction between two Gods, his ‘Bible’, his church
and so on) shall be discussed in the corresponding chapters.
The title of Harnack’s first monograph on Marcion already demonstrates
the author’s anachronistic view on his subject: Marcion, the modern believer of
the second century, the first Reformer. This title reveals precisely the miscon-
ception which characterises Harnack’s entire work on the arch-heretic, the
misconception of seeing him as a “Martin Luther of the second century”⁵. At
the very end of his second monograph on Marcion, the one which was to link
the name of the heretic⁶ irresolvably to that of Harnack, he even expresses the
following wish: „Dennoch kann man nur wünschen, daß sich in dem wirren
Chor der Gottsuchenden heute wieder auch Marcioniten fänden“⁷. The ques-
tion is: What was it that all of a sudden turned a condemned heretic of the
second century into a Christian role model for the twentieth century?
In order to answer this question, we have to realise that Harnack was not
simply a historian, but also a theologian. Once again, there is absolutely noth-
ing wrong with that, on the contrary, it is most positive when a man is able not
only to reconstruct past times but also to give them significance for his own
time. However, in this particular case, Harnack’s own theological agenda
seems to have led him astray:
„das AT im 2. Jahrhundert zu verwerfen, war ein Fehler, den die große Kirche mit Recht
abgelehnt hat; es im 16. Jahrhundert beizubehalten, war ein Schicksal, dem sich die
Reformation noch nicht zu entziehen vermochte; es aber seit dem 19. Jahrhundert als
kanonische Urkunde im Protestantismus noch zu konservieren, ist die Folge einer reli-
giösen und kirchlichen Lähmung.“⁸
It is exactly Harnack’s critical attitude towards the Old Testament which made
him believe that he had found a soul-mate in Marcion, and it is also exactly in
this matter that Harnack made his crucial mistake in his evaluation of the

⁵ Morton Enslin, “The Pontic Mouse”, AThR 27 (1945), p. 6.

⁶ Throughout this study I stick to the traditional terms of heretic/heresy and orthodox/
orthodoxy. Apart from the fact that I generally do not feel that the concept of so-called ‘pro-
to-orthodoxy’ is of much help, in the case of Marcion, as I shall argue in Chapter II, we are
dealing with a situation in which the terms ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy’ do apply in their classical
sense, which makes any replacement of them unnecessary.
⁷ Harnack, Marcion, p. 235.
⁸ Ibid., p. 217.
 Introduction 3

arch-heretic. Harnack’s critique of the Old Testament is the critique of a Ger-

man scholar at the beginning of the twentieth century. It represents a discom-
fort with the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament which is very com-
mon among people of the modern era⁹. To modern believers the (negative)
anthropomorphic traits of the Old Testament God seem indeed irreconcilable
with their rather philosophical concept of God, which is exactly why Harnack
wanted to see the Old Testament deprived of its canonical status within the
Christian Church. Thus, in a manner of speaking, Harnack had a vision of
purifying Christianity by getting rid of unpleasant ballast.
This is, however, precisely what Marcion did not do, and this calls for an
explanation. If the Old Testament¹⁰ merely offered an unpleasant picture of
God, why did he not simply exclude it from his canon or decide to interpret it
allegorically, which was the common way of handling the problematic passages
of the Old Testament among his fellow Christians? What Harnack did not
properly acknowledge was that to his hero Marcion the Old Testament was
real (see Chapter III). The heresiarch shared the same discomfort with the
Old Testament (and its God), but he did not look at it with the eyes of a man
trained in historical-critical methods. His were the eyes of an early Christian
Biblicist, who accepted the testimony of the texts as he found it (see
Chapter IV). That is why he could not simply bring himself to the step of con-
sidering the Old Testament to be a mere ‘fabrication’. On the contrary, to Mar-
cion the Old Testament was anything but obsolete. The Old Testament God is
a real figure, who had all the features the texts attributed to him, above all the
feature of being the Creator of this world. He was, however, not a Creator in
the sense of the Deist concept of the seventeenth and eighteenth century¹¹, a
God who created the world, but who does not intervene in its operation after-
wards. The God of Marcion does intervene, and he does so exactly in the way
the Old Testament describes it. Marcion’s second God, the God of the New
Testament, forms a clear antithesis to the Old Testament God, but he did not
in any way replace him. The contrast between these two Gods forms the very
centre of Marcion’s theology. Harnack realised this contrast between the Old
and the New Testament in Marcion’s thought, but he reinterpreted it into the

⁹ Cf. ibid., p. 222: „Stammt doch die größte Zahl der Einwendungen, welche ‚das Volk‘
gegen das Christentum und gegen die Wahrhaftigkeit der Kirche erhebt, aus dem Ansehen,
welches die Kirche noch immer dem AT gibt.“
¹⁰ Unlike the terms ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ (see above), the terms ‘Old’ and ‘New Testa-
ment’ are in fact anachronistic when used in the era of Marcion. In fact, I shall argue that it
was Marcion who indirectly promoted the establishment of the two terms (see Chapters IV
and VII). The fact that I shall still continue to use them in my work is this time merely for the
sake of simplicity. There are just no other suitable terms which would properly describe these
groups of texts.
¹¹ Harnack implied a connection between Marcionism and Deism when he compared
Marcion’s theology to that of the English Deist Thomas Morgan, cf. ibid., p. 221.
4 Introduction

Pauline/Lutheran distinction of Law and Grace. However, Marcion does not

think in such abstract theological terms, he simply believes in two different
Gods. Still, it was to become Harnack’s legacy for all subsequent scholarship
on the heresiarch that Marcion was a loyal disciple of Paul, a Lutheran Refor-
mer of the second century.
It did not take long before reviews on Harnack’s book were published, and
some of them criticised exactly this ‘legacy’. Hans von Soden strenuously pro-
tested against the comparison with Luther, especially by pointing out “daß
Marcion dem Schuldgedanken (und damit einem eigentlichen Sündenbe-
wußtsein) völlig verschlossen ist”¹². Walter Bauer added to the critique by
questioning Marcion’s dependence on Paul. He states:
„Ich glaube nicht, daß M.[arcion] seinen guten Gott in den Paulusbriefen gefunden und
daß er sich an ihnen in seinen Widerspruch gegen das AT und seinen Gott hineingele-
sen hat. Seine Gedanken müssen dem Heidenapostel zu gewaltsam aufgezwungen wer-
den, als daß sie von diesem stammen könnten.“¹³

Naturally, a review is still a review and as such one cannot expect that either
von Soden or Bauer could have provided us with a new complete portrait of
Marcion. In what follows we shall examine subsequent scholarship on Mar-
cion – in particular those monographs or articles which are concerned with
the phenomenon of Marcion as a whole¹⁴ – and consider whether (and if so,
in what way) these scholars managed to emancipate themselves from the
impact of Harnack’s monograph and to provide us with a new portrait of the
heresiarch. In this context, we have to distinguish two levels of such a portrait.
For one thing there is the concept of Marcion himself, for another there is the
concept of Marcion’s relation to his world and his time. The first level contains
questions regarding Marcion’s point of departure, his interpretation of the
Bible or his theology in general. The second level is concerned with elements
such as Marcion’s influence on the development of the New Testament canon
or his relation to the Gnostics. While these two levels obviously cannot always
be completely separated, we shall see that there have been many critics ques-
tioning Harnack’s view of Marcion as far as his relation to other phenomena is
concerned, but hardly anyone who criticised Harnack’s portrait of Marcion
himself.

¹² Hans von Soden, “A. v. Harnacks Marcion”, ZKG 40 (1922), p. 204.

¹³ Walter Bauer, Review „Harnack. Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott“, GGA
185, (1923), p. 7.
¹⁴ This means that, for example, those works are absent from the following list which are
particularly concerned with Marcion’s New Testament, such as the monographs by John
Knox, Ulrich Schmid and Joseph Tyson. They will receive their due attention in Chapter IV.
For a complete history of research on Marcion, see the impressive collection by Michel Tar-
dieu, “Marcion depuis Harnack”, in: Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: L’évangile du Dieu étran-
ger, tr. Bernard Lauret, Paris: Cerf, 2005, p. 488–561.
 2. Edwin Cyrill Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, 1948 5

1. Robert Smith Wilson,

Marcion: A Study of a Second-Century Heretic, 1932

Regarding Harnack’s monograph Wilson remarks in his foreword:

“As it is improbable that this book will be translated¹⁵, the present volume, which is
often indebted to Harnack for material but does not always agree with him in conclu-
sions, may serve as an introduction to the study of a man who is at once the most
fascinating and not the least elusive of second-century Christians.”¹⁶

What Wilson is adumbrating and at the same time trying to conceal here is
that his work is in fact not much more than an English translation of Har-
nack’s book in a concise form. In fact, he occasionally even literally quotes
Harnack without acknowledging it.¹⁷ As far as the different conclusions are
concerned which Wilson announced in his foreword, they are not actually
noticeable throughout his study. Wilson does not enter into a real debate with
Harnack, nor does he provide a new portrait of the heresiarch. He even agrees
with Harnack on such issues as praising Marcion as an example in favour of
the rightful demand to deprive the Old Testament of its canonical authority¹⁸.
In short, Wilson’s ‘Marcion’ is also Harnack’s ‘Marcion’.

2. Edwin Cyrill Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, 1948

Just like Wilson before him, Blackman is very much indebted to Harnack.
However, he deliberately included the term ‘influence’ in the title of his book
and accordingly stated in his foreword: “The present essay is a study of Mar-
cion’s relation to, and influence on, this development [of the Catholic
Church].”¹⁹ Thus, Blackman does not so much aim at providing a new picture
of Marcion as such, but merely at pointing out that Harnack overestimated
Marcion’s influence on both the foundation of the Catholic Church and the
establishment of its canon. While this evaluation clearly means a certain devia-
tion from Harnack’s theories, as far as Blackman’s overall view on Marcion is
concerned, he has not emancipated himself from the German scholar and

¹⁵ While Wilson was not entirely correct about that, he would have had to wait another 58
years to actually see an English translation of Harnack’s work.
¹⁶ Robert Smith Wilson, Marcion: A Study of a Second-Century Heretic, London: James
Clarke, 1932, p. ix.
¹⁷ Cf. for example ibid., p. 71: “His [Apelles’] teaching is a combination of Marcionism
and Gnosticism at the cost of the former”, which is an almost literal rendering of Harnack,
Marcion, p. 194: „Die Lehre des Apelles […] ist eine interessant Verbindung des Marcionitis-
mus mit dem Gnostizismus auf Kosten des ersteren“.
¹⁸ Wilson, Marcion, p. 179.
¹⁹ E. C. Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, London: SPCK, 1948, p. x.
6 Introduction

takes most of his findings for granted. Still, Blackman’s work probably forms
the best English-speaking monograph on Marcion, which seems to be the rea-
son that it was the only one ever to be blessed with a reprint²⁰.

3. Barbara Aland,
„Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation“, 1973

The title of Aland’s article raises the reader’s hope for a new picture of Mar-
cion. Unfortunately, there is nothing essentially new to be found in her article.
Like Blackman, Aland points out the „völlige Überschätzung“²¹ of Marcion’s
importance on Harnack’s part, and she also questions Harnack’s strict separa-
tion of Marcion from the Gnostics²². However, as far as the centre of Mar-
cion’s theology is concerned, she remains very close to Harnack: „Es kann kein
Zweifel bestehen, von wem Marcion bestimmt ist […] Marcion ist durchdrun-
gen von der Theologie des Paulus“²³. In this context we can witness a mistake
common among those scholars who see Marcion as a disciple of Paul, the mis-
take of interpreting Paul for Marcion. One should, for instance, refrain from
countering the (correct) objection by Hans von Soden that feelings of guilt are
completely alien to Marcion (see above) by simply pointing out that Romans
7:7²⁴ was part of Marcion’s canon²⁵. The fact that such a verse featured in
Marcion’s ‘Bible’ does not mean that he implemented it one-to-one in his
theology, and even if he did, we would not know what this particular verse
meant to him. In conclusion, with Aland’s article we have once more encoun-
tered a portrait of Marcion which may differ from that of Harnack in indivi-
dual aspects but is still very close to it in general.

4. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, 1984

In his preface to Hoffmann’s book Maurice Wiles notes:

“Significant works of scholarship require a combination of two very different skills that
do not always go naturally together. On the one hand there is need for a bold vision or
hypothesis which enables the subject to be seen from a genuinely new perspective; but

²⁰ Published in 2004 by Wipf & Stock.

²¹ Barbara Aland, „Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation“, ZThK 70 (1973), p. 447.
²² Ibid., p. 429–435.
²³ Ibid., p. 435.
²⁴ “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known
what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if
the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’”
²⁵ Cf. Aland, Versuch, p. 436.
 4. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, 1984 7

equally important is a readiness to check any such new insight by careful attention to
the detailed evidence.”²⁶

Wiles is certainly correct in pointing out that significant works of scholarship

require authors who are equipped with the two just mentioned qualities. When
a scholar, however, has the first skill while completely lacking the second one,
we get a work like Hoffmann’s.
As part of his ‘bold vision’ Hoffmann above all attempts to demonstrate
that Marcion’s activity has to be placed much earlier and in a different place
than is usually assumed. He dates Marcion’s birth about 70 AD (which is
probably at least 30 years too early, as will be shown in Chapter II) and sup-
poses that his main activity took place in Asia Minor in the years 110–150
(while it actually was in Rome in the years 145–165, see Chapter II). Unfortu-
nately, with this dating being crucially wrong, much of the rest of Hoffmann’s
argument in his book collapses, and so his monograph was rightly torn apart
by the critics (see below). Hoffmann then managed to undermine his own
work further when he tried to defend it by stating that he simply “intended to
argue a case (hence the very deliberate use of the word ‘essay’ in the subtitle)
rather than to reach firm conclusions”²⁷. A few examples may suffice to
demonstrate the dubiousness of Hoffmann’s approach of dating Marcion’s
activity far earlier and outside of Rome.
First of all, he believed he had found anti-Marcionite attacks already in the
letters of Ignatius²⁸, which would indeed indicate an activity of the arch-heretic
in Asia Minor at the beginning of the second century. Hoffmann bases this
theory among other things on a line from Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaens
(5,1), which he quotes as follows: “Ignatius identifies his enemies as ‘advocates
of death’ who are persuaded of the truth ‘neither by the law of Moses nor by
the prophecies’”²⁹. This sounds somewhat like Marcionite doctrine indeed,
given that Marcion only accepted the Gospel and not the Old Testament as
testimony of his good God (see Chapters III/IV). If, of course, Hoffmann had
read the entire sentence he would have realised that Ignatius is referring to
those people who are neither persuaded by the Law of Moses, nor by the pro-
phecies, nor by the Gospel.
That Marcion came to (and settled in) Rome at some point in his life is one
of the few elements of his biography which can be considered certain, as it is
attested by virtually all the Church Fathers (see Chapter II). However, Hoff-
mann turns this whole situation upside down by pointing out the fact that the

²⁶ Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: on the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Develop-

ment of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century, Chico: Scholars Press, 1984, p. vii.
²⁷ Joseph Hoffmann, “How then know this troublous teacher? Further Reflections on
Marcion and his Church”, Second Century 6 (1987/88), p. 180.
²⁸ Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 58–63. On the dating of the letters, see Chapter VII.
²⁹ Ibid., p. 58.
8 Introduction

Fathers differ on the exact time when Marcion came to the Imperial capital,
which brings him to the rather questionable conclusion: “For all this confu-
sion, it seems doubtful that Marcion ventured to Rome at all.”³⁰ Based on this
‘insight’ of his, Hoffmann then ends his summary of the analysis of Marcion’s
biography with the intriguing line: “The date which Irenaeus gives for the arri-
val of Marcion in Rome seems the most plausible date for his death.”³¹ This
statement is, in fact, difficult to refute, simply because Irenaeus does not give
any date for Marcion’s arrival in Rome. But even if we assumed for a moment
that he did, it would still be difficult to understand how anyone could come up
with the idea of identifying this date with the date of Marcion’s death.
Such examples could be multiplied, but instead I would like to hand over to
C. P. Bammel, who described Hoffmann’s book as follows:
“His writing bears the marks of an insufficiently pruned dissertation (e. g. rather
involved and tortuous argumentation, overloaded and often irrelevant footnotes,
copious background information of a rather elementary variety, the attitude that any
assertion can be made so long as a footnote follows) […] Hoffmann’s work is marred
by misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the sources referred to […] Hoffmann
makes elementary howlers […] Misprints are too numerous to list in full here, but they
involve many proper names as well as errors in Greek, Latin, and German quotations,
and on occasion render the English text meaningless.”³²
The best way to end the presentation of Hoffmann’s monograph seems to be
in form of the wise words by Gerhard May: „Man kann leider nur hoffen, daß
es [Hoffmann’s book] bald vergessen wird und nicht eine lange, unfruchtbare
Auseinandersetzung mit ihm in Gang kommt.“³³

5. Gerhard May (ed.),

Marcion and his Impact on Church History, 2002

This book is a collection of all the lectures given at the International Marcion
Conference in Mainz in 2001, and thus contains the most up-to-date contribu-
tions by Marcion scholars from all around the world, including articles by Ger-
hard May and Enrico Norelli, the two most productive scholars on Marcion of
our time³⁴. However, due to the fact that all of these lectures address only par-
ticular aspects of Marcion’s life and thought, the conference could once more

³⁰ Ibid., p. 74.
³¹ Ibid.
³² C. P. Bammel, Review “Joseph Hoffmann. Marcion: on the Restitution of Christianity”,
JTS 39 (1988), p. 227–232.
³³ Gerhard May, „Ein neues Markionbild?“, ThR 51 (1986), p. 413.
³⁴ Unfortunately, even the impressive quantity of their work has not led to a new com-
plete portrait of Marcion.
 Conclusion 9

not provide the scholarly world with a coherent concept about the phenomen-
on of Marcion as a whole. Still, several of the articles contained in the book
should be mentioned here, as they are of relevance to my own study.
There is, first of all, the article by Enrico Norelli entitled „Marcion: Ein
christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die Philosophie?“, which provides
an important analysis of Marcion’s relation to philosophy, a question which
will be discussed in the context of Marcion’s biography (see Chapter II). Then
there is Christoph Markschies, whose lecture „Die valentianische Gnosis und
Marcion“ deals with one of the most disputed issues regarding the arch-here-
tic, his relation to the Gnostic movement (see above). This particular issue will
be considered when we deal with Marcion’s dualist theology in Chapter III.
Alistair Stewart-Sykes has chosen a less common, but all the more interesting
topic for his contribution to the conference: “Bread and fish, water and wine:
The Marcionite menu and the maintenance of purity”. In his paper Stewart-
Sykes addresses questions of (liturgical) meals within the Marcionite commu-
nity, coming to the interesting conclusion that, at least as far as liturgy is con-
cerned, the Marcionites were guilty of no more than anachronism. This line of
thought will be further pursued in Chapter VI, which is concerned with Mar-
cion’s church and its liturgical and ethical practices.
While all of these articles provide an important contribution to Marcionite
scholarship, I would like to mention one of the presentations given at Mainz in
particular, which is Winrich Löhr’s lecture “Did Marcion distinguish between
a just God and a good God?”. Löhr’s answer to his self-posed question is that it
was no “central theological concern of Marcion to distinguish between the jus-
tice of the lower God and the goodness of the higher God”³⁵. His analysis of
the sources was, as he admits himself, “incomplete”³⁶; however, simply by
expressing this most important insight, Löhr has correctly questioned what
seemed to be an undisputed consensus concerning Marcion’s theology, and I
shall attempt to take his idea further in my own work (see Chapter III).

Conclusion

All in all it must be a matter for surprise that the main weaknesses of Har-
nack’s Marcion picture were exposed right away in form of the two excellent
reviews by von Soden and Bauer, only to be forgotten immediately afterwards
by all major monographs on the heresiarch. In view of all these insufficient

³⁵ Winrich A. Löhr, “Did Marcion Distinguish Between a Just God and a Good God?”, in:
Gerhard May/Katharina Greschat (ed.), Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung,
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002, p. 144.
³⁶ Ibid.
10 Introduction

attempts to replace Harnack’s portrait, it can be stated correctly: “ein neues

Markionbild, das an Geschlossenheit und Überzeugungskraft demjenigen Har-
nacks vergleichbar wäre, besitzen wir freilich noch nicht”.³⁷ Even at the risk of
sounding too bold I hereby declare: with this thesis I take up the challenge to
fill this gap.

³⁷ Gerhard May, „Markion in seiner Zeit“, in: Katharina Greschat/Martin Meiser (ed.),
Gerhard May. Markion: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2005, p. 2.
 I. Problems of Sources
Das Pergament, ist das der heil'ge Bronnen,
Woraus ein Trunk den Durst auf ewig stillt?
Erquickung hast du nicht gewonnen,
Wenn sie dir nicht aus eigner Seele quillt.
Goethe, „Faust“

The sources on Marcion are more numerous than on any other heretic of his
time, and many of them are of undisputed value for the reconstruction of his
life and thought. There is first of all Tertullian, whose five books Adversus
Marcionem (ca. 210 AD) form the most extensive argument with Marcionite
theology available to us, and will thus be used throughout this entire study.
Then there is Justin Martyr’s Apology (ca. 153–154)¹, in which we find the first
mention of Marcion’s name, which makes it one of our few sources contem-
porary to the heresiarch and thus particularly precious for both the dating of
his activity (see Chapter II) and the establishment of his original doctrine (see
Chapter III). More than 200 years later, Marcionism is still an issue for Epi-
phanius, who, in his Panarion (ca. 375), provides us with an amazingly exten-
sive analysis of Marcion’s New Testament (see Chapter IV). The list of writers
against Marcion in between these two is nearly endless; only a few shall be
mentioned here: Irenaeus, who for the first time links Marcion to the name of
his ‘predecessor’ Cerdo (see Chapter II); Rhodo and Hippolytus, who inform
us about the crucial changes within the development of Marcionite doctrine
(see Chapter III); and Clement of Alexandria, who provides us with interesting
information about Marcionite ethics (see Chapter VI). All of these sources will
receive their due attention in the course of this study; the present chapter,
however, is dedicated to those sources which are disputed as far as their rela-
tion to Marcion is concerned. Sources which used to be disputed but for which

¹ This (approximate) date is suggested by both recent editions of the Apology, cf. Charles
Munier (ed.), Justin. Apologie pour les Chrétiens, SC 507, Paris: Cerf, 2006, p. 28; Denis
Minns/Paul Parvis (ed.), Justin. Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford: University Press,
2009, p. 44. As far as the notorious question of the relation of the ‘two’ Apologies is con-
cerned, I favour what Denis Minns and Paul Parvis call the “covering speech theory”, accord-
ings to which “the First Apology is designed as an actual petition, while the Second is either
intending or pretending to be a little speech accompanying its presentation” (ibid., p. 26),
which would mean that ‘both’ Apologies were written about the same time.
12 I. Problems of Sources

a scholarly consensus has been reached in the meantime are not extensively
discussed. Among those there are
1. the so-called Marcionite Prologues to the Pauline Letters, for which Nils
Dahl has conclusively shown that there is no particular reason to assume a
Marcionite origin.²
2. the so-called anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels, for which Jürgen
Regul has demonstrated that there is no anti-Marcionite tendency to be found
in them.³
We now turn to those sources which are still, in one way or the other, pro-
blematic.

1. Polycarp’s Second Letter to the Philippians

Let us be zealous for the good and refrain from offences and from the false brethren and
from those who bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy and lead foolish people astray. For
everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ;
and whoever does not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil; and whoever
manipulates the words of the Lord according to his own desires and says that there is
neither resurrection nor judgement, this one is the first-born of Satan. (6,3–7,1)⁴

It has often been claimed that it was Marcion’s heresy which Polycarp wrote
against in the above quoted passage⁵, and it is true that the heresy here
described shows some similarities to Marcion’s doctrine, but also to Gnostic
docetism in general.⁶ However, none of the features mentioned in this passage
refer exclusively to Marcion, some of them do not actually apply to him at all,
and the really particular elements of his theology are completely missing.

² Nils Dahl, “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters”, Semeia 12
(1978), p. 262: “the conclusion that the Prologues were indeed Marcionite has turned out to
be both unnecessary and improbable. Attestation and history of transmission make it improb-
able, and no single feature requires a Marcionite origin.”
³ Jürgen Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, Freiburg: Herder, 1969, p. 77–
84.
⁴ ζηλωταὶ περὶ τὸ καλόν, ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν σκανδάλων καὶ τῶν ψευδαδέλφων καὶ τῶν ἐν
ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου, οἵτινεϚ ἀποπλανῶσι κενοὺϚ ἀνθρώπουϚ. ΠᾶϚ γάρ,
ὅϚ ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστόϚ ἐστιν· καὶ ὃϚ ἂν μὴ
ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν· καὶ ὃϚ ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια
τοῦ κυρίου πρὸϚ τὰϚ ἰδίαϚ ἐπιθυμίαϚ καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε χρίσιν, οὗτοϚ πρωτότοκόϚ
ἐστι τοῦ σατανᾶ.
⁵ Perhaps most prominently argued by P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s two Epistles to the Phi-
lippians, Cambridge: University Press, 1936, p. 172–206.
⁶ Cf. for example Joseph Fischer, Die Apostolischen Väter, Schriften des Urchristentums 1,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 112006, p. 236: „Meines Erachtens kämpft
Polycarp gegen einen gnostischen Doketismus (vgl. 7,1), der nicht primär marcionitisch sein
muß.“
 1. Polycarp’s Second Letter to the Philippians 13

Peter Meinhold nonetheless managed to find indications for anti-Marcio-

nite arguments in just about everything within the letter, from his idea that
Polycarp’s mention of the Pauline Letters is directed against Marcion’s use of
them, to his assumption that Polycarp’s reference to the Prophets as preachers
of Christ is meant in opposition to Marcion’s dualism, to his theory that the
bishop’s repeated warnings of the love of money are to be understood as an
attack on the rich ship-owner from Pontus⁷ – features of which none can actu-
ally be considered as conclusive. Only the term “first-born of Satan” is indeed
strikingly the same that Polycarp – according to Irenaeus’ report (Adv. haer.
III.3,4) – addressed Marcion with when they met. To interpret this as indica-
tion that the letter is directed against the heresiarch⁸ would, however, be mis-
leading. There is no reason to assume that Polycarp used this term exclusively
for Marcion. Moreover, it may be doubted whether the meeting between Poly-
carp and Marcion ever actually took place, and it thus seems quite plausible, as
Regul suggested⁹, that it was in fact Irenaeus who extracted the notion from
the letter and worked it into the story.
The rebuke of denying the testimony of the Cross would, if Polycarp was in
fact thinking of Marcion here, be completely unjustified as Christ’s death on
the Cross was of crucial importance to the arch-heretic (see Chapter III). It
could certainly be argued that Polycarp is unaware of this element, or that he
is actually slandering Marcion, or that to him whoever denies the flesh of
Christ automatically also denies the testimony of the Cross¹⁰, the same being
possibly true for the idea of resurrection, which Marcion would also not have
denied as such¹¹. Still, the fact remains that we are dealing with points of cri-
tique here which do not actually apply to Marcion.
As for the missing, yet most characteristic elements of Marcion’s doctrine,
such as his aversion against the Old Testament or his theological dualism¹²,
Harrison assumed that the letter dates from the time before Marcion came to
Rome (that is, before 144/145, see Chapter II), a time at which he did not yet

⁷ Peter Meinhold, “Polykarpos”, in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswis-

senschaften, 42. Halbband (1952), p. 1685–1686.
⁸ Cf. for example John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1942, p. 9.
⁹ Regul, Evangelienprologe, p. 189.
¹⁰ Cf. Harrison, Epistles, p. 175–176.
¹¹ Cf. ibid., p. 180–181.
¹² In his report on Marcion in his Apology, Marcion’s ditheism is in fact the only real
theological feature Justin mentions about the arch-heretic, cf. Sebastian Moll, “Justin and the
Pontic Wolf”, in: Sara Parvis/Paul Foster (ed.), Justin Martyr and his Worlds, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2007, p. 145–151. Likewise, Origen identifies heretics mainly by their distinc-
tion between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament (cf. Alain Le Boulluec,
La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe –IIIe siècles. Tome II: Clément d’Alexandrie et
Origène, Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1985, p. 509–510).
14 I. Problems of Sources

hold these beliefs¹³. However, there is hardly any evidence for Marcion’s activ-
ity before 144/145 (see Chapter II), nor is there reason to believe, as Harrison
claims, that it was Cerdo who added these elements to Marcion’s doctrine (see
Chapter II).
In conclusion we can state that there is simply not enough evidence to con-
sider Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians to be directed against Marcion.

2. Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora

Before we can approach the question of whether the Letter to Flora is con-
cerned with the doctrine of Marcion, we have to answer a more famous ques-
tion first: is the Ptolemy who wrote the Letter to Flora the very same Ptolemy
who according to Justin¹⁴ suffered martyrdom under the Roman prefect Urbi-
cus about 152 AD? The classical reasons to support this idea are well known¹⁵.
Both men live in Rome at the time of the martyrdom¹⁶; both men belong to
the (rare) intellectual group of Christians in Rome; both men are teachers of a
wealthy Christian woman¹⁷. To these features Peter Lampe has added another
most interesting one¹⁸. Already at the beginning of the letter and as his very
first example Ptolemy is extensively addressing the issue of divorce, which per-
fectly fits the situation of the woman of Justin’s Apology, who was not sure
whether or not to divorce her husband. While this element alone is already an
indicator for the identity of the two men, there is even more to it than Lampe
realised. It is surprising that Lampe maintained that the letter contained no
direct conclusion as to the question whether it is legitimate for Christians to
get divorced. For how could anyone interpret Ptolemy’s statement¹⁹ that the

¹³ Harrison, Epistles, p. 189–196. Meinhold, given that he found several characteristic fea-
tures of Marcion’s doctrine already (see above), considered Harrison’s assumption to be
unnecessary (Polykarpos, p. 1684/1687).
¹⁴ 2Apol. 1–2.
¹⁵ For the following cf. Gerd Lüdemann, „Zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums in
Rom“, ZNW 70 (1979), p. 100–102.
¹⁶ To be precise, there is no source about the Gnostic Ptolemy which would clearly deter-
mine either the exact time or place of his activity. That he lived in Rome around 152 AD can,
however, be assumed as he is known to be a disciple of Valentinus about whom we can say
with some certainty that he lived in Rome at that time, cf. ibid., p. 100; cf. also Einar Thomas-
sen, The Spiritual Seed: The ‘Church’ of the Valentinians, Brill: Leiden, 2006, p. 417–418.
¹⁷ That the woman described in Justin’s Apology was wealthy becomes clear from her hus-
band’s travel to Alexandria and from her servants (cf. Lüdemann, Geschichte, p. 101 n. 42). As
for Flora, it is her obvious high level of learning (which is required to understand Ptolemy’s
letter) which labels her as a lady of the upper class.
¹⁸ Cf. Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten,
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21989, p. 202–203.
¹⁹ Pan. 33.4,10.
 2. Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora 15

Law of Moses (which allows divorce) was contrary to the Law of God (which
forbids divorce) other than in the way that divorce was against the divine law
and thus forbidden for Christians? Given this message of the letter, it fits the
situation of the woman in Justin’s Apology even better, for it is said that her
friends (among whom we may count Ptolemy) tried to convince her to stay
with her husband²⁰. It is also striking, as Almut Rütten has pointed out²¹, that
whereas the biblical text being referred to (Mt. 19:8) argues from the perspec-
tive of the man divorcing his wife, Ptolemy adapted it to the wife’s situation²².
Another element which makes it likely that the letter was at least partly moti-
vated by the concrete question of divorce is the fact that it was obviously the
first of its kind addressed to Flora with additional letters intended to follow. In
other words, if we were to assume that the letter simply served as a general
introduction to Gnostic teachings, we would expect it to deal with Gnostic
cosmology and the origin of the different principles, and at the very end of his
letter Ptolemy indeed promises to instruct Flora about all this soon. Again, the
circumstances fit perfectly. The woman in the Apology had only recently
become a Christian²³ (apparently within a Gnostic circle) and wished to be
instructed in the Christian doctrine. Ptolemy was willing to take care of that
but decided to start the lessons not with the main part, but with a topic that
had immediate relevance to his protégée. All of these arguments taken together
strongly suggest that we are actually dealing with one and the same person
here.
The main argument brought forward against the identity of the two ‘Ptole-
mies’ is the fact that it must seem surprising that Justin would show so much
respect for an obvious heretic. However, in his Apology Justin is in fact not so
much after certain heretical movements, but only reports what he believes to
support his cause, that is, to defend Christianity before the Emperors and to
end the persecutions²⁴. To this end, it was simply more useful to tell the tragic
story of a heroic man who did nothing wrong and was still sentenced to death
than to expose him as a heretic. It is also noteworthy in this context that Justin
does not mention the Valentinians as heretics in his Apology at all, which
might in fact have two reasons. Either he did not identify them as heretics
yet²⁵, or he was worried that his pagan and philosophically educated audience

²⁰ 2Apol. 2,5.
²¹ Almut Rütten, „Der Brief des Ptolemäus an Flora. Ein Beispiel altkirchlicher Gesetzes-
auslegung in Auseinandersetzung mit Marcion“, in: Hermann Deuser/Gerhard Schmalenberg
(ed.), Christlicher Glaube und religiöse Bildung, Gießen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs Evange-
lische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren Didaktik, 1995, p. 59 n. 33.
²² Pan. 33.4,5 (γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸϚ).
²³ 2Apol. 2,1–2.
²⁴ Cf. Moll, Justin, p. 148–151.
²⁵ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 203 n. 263; Paul Parvis, “Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The
Posthumous Creation of the Second Apology”, in: Parvis/Foster, Justin Martyr, p. 32–35.
16 I. Problems of Sources

might have been receptive to some of their teachings²⁶. Finally, we should not
exclude the possibility that Justin simply did not know who he was dealing
with here. There is no hint in the text that he actually witnessed the events he
is reporting, so maybe he just heard a story about the martyrdom of a certain
Christian called Ptolemy without being aware of his Gnostic doctrine.
The other contra-arguments are not really arguments against the identity of
the two, but rather aim at weakening the pro-arguments. Christoph Marks-
chies, referring to the article by Rütten²⁷ already mentioned, has pointed out
that if the letter was concerned with the actual divorce problem of this parti-
cular woman it would be strange that Ptolemy did not raise the topic of mixed
marriages between Christians and non-Christians²⁸. Apart from the fact that
an argumentum ex silentio is always difficult, it should be noted that no one
actually ever claimed that the sole purpose of this letter was to give some sort
of marital advice. The letter is indeed, as Markschies described it²⁹, a form of
διαιρετικὴ εἰσαγωγή, but that does by no means exclude the possibility that
Ptolemy related the topic of his letter to the personal situation of his addressee.
Ptolemy’s aim is a thorough elucidation about the different kinds of laws (see
Chapter VII). In order to present his case he had to choose an example which
would demonstrate this variety, and the different positions on divorce given by
Moses and Christ were perfectly suitable. The problem of mixed marriage,
however, would have been useless to this end. The same goes for Markschies’
second objection, which tries to attack the divorce-argument by pointing out
that Ptolemy’s passage on divorce in his letter is best understood as anti-Mar-
cionite argumentation³⁰ (see below). Once again, however, one thing does not
exclude the other. Certainly, Ptolemy may have used this as an anti-Marcionite
argument, but he could just as well have used dozens of other examples, so the
fact that he deliberately chose the topic of divorce seems to be no coincidence.
With the identity of the two Ptolemies being most probable, we may now
turn back to our initial question: is the letter dealing with Marcion and his
doctrine? At the beginning of his letter, Ptolemy speaks of two different opi-
nions which are held concerning the Law:
Some say it has been laid down by God the Father, while others take the opposite direc-
tion and strenuously insist that it was given by the Adversary, the pernicious devil, just as

²⁶ Cf. Moll, Justin, p. 150–151.

²⁷ Rütten, Brief, p. 59 n. 33. Although Markschies is correctly displaying the point brought
forward by Rütten, it should be noted that she, unlike Markschies, believes in the identity of
the two Ptolemies, cf. ibid., p. 56.
²⁸ Christoph Markschies, “New Research on Ptolemaeus Gnosticus”, ZAC 4 (2000),
p. 248.
²⁹ Ibid., p. 230.
³⁰ Ibid., p. 248.
 3. The Elder in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses 17

they attribute the creation of the world to him, saying that he is the father and maker of
this universe. (Pan. 33.3,2)³¹

That the first opinion mentioned by Ptolemy reflects the position of the ortho-
dox Christians is undisputed. The second opinion is also widely agreed to be
referring to Marcion³², although there are some critical voices, too³³. Especially
when we consider the time and place we have just established for the letter,
there can, however, hardly be any doubt that we are dealing with a Marcionite
position here. Rome 150 AD is exactly when and where Marcion’s star was on
the rise (see Chapter II). It seems obvious that Ptolemy had no intention of
informing his addressee about some minor opinions. We must therefore be
dealing with two positions here which are so widespread that they were prob-
ably known to Flora, so that her teacher felt the need to discuss them with her;
and if there are two main opposing opinions concerning the Old Testament
(Law) within the Christian movement in Rome at that time, they can only
come from the orthodox side on the one hand and from the Marcionite camp
on the other.
In summary, we have found that Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora provides a con-
temporary view on Marcion’s doctrine and is also the very first literary contro-
versy with Marcion known to us.

3. The Elder in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses

In Adversus Haereses IV.27–32 Irenaeus refers to the teachings of a certain

anonymous elder, teachings which are considered by many scholars to be
directed against Marcion³⁴.
³¹ Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸϚ νενομοθετῆσθαι τοῦτον λέγουσιν, ἕτεροι δὲ τούτοιϚ
τὴν ἐναντίαν ὁδὸν τραπέντεϚ ὑτὸ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου φθοροποιοῦ διαβόλου τεθεῖσθαι τοῦτον
ἰσχυρίζονται, ὡϚ καὶ τὴν τοῦ κόσμου προσάπτουσιν αὐτῷ δημιουργίαν, πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν
τοῦτον λέγοντεϚ εἶναι τοῦδε τοῦ παντόϚ.
³² Cf. Lüdemann, Geschichte, p. 106–107; Uwe Kühneweg, Das Neue Gesetz. Christus als
Gesetzgeber und Gesetz: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Naturrechtslehre im 2. Jahrhun-
dert, Marburg: Elwert, 1993, p. 90; Rütten, Brief, p. 57.
³³ Harnack described this thesis as “mindestens nicht sicher” (Marcion, p. 315*). Bentley
Layton states: “Scholars have been uncertain about the source of this opinion, but it may refer
to Gnostics who followed a myth like that of BJn [The Secret Book according to John] or RAd
[The Revelation of Adam], where the craftsman of the world (Ialdabaōth) appears to be iden-
tical with the God of Israel.” (Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York: Doubleday,
1987, p. 307). Winrich Löhr thinks it is possible that Ptolemy simply invented this position
(“Die Auslegung des Gesetzes bei Markion, den Gnostikern und den Manichäern”, in: Georg
Schöllgen/Clemens Scholten (ed.) Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Chris-
tentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, Münster: Aschendorff, 1996, p. 80 n. 11).
³⁴ Cf. Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius I, Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1897, p. 338 n. 2; Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die
anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus, TU 46,2, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930, p. 101–113;
18 I. Problems of Sources

That there is an anti-heretical motive in these chapters is beyond doubt;

however, no heretic or heretical movement is mentioned by name. What is
the content of this anti-heretical teaching? It is basically an apology for the
Old Testament with the intention to demonstrate that the two Testaments
speak of one and the same God. Certainly, this does sound like a treatise
against Marcion, and there is no point in denying that these sections are direc-
ted against him, too.³⁵ However, defending the cruelties described in the Old
Testament was not just an object for those fighting against Marcion. When
Origen explains the allegorical meaning of the battles of Joshua for instance,
he explicitly addresses Marcion, Valentinus and Basilides³⁶. Thus, these other
heretics could also be envisaged in the elder’s preaching. In fact, there are cer-
tain lines which seem to indicate a Valentinian opponent:
All those are found to be unlearned, audacious and also shameless who, because of the
transgressions of those who lived in earlier times and because of the disobedience of a
great number (of them), say that one God was the God of those, the maker of the world,
originated from deficiency³⁷, but that the other God was the Father declared by Christ, the
one all of them [the heretics] have (allegedly) conceived in spirit. (Adv. haer. IV.27,4)³⁸
Two elements in this passage are both typical for (Irenaeus’ portrait of) the
Valentinians and atypical for the doctrine of Marcion. There is firstly the idea

May, “Marcion in Contemporary Views: Results and Open Questions”, p. 133 (= Gesammelte
Aufsätze, p. 17).
³⁵ Antonio Orbe (“Ecclesia, sal terrae según san Ireneo”, RSR 60 (1972), p. 220 n. 8) tried
to show that certain aspects of the elder’s argumentation make it very unlikely that it was
directed against Marcion, but his reasons for this view are most questionable. The first two
may suffice to demonstrate this. Orbe claims that in an anti-Marcionite text one would not
find frequent references to the Old Testament and to the Gospel of Matthew as both docu-
ments are of no value to an “auténtico discípulo de Marción”; but the whole point of this
argument is to defend the Old Testament against Marcion’s attacks. How is anyone supposed
to do that without referring to it? Has Orbe not considered Tertullian’s work against Marcion,
in which the Carthaginian also constantly refers to the Old Testament in order to refute his
opponent? To say nothing about the fact that it is not true that the Old Testament would not
have any value to Marcion (see Chapters III/IV). This is true for Matthew’s Gospel, but I am
unable to see why a Christian opponent of Marcion’s should not use it in an argument against
him. Orbe’s second point is that the allegorical exegesis would not be used against Marcion
since he refused to accept it (see Chapter IV); but this is exactly the reason why! To point out
the allegorical meaning of Scriptural passages is one of the most common ways to refute the
arch-heretic, cf. for example Origen, De princ. II.5,2: “But they [the Marcionites] see these
things in this way, because they have not understood to hear anything beyond the letter.”
³⁶ Cf. Hom. Ies. XII.3.
³⁷ For the problem of the Latin in diminutione see Adelin Rousseau, Irénée de Lyon: Con-
tre les hérésies IV: Tome I, Paris: Cerf, 1965, p. 264.
³⁸ Indocti et audaces adhuc etiam et impudentes inveniuntur omnes qui, propter trans-
gressionem eorum qui olim fuerunt et propter plurimorum indictoaudientiam, alterum qui-
dem aiunt illorum fuisse Deum, et hunc esse mundi Fabricatorem et esse in diminutione,
alterum vero a Christo traditum Patrem, et hunc esse qui sit ab unoquoque eorum mente
conceptus.
 3. The Elder in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses 19

of the Demiurge originating from deficiency which correlates with the Valenti-
nian myth that the origin of the Demiurge is the result of a fallen eon³⁹,
whereas Marcion never expressed any such theory about his origin nor did he
establish a mythological system as such (see Chapter III). The second element
is the idea that the heretics (and only they) have received the second God in
spirit. It is a crucial element of the Valentinian Gnosis that only a few chosen
ones, the Pneumatics, have access to the complete knowledge (Gnosis) about
God⁴⁰, whereas Marcion does not preach any form of election of a certain
group of people, nor that some higher form of knowledge is required to be
saved (see Chapter III).
Fortunately, it seems possible to determine those parts of the elder’s teaching
which are directed against Marcion by comparing it to Tertullian’s defence of
the Old Testament in opposition to him (mainly to be found in the second
book of Adversus Marcionem). This comparison shows that we find parallels
for the story of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart⁴¹ and of the Hebrews’ robbery
of gold and silver from the Egyptians⁴², but not for the rebukes against David,
Solomon or Lot and his daughters, to which the above quoted passage refers.
Although at first glance this might simply be a coincidence, a closer look reveals
a subtle yet crucial difference between these stories. The latter group consists of
rebukes against the behaviour of certain Old Testament individuals, the former
presents accusations against the God of the Old Testament⁴³. Concerning the
stealing of the silver and golden vessels for instance, neither Irenaeus (or the
elder) nor Tertullian report that their opponent would blame the Hebrews for
stealing but instead that he blames their God for ordering them to do so. In fact,
there is no passage in all the Fathers which would ever suggest that Marcion
reproached any Old Testament figure for doing something bad, but always their
God (see Chapter III). It seems therefore that only chapters 28–30 of Adversus
Haereses IV (containing both the justification of the hardening of Pharaoh’s
heart and the robbery of the Egyptians) are directed against the arch-heretic.
This view is confirmed by other elements found in these chapters. When the
elder states that the heretics oppose the things Christ did for the salvation of
those who received him to all the evil which was inflicted by the Old Testament

³⁹ Cf. Adv. haer. I.5,1–2.

⁴⁰ Cf. Adv. haer. I.6,1.
⁴¹ Adv. Marc. II.14,4.
⁴² Adv. Marc. II.20.
⁴³ Charles Hill has correctly perceived these two different kinds of arguments in the
elder’s teaching, calling the reproaches against certain Old Testament individuals “the argu-
ment from God’s friends” and the reproaches against the Old Testament God “the argument
from God’s enemies” (Charles Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, WUNT 186, Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, p. 33). He did, however, mistakenly assume that they were both
directed against Marcion.
20 I. Problems of Sources

God on those who disobeyed him⁴⁴, not only does this sound very much like a
Marcionite antithesis, but the Greek term ἀντιτιθένταϚ itself forms an “allusion
transparente”⁴⁵ to Marcion’s work (see Chapter V).
Having established the anti-Marcionite character of the elder’s reports, we
now have to investigate from what time these reports date. Unfortunately, Ire-
naeus does not reveal the identity of this elder, and it seems impossible to
establish his identity with any certainty. Charles Hill, in his extensive study
mentioned above, tried to demonstrate that this anonymous elder can be
nobody else but Polycarp. Although his thesis is not completely implausible,
the evidence is still far too shaky to be used as valid proof for the identity of
the two, especially as one basis for Hill’s argument is that the section in ques-
tion is solely directed against Marcion, something we have just found to be
erroneous. Moreover, Norbert Brox, referring to Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus
(quoted in Hist. eccl. V.20,4–8), which Hill also used to support his argument,
has shown most conclusively that although Irenaeus did know Polycarp in per-
son, it must be doubted that he actually recalled any detailed teachings by the
bishop of Smyrna, firstly because Irenaeus met him at a very early age, sec-
ondly because the things he reports about Polycarp in his letter to Florinus
are nothing but very general information, which do not reveal any personal
remembrance of Polycarp’s teachings on Irenaeus’ part⁴⁶.
There is even an uncertainty as to whether the original Greek text spoke of
an immediate witness of the Apostles or of someone who had heard from
those who had seen the Apostles⁴⁷. From a purely text-critical point of view
one may lean towards the immediate disciple. However, the overall situation
indicates a third generation witness. Irenaeus explicitly states that he himself
heard these things from the elder, and it seems most unlikely that Irenaeus had
personal contact with a man of the generation of the immediate disciples⁴⁸, at
⁴⁴ Adv. haer. IV.28,1.
⁴⁵ Rousseau, Contre les hérésies IV/I, p. 265. I am generally a little sceptical as far as the
reconstruction of the originally Greek text of Adversus Haereses by the Sources Chrétiennes
edition is concerned, however, the Latin contrario opponentes is so close to Tertullian’s word-
ing contrariae oppositiones (Adv. Marc. I.19,4) that I believe it is justified to assume the above
mentioned allusion (see Chapter V).
⁴⁶ Norbert Brox, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenäus von Lyon, Salz-
burg: Anton Pustet, 1966, p. 146–148; cf. also Loofs, Theophilus, p. 310. Brox is strikingly
missing from Hill’s index of authors.
⁴⁷ There is a discrepancy between Adv. haer. IV.27,1, where the Latin translation speaks of
an elder who heard from those who had seen the Apostles, and IV.32,1, where the elder is
described as discipulus apostolorum. For a long time there was a scholarly consensus that the
first notion was more precise and that the second was to be understood in a looser sense, until
in 1904 a sixth-century Armenian translation was found in which IV.27,1 also described the
elder as an immediate disciple of the Apostles (cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, p. 9). The Sources Chré-
tiennes (1965) have adapted to the Armenian translation of the passage, whereas the Fontes
Christiani (1995) stick to the Latin version.
⁴⁸ Cf. Brox, Offenbarung, p. 147 n. 104.
 4. The Carmen adversus Marcionitas 21

least not in a way which would allow for him to recall his teachings so pre-
cisely (see above). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that in all the other
passages in which Irenaeus refers to those elders who were disciples of the
Apostles⁴⁹, he never claims to have had any personal contact with them.
Thus, the elder in the corresponding passages was in all probability a third-
generation Christian, just as Marcion was, which makes it most likely that he
was in fact a contemporary of the arch-heretic. This feature alone, of course,
does not mean that the elder ever actually came in contact with him, nor can
we be sure as to what extent Irenaeus is literally quoting the elder’s report and
how much of Irenaeus’ own words are mixed into it. However, even if the
elder’s report may not be as valuable a testimony as Ptolemy’s letter, it remains
one of our earliest (and probably contemporary) refutations of Marcion’s doc-
trine.

4. The Carmen adversus Marcionitas

Unlike our previous sources, the Carmen is undisputedly directed against the
Marcionites; however, its exact relation to them remains a matter of debate as
its dating is most difficult. Over the years, scholars have suggested every time
of writing from the third to the sixth century. In the most recent edition of the
Carmen, Karla Pollmann has proposed that it was written between 420 and
450.⁵⁰ However, she does not provide stringent arguments for her thesis. From
the fact that the author of the Carmen uses the Hebrew term “phase”⁵¹ instead
of “pascha”, Pollmann concludes that the terminus post quem for the Carmen
must be 400, the year in which Jerome finished his Latin translation of the Old
Testament, which contains the first occurrence of this Hebrew term in Latin⁵².
Two things are to be said against this argument. First of all, the word “phase”
occurs only once in the whole text of the Carmen, whereas the term “pascha”
is found eight times.⁵³ It can thus hardly be stated that the term “phase” had
already been „eingebürgert“ at the time of the Carmen, as Pollmann suggests⁵⁴.
Secondly, Pollmann uses something of a circular argument here, as she already
presupposes that the Carmen was written after the Vulgate when claiming that
the latter contains the first occurrence of the word. Likewise, her theory of a
dependence of the Carmen on Augustine’s De Civitate Dei, which she bases on

⁴⁹ For a collection of passages see ibid., p. 152.

⁵⁰ Karla Pollmann, Das Carmen adversus Marcionitas. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und
Kommentar, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, p. 32–33.
⁵¹ Carm. adv. Marc. 2,65.
⁵² Pollmann, Carmen, p. 27.
⁵³ Cf. ibid., p. 212–213.
⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 27.
22 I. Problems of Sources

a certain similarity in thought, and which brings her to the time after 419, is
just as questionable.⁵⁵ It is not without a certain irony that at an earlier point
of her study Pollmann herself had stated correctly: „Imitationen von sprach-
lichen Wendungen oder Gedanken bei verschiedenen Autoren lassen nur sel-
ten eine Schlußfolgerung bezüglich des Prioritätsverhältnisses zu“⁵⁶. As termi-
nus ante quem Pollmann establishes the year 450, based on the fact that there
is no evidence to support the existence of Marcionites after the first half of the
fifth century.⁵⁷ Although she is perfectly right in stating that the Carmen could
not have originated after 450, we shall see that it must in fact have been writ-
ten much earlier than that.
The main argument for an earlier dating can be found in the work of Hans
Waitz⁵⁸. While the fact that the Carmen, beside Tertullian’s Adversus Marcio-
nem, forms the longest single piece of anti-Marcionite literature known to us
already suggests that it must have been written at a time when the Marcionite
movement was still strong, its style of arguments demonstrates this even more
clearly. Waitz remarks correctly about the author: „Behandelt er doch seinen
Gegner nicht wie eine abgethane Grösse, an der man höchstens noch ein
gelehrtes Interesse nimmt; bekämpft er ihn vielmehr als eine brennende
Gefahr für die Kirche seiner Zeit!“⁵⁹ It is indeed this difference in tone which
distinguishes the anti-Marcionite writings of a man like Tertullian (early third
century) from those of someone like Filastrius (late fourth century). With the
former one can feel the passionate fight against a real threat and accordingly
the fear that his fellow Christians might fall for this heresy, whereas the latter
only speaks of Marcion and his doctrine in the style of an article in an ency-
clopedia. Another typical element for the latter is the fact that his reference to
Marcion is only descriptive, in other words there is no intention on the
author’s part to establish a counter-argument in order to refute the heretic,
which is perfectly understandable in a time when the actual threat presented
by this heresy is gone.
In the Carmen, however, it is exactly the other way around. Its author
usually only briefly mentions the Marcionite positions in order to subsequently
refute them extensively. Moreover, we can feel the poet’s anxiety concerning
his fellow Christians when he admonishes his brothers: “withdraw your foot
from the cave of the cruel thief as long as you still can and as long as our

⁵⁵Ibid., p. 32.
⁵⁶Ibid., p. 17.
⁵⁷Ibid., p. 33.
⁵⁸Hans Waitz, Das pseudotertullianische Gedicht Adversus Marcionem: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur sowie zur Quellenkritik des Marcionitismus, Darm-
stadt: Johannes Waitz, 1901. As a matter of fact, Waitz offers a huge variety of arguments for
this dating in his work, but only the one mentioned above is really conclusive.
⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 13.
 4. The Carmen adversus Marcionitas 23

patient God, who is everlasting in his love, forgives the wretched all deeds
which were committed in error”⁶⁰. These features are not the style of a man
who simply wants to inform others about the characteristics of a certain
heresy, but of one who is opposed to a real danger. Although it is hard to
determine when this danger finally ceased, it seems safe to say that in the Wes-
tern Church Marcionism did not pose any real threat beyond the third cen-
tury. Pollmann, however, believes that she has found proof of a Marcionite
movement in Augustine’s work Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum
(ca. 420), which allows her to date the Carmen as late as the fifth century (see
above). It is obvious that the adversarius Augustine is arguing against in his
work shows a certain affinity to Marcionite theology. However, Thomas
Raveaux observed accurately: „Mit den marcionitischen Elementen sind jedoch
manichäische und allgemein gnostische Gedanken verbunden, so daß man
nicht mehr von einem reinen Marcionitismus sprechen kann.“⁶¹ This is the
crucial difference between Augustine’s text and the Carmen, since the latter is
directed against a strikingly pure form of Marcionism. Certainly, the move-
ment has already changed from a good-evil dualism to the idea of a just God,
but this is typical for Marcionism in the third century (see Chapter III). Poll-
mann admits that the Carmen deals with a far more genuine form of Marcion-
ism than Augustine does, but misjudges how genuine the form of Marcionism
represented in the Carmen actually is, since she believes that she has found a
difference from Marcion’s original doctrine. The poet accuses the Marcionites
of inconsistency when he asks: “you disapprove the Creator, but you approve
his creation?”⁶² Pollmann interprets this as an indication that the Marcionites
of the Carmen have reduced the originally strict anti-world attitude of their
founder (see Chapter VI), since they now seem to enjoy the created objects⁶³.
However, accusing the Marcionites of inconsistency because of their using of
objects they actually despise is a common element in anti-Marcionite polemics
and can already be found in Tertullian⁶⁴. It is thus not to be used as an indica-
tion for a change of doctrine within the Marcionite camp, especially as the
author of the Carmen clearly states that the Marcionites praise the creation
“without being aware of it” (immemores)⁶⁵, so that one can by no means speak
of a deliberate alteration.

⁶⁰ Carm. adv. Marc. 1,177–179: sed revocate pedem saevi latronis ab antro, dum spatium
datur et patiens pietate perennis facta per errorem miseris deus omnia donat.
⁶¹ Thomas Raveaux, Augustinus. Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum: Analyse des
Inhalts und Untersuchung des geistesgeschichtlichen Hintergrunds, Würzburg: Augustinus-
Verlag, 1987, p. 139.
⁶² Carm. adv. Marc. 1,124: ipsum factorem reprobatis facta probantes.
⁶³ Pollmann, Carmen, p. 34.
⁶⁴ Cf. Adv. Marc. I.14,3–5.
⁶⁵ Carm. adv. Marc. 1,123.
24 I. Problems of Sources

In conclusion we can state that despite the fact that certain stylistic ele-
ments within the Carmen might be considered an indication for a later dat-
ing⁶⁶, the overall situation it originated in, that is, a situation in which Mar-
cionism in a pure form still posed a real and immense threat to the Western
Church, does not allow for a dating later than the third century.⁶⁷ Addition-
ally, the already established idea of a just God within the Marcionite system
(see above) demonstrates that the Carmen was in all probability not written
before the third century either, which leaves us with the middle of this century
as a good estimate for its origin.

5. Conclusion

Our analysis of the problematic sources on Marcion has brought forward a

rather positive result. With the exception of Polycarp’s Second Letter to the
Philippians, all the sources discussed in this chapter are in fact concerned with
Marcion and his doctrine. Moreover, we have also found that both Ptolemy’s
Letter to Flora as well as the testimony of the elder in Irenaeus were written
during Marcion’s lifetime, which means that in addition to Justin’s Apology
(see above) we are now equipped with three contemporary sources on Mar-
cion’s activity. As for the Carmen adversus Marcionitas, it certainly does not
form a contemporary witness, but it still has to be dated almost 200 years
before its currently received dating and provides a much more authentic view
of Marcion’s doctrine than is usually assumed.

⁶⁶ Cf. Pollmann, Carmen, p. 26–28.

⁶⁷ Cf. the very apt conclusion by Waitz (Gedicht, p. 32): „Ist der Inhalt des c. a. M. derart,
dass man es noch in das 3. Jahrhundert versetzen muss, so kann aus der Form nichts gefolgert
werden, was dieses Ergebnis in Frage stellen könnte.“
 II. Marcion’s Life
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein

„Für eine Biographie Marcions fehlen die Unterlagen.“¹ It is not without its
irony that Harnack began his analysis of Marcion’s life with these most dis-
couraging words only to subsequently deliver the most precise biographical
and psychological portrait of this man ever to be written. Although his recon-
struction might be erroneous in some parts, his endeavour is to be admired for
its characteristic optimism and imagination, two things for which Harnack is
occasionally smiled at but which are in fact absolutely called for in this matter.
If we were to create a biography of Marcion solely based on hard facts, we
would end up with not much more than a blank piece of paper. The line
between evidence and speculation is most thin here, as it is with many charac-
ters of early Christianity. Naturally, this does not mean that the present chap-
ter will not contain a thorough study of all the information on Marcion’s life
available to us; however, this study will be combined with an attempt to fill
some of the black holes in his biography in order to present a complete por-
trait of the heresiarch’s life.
All in all, there are six important questions to answer regarding Marcion’s
biography.
1. Where and when was Marcion born?
2. Was Marcion raised a Christian?
3. What did Marcion’s education and professional career look like?
4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement?
5. What was Marcion’s relation to Cerdo?
6. How and when did Marcion actually break with the Church?

¹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 3*.

26 II. Marcion’s Life

1. Where and when was Marcion born?

One of the few elements of Marcion’s life which seems certain is that he was
born in Pontus. Virtually all the Church Fathers confirm this information,
though without further precision. Whether they refer to the Pontic region² at
the Northern coast of today’s Turkey or to the coast region of the Pontus Euxi-
nus (today’s Black Sea) in general³ we cannot say, although the fact that Mar-
cion was raised in a Christian surrounding (see section 2) makes it likely that
he was born in Asia Minor, the most Christianised area of the first centuries.
Although Epiphanius’ (and Filastrius’) assertion that Marcion was from Sinope
cannot be considered safe evidence (see section 4), Marcion’s level of educa-
tion (see section 3) suggests that he was in fact from an urban area. That he
was from a seaport is also most likely due to his profession of ship-owner (see
section 3). Thus, Sinope remains a plausible birthplace of Marcion, but only
one among many.
The date of Marcion’s birth is naturally nothing but an educated guess,
based on the reconstruction of his life as a whole. The best approach to estab-
lish the date of Marcion’s birth is to ask: how old was he when he arrived in
Rome 144/145? First of all, Harnack’s assumption that Marcion was born
about 85⁴ is highly unlikely. If this was true, Marcion would have been
(almost) sixty when he arrived at Rome, and it seems simply improbable that
a sixty year old man would start a revolution as Marcion did⁵ (for the question
of Marcion’s pre-Roman activity, see section 4). This statement is not intended
to suggest that a man of that age would not have the physical or mental ability
to perform such actions, but I very much doubt that he would have the corre-
sponding mindset. The desire to ‘change the world’ is characteristic for a man’s
twenties or thirties and perhaps his forties but usually not at sixty. Based on
this it must seem unlikely that Marcion was born before 100 AD. But what is
the terminus ante quem? Could Marcion have been born as late as 120, for
example? He could have started his movement at a very young age, but we
must allow for some more time for him both to develop his theological doc-
trine and to gain his respectable fortune (see section 3). All in all one may
suggest that Marcion was probably born somewhere between 100 and 110 AD.

² The exact frontiers of this region were subject to several variations over the centuries.
There was not initially a fixed province of Pontus either, as the Romans (after their final vic-
tory in 62 BC) immediately founded the double province Bithynia et Pontus.
³ Ovid wrote his letters Ex Ponto in the city of Tomis in today’s Romania, which could
apparently also be referred to as a Pontic city.
⁴ Harnack, Marcion, p. 21
⁵ I believe Harnack might actually have agreed with me on this point, but since he
assumes that Marcion’s heretical activity began long before Rome, he can also date his birth
long before.
 2. Was Marcion raised a Christian? 27

2. Was Marcion raised a Christian?

The decision whether Marcion was raised in a Christian surrounding is of cru-

cial importance for his biography. For the following reasons⁶ it seems likely
that he was.
First of all there is a psychological probability. It would be unusual for a
man to join a particular religion deliberately at an advanced age and to subvert
it subsequently.⁷ Rather a man who is brought up in a certain tradition would
develop such a critical attitude towards it. Secondly, it is Marcion’s attitude
toward the Old Testament and its God (see Chapters III and IV) which is of
importance in this question. Again, only a man brought up with a strong
reverence for the God of the Law and the Prophets would be likely to develop
an almost obsessive despite for this God. This feature alone could, of course,
also be explained if Marcion was of Jewish origin, as Harnack suggested⁸.
However, from a letter by Marcion himself (see section 5) we know that he
was at least at some point in his life an orthodox Christian. Now, if he had
been born a Jew, this would mean that he had gone through two conversions
in his life, from Judaism to Christianity, and from Christianity to his own doc-
trine, which seems rather unlikely. It is, however, quite possible that Marcion
was raised within a Christian circle which put great emphasis on the Jewish
Scriptures, perhaps in the way we find it represented in the Letter of Barnabas
(see Chapter VII). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Marcion’s rooted-
ness in the Church’s traditions of his time can be demonstrated by the fact that
he adapted several sacramental practices which clearly bear indications of the
Old Testament (see Chapter VI). Since Marcion would never have consciously
adapted any Old Testament practices into his church, it follows that he must
have had grown up with these rituals, which, in his time, had already been
firmly established, so that their origin had apparently already become hazy
(see Chapter VI).
When it was exactly that Marcion turned his back on the tradition he was
brought up in and developed his own doctrine is impossible to determine. We
do not have to assume that he experienced a dramatic event of conversion, as
people like Augustine, Francis of Assisi or Luther did (at least according to the

⁶ The idea of his father being a bishop, which would, if it was found to be true, already
settle this question, has proven to be unlikely (see below).
⁷ Still today it can be observed that those people who join or switch religion at a later part
of their lives often become its most conservative representatives.
⁸ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 22. Tertullian does indeed associate Marcion’s heresy with the
error of the Jews (Adv. Marc. III.6,2 et al.; cf. Harnack, Marcion, 30*), as they both deny that
Jesus Christ is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets. However, since their conclusions are as
opposite as they could be, this element does not indicate any Jewish influence on Marcion’s
upbringing or his education (cf. Chapter IV).
28 II. Marcion’s Life

legends). In all probability there was no conversion overnight, but rather an

extended process. Although it can, of course, not be dated safely, I think it is
fair to assume that a development such as this usually takes place (and this
also was the case for the three men just mentioned) somewhere between the
age of 20 and 35.⁹
Finally, it should not go unnoticed that it is exactly this break within Mar-
cion’s biography which makes him the prototype of a heretic, just as Tertullian
(see section 4) and other heresiologists always portray them: a man who is
familiar with orthodox doctrine and then deliberately chooses to deviate from it.

3. What did Marcion’s education and professional career look like?

To determine exactly what kind of education Marcion received is nearly impos-

sible, but we are able to establish at least the educational minimum he must
have had.¹⁰ Marcion performed textual criticism by ‘cleaning’ the Gospel of
Luke and the Pauline letters from what he believed to be Judaist interpolations
(see Chapter IV). Leaving aside the theological implications of this enterprise of
his, the ability to accomplish such a project in the first place requires a certain
amount of knowledge, a knowledge one would traditionally receive in the gram-
marian’s school. It was here that the students learned to perform textual emen-
datio, the art of correcting mistakes in a text.¹¹ Students usually finished the
grammarian’s school at the age of seventeen. Whether Marcion went on for
further studies we cannot say, but there is no evidence to suggest this thought¹².

⁹ This also corresponds to the findings of modern psychology of religion. James Fowler
calls this phase “Individuative-Reflective Faith”, which according to him usually begins in
young adulthood: “In a way that parallels the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, we
engage in critical analysis and reflection upon the symbols, rituals, myths, and beliefs that
mediate and express our traditions of faith […] This critical and reflective examination of
our faith heritage does not mean that one must give up being an Episcopal Christian, or an
Orthodox Jew, or a Sunnit Muslim. But it does mean that now one maintains that commit-
ment and identity by choice and explicit assent rather than by fate or tacit commitment.”
(James Fowler, “Stages in Faith Consciousness”, in: Gerhard Büttner/Veit-Jakobus Dieterich,
Die religiöse Entwicklung des Menschen, Stuttgart: Calwer, 2000, p. 115). For Marcion, how-
ever, it did mean giving up his faith heritage and chosing to explicitly commit himself to his
very own new doctrine. As a matter of fact, this development of his might have something to
do with the dangers inherent to this stage according to Fowler: “an excessive confidence in the
conscious mind and in critical thought and a kind of second narcissism” (James Fowler,
Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, San Fran-
cisco: Harper & Row, 1981, p. 182).
¹⁰ For the following cf. Lampe, Christen, 215–219.
¹¹ Very well (and humorously) portrayed by Jérôme Carcopino, La vie quotidienne à
Rome à l’apogée de l’Empire, Paris: Hachette, 1939, p. 137–138.
¹² Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 218: “Von einer Hochschulbildung Marcions bei Rednern oder
Philosophen kann zumindest heute nichts mehr entdeckt werden.”
 3. What did Marcion’s education and professional career look like? 29

All in all Marcion, unlike his contemporary Ptolemy for instance (see
Chapter VII), does not show the traits of an intellectual, and a close connec-
tion of his to any particular philosophical school is not to be found, either. It is
true that the Fathers constantly attempt to link Marcion to a certain philoso-
phical movement, but the variety and apparent arbitrariness of these attempts
make this notion rather questionable. At one point Tertullian considers Mar-
cion to be a follower of Epicurus, at another he sees him as a Stoic, Hippolytus
associates him with Empedocles and with the Cynics, and Clement believes he
took his starting-point from Plato.¹³ Lampe concludes correctly: „Die Palette
widerlegt sich selber.“¹⁴ However, the above stated associations are not entirely
made up. It is indeed true that later generations of Marcionites took over the
concept of (evil) matter from Platonic philosophy (see Chapter III). It is
further true that Marcion himself shows a certain similarity to Epicurean
thought when he states that God’s goodness and omnipotence are irreconcil-
able with the existence of evil in the world (see Chapter III). It was this simi-
larity which made John Gager conclude that Marcion was indeed influenced
by Epicurean philosophy¹⁵. However, Lampe asked mockingly: „Schwingt sich
nicht bereits ein Untersekundaner¹⁶ ohne den Steigbügel Epikurs zur selben
Argumentation auf?“¹⁷, and described the association of Marcion with pagan
philosophers as „übliche Ketzerpolemik“¹⁸. More generally speaking, Mar-
cion’s approach to theology is purely biblicist (see Chapter IV) and may thus
rightly be labelled as “bewußt anti-philosophisch”¹⁹.
Fortunately, as to Marcion’s profession we have some more trustworthy tes-
timonies. Rhodo (quoted in the work of Eusebius²⁰) calls Marcion a sailor
(ναύτηϚ), and Tertullian, both confirming and specifying²¹ Rhodo’s testimony,
describes Marcion as a ship-owner (ναύκληροϚ)²² and refers to the profession
¹³ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 218.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ John G. Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy”, VigChr 26 (1972), p. 55–58.
¹⁶ „Untersekundaner“ is an old-fashioned term for a student in the sixth year of German
secondary school, thus about the age of 16.
¹⁷ Lampe, Christen, p. 217.
¹⁸ Ibid., 217–218. Cf. also Tertullian’s view that the philosophers are “haereticorum patri-
archae” (Adv. Herm. 8.3). In a similar way Jerome is probably to be understood when he
(perhaps quoting Origen) refers to Marcion (and the heretics in general) as a man who is
doctissimus and of ardens ingenium (Comm. Os. II.10,1). The author has hardly an actual
compliment in mind, but rather seems to be referring to the fact that such people are misus-
ing their gifts.
¹⁹ Enrico Norelli, “Marcion: ein christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die Philoso-
phie?”, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 128.
²⁰ Hist. Eccl. V.13,3.
²¹ Lampe observed correctly that Rhodo’s term is in line with Tertullian’s: “ναύτηϚ ist ein
Oberbegriff, nicht ein Spezialbegriff” (Lampe, Christen, p. 204).
²² First notion in De praescr. 30.1. Although the Greek term naukleros is not limited to
the meaning of our term ship-owner (for an extensive description see Lionel Casson, Ships
30 II. Marcion’s Life

of his adversary frequently in his work. There is no particular reason to doubt

the testimony of Tertullian in this regard. How Marcion started his career at
sea we do not know. It is conceivable that he was from a wealthy family and
simply took over their business. His family must at least have had the means to
finance his education. However, Marcion was a man of action, a ‘doer’, and it
seems safe to say that he had at least the potential to be a self-made man,
especially as maritime commerce provided a real social springboard in his
time²³. Marcion’s organisational talent is beyond question. A man who is able
to more or less single-handedly found a movement powerful enough to rival
the orthodox church for some time must be granted a certain ability (see
Chapter VI). Whether this was simply a natural talent or something he
acquired through his business experience, we cannot say. At any rate, it seems
quite possible that Marcion started his career as a mere sailor and then worked
his way up to the top.
From his donation of 200,000 sesterces²⁴ to the Roman church (see section
4) we may conclude that Marcion was a wealthy man. There is no reason to
assume – as Gerhard May does²⁵ – that this sum represented the major part of
his fortune, or that Marcion quit his job after settling in Rome. For the latter
theory May names three reasons: 1. Marcion could not carry out his profession
without capital; 2. due to his theological activity, Marcion did not have time to
go on long business trips; 3. Marcion would have refused to perform the reli-
gious rituals required on board.²⁶ However, none of these arguments is really
conclusive. The first one is based on May’s above mentioned thesis that Mar-
cion gave all his money to the Roman ecclesia, a thesis for which he offers no
evidence whatsoever. More importantly, May seems to be overlooking the fact
that the church of Rome reimbursed Marcion the entire sum soon afterwards²⁷

and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 21995, p.
314–316), I shall keep to this term for Marcion’s profession as I believe it describes it best. It
is Marcion’s wealth (see below) in particular which suggests that he was actually an owner of
a ship rather than just a skipper.
²³ Cf. Mikhail Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire I,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21957, p. 172: “Most of the nouveaux riches owned their money to
it [maritime commerce].” Cf. also Albert Stöckle, “Navicularii”, PRE 16 (1935), p. 1911.
²⁴ De praescr. 30.2. Although it is impossible to name an equivalent sum in today’s cur-
rency, 200.000 sesterces was probably about the value of a house within the city of Rome, cf.
Lampe, Christen, p. 208. For a more complete study of money and prices in the Roman world,
see Richard Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire, Cambridge: University Press,
1974.
²⁵ May, „Der ‚Schiffsreeder‘ Markion“, StPatr 21 (1989), p. 148 n. 27 (= Gesammelte Auf-
sätze, p. 57 n. 29).
²⁶ Ibid., p. 148 n. 28 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 57 n. 30).
²⁷ Interestingly enough, May seems to be contradicting himself when later in the same
article he states that Marcion used his money for the promotion of his movement, cf. ibid.,
p. 151 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 60).
 4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? 31

(see section 4). The other two arguments become irrelevant once we consider
that a ship-owner did not have to travel himself. The strongest argument, how-
ever, against the theory that Marcion quit his job after he came to Rome is the
fact that it is Tertullian who provides this information about Marcion’s profes-
sion. Since his knowledge about Marcion is limited to the heretic’s time in
Rome (apart from his Pontic birth), we have to conclude that the memory of
Marcion’s professional activity was preserved within the Roman community
until the time of Tertullian and it is hard to imagine that this was the case if
he had not pursued his business (at least for some time) after he settled in
Rome. This impression is further confirmed by the fact that the only other
source to name Marcion’s profession (Rhodo) is also located in Rome.
How wealthy Marcion actually was we can no longer evaluate. Still, as sta-
ted above, there is no reason to assume that the 200,000 sesterces, while prob-
ably forming a substantial amount of Marcion’s fortune, represented all of his
savings. Thus, it seems possible that his wealth qualified him for the ordo eque-
ster. Lampe has, however, denied this possibility, pointing out that a man who
despised the world and its goods so much (see Chapter VI) would not save
400,000 sesterces (the equestrian census) in order to achieve social ascent.²⁸ It
should be noted, however, that one does not have to spend 400,000 sesterces to
become a knight, one simply has to own them. Certainly, Marcion was not an
eques in the style of Trimalchio²⁹, a nouveau riche who spends all his money
on personal vanities. But there is no direct contradiction between an anti-
world lifestyle on the one hand and success in business on the other, especially
not when we assume that Marcion used his money first of all for the welfare of
his church.

4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement?

One of the few elements of Marcion’s biography which can be considered cer-
tain is that at some point in his life Marcion came to (and settled in) Rome.³⁰
One problem is to pinpoint the exact date of his arrival³¹, another to determine
whether Marcion had already been ‘active’ before he arrived in the Imperial
Capital.
Unfortunately, the two most precise statements we have about Marcion’s
arrival in Rome are at the same time the most doubtful ones. In the Carmen

²⁸ Lampe, Christen, p. 208–209.

²⁹ A figure from Petronius’ Satyricon.
³⁰ The only one to ever actually deny this was Hoffmann, see Introduction.
³¹ The information provided by Jerome that Marcion sent a woman to Rome beforehand
to ‘prepare his way’ as it were is isolated and hardly reliable (cf. Hier. ep. 133,4: “Marcion
Romam praemisit mulierem, quae decipiendos sibi animos praepararet.”)
32 II. Marcion’s Life

adversus Marcionitas it is said³² that Marcion came to Rome under the episco-
pate of Anicetus (ca. 155–166)³³. This date, however, would contradict our
earlier and more reliable sources on Marcion’s life and is thus not to be
trusted. The same goes for Tertullian’s report that Marcion (and Valentinus)
came to Rome under the episcopate of Eleutherus (ca. 174–189).³⁴ Harnack
remarked correctly: „dieser Anachronismus […] ist Tert. nicht zuzutrauen“³⁵,
and assumes that an early copyist has mistakenly replaced the original bishop
Telesphorus (ca. 125–136) with Eleutherus. However, the dates of both
Eleutherus and Telesphorus do not coincide with the reign of Antoninus Pius
(138–161), under which Tertullian places the activity of Marcion in the very
same passage. Thus, even if Harnack’s theory is correct, there would still be a
contradiction between the two dates, and it seems safe to say that the reign of
Antoninus, especially as Tertullian refers to it repeatedly in context with Mar-
cion’s activity (see below), is the more reliable one.
The only other rather precise date is given by Epiphanius, who asserts that
Marcion came to Rome after the death of the Roman bishop Hyginus³⁶
(ca. 142). This is, however, probably just an imprecise rendering of Irenaeus’
statement³⁷ that Marcion arrived in Rome after Cerdo³⁸, who again came to
Rome under Hyginus (ca. 138–142), since it would be hard to explain where
Epiphanius (at the end of the fourth century) would have such precise infor-
mation from. Nevertheless, if we consider Irenaeus’ report to be trustworthy, it
is possible that Marcion came to the Imperial Capital a few years after Cerdo
did, which might then indeed be shortly after the death of Hyginus, maybe in
the mid-forties of the second century.
The really crucial piece of information in order to determine Marcion’s
arrival in Rome is Tertullian’s assertion that the Marcionites put 115 ½ years
and half a month between Christ and Marcion, a passage which has served for
a long time as the “Grundpfeiler der Markionchronologie”³⁹. However, since
the credibility of this report by Tertullian has recently been called into ques-
tion, it is important to take a closer look at it:
A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum anni fere CXV et dimidium anni cum dimidio
mensis. Tantundem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marcionem. (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

³² Carm. adv. Marc. 3,296–297.

³³ Dates for the Popes are taken from J. N. D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
³⁴ De praescr. 30,2.
³⁵ Harnack, Marcion, p. 18* n. 2.
³⁶ Pan. 42.1,7.
³⁷ Adv. haer. I.27,1; III.4,3.
³⁸ Cf. Karl Holl/Jürgen Dummer (ed.), Epiphanius. Panarion. Vol. 2 (34–64). GCS 31.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 21980, p. 94.
³⁹ May, Markionbild, p. 406.
 4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? 33

They [the Marcionites] put 115 years and 6 ½ months between Christ and Marcion,
which is more or less the period of time from Tiberius to Antoninus.

In my translation I have deliberately changed the order of words to point out

one most important thing. Reading Tertullian’s first sentence one could easily
get the impression that his calculation is simply referring to the time difference
between the Emperors. But apart from the fact that the calculation from Tiber-
ius (14–37) to Antoninus Pius (138–161) would then be entirely wrong, it is
the use of the word fere which excludes this possibility. No one would make
such an exact calculation down to the very day and say: it is more or less 115
years and 6 ½ months. Therefore it is obvious that Tertullian is referring to a
calculation made by the Marcionites themselves, which he then approximately
(fere) equates with the time between Tiberius and Antoninus.
This is where Hoffman launches his attack against the integrity of Tertul-
lian’s testimony:
“Inasmuch as Tertullian expressly introduces the calculation as support for the prescrip-
tion, one may doubt not only the resulting date, but also his attribution of the figure to
the Marcionites […] Tertullian’s calculation is not offered, therefore, in the interest of
supplying biographical information, but rather in order to prove that Marcion’s teach-
ing did not arise before the middle decades of the second century.”⁴⁰
Hoffmann is referring to Tertullian’s credo that the old always outweighs the
new⁴¹, which Tertullian states at the very beginning of his work against Mar-
cion:
In tantum enim haeresis deputabitur quod postea inducitur, in quantum veritas habebi-
tur quod retro et a primordio traditum est. (Adv. Marc. I.1,6)
For in as far as that which is introduced later will be considered heresy, in so far will
that which has been delivered previously and from the very beginning be held as truth.
On the one hand, Hoffman is perfectly right. Tertullian, like all of Marcion’s
opponents, has no interest to provide biographical information about the here-
siarch, but uses this information to support his praescriptio. But that does not
make his statement unreliable. Even if we were to assume, as Hoffman is trying
to demonstrate in vain, that Marcion was already preaching his doctrine at the
beginning of the second century, why would it make such a big difference to
Tertullian? Even if Marcion had appeared already under Trajan, Tertullian
would still have been able to demonstrate that the God of Trajan’s reign was
not the one of Tiberius’ reign, and that therefore the God first preached by
Marcion was not the one revealed by Christ⁴².
⁴⁰ Hoffmann, Marcion, p. 70.
⁴¹ For a thorough study of Tertullian’s concept of praescriptio see Joseph Stirnimann, Die
praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des römischen Rechts und der Theologie, Freiburg in der
Schweiz: Paulusverlag, 1949.
⁴² Cf. Adv. Marc. I.19,3.
34 II. Marcion’s Life

Now, according to the Marcionites (that is, according to the Gospel of Luke,
see Chapter IV), Christ appeared in the 15th year of Tiberius (= 29 AD).
Unfortunately, it does not get any more precise than this. So, counted from
any day of the year 29 AD, 115 years and six and a half months would take us
somewhere between the middle of 144 and the middle of 145.⁴³ However, even
if we are no longer able to determine the precise date, the most exact determi-
nation almost down to the very day by the Marcionites makes it clear that they
had a very special event in mind. What could be the one event in history so
meaningful to them that it would be worthy to be remembered so precisely?
Since the one end of this interval is the advent of Christ it is only natural to
assume that the other end would be the advent of Marcion (rather than his
death⁴⁴). Harnack concludes: „Also muß der Marcion-Tag, der hier zugrunde
liegt, ebenso bedeutend sein wie der Christus-Tag. Dieser Tag war der Tag der
Epiphanie Christi, mit der das Heil anhob, also muß der Marcion-Tag der Kir-
chengründungstag sein.“⁴⁵ Harnack is right in identifying the Christ-day as the
day of Christ’s epiphany, but it is hard to see why he is so sure that the
Marcion-day must be the day of the foundation of his church. Would it not
be more logical to assume that it is simply the day of Marcion’s arrival in
Rome?⁴⁶ When we further consider the phrase which immediately precedes
the calculation offered by Tertullian, this becomes even more probable:
Anno quinto decimo Tiberii Christus Iesus de caelo manare dignatus est, spiritus salu-
taris. Marcionis saltim qui ita voluit quoto quidem anno Antonini maioris de Ponto suo
exhalaverit aura canicularis non curavi investigare. A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoni-
num anni fere CXV et dimidium anni cum dimidio mensis. Tantundem temporis ponunt
inter Christum et Marcionem. (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

⁴³ I cannot see why Harnack automatically assumes that the 115 years and six and a half
months have to be counted from the very beginning of the year 29 (bringing him to the sec-
ond half of July 144), cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 20*. This is all the more surprising as in an
earlier work Harnack believed that these years have to be counted from spring 29, which
would then bring us to autumn 144 (Harnack, Chronologie, p. 306).
⁴⁴ Ernst Barnikol expressed the idea that this date would refer to the day of Marcion’s
death (Ernst Barnikol, Die Entstehung der Kirche im zweiten Jahrhundert und die Zeit Mar-
cions, Kiel: Walter Mühlau Verlag, 21933, p. 18–20). Apart from what has just been said about
the unlikeliness of this theory, it is based on a complete misdating of Justin’s Apology (ibid.,
p. 20–21), a document from which we can clearly see that Marcion was still alive in the early
150s (see below).
⁴⁵ Harnack, Marcion, p. 20*-21* n. 3.
⁴⁶ Still, Harnack might not be all wrong, as it is conceivable that the day of Marcion’s
arrival in Rome was celebrated by his followers as the birth of Marcionism. After all, just
because people celebrate a certain day as their foundation day, that does not mean that it
actually was. Lutherans, for example, celebrate 31 October 1517 (the day Luther pinned his
95 theses to the door of the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg) as the start of the Reformation. It was
a start, no doubt, but no one (and especially not Luther himself) at that point even considered
an actual break with the Catholic Church much less the foundation of their own. Something
similar might be true for the Marcionites.
 4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? 35

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus deigned to pour down from heaven,
a salutary spirit. This is at least the way Marcion would have it; in what year of the elder
Antoninus his pestilential breeze breathed out from his own Pontus, I have not both-
ered to investigate. They [the Marcionites] put 115 years and 6 ½ months between
Christ and Marcion, which is more or less the period of time from Tiberius to Antoni-
nus.

It is obvious that for Tertullian it is these two ‘arrivals’ which correlate⁴⁷. He

knows that (according to the Marcionites) it was the 15th year of Tiberius
when Christ came down from heaven, but he has not bothered to investigate
the correlating event, that is when it was that Marcion’s “breeze breathed out”
from Pontus. Therefore he must ‘rely’ on the calculation offered by the Mar-
cionites. One might thus paraphrase the entire line of thought as follows: Mar-
cion says that Christ came down from Heaven in the 15th year of Tiberius.
When it was that Marcion came from Pontus, I do not know, but the Marcio-
nites say it was 115 years and 6 ½ months after Christ.⁴⁸
The more difficult question regarding Marcion’s arrival in Rome is the
question about his pre-Roman activity. It is above all the so-called second tra-
dition about Marcion’s life – represented by Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius
and Filastrius – which seems to suggest an activity of the heresiarch before he
came to Rome, that is, before the year 144/145. I have already dedicated an
article to this matter, in which I tried to demonstrate that this tradition is
highly questionable.⁴⁹ These findings are listed here in summary.
The reports on Marcion’s life presented by Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius
and Filastrius substantially differ from those of the earlier writers, Tertullian
in particular, which is why Regul referred to the former as the second tradition
about Marcion’s life⁵⁰. While Regul correctly observed certain similarities
between the three authors, they still by no means provide a coherent picture
of Marcion’s life. Therefore, it must strongly be doubted whether their reports
actually go back to the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus, a theory formulated by
Richard Adelbert Lipsius⁵¹. This theory becomes even less likely when we take
into account that none of the information Ps-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Filas-

⁴⁷ Cf. René Braun, Tertulllien: Contre Marcion I, SC 365, Paris: Cerf, 1990, p. 272: “Tert.
ironise en opposant à l’apparition inopinée du Christ selon Marcion celle de l’hérésiarque lui-
même, sa venue à Rome de son Pont natal.”
⁴⁸ August Bill has offered a theory similar to mine concerning this matter, but comes to
the conclusion that the day in question must be the day Marcion left Pontus (August Bill, Zur
Erklärung und Textkritik des 1. Buches Tertullians “Adversus Marcionem”, Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1911, p. 66–73). While this is a possible interpretation of the above mentioned passage, it
seems hard to understand why the Marcionites would care about this day rather than the
one of their master’s arrival in Rome.
⁴⁹ Sebastian Moll, “Three against Tertullian: The Second Tradition about Marcion’s Life”,
JTS 59/1 (2008), p. 169–180.
⁵⁰ Regul, Evangelienprologe, p. 180–188.
⁵¹ Richard Adelbert Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanius, Wien: Braumüller, 1865.
36 II. Marcion’s Life

trius provide on Marcion is to be found in Hippolytus’ Refutatio, which was, in

his own words, his more detailed work⁵². If, however, none of the works
belonging to the second tradition go back to Hippolytus, this means that they
probably date from a period later than Tertullian’s, which does not help their
credibility. Their credibility is further weakened by the fact that many of the
elements they report about Marcion are – unlike Tertullian’s – well suited to
bring him into disrepute. Finally, it should be noted that all the earlier sources
(Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian) only know of Marcion after he arrived in
Rome, and that it is far easier to imagine later generations of heresiologists
inventing a negative background story than all earlier writers being unaware
of it. As for the credibility of the particular elements contained in the second
tradition, we may state in conclusion: 1. The idea of Marcion’s father being a
bishop as well as the story of Marcion’s abuse of a virgin are in all probability
invented; 2. Sinope remains a possible birth place of Marcion, but is by no
means as safe as generally assumed; 3. The debate with the elders may in fact
have taken place, while the importance attached to it is probably overrated.
Beside this second tradition, there are also a number of even later sources⁵³
which mention an activity of Marcion before the year 144/145. In chronologi-
cal order we have:

– The Chronicle of Edessa (sixth century)

Im Jahre 449 [= 137/8 AD] schied Marcion aus der katholischen Kirche aus.⁵⁴

– The Liber Chalipharum (eight century, Syria)

Im Jahre 448 [= 136/7 AD] wurden die Häretiker Marcion und Montanus in
Phrygien bekannt.⁵⁵

– The Fihrist of Muhammed ben Ishak (987/8, Baghdad?):

Mâni trat im zweiten Jahr der Regierung des Römers Gallus auf, nachdem
Marcion ungefähr hundert Jahre vor ihm unter der Regierung des Titus

⁵² Ref. I. Prooemium 1.
⁵³ The testimony of Filastrius that Marcion was excommunicated by John the Evangelist
in Ephesus before he reached Rome forms an obvious anachronism (cf. Moll, Three against
Tertullian, p. 172) and will therefore not be discussed again here. The same goes for the simi-
lar report in the Prologue to John, cf. ibid. Likewise, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians can-
not serve as testimony for Marcion’s activity before the year 144/145, as we can not state with
certainty that Marcion is referred to in the letter (see Chapter I); however, even if we could
confirm this, it would still be possible, while unlikely, that the letter was written after 144/145
(a possibility that even Harrison has to concede, cf. Epistles., p. 197), in which case it would be
of no value for our question even if it was directed against Marcion.
⁵⁴ Translated by Ludwig Hallier, Untersuchungen über die Edessenische Chronik, Leipzig:
1892, p. 89.
⁵⁵ Ibid.
 4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? 37

Antoninus und zwar im ersten Jahre seiner Herrschaft, und Ibn Deisân (Bar-
desanes) ungefähr 30 Jahre nach Marcion erschienen war.⁵⁶

Harnack maintained the possibility that these three sources might be based on
an originally Marcionite dating which established the first year of the reign of
Antoninus Pius (138) as the arrival of Marcion in Rome, a date which the first
two sources, however, somehow miscalculated⁵⁷. Anything is possible; how-
ever, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this is the case. Not only
does none of the sources mention the city of Rome, but the Liber Chalipharum
clearly states that Marcion’s first appearance was in Phrygia (a fact which Har-
nack noticeably withholds). The mention of this area in context with Marcion
is in fact a very interesting piece of information. Unfortunately, there is no
credibility to it, as there is no other source that ever associates Marcion with
Phrygia. There has apparently been a mixing up with the persona of Monta-
nus, who indeed was from this region, although he by no means appeared as
early as 136/7⁵⁸. It almost seems as if the author combined Marcion’s time
with Montanus’ place. If the three sources are connected at all, it rather seems
to have been the other way around from what Harnack assumed: the latest
source was perhaps familiar with the dating of the earlier two, and then identi-
fied it with the first year of the Emperor. Be that as it may, due to the lateness
of these sources’ testimony and due to the fact that it is impossible to deter-
mine where they got their information from and that further none of them is
directly concerned with a description of Marcion and his heresy, they cannot
be used as reliable information about the time or whereabouts of the heretic’s
first appearance.
Another testimony which seems to suggest an activity of the arch-heretic
before the year 144/145 is provided by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata
(ca. 200)⁵⁹:
That the human gatherings which they called were of a later time than the catholic
church does not require many words. For the teaching of the Lord during his presence
began at the time of Augustus and Tiberius Caesar and was completed in the middle of
the time of Tiberius⁶⁰, the teaching of his apostles – until the service of Paul – was com-

⁵⁶ Translated by Gustav Flügel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften, Leipzig: Brockhaus,
1862, p. 85. As to the location and dating of the source see ibid., p. 30–31.
⁵⁷ Harnack, Marcion, p. 29*. Wilson also had much confidence in these sources for the
reconstruction of Marcion’s biography (Marcion, p. 56–60).
⁵⁸ Although the date of Montanus’ first appearance is disputed (cf. Christine Trevett,
Montanism, Cambridge: University Press, 1996, p. 26–45), there is no indication that he was
active before the 150s.
⁵⁹ The dating of Clement’s work is most difficult. For the best, yet still approximate dating
see André Méhat, Étude sur les ‘Stromateis’ de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris: Seuil, 1966, p. 54.
⁶⁰ Changed according to the most common emendation, cf. Alain Le Boulluec, Clément
d’Alexandrie: Les Stromates VII, SC 428, Paris: Cerf, 1997, p. 318 n. 2.
38 II. Marcion’s Life

pleted under Nero; but it was later, in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, that those
appeared who came up with the heresies, and they extended to the time of the elder Anto-
ninus; like Basilides, though he claims Glaucias for his teacher, who was, as they boast,
the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they assert that Valentinus had heard Theodas; and he
was a disciple of Paul. Marcion, who appeared at about the same time they did, indeed
associated with those younger people when he was already an old man. (Strom. -
VII.17,106–107)⁶¹
Harnack concluded from this passage „daß M.[arcion] schon im Zeitlalter
Hadrians ein gestandener Mann war“⁶², and thus dated his birth as early as 85
AD (see section 1). However, Clement does not explicitly state that Marcion
already appeared in the time of Hadrian. Like most of the early anti-heretical
writers he is first of all concerned with the demonstration of the heretics’ pos-
teriority compared to the Church, and he arranges the passage in question
accordingly. After stating that the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles goes from
Augustus to Nero, Clement puts the heretics in the time of Hadrian and Anto-
ninus. However, only Basilides can safely be dated under the reign of
Hadrian⁶³. Clement can hardly be seen as a precise biographer of any of these
men, he merely offers a larger era in which they were active, an era which was,
and this is what mattered to him, long after the time of Christ and the Apos-
tles. In the end, it is hardly a coincidence that Clement mentions Marcion as
the last of the three, thereby indicating a certain chronological order in which
they appeared.
Still, there is also the piece of information that Marcion was older than
Basilides and Valentinus. While this information is of little value for our ques-
tion of Marcion’s pre-Roman activity – after all, it is perfectly possible that
Marcion simply started his movement at a later age than Basilides and Valen-
tinus –, it seems to make our estimated date of birth for the arch-heretic (100–
110 AD, see section 1) appear a little too late. However, we may wonder how
literally we may take Clement’s assertion, which is probably based on hearsay
in this case. If Marcion was born 100 AD, he would have been in his mid-for-
ties when he started his movement (see section 6). Given his rigorous way of
life (see Chapter VI) and his demanding profession (see section 3), it seems

⁶¹ ὅτι γὰρ μεταγενεστέραϚ τῆϚ καθολικῆϚ ἐκκλησίαϚ τὰϚ ἀνθρωπίναϚ συνηλύσειϚ πεποιή-
κασιν, οὐ πολλῶν δεῖ λόγων ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ κυρίου κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν διδασκαλία ἀπὸ
Αὐγούστου καὶ Τιβερίου καίσαροϚ ἀρξαμένη μεσούντων τῶν Τιβερίου χρόνων τελειοῦται, ἡ
δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ μέχρι γε τῆϚ Παύλου λειτουργίαϚ ἐπὶ ΝέρωνοϚ τελειοῦται, κάτω δὲ
περὶ τοὺϚ Ἀδριανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέωϚ χρόνουϚ οἱ τὰϚ αἱρέσειϚ ἐπινοήσαντεϚ γεγόνασι, καὶ μέχρι
γε τὴϚ Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου διέτειναν ἡλικίαϚ, καθάπερ ὁ ΒασιλείδηϚ, κἂν Γλαυκίαν
ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον, ὡϚ αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα. ὡσαύτωϚ δὲ καὶ Οὐαλεν-
τῖνον Θεοδᾶ διακηκοέναι φέρουσιν· γνώριμοϚ δ᾽ οὗτοϚ γεγόνει Παύλου. Μαρκίων γὰρ κατὰ
τὴν αὐτὴν αὐτοῖϚ ἡλικίαν γενόμενοϚ ὡϚ πρεσβύτηϚ νεωτέροιϚ συνεγένετο.
⁶² Harnack, Marcion, p. 15*.
⁶³ Cf. Winrich A. Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchen-
geschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p. 325–326.
 4. Where and when did Marcion start his movement? 39

quite possible that Marcion looked a little older than he actually was, especially
compared to certain Gnostics, who are often portrayed as men of the upper
class, sometimes even as charmers of (wealthy) women⁶⁴. Thus, Clement’s
statement may make our estimation lean more towards 100 than 110 AD, but
it does not call our general concept into question.
Finally, there is one passage in the work of Justin which has made some
scholars believe that Marcion must already have been active before 144/145.
In his Apology (ca. 153–154), Justin states that Marcion “has made many peo-
ple in the whole world speak blasphemies”⁶⁵ and that he is “even now still
teaching”⁶⁶. John Knox has commented on this as follows:
“For one thing, it indicates that Marcion’s influence was more widespread than one
would suppose possible if his career as a Christian teacher and leader had begun only a
few years earlier. Besides, Justin’s phrase, ‘even until now’, suggests a longer period of
‘heretical’ activity than is allowed for by the usual theory that Marcion became an influ-
ential teacher only after he had reached the West.”⁶⁷

Both arguments are inconclusive. First of all, we should be cautious to take

Justin’s assertion that Marcion’s doctrine has spread “κατὰ πᾶν γένοϚ ἀνθρώ-
πων” too literally. A little exaggeration on his part is certainly possible since
the success of Marcion’s movement was indeed frightening to him (especially
as it mostly recruited former orthodox Christians, see Chapter VI), even if it
did not yet affect the whole world. For this success, however, the time between
Marcion’s appearance in Rome and the date of the Apology is quite sufficient.
Even if we dated the Apology as early as 150, there would still have been at
least five years for Marcion’s doctrine to spread successfully, which is more
than enough for a doctrine which obviously appealed to the people, especially
when it is proclaimed by a man of Marcion’s position and ability (see Chapter
VI) . Justin’s statement that Marcion is “even now still” teaching becomes
understandable if we take a look at the preceding sections of the Apology.
According to Justin, all heretics were put forward by the demons after Christ’s
ascension into heaven. He then mentions the heretics Simon, Menander and
Marcion, of whom the first two are of course long dead already. The reason
for Justin’s surprise that Marcion is still teaching is not his impressively long
heretical career, but the fact that he is still active so long after the demons had
put forward the other heretics.⁶⁸
Summing up we can state that we have no safe testimony of Marcion’s
activity before 144/145. None of the later sources can seriously compete with

⁶⁴ Cf. Adv. haer. I.13,3.

⁶⁵ 1 Apol. 26,5: ὃϚ κατὰ πᾶν γένοϚ ἀνθρώπων […] πολλοὺϚ πεποίηκε βλάσφημα λέγειν.
⁶⁶ Ibid.: καὶ νῦν ε῏τι ἐστι διδάσκων.
⁶⁷ Knox, Marcion, p. 8. A similar argument can already be found in Wilson, Marcion,
p. 57–58.
⁶⁸ Cf. Moll, Justin, p. 148–149.
40 II. Marcion’s Life

Tertullian’s testimony, and the reports by Justin and Clements have proven to
present no actual contradiction to the Carthaginian’s statements. The question
is: does that mean that Marcion did not develop his doctrine before the year
144/145? Certainly not (see section 2). We have to ask ourselves what it was
that made the Imperial Capital so attractive to Marcion that he decided to set-
tle down there. First of all, it may well have been business reasons. Marcion
was an overseas merchant and, as we have seen, probably not the smallest
among them. As such, he might well have been involved in the supply of the
Imperial capital.⁶⁹ However, his decision was probably also motivated by the
religious atmosphere within the Roman church, a community which could be
considered as the “great laboratory of Christian and ecclesiastical policy”⁷⁰.
Besides the liberal and tolerant climate in general (see section 6), it can be
assumed that within the Roman ecclesia, which was from the beginning domi-
nated by Pagan-Christians⁷¹, the break with Judaism was clearer than it was in
the East⁷², a feature which, needless to say, also attracted Marcion. If we sup-
pose that his decision to stay in Rome after 144/145 was motivated by his
intuition that the religious atmosphere of the Imperial capital was the perfect
environment for his doctrine to be a success, we may also suppose that he had
already developed his doctrine before 144/145. The fact that there are no wit-
nesses for this might have two reasons. Either Marcion had developed, but not
yet proclaimed his doctrine, or his preaching had been without much impact,
which would be another reason why he decided to try his luck in Rome. At any
rate, it seems safe to say that Marcion’s life before Rome was of little impor-
tance to his followers after Rome had become the headquarters and point of
departure for Marcionism.
The important question is what happened at Marcion’s arrival in Rome, or,
to be more precise, what his status was when he arrived. Tertullian claims that
Marcion came to Rome as a loyal son of the church.⁷³ However, this time it
might indeed be the idea of praescriptio which dictates his version. Concerning
the praescriptio it is not only important to Tertullian that the true precedes the
false but – correspondingly – that a heretic always knows the truth first and

⁶⁹ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 205–206.

⁷⁰ George La Piana, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century”, HTR 18
(1925), p. 203.
⁷¹ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 53–63.
⁷² Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 25, n. 1. See also Leonhard Goppelt, Christentum und Ju-
dentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1954, p. 225: „Die sich
im R[ömerbrief] andeutende Situation der römischen Gemeinde gegenüber dem Judentum
begegnet weiterhin in den der Kirche des Westens entstammenden Zeugnissen der nachpau-
linischen Zeit: überall ist ein den dargestellten östlichen Kirchengebieten unbekannter
Abstand zwischen Kirche und Synagoge zu spüren. Das Judentum spielt im wesentlichen nur
als der geschichtliche Ursprung des Christentums eine Rolle.“
⁷³ Cf. Adv. Marc. IV.4,3.
 5. What was Marcion’s relation to Cerdo? 41

then deliberately chooses the false.⁷⁴ The intriguing element in this matter is
the letter of Marcion already mentioned that Tertullian refers to several
times⁷⁵ (always in connection with the principle of praescriptio) in which Mar-
cion himself confessed that he used to share the orthodox faith (see Chapter
V). There seems to be no particular reason to doubt the actual existence of this
letter, especially as it is indeed most likely that the heresiarch used to confess
the faith of the orthodox church once in his life (see section 2), and as it would
not be uncommon for a man like Marcion to provide autobiographical infor-
mation about his conversion. The only mistake Tertullian makes is to automa-
tically assume that Marcion’s conversion took place in Rome. As we have seen
this is rather unlikely and the only reason Tertullian would believe this seems
to be the fact that he does not know anything about Marcion’s life before
Rome.
In a manner of speaking, it is true that Marcion arrived in Rome as a here-
tic, but only in so far as he had already developed his own doctrine. He was,
however, not yet outside the orthodox church. Marcion came to Rome hoping
that the local Christians would be receptive to his theology and so he joined
the church donating the already mentioned 200,000 sesterces. To interpret this
as attempted bribery (as Harnack apparently did⁷⁶) seems a bit too harsh, and
yet it may not have been pure charity either. The truth is probably somewhere
in between. Marcion honestly wanted to support the church of Rome, but per-
haps he also thought that this welcoming gift might make things a little easier
for him.

5. What was Marcion’s relation to Cerdo?

The figure of Cerdo represents perhaps the greatest paradox in the history of
the reconstruction of Marcion’s biography. Although a considerable influence
of this man on Marcion is one of the best attested features of Marcion’s life,
the scholarly consensus seems to be that this influence, at least in any substan-
tial form, is made up by Marcion’s adversaries, or that Cerdo did not even
exist at all⁷⁷. This consensus is all the more striking as those sources which
usually report many different (and sometimes irreconcilable) things about
Marcion’s life not only agree on this point, but even provide a rather coherent

⁷⁴ Adv. Marc. I.1,6: “destinari possit haereticus qui deserto quod prius fuerat id postea sibi
elegerit, quod retro non erat”. Cf. E. P. Meijering, Tertullian contra Marcion. Gotteslehre in
der Polemik, Leiden: Brill, 1977, p. 8: „Das Wort eligere soll natürlich die Grundbedeutung
des Wortes ‚Häretiker‘ unterstreichen.“
⁷⁵ Adv. Marc. I.1,6; IV.4,3; Carn. II.4.
⁷⁶ Harnack, Chronologie, p. 305–306.
⁷⁷ Cf. David Deakle, “Harnack & Cerdo”, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 188–189.
42 II. Marcion’s Life

picture of the role that Cerdo played in the life of the arch-heretic: Irenaeus
states that Marcion expanded (adampliavit) Cerdo’s doctrine⁷⁸; Tertullian calls
Cerdo the informator of Marcion⁷⁹; Hippolytus states that Cerdo was his
διδάσκαλοϚ⁸⁰ and that Marcion confirmed (ἐκράτυνε) his doctrine⁸¹; according
to Ps-Tertullian, Marcion was Cerdo’s discipulus and tried to prove (appro-
bare) the doctrine of his master⁸²; Epiphanius tells us that Marcion, after he
failed to obtain leadership of the Roman church or to be accepted by it, fled
(προσφεύγει) to the sect of Cerdo⁸³, and that Marcion took over his manner
(πρόφασιϚ)⁸⁴; Filastrius describes their relation as one between doctor and dis-
cipulus and states that Marcion confirmed (firmabat) Cerdo’s mendacium.⁸⁵
All these reports agree on three things:
1. Cerdo was active before Marcion.
2. Cerdo taught a doctrine similar to that of Marcion.
3. Marcion met Cerdo in Rome.⁸⁶
The one point the sources do not agree upon is to what extent Cerdo had
already developed what was later to become known as the system of Marcion,
and it is exactly this element which has made scholars believe that the so-called
doctrine of Cerdo is nothing but an arbitrary re-projection of Marcion’s
thought onto him.⁸⁷ It is indeed true that the variety of portraits of Cerdo’s
doctrine reveals a certain arbitrariness on the part of the Fathers, so that it is
most unlikely that they actually based their reports on first-hand testimony.
An exact reconstruction of Cerdo’s system of beliefs is therefore impossible.
But could it have been similar to that of Marcion?
The best way to approach this difficult question is to analyse the testimony
of Irenaeus. His report on Cerdo can be considered the most reliable, firstly
because it is our earliest report on him (thus later reports might already

⁷⁸Adv. haer. I.27,2.

⁷⁹Adv. Marc. I.2,3.
⁸⁰Ref. X.19,1.
⁸¹Ref. VII.37,2.
⁸²Adv. omn. haer. VI.2
⁸³Pan. 42.1,8.
⁸⁴Pan. 42.1,1.
⁸⁵Div. her. 45.1–3.
⁸⁶The city of Rome is not specifically named by all of the above mentioned sources as the
place of the encounter between Cerdo and Marcion, but none of them names a different place
either. It is thus safe to assume that they all considered Rome to be the place where the two
met.
⁸⁷ Cf. for example Gerhard May, „Markion und der Gnostiker Kerdon“, in: Alfred Rad-
datz/Kurt Lüthi (ed.), Evangelischer Glaube und Geschichte. Grete Mecenseffy zum 85.
Geburtstag, Wien: Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat H. B., 1984, p. 243 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze,
p. 71): „Den Nachrichten über die Lehre Kerdons fehlt jedes erkennbare eigene Profil. Man
hat einfach die Anschauungen Markions auf Kerdon übertragen, weil man von dessen Theo-
logie nichts mehr wusste.“
 6. How and when did Marcion actually break with the Church? 43

depend on Irenaeus), but also because there is no motive to be found on Ire-

naeus’ part to deliberately provide false evidence in this case⁸⁸. The most strik-
ing part about his report is the fact that he does not, like most of the later
sources, describe Cerdo as Marcion’s teacher. To be precise, Irenaeus does not
even speak of any kind of personal relation between the two. He just states that
Marcion came after him (succedens) and that he expanded (adampliavit) his
doctrine.⁸⁹ Taking the term expanding seriously, it does not sound at all as if
Cerdo was Marcion’s teacher. Could it not rather have been like this: Cerdo
and Marcion had – independently from one another – developed somewhat
similar ideas, but Marcion was more radical⁹⁰ and probably a better organiser.
Cerdo and Marcion would thus not be teacher and student, but rather two
theologians in Rome with similar ideas, of whom the former just happened to
have come to the city first, whereas the later became undoubtedly more impor-
tant and successful. The fact that there is no mentioning of Cerdonians in the
sources⁹¹ makes it probable that Cerdo’s sect did not exist for long, and it
would thus not be unreasonable to assume that Cerdo and his disciples joined
Marcion’s movement.

6. How and when did Marcion actually break with the Church?

Lampe has conclusively shown that the fractionising into different „Hausge-
meinden“ in the first centuries in Rome had led to a certain tolerance towards
theological dissenters, which he explained by the simple formula: „Je weniger
dicht man mit einem Andersdenkenden zusammenlebt, um so geringer wird
die Notwendigkeit, sich mit ihm auseinanderzusetzen und sich von ihm abzu-
grenzen.“⁹² Lampe further demonstrates that due to this tolerance it was

⁸⁸ It is occasionally argued that Irenaeus might have invented Cerdo’s relation to Marcion
out of his attempt to demonstrate the successio haereticorum (cf. for example May, Kerdon,
p. 243 = Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 71–72). Although it is beyond doubt that this successio is
the leitmotif for Irenaeus’ reports, I cannot see why such an invention should have been
necessary on his part. In the relevant chapter (Adv. haer. I.27,1–2) Cerdo is directly linked to
the Simonians (as all heretics go back to Simon Magus in the end, cf. I.23,2) and Marcion is
said to have come after him. If all that mattered to Irenaeus was the successio haereticorum, it
would have been just as possible for him to claim a direct link between Marcion and the
Simonians, especially as there seemed only to have been a few years between Cerdo and Mar-
cion.
⁸⁹ Adv. haer. I.27,2.
⁹⁰ Cf. Adv. haer. I.27,4: “only Marcion dared openly to cut around in the Scriptures and to
work against God more shamelessly than everyone else”.
⁹¹ Only Epiphanius mentions a sect of that name in his Panarion (41), but the singularity
and lateness of this report virtually prove that this is only a fictional construct based on Mar-
cion’s teachings (cf. May, Kerdon, p. 241).
⁹² Lampe, Christen, p. 323.
44 II. Marcion’s Life

exceptionally rare that anyone (or a certain group) was actually excommuni-
cated before the end of the second century.⁹³ Marcion, however, was an excep-
tion. What made this man so unbearable for the Roman ecclesia, if they even
managed to be in communion with the Valentinians? The crucial difference is
that the Valentinians did not consider the Church’s teaching to be entirely
wrong, they just believed in some secret ‘extra revelation’ only they had access
to. Thus, being convinced of their own superior level of knowledge, the Valen-
tinians did not mind associating with their ‘ordinary’ brothers.⁹⁴ Marcion was
made of different stuff. He believed that the Church had dangerously perverted
the true teachings of Christ and he therefore started an anti-movement. Such a
man could obviously not fit within the Church’s usual tolerance scheme.
It is this factor which demonstrates that it is incorrect to claim that Marcion’s
movement was just another circle of Christians within the great laboratory of
Rome, thus supporting the thesis that at this time there was in fact no such thing
as ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘heresy’. Let us once more point out the significant difference
between Marcion and a contemporary such as Ptolemy. For all we know, the
latter was, despite the fact that his doctrine can hardly be considered orthodox
in the strict sense of the word, never officially excluded from the Church; he
probably even died a martyr (see Chapter I). Ptolemy certainly differed from
other non-Marcionite Christians theologically, but he still saw himself more
connected to them than to Marcion. This can be seen from his Letter to Flora,
in which he, while disagreeing with both the Marcionite and the non-Marcio-
nite concept, points out several times that Marcion’s system is far more absurd
to him⁹⁵ (see Chapter III). One could almost say that Valentinians such as Ptol-
emy and other Christian circles joined forces against their common enemy Mar-
cion⁹⁶. It is this situation which makes Marcion the first actual outcast from the
Church, it is this situation which makes him the first actual heretic.
Coming back to our original question of when Marcion broke with the
Church, we may assume that he began preaching his doctrine from the very
beginning of his arrival.⁹⁷ Given the radicalism of his doctrine and the fact that

⁹³ Ibid., p. 324. See also Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christen-
tum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21964, p. 135: „Zu jener Zeit [in the second century] war es
durchaus noch nicht die Regel, dass die Ketzer sich ‚draußen‘ befanden.“
⁹⁴ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 325–329. Cf. also Klaus Koschorke, „Eine neugefundene gnos-
tische Gemeindeordnung“, ZThK 76 (1979), p. 30–60.
⁹⁵ Cf. Lampe, Christen, p. 326–327.
⁹⁶ „Man wird daher behaupten können, daß […] Ausgangspunkt und Gegner Justins und
Ptolemäus’ ein und dieselben sind“ (Lüdemann, Geschichte, p. 110; see also Chapter VII). If I
may offer a current comparison: different democratic parties may have very different political
ideas, but they all stand united against parties of the far right.
⁹⁷ This might be an explanation for the fact that the day of his arrival in Rome could to
some extent be seen as the foundation day of the Marcionite movement and was therefore so
important to his followers (see section 4).
 6. How and when did Marcion actually break with the Church? 45

it was in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church, it seems hard to

imagine that there was – as Tertullian reports⁹⁸ – much vacillation or waver-
ing back and forth as to Marcion’s status of membership of the church. The
relationship probably ended rather quickly.⁹⁹ At some point there may have
been a debate between Marcion and the Roman elders over a parable, as
reported by Epiphanius and Filastrius (see section 4), but it remains unlikely
that this one event was the reason for the actual break between Marcion and
the Roman church. It is also hard to say who actually broke with whom. In the
end, it seems quite possible that the break happened in mutual consent.¹⁰⁰
Just as with the date of Marcion’s birth, so the year of his death can only be
estimated. The most common date given is the year 160, an estimate which
probably goes back to the thesis of Harnack¹⁰¹ that Marcion could not have
lived until the time of Marcus Aurelius (161–180). Harnack based this theory
on the above mentioned report by Clement of Alexandria, who states that the
era of the heretics Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion is the time of Hadrian
and Antoninus Pius. As demonstrated above, it may be doubted whether
Clement had such specific dates in mind. He just states that the time of
Hadrian and Antoninus was the heretics’ main era, but it can hardly be seen
as certain that Marcion could not have survived Antoninus, although he prob-
ably did not by far. We know that Marcion was still alive in the early 150s (see
section 4). Moreover, Irenaeus states that Marcion gained influence under
Anicetus (ca. 155–166), a statement which is most certainly untrue as to the
beginning of Marcion’s influence, but which indicates that Marcion was still
alive under the episcopate of Anicetus. Combining this information with
Clement’s statements, it would be a good guess to say that Marcion died about
165.
What Marcion did exactly in the approximately 20 years between the begin-
ning of his movement and his death, we have no information about, but we
may assume that he invested most of his time in the support of his commu-
nity. This means that for about two decades Marcion was in complete control
of his church (see Chapter VI), something one cannot say about many foun-
ders of religious movements.

⁹⁸ De praescr. 30.2. Since the passage refers to both Marcion and Valentinus, it is possible
that Tertullian mixed up pieces of information about the two. It is also conceivable that he
attributes Irenaeus’ report on Cerdo (Adv. haer. III.4,3) to Marcion.
⁹⁹ This would also explain why the Roman ecclesia was so easily able to give Marcion his
200,000 sesterces back (cf. De praescr. 30.2).
¹⁰⁰ Tertullian’s claim (De praesrc. 30,3) that later in his life Marcion made some sort of
Walk to Canossa is obviously invented.
¹⁰¹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 14*-15*.
46 II. Marcion’s Life

Conclusion

The main result of our investigation into Marcion’s biography is that he has to
be placed at a later phase of the history of the Church than is usually assumed.
This conclusion is particularly triggered by the fact that there is not enough
evidence to support the idea of Marcion’s activity before the year 144/145.
Combined with the fact that he was raised in a Christian surrounding, this
means that Marcion was familiar with a church tradition that was already
fairly advanced, an element which was to have a crucial influence on the estab-
lishment of his own church (see Chapter VI).
We have further established that Marcion deserves, in a double sense, the
title of arch-heretic. On the one hand, because he is the first Christian ever to
be actually outside the Church for doctrinal reasons, on the other hand,
because his biography of a man who is familiar with orthodox doctrine and
then deliberately chooses to deviate from it would become a stereotype for
future heresiologists.
 III. Marcion’s Gods
Da hat er eben leider recht.
Die Welt ist arm, der Mensch ist schlecht.
Brecht, “Dreigroschenoper”

Marcion’s dualism forms without a doubt the centre of his doctrine. The nat-
ure of this dualism does not seem to give rise to much doubt, either, ever since
Harnack established his idea that Marcion distinguishes between a just and a
good God, and thereby also established a scholarly consensus which lasted for
almost a century.¹ However, in the present chapter we shall see that this view
is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning Marcion’s teaching, for the
heresiarch’s distinction was in fact far less ‘protestant’ than Harnack imagined,
as he simply distinguished between an evil and a good God.

1. The Evil God

While recent scholarship has correctly pointed out that Harnack’s perspective
is due to his “Neoprotestant interpretation”² of Marcion, it would be false to
claim that there was no evidence in the sources to support his view of a just
and a good God within Marcion’s system. As so often, the sources do not pro-
vide a coherent picture of Marcion’s doctrine in this matter; however, an
extensive chronological overview of the sources’ testimony will show that Mar-
cion’s original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas
the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his fol-
lowers.

¹ The only real critique of Harnack’s view in this matter was lodged by Walter Bauer in
his review of Harnack’s monograph, p. 8–11. Before Harnack, it was Wilhelm Bousset
(Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907, p. 109–113) who
attributed a classical good-evil dualism to Marcion. More recently Löhr questioned Harnack’s
classical view (see Introduction). Löhr’s analysis, while certainly inspiring, was, as he states
himself, “incomplete” (Did Marcion Distinguish, p. 144) and thus called for a more extensive
investigation of the sources, something I am trying to offer in this chapter.
² Löhr, Did Marcion Distinguish, p. 131.
48 III. Marcion’s Gods

1.1 The Development of Marcionite Theology

Marcion’s original doctrine: Good God vs. Evil God

Ptolemy, Letter to Flora (ca. 150)
Although most scholars agree that the second position referred to at the begin-
ning of Ptolemy’s letter is Marcion’s (see Chapter I), they also mostly agree
that Ptolemy is misportraying it. That the Law was given by the Creator is
commonly accepted as Marcionite doctrine, but it is felt that Marcion would
not have identified the Creator with the Devil/Adversary³. Having established
that in this letter we find the earliest argument against Marcion’s doctrine
known to us (see Chapter I), we must attach the highest importance to Ptol-
emy’s statement and, in an unprejudiced manner, ask if there is any reason to
assume that his portrayal of Marcion’s doctrine is in fact faulty. If it is faulty
there are two possibilities. Either Ptolemy actually misunderstood Marcion’s
doctrine or he is deliberately presenting it wrongly. The first possibility is most
unlikely. Ptolemy lived in Rome at the same time as Marcion (see Chapter I).
Both men were prominent Christian figures in the capital at that time and
further belonged to the rare group of educated Christians. It is thus almost
certain that they knew each other in person, and even if not, Ptolemy certainly
had contact with some of Marcion’s followers. Thus, there is no reason to
assume that Ptolemy would have been misinformed about Marcion’s doctrine.
As to the question of Ptolemy deliberately misportraying it, we have to ask
what reason he might have had for doing so. Concerning the Fathers’ reports
on Marcion’s life for instance, it has turned out that later generations of wri-
ters very often used obviously fabricated stories in order to make their oppo-
nent look bad⁴. Ptolemy, however, is about to engage in a real and above all
topical theological dispute with Marcion, trying to expose his doctrine as defi-
cient, and proving his own to be superior. He is therefore not interested in
polemics but rather in an honest argument. Besides, as already mentioned in
Chapter I, we have to assume that Flora was also familiar with these two dif-
ferent positions concerning the Law, so Ptolemy could not simply ascribe a
certain doctrine to Marcion which was not his own.
The main reason, however, why the possibility of a deliberate misrepresen-
tation of Marcion’s doctrine on the part of Ptolemy should be excluded, is
Ptolemy’s own theology which he presents in the letter as an alternative to

³ Cf. for example Gilles Quispel, Ptolémée. Lettre à Flora. Texte, Traduction et Introduc-
tion, SC 24, Paris: Cerf, 21966, p. 76; Hans Freiherr von Campenausen, Die Entstehung der
christlichen Bibel, Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1968, p. 103 n. 133; Lüdemann, Geschichte,
p. 107.
⁴ Cf. Moll, Three against Tertullian, p. 176–179.
 1. The Evil God 49

both the orthodox and the Marcionite position. Ptolemy’s answer to the all-
decisive question of who gave the Law is that it is neither the ‘good God’ nor
the ‘evil one’, but the just (δίκαιοϚ) Creator⁵. Let us be clear about this: the
orthodox Christians, Marcion and Ptolemy all agree that the Creator of the
world is also the Lawgiver. For the orthodox Christians this God is again iden-
tical, so to speak, with the good God, the Father of Jesus Christ. This position
is absurd to Ptolemy since the imperfect Law could not have been given by the
perfect God⁶. For the Marcionites, the Creator forms a second, evil deity who
is in opposition to the good God. This position is even more absurd to Ptol-
emy, as it is obvious that the unjust Adversary cannot be the author of the Law
which eliminates injustice⁷. Because of these two prevailing, yet in his eyes
wrong positions, Ptolemy felt compelled to write a rectification. This rectifica-
tion consists in the introduction of a third figure, the Just God, who is Law-
giver and Creator. Now, if Marcion had already proclaimed a just Demiurge/
Lawgiver, as the Harnack-legacy maintains, Ptolemy’s counter argument
would lose its entire purpose. Ptolemy would come up with a figure already
provided by Marcion. Therefore, are we really supposed to think that Ptolemy
deliberately misportrayed Marcion’s doctrine just so that he could claim to
have come up with the idea of a just Demiurge himself? Ptolemy’s testimony
clearly labels Marcion’s creator God as evil, and as long as this testimony is not
refuted by other witnesses, it is to be trusted.

Justin Martyr, First Apology (ca. 153–154)

As for the characterisation of Marcion’s Demiurge, Justin does unfortunately
not provide any information. He does, however, clearly state that Marcion’s
system is dualistic:
And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his obedient
followers to believe that there is some other God who is greater than the Demiurge. […]
And, as we have said earlier, the evil demons have put forward Marcion of Pontus, who
is even now teaching to deny that God is the Creator if all heavenly and earthly things
and that the Christ predicted through the prophets is his Son, and proclaims some other
God than the Demiurge of all things and, correspondingly, another son. (1Apol. 26,5;
58,1)⁸

⁵ Pan. 33.7,3–5.
⁶ Pan. 33.3,4.
⁷ Pan. 33.3,5; 7,3.
⁸ Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃϚ καὶ νῦν ε῏τι ἐστι διδάσκων τοὺϚ πειθομένουϚ ᾶλλον τινὰ
νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν […] Καὶ Μαρκίωνα δὲ τὸν ἀπὸ Πόντου, ὡϚ προέφη-
μεν, προεβάλοντο οἱ φαῦλοι δαίμονεϚ, ὃϚ ἀρνεῖσθαι μὲν τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ
γηΐνων ἁπάντων θεὸν καὶ τὸν προκηρυχθέντα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν Χριστὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ
νῦν διδάσκει, ᾶλλον δέ τινα καταγγέλλει παρὰ τὸν δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων θεὸν καὶ ὁμοίωϚ
ἕτερον υἱόν.
50 III. Marcion’s Gods

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (ca. 180–185)

In Irenaeus’s work we have to distinguish two levels. First there is the (contem-
porary) argument of the elder against Marcion (see Chapter I). Here we do not
find any specific mention of the term evil (or just) in connection with Mar-
cion’s Creator, but since the Marcionites – according to the elder – accuse,
blame and rebuke (accusare, exprobrare, imputare)⁹ this God for hardening
Pharaoh’s heart or for ordering the Hebrews to steal from the Egyptians, it
seems unlikely that they had a very positive, much less just view of him.
Irenaeus himself on the other hand clearly states that Marcion distin-
guished between a good and an evil God¹⁰. Apart from this general character-
isation, which Irenaeus calls the propositum initii of the Marcionites, he
further confirms this view of the Creator as being evil by providing things
Marcion says about him, for instance that he is the creator of evil or that he
has lust for war¹¹. It is true that Marcion, according to Irenaeus, also describes
this God as judicial¹². However, being a judge is not the same as being just¹³.

First deformation of Marcion’s doctrine: Good God, Just God, Evil Matter
Rhodo, ‘Against Marcion’ (ca. 180–190)¹⁴
Like Justin, Rhodo does not mention any ethical quality of Marcion’s Creator,
but he does confirm that Marcion’s original doctrine was dualistic and that it
was Marcion’s followers who introduced the idea of three principles.¹⁵ Rhodo
thus marks a turning point in the history of the Marcionite movement, as for
the first time Marcion’s original doctrine is clearly distinguished from the one
of his followers.

⁹ Adv. haer. IV.28,3; 30.1.

¹⁰ Adv. haer. III.12,12.
¹¹ Adv. haer. I.27,2.
¹² Adv. haer. III.25,3. Note Irenaeus’ most remarkable phrasing: alterum bonum et alter-
um iudicalem (not iustum!) dicens.
¹³ It is interesting to note that unlike in most Romance and Germanic languages, in clas-
sical Greek, the language Marcion thought and wrote in, the terms judge (κρίτηϚ) and just
(δίκαιοϚ) are not related etymologically.
¹⁴ Quoted in Hist. Eccl. V.13,2–7.
¹⁵ This is also confirmed by the reports of Apelles, Marcion’s disciple (see Chapter VII),
who, while not extending the number of principles, also clearly deviates from his master’s
dualism: “Marcion is wrong to speak of two principles: now I speak of one, which made a
second principle.” (Alastair H. B. Logan, “Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the
Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary”, JTS 51 (2000), p. 96).
 1. The Evil God 51

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (ca. 200)

In Clement we find for the first time the concrete distinction between good
and just attributed to the Marcionites.¹⁶ This distinction, however, is not expli-
citly referring to two different Gods, but arises in a discussion of the evaluation
of the Law, which the Marcionites, according to Clement, consider to be just.
Still, we also find the first notion of the Marcionites calling the Demiurge
just¹⁷. It is strikingly also the first time they are reported as considering matter
to be evil¹⁸.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem (ca. 210)

“How can you be so impertinent as to establish a diversity of two separated
Gods, a good God on the one side and a just one on the other?”¹⁹ With this
question addressed to his adversary, we have the first notion ever of Marcion²⁰
explicitly distinguishing between a good and a just God. It is, however, most
important to note that Tertullian, just like Clement before him, also reports
that Marcion considered matter to be evil²¹.

Origen, De Principiis (ca. 220)

To Origen the distinction between a good and a just God seems to be the very
essence of Marcionite doctrine²². It is true that neither Marcion nor his fol-
lowers are mentioned in the passage in question, but there can be no doubt
that they are envisaged by Origen²³. Erich Klostermann is probably right when
he claims that Origen here uses definitions of goodness and justice which
derive from the Stoic tradition, and thus it seems indeed likely that Origen
put these definitions into the mouths of his adversaries²⁴. These definitions,

¹⁶ Strom. II.39,1.
¹⁷ Strom. III.12,1. Considering this passage, Bousset remarked correctly that already at the
time of Clement Marcions’s original doctrine had been deformed (Bousset, Hauptprobleme,
p. 113).
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Adv. Marc. II.12,1: Quo ore constitues diversitatem duorum deorum in separatione,
seorsum deputans deum bonum et seorsum deum iustum?
²⁰ It should be noted that Tertullian’s personal address to his adversary can by no means
serve as indication that we are dealing with Marcion’s original doctrine here. The personal
address is merely part of Tertullian’s polemical style.
²¹ Adv. Marc. I.15,5.
²² De princ. II.5.
²³ Cf. Josep Rius-Camps, “Orígenes y Marción: Carácter Preferentemente Antimarcionita
del Prefacio y del Segundo Ciclo del Peri Archôn”, in: Henri Crouzel/Gennaro Lomiento/
Josep Rius-Camp (ed.), Origeniana: Premier colloque international des études origéniennes,
Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana antica, 1975, p. 299–302.
²⁴ Erich Klostermann, „Überkommene Definitionen im Werk des Origenes“, ZNW 37
(1938), p. 56–57.
52 III. Marcion’s Gods

however, are of little relevance to us. The important thing is that we have once
more found that a distinction between these two Gods is considered a com-
mon Marcionite idea.

Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (ca. 225)

As far as Marcion is concerned, Hippolytus is a difficult source since his two
reports on the arch-heretic are contradictory to a certain extent. According to
his first report²⁵ Marcion distinguished between a good and an evil God: “You
say the Demiurge of the world is evil […] you say the God who destroyed the
works of the Demiurge is good.”²⁶ The second report, on the other hand, states
that Marcion believed in three principles: good, just and matter.²⁷ Despite this
obvious contradiction Hippolytus might in fact offer us the solution to our
problem, for he calls the system of good and evil the first and purest form of
Marcion’s heresy (πρώτη καὶ καθαριωτάτη ΜαρκίωνοϚ αἵρεσιϚ), and continues
to explain that it was Prepon, a disciple of Marcion, who introduced a third
principle, the just.²⁸ There can be no doubt that this elaborate statement takes
priority over the later one, in which Hippolytus attributes the idea of three
principles already to Marcion. He is obviously no longer thinking of Marcion
himself here, but of his followers he is in contact with. An even more interest-
ing remark in this context is Hippolytus’ observation that some Marcionites
call the just one evil, others call him only just.²⁹ Apparently, the varying desig-
nation of this God by the Marcionites is not only confusing to us today, but
was so already in the early third century. Once more it is noteworthy that
Hippolytus goes on to explain that the Marcionites believe that the just one
has created the universe out of already existing matter.

Carmen Adversus Marcionitas (middle of the third century)

The author of the Carmen states that Marcion distinguished between a good
and a just God³⁰. Although matter is not explicitly introduced as a third prin-
ciple, the refutation of the idea that there is uncreated, eternal matter³¹ can be
seen as a strong indication that it was part of the opponent’s system of
thought.

²⁵ Ref. VII.29–31.
²⁶ Ref. VII.30,2–3: δημιουργὸν οὖν φῂϚ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου πονηρόν […] ἀγαθὸν φῂϚ εἶναι
θεὸν τὸν καταλύοντα τὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ποιήματα.
²⁷ Ref. X.19,1.
²⁸ Ref. VII.31,1.
²⁹ Ref. X.19,2.
³⁰ Carm. I.73–84.
³¹ Carm. IV.21 f.
 1. The Evil God 53

Ephraem Syrus, Prose Refutations and Hymni contra haereses (middle of the
fourth century)
Ephraem tells us that Marcion names three “roots”³², which are the good God,
the Creator and matter. Despite the fact that it is matter which forms the third
principle, Ephraem can still speak of Marcion’s tritheism³³. Han Drijvers com-
ments correctly: “Since matter is uncreated, eternal being, Ephraem ascribes to
Marcion even three Gods, namely two Gods and Hyle, because for him the
notion of eternal being is identical with divinity”³⁴.

Second deformation³⁵ of Marcion’s doctrine: Good God, Just God, Evil God
Adamantius Dialogue (ca. 350–360)³⁶
At the time of the Adamantius Dialogue, the Marcionite movement seems to
have split into two parties. Megethius claims that there are three principles: the

³² Hymn. c. haer. III.7.

³³ Pr. Ref. II, xxiv (none of the heretics is named in the passage in question, however, the
addition of names is safe, cf. Edmund Beck, „Die Hyle bei Markion nach Ephräm“, OrChrPer
64 (1978), p. 8–9). Beck’s doubts about the credibility of this passage are unjustified, espe-
cially as he obviously overlooked the other passage in which Ephraem ascribes three roots to
Marcion (see above).
³⁴ Han J. W. Drijvers, “Marcionism in Syria: Principles, Problems, Polemics”, Second Cen-
tury 6/3 (1987/88), p. 158.
³⁵ Although this deformation definitely appeared later than the first, the development is
not to be understood as a consistent sequence of different systems. For instance, Eznik of Kolb,
writing in the middle of the fifth century, still speaks of a Marcionite system of two Gods and
matter (Monica Blanchard/Robin Young, A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of
Kolb. An English Translation with Introduction and Notes, Leuven: Peeters, 1998, p. 181; cf.
Wolfgang Hage, „Marcion bei Eznik von Kolb“, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 30–31).
Such elements are, however, of small importance for our survey, which only aims at establish-
ing Marcion’s original doctrine, not its different implementations over the centuries.
³⁶ The dating of the Adamantius-Dialogue has been disputed for a long time. The dispute
is mostly due to the two different versions of the text, which both place the Dialogue in com-
pletely different times. Whereas the Dialogue takes place in the post-Nicene era according to
the Greek version, the Latin translation by Rufinus places the Dialogue in the age of the per-
secutions by the Empire. While scholars have for a long time believed that Rufinus preserved
the original version of the Dialogue (for a history of research see Kenji Tsutsui, Die Auseinan-
dersetzung mit den Markioniten im Adamantios-Dialog, PTS 55, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004,
p. 1–21), it was Vinzenz Buchheit who showed conclusively that the Latin translation is not
to be trusted (Vinzenz Buchheit, „Rufinus von Aquileia als Fälscher des Adamantiosdialogs“,
BZ 51 (1958), p. 314–328). This insight has been accepted by many scholars since (cf. Tsutsui,
Auseinandersetzung, p. 16–21), with the exception of Robert Pretty, who, in his English trans-
lation of the Dialogue (Garry W. Trompf (ed.), Adamantius. Dialogue on the True Faith in
God, Leuven: Peeters, 1997) did not even mention this important article, and Timothy D.
Barnes („Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus“, JTS 30 (1979), p. 47–55), whose hypothesis
of Maximus being the author of the Dialogue has been conclusively questioned by both Ulrich
Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos, ANT 25, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995, p. 203–205) and
Kenji Tsutsui (Auseinandersetzung, p. 47). Schmid concludes (Apostolos, p. 206) that the Dia-
54 III. Marcion’s Gods

good God, the just Demiurge, who is also the Lawgiver, and the evil God.³⁷
Markus on the other hand, the second Marcionite, maintains that there are
only two principles, the good God and the evil God³⁸, which seems to indicate
either a certain renaissance of original Marcionite ideas, or that a small group
of Marcionites who remained faithful to their master’s teachings had survived
all the controversies within the movement.

Epiphanius, Panarion (ca. 375)

The Bishop of Salamis only knows of the group represented by Megethius in
the Adamantius Dialogue. He reports that the Marcionites believe in three
principles, the good God, the Demiurge, and the evil God/devil³⁹.
Epiphanius marks the end of this survey. There are still several witnesses
after him to report on Marcion’s Gods, but none of them delivers a really new
version of his doctrine in this regard. As interesting as a continuation of this
survey might be for the history of the Marcionite church, for the reconstruc-
tion of Marcion’s original doctrine it is of no value.

Conclusion
Let us categorise our observations about Marcion’s doctrine in regard to the
distinction between different Gods.
1. All the contemporary sources as well as Irenaeus and Rhodo (who form
the non-contemporary sources which are temporally closest) describe Mar-
cion’s system as dualistic. There can thus be no doubt that the tripartite Mar-
cionite system represents a later development after Marcion’s death, just as
Rhodo and Hippolytus report.
2. Our earliest source about Marcion’s doctrine (Ptolemy) explicitly speaks
of him as distinguishing between a good and an evil God. This is confirmed by
Irenaeus⁴⁰ and at least not denied by any other of the earliest sources.

logue must have been written between 324 (beginning of the reign of Constantine) and 358
(composition of the Philokalia, in which we find a reference to the Adamantius-Dialogue).
Kenji Tsutsui agrees with Schmid (Auseinandersetzung, p. 105–108), while pointing out that
the Dialogue probably originated in the second half of the fourth century, which, together
with the terminus ante quem being the composition of the Philokalia (ca. 360, Schmid’s dat-
ing is by no means safe), brings us to the years 350–360.
³⁷ Adam. Dial. 1,2; 1,9.
³⁸ Adam. Dial. 2,1.
³⁹ Pan. 42.3,1–2.
⁴⁰ It should be noted in this context that Irenaeus is aware of the distinction between a
just and a good God, but he clearly attributes it to Cerdo (Adv. haer. I.27,1). This is all the
more interesting as in the preceding chapter we have considered the possibility that Cerdo
and his followers joined Marcion’s movement. Maybe it was they who brought the idea of a
just God into the Marcionite system.
 1. The Evil God 55

3. We have seen that the idea of a just God attributed to Marcion is always
combined with a tripartite system⁴¹, in the form of either ‘good God-just God-
evil matter’ or ‘good God-just God-evil God’. As Marcion’s original doctrine,
however, was without a doubt dualistic, the figure of the just God must have
been introduced by his followers.⁴²
Considering the reason for this development, it seems that the main pro-
blem which led to the division among the Marcionites was this: their first
God combined two fundamental features, he is Creator and Lawgiver (see
below). That the world was evil was the one unifying belief of all Marcionites
at all times, and in order to explain the origin of this evil, it seemed only logi-
cal to assume an evil Creator as the cause of this status, in accordance with the
idea that only a bad tree brings forth bad fruit (see Chapter V). Once they
went down that road, however, they had to face the conundrum how the Law
could have been given by an evil God, a problem which already compelled
Ptolemy to introduce a third figure (see above). Another solution presented
itself from Platonic philosophy⁴³, as Ephraem Syrus remarks⁴⁴. The Creator
could be just and therefore the Law could be just as well, if he had to use
already existing (evil) matter to create the world. Thus the Creator was
absolved from being responsible for the world’s status. Another group of Mar-
cionites apparently chose to follow Ptolemy’s idea of a tritheistic system, with
the good God, the just Creator/Lawgiver, and an evil God instead of evil mat-
ter. It is obvious that (from a Marcionite point of view) only a tripartite system
of thought leaves room for a just God. A good and a just God together can
alone offer no answer to the crucial issue of the origin of evil. In other words,
one axiomatic principle of Marcionite thinking is: there has to be at least one
evil player in the game.
Nevertheless, when we take a look at those sources attributing a tripartite
system, that is, a just God to Marcion, we cannot help wondering: did the
actual beliefs really change or is it only a matter of changing designations?

⁴¹ The only exception from this pattern is Origen, but it is most likely that he, just as his
Alexandrian predecessor, also knew of the tripartite system, and simply concentrated only on
refuting the distinction between good and just.
⁴² Ernst Schüle considered Marcion to be inconsistent in his view on matter, but only
because Schüle did not realise that he was dealing with a development within Marcionite doc-
trine here (Ernst Ulrich Schüle, „Der Ursprung des Bösen bei Marcion“, ZRGG 16 (1964),
p. 41). Likewise Tertullian makes fun of Marcion because of this, asserting that Marcion did
not actually proclaim two Gods, but nine (Adv. Marc. I.15,5–6).
⁴³ Plato had developed a similar idea in his Timaios, in which he states that the Demiurge
wanted everything to be good “as far as possible” (κατὰ δύναμιν, 30 a 3), but his power was
limited by the already existing material, cf. Johannes Hirschberger, Geschichte der Philosophie
I: Altertum und Mittelalter, Herder: Freiburg, 121980, p. 143. For the similarities to (contem-
porary) Middle Platonism, cf. Drijvers, Syria, p. 162–163.
⁴⁴ Hymn. c. haer. XIV.7. Of course, even without Ephraem’s affirmation the dependence
would be obvious, but it is interesting that he saw it so clearly.
56 III. Marcion’s Gods

When we analyse chapters 11–19 of Tertullian’s second book against Mar-

cion, chapters which René Braun entitled “Défense de la Justice de Créateur”⁴⁵,
and in which we find the first notion of a Marcionite distinction between a just
and a good God (see above), we can detect that the actual accusation Tertullian
is arguing against here is that God is a cruel judge⁴⁶. Therefore, this God may
now be called ‘just’ by Marcion’s followers, but it is certainly not meant in any
positive or even neutral way, so that one could say that the wickedness of this
God merely received a new label. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that
the concept of evil matter does not seem to have been all that important to the
Marcionite system, which already becomes obvious by the fact that Tertullian
only mentions this idea once in his entire five volumes against Marcion⁴⁷ (see
above), and it becomes even clearer in Tertullian’s work against Hermogenes.
Just like Marcion, this opponent of Tertullian is also concerned with the pro-
blem of evil, but he attempts to defend the idea that a good God could have
created the world by introducing matter as a second principle⁴⁸, an idea he
obviously defends above all against Marcion⁴⁹. In this context, Tertullian com-
pares two different solutions to the problem of evil:
Great is, o good faith, the blindness of the heretics in this kind of argument, when they
either want to make us believe in another God who is good and only good, because they
consider the Creator to be the author of evil, or when they set up matter next to the
Creator, so that they may derive evil from matter, not from the Creator. (Adv. Herm.
10,1)⁵⁰

There can hardly be any doubt that the first group of heretics envisaged in this
passage is the Marcionites, which means that Tertullian clearly distinguishes
between their view and the one of Hermogenes, which again means that it
was clear to Tertullian that the concept of evil matter was not an important

⁴⁵ René Braun, Tertulllien: Contre Marcion II, SC 368, Paris: Cerf, 1991, p. 79.
⁴⁶ Adv. Marc. II.11,1.
⁴⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 97–98: „Das Auffallende aber hier ist, daß M.[arcion] von
dieser Annahme [that matter is evil], die er nicht weiter ausgeführt hat, weder bei seinen
Exegesen noch bei seinen sonstigen Aussagen irgendwelchen Gebrauch macht“. The testi-
mony of Ephraem presents a similar picture. Although he clearly states that Marcion names
three roots (see above), his arguments against him are primarily focused on the arch-heretic’s
distinction between the two Gods. Just as with Tertullian, matter, although part of the Mar-
cionite system, does not seem to have occupied an important role in it, cf. Beck, Hyle, p. 30.
⁴⁸ For a good summary of Hermogenes’ doctrine see Katharina Greschat, Apelles & Her-
mogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Leiden: Brill, 2000, p. 158–164.
⁴⁹ Cf. ibid., p. 164–165: „Mit dieser Zielsetzung rückt Hermogenes an die Seite der Theo-
logen des zweiten Jahrhunderts, die auf die Herausforderungen durch Gnostiker und Marcio-
niten reagierten und deutlich machen wollten, daß das Festhalten an Gott als des Schöpfers
denkbar ist.“
⁵⁰ Magna, bona fide, caecitas haereticorum pro huiusmodi argumentatione, cum ideo aut
alium deum bonum et optimum volunt credi quia mali auctorem existiment creatorem aut
materiam cum creatore proponent, ut malium a materia, non a creatore deducant.
 1. The Evil God 57

part of the Marcionite system of thought, but was in fact part of a system that
is directed against Marcion. It should further be noted that Tertullian names
Marcion’s concern with the origin of evil as his point of departure and the
famous parable of the good and the bad tree as Marcion’s answer to this pro-
blem, something Tertullian probably retrieved from Marcion’s very own letter
(see Chapter V). It seems hard to imagine how the idea of a just God should
have been able to fit this parable. After all, the parable clearly speaks of a bad/
evil tree, not a just one, which is again bringing forth bad/evil fruit.
Concerning Origen’s report, it is striking that when it comes to the examples
which the Marcionites provide for the justice of the Creator, he, just like Tertul-
lian, only uses examples which show the cruelty of this God, such as the Flood
or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moreover, it is remarkable that
Origen himself questions the justice of the Creator, if the words of the Old Tes-
tament were to be understood literally. Thus, he asks how it can be considered
just to punish the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth
generation.⁵¹ Origen perceived correctly that the Marcionites understood such
passages literally⁵², but he did not see the consequences. It is almost as if we
could hear Marcion reply: ‘That is exactly why I do not believe him to be just!’
As for those sources who speak of a Marcionite tritheism, it is striking that
none of them ever actually deals with the third, the evil God. Their main con-
cern is still always to demonstrate the unity of the good God and the just
Demiurge. Even Megethius, the first Marcionite to appear in the Adamantius
Dialogue, who opened his case with the statement that there are three princi-
ples (the good God, the Demiurge and the evil God)⁵³ and who went on with
the proud proclamation “I will prove from the Scriptures that there are three
principles”⁵⁴, never mentions the evil God during the entire conversation. His
whole argument with Adamantius is only about the difference between respec-
tively the identity of the Demiurge and the Father of Christ⁵⁵. The same goes
for Epiphanius who, although beginning his portrait of Marcion’s doctrine
with the naming of three different Gods, dedicates most of his refutation to
the demonstration of the identity of the first two Gods, without ever dealing
with the issue of the evil one. Therefore, just as with the concept of evil matter,

⁵¹ Cf. Princ. II.5,2.

⁵² Cf. ibid.; see Chapter IV.
⁵³ Adam. Dial. 1,2.
⁵⁴ Adam. Dial. 1,4: ἐγῶ γὰρ δεικνύω ἀπο τῶν γραφῶν ὃτι τρεῖϚ εἰσιν ἀρχαί.
⁵⁵ See for example his statement in Adam. Dial. 1,23: “I will prove from the Scriptures that
there is one God who is the Father of Christ and another who is the Demiurge.” This concept
is further confirmed by the large number of antitheses that Megethius brings forward (see
Chapter V). Cf. also Gerhard Rottenwöhrer, Unde malum?: Herkunft und Gestalt des Bösen
nach heterodoxer Lehre von Markion bis zu den Katharern, Bad Honnef: Bock und Herchen,
1986, p. 40: “Megethios äußert sich allerdings widersprüchlich. Neben der Annahme dreier
Prinzipien spricht er an einigen Stellen von zwei Weseneinheiten, Naturen und Herren.”
58 III. Marcion’s Gods

the idea of the evil God as such does not seem to actually feature in the system
of the (later) Marcionites.
Despite the fact that these writers are technically arguing against Marcion’s
just God, their testimony leaves no doubt that what their opponent actually
had in mind was a wicked deity. It is most surprising that even those modern
scholars who realised this situation correctly, still defend the idea that Mar-
cion’s first God was not evil but just. Thus, Verweijs maintains: „Er ist nicht
schlecht – darin müssen wir Harnack zustimmen – aber seine Gerechtigkeit ist
doch höchst bedenklich, weil sie nur schadet und denen, die an sie glauben,
nichts Gutes bringt.“⁵⁶ How an attitude which brings nothing but harm to
everyone can still be labeled as righteousness, is beyond my comprehension. It
must therefore strongly be doubted that the distinction between goodness and
justice was a major concern of the Marcionites, even after their master’s death.
The idea of saving the constellation of a good and a just God by adding the
concept of evil matter or a third evil deity seems to have been nothing but a
‘workaround’. Löhr sums up this complex correctly: “Even if Marcion had
indeed designated the God of the Old Testament as ‘just’, it would have been
only an abbreviation for his being a severe and cruel judge, a petty-minded
and self-contradictory legislator.”⁵⁷ Löhr is probably also right when he affirms
that Marcion’s opponents seemed to have deliberately focussed on this distinc-
tion of goodness and justice, in order to “refute Marcion with dialectical argu-
ments”⁵⁸. After all, that justice and goodness are two sides of the same coin,
and accordingly that a good God can also be just, is far easier to demonstrate
than to deal with a good-evil dualism.
All of this is, however, not meant to indicate that the opponents of Mar-
cionism entirely made up the designation of a just God by their adversaries.
The Marcionite movement apparently indeed switched from a simple good-
evil system to the idea of a just God, but it appears that in actual fact they
remained faithful to their master’s teaching.

1.2 The Evil God as the God of the Old Testament

According to his Biblicist approach (see Chapter IV), Marcion based his view
of his evil God completely on Old Testament testimony. Therefore, in a man-

⁵⁶ P. G. Verweijs, Evangelium und neues Gesetz in der ältesten Christenheit bis auf Mar-
cion, Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1960, p. 250–251.
⁵⁷ Löhr, Did Marcion Distinguish, p. 144. Bauer’s theory that Marcion used the word ‘just’
in connection with the Demiurge in a scornful manner (Review Harnack, p. 9) seems less
probable to me. If this was the case, it would not have been necessary to add a third evil
element to the system.
⁵⁸ Löhr, Did Marcion Distinguish, p. 144.
 1. The Evil God 59

ner of speaking, Marcion’s evil God is the God of the Old Testament.⁵⁹ Hence,
he has the following features.

a) Creator
That the God described in the Old Testament is the Creator of the world is his
foremost feature, and it is at the same time the feature which more than any-
thing else makes Marcion detest him. Besides Marcion’s Biblicism, the only
real premise of his theology is the fact that he had nothing but disgust and
hatred for the world and for life itself, hatred so huge that he even refused to
promote the continuation of mankind (see Chapter VI). This irrational hatred
apparently was the one unifying thought of all Marcionites throughout the
centuries (see above). As much as the scholars’ wish to find an explanation for
this hostility to the world is understandable⁶⁰, it is simply beyond explanation.
It is not for us to look into a man’s soul. What we can do is to comprehend
Marcion’s logic starting from this point of view, a logic we have already discov-
ered above. Having realised that the world is a terrible place, Marcion needed
to blame someone for this status, and there could be no doubt that it was the
Creator’s fault, a God who even admitted himself: “It is I who create evil.”⁶¹
Marcion particularly blamed the Creator for the status of man. In fact,
according to the heresiarch, it is the Creator’s very essence, the soul which he
breathed into man, which is responsible for his evil actions⁶². Therefore, Har-
nack remarks correctly:
„Da der Mensch trotz seiner sinnlichen Materialität doch ganz und gar die Schöpfung
des Demiurgen ist, so trägt dieser die volle Verantwortung für ihn; ja da die Seele der
Hauch Gottes und auch das sündigende Subjekt ist, so ist Gott direkt der Sünder.“⁶³

⁵⁹ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 97: „Der Gott, den nach Marcion Christus ins Unrecht gesetzt
hat, ist […] einfach der jüdische Schöpfergott, wie ihn das Gesetz und die Propheten verkün-
digt haben.“
⁶⁰ Lampe, for example, being surprised that a wealthy man like Marcion would develop
such an anti-world attitude, believes that Marcion projected his negative experiences as a
shipmaster under the Roman Emperor onto the Old Testament God (Christen, p. 209–211).
It is needless to say that this theory is a little far-fetched (cf. May, Schiffsreeder, p. 152 n. 42; =
Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 61 n. 46). Besides, I do not see why a wealthy man should not be
hostile to the world. Since when does money buy happiness?
⁶¹ Isa. 45:7; cf. Adv. Marc. I.2,2.
⁶² Cf. Adv. Marc. II.9,1.
⁶³ Harnack. Marcion, p. 273*. Barbara Aland’s opinion that, according to Marcion, man is
himself fully responsible for his sin, which consists solely in the non-acceptance of God’s
grace (Barbara Aland, „Sünde und Erlösung bei Marcion und die Konsequenz für die sog.
beiden Götter Marcions“, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 150), has, from my perspective,
no basis whatsoever in the sources, and is probably, as Löhr observed correctly, a projection
of Bultmann’s theology onto Marcion (cf. Löhr, Auslegung, p. 79). For the concept of ‘sin’ in
Marcion’s theology, see Chapter VI.
60 III. Marcion’s Gods

Although it must be doubted whether Marcion actually thought this most

radical idea through to the end⁶⁴, we are definitely dealing with one of the
most fundamental attempts at anthropodicy in the history of the Christian
religion here.

b) God of the Jews

Again in accordance with the Old Testament, to Marcion the Creator of the
world is also the God of the Jews, and of the Jews only, the proprius deus
Iudaicae gentis⁶⁵. Even after the Marcionite movement had developed into a
tritheistic system, the identification of the Demiurge and the Jewish God
remained.⁶⁶ Despite the exceptional character of this feature of Marcion’s
theology, most modern scholars have hardly taken interest in it, much less
tried to find an explanation for it. One of the few who did try was Bauer in
his review of Harnack’s work. Bauer tried to explain this fact by expressing
the idea that Marcion’s whole theology is fuelled by two different feelings of
hatred: a strong aversion to Judaism and a huge disgust for the world. These
two feelings, according to Bauer, then converged in hostility towards the Old
Testament God, who to Marcion is both the God of the Jews and the Creator
of the world.⁶⁷ As intelligent as this theory is, we completely lack any evidence
that Marcion had any negative feelings about the Jews in general. On the con-
trary, there is some evidence to refute this idea. Marcion seems to have delib-
erately refrained from ‘knocking’ the Jews. As already mentioned in Chapter I,
there is no indication in all the Fathers that Marcion ever rebuked any Old
Testament figure, but always their God. Even the obvious frailties of the Old
Testament heroes (David’s adultery with Bathseba, Solomon’s polygamy and
so on) were not mentioned even in Tertullian’s most extensive defence of the
Old Testament against the heresiarch. As a matter of fact, whenever Marcion
does mention the lapses of the patriarchs or other Old Testament figures, it is
only to discredit their God. The Jews did steal silver and golden vessels from
the Egyptians, but Marcion did not blame the Jews for stealing but instead he
blamed their God for ordering them to do so (see Chapter I). Theodoret of
Cyrus tells us that Marcion calls the patriarchs and prophets lawbreakers⁶⁸,
but immediately adds that he does so in order to expose the Demiurge as a
lover of evil.

⁶⁴ Braun even doubts that this concept was an original Marcionite one (Contre Marcion II,
p. 64 n. 1), but I do not see any grounds for this assumption, cf. Norelli, Christlicher Philo-
soph, p. 117.
⁶⁵ Adv. Marc. IV.33,4.
⁶⁶ Cf. Adam. Dial. 1,10; Pan. 42.3,2.
⁶⁷ Bauer, Review Harnack, p. 7.
⁶⁸ Haer. fab. com. XXIV,41.
 1. The Evil God 61

The best example to demonstrate Marcion’s explicit blame of the Creator

instead of his people, however, is his concept of Christ’s descent into Hades⁶⁹.
According to Marcion, Christ, when he descended into Hades, saved Cain, the
Sodomites, the Egyptians and all the others who were condemned by the Crea-
tor, whereas Abel, Enoch, Noah and all the patriarchs and prophets were not
saved by him. The interesting, and often neglected part of this story is the rea-
son why the latter group was not saved. One might perhaps simply assume
that they did not follow Christ because they stuck to their own God⁷⁰. How-
ever, Irenaeus clearly states that the patriarchs and prophets did not follow
Christ because they knew that their God was always tempting them, and so
they suspected that he was tempting them again. In other words, they did by
no means remain faithful to their God and therefore refused to follow Christ,
but their horrible experience with their God had blinded them and made them
lose all hope for salvation.
A particular aversion against the Jewish people can thus not be claimed for
Marcion.⁷¹ But what else could have made him believe that the Creator, this
evil deity which he detests so much, was the God of the Jews? The answer is
almost anticlimactic: because the Old Testament says so.

c) Lawgiver
As already mentioned above, the Law and its evaluation was one of the crucial
questions for the Marcionite church, a question which may even have led to a
change, or, respectively, a division within the movement. Already Ptolemy
expressed his indignation in view of the fact that Marcion attributes the Law,
which eliminates wrongdoing, to an evil God. Be that as it may, for Marcion
there was no doubt that the Law was evil, and this time he found proof of this
not only in the Old Testament, but also in the testimony of the Apostle Paul⁷²,
particularly in his Epistle to the Romans. The crucial passages are:
Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20)
The Law brings wrath; where there is no Law, there is no transgression. (Rom. 4:15)
The Law came in so that transgression might abound. (Rom. 5:20)⁷³

⁶⁹ Cf. Adv. haer. I.27,3.

⁷⁰ This version is in fact reported by Epiphanius (Pan. 42.4,3–4). There can, however,
hardly be any doubt that Irenaeus preserved the original version.
⁷¹ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 289: „Während sich der Antijudaismus der Kirche gegen
das jüdische Volk wendet und es als verwerflich hinstellt, richtet sich der Antijudaismus Mar-
cions gegen den Judengott, den Schöpfer dieser Welt.“ Cf. also Heikki Räisänen, who very
fittingly entitled his chapter on Marcion ‘Attacking the Book, Not the People’ (Marcion,
Muhammad and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives on the Encounter of Cultures and
Faiths, London: SCM Press, 1997, p. 64).
⁷² For the role of Paul in Marcion’s theology, see Chapter IV.
⁷³ The corresponding passages in Origen are: Comm. Rom. 3,6; 4,4; 5,6. Although Mar-
62 III. Marcion’s Gods

Put in a typical Marcionite manner: the Law is a bad tree, sin is its bad fruit.⁷⁴
Marcion actually seems to have believed that there was no sin in the world
before God gave his Law to man. Origen expresses this idea clearly when he
points out that the Apostle said that the knowledge of sin comes per legem and
not ex lege, so that it is obvious that sin did not arise from it⁷⁵. But not only
was it an evil motive which made the Old Testament God give his Law to man,
he also gave a burden to man that he would be too feeble to bear, something
which Tertullian tries to refute by pointing out the strength and free will of
man⁷⁶. Marcion’s rebuke is of course only consistent from his point of view.
Since the Creator created man in this weak status, it was obvious that man
would not be able to keep the Law, which again proves that the Law was only
given so that sin may increase.
Apart from this critique of the Law as a whole, there are certain parts of it
which Marcion detested in particular, such as the ius talionis, which, from his
perspective, allows the “mutual exercise of injury”⁷⁷, and especially the meticu-
lous laws on sacrifices⁷⁸, which demonstrate the pettiness of this God and also
his need for ‘self-affirmation’.

d) Judge
“If he is really a judge, he is just.”⁷⁹ Maybe it was indeed this simple logic
which caused a certain mixing up of the terms just and judge considering Mar-
cion’s theology. For even though it must be doubted that Marcion ever
thought of the Old Testament God as just, he certainly saw him as a judge,
and from what has been said about his role as Creator and Lawgiver so far, it
can hardly be surprising that Marcion considered him to be a particularly cruel
one. The Old Testament God created man as a compulsive transgressor, gave
him the Law which he was too feeble to obey, and now judges him for his
transgressions. Obviously this God is playing a very cruel game with his sub-
jects.

cion is mentioned by name only in the last passage, the similarity of critique and especially
the tree-metaphor in 3,3 makes it most likely that Origen’s heretical adversaries are always the
Marcionites. Cf. also Adv. Marc. V.14,10–14.
⁷⁴ The tree-metaphor is actually referred to in this context by Origen, see above.
⁷⁵ Cf. Comm. Rom. 3,6.
⁷⁶ Adv. Marc. II.8.
⁷⁷ Adv. Marc. II.18,1: inuriae mutuo exercendiae.
⁷⁸ Adv. Marc. II.18,3. See also Hymn. c. haer. XXX.10–12.
⁷⁹ Pan. 42.6,4: εἰ ὅλωϚ κριτὴϚ τυγχάνει, δίκαιόϚ ἐστι. Cf. Adv. haer. III.25,3.
 1. The Evil God 63

e) Unworthy of a God
After these constitutive elements of this evil God, Marcion points out that the
Old Testament God in fact lacks all the qualities of a truly divine being, as he
has too many human flaws⁸⁰:
– he changes his mind about people (for example, regarding Saul or Solo-
mon), choosing them first and later rejecting them⁸¹;
– he feels repentance (for example, about the wickedness he wanted to do to
the Ninevites)⁸²;
– he lacks omniscience (for example, he did not know where Adam was⁸³,
nor could he foresee that Adam would transgress his commandment⁸⁴);
– he is inconsistent in his commandments (for example, he forbids making
any images, but commands Moses to create the brazen serpent)⁸⁵.

f) The Creator’s Messiah

Marcion not only distinguished two different Gods, he also distinguished two
different Christs, “one who appeared under Tiberius, another who is promised
by the Creator”⁸⁶. That the Messiah promised by the Creator could not be
Jesus Christ is obvious from Marcion’s point of view. The interesting part in
this matter is that Marcion – once more he proves to be truly faithful to the
Old Testament text – believed that the Creator’s Messiah was still to come, just
as the Jews did⁸⁷. Marcion thought of the Creator’s Messiah, in accordance
with the literal meaning of the Old Testament prophecy, as a great political
and military leader, a warrior⁸⁸, destined by the Creator to re-establish the
Jewish state⁸⁹. The Christ of the good God, however, has a completely different
agenda (see below).

⁸⁰ Tertullian provides a very good summary of all these weaknesses in Adv. Marc. II.28.
⁸¹ Adv. Marc. II.23.
⁸² Adv. Marc. II.24,2 (Jonah 3:10).
⁸³ Adv. Marc. II.25,1 (Gen. 3:9: “Adam, where are you?”)
⁸⁴ Adv. Marc. II.5,2.
⁸⁵ Adv. Marc. II.22,1 (Num. 21:8–9).
⁸⁶ Adv. Marc. I.15,6: alter qui apparuit sub Tiberio alter qui a Creatore promittitur.
⁸⁷ Tertullian is in fact correct when stating that in this regard the Jews and Marcion share
the same error, cf. Adv. Marc. III.16,3.
⁸⁸ Based on the military depiction of the infant in Isa 8:4 as well as on the words of the
Psalm “Gird your sword upon your side” (Ps. 45:4), cf. Adv. Marc. III.13–14.
⁸⁹ Cf. Adv. Marc. IV.6,3.
64 III. Marcion’s Gods

2. The Good God

Just as Marcion’s evil God is the God of the Old Testament, so is the good God
the one of the New Testament, the God revealed in Jesus Christ and preached
by the Apostle Paul.

2.1 The Testimony of the Gospel (according to Luke)⁹⁰

a) Christology
Subito filius et subito missus et subito Christus.⁹¹ Emphasising the suddenness
of the appearance of Christ is most important to Marcion in order to demon-
strate that he is not the Messiah announced by the Old Testament prophets.
Marcion’s second God is in no way connected to the miserable world of the
Creator and could therefore not have been known by anybody in this world
before the good God decided to reveal himself in Jesus Christ. The fact that
this God has been revealed “by his own self” (semetipsum) is often interpreted
as a sign of Marcion’s modalism⁹². However, when applying this term to Mar-
cion’s Christology, we have to be aware that it is slightly anachronistic.
„Modalismus ist als Gegensatz zum Tritheismus Sammelbez. für eine heterodoxe Deu-
tung der Trinitätslehre, die die göttliche Trias – Vater, Sohn und Geist – nicht als real
verschiedene Personen versteht, sondern, um die Einheit Gottes zu wahren, lediglich als
Aspekte oder Erscheinungsweisen (modi) des einen göttlichen Wesens.“⁹³
From this definition by Wolfgang Bienert it can be seen that a modalist doc-
trine was not yet an issue for Marcion, at least not in any deliberate way, as he
was not yet faced with an elaborate Trinitarian concept. Blackman, while too
easily asserting that Marcion was a plain modalist, remarks correctly: “Mar-
cion would have subscribed to the statement that Christ is a mode of God’s
manifestation to the world, but he would have added: the only mode; for the

⁹⁰ Marcion used only one Gospel, an abbreviated version of the Gospel according to Luke
(see Chapter IV).
⁹¹ Adv. Marc. III.2,3.
⁹² Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 123; Blackman, Influence, p. 98. Among other things, this the-
ory is based on the fact that Marcion supposedly changed the first line of Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians to read ‘Christ, who raised himself from the dead’ rather than ‘God, who raised him
from the dead’. This reading has, however, recently been doubted to be an original Marcionite
one (cf. Tjitze Baarda, “Marcion’s Text of Gal 1,1: Concerning the Reconstruction of the First
Verse of the Marcionite Corpus Paulinun”, VigChr 42 (1988), p. 236–256; see also Schmid,
Apostolos, p. 240–241.) That Adam. Dial. 2,9 (ὁ θάνατοϚ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ σωτηρία ἀνθρώπων ἐγί-
νeto) can be seen as proof for a Marcionite modalism, as Harnack (Marcion, p. 286*) and
Blackman (Marcion, p. 99) believed, has been conclusively questioned by Tsutsui (Auseinan-
dersetzung, p. 234).
⁹³ Wolfgang Bienert, “Modalismus”, RGG 5 (2002), p. 1370.
 2. The Good God 65

supreme God is revealed in no other way than in Christ.”⁹⁴ The important

thing to notice about this statement is Marcion’s intended emphasis, which is
not to establish a certain ontological alternative, but to stress the exclusivity of
the divine revelation⁹⁵. Marcion saw this exclusivity proven in the Gospel,
when Jesus states: “No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no
one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son
chooses to reveal him.”⁹⁶
Beside the fact that the interest Marcion has in this passage is clearly moti-
vated by his wish to point out that Christ preached a formerly unknown God,
it also shows that he did indeed distinguish between the persons of the Father
and the Son. Therefore, Barbara Aland sums up correctly: “Marcions Modalis-
mus reduziert sich damit auf eine Christologie mit allenfalls gelegentlich mod-
alistischen Zügen.”⁹⁷
While modalism can thus not actually be attributed to Marcion’s Christol-
ogy, docetism clearly can. According to Marcion, Christ manifested in human
form⁹⁸, that is, he did not have a real human body. That Marcion proclaimed a
docetic Christology can hardly be surprising, as his Christ could of course in
no way be linked to the created world, much less could he have been born in a
cloaca – which is Marcion’s term for the womb⁹⁹ –, this “disgusting curdling
of fluid and blood” (humoris et sanguinis foeda coagula)¹⁰⁰. Besides the fact
that it was certainly Marcion’s disgust for the flesh which motivated his docet-
ism, he believed that he had found proof for the idea that Christ was a phan-
tasma¹⁰¹ in Lk. 4:30, where it is said that Jesus walked through the midst of the
crowd¹⁰².
It is not entirely clear where Marcion imagined his good God to have been
or what he imagined him to have been doing before he revealed himself in
Jesus Christ. Tertullian realised this problem and mockingly asked his oppo-
nent why his God waited so long to reveal himself.¹⁰³ It would indeed be inter-
esting to hear Marcion’s answer to that, but this question probably never
occurred to him, once more due to his Biblicism. He accepted the revelation
of the good God as described in the New Testament without questioning it.

⁹⁴ Blackman, Influence, p. 98.

⁹⁵ Cf. especially the deliberate dissociation of other possible forms of revelation in Adv.
Marc. I.19,1: deus noster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum reve-
latus est in Christo Iesu.
⁹⁶ Lk. 10:22 (cf. Adv. Marc. IV.25,10).
⁹⁷ Barbara Aland, “Marcion/Marcioniten”, TRE 22 (1992), p. 97.
⁹⁸ Adv. haer. I.27,2.
⁹⁹ Adv. Marc. III.11,7.
¹⁰⁰ Carn. IV.1.
¹⁰¹ Adv. Marc. III.8,1.
¹⁰² Adv. Marc. IV.8,3.
¹⁰³ Adv. Marc. I.17,4; I.22,4.
66 III. Marcion’s Gods

Unlike the Gnostics, he did not give in to mythological speculations about the
Creator emanating from the Supreme God (see below) or anything like this.
That is why it would be incorrect to designate the good God to be the first
God in Marcion’s system, unlike in the Valentinian Gnosis for instance. We
may assume that Marcion imagined both Gods to have been existing eternally,
however, the Creator is definitely the one who took action first, whereas the
good God merely reacted to this activity (see below).

b) Christ’s Battle against the Old Testament God

In one passage of the Carmen adversus Marcionitas the poet expresses his sur-
prise at a certain problem concerning Marcion’s position: if Christ was not the
one sent by the God of Israel, “why did he come to exactly this people and to
this sacred land, and did not go to other people or other kingdoms?”¹⁰⁴ This is
without a doubt a legitimate question. If Marcion imagined Christ to be com-
pletely unrelated to the Old Testament God, as the Harnack-legacy wants to
make us believe, why of all nations should he come to Israel? More impor-
tantly, why would he concern himself with exactly this God and his Law and
not rather with the pagan cults such as of Mithras or Cybele for instance? The
answer to these questions comes to light once we rid ourselves of the idea that
Marcion’s good God is completely unrelated to the Old Testament, for nothing
would be farther from the truth.
“He dissolved the Prophets and the Law and all the works of the God who
made the world.”¹⁰⁵ This one line contains Irenaeus’ summary of the purpose
of Christ’s coming according to Marcion, and, as so often, Irenaeus sum-
marised very skilfully. Tertullian’s report about Marcion’s idea that Christ
came to destroy the Law and the Prophets¹⁰⁶ confirms Irenaeus’s impression,
and also Hippolytus agrees when he states that, according to Marcion, the
good God destroyed the works of the Demiurge¹⁰⁷. The crucial phrasing in
these passages is the terms dissolve and destroy. Tertullian repeatedly speaks
of the diversitas betweeen the Old and the New Testament and accordingly
between the two Gods in Marcion’s doctrine. This term is often rendered by
the obviously related English term ‘diversity’. Although this is not incorrect
since Marcion’s Gods are certainly diverse, the Latin diversitas can also signify
‘contrast’ or ‘opposition’, and it seems to be the more appropriate translation
in this case. Marcion’s Gods do not simply coexist in diversity, they exist in

¹⁰⁴ Carm. adv. Marc. V.116–117: ipsa cur in gente venit terraque dicata, non alios populos
aut altera regna petivit?
¹⁰⁵ Adv. haer. I.27,2: dissolventem prophetas et legem et omnia opera eius Dei qui mun-
dum fecit.
¹⁰⁶ Adv. Marc. IV.36,11.
¹⁰⁷ Ref. VII.30,3.
 2. The Good God 67

direct and unequivocal opposition to one another, or, to use an originally Mar-
cionite term, they exist antithetically. The second God could not exist without
the first, he is a pure anti-God. Tertullian grasped this situation precisely when
he scornfully states that Marcion’s second God could only show his great work
in man who was created by the evil God.¹⁰⁸
The good God has not only come to free mankind but to strike back against
the Creator of all evil. The actual deliverance from the horrible world and the
dreadful human condition as such – which is considered the main work of the
good God by the Marcionites (see below) – will not happen before the afterlife.
Once again, Tertullian realised this peculiar feature of Marcion’s teachings cor-
rectly and remarks:
Also it would have been befitting for perfect goodness that man, now that he is freed to
believe in the supreme God, was removed at once from the domicile and the dominion
of the cruel God […] If your release is for the future, why not also for the present, so
that it may be a perfect release? (Adv. Marc. I.24,6–7)¹⁰⁹

Indeed, in this world, Marcion’s good God does not seem to be helping man-
kind out of its misery. What he does instead, is to show some Trotz¹¹⁰ to the
Creator and his Law. Trotz is truly what marks most of Christ’s actions from
Marcion’s perspective. By his death, Christ has purchased mankind from the
Creator (see below), but it seems that during his ‘lifetime’, what mattered most
to Marcion was neither his ethical teachings (see Chapter VI) nor his healing
of people, but simply his defying and “exposing” of the Creator (detectio crea-
toris)¹¹¹.
Many parts of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Gospel demonstrate this.
When we consider Christ’s attitude towards the Sabbath for example (Lk. 6:1–
11), Marcion believed that Christ attacked the Sabbath “out of hatred” (odio)¹¹².
We can detect a similar notion in the story of the healing of the leper (Lk. 5:12–
14). Not with one word does Tertullian mention Christ’s healing of the leper as
an act of love or goodness in Marcion’s view. The reason the Pontic treated this

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Adv. Marc. I.17,1.

¹⁰⁹ Erat et illud perfectate bonitatis, ut homo, liberatus in fidem dei optimi, statim eximer-
etur de domicilio atque dominatu dei saevi […] Si de futuro erutus es, cur non et de praesenti,
ut perfecte?
¹¹⁰ Verweijs already observed this correctly when he described the Marcionite faith as
“trotzig” (Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 265). In fact, the German term trotzig or Trotz is a perfect
description of Marcion’s mentality. Unfortunately, there is no real English equivalent. The
usual dictionary translation would be ‘defiance’, but defiance can be reflected and deliberate.
Trotz, on the other hand, usually signifies defiance out of spite, very often in an almost child-
ish way. I shall therefore stick to the German term in my work.
¹¹¹ Adv. Marc. IV.36,11. There is no reason to assume (as some editions do) the reading of
deiectio, cf. Claudio Moreschini/René Braun, Tertullien: Contre Marcion IV, SC 456, Paris:
Cerf, 2000, p. 453 n. 3.
¹¹² Adv. Marc. IV.12,4.
68 III. Marcion’s Gods

matter “with special attention” (attentius)¹¹³ was rather his wish to emphasise
that Christ performed this healing as someone who is “hostile to the Law”
(aemulus legis)¹¹⁴. The term aemulus is particularly interesting in this context,
for it is exactly the emotion of aemulatio (jealousy/resentment) which the Mar-
cionites attribute (in a negative way, of course) to the Creator¹¹⁵. Another
example is the episode of the woman with a discharge of blood who touched
Jesus (Lk. 8:43–48). Once more Tertullian comments: “But this too he did as
an adversary of the Law”¹¹⁶, and this time he adds a most important exclama-
tion: O deum non natura beneficum, sed aemulatione! From Marcion’s perspec-
tive, Christ did not heal this woman (at least not primarily) out of benevolence,
rather “the Law commanded to stay away from contact with a woman who has
a discharge of blood; because of this he felt the urge not only to allow her to
touch him, but also to give her health”¹¹⁷. It almost sounds as if Christ did not
actually care for this woman, but since he was not allowed to touch her, he saw
an opportunity to spite the Creator, an opportunity he could not resist.
Finally, there is Christ’s encounter with Moses and Elijah (Lk. 9:28–36)
which is of importance in this matter. If we were to consider Marcion’s Christ
to be completely unrelated to the Old Testament, we would again have to won-
der what possible business he might have with these Old Testament figures.
However, Tertullian knows that according to Marcion Christ came as their
destructor and that the voice from heaven “This is my beloved Son, hear
him!” was to be understood as ‘Hear him – not Moses and Elijah anymore!’¹¹⁸

¹¹³ Adv. Marc. IV.9,3.

¹¹⁴ Adv. Marc. IV.9,5.
¹¹⁵ Cf. Ekkehard Mühlenberg, “Marcion’s Jealous God”, in: Donald F. Winslow (ed.), Dis-
ciplina Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, Cambridge (MA): Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1979, p. 100–113. Barbara Aland’s theory that Tertullian is using this term, as
well as the concept of destructio legis, as mere polemics against Marcion has no basis, espe-
cially since this terminology is confirmed by other sources (see above) . Aland’s idea is prob-
ably once more due to an all too positive view of the heresiarch (Aland, Marcion/Marcioniten,
p. 95).
¹¹⁶ Adv. Marc. IV.20,9: Sed et hoc qui adversarius legis. For the elliptical structure of the
phrase, see Moreschini/Braun, Contre Marcion IV, p. 258–259 n. 4: “T.[ertullien] multiplie les
ellipses dans cette phrase qui fait entendre la voix de Marcion expliquant ce geste du Christ
comme un nouvel exemple de son antagonisme à la Loi.”
¹¹⁷ Adv. Marc. IV.20,9: Lex a contactu sanguinantis feminae summouet, idcirco gestierit
non tantum contactum eius admittere, sed etiam sanitare donare.
¹¹⁸ Adv. Marc. IV.22,1. Drijvers has dedicated an extensive study to the interpretation of
the Transfiguration pericope by the Marcionites in Ephraem Syrus (Drijvers, “Christ as War-
rior and Merchant”, StPatr 21 (1989), p. 73–85). Although Drijvers’ result that Marcion was
portrayed by the Syrian Marcionites as a warrior confirms the portrait established above, we
cannot ignore the fact that fourth century Syrian Marcionism is certainly no longer entirely
true to the teachings of its founder, especially under the influence of Manichaeism. Although
Drijvers is possibly right in pointing out that this influence might be overrated occasionally
(cf. ibid., p. 85), it is not to be denied entirely, and we should thus refrain from using
Ephraem’s testimony for a reconstruction of Marcion’s view of Christ.
 2. The Good God 69

With his characteristic incisiveness, Tertullian detects a problematic element

within this interpretation. If the only meaning of this scene was for the voice
to state that they should hear Christ, then it would have been completely
unnecessary to involve Moses and Elijah in it.¹¹⁹ In this way, Tertullian has,
apparently without fully realising it, once more stumbled over the key to Mar-
cion’s anti-interpretation¹²⁰ of the Gospel: it is not enough that Christ was
heard, but it was imperative that he was heard instead of the Old Testament
prophets.
Now, it is certainly possible that Tertullian might simply be making these
things up in order to make his opponent look bad. However, anyone who
wishes to accuse Tertullian of being dishonest in this matter has to consider
the following aspects.
– A motive alone is not enough to convict someone of slander.
– There is no other writer in early Christianity who would clearly contradict
Tertullian’s depiction at this point. In fact, when we shall consider Mar-
cion’s ethics (Chapter VI), we shall see that Clement of Alexandria and
Epiphanius support the Carthaginian’s point of view.
– Tertullian’s description provides a perfect answer to the question posed in
the Carmen (see above). Whoever doubts Tertullian’s words must find
another explanation for the problem why Marcion’s Christ of all possible
places came exactly to Israel and was so eagerly concerned with the Law
and the Prophets.

Having thus accepted Tertullian’s report as trustworthy, these features grant us

a look deep inside Marcion’s way of thinking, and especially to its misunder-
standing by modern scholarship. Harnack wanted to see the Old Testament
deprived of its canonical authority¹²¹, and regarding this idea of his, he
believed to have found a soul mate in Marcion. However, the ideas of the two
men could hardly have been more different. Harnack, with the eyes of a nine-
teenth century liberal Protestant, felt that the Old Testament was no longer
reconcilable with the beliefs of post-Enlightenment society, and therefore
wanted to ‘get rid of it’. Nothing would have been more unthinkable for the
second century heretic, who was downright obsessed with the Old Testament
and its God.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Adv. Marc. IV.22,1–2.

¹²⁰ In another context, Brox used the very fitting term „Protest-Exegese“ for Marcion’s
approach (Gegen die Häresien I, p. 320 n. 118).
¹²¹ See Introduction.
70 III. Marcion’s Gods

2.2 The Testimony of Paul¹²²

“This one work alone is sufficient to our God, that he has freed man by his
supreme and exceptional goodness, a goodness which exceeds all locusts!”¹²³
This work of deliverance was performed by Christ’s death, and it is in fact this
idea which forms the only doctrinal parallel between Marcion and the Apostle
Paul. Despite the obvious importance that soteriology has to Marcion, the tra-
ditional portrait of him being above all a loyal disciple of Paul must be
regarded as more than exaggerated (see Chapter IV), for even in the two men’s
interpretation of Christ’s death we find a substantial difference. This is not the
time for a complete evaluation of Paul’s position on this matter, but in order to
point out the crucial difference to Marcion it will suffice to say that from
Paul’s perspective “Christ died for our sins” (1Cor. 15:3). Marcion probably
cut these words out of his edition of the First Letter to the Corinthians.¹²⁴ After
what has been said above about Marcion’s anthropology, it is clear that this
interpretation of Christ’s death must be excluded for him, since man is not
responsible for his sin. Accordingly, Marcion completely lacks any feeling of
guilt.¹²⁵ Moreover, Marcion’s theological dualism does not allow for the Pau-
line/Lutheran relation of sin and forgiveness, as sin and forgiveness are not
dualistic but dialectical, as they presuppose one and the same God. More easily
put, one can only be forgiven a sin that one has committed first, but this situa-
tion presupposes that the condemnation and the forgiveness of this sin is per-
formed by one and the same agent, which for Paul and Luther obviously was
the one God of the two Testaments. Once one separates these two Gods, how-
ever, the said dialectic expires, since it does not make any sense for Marcion’s
good God to forgive sins which only exist as a violation of the evil God’s Law,
the very Law that the good God has come to destroy (see above). Christ did
thus not die for our sins, rather by his death he “redeemed us” (Gal. 3:13)¹²⁶.

¹²² For Marcion’s collection of Paul’s Letters, see Chapter IV.

¹²³ Adv. Marc. I.17,1: Sufficit unicum hoc opus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit sum-
ma et praecipua bonitate sua et omnibus locustis anteponenda. The Marcionites’ comparison
of the act of salvation to locusts is just another way of making fun of the Creator, pointing out
that the one work of their God is still preferable to the (pitiful) creation.
¹²⁴ Cf. Schmid, Apostolos, p. I/325–326.
¹²⁵ Cf. von Soden, Harnacks Marcion, p. 204 (the pages in brackets refer to the first edition
of Harnack’s Marcion): „In dieser Hinsicht muß nicht nur gegen den gelegentlichen Vergleich
mit Augustin (S. 264), sondern besonders gegen den oft wiederkehrenden mit Luther (S. 231.
247 Anm. 250 f. 256) Einspruch erhoben und daran erinnert werden, daß Marcion dem
Schuldgedanken (und damit einem eigentlichen Sündenbewußtsein) völlig verschlossen ist“.
¹²⁶ Although Schmid did not include this line in his reconstruction of Marcion’s Apostoli-
kon, I believe it is very well attested in Adam. Dial. 1,27 and especially in Pan. 42.8,1, where
Epiphanius clearly states that Marcion used these words of the Aposlte. Cf. Drijvers’ most
fitting comment: “Galatians 3:13 contains in a nutshell Marcion’s concept of salvation” (Drij-
vers, Syria, p. 171).
 2. The Good God 71

The term ‘redeemed’ (ἐξηγόρασεν) is to be understood as an actual purchase

here, something Marcion put great emphasis on in order to demonstrate that
Christ purchased people who did not belong to him but to the Creator.¹²⁷
Although this is also an action directed against the Creator, it is now beyond
the pure anti-behaviour of Marcion’s good God so far. As a matter of fact, this
time it is the Creator who strikes back at the good God, plotting against Christ
and having him crucified, because Christ was dissolving his Law.¹²⁸ The
redemption by the good God is an act of grace and mercy. The abundance of
this God’s love is shown by the fact that it was “poured out willingly and freely
on strangers, without any obligation of social bondage”¹²⁹. Out of pure good-
ness, he decided to bring salvation to people who are completely alien to him.
Due to Christ’s redemption Marcion and his followers are filled with hope
for “the kingdom of God in eternal and heavenly possession”¹³⁰. The salvation,
however, goes not for the fleshly body, but only for the soul¹³¹. While this fea-
ture of Marcion’s theology may not be surprising at first, it is in fact rather
puzzling. Since unlike the Gnostics (see below) Marcion believed that man
belonged entirely, that is, with body and soul, to the creation of the Demiurge,
it is not entirely obvious why the soul would have some sort of preference
compared to the body¹³². It appears that it was simply Marcion’s disgust with
everything fleshly (see above) that led him to this attitude. The hope for this
salvation is also the only real change which Christ brought to the life of the
Marcionites. Of course, the abolition of the Law also marks a decisive change,
yet one cannot help wondering if this actually meant a practical improvement
for the Marcionite community, given that their radical ethics, which were also
motivated by an anti-Creator attitude (see Chapter VI), went far beyond the
requirements of the Law.

¹²⁷ Cf. Pan. 42.8,2; Adam. Dial. 1,27.

¹²⁸ Cf. Adam. Dial. 2,9. One more time we can observe how a certain blame (the killing of
Christ being the cause for Christian anti-Judaism per se) is deliberately shifted from the Jews
to their God (see above).
¹²⁹ Adv. Marc. I.23,3: sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effun-
ditur.
¹³⁰ Adv. Marc. III.24,1: regnum Dei aeternae et caelestis possessionis.
¹³¹ Adv. haer. I.27,3, cf. also Adv. Marc. I.24,3.
¹³² Cf. Greschat, Apelles, p. 129: „Hier war Apelles um einiges konsequenter und logischer
als Marcion, der zwar ebenfalls betonte, daß sich Christus allein den menschlichen Seelen
zuwandte, aber nicht recht erklären konnte, weswegen er nicht auch den Leib erlöste, der ja
nicht weniger als sie Seele ein Werk des minderen Schöpfers war.“
72 III. Marcion’s Gods

3. Parallels to Gnosticism?

No one familiar with the religious atmosphere of the second century can read
the above description of Marcion’s doctrine without feeling reminded of cer-
tain traits of Gnosticism. It is thus not surprising that the question of Mar-
cion’s relation to Gnostic thinkers and ideas has always been one of the most
disputed concerning his character, from those scholars who see him almost
completely separated from any Gnostic teaching¹³³ to those who consider him
substantially influenced by it¹³⁴.
The subject of Gnosis is so complex that a mere definition of the term alone
would be somewhat like a ‘Herculean Task’, which makes it all the more com-
plicated to compare Marcion to the phenomenon of Gnosis as such. The best
characterisation, from my point of view, is still the “typological model” which
Christoph Markschies offered, defining the Gnostic movement by eight fea-
tures¹³⁵. These eight traits are in the following compared to what we have
established about Marcion’s doctrine, divided into those traits Marcion shows
connections to, and those completely alien to him.

3.1 Traits which link Marcion to the Gnosis

1. The experience of a completely other-worldly, distant, supreme God

This feature is as characteristic for the Gnostics as it is for Marcion.

3. The estimation of the world and matter as evil creation and an experience,
conditioned by this, of the alienation of the Gnostic in the world
The first part of this sentence is certainly also true for Marcion, the second,
however, is not and reveals one of the crucial differences between Marcion
and the Gnostics. The characteristic Gnostic feeling¹³⁶ of ‘not actually belong-
ing to this world’ is unknown to the Pontic. Marcion shares the same despite
for the world, but he sees himself as part of it with, in the true sense of the

¹³³ Most famously, of course, stated by Harnack, Marcion, p. 196 n. 1.

¹³⁴ Cf. for example Ugo Bianchi, “Marcion: Théologien Biblique ou Docteur Gnostique?”,
VC 21 (1967), p. 149: “Marcion […] appartient de plein droit à l’histoire du gnosticisme. Il y
appartient, c’est vrai, de façon originale, sur la base d’un certain radicalisme qui s’inspire des
lignes simples décrites par Harnack, mais qui se nourrit de l’humus riche et polyvalent du
dualisme de la gnose classique.”
¹³⁵ Cf. Christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, tr. John Bowden, London: T&T
Clark, 2003, p. 16–17.
¹³⁶ Hans Jonas defined the feeling of “fremd/Fremde” as the existential Gnostic experience
(Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist I: Die mythologische Gnosis, Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 21954, p. 96–97).
 3. Parallels to Gnosticism? 73

word, heart and soul. For Marcion, man is entirely made by the evil Creator
and there is no part in him which would not belong to his creation. The Gnos-
tics, on the other hand, tend to view themselves as belonging to another, an
other-worldly realm (see below), a conviction which makes them dislike the
world they live in, but which at the same time gives them a feeling of being
above it, a feeling completely absent from Marcion’s system of thought.¹³⁷

4. The introduction of a distinct creator God or assistant: within the Platonic

tradition he is called ‘craftsman’ – Greek demiurgos – and is sometimes
described as merely ignorant, but sometimes also as evil
Again, Marcion shows enormous parallels to Gnostic thinking. Whether Mar-
cion actually used the Platonic term ‘Demiurge’, we do not know, but it seems
rather unlikely given his strict Biblicist approach (see Chapter IV). The more
crucial difference to the Gnostics, however, consists in the fact that Marcion
would never refer to the Creator as an ‘assistant’ to the Supreme God. In Mar-
cion’s theology the Creator neither in any way originates from the good God
nor is he in any way subordinate to him.

8. A tendency towards dualism in different types which can express itself in the
concept of God, in the opposition of spirit and matter¹³⁸, and in anthropology
As far as his concept of God is concerned, Marcion is a clear dualist, probably
even more radical than most Gnostic groups, which is one of the reasons he
would never think of the Creator as ‘assisting’ the Supreme God (see above). In
the other aspects named, however, Marcion shows no specific dualism.

3.2 Traits which separate Marcion from the Gnosis

2. The introduction, which among other things is conditioned by this [the

experience of a completely other-worldly, distant, supreme God], of further
divine figures, or the splitting up of existing figures into figures that are closer
to human beings than the remote supreme God
Marcion has no such thing as the introduction of said further divine figures in
his system, unless one would consider the Creator to be such a figure, but he
has already been covered by point 4 (see above).

¹³⁷ For the anthropological differences between Marcion and the Gnostics, see Aland, Ver-
such, p. 433–435.
¹³⁸ Bowden’s translation reads “manner”, but that is obviously a misprint.
74 III. Marcion’s Gods

5. The explanation of this state of affairs [as described in points 2–4] by a

mythological drama in which a divine element that falls from its sphere into an
evil world slumbers in human beings of one class as a divine spark and can be
freed from this
Marcion never gave in to any mythological speculation and certainly refused
any idea of predestination of a certain class of people, as implied in the idea of
a divine spark slumbering in (and only in) a particular group.

6. Knowledge (‘gnosis’) about this state, which, however, can be gained only
through a redeemer figure from the other world who descends from a higher
sphere and ascends to it again

7. The redemption of human beings through the knowledge ‘that God (or the
spark) is in them’¹³⁹
Although Marcion certainly believes in Christ as a redeemer figure who “des-
cends from a higher sphere and ascends to it again”, he would never emphasise
knowledge as being crucial in any way. For Marcion, it is faith in Christ which
leads to salvation (see Chapter VI).

3.3 Conclusion

The ancient heresiologists lumped Marcion together with the Gnostics, and it
is not hard to see why. Marcion, like the Gnostics, preached more than one
God, and to his orthodox opponents this was the greatest heresy of all, making
any further differentiation marginal¹⁴⁰. However, even though Marcion’s doc-
trine does show parallels to Gnosticism, this still does not mean he was imme-
diately influenced by it. In the preceding Chapter we have seen that the reports
of Marcion’s dependence on the Gnostic Cerdo are hardly trustworthy. More-
over, in our first chapter we have seen that
Gnostics such as Ptolemy are in fact already reacting to Marcion’s doctrine.
Whether one should go so far as to understand an entire Gnostic system such
as Valentinianism as largely directed against Marcion¹⁴¹ must remain uncer-

¹³⁹ Bowden’s translation reads: “The redemption of human beings through the knowledge
of ‘that God (or the spark) in them’ ”, which bears a slightly different meaning than the Ger-
man original.
¹⁴⁰ Even Harnack admits: „Wo der Marcionitismus oberflächlich, d. h. nach seinen Lehren
und nicht zugleich nach seinen Motiven aufgefaßt und angeeignet wurde, konnte er sehr
leicht als ‚Gnostizismus‘ erscheinen“ (Marcion, p. 196 n.1).
¹⁴¹ Cf. Markschies, „Die valentinianische Gnosis und Marcion – einige neue Perspekti-
ven“, in: May/Greschat, Marcion., p. 174.
 4. Conclusion 75

tain; however, we have to realise that we cannot simply claim that it happened
the other way around, either. There is hardly any real evidence for an elaborate
dualist Gnostic system before the time of Marcion. The early representatives of
Gnosticism such as Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus or Basilides remain
elusive figures since we have to rely on the rather questionable reports on them
by Irenaeus and others¹⁴². How questionable these reports are can best be
shown in the case of Basilides, of whose writings we fortunately have several
fragments preserved, fragments which, however, stand in a certain contradic-
tion to the reports offered by Irenaeus, especially as to the feature of dualism
which Irenaeus attributes to Basilides¹⁴³. For from the fragments themselves,
which may be considered authentic and thus more trustworthy than the
reports of the heresiologists, there is no clear dualism to be found in Basilides’
doctrine¹⁴⁴.
All in all we may state that Marcion, like everybody else, is a man of his
time, and since his time was the age of Christian Gnosticism, he can by no
means be seen as completely unrelated to the phenomenon as such. Still, his
system of thought remains unique, and our knowledge of pre-Marcionite
Gnosticism remains fragmentary, so that any immediate Gnostic influence on
him and his theology is no longer traceable.

4. Conclusion

Marcion’s first God is not just, he is evil – this is one of the most important
results of this chapter as well as of this entire study. From this good-evil dual-
ism we must, however, not conclude, as Bousset did (see above Chapter III,
note 1), that Marcion simply projected an originally Oriental-Persian dualism
of light and darkness onto the God(s) of the Old and the New Testament.
There seems to be a certain idea that Marcion could have been only either a
Biblicist (as Harnack believed) or a representative of a (simple) good-evil dual-
ism (as Bousset believed). However, this idea turns out to be erroneous, since
Marcion was in fact both. The heresiarch found the image of his two Gods in
the two Testaments, and not anywhere else.
Another idea which seems to prevail among scholars is that the good God
forms the centre of Marcion’s doctrine. We have seen, however, that it is in

¹⁴² Cf. Markschies, Gnosis, p. 82: “We can demonstrate from both the reports about
Simon and the framents of Basilides that the systems which Irenaeus describes with a clear
reference to his normal system represent at least secondary stages of theoretical development.
Neither Simon in the first century nor Basilides in the early second century taught what Ire-
naeus asserted at the end of the second century.”
¹⁴³ Löhr, Basilides, p. 271–273.
¹⁴⁴ Cf. ibid., p. 328–329.
76 III. Marcion’s Gods

fact the evil God, the God of the Old Testament, who rightly deserves to be
called the first God in Marcion’s system. The good God is a pure anti-God,
who merely reacts to the malice of his counterpart; and he does so by an atti-
tude towards the Creator which can be labelled as nothing else but Trotz (see
Chapter VI).
 IV. Marcion’s Bible
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says.
He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw

Marcion’s Bible stands in a strangely dialectical relation to his theology: it is

the source and at the same time the result of his doctrine. This reciprocity
makes it most difficult to divide these two parts. Nevertheless, for the sake of
lucidity I have dedicated the preceding chapter to Marcion’s Bible as the source
of his theology, by establishing those doctrinal elements he retrieved from the
texts, and I am going to dedicate the present chapter to Marcion’s methodol-
ogy regarding Scripture, that is, both his approach to the texts as well as the
formation of his own canon.
Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis.¹
When Tertullian wrote this line in the beginning of the third century, he
could not foresee that about thirteen hundred years later a German monk
would also make the distinction between Law and Gospel one of his major
theological themes, yet in a completely different way. The crucial element to
realise in this matter is that when Tertullian uses the terms Law and Gospel,
he does not refer to two different theological entities (as Luther did), but sim-
ply to two different testimonies, the Old Testament on the hand, the New
Testament on the other. That the Carthaginian had this meaning in mind
becomes obvious when we look at similar passages about Marcion’s main
exploit in which he clearly speaks of Marcion’s opposition between the entire
two Testaments.² However, Tertullian’s statement has frequently been used by
scholars to support their view – going back to Harnack³ – of the Pauline/
Lutheran distinction of Law and Gospel⁴ being the starting-point for Mar-

¹ Adv. Marc. I.19,4. “The separation of Law and Gospel is the actual and principal work of
Marcion.”
² Cf. for example Adv. Marc. IV.6,1. Cf. also Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 243: „Dabei sind
mit dem Gesetz nicht nur die am Sinai verkündeten Gebote des Mose gemeint, im Gegensatz
zur Weissagung und Verheißung der Propheten, sondern das Gesetz meint die gesamte altte-
stamentliche Offenbarung.“
³ Harnack, Marcion, p. 30.
⁴ Technically of course, there is no such thing as a Pauline distinction between Law and
Gospel. Paul contrasts Law and Faith, Law and Spirit, Law and Grace, but never Law and
78 IV. Marcion’s Bible

cion’s teaching⁵. Already in the preceding chapter we have seen that this idea
is untenable, and the following analysis will confirm this result. Nevertheless,
Tertullian was perfectly right in identifying the separation of the two Testa-
ments as Marcion’s main project, since this distinction – as we have seen –
forms the basis for Marcion’s entire dualism.
Marcion is a Biblicist. This designation is by no means to be understood as
a commendation of his theology⁶. That Marcion misunderstood the biblical
message goes without saying, but this is no argument against his Biblicism.
There is no reading without interpretation, and thus the term Biblicism does
not say anything about the content of a theologian’s doctrine. Therefore, the
famous question whether Marcion was a Gnostic or a Biblicist – as classically
formulated by Ugo Bianchi in his article “Marcion – théologien biblique ou
docteur gnostique” – is somewhat beside the point (see Chapter III). Gnosti-
cism describes an entire system of thought, Biblicism is merely a theological
method, the method of using the Bible as the only basis for one’s theology,
usually combined with a very literal understanding of it. This method has
already been established in the preceding chapter, by realising that Marcion
portrayed his two Gods entirely according to biblical testimony (see above).
He is not a philosopher, he does not ask for ‘why’ or ‘how’, he accepts the
things as they are reported in the texts, particularly the Old Testament, an
uncritical attitude which Harnack correctly referred to as “das ‘Mitten im Den-
ken stehenbleiben’”⁷.

1. The Old Testament

1.1 Marcion’s Literalism

Marcion’s literal understanding of the Old Testament or, put negatively, his
strict rejection of its allegorical interpretation, has occupied scholars for a long
time, leading to a variety of different explanations for this phenomenon.
Several scholars have proposed a connection between Marcion and his con-
temporary and countryman Aquila⁸, a translator of the Jewish Scriptures into
Gospel. Still, the main idea, which Luther then later on systematised in his famous distinction,
is indeed to be found in Paul, even though not with the exact wording.
⁵ Cf. for example Blackman, Marcion, p. 103; Aland, Marcion/Marcioniten, p. 93; Joseph
Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts. A Defining Struggle, Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 2006, p. 31.
⁶ Although he occasionally affirms the contrary, there can be no doubt that Harnack
thinks of this feature of Marcion’s theology as praise.
⁷ Harnack, Marcion, p. 99.
⁸ According to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. III.21,1) Aquila was also from Pontus. Once more
Epiphanius (De mens. 14) is more precise, stating that Aquila was from Sinope.
 1. The Old Testament 79

Greek. It is true that comparing these two men “we find an almost identical
preference for the literal and historical interpretation of the Old Testament
which is in marked contrast to the prevailing exegesis alike of Hellenistic Juda-
ism and the catholic Christianity of the time”⁹. Although a connection between
the two men cannot be excluded, it is certainly not necessary in order to
explain Marcion’s attitude. It goes without saying that Marcion did not read
the Old Testament with the eyes of an orthodox Jew, as any Jew would have
been appalled to see his God described the way Marcion did.¹⁰ But if this is the
case, the whole idea of dependence becomes dubious. As with Marcion’s rela-
tion to the Apostle Paul (see below), it seems questionable to assume that one
man took over substantial ideas from the other when both came to the most
different results possible: Aquila turned to orthodox Judaism, Marcion became
a radical Christian dualist. Besides all this, we might reasonably ask whether
understanding a text literally, which would presumably be the first instinct of
any reader, is really something so extraordinary that one has to be influenced
by a particular exegetical movement to come up with the idea.
David Dungan, while correctly perceiving that there was “nothing at all
‘Jewish’ either in Marcion’s attitude toward the Old Testament or his manner
of interpreting it”¹¹, offered an alternative explanation of Maricon’s literalism
which is unfortunately just as misleading, if not more. He interprets Marcion’s
method as a
“typical weapon in the arsenal of Hellenistic religious polemics, whether Christian, Jew-
ish, or Pagan. More specifically, it was the way one interpreted rival ‘Scripture’ so as to
destroy it, by making it out to be a worthless jumble of inconsistencies, bizarre absurd-
ities, and morally repulsive spectacles involving the Gods.”¹²
Dungan’s main misconception in this matter is that to Marcion the Old Testa-
ment was anything but rival Scripture, as he sincerely believed in its content
(cf. Chapter III; see below). Marcion’s literal understanding of the Old Testa-
ment can therefore by no means be seen as a weapon against his enemies. Cel-
sus, on the other hand, whom Dungan (erroneously) names as a similar case of
refusal of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament¹³, was a pagan philo-
sopher who considered the entire Old Testament to be a fabrication. His
attacks against it are indeed made in an attempt to demonstrate how foolish
and absurd the faith of the Christians (and Jews) is. Naturally, Harnack was
inclined to see Marcion as exactly this kind of intellectual mind, but he thus

⁹ Wilson, Marcion, p. 45.

¹⁰ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 278.
¹¹ David L. Dungan, “Reactionary Trends in the Gospel Producing Activity of the Early
Church: Marcion, Tatian, Mark”, in: M. Sabbe (ed.), L’Évangile selon Marc: Tradition et
rédaction, Leuven: University Press, 1974, p. 191.
¹² Ibid., p. 197.
¹³ Ibid., p. 195.
80 IV. Marcion’s Bible

failed to see him for what he really was (see Chapter III). For to Marcion,
unlike his disciple Apelles (see Chapter VII), it was by no means an “obvious
step”¹⁴ to consider these texts to be a fabrication (see below).
Besides these failed attempts to explain Marcion’s refusal of allegorical
interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, we have to ask whether this method
was really all that substantial for his theology. Tertullian maintains that there
are two categories of prophetic language which the Marcionites need to
acknowledge.¹⁵ The first is the announcing of future events as if they had
already happened, the second form consists of those cases in which things
have to be understood figuratively instead of literally. The fact that Tertullian
demands acceptance of these dictions indeed shows that the Marcionites
refused to apply any of these interpretations. However, the only case in which
Tertullian actually defends these methods against his opponents is the messia-
nic prophecies within the Old Testament.¹⁶ As described in the preceding
chapter, Marcion thought of the Creator’s Messiah as a warrior, an idea which
he based on the military portrayal of the infant in Isa. 8:4, where it is said that
before the child knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother', he will take up
the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the
Assyrians.¹⁷ According to the categories just mentioned, Tertullian can counter
this claim: “Now, if nature nowhere permits being a soldier before beginning
to live, or taking up the strength of Damascus before knowing the words
‘father’ and ‘mother’, it follows that this is to be considered a figurative state-
ment.”¹⁸ Against Marcion’s claim that such a warlike depiction of the Messiah
can under no circumstances refer to Jesus Christ, Tertullian has thus estab-
lished that this passage does not constitute a contradiction if understood alle-
gorically. When we consider Marcion’s negative view of the Creator, however,
which forms without a doubt the main element he retrieved from the Old Tes-
tament, it is most striking that Tertullian never applies a figurative meaning of

¹⁴ Wilson, Marcion, p. 116

¹⁵ For the following cf. Adv. Marc. III.5; cf. also Braun, Tertulllien: Contre Marcion III, SC
399, Paris: Cerf, 1994, p. 270–273.
¹⁶ Cf. J. H. Waszink, “Tertullian’s Principles and Methods of Exegesis”, in: William Schoe-
del/Robert Wilken (ed.), Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition,
Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1979, p. 29: “As we have already observed, Tertullian tries to
accept the literal interpretation as far as possible. He seriously discussed this problem in two
treatises – namely, in the third book of the Adversus Marcionem and in the De resurrectione
carnis. In the former case his aim is to prove, or at least to bring out continuously, that Christ,
the son of the good God, is announced all the time in the Old Testament.”
¹⁷ Cf. Adv. Marc. III.13,1. The passage actually reads: “Before the boy knows how to say
‘My father’ or ‘My mother’, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be car-
ried off by the king of Assyria”.
¹⁸ Adv. Marc. III.13,3: Enimuero si nusquam hoc natura concedit, ante militare quam
vivere, ante virtutem Damasci sumere quam patris et matris vocabulum nosse, sequitur ut
figurata pronuntiatio videatur.
 1. The Old Testament 81

the passages in question, but always points out that Marcion misunderstood
the literal meaning of the texts. A few examples may suffice to demonstrate
this.¹⁹
When Tertullian argues against Marcion’s use of the line “It is I who create
evil”, he does not counter the arch-heretic’s understanding by an allegorical
interpretation of his own, but by explaining that there are two kinds of evils,
evils of sin and evils of punishment, and that God is only the creator of the
second kind, which is not actually evil but befitting for a judge.²⁰ The phrase
“Adam, where are you?”, which Marcion saw as proof for the Creator’s ignor-
ance, is explained by Tertullian as being meant not in an interrogative, but in
an accusatory tone.²¹ One of his most interesting replies we find concerning
the story of Moses creating the brazen serpent. Marcion considered this action
to be inconsistent on the part of the Creator, since he had forbidden the mak-
ing of images. Tertullian defends this alleged inconsistency by pointing out that
the serpent had nothing to do with idolatry but was created as a remedy, and
he adds: “I keep silent about the figurative meaning of the remedy.”²² In other
words, Tertullian is aware of an allegorical meaning of this Old Testament pas-
sage²³, but he considers it unnecessary to refer to it in order to refute Marcion.
All in all it seems as if, at least to Tertullian, who is no less than Marcion’s
most important adversary, Marcion’s rejection of allegory was a minor issue.
Certainly, a writer such as Origen would disagree²⁴, but this may have more to
do with Origen’s way of understanding the Bible than with Marcion’s. To the
Alexandrian, even Tertullian would probably have been a “crude literalist”²⁵.
In conclusion we can maintain: Marcion did understand the Old Testament
literally, but the only case in which this method categorically differed from all
of his orthodox opponents – and agreed with the Jews instead²⁶ – was his idea
¹⁹ For the following features of the Old Testament God in Marcion’s view, see Chapter III.
²⁰ Adv. Marc. II.14.
²¹ Adv. Marc. II.25,1–2.
²² Adv. Marc. II.22,1: taceo de figura remedii.
²³ Tertullian is probably alluding to the common interpretation within the Early Church
of the serpent being a foreshadowing of the Cross of Christ, cf. Braun, Contre Marcion II,
p. 132 n. 3.
²⁴ Cf. for example Origen’s complaint about the Marcionites in Princ. II.5,2: “But they see
these things this way, because they do not understand how to hear anything beyond the let-
ter” (cf. Chapter III). For further passages in Origen concerning Marcion’s refusal of allegori-
cal interpretation, cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 260*.
²⁵ Cf. Robert M. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit, London: SPCK, 1957, p. 104. Grant pro-
vides an excellent summary of Origen’s exegesis (p. 90–104) and correctly depicts him as “the
boldest allegorizer of the ancient Church” (p. 101). Cf. also Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 282:
„Wenn Origenes von den Marcioniten sagt: ‚… et ideo purae historiae deservientes …‘, so ist
das die Meinung des Origenes und kein Anspruch Marcions selbst.“
²⁶ Tertullian repeatedly (cf. Adv. Marc. III.6,2; III.7,1; cf. also Chapter III) associates Mar-
cion with the Jews in this matter, as they are both unwilling to interpret the Old Testament
prophecies as pointing to the coming of Christ. This, however, is of course polemics and
82 IV. Marcion’s Bible

that the messianic prophecies within the Old Testament did not refer to the
coming of Jesus Christ.
If there is at all a concrete reason why Marcion interpreted the Old Testa-
ment literally, it would be that he had no reason to do otherwise. His genuine
hatred for the world and therefore its Creator would not make him doubt that
the Old Testament God actually means what he says in phrases such as “It is I
who create evil” (see Chapter III). Thus, Verweijs concludes: „Nicht ein starrer
Buchstabenglaube bestimmt die hermeneutischen Regeln Marcions, sondern sein
fanatischer Haß gegen den Weltschöpfer.“²⁷

1.2 The Place of the Old Testament in Marcion’s Canon

The preceding chapter has already revealed of what great importance the Old
Testament was to Marcion, given that it formed the basis for his portrayal of
the evil God. It is further most interesting to notice that Marcion used the
exact same Old Testament as the orthodox church, that is, he used arguably
the same collection of texts without changing anything within them.²⁸ This
fact, although well known and undisputed, has hardly ever been appropriately
acknowledged, for it tells us a lot about the relation of the two Testaments in
Marcion’s thought. Marcion radically changed the (emerging) New Testament
according to his doctrine, not only by limiting it to a very small number of
texts, but also by cutting out passages within the remaining ones (see below).
Within the Old Testament, on the other hand, he does not change one word
and sticks to a literal interpretation of it. Harnack called this feature a “psycho-
logical mystery”²⁹. However, the mystery is solved once one accepts a simple
but crucial concept: Marcion did not understand the Old Testament in the light
of the New, he interpreted the New Testament in the light of the Old. This fun-
damental idea has already become obvious in the preceding chapter. The Crea-
tor is the first God, the one it all starts with. This is why it would be a miscon-
ception to believe that Marcion would have needed the New Testament in
order to ‘discredit’ the Old³⁰, for it is in fact the Old Testament which forms
his starting point. The evil God created a miserable world with weak creatures,
gave them a burdensome Law and judges them cruelly. Then, Marcion’s good

should by no means be understood to imply any real connection between Marcion and the
Jews (see above).
²⁷ Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 283.
²⁸ Although this statement cannot be proven with certainty, to my knowledge none of the
Church Fathers (nor any modern scholar) ever maintained the contrary.
²⁹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 67.
³⁰ This does, however, not mean that Marcion would not gladly embrace the New Testa-
ment criticism of the Old (for example, regarding Paul’s critique of the Law, see Chapter III).
 2. The New Testament 83

God enters the scene as a pure anti-God, with no other function than to spite
the Creator and to free mankind from its horrible lot. It is exactly due to this
antithetical relation of the two Gods in his system that Marcion could never
have actually excluded the Old Testament from his church, „denn ohne die
dunkle Folie des Alten Testaments war die Botschaft vom guten Gott und sei-
nem Christus nicht wirkungsvoll zu verkündigen“³¹.

2. The New Testament

2.1 The Conspiracy Theory

They [the Marcionites] say that by separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion has not
so much innovated the rule (of faith) but rather returned to the one previously adulter-
ated. (Adv. Marc. I.20,1)³²

This fundamental conviction was at the very heart of the Marcionite move-
ment, the idea of re-establishing what had been falsified. Marcion was con-
vinced that there had been a great Judaising conspiracy going on in the world
aiming at perverting the Gospel by pretending that Christ belonged to the
Creator. Responsible for this perversion are the representatives (assertoribus)³³
of the Creator. Who exactly are these representatives? The Jews are certainly
not envisaged. For what possible reason could they have for linking Christ to
their God, given that they so vigorously attempt to distinguish themselves
from the Christians? Marcion relies on the testimony of Paul in order to iden-
tify his opponents. He refers to the Apostle’s Letter to the Galatians, in which
Peter and the other pillars of the Apostleship (that is, John and James)³⁴ were
reprehended by Paul for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the
Gospel³⁵. This rebuke of Peter by Paul seems to have been of great importance
to Marcion, as not only does Tertullian refer to it four times in his works

³¹ May, „Markions Genesisauslegung und die ‚Antithesen‘“, in: Dietmar Wyrwa/Barbara

Aland/Christoph Schäublin (ed.), Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche: FS Ulrich
Wickert, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997, p. 194–195 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 48). Cf. also May,
„In welchem Sinn kann Markion als der Begründer des neutestamentlichen Kanons angese-
hen werden?“, in: Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 88: „Die Schlußfolgerung könnte sein, deshalb
anzunehmen, daß die Markioniten zusätzlich auch die alte Bibel in ihren Gottesdiensten
lasen, nicht als Heilige Schrift, sondern als eine Negativfolie für das Evangelium und so das
Alte Testament als Buch ansah[en], das historische Informationen enthielt.“ In this second
passage, however, May made the mistake of considering the Old Testament as a mere addi-
tion to Marcion’s religious practice.
³² Aiunt enim Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam
retro adulteratam recurasse.
³³ Adv. Marc. IV.6,2.
³⁴ Gal. 2:9.
³⁵ Cf. Adv. Marc. I.20,2 (Gal. 2:11–14).
84 IV. Marcion’s Bible

against him³⁶, but it already had been discussed in Irenaeus³⁷. Furthermore, the
general ignorance of Peter apparently also was an issue Marcion frequently
referred to.³⁸ Marcion supposed that when Jesus, after Peter’s exclamation
“You are the Christ of God” (Lk. 9:20), ordered him and the other Apostles to
tell this to no one, he did so because Peter erroneously regarded him as the
Messiah of the Creator³⁹. Likewise, when Peter intended to put up three shelters
for Jesus, Moses and Elijah (Lk. 9:33), he again erroneously believed that Jesus
was their Messiah⁴⁰. According to Marcion, it was due to this ignorance and
insincerity of Peter and the other Apostles that Christ felt necessitated to choose
Paul as a new Apostle who would take action against his ‘predecessors’.⁴¹
However, the former Apostles are, although contributing to it by their
ignorance and weakness, not initially responsible for the falsification of the
texts. For Marcion, this heavy guilt lies with the “false brothers” who, accord-
ing to Paul, “had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ
Jesus and to make us slaves”⁴². It was this (anonymous) group of people that
attempted to pervert the Gospel through an “interpolation of Scripture by
which they portrayed a Christ of the Creator”⁴³. Therefore, Marcion consid-
ered it his duty to free the New Testament from these interpolations. Tertul-
lian sums up: “He erased those things that contradict his view, those that are in
accordance with the Creator, as if they had been woven in by his representa-
tives, but he has retained those that agree with his view.”⁴⁴

2.2 The Corpus Paulinum⁴⁵

2.2.1 Marcion’s Use of Paul
In his typically self-confident manner Harnack stated:
„Der Ausgangspunkt der Kritik M.s an der Überlieferung kann nicht verfehlt werden: er
war in dem paulinischen Gegensatz von Gesetz und Evangelium, übelwollender, klein-

³⁶ De praescr. 23,1–5; Adv. Marc. I.20,2; IV.3,2; V.3,7. Cf. May, „Der Streit zwischen
Petrus und Paulus in Antiochien bei Markion“, in: Walter Homolka/Otto Ziegelmeier (ed.),
Von Wittenberg nach Memphis. Festschrift für Reinhard Schwarz, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1989, p. 205–208 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 36–39).
³⁷ Adv. haer. III.12,15. No specific mention of the Marcionites is made by Irenaeus in this
passage, however, the context suggests that they are at least also envisaged.
³⁸ For the following cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 37–39.
³⁹ Cf. Adv. Marc. IV.21,7. That Marcion considered Peter to believe that Jesus was the
Messiah of the Creator is not explicitly stated in this passage, however, Tertullian returns to
this interpretation in Adv. Marc. IV.22,6.
⁴⁰ Adv. Marc. IV.22,4–6.
⁴¹ Cf. Adv. Marc. V.1,2.
⁴² Gal. 2:4 (Adv. Marc. V.3,2–3).
⁴³ Adv. Marc. V.3,2: interpolatione scripturae, qua Christum Creatoris effingerent.
⁴⁴ Adv. Marc. IV.6,2: Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore,
quasi assertoribus eius intexta, competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit.
 2. The New Testament 85

licher und grausamer Strafgerechtigkeit einerseits und barmherziger Liebe andrerseits

gegeben.“⁴⁶

This idea is probably Harnack’s main legacy to our view on Marcion as vir-
tually all major works on the arch-heretic ever since have followed it⁴⁷. As we
have already seen in the preceding chapter, Marcionite doctrine is only related
to Pauline teaching in terms of soteriology, and with substantial differences
even in this field. But how is it then that Harnack was so convinced of seeing
Marcion almost as a reincarnation of the Apostle? To answer this question, we
shall take a look at a remark Harnack made about Marcion’s view of the Law, a
remark which is exemplary for Harnack’s bias towards the arch-heretic: “M.s
Stellung zum Gesetz unterscheidet sich also nicht stark von der des Paulus,
wenn man die letzte Voraussetzung der beiden Götter wegläßt.”⁴⁸ This argu-
ment is all fair and good, but it is like saying that Adam Smith’s concept of
economy is close to that of Karl Marx, if one leaves aside Smith’s idea of the
free market. Harnack’s fundamental misconception, which we have already
encountered in the preceding chapter, comes to light again. The German scho-
lar, in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation, wanted to focus on the New
Testament and its message of love and forgiveness, thereby deliberately
neglecting the testimony of the Old Testament. However, Marcion was the
wrong role model for his plea. The Pontic did not neglect the Old Testament,
but saw it as the testimony of the evil Creator who is opposed to the Father of
Jesus Christ. Harnack may like it or not, but this evil God is as important for
Marcion’s doctrine as the good God is. To leave aside this dualism of Mar-
cion’s means to deprive him of the very centre of his theology.⁴⁹ In the end,
Marcion’s system was so radically different from the one of Paul that it seems

⁴⁵ By putting the Apostolikon first and the Gospel later, I do not want to create the
impression that I would share Harnack’s theory of a predominance of Paul over the Gospel
in Marcion’s system (see Chapter III). The order of subsections is merely due to better clarity.
⁴⁶ Harnack, Marcion, p. 30.
⁴⁷ Cf. Knox, Marcion, p. 14: “Marcion was not primarily a Gnostic but a Paulinist”; Enslin,
Mouse, p. 6–7: “his point of departure was the Pauline antithesis between law and grace”;
Blackman, Marcion, p. 103: “Certainly he was, and wished to be, a disciple of Paul”; Hoff-
mann, whose entire study is based on the idea that Marcion aimed at a “pauline renaissance”
(Marcion, p. 99); Aland, Marcion/Marcioniten, p. 93: „So bleibt also, den Ausgangspunkt für
Marcions Grundüberzeugung vom Gegensatz von Gesetz und Evangelium […] von seinem
einzigen Apostel Paulus her abzuleiten.“; Enrico Norelli, “Note sulla soteriologia di Mar-
cione”, Augustinianum 35 (1995), p. 281–282: “resto convinto che l’Ansatzpunkt di Marcione
si trova nella sua lettura del vangelo di Gesù nella versione paolina.”; Tyson, Marcion, p. 31:
“Paul’s writings about the justification of sinners through Jesus Christ must indeed have had a
powerful effect on Marcion’s religious life.”
⁴⁸ Harnack, Marcion, p. 108.
⁴⁹ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 257: „Es ist also unmöglich, bei Marcion den Gegensatz
der beiden Götter fallen zu lassen, ohne daß er zu einem anderen wird als er in Wirklichkeit
ist.“
86 IV. Marcion’s Bible

unlikely to assume any substantial influence of the Apostle on the arch-here-

tic.⁵⁰
If, however, Maricon had to virtually force his own ideas upon Paul, it
leaves us with the question why he included the Apostle in his canon. This
question brings us to the subject of Paul’s position within the Early Church.
Harnack’s depiction of Marcion as the loyal follower of Paul goes hand in
hand with his view that Paul’s teachings were widely unknown in Marcion’s
time.⁵¹ This way Harnack could portray Marcion as the one who made Paul
known to the public in the first place. However, Andreas Lindemann in his
impressive monograph has conclusively shown that such a view cannot be
retrieved from the sources.⁵² Paul had always been an authority within the
Church, and was certainly used, but not ‘revived’ by the heretics. Apart from
this general situation, Harnack’s theory has another weak spot. Marcion’s
whole movement is based on the idea of re-establishment of lost testimonies,
that is, the cleansing of texts from interpolation based on the above mentioned
conspiracy theory. Now, if we are to assume that Paul and his Letters were
virtually unknown in Marcion’s time, this project becomes curious. Why
would Marcion bother so much with changing the texts and justifying these
changes by a theory he retrieved from these very texts, if no one knew or cared
about them anyway?
These insights bring us back to our initial question why Marcion was so
keen on using Paul’s writings in his canon, and provide us with the answer to
that question, too. Marcion wanted to claim the Apostle’s reputation for his
own movement. In other words: Marcion did not make Paul an authority, he
made use of his authority. Apart from Paul’s soteriology, which Marcion
adopted to a certain extent, and his critique of the Old Testament Law (see
Chapter III), Paul serves above all as Marcion’s guarantor for his above men-
tioned theory of the falsification of the Gospel. Therefore, when Marcion
declares that of all the Apostles only Paul knew the truth⁵³, this is not so much
intended to glorify Paul, but to discredit the other ‘ignorant’ Apostles, who,
together with the “false brothers” (see above), are responsible for this falsifica-
tion.

⁵⁰ Once again, Bauer was the first to correctly criticise Harnack’s view in this point by
stating: „Seine [Marcion’s] Gedanken müssen dem Heidenapostel zu gewaltsam aufgezwun-
gen werden, als daß sie von diesem stammen könnten“ (see Introduction).
⁵¹ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 12. This theory has found, within certain alterations, many
followers since Harnack, cf. Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1979, p. 6–10.
⁵² Cf. Lindemann, Paulus, especially p. 378–395.
⁵³ Adv. haer. III.13,1.
 2. The New Testament 87

2.2.2 The Content of Marcion’s Apostolikon

Based on the above mentioned conspiracy theory, Marcion felt entitled to
change the text of the Epistles back to their ‘original’ form. Harnack’s analysis
of these changes and his corresponding reconstruction of Marcion’s Apostoli-
kon⁵⁴ were, although impressive, subject to two main errors.⁵⁵ First of all, Har-
nack was convinced that he completely understood the motives according to
which Marcion revised the texts. This conviction entailed that Harnack went
far beyond the sources’ actual testimony for the Marcionite texts of the Epis-
tles, for now he could simply deduce what Marcion had to change and what he
did not need to change⁵⁶. Secondly, Harnack tended to assume that text ver-
sions which show a Marcionite tendency must have a Marcionite origin, too.
In other words, he mostly (not always though)⁵⁷ excluded the possibility that
such differences between the orthodox text and a particular manuscript could
have other causes than Marcion’s interference.
It is mainly due to the excellent study of Ulrich Schmid that these crucial
mistakes have been exposed and that we thus have a far more reliable recon-
struction of Marcion’s Apostolikon. The main contribution of Schmid to the
debate was that Marcion had much less influence on the composition of his
Corpus Paulinum than had generally been assumed.⁵⁸ Schmid, based on the
study by Nils Dahl⁵⁹, has conclusively demonstrated the existence of a pre-
Marcionite collection of Pauline letters which was in many ways very similar
to the one of the arch-heretic⁶⁰. This collection contained the following letters
in the following order⁶¹:
– Galatians
– First/Second Corinthians
– Romans
– First/Second Thessalonians
– Ephesians

⁵⁴ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 40*–176*.

⁵⁵ Cf. Schmid, Apostolos, p. 7–16.
⁵⁶ Accordingly, in Harnack’s reconstruction we find phrase such as „(Das Jesajazitat über
die Unfruchtbare, Isaak und Ismael) sind unbezeugt und müssen gefehlt haben“ (Marcion,
p. 76*, my emphasis); „Wenn dieser Abschnitt nicht ganz fehlte (was wahrscheinlich), muß
M. ihn geändert haben“ (ibid., p. 70*, my emphasis); or „Zu ändern brauchte hier M. nichts“
(ibid., my emphasis).
⁵⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 155*–160*.
⁵⁸ Cf. Schmid’s own summary (Apostolos, p. 310): „Das wichtigste Ergebnis im Blick auf
den Beitrag, den Marcion selbst beim Zustandekommen seines Paulustextes leistete, ist, dass
er weitaus geringer zu veranschlagen ist, als bislang angenommen.“
⁵⁹ See Chapter I note 2.
⁶⁰ Schmid, Apostolos, p. 286–289.
⁶¹ Cf. ibid., p. 294–296. Only the exact position of the Letter to Philemon is uncertain, but
it is of little importance to us.
88 IV. Marcion’s Bible

– Colossians
– Philippians
– Philemon

This composition is identical to that of Marcion⁶², which already diminishes

his influence greatly, for it follows that he neither deliberately put Galatians at
the top of his Corpus (as Harnack believed)⁶³, nor did he deliberately exclude
the Pastorals (as Theodor Zahn believed)⁶⁴. As to the differences between the
orthodox text and Marcion’s, Schmid has established a most important rule for
their evaluation:
„Wenn Singulärlesarten des marcionitischen Textes sicher etablierbar sind, dann muß
gleichsam als Gegenprobe immer auch der Versuch gemacht werden, diese Lesarten auf
dem Hintergrund von abschreibtypischen Phänomenen zu erklären. Nur wenn dieses
Motiv ausgeschlossen werden kann, sind sichere Aussagen über marcionitisch-tenden-
ziöse Textänderungen möglich.“⁶⁵

Based on this methodological principle, Schmid comes to the conclusion that

deletions are in fact the only safe textual changes we may assume for Marcion
at all⁶⁶, and even those only in the form of deletions of longer coherent pas-
sages involving not more than four topics: 1. Abraham as the Father of all
Believers, 2. Israel as point of reference for the Church, 3. judgement according
to the Law, 4. Christ as the one in whom all things were created.⁶⁷ The only
probable deletion of single words can be claimed regarding the σάρξ of
Christ.⁶⁸ Concerning other alleged deletions by Marcion, Schmid has shown
for instance that the above mentioned pre-Marcionite collection already con-
tained a version of Romans in which the last two chapters were missing⁶⁹, so
that this divergence cannot be attributed to the heresiarch. As for the many

⁶² Cf. ibid., p. 286–289.

⁶³ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 168*-169*.
⁶⁴ Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, Erlangen: Andreas Dei-
chert, 1888, p. 634–637.
⁶⁵ Schmid, Apostolos, p. 31.
⁶⁶ Harnack, for instance, believed that Marcion not only cut out words or passages, but
also changed or added certain words, although he realised that Marcion’s main process was
one of deleting (Harnack, Marcion, p. 61–64).
⁶⁷ Cf. Schmid, Apostolos, p. 254–255; p. 282. Schmid’s evaluation concerning judgement
according to works is not entirely consistent. In the first section mentioned, he considers it
safe that Marcion cut out the corresponding passages. In the later summary, he considers it
merely probable. I would consider it as safe as the other topics mentioned by Schmid, with
the slight alteration that Marcion’s emphasis would not have been on the judgement accord-
ing to works (as Schmid described it), but according to the Law. The first one would once
again be a Lutheran concept forced upon Marcion.
⁶⁸ Cf. ibid., p. 255.
⁶⁹ Cf. ibid., p. 289.
 2. The New Testament 89

other differences between the orthodox text and Marcion’s, they can mostly be
attributed to the ‘normal’ corruption of the New Testament manuscripts.⁷⁰

2.3 The Gospel

The focus on the importance of Paul’s testimony for Marcion by most scholars
(see above) has made the Gospel take a backseat as source for his theology.
However, after what has been established in the preceding chapter, there can
hardly be any doubt that it was in the Gospel where Marcion found the basis
for his doctrine of the good God. Here he found the story of Jesus Christ and
his defiance of the Creator and his Law. This Jesus could not have been the
Messiah of the evil Creator, but had to be the rescue Marcion longed for, the
Christ who had come to destroy the reign of the evil one.
Marcion used only one Gospel in his canon, the Gospel according to Luke.
The question why he chose precisely this Gospel has occupied scholars for a
long time. However, before we address this question, we must wonder if it is
put in the right way, in other words, did Marcion actually choose the Gospel of
Luke? The term ‘choose’ implies a certain deliberate selection on the here-
siarch’s part, and Harnack indeed imagined Marcion to have examined all the
(four) Gospels very carefully before making his decision.⁷¹ This again brings us
to a preliminary question: did Marcion already find the Four-Gospel Canon?
This question has also been a matter of most lively debate by scholars, how-
ever, not always from the right angle as it seems. A recent article by Schmid
serves as a good example of this.⁷² Having considered the different arguments
from both sides, Schmid comes to the conclusion that it is possible to date a
Four-Gospel Collection⁷³ as early as the middle of the second century, which
means that Marcion could have been aware of it⁷⁴. The problem about this
statement is that the middle of the second century is the time when Marcion
had already established his doctrine and when his movement was already on
the rise (see Chapter II). Thus, the real question would have to be whether
Marcion was already familiarised with a Four-Gospel Collection in his youth,
that is, in the years 110–130, a question which in all probability would have to

⁷⁰ Cf. ibid., p. 254–255.

⁷¹ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 249*-250*.
⁷² Ulrich Schmid, “Marcions Evangelium und die neutestamentlichen Evangelien”, in:
May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 67–77.
⁷³ Schmid distinguishes a Four-Gospel Collection from a Four-Gospel Canon, pointing
out that the final canonisation of the four Gospels might be as late as the fifth century,
whereas a collection of the four may have existed much earlier, cf. ibid., p. 72–73.
⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 74.
90 IV. Marcion’s Bible

be denied⁷⁵. It seems thus quite possible that Marcion was only familiar with
one Gospel at his Pontic home community, which then obviously was the Gos-
pel of Luke.⁷⁶
Despite this rather personal reason for the use of Luke as the only true
Gospel, it is still possible that Marcion was later on forced to justify his ‘choice’
in the light of the other Gospels. He then probably once more made use of
Paul’s authority, referring to Luke’s connection to the Apostle⁷⁷. Campenhau-
sen, however, objected to this theory, pointing out that Marcion would never
have relied on the name of Luke as he attributed no author’s name to his Gos-
pel. It is true that Tertullian informs us that Marcion indeed ascribed no
author to his Gospel⁷⁸, but this information should not be overrated to imply
that Marcion imagined this Gospel to have simply dropped from heaven⁷⁹. It
seems more likely that Marcion, using only one Gospel, simply saw no need to
attribute an author’s name to it since he did not have to distinguish it from
others.⁸⁰ Thus, he could certainly accept the relation between Paul and Luke,
while not (ostentatiously) naming the Gospel after Paul’s companion.
The Church Fathers leave no doubt that just as Marcion had falsified the
Corpus Paulinum so had he forged the Gospel of Luke. Nevertheless, there
has been a long line of scholars who attempted to reverse this process, claim-
ing that our canonical Luke forms an enlarged version of a ‘Proto-Luke’ which
was also used by Marcion. This dispute, which was especially vivid in nine-
teenth century German scholarship⁸¹, appeared to be settled, as ever since John
Knox’ Marcion and the New Testament (1942) no notable scholar had
defended the theory of Marcion’s priority to canonical Luke. However, in
2006 two mutually independent publications renewed the Knox-Theory⁸².
Joseph Tyson in his “Marcion and Luke-Acts. A Defining Struggle” provided
basically the same theory as his teacher Knox. Matthias Klinghardt’s article⁸³
⁷⁵ Even the earliest estimations usually do not date the canon before the year 140, cf. Dar-
rell D. Hannah, “The Four-Gospel ‘Canon’ in the Epistula Apostolorum”, JTS 59/2 (2008),
p. 598–633.
⁷⁶ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 42: “das erste Evangelium, welches in den Pontus gekommen
ist, war wahrscheinlich das Lukas-Ev.”
⁷⁷ Cf. Lindemann, Paulus, p. 150.
⁷⁸ Adv. Marc. IV.2,3.
⁷⁹ The statement by Megethius (Adam. Dial. 1,8) that this Gospel was somehow ‘co-writ-
ten’ by Christ and Paul deserves no credibility as an original Marcionite concept.
⁸⁰ Cf. Lindemann, Paulus, p. 382–383.
⁸¹ For a history of research, see Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History
of Research in Current Debate”, JBL 127/3 (2008), p. 513–527.
⁸² Although Knox did not actually invent this theory, the recent discussions go very much
back to him so that I shall continue to refer to it as the ‘Knox-Theory’.
⁸³ Matthias Klinghardt, “Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten
Falles”, NTS 52 (2006), p. 484–513. Christopher Hays has published a response to Klin-
ghardt’s article (ZNW 99/2 (2008), p. 213–232), in which he engages critically with Klin-
ghardt’s theories, coming to the conclusion: “With the current state of research, compelling
 2. The New Testament 91

“Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles”
offered a slightly different point of view. Whereas Knox and Tyson believe that
Marcion used and falsified ‘Proto-Luke’, Klinghardt asserts that Marcion used
Proto-Luke as he found it, that is, Marcion’s Gospel and ‘Proto-Luke’ are iden-
tical.
At first glace one might think that the Knox-Theory shows similarities to
what Schmid established concerning Marcion’s Apostolikon, since he also
believed that Marcion used an edition of the Corpus Paulinum prior to the
canonical one (see above). It is therefore most important to realise a crucial
difference between these two concepts. Schmid suggested that a pre-canonical
edition of the letters of Paul existed which contained only ten letters and which
probably already contained some of the variants differing from the canonical
texts which had erroneously been attributed to Marcion. But Schmid never
claimed that the existing text of the letters was later on systematically
enlarged⁸⁴. This idea, however, is essential to the Knox-Theory. Tyson has set
up a very lucid three-phase model⁸⁵.
1. ‘Proto-Luke’ is written. It dates from ca. 70–90 AD and is similar to our
Luke 3–23.
2. Maricon composes his Gospel. He uses ‘Proto-Luke’ and omits many
parts. This takes place ca. 115–120. (This step would be missing according to
Klinghardt’s theory.)
3. Canonical Luke is written. The author uses ‘Proto-Luke’ and adds several
new pericopes with the intention (among others) of responding to the Marcio-
nite threat. The final composition was finished about 120–125.
Since all our sources unanimously agree that it was Marcion who changed
canonical Luke and not the other way around, the burden of proof lies with
the followers of Knox. Correspondingly, most of their arguments are in fact
counter-arguments against the idea that Marcion changed canonical Luke.
The main reason they bring forward for the unlikeliness of this idea is that
comparing the text of canonical Luke to that of Marcion, no consistent con-
cept of redaction can be found on the part of the arch-heretic. In other words,
there are too many passages he deleted for which there seems to be no expla-
nation. Klinghardt categorically states: „Die angebliche Redaktion Markions

evidence is lacking to disprove the univocal attestation of the Church Fathers that Marcion’s
Gospel derived from longer Gospel of Luke” (p. 232). While I agree with the final result of
Hays’ article (see below), Hays is, however, in accordance with the aim of his article, too
much concerned with Klinghardt alone. Therefore, he does, for instance, not deal extensively
enough with the argument of inconsistent redaction, which is the main argument of Knox
and Tyson (see below), and which is also accepted by Klinghardt.
⁸⁴ The only case which may count as an exception would be the adding of Chapter 15–16
to the pre-canonical edition of Romans (cf. Schmid, Apostolos, p. 289–294).
⁸⁵ Cf. Tyson, Marcion, p. 119–120.
92 IV. Marcion’s Bible

lässt sich aus dem für ihn rekonstruierten Evangelium nicht erheben.“⁸⁶ Inter-
estingly enough, however, he adds: „Diesen Versuch hat bisher auch niemand
wirklich unternommen.“⁸⁷ Without addressing the question of how Klinghardt
can know that something which apparently no one ever tried is impossible, in
the following I would like to attempt this never before tried enterprise of
reconstructing the rules according to which Marcion revised the Gospel of
Luke from the text of Marcion’s Gospel⁸⁸. Unfortunately, a reliable reconstruc-
tion of Marcion’s Gospel is not available at present.⁸⁹ However, Knox based his
theory on a particular list he made of passages that Marcion definitely (that is,
according to Tertullian/Epiphanius) cut out, a list that Tyson accepts⁹⁰ and
which Klinghardt also seems to be working with. Thus, it should suffice to deal
with this very list and see if coherent rules are to be found according to which
Marcion proceeded. Now, if one searches long enough, it would certainly be
possible to find some explanation for every deletion, however, this is supposed
to be an unprejudiced analysis, so I shall refrain from finding an explanation at
all cost. In other words, if a conflict between a certain passage and Marcion’s
doctrine cannot be explained in a plain and simple way, I shall count the dele-
tion of this passage as unexplained.
The following list will start with naming the verse(s) deleted by Marcion,
followed by the rule which caused this deletion. The rules themselves require
no further explanation as they derive from the elements of Marcion’s doctrine
already established. In several cases more than one rule would apply, but I
shall stick to the main one. Unless the conflict between the passage in question
and the rule is obvious, a short explanation of this conflict will be given.

1:1–4 The Prologue

Rule (1): The tradition of the Church is falsified.
Conflict: not only does the prologue label the Gospel as one among many, it
also attaches great importance to the testimony of the early eyewitnesses
whom Marcion considered to be ignorant of Christ’s true teaching.

⁸⁶ Klinghardt, Plädoyer, p. 513.

⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 496.
⁸⁸ Harnack listed twelve motives according to which Marcion supposedly changed the
Gospel, but it is pretty obvious that those motives were not actually retrieved from the text
of Marcion’s Gospel, but simply represent a summary of Marcion’s doctrine according to
Harnack, cf. ibid.
⁸⁹ The most recent reconstruction was attempted by Tsutsui (“Das Evangelium Marcions.
Ein neuer Versuch der Textrekonstruktion”, AJBI 18 (1992), p. 67–132), but unfortunately it
did not prove to be a real advance on Harnack’s attempt (Marcion, p. 183*-240*), which,
generally speaking, suffered from the same weaknesses as his reconstruction of Marcion’s
Apostolikon (see above). I am still longing for the forthcoming reconstruction of Marcion’s
Gospel by my friend and colleague Dieter Roth.
⁹⁰ Tyson, Marcion, p. 86.
 2. The New Testament 93

1:5–80 The Foretelling of the Birth of John the Baptist and of Christ;
Birth and Early Life of John the Baptist
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: the idea of Christ having John the Baptist as a ‘forerunner’ in the
form of a prophet of the Creator as well as the announcement of Christ’s birth
by an angel of the Creator implies a connection between Christ and the Old
Testament God which was intolerable to Marcion.

2:1–52 Birth and Infancy of Christ

Rule (3): Christ is neither born nor raised.

3:1b-3:22 John the Baptist ‘prepares the way’ for Christ and baptises him.
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.

3:23–38 The Genealogy of Christ

Rule (3): Christ is neither born nor raised.

4:1–13 The Temptation of Christ

Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.
Conflict: in the temptation pericope, Christ frequently refers to the Old
Testament as his authority.

4:14–15 Christ in Galilee

Conflict: Marcion switched pericopes at the beginning of his Gospel, starting
with 3:1 (“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar …”) and imme-
diately going to 4:31 (“he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee”).⁹¹ It
seems that due to this change Marcion simply had no need for this intermedi-
ate section anymore.

5:39 “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old
is better.’”
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: the parable of the old and the new wineskins was of great impor-
tance to Marcion for his distinction of the Old and the New Testament⁹².

⁹¹ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, 183*-184*.

⁹² Cf. Adv. Marc. II.16,5; IV.11,9.
94 IV. Marcion’s Bible

However, this verse, which seems to suggest that the old one is better, was
obviously untenable to him.⁹³

8:19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able
to get near him because of the crowd.
Rule (3): Christ is neither born nor raised.

9:31 They appeared in glorious splendour, talking with Jesus. They spoke
about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem.
Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.
Conflict: this verse is part of the Transfiguration pericope, which Marcion
used to demonstrate Christ’s superiority over Moses and Elijah (cf. Chapter
III). This verse, however, not only makes the Old Testament figures appear in
glory but also states that they were able to prophecy Christ’s future.

11:29b-32⁹⁴ The Sign of Jonah

Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.

11:49–51 “Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets
and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’
Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the pro-
phets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of
Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanc-
tuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.”
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.

12:6–7 “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is
forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't
be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: these words of consolation by Christ refer to a creator God who is
concerned with things like animals or hairs.

⁹³ However, this verse is also omitted by several other New Testament manuscripts (cf.
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Exeter: Paternoster
Press, 1978. p. 228), so it might not be Marcion’s change after all.
⁹⁴ Knox believes that 11:29 was part of Marcion’s Gospel, but Epiphanius’ statement
regarding this pericope (Pan. 42.11,6) makes it rather unlikely that the entire verse was con-
tained in it.
 2. The New Testament 95

12:28 “If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and
tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you.”
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: once again, this statement refers to a creator God who is con-
cerned with material things.

13:1–9 Repent or Perish!

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: the Godhead portrayed in these verses is one of judgement.

13:29–30 “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will
take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed, there are those
who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
Conflict: for these verses there seems to be no obvious reason why Marcion
disapproved of them.⁹⁵

13:31–35 Jesus’ Lament over Jerusalem

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: besides the citation of the Psalm we find here Jesus’ statement that
no prophet can die outside Jerusalem, which is a clear reference to the pro-
phets of the Creator.

15:11–32 The Parable of the Lost Son

Conflict: of all of Marcion’s deletions this parable seems to be the most proble-
matic as it is the one which is brought forward the most in favour of the Knox-
Theory⁹⁶. Harnack suggested that the theme of the return to the father’s house
might have conflicted with Marcion’s doctrine.⁹⁷ In a similar manner Gustav
Volckmar already believed that if Marcion understood the two sons to repre-
sent the Jews and the Gentiles, then the figure of the father would represent
the God of the Jews as well as the Father of Christ, which was obviously unac-
ceptable to him.⁹⁸ It might also simply have been the fact that the lost son is
rewarded with so many luxurious material goods which offended Marcion (see
Chapter VI). Even though a completely convincing explanation why this spe-

⁹⁵ Gustav Volckmar offers an explanation (Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipzig: Weid-

mann’sche Buchhandlung, 1852, p. 61–62), but it seems too complicated and too far-fetched
to claim validity.
⁹⁶ Cf. for example Tyson, Marcion, p. 89.
⁹⁷ Harnack, Marcion, p. 65; cf. also Blackman, Marcion, p. 46.
⁹⁸ Volckmar, Evangelium, p. 66.
96 IV. Marcion’s Bible

cific pericope was intolerable to the arch-heretic seems hard to find, one
should remember that he had no particular reason to appreciate it, either. The
reason the deletion of this parable surprises scholars so much is that they feel
that this parable should have been of special importance to Marcion due to its
message of the forgiveness of sins.⁹⁹ However, as we have seen in the preceding
chapter, this idea is completely absent from Marcion’s doctrine. Therefore,
without a major reason to keep it, a minor reason to erase it may have been
enough for the arch-heretic.

17:10b “Say, ‘we are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”
Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: this phrase presupposes a demanding Godhead who requires
works of duty of his servants.

18:31–34 Jesus predicts his passion and resurrection

Rule (5): The Old Testament cannot be fulfilled in Christ.
Conflict: Jesus clearly states that his passion and resurrection form the ful-
filment of prophecy.

19:9b “because this man, too, is a son of Abraham”

Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.
Conflict: the whole phrase reads “Today salvation has come to this house,
because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.” This logic is obviously not valid
for Marcion’s Christ.

19:29–40 Jesus approaches Jerusalem

Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.
Conflict: Jesus’ disciples celebrate his entry into Jerusalem by citing a psalm
and Jesus supports it.

19:41–44 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem because they “did not
recognise the time of God’s coming”, thereby implying a God of judgement.

19:45–46 The Cleansing of the Temple

Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.

⁹⁹ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 65.

 2. The New Testament 97

Conflict: Jesus cites words from the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah as moti-
vation for his actions.

20:9–18 The Parable of the Tenants

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: the parable clearly implies that Christ is the Son of the God of
Israel.

20:37–38 “But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead
rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob’. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all
are alive.”
Rule (4): The Old Testament or its figures are no authority for Christ.

21:18 “But not a hair of your head will perish.”

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.
Conflict: these words of consolation by Christ refer to a creator God who is
concerned with physical things like hairs (see above).

21:21–24 Judgement upon Jerusalem

Rule (5): The Old Testament cannot be fulfilled in Christ.
Conflict: the passage speaks of the fulfilment of all that has been written.

22:16 “For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfilment in the king-
dom of God.”
Rule (5): The Old Testament cannot be fulfilled in Christ.
Conflict: the idea of the fulfilment of an Old Testament institution in the
kingdom of (the good) God was intolerable to Marcion.

22:35–38 The Two Swords

Rule (5): The Old Testament cannot be fulfilled in Christ.
Conflict: once again Jesus speaks of his approaching passion and death as
fulfilment of prophecy.

23:43 “Today you will be with me in paradise.”¹⁰⁰

Rule (2): Christ is not the Son of the Old Testament God.

¹⁰⁰ Knox lists the entire pericope 23:39–43, but Epiphanius only mentions that Marcion
cut out verse 43 (Pan. 42.11,6; Schol. 72). Unlike with several other pericopes, in this case I do
not see why the statement by Epiphanius should call for a deletion of the entire section.
98 IV. Marcion’s Bible

Although the term paradise is most common in modern English, the Greek
term παράδεισοϚ only occurs twice in the New Testament¹⁰¹ besides this pas-
sage. In the LXX it was used for the Garden of Eden¹⁰². If this association was
still alive in Marcion’s time – which seems likely – the passage obviously
became intolerable for him, since Jesus would never expect to enter the Crea-
tor’s realm.

Result
Of the 32 pericopes discussed above, only for two have we not been able to
find a clear explanation for Marcion’s deletion of them. Put positively, we can
explain more than 93 % of the changes as being due to five simple rules, which
seems more than enough to consider the argument of an incoherent redaction
by Marcion as invalid. However, the claim of inconsistency not only refers to
those passages Marcion deleted, but also to those he left in. Especially Albert
Schwegler¹⁰³ has tried to show that even though we might be able to give rea-
sons for the passages Marcion erased from his Gospel, we would still be unable
to explain why he cut those out and left other (similar) passages in. Schwegler’s
choice is problematic, however, since for only a few of his named passages can
we actually be certain that the verses in question were in fact missing from or,
respectively, contained in Marcion’s Gospel. As to those passages for which
such a certainty can be claimed, a few examples may suffice to demonstrate
the weakness of Schwegler’s argument.
Schwegler considers it astonishing that Marcion would cut out 8:19 (“Now
Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near
him because of the crowd”), but would retain the following verse (“Someone
told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see
you.’”) However, there is no inconsistency to be found here. On the contrary,
Marcion is very skillfully pointing out that Jesus did not have a mother or
brothers, but that the ignorant crowd did not understand this. Schwegler also
points out that it is inconsistent on Marcion’s part to erase certain references
to the Old Testament, such as Jesus’ mention of the sign of Jonah (11:29b-32),
but to retain others such as Jesus’ reference to David taking the consecrated
bread from the temple on the Sabbath (6:3), or Jesus talking about John the
Baptist (7:27). This alleged inconsistency is based on the false judgement that
Marcion would not allow for any Old Testament reference in his Gospel. As
we have seen, however, Marcion’s Christ is anything but unrelated to the Old
¹⁰¹ Cf. 2Cor. 12:4, Rev. 2:7.
¹⁰² Cf. Marshall, Luke, p. 872–873.
¹⁰³ F. C. Albert Schwegler, Review „W. M. L. De Wette: Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments, 4th ed.“, Theologische Jahrbü-
cher 2 (1843), p 577–582.
 2. The New Testament 99

Testament, he only refuses to use it as his authority. Jesus says about John the
Baptist:
This is the one about whom it is written: ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who
will prepare your way before you.’ I tell you, among those born of women there is no
one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
This statement is by no means problematic for Marcion. On the contrary,
Christ declared perfectly correctly that John the Baptist is the forerunner of
the Creator’s Messiah and as such excluded from the kingdom of the good
God.¹⁰⁴ Concerning the reference to David, the story is not explicitly set in
any relation to the following “Then Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is
Lord of the Sabbath’”, which is obviously the important line of the pericope
for Marcion. Therefore, ‘his’ Christ can tell the story of the consecrated bread
“ohne darauf für sich selbst irgend eine Beziehung zu nehmen”¹⁰⁵.
The most prominent case of assumed inconsistency concerning Marcion’s
revision of the Gospel is the one that Tertullian brings forth himself. At the
very end of his fourth book against Marcion, in which he discusses his Gospel,
the Carthaginian refers to the end of Luke’s Gospel when Jesus appears to the
disciples after his Resurrection.¹⁰⁶ When Jesus saw them frightened he said to
them: “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at
my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have
flesh and bones, as you see I have” (24:38–39). Tertullian is surprised that the
arch-heretic did not cut these verses out as they clearly seem to contradict
Marcion’s docetic views on the body of Christ, but he also offers a most inter-
esting explanation for this phenomenon. Instead of deleting the passage, Mar-
cion supposedly had a strange interpretation for it, understanding “a ghost
does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” to mean ‘As you see I do
not have flesh and bones, just as a ghost’. Therefore, Tertullian believes that
Marcion deliberately retained certain passages which he actually should have
erased in the Gospel in order to create the impression that he did not erase
anything at all or at least that he only did so for very good reasons.
This statement by Tertullian has often served as an argument for the Knox-
Theory.¹⁰⁷ Schwegler wonders: „Hat er [Marcion] einmal, die Feder in der
Hand, gestrichen was ihm nicht gefiehl, warum diese Operation nur halb voll-
ziehen und noch zu dem halben Mittel einer künstlichen Interpretation grei-
fen?“¹⁰⁸ This question would be legitimate, if Marcion’s interpretation could
indeed be described as “künstlich”, that is, made up just to fit his purposes.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Volckmar, Evangelium, p. 59.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid.
¹⁰⁶ Adv. Marc. IV.43,6–8.
¹⁰⁷ Cf. Klinghardt, Plädoyer, p. 487.
¹⁰⁸ Schwegler, Review De Wette, p. 583–84.
100 IV. Marcion’s Bible

However, this judgement may be a bit rash. Obviously, to Schwegler, to us

today and already to Tertullian this understanding of the passage seems so
far-fetched that we automatically picture Marcion sitting at his desk racking
his brain to come up with some weird interpretation just in order not to be
forced to cut these verses out. But is this interpretation really so much weirder
than Tertullian’s assumption that the words “Adam, where are you” are not a
question but an exclamation (see above)? In both cases, the grammatical struc-
ture of words, which is obvious to any unprejudiced reader, is twisted in order
to ‘make it fit’. We have no idea how Marcion’s mind worked, but it seems not
unlikely that a man of such fanatism would really understand the passage
above in a way that was convenient to him. However, even if we assumed that
Marcion deliberately came up with a far-fetched interpretation, there would
still be another answer to Schwegler’s question. After all, by interpreting the
passage this way, not only could Marcion make it appear as not contradicting
his view, but he had another piece of evidence for it.
Summing up, we may say that it can simply not be expected that we com-
pletely understand the editorial concept of a man who lived almost 2000 years
ago and of whose own writings nothing survives. If a certain deletion is not
entirely clear to us, this may simply be due to the fact that the meaning the
text had in its own time is not entirely clear to us. The five rules established
above can only serve as a guideline. Marcion did, in all probability, not even
have a precise concept according to which he performed his changes. Let us
not forget that erasing passages in the second century is neither done with an
eraser nor by means of ‘copy and paste’. Shortening a text means to write it
anew. The creativity and perhaps spontaneity which is involved in such a pro-
cess should not be underestimated.
Beside the alleged inconsistent process of redaction, Knox and his followers
also point to the fact that of the 283 verses missing in Marcion’s Gospel only
57½ have synoptic parallels, which means that almost 80 % of what Marcion
deleted belonged to Lukan Sondergut.¹⁰⁹ According to the Knox-Theory this
portion is too big to be a coincidence, and thus it is concluded that it is more
likely that these passages were added later on than that Marcion deliberately
decided to delete more of the Sondergut than of the parallels.¹¹⁰ However, this
relation would only be problematic if we still assumed that Marcion deliber-
ately chose Luke, since Knox’ argument is based on the idea that Marcion
would never deliberately have selected a Gospel so full of problematic pas-
sages¹¹¹. Since it is more likely, however, that Marcion used Luke because it
¹⁰⁹ The exact numbers in this matter vary between Knox and Tyson, due to “differences in
judgement about the parallelisms or nonparallelisms of certain Lukan pericopes” (Tyson,
Marcion, p. 86), but it is of small importance for the actual argument.
¹¹⁰ Knox, Marcion, p. 109–110.
¹¹¹ Ibid., p. 110.
 2. The New Testament 101

was the only Gospel he was familiar with (see above), it cannot be surprising
that the Pontic simply had more problems with the Sondergut than with the
parallels, especially with the first two chapters of Luke, which alone form more
than half of the Sondergut Marcion deleted.
Having established that the Knox-Theory brings forth no conclusive argu-
ment to question the traditional view, it will suffice to briefly point out some
other weaknesses that the theory has in itself. First of all, the claim of an
inconsistent redaction on Marcion’s part raises one big question: if, allegedly,
we are unable to explain why Marcion deleted the above mentioned passages,
then it follows that we are also unable to explain why anybody should have
added them in order to fight Marcion. Certainly, the defenders of the Knox-
Theory would point out that the anti-Marcionite tendency was only one
motive for the enlargement. Still, when we look at the passages brought for-
ward by Tyson or Klinghardt in order to defend their theory of a post-Marcion
redaction, it is striking that neither of them ever discussed either of the two
passages we have not been able to explain as deliberate Marcionite deletions,
and it seems indeed difficult to find clear reasons for the adding of the Parable
of the Prodigal Son or of verses 13:29–30 because of some editorial concept.
Another problem is the very early dating of Marcion’s activity that this the-
ory requires. As we have seen in Tyson’ system above, Marcion would have to
be already active about 110–120 AD, which strictly contradicts the dating of
his life we have established in Chapter II.¹¹²
Moreover, there is the most questionable argument from analogy. Knox
points out – based on the thesis of the priority of Marcion’s canon (see below)
– that the Church enlarged Marcion’s Apostolikon by adding the Pastorals, by
adding other Apostolic writings (Letters of Peter, James and so on) and by
adding Acts as the beginning of the Apostolikon.¹¹³ From this he concludes
that it would be reasonable to assume that Marcion’s Gospel was also enlarged.
Knox is right when he states that “an argument from analogy is always precar-
ious”¹¹⁴, and this is particularly true when the analogy used is completely
wrong. The Church may have enlarged Marcion’s Gospel by adding other
Gospels to it, just as they may have added writings to the Apostolikon, but they
never added any verses to the text of Paul’s Letters¹¹⁵. Therefore, if the argu-
ment from analogy is used in this case, then it would be against the Knox-
Theory, assuming that just as the Church never added anything to the text of
the Apostolikon, so they never added anything to the text of the Gospel of
Luke.
¹¹²Cf. Hays, Response, p. 228–230.
¹¹³Knox, Marcion, p. 160.
¹¹⁴Ibid.
¹¹⁵As already noted above (note 84), the only exception would be the adding of Chapter
15–16 to the pre-canonical edition of Romans.
102 IV. Marcion’s Bible

Klinghardt has introduced another feature to the discussion by referring to

a passage in Tertullian’s work against Marcion in which he states that the
arch-heretic claims that the Gospel was interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi
ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum¹¹⁶. The Marcionite idea that Scrip-
ture has been interpolated by Judaisers has already been established above,
however, Klinghardt takes the view that this particular section does not imply
that Marcion actually protested against certain passages which had been added
to the texts, but against the integration of these texts (Gospel and Apostolikon)
into a larger corpus, that is, the canonical Bible of the Old and the New Testa-
ment.¹¹⁷ Now, no one is going to deny that Marcion was opposed to the union
of the Old and the New Testament, and it is quite possible that the above men-
tioned passage does indeed refer to that opposition¹¹⁸; but to conclude from
this feature that Marcion did not delete any passages from the New Testament
is highly questionable, since both ideas go hand in hand with one another: the
conviction that the New Testament is opposed to the Old makes it impossible
that the New Testament would contain any positive reference to it. Besides,
Klinghardt seems to have overlooked the numerous other passages in Tertul-
lian where the Carthaginian clearly accuses Marcion of having falsified the text
of the Scriptures, such as Adv. Marc. IV.6,2 (see above): “He erased those
things that contradict his view, those that are in accordance with the Creator,
as if they had been woven in by his representatives, but he has retained those
that agree with his view.”¹¹⁹
Auctoritas locuta, causa finita: Klinghardt points out the danger of such an
attitude with good reason.¹²⁰ Traditional concepts are always to be examined
carefully to prevent them from being taken for granted just because earlier
generations said so. However, this must not seduce us to question a traditional
point of view simply because it is traditional. We have clearly seen that in the
case of Marcion’s relation to the Gospel of Luke there is no reason to assume
that the traditional position, which states that Marcion falsified Luke, would be
incorrect.

¹¹⁶ Adv. Marc. IV.4,4.

¹¹⁷ Klinghardt, Plädoyer, p. 495.
¹¹⁸ Hays attempted to refute this possibility by stating: “to understand the lexeme [con-
corporationem] as a reference to a literary body, a corpus, is etymologically fallacious.” Unfor-
tunately, it is Hays who has succumbed to a fallacy here.
¹¹⁹ Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore, quasi assertoribus
eius intexta, competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit.
¹²⁰ Klinghardt, Plädoyer, p. 485.
 3. Marcion’s Canon 103

3. Marcion’s Canon
„Idee und Wirklichkeit einer christlichen Bibel sind von Markion geschaffen worden,
und die Kirche, die sein Werk verwarf, ist ihm hierin nicht vorangegangen, sondern –
formal gesehen – seinem Vorbild gefolgt.“¹²¹

This fundamental thesis by Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen has shaped the
canon-debate immensely over the last decades. Even though this theory must
be regarded as the most extreme concerning Marcion’s influence on the mak-
ing of the Christian canon, most scholars would agree that Marcion played a
substantial role in the process¹²², although there are some critical voices¹²³, too.
Be that as it may, the exact process of orthodox canon making is not the sub-
ject of this study, so the following section will above all focus on one question:
can we call Marcion the founder of the first Christian canon?
Before we can consider the sources’ testimony, we must reflect on one pre-
liminary question: what do we mean when we use the term ‘canon’? Bruce
Metzger’s distinction between a “collection of authoritative books” and an
“authoritative collection of books”¹²⁴ is most helpful in this regard. Marcion
was surely not the first Christian to consider certain texts as authoritative. If
at all, he was the first to limit the number of these texts. Since Marcion mis-
trusted the entire Church tradition as relying on the testimony of ignorant
Apostles and Judaist forgers (see above), limitation is the key to the under-
standing of Marcion’s canon making. It is with this meaning of the word
canon in mind that we shall analyse whether Marcion can be said to be a pio-
neer in this field or not. The decisive factor is that by choosing exactly which
texts to change, Marcion also defined which texts to consider as authoritative.
Thus, the moment Marcion completed his ‘revision’ of the biblical books was
the moment his canon was born. The big question is: when was that moment?
Generally speaking, it is usually not the text that makes the institution, but
the institution that makes the text. Therefore, Marcion’s church was not neces-
sarily founded on the basis of his canon. Regul states correctly: „Das bloße
marcionitische Neue Testament konnte ihm nicht viel Anhänger gewinnen.“¹²⁵
Marcion had to establish and to promote his idea of the good and the evil God
first, in other words, he had to promote his Antitheses (see Chapter V) first.
After people became aware of this concept, the problem occurred that some

¹²¹ Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1968, p. 174.
¹²² Cf. May, Begründer, p. 85.
¹²³ Cf. John Barton, “Marcion Revisited”, in: Lee Martin McDonald/James A. Sanders
(ed.), The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002, p. 354: “In short, Marcion
was not a major influence on the formation of the New Testament.”
¹²⁴ Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Sig-
nificance, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, p. 282.
¹²⁵ Regul, Evangelienprologe, p. 88.
104 IV. Marcion’s Bible

passages within the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul seemed to contra-
dict Marcion’s claim. It was perhaps only then that Marcion saw himself
necessitated to perform the above-mentioned changes in the Gospel, using
Paul as his authority (see above). The exact moment for this event cannot be
determined; however, given that by the time Justin wrote his First Apology
(ca. 153–154) Marcion’s movement had already spread ‘in the whole world’¹²⁶
(see Chapter II), we may assume that Marcion’s church could not have
reached this status without inner coherence based on the Antitheses and the
canon¹²⁷. We would thus probably not be far off the mark when we suppose
that Marcion’s canon was definitely set by the year 150. Therefore, even with a
very early dating of the emergence of the orthodox canon¹²⁸, we could still
maintain that Marcion can legitimately be called the founder of the first Chris-
tian “authoritative collection of books”.
The reason Marcion was able to ‘outrun’ the Church in this process is two-
fold. First of all, it is simply due to Marcion’s powerful position in his church
(see Chapter VI). A man who can more or less determine a canon on his own
is likely to have set this canon before an entire federation of single commu-
nities can agree on one. The perhaps more important reason for Marcion’s
quickness was his view of history¹²⁹. In order to establish a corpus of Scripture
the Church as well as Marcion had to reach a point at which they considered
themselves to be in a posterior age compared to the Urgemeinde. Once this
deliberate distinction had been made, they began to see themselves no longer
as the ‘producers’ of Scripture, but merely as its interpreters. While it cannot
be determined exactly when that particular moment arrived for the Church,
for Marcion this moment came as soon as he conceived his conspiracy theory
(see above). Thus, in Marcion’s view there is the age in which the ‘original’
Gospel and Letters are composed, there is a second age in which these texts
are being falsified, and then there is his age, in which he re-establishes the
originals. It was because of this outlook on history that Marcion reached the
awareness of a posterior age, which is necessary for the establishment of a
canon of Scripture, before the Church did.

¹²⁶ 1Apol. 26.5.

¹²⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 8* n. 1: „Eine universale Wirksamkeit M.s ohne die Unterlage
dieser Werke [Antitheses and Canon] ist nicht leicht denkbar.“
¹²⁸ David Trobisch’s (rather questionable) thesis of the final redaction of the New Testa-
ment in the middle of the second century (Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) represents, to my knowledge, the earliest dating of the
fixation of the New Testament canon; however, even Trobisch does not date it before the time
of Marcion.
¹²⁹ Cf. May, Markion in seiner Zeit, p. 7: „Bei ihm [Marcion] zeigt sich ein neuartiges
christliches Geschichtsbewußtsein: Die Anfangsphase der Kirche ist Vergangenheit gewor-
den“.
 3. Marcion’s Canon 105

So far we have restricted our attention, in accordance with the focus of pre-
vious scholarship, on the question of the canonisation of Marcion’s New Tes-
tament. As has been noted above, however, the Old Testament also forms part
of Marcion’s canon of Scripture, and it can thus not simply be ignored when
considering the formation of Marcion’s canon. We have already remarked that
Marcion, in all probability, accepted the same collection of Old Testament
texts as the Church did, so, unlike for the New Testament, we cannot detect
any influence on his part in this regard. He did, however, – and this is cer-
tainly a most crucial contribution to the development – establish the first
Christian bi-partite canon by opposing the Old and the New Testament. The
question is: was he perhaps also the first to use the terms ‘Old’ and ‘New Tes-
tament’ for this bi-partite collection of his, as Wolfram Kinzig suggested¹³⁰?
Kinzig correctly points out that
“two facts had to be established before the expression ‘New Testament’ could be used as
book title. First, there must have been a corpus of writings which was perceived as a
unity. Secondly, this corpus of writings as a whole must have been seen in opposition
to those writings which so far had been considered as the only Holy Scriptures (that is,
our ‘Old Testament’ which, however, had probably not yet been termed thus in the
Church at large).”¹³¹
Both of these facts had, as we have just seen, already been established by Mar-
cion. Thus, the preconditions for allowing him to apply the terms ‘Old’ and
‘New Testament’ are fulfilled. The use of the term διαθήκη may seem question-
able at first, since Marcion’s doctrine shows no signs of a theology of covenant;
however, Kinzig has demonstrated that the term διαθήκη was not restricted to
this particular meaning, but could simply bear the meaning of ‘Will’ and was
thus suitable for Marcion to use in order to refer to a written document¹³².
The only question which remains is whether Marcion would apply the
terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ to these collections of writings, or, in other words,
whether the terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ really represent the quintessence of Mar-
cion’s dualism. Kinzig considers this most likely given that Marcion was very
keen on pointing out the ‘newness’ of Christ’s Gospel¹³³. Marcion’s good God
is indeed new insofar as he is alien and unheard of before (see Chapter III); but
his relation to the evil God is not one of ‘new God replacing an old one’. Like-
wise, the evil God in Marcion’s system might be called old (although we have
no evidence that Marcion ever did so) only insofar as he made himself known

¹³⁰ Wolfram Kinzig, “Καινὴ διαθήκη: The Title of the New Testament in the Second and
Third Centuries”, JTS 45 (1994), 519–544.
¹³¹ Ibid., p. 534.
¹³² Ibid., p. 538.
¹³³ Ibid., p. 536–538. That the term ‘new’ was frequently to be found in Marcion’s Antith-
eses as Kinzig, based on Harnack, assumes is, however, rather unlikely given the disposition of
the work (see Chapter V).
106 IV. Marcion’s Bible

before the good God, but he is by no means old in the sense of ‘outdated’¹³⁴.
Once again we encounter the crucial misconception regarding Marcion’s view
of the Old Testament. Kinzig quotes Campenhausen: „Das Alte Testament war
für Markion erledigt und konnte in keinem Sinne mehr gelten.“¹³⁵ As we have
seen above as well as in Chapter III, this idea is most misleading. Marcion’s
evil God is still very much present in this world and in fact still in control of
it, without any real interference from the good God. It is exactly because of the
fact that to Marcion the testimony of the ‘Old Testament’ was anything but
outdated or obsolete that we may doubt whether he would actually have used
the term old for it.
Besides all of this, it also needs to be pointed out that the concept of the
‘Old’ and ‘New Testament’ as referring to two different covenants was in fact
formulated against the arch-heretic (see Chapter VII). Kinzig acknowledges
this fact, but assumes that the Church in fact adapted the terminology pre-
viously established by Marcion and then switched its meaning in order to, in
a manner of speaking, fight him with his own weapons.¹³⁶ This thought is cer-
tainly intriguing, but one might wonder whether Kinzig does not perhaps give
more credit to the Fathers than is due. Instead of implying such an act of dar-
ing ingenuity it may be more reasonable to assume that men such as Justin
Martyr, in reaction to the Marcionite and Gnostic threat, established the idea
of a temporal development within the divine revelation without any ‘spade-
work’ by Marcion himself (see Chapter VII).

4. Conclusion

The fact that the larger part of this chapter has been dedicated to Marcion’s
New Testament is most of all due to the emphasis of previous scholarship. As
important as this analysis was, it should not distract us from the principal
result of this chapter, which I would also consider the principal result of this
entire study: Marcion did not understand the Old Testament in the light of the
New, he interpreted the New Testament in the light of the Old. That this crucial
concept has never been properly acknowledged by previous scholars is once
again due to the overwhelming influence of Harnack, whose conviction that
Marcion simply rejected the Old Testament’s testimony has prevailed until
the present day. However, in this chapter we have found that if we really want
to understand the heresiarch’s way of thinking, we have to start with the Old
Testament and its God, the first God of Marcion’s system (see Chapter III).
¹³⁴ This is implied by Kinzig, ibid., p. 541–542.
¹³⁵ Wolfram Kinzig, Novitas Christiana: Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis
Eusebius, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994, p. 138.
¹³⁶ Ibid., p. 139.
 V. Marcion’s Works
The books that the world calls immoral
are the books that show the world its own shame.
Oscar Wilde

When speaking of Marcion’s works, I would like to distinguish his canon of

scripture, which consists only of the use or, respectively, the revision of other
texts (see Chapter IV), from those works that he composed himself. This chap-
ter is dedicated to the latter. Unfortunately, Marcion shares the fate of most
heretics of Early Christianity in so far as none of his writings survive. To make
things worse, in Marcion’s case we do not even have one authentic line from
his works, which makes a reconstruction completely impossible and even a
mere portrait of their content, which is the aim of this chapter, most difficult.

1. The Antitheses

Even Harnack, who is usually convinced that he is able to reconstruct just

about everything concerning Marcion’s life and thought, has to admit: „Eine
Rekonstruktion der Antithesen ist unmöglich, weil ja nicht einmal die Disposi-
tion des Werkes deutlich ist.“¹ The mystery of Marcion’s Antitheses is so com-
plex that it seems best to first consider all the different possibilities of what the
work could have contained before coming to a definite conclusion.
The Antitheses could have been²
a) a collection of antitheses in the literal meaning of the word, that is, contra-
dictory passages from the Old and the New Testament, juxtaposed in order
to demonstrate their discrepancy;
b) an extensive commentary on Marcion’s canonical books;
c) a compilation of Marcionite dogmatics;
d) a mixture of the above.

¹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 84. However, Harnack would not be Harnack, if he had not at
least attempted a reconstruction, cf. ibid., p. 256*–313*.
² Harnack believed that the Antitheses contained all these features, cf. Harnack, Der erste
Reformator, p. 174–177. Subsequent scholarship has often questioned this list, but never
amended it.
108 V. Marcion’s Works

a) A collection of antitheses in the literal meaning of the word

Nam hae sunt Antitheses Marcionis, id est contrariae oppositiones, quae conantur discor-
diam evangelii cum lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti
diversitatem quoque argumententur deorum. (Adv. Marc. I.19,4)
For these are the Antitheses of Marcion, that is, confronting oppositions, which attempt to
establish the discord between the Gospel and the Law, in order to demonstrate from the
contrast of statements from both documents a contrast of Gods also.
This phrase forms Tertullian’s first reference to the work of Marcion, and it is
one of the most valuable too, as it not only clearly provides the purpose of the
Antitheses but also, at least to a certain extent, their style: they are designed to
prove that there are two different Gods, one of the Law/Old Testament and
one of the Gospel/New Testament, and they do so by opposing contradictory
statements from both texts³. In other words, the work actually contained
antitheses in the classical meaning of the word. We learn even more about the
structure of these antitheses when Tertullian sets up several antitheses of his
own in opposition to Marcion, ‘counter-antitheses’ (antitheses aemulas)⁴ as he
calls them. These counter-antitheses are constructed in the style of “our God
did this, and so did yours”⁵. While Marcion certainly did not think in cate-
gories such as ‘my God’ and ‘your God’, Tertullian’s polemics indicate that
Marcion’s antitheses probably sounded something like ‘the one God did this,
but the other God did that’.
The very same kind of opposing statements can also be found in the Ada-
mantius Dialogue. Tsutsui, following Harnack, has listed seventeen ‘antitheses’
for it, which he believes serve as structural elements within the Dialogue, as
they usually mark the beginning of a new discussion unit.⁶ That these ‘antith-
eses’ indeed structure the Dialogue in a certain way is beyond doubt, however,
given that we are dealing with a text written about 200 years after Marcion’s
death, in a time when the Marcionite movement has already significantly alie-
nated itself from its founder’s teachings (see Chapter III), we must wonder if
we actually have original references to Marcion’s work in front of us here⁷.
This is in all probability to be affirmed for those statements mentioned in the
Dialogue which can already be found in Tertullian, such as the antithesis
between the Creator ordering the Hebrews to be well equipped when leaving
Egypt and Christ demanding that his disciples take nothing for their journey,
no shoes, no staff, no bag, no money, no extra tunic⁸; between the Creator’s

³ Cf. the similar statement in Adv. Marc. IV.1,1.

⁴ Cf. Adv. Marc. II.28,1.
⁵ Cf. Adv. Marc. II.28.
⁶ Cf. Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, p. 148–149.
⁷ Cf. my forthcoming review of Tsutsui’s book in the Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum.
⁸ Cf. Adam. Dial. 1,10; Adv. Marc. IV.24,1–2.
 1. The Antitheses 109

Law which says to love your neighbour (and to hate your enemy)⁹ and Christ’s
command to love your enemy also¹⁰; between the Creator demanding an eye
for an eye and Christ’s command to turn the other cheek¹¹; between the Crea-
tor sending bears to devour children and Christ’s statement “Let the children
come to me”¹². In these passages we find not only the exact same content as in
Tertullian, but also the very same structure, an Old Testament statement in
contrast to one from the Gospel. Some of Tsutsui’s ‘antitheses’, however, are
more problematic when compared to Tertullian’s information. The latter
leaves no doubt that Marcion’s antitheses are only derived from the Gospel,
not from the Apostolikon. This becomes obvious from the fact that whenever
Tertullian mentions the Antitheses, it is always in connection with the Gospel
(see below), never with the works of Paul. As a mater of fact, the term ‘antith-
esis’ does not occur once in the entire fifth book of Adversus Marcionem,
which is concerned with the Apostolikon. That is why those ‘antitheses’ in the
Dialogue which contain a Pauline quote¹³ are in all probability not taken from
Marcion’s original work. Furthermore, Tertullian indicates that Marcion’s
antitheses always consisted of exempla¹⁴ from the two Testaments, that is,
words or actions by Christ which were contrasted to words or actions by the
Creator, something which is true for all those antitheses which are attested in
both Tertullian and the Dialogue (see above). Although there is no need to
assume that those examples always had to be quoted literally from the texts, it
must be doubted whether a general fact would have simply been opposed to an
Old Testament passage¹⁵ by Marcion or whether his work contained antitheses
with only a Gospel passage¹⁶ or without any scriptural reference at all¹⁷. Many

⁹ This second part is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. It does, however, feature
in Mt. 5:43–44 (“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”), but it would be
strange if a passage from the Gospel of Matthew would occur in Marcion’s work. The Mani-
chean Adimantus opposes Christ’s command to love one’s enemies to Ex 23:22–24 where
God declares “I will be an enemy to your enemies” (Contra Adimantum 17,1), which might
also account for Megethius’ statement. Be that as it may, since Tertullian does not mention
this second part, it is quite possible that it was only added in a later state of the Marcionite
movement.
¹⁰ Adam. Dial. 1,12; Adv. Marc. I.23,4–6.
¹¹ Adam. Dial. 1,15; Adv. Marc. IV.16,2.
¹² Adam. Dial. 1,16; Adv. Marc. IV.23,4.
¹³ Adam. Dial. 1,19; 1,13 (the passage “do not let the sun go down on your anger” is
introduced as a saying of the Lord, but is actually taken from Eph. 4:26. Although it is not
clear who is responsible for this mistake (cf. Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, p. 167), there is no
reason to assume that it goes back to Marcion, so that it must still seem unlikely that this
particular antithesis was part of the original work.
¹⁴ Adv. Marc. II.29,1.
¹⁵ Adam. Dial. 1,21; 1,24; 1;25.
¹⁶ Adam. Dial. 1,26; 1,27.
¹⁷ Adam. Dial. 2,4.
110 V. Marcion’s Works

of the thoughts expressed in these ‘antitheses’ certainly go back to Marcion,

but it seems that Megethius is no longer simply relying on his master’s work
here. Be that as it may, we can still observe the same style of ‘the Old Testa-
ment God said/did this, but Christ said/did that’ in his argument, which is in
complete accord with Tertullian’s description of Marcion’s method in his
Antitheses, and therefore serves as confirmation of our findings so far.
Finally, there is Theodoret of Cyrus, who provides two antitheses in con-
nection with Marcion¹⁸: the first is the contrast between the Law’s demand
“an eye for an eye” and Christ’s command to turn the other cheek to anyone
who hits the right cheek, the second is the opposition between the Law’s
demand to love one’s friends and to hate one’s enemies compared to Christ’s
command to love one’s enemies also. The fact that Theodoret’s Haereticarum
Fabularum Compendium forms a very late source for the analysis of Marcion-
ism (ca. 452/453)¹⁹ makes it all the more striking that the two antitheses which
the bishop of Cyrus mentions are also to be found in similar form²⁰ in the
Adamantius-Dialogue and in Tertullian (see above). We can also see once
more that the original Marcionite form of these antitheses probably consisted
of rather precise statements from both the Old Testament and the Gospel.
Beside these three major testimonies of actual Marcionite antitheses, we
also find several allusions to this concept in the other Fathers. Irenaeus tell us
that the Marcionites oppose (ἀντιτιθένταϚ) the things Christ did for the salva-
tion of those who received him to all the evil which was inflicted by the Old
Testament God on those who disobeyed him²¹, and when Hippolytus states
that the Marcionites bring forward words of contrast (ἀντιπαράθεσιϚ) between
the good God and the evil God²², this again seems to reveal the pattern of
Marcion’s work.²³
¹⁸ Haer. fab. com. I.24. Technically, Theodoret attributes these antitheses to Marcion’s
teacher Cerdo, however, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a re-projection of
Marcion’s theology onto Cerdo here, cf. Chapter II.
¹⁹ Cf. István Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret of Cyrus, London: Routledge, 2006, p. 199.
²⁰ As in the Dialogue, in Theodoret we also find the ‘hate your enemy’ element as part of
the second antithesis. More interestingly, we also hear the Matthean version of the first
antithesis, that is, the specific mention of the right cheek (Mt. 5:39), which is absent from
Luke. One might simply assume that Theodoret is quoting the passage from memory rather
than from Marcion’s own work, which would account for the Matthean version. However,
taking into account that the ‘hate your enemy’ part also appears in Matthew (see above) as
does the saying ‘whoever calls his brother a fool is threatened by hell’ (Mt. 5:22), which is also
mentioned by Theodoret in connection with Marcion/Cerdo, it almost seems as if in the later
centuries the Matthean Gospel, and the sermon on the mount in particular, featured in the
Marcionite Antitheses. This impression is further confirmed by the fact that the very same
saying about calling one’s brother a fool is also reported by Eznik of Kolb in connection with
the Marcionite Antitheses (De Deo 405).
²¹ Adv. haer. IV.28,1, cf. Chapter I.
²² Ref. VII.30,1; cf. also VII.37,1.
²³ Cf. Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, p. 149–150. Tsutsui further mentions a passage from
 1. The Antitheses 111

All of this taken together makes it most likely that Antitheses was not just a
title for Marcion’s work, but that it got this name from its content, that is,
from actual antitheses, which were meant to establish an opposition between
the Old Testament and the Gospel, and which probably went something like:
“The Creator did/said this, but Christ did/said that”. As a model case we may
present the only antithesis which is attested in almost exactly the same form by
three different sources²⁴ (see above), and which in an exemplary manner
describes Marcion’s idea of contrast between the cruelty of the Creator and
the love of Christ:
It says in the Law But the Lord says in his Gospel
‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth’ ‘If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him
the other also’

b) An extensive commentary on Marcion’s canonical books

At the beginning of his fourth book against Marcion, Tertullian explains his
programme for this book: he is going to challenge Marcion’s doctrine by
means of the heretic’s own Gospel. But, he continues, he is also going to con-
sider the work Marcion has composed in order to establish credence for this
Gospel (ut fidem instrueret), a work the heretic has added to it as some sort of

Clement’s Stromata (III.21,2), in which the Alexandrian speaks of certain ἐναντιότητεϚ in

connection with the Marcionites, which Tsutsui believes to be another hint at Marcion’s
work, cf. May, “Platon und die Auseinandersetzungen mit den Häresien bei Klemens von
Alexandrien”, in: Horst-Dieter Blume/Friedhelm Mann (ed.), Platonismus und Christentum.
Festschrift für Heinrich Dörrie, JAC 10, Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1983, p. 127; cf. also Méhat, Stromates, p. 160 n. 45, who offers a different explanation.
Although I agree with May and Tsutsui that we are probably dealing with an allusion to the
Antitheses, it does unfortunately not tell us anything about the content of the work. The same
goes for the Carmen, in which Pollmann believes to have found a reference to the Antitheses.
However, even if the term aemulanta (IV.10) forms an allusion to this work (Pollmann, Car-
men, p. 175), it would still be of little use as it does not provide any additional information.
That the passages I.212–216 and II.176–179 are constructed in an antithetical style is techni-
cally correct (ibid., p. 155), but the analogy to Marcion’s work is still very vague, since these
passages are not concerned with the unity of the two Testaments or of the two Gods, as were
Tertullian’s counter-antitheses (see above). Finally, there is the allusion to the Antitheses in
the first Letter to Timothy (6:20), which, although certainly of interest for the dating of the
Pastoral Letters, is not of any help to our aim, either.
²⁴ The list of multiply attested antitheses offered by Rottenwöhrer (Unde malum, p. 71–
73) is slightly misleading, since for his classification of multiple attestation he not only con-
sidered anti-Marcionite sources, but also sources such as the Acta Archelai (which are direc-
ted against the Manicheans) as well as anti-Catharist sources. While Rottenwöhrer clearly
distinguishes the anti-Catharist sources from the anti-Marcionite ones, he mistakenly consid-
ers the Acta Archelai (that is, the antitheses to be found in them) as directed against the
Marcionites.
112 V. Marcion’s Works

dowry (dos quaedam) in order to protect it (patrocinaretur), the Antitheses.

These remarks clearly show that the Antitheses are linked to the Gospel of
Marcion. In fact, for the Marcionites, the Gospel was to be believed according
to the Antitheses (evangelio secundum Antitheses credendo); they thus seemed
to have been, in a manner of speaking, an instruction manual for reading it.
Although all these remarks make it look like the Antitheses indeed served as
a commentary on Marcion’s Gospel²⁵, we cannot ignore the following facts.
– At no point does Tertullian indicate that he is actually quoting an exegetical
comment from the Antitheses.
– In many passages it is not entirely clear whether Tertullian is dealing with
an actual or a fictional Marcionite objection.
– In those passages where he seems to be referring to an actual objection, it
can not be determined where he got this information from. It could be
from the Antitheses, from Marcion’s letter (see below), from personal con-
tact with Marcionites²⁶, from other works of Marcion we do not know of,
from earlier anti-Marcionite works we do not have anymore and so on.
– In several passages Tertullian provides two different Marcionite interpreta-
tions²⁷, so at least one of them he must have acquired from a source other
than the Antitheses.

Bearing these things in mind, Tertullian’s statements about the relation

between Marcion’s Gospel and the Antitheses could also be understood differ-
ently. The crucial thing to Marcion was that the Gospel was to be considered
as being opposed to the Old Testament, and this is probably what Tertullian
had in mind when he stated that the Gospel is to be believed according to the
Antitheses or that they were meant to protect the Gospel and to establish cre-
dence for it. This aim, however, could have been accomplished by other means

²⁵ The term commentari (Adv. Marc. IV.1,1) cannot be understood in the meaning of
“commenting” as Braun suggests (Contre Marcion IV, p. 57 n. 2). The phrasing goes dotem
quandam commentatus est, which means that dotem quandam is the object to commentatus
est, which again can thus only be translated as “contrive” or “compose” (cf. Ernest Evans
(ed.), Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem: Books IV-V, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p. 257).
²⁶ A good example for such an objection can be found in Adv. Marc. III.13,3. Concerning
the military depiction of the infant in Isa. 8:4, Tertullian explained: “Now, if nature nowhere
permits being a soldier before beginning to live, or taking up the strength of Damascus before
knowing the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’, it follows that this is to be considered a figurative
statement” (cf. Chapter IV). He then goes on: “But, you say, nature does not permit a virgin
to give birth, either, and yet they believe the prophet.” Tertullian is even addressing Marcion
personally here, and still it seems highly unlikely that Marcion would have written down an
argument such as this in his work, since it only works as a counter-argument. It is thus quite
plausible that Tertullian is referring here to a discussion he had with Marcion’s followers.
Another example for an argument apparently deriving from an actual discussion is Adv.
Marc. I.16,4–17,1, cf. Chapter III note 123.
²⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 174.
 1. The Antitheses 113

than a commentary. In fact, the above mentioned actual antitheses alone

would have been sufficient to that end. For once one had accepted the opposi-
tion established between the Old Testament and the Gospel, it was only a
small step to interpret the latter in Marcionite terms.
All things considered, we must say that there is not enough evidence to
support the idea that the Antitheses served as an exegetical commentary to
Marcion’s Gospel, and it is even more unlikely that they provided a commen-
tary on the Apostolikon²⁸ (see above).

c) A compilation of Marcionite dogmatics

“Was also an Sätzen M.s zuverlässig überliefert ist oder was das Gepräge seiner
eigenen Gedanken trägt, muß aus ihnen [the Antitheses] stammen.”²⁹ Starting
from this crucial conviction of Harnack, it is only logical to assume that the
Antitheses also formed a summary of Mariconite dogmatics. However, as
already stated above, there is absolutely no basis for the assumption that the
Antitheses were the only source of Marcion’s teachings for Tertullian³⁰. The
only passage which actually seems to suggest that the Antitheses contained an
evaluation of the falsification of the Gospel is Adv. Marc. IV.4,4, where Tertul-
lian states that Marcion argues per Antitheses that the Gospel of Luke has been
interpolated by the protectors of Judaism. Based on this passage, Harnack
comments „daß M. in diesem Werk Interpolationen des Ev. nachgewiesen
hat“³¹. However, Tertullian does not state that Marcion proved these interpo-
lations in this work but by this work. Therefore, just as the above mentioned
statements concerning the relation between the Antitheses and the Gospel do
not necessarily imply that they served as a commentary to it, so this remark by
Tertullian does not mean that the Antitheses actually contained a section ela-
borating the falsification of the Gospel. Once again, the antitheses which the
work in all probability contained could be used for arguing this case, for if the

²⁸ As far as I can see, all scholars who believed that the Antitheses served as a commentary
to Marcion’s Gospel have assumed that they contained a commentary on the Apostolikon
also.
²⁹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 74–75.
³⁰ Cf. May, Genesisauslegung, p. 194 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 47): „Gegen Harnack ist
grundsätzlich einzuwenden: Tertullians Informationen über Markion sind sicher auch aus
anderen Quellen geflossen als aus den Antithesen. Wir müssen an persönliche Kontakte mit
Markioniten in Karthago denken. Sehr wahrscheinlich hat Tertullian auch ältere christliche
Steritschrifetn gegen Markion benutzt. Vor allem das verlorene Werk des Theophilus von
Antiochien gegen Markion kommt hier in Frage. Schließlich ist auch die Bekanntschaft mit
weiteren Schriften Markions oder seiner Schüler, von denen wir nichts wissen, in Betracht zu
ziehen.“
³¹ Harnack, Der moderne Gläubige, p. 175.
114 V. Marcion’s Works

Gospel is antithetical to the Old Testament, then it is obvious that the ortho-
dox version of Luke’s Gospel is interpolated.
In conclusion we can say that the only thing that Marcion’s Antitheses
almost certainly contained was the antitheses in the literal sense, mentioned
under a) above.³² The fact that the work would thus have been a rather short
one would also fit very well with another of Tertullian’s comments. He informs
us about the highly important status the Antitheses had within the Marcionite
church, calling them its “supreme book”³³, by which Marcion’s disciples are
initiated and sworn into the heresy.³⁴ The Antitheses thus seem to have served
as some form of catechism, maybe even used in the baptismal ritual of Mar-
cion’s church³⁵, which would suggest that we are dealing with a concise work
here. While one may have the impression that such a work of simply opposing
statements from two documents over and over again is not exactly pleasing to
the audience and thus slightly unusual, the Disputationes written by the Man-
ichean Adimantus³⁶, for instance, seem to be a work constructed in precisely
the same way.
That the Antitheses were prefixed to Marcion’s Gospel, that is, bound
together with it, forming one codex of Scripture, as Evans’ translation sug-
gests³⁷ is rather unlikely. The term praestruendo³⁸ is probably rather to be
interpreted as another way of saying that Marcion composed the Antitheses
“in advance” in order to protect his Gospel (see above).
As to the question when and where Marcion composed his Antitheses, only
speculations are possible. The Antitheses probably accompanied Marcion’s
movement from its early beginning, even before the ‘revised’ Gospel and Cor-
pus Paulinum (see Chapter IV). A good estimate would thus be that Marcion
wrote his Antitheses shortly after the foundation of his church, about 145–150,
most probably in Rome.
³² Cf. May, Genesisauslegung, p. 194 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 47–48): „Lösen wir uns
von Harnacks Vorstellungen. Die Antithesen brauchen aus nichts anderem bestanden zu
haben als einer Reihe von Texten aus dem Alten Testament, denen kontrastierende
Abschnitte aus der Bibel Markions gegenübergestellt waren.“
³³ The wording quod in summo instrumento habent (Adv. Marc. I.19,4) is translated by
Evans as “which stands at the head of their document” (Evans (ed.), Tertullian. Adversus
Marcionem: Books I-III, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p. 49). A similar interpretation is also
proposed by Enrico Norelli (“Marcion, Tertullien et le lépreux”, in: Denis Knoepfler (ed.),
Nomen Latinum: Mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisations latines offerts au profes-
seur André Schneider, Neuchâtel: Faculté de Lettres, 1997, p. 171 n. 2). I follow the translation
by Braun (Contre Marcion I, p. 305–307), which is still the most convincing to me.
³⁴ Adv. Marc. I.19,4.
³⁵ This is at least one possible understanding of initiantur (ibid.), cf. Harnack, Marcion,
p. 76.
³⁶ The work is lost, but extensively discussed by Augustine in his Contra Adimantum (see
above).
³⁷ Evans (ed.), Adversus Marcionem: IV-V, p. 275).
³⁸ Adv. Marc. IV.6,1.
 2. The Letter 115

2. The Letter

Beside the Antitheses, the only other work by Marcion we know of is a certain
letter which Tertullian mentions several times.³⁹ The content of this letter has
been subject to many speculations. The only explicit information Tertullian
provides is that in the letter Marcion confessed his former orthodox faith (see
Chapter II). This information made Harnack conclude that it contained an
elaborate account of the arch-heretic as to why he broke with the orthodox
church⁴⁰. Regul has correctly pointed out that this could hardly have been the
only content of the letter⁴¹, without further elaborating its actual content
though. It was Jean-Pierre Mahé⁴² who dedicated a more extensive analysis to
Marcion’s letter. First of all he tried to rid the discussion about the letter of one
crucial false premise: the idea that the letter was addressed to the Roman eccle-
sia⁴³, an opinion held by both Harnack and Regul. Although I agree with Mahé
in his critique of this theory, his reasons seem questionable to me. That Mar-
cion was indeed once a member of the orthodox church, which Mahé denies
and uses as a reason for his position⁴⁴, has already been argued in Chapter II.
Mahé’s second argument is that one cannot see what possible motive Marcion
could have had to address his former brothers just in order to explain to them
why he does not share their beliefs anymore⁴⁵. This certainly sounds conclu-
sive, however, Mahé himself is about to (correctly) demonstrate that the letter
in fact formed an elucidation of Marcion’s doctrine (see below), so this argu-
ment becomes invalid. But there is one passage in Tertullian’s work which
might refer to the actual addressee of Marcion’s letter. Regarding the story of
the healing of the leper in Lk. 5:12–14 (cf. Chapter III), Tertullian reports that
Marcion treated this matter with special attention in the presence of (apud)
one of his ‘companions in misery and hatred’⁴⁶ – a truly insightful form of
self-designation. This statement is usually seen as referring to the Antitheses,
and thus as an indication that they were dedicated to a certain member of

³⁹ Adv. Marc. I.1,6; IV.4,3; Carn. II.4. There is no need to assume, as does Adolf Hilgen-
feld (Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig: Fues, 1884, p. 525), that Tertullian is
referring to several different letters in his work. The wording in quadam epistula (Carn. II.4)
is hardly an indication for this, and the fact that every time Tertullian mentions a letter in
context with Marcion he speaks of its content as revealing the arch-heretic’s former belonging
to the orthodox church strongly suggests that he is referring to one and the same letter.
⁴⁰ Harnack, Marcion, p. 22*.
⁴¹ Regul, Evangelienprologe, p. 183. In all fairness it should be remarked that Harnack
never explicitly claimed that the letter contained only this statement.
⁴² Jean-Pierre Mahé, “Tertullien et l’epistula Marcionis”, RSR 45 (1971), p. 359.
⁴³ Mahé, Epistula, p. 359.
⁴⁴ Ibid.
⁴⁵ Ibid.
⁴⁶ Adv. Marc. IV.9,3: συνταλαίπωρον, commiseronem, et συμμισούμενον, coodibilem.
116 V. Marcion’s Works

Marcion’s community.⁴⁷ However, Adolf Hilgenfeld has suggested that Tertul-

lian retrieved Marcion’s extensive treatment of the above mentioned Gospel
passage from his letter rather than from the Antitheses.⁴⁸ Although it must
remain speculation where the Carthaginian found these words, such an
address is certainly more likely to be expected in a letter than in a dogmatic
work, especially one that is, as we have seen, constructed in a rather formal,
monotonous way.
Mahé has suggested that this letter was used by the Marcionites “pour vul-
gariser leur doctrine”⁴⁹ and that it formed “un premier exposé sommaire de la
doctrine”⁵⁰. This idea seems to fit perfectly with our findings so far. Having
established that the Antitheses probably did not contain an elaboration of Mar-
cionite dogmatics, it seems indeed reasonable to assume that some other form
of document existed to that end. Moreover, that the Antitheses probably served
as part of the initiation into the community (see above) might suggest that
there was some other means used for a first approach of potential converts⁵¹.
This again would explain why the letter contained an autobiographic narrative
about Marcion’s own conversion from orthodoxy, as the main target group for
Marcionite mission was in fact orthodox Christians (see Chapter VI).
As to the actual content of the letter, Mahé suggested that the very begin-
ning of Tertullian’s work against Marcion was inspired by it⁵². It is indeed
striking that already in the first chapter of his first book against Marcion Ter-
tullian mentions the heretic’s letter⁵³ (long before he mentions the Antitheses),
and it therefore does not seem too far off to assume that the statements about
Marcion which follow shortly afterwards⁵⁴ are in fact retrieved from it. These
statements concern above all the famous parable of the good and the bad tree
as well as the quote from Isaiah in which the Creator declares: ‘It is I who create
evil’ (see Chapter III). There are several reasons which suggest that Tertullian
retrieved these features from Marcion’s letter. First of all, there is no anti-Mar-
cionite source known to us prior to Tertullian that mentions these features, so
the Carthaginian probably got the information from a heretical source.⁵⁵ More-
over, the frequent attestation of the parable of the two trees in anti-Marcionite
⁴⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 77.
⁴⁸ Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 525.
⁴⁹ Mahé, Epistula, p. 359.
⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 369. The fact that the Marcionites allegedly refused to acknowledge this letter
(Adv. Marc. IV.4,3) cannot be used as an argument against this theory. Tertullian is using a
‘what if’ construction here, so he is only dealing with a fictional Marcionite objection.
⁵¹ Cf. ibid. Mahé furthermore correctly points out the parallels to Ptolemy’s Letter to
Flora, which also served as a first introduction to Gnostic teaching. Just as with Ptolemy’s
letter, we have to think of Marcion’s as a form of διαιρετικὴ εἰσαγωγή, too (cf. Chapter I).
⁵² Cf. ibid., p. 361 f.
⁵³ Adv. Marc. I.1,6.
⁵⁴ Cf. Adv. Marc. I.2.
⁵⁵ Cf. Mahé, Epistula, p. 362.
 2. The Letter 117

texts⁵⁶ makes it likely that this element goes back to a written source. Addition-
ally, the wording of Tertullian’s passage indicates a source written by Marcion
himself, since the Carthaginian appears to be amazingly well informed not only
about the concepts of Marcion’s doctrine, but also about how he arrived at
them. It all started with Marcion’s excessive curiosity (enormitas curiositatis)
for the origin of evil⁵⁷. Marcion then found the inspiration for his delusion
(instinctus praesumptionis) in the Gospel, namely in the parable of the good
and the bad tree. Having found in the Old Testament that the Creator himself
declares ‘It is I who create evil’, the arch-heretic identified this God with the
bad tree that brings forth bad fruit. He then concluded that there must be
another God corresponding with the good tree, a God that he found revealed
in Christ. This section, which Braun entitled “Genèse du dualisme théologique
de Marcion”⁵⁸, attests such a deep insight into Marcion’s theological develop-
ment on the part of Tertullian that one is indeed led to think that he had access
to some source written by Marcion himself. There seems to be no reason to
assume that Tertullian is making any of these things up. It is certainly not
uncommon for anti-heretical writers to speculate about their opponents’
motives, but if they actually do make them up, it would usually be corrupt
ones⁵⁹. In this way Epiphanius, for example, claims that it was Marcion’s failed
personal ambitions which made him leave the church.⁶⁰ However, just as with
the reports on Marcion’s life (see Chapter II) Tertullian – unlike Epiphanius –
does not seem to be inventing any of the heretic’s motives here. Marcion’s con-
version is depicted as being due only to theological reasons, and, although Ter-
tullian is naturally stressing that Marcion misunderstood the biblical message
at this point, one cannot claim that these reasons could be called absurd.
Now, when we are looking for a source written by Marcion himself to con-
tain these features, the first one that springs to mind might be his Antitheses.
However, based on what has been said earlier about the character of this book,
they do not seem to come into question in this matter⁶¹, so we probably have
to assume Marcion’s letter to be the source of these elements. We may thus
imagine that Marcion composed his letter as follows⁶²:
⁵⁶ Cf. Ref. X.19,3; De princ. II.5,4.
⁵⁷ Tertullian assumes that the question about the origin of evil was one of the main
motives for both heretics and philosophers (De praescr. 7,5). This does, however, not mean
that he is projecting this idea of his onto Marcion. It is just as possible that he found this
motive in Marcion’s letter, which then led him to his general suspicion.
⁵⁸ Braun, Contre Marcion I, p. 107.
⁵⁹ Cf. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, p. 3: „Überhaupt ist es Meinung der Rechtgläubigkeit, und
so muß es ja sein, wenn der Böse dahinter steckt, daß nur unlautere Beweggründe den Ketzer
aus der Kirche treiben.“
⁶⁰ Pan. 42.1,8.
⁶¹ Cf. Mahé, Epistula, p. 362–367.
⁶² Naturally, this must remain a very vague and certainly incomplete reconstruction of the
letter.
118 V. Marcion’s Works

– An address to his companion in misery

– A depiction of his conversion experience
– The fundamental question it all started with: Unde Malum?
– The parable of the two trees combined with the Isaiah quote ‘It is I who
create evil’ as the answer to that question: just as there are two trees, so
there are two Gods, the evil Creator who is responsible for the state of the
world and the good God revealed in Christ
– A demonstration of Christ being opposed to the Old Testament God by
means of the example of Jesus healing the leper

Unlike the Antitheses, for the letter we have at least some indications as to the
whereabouts of its origin. The simple fact that Marcion addressed his letter to
a fellow member of his community shows that this community must already
have existed at least to a certain extent at the time the letter was written, which
brings us to the time after 144/145. The fact that Marcion speaks of his con-
version in the letter confirms this dating. Although there is no need to suppose
that Marcion’s conversion took place as late as 144/145 (cf. Chapter II), it is
certainly reasonable to assume that he would only positively state his conver-
sion after his movement was somehow established. Supposing that the letter
served as a means of Marcionite mission, however, we may also assume that it
originated at an early phase of the movement. Tertullian’s knowledge of the
letter (as the only one ever to mention it) suggests that it was written in the
Western Church, and thus most likely in Rome. In conclusion, we come to a
similar result as for the Antitheses, although with a little more certainty: Mar-
cion probably wrote his letter in Rome, somewhere between 145 and 150.

3. Marcionite Psalms

The so-called Marcionite Psalms are mentioned by Marutha of Maipherkat

(early fifth century): “instead of the Psalms they [the Marcionites] have made
themselves hymns for their services”⁶³. In addition to this we also find a rather
obscure passage at the very end of the Muratorian Fragment (Rome, late sec-
ond century): “But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or
Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion”⁶⁴. That the
Marcionites used hymns in their services can hardly be surprising – especially
given their many other parallels to orthodox worship (see Chapter VI) – so

⁶³ Arthur Vööbus (ed. and tr.), The Canons Ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqat and Related
Sources, CSCO 192, Lovanii: Peeters, 1982, p. 19.
⁶⁴ Metzger, Canon, p. 307; cf. ibid., p. 193–194, for the determination of time and place of
the fragment.
 4. The so-called ‘Pro-Evangelium’ 119

there is no need to doubt their existence. However, that Valentinus and

others⁶⁵ composed these psalms for Marcion is “auf alle Fälle eine starke Über-
treibung”⁶⁶. The association with Marcion may simply have served to discredit
the other heretics⁶⁷, however, Blackman remarked correctly that “it is possible
that if Arsinous and Mitiades and Valentinus had written hymns Marcionites
might adopt them when they made their own collection”⁶⁸. Be that as it may,
with the credibility of the Muratorian passage being rather questionable, and
with Marutha’s statement dating from the early fifth century, we lack any suf-
ficient evidence to identify Marcion as the actual author of any hymns or
psalms. Of course, one cannot completely exclude the possibility that the
Antitheses, being the supreme book of the Marcionites (see above), were used
as hymns during their services; however, it is most doubtful that they are
referred to in the above-mentioned passages.

4. The so-called ‘Pro-Evangelium’

An anonymous commentary on the Gospel⁶⁹ mentions a certain Pro-Evange-

lium written by Marcion, which begins with the following words: „O Wunder
über Wunder, Verzückung, Macht und Staunen ist das, daß man gar nichts
über es sagen, noch über es denken, noch es mit irgend etwas vergleichen
kann.“⁷⁰ Great mystery surrounds this work as it is not mentioned by any
other author – at least, that is, not under this name. Harnack, for instance,
was convinced that this Pro-Evangelium referred to Marcion’s Antitheses.⁷¹
However, the enthusiastic opening statement just mentioned does not seem to
fit what we have discovered in this chapter concerning the rather monotonous
character of the Antitheses. The only other work of Marcion known to us is his
letter, but that is even less likely to be identified with the Pro-Evangelium.
Therefore, this Pro-Evangelium is either a third work of Marcion we do not
know anything about, or, and this is the option I would suggest, the name
⁶⁵ The names of Arsinous and Miltiades – apparently heretics – are never mentioned in
connection with Marcion or Valentinus apart from this passage.
⁶⁶ Harnack, Marcion, p. 176*.
⁶⁷ Cf. ibid., p. 175*-176*.
⁶⁸ Blackman, Marcion, p. 64.
⁶⁹ Joseph Schäfers, Eine altsyrische antimarkionitische Erklärung von Parabeln des Herrn
und zwei weitere andere altsyrische Abhandlungen zu Texten des Evangeliums, Münster:
Aschendorffsche Buchhandlung, 1917, p. 3–115. The attribution of the commentary to
Ephraem Syrus is certainly erroneous, cf. Peter Bruns, „Epräm der Syrer“, LACL (3rd ed.,
2002), p. 222.
⁷⁰ Schäfers, Erklärung, p. 4–5. The context suggests that ‘es’ refers to ‘faith’, which is why
the correct German pronoun would be ‘ihn’. I do not understand how Schäfers can claim that
the context was uncertain.
⁷¹ Harnack, Marcion, p. 74 n.3.
120 V. Marcion’s Works

refers to nothing else but Marcion’s Gospel itself. Everything fits so well. We
are dealing with a commentary on the Gospel, so it would make perfect sense
for the author to refer to Marcion’s Gospel – as the competing one – at the
beginning of his work, rather than to any other work written by the arch-here-
tic. Moreover, right before the author mentions Marcion’s Pro-Evangelium, he
declared that all those writings are untrustworthy which are not based on the
Law and the Prophets. This critique again applies perfectly to Marcion’s Gos-
pel, since it was free of any positive reference to these texts (see Chapter IV).
Finally, the name Pro-Evangelium (in the sense of ‘prior to the Gospel’⁷²)
would be most appropriate for Marcion’s Gospel, as he indeed believed his
version to be prior to the one used by the Church (see Chaper IV). That the
opening words to the Gospel are never mentioned by Tertullian or others may
simply be due to the fact that they were added later on by Marcion’s followers.
Naturally, even all of this makes the identification of these two works any-
thing but certain; however, unless we are dealing with a completely unknown
work of Marcion here, this still seems to be the most plausible explanation.

5. Conclusion

In this chapter we have found that the importance of Marcion’s Antitheses is

largely overrated as far as their usage for the reconstruction of his doctrine is
concerned, since the work did, in all probability, not contain anything but con-
tradicting passages from the Old and the New Testament, and thus did not
form the main source for Tertullian’s knowledge about Marcionite doctrine.
That does, however, not mean that the importance of the Antitheses for Mar-
cion’s church would be diminished, as they did constitute their supreme book.
Still, if we are looking for a compilation of Marcionite dogmatics, we should
rather turn to the so far much neglected letter written by the heresiarch him-
self. This letter probably contained some of the most crucial elements of Mar-
cion’s system of thought, including the tree metaphor and (combined with it)
the Isaiah quote ‘It is I who create evil’.

⁷² Cf. Schäfers, Erklärung, p. 4.

 VI. Marcion’s Church
The radical of one century is the conservative of the next.
Mark Twain

“Marcion was the founder not of a school, but of a church.”¹ Thus reads the
first phrase on the first page of Blackman’s monograph on Marcion, and it was
with good reason that the British scholar pointed out this important fact right
at the beginning. More than any other heretical group of early Christianity
Marcion’s movement seems to have resembled the orthodox church as far as
liturgy and organisation was concerned, and it thus may be the only heretical
group of that time which actually deserves the name of ‘church’. Tertullian
reluctantly concedes that Marcion and his “swarm” founded several ecclesiae,
while of course pointing out that they are posterior and (thus) adulterated,
sneeringly concluding: “Just as wasps make combs, so Marcionites make
churches.”² Likewise, Cyril of Jerusalem, apparently being concerned that his
fellow Christians might enter a Marcionite church by mistake, advises them,
when they come into a new town, always to ask for the catholic church, as the
mere term ‘church’ might also misleadingly refer to an ecclesia of the Marcio-
nites.³

1. The Structure of Marcion’s Church

1.1 Sacraments
But he [Marcion’s good God] has certainly not yet rejected the Creator’s water in which
he washes his own, nor the oil with which he anoints his own, nor the mixture of milk
and honey with which he nourishes his own, nor the bread by which he presents his own

¹ Blackman, Marcion, p. 1.
² Adv. Marc. IV.5,3: Faciunt favos et vespae, faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae.
³ Cat. XVIII.26. One should not interpret this to mean, as suggested by Volker Lukas
(Rhetorik und literarischer Kampf: Tertullians Streitschrift gegen Marcion als Paradigma der
Selbstvergewisserung der Orthodoxie gegenüber der Häresie. Eine philologisch-theologische
Analyse, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008, p. 19; with an incorrect reference to Blackman,
who does not hold the same opinion), that Cyril was worried his fellow Christians might
actually mistake a Marcionite service for an orthodox one. The bishop of Jerusalem is not
concerned with a similarity in practice, but simply in name.
122 VI. Marcion’s Church

body; even in his own sacraments he is begging for alms from the Creator. (Adv. Marc.
I.14,3)⁴

In this passage Tertullian is pointing out Marcion’s inconsistency in his rejec-

tion of the creation, but he is also (unintentionally) delivering us a portrayal of
the Marcionite sacraments, which seem to have been administrated very simi-
larly to the practices of the orthodox church. We find here three classical ele-
ments of the baptismal ritual of the Early Church: the immersion in water, the
anointing with oil, and the subsequent Eucharist at which the newly baptised
received a cup of milk mixed with honey (in addition to the bread and the
wine)⁵. According to Augustine⁶, Marcion baptised his members “In the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, thus affirming even the
exact same baptismal formula as in the orthodox church. Although Augus-
tine’s statement must be taken with a grain of salt due to its late date, there is
no strong evidence to assume a different formula in Marcion’s church⁷, much
less one which would have distinctively differed from the orthodox one, given
that Marcionite Baptism was accepted as valid by other churches, as can be
seen from certain voices during the third-century Baptismal controversy⁸. We
may thus conclude that
“the baptismal liturgy of the Marcionites was little different from that known in the
catholic churches, and that any variation between the rites of Marcion and, say, Hippo-
lytus is no greater than the variety which might be found between the rites of non-schis-
matic communities”⁹.

The same is apparently true for the Marcionite Eucharist. Some scholars have
suggested, based on a statement by Epiphanius¹⁰ and on the silence on the part
of Tertullian in his above mentioned description, that Marcion avoided the use
of wine in the Eucharist.¹¹ However, Alistair Stewart-Sykes has correctly
pointed out that Epiphanius’ remark that Marcion used water in the Eucharist
does not necessarily exclude the use of wine, “for the use of water, instead or as
well as wine, is widespread in early Christian sacral meals”¹². While Tertul-

⁴ Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit, nec oleum,
quo suos ungit, nec mellis et lactis societatem, qua suos infantat, nec panem, quo ipsum cor-
pus suum repraesentat, etiam in sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus Creatoris.
⁵ Cf. Thomas M. Finn, Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: Italy, North Afri-
ca, and Egypt, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992, p. 15–16.
⁶ Bapt. 3,15.
⁷ Cf. Blackman, Marcion, p. 22.
⁸ Cf. Cypr. ep. 73,7.
⁹ Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “Bread and Fish, Water and Wine: The Marcionite Menu and the
Maintenance of Purity”, in: May (ed.), Marcion, p. 208.
¹⁰ Pan. 42.3,3.
¹¹ Cf. for example Andrew McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Chris-
tian Ritual Meals, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, p. 164–167.
¹² Sykes, Bread, p. 213.
 1. The Structure of Marcion’s Church 123

lian’s silence in the above mentioned passage might be considered an argu-

mentum ex silentio, there is another passage in his work which seems to imply
Marcionite use of wine¹³, and there is also the testimony of Ephraim Syrus and
Eznik of Kolb, who both clearly indicate that Marcion used wine in the
Eucharist.¹⁴
All in all we may conclude that there is no sufficient evidence that the
administration of the sacraments of both Baptism and Eucharist in Marcion’s
church was performed in any way which an orthodox Christian would have
considered as heretical per se.

1.2 Offices

Before we consider the order of office of Marcion’s church, we have to be

aware of the difficulty concerning constitutional issues in the Early Church in
general. First of all there is the dictum by Leopold Zscharnack, which is still
true more than a hundred years after its publication:
„Wer über praktische Fragen der Kirchenverfassung schreibt, der sollte stets im Auge
behalten, was Firmilian in einem Briefe an Cyprian von Carthago sagt, dass nämlich in
Rom nicht alles galt, was in Jerusalem Regel war, wie denn auch in den meisten anderen
Provinzen vieles je nach der Verschiedenheit der Gegenden und Menschen voneinander
abwich […] Man muß sich vor der Versuchung hüten, aus der besonderen Sitte einer
Einzelgemeinde eine allgemeine kirchliche Einrichtung zu machen.“¹⁵
To make things even more complicated, not only does a testimony about
church politics from the church of Carthage tell us nothing about church pol-
itics in Alexandria for instance, a single testimony from Carthage does not tell
us anything about the general situation in the church of Carthage, either. In
other words, from the fact that Tertullian thinks that women should not be
allowed in church offices¹⁶, we should not conclude that women actually were
prohibited from offices in the church of Carthage. On the contrary, does the
fact that Tertullian expresses his point of view so openly (and often aggres-
sively) not rather suggest that not everybody in his community was of the
same mind? While we are thus not able to make any safe general statement
about either the order of offices within the Church or within Marcion’s com-

¹³ Adv. Marc. IV.40,5–6.

¹⁴ Hymn. c. haer. XLVII.3 + 8; De Deo 409. Cf. Sykes, Bread, p. 212.
¹⁵ Leopold Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen
Kirche, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902, p. 1 (referring to Cypr. ep. 75).
¹⁶ Cf. the collection of passages in Kevin Madigan/Carolyn Osiek (ed.), Ordained Women
in the Early Church: A Documentary History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
2005, p. 174–181.
124 VI. Marcion’s Church

munity, we may still ask: can we detect (that is, prove) any distinctive general
difference between the organisation of offices within these two groups?
The first testimonies for Marcionite offices appear rather late. It is one of the
ironies of history that one of the oldest church inscriptions we possess is from a
Marcionite church¹⁷. It dates from 318/319 and names a Marcionite presbyter
called “Paulos” as being in charge of the building. Harnack drew a variety of
interesting conclusions from the inscription¹⁸; however, the only thing impor-
tant to us in this context is that the Marcionite church knew the office of pres-
byters. In the Martyrium Pionii we also find a Marcionite presbyter named
Metrodorus mentioned¹⁹, Eusebius refers to a Marcionite bishop called Ascle-
pius²⁰, and the Adamantius Dialogue even refers to a succession of bishops with-
in the Marcionite church, naturally beginning with Marcion himself²¹. Harnack
affirms that these testimonies are as early as one could possibly expect, thus
concluding that Marcion himself already introduced the offices of bishops, pres-
byters and deacons.²² While calling fourth-century testimonies for second-cen-
tury phenomena as early as possible is certainly bold, we can still agree with
Harnack that Marcion in all probability introduced these offices in his church
himself, or, to be more precise, that he retained these offices when he broke with
the Church. For it is far more likely that these offices were retained from the
beginning than that the Marcionite church adopted any kind of ecclesial prac-
tice during the period of schism in which the churches openly fought each other.
Something similar may in fact be true for the role women played in Mar-
cion’s community. The fact that Marcion gave women permission to hold
office in his church²³ is considered by Blackman to be a real innovation²⁴, but
based on what we have observed so far about the similarities between the
Church and Marcion’s community, would it not be more reasonable to assume
that Marcion was in this matter rather copying the Church, too? Harnack
already maintained that it was perfectly common for women to hold offices in
the Church up until the second century, and that the Church in fact only
banned women from office in a deliberate opposition to the Marcionites,
Gnostics and Montanists.²⁵ While this particular reason for the abolition of

¹⁷ Cf. W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, Paris: Libraire de

Firmin Didot Frère, 1870, p. 583–584 (nr. 2558). It is also the only Marcionite church inscrip-
tion ever to be discovered.
¹⁸ Harnack, Marcion, 341*-344*.
¹⁹ Mart. Pion. 21.
²⁰ De mart. 10,3.
²¹ Adam. Dial. 1,8.
²² Harnack, Marcion, p. 146.
²³ De praescr. 41,5; Pan 42.4,5.
²⁴ Blackman, Marcion, p. 5.
²⁵ Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten,
4th ed., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924, p. 602–603.
 1. The Structure of Marcion’s Church 125

female office holders may certainly be questioned, recent research has further
strengthened the position that “with the increasing development of the mon-
archical episcopate and a Christian priesthood since the third century, there
has been a strong resistance to women, particularly in priestly functions”, but
that “the frequently expressed opinion that there have never been women
priests and bishops is not historically tenable”²⁶. We should, however, not ima-
gine the Church in the first two centuries to be some sort of utopian society.
Female office holders were in all probability the exception rather than the rule,
both within the orthodox communities and in Marcion’s church. Still, it seems
likely that concerning the question of female office holders Marcion was, just
as with the other issues regarding church constitution, rather conservative
than innovative.

1.3 Conclusion

These results now lead us to the really intriguing question: how come Mar-
cion’s church, which differed from its orthodox counterpart in almost every
dogmatic way possible, resembled it so much structurally? As we have estab-
lished in Chapter II, the complete break between Marcion and the Church was
an unusual incident in the ecclesial world of the second century. The reason
Marcion did not fit within the usual tolerance scheme of the Church towards
dissenters was that he did not simply differ from the orthodox group in some
way, but that he attacked what he believed to be a perverted church and thus
started an anti-movement. Given this origin of the Marcionite movement it
must surprise all the more that its founder would not attempt to distinguish
its outer appearance more from the opponent. After all, Marcion believed that
the entire teaching of the Church had been falsified due to a huge conspiracy
(see Chapter IV), but apparently he did not feel that something similar was
true concerning the outward structure of the Church. While it may be argued
that the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist go back to the Gospel which
Marcion was using also and thus simply derive from his Biblicist approach,
this is certainly not true for the order of offices Marcion established in his
church, as it does not immediately derive from the Pauline letters²⁷ or the Gos-
pel. But even concerning the administration of the sacraments Marcion was
not completely true to his biblical sources. The use of milk and honey as well

²⁶ Ute E. Eisen, Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1996, p. 219.
²⁷ Cf. Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahr-
hunderten, Tübingen Mohr Siebeck, 1953, p. 82–83: „Wir treten mit der Ältestenordnung
somit in den Umkreis eines grundsätzlich andersartigen kirchlichen Denkens ein, das sich
dem paulinischen Bilde der Gemeinde nicht ohne weiteres einfügen und daraus ableiten läßt.“
126 VI. Marcion’s Church

as the anointing with oil do not go back to the texts Marcion used. On the
contrary, they clearly bear indications of the Old Testament. The giving of
milk and honey is obviously related to God’s promise of a land flowing with
milk and honey²⁸, and the act of anointing originated in Jewish practices²⁹,
too. Moreover, it must surprise that Marcion would use a baptismal formula
which derives from a Gospel that he rejected, that is, the Gospel of Matthew.
It goes without saying that Marcion would never have consciously adapted
any Old Testament practices into his church. Therefore, the best explanation
for this phenomenon seems to be that by the time Marcion broke with ortho-
doxy the sacraments had already been established within the Church for more
than one generation, so that their origin had apparently already become hazy.
Thus, once again we find our theory confirmed that Marcion had been a mem-
ber of the orthodox church for a considerable period of time before he broke
with it. It was apparently this deep rootedness in the Church’s traditions that
made him take over the above mentioned elements rather unreflectively. As
for the offices, they still seem to be a rather recent development in Marcion’s
time, but perhaps he simply saw no need to change anything here, as the par-
ticular offices originated less from theological reflection than from actual orga-
nisational needs of the communities. It is probably due to Marcion’s “intensely
practical nature”³⁰ that he was wise enough not to change a system which was
working just for the sake of change.

2. Marcion’s Position within his Church

“Marcion was my bishop.”³¹ These are the proud words of the Marcionite
Megethius in the Adamantius Dialogue, replying to the provocative question
whether he would renounce Marcion. There seems to be no particular reason
to doubt that Marcion held the title of bishop in his lifetime, but even though
we cannot be entirely certain that he did, the enormous reverence that he
enjoyed in his church is beyond doubt. This reverence can already be seen by
the simple fact that they named themselves after their founder³², or by the fact
that they held the day he came to Rome in a special place (see Chapter II). The
truly messianic status, however, which Marcion had in his community can best
be seen by his followers’ belief that after his death he ascended into heaven at

²⁸ Cf. for example Trad. ap. 21.

²⁹ Cf. for example Tertullian, De bapt. 7.
³⁰ Thomas Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1910, p. 220.
³¹ Adam. Dial. 1,8: Μαρκίων ἐπίσκοπόϚ μου ἦν.
³² That we are dealing with self-designation here becomes obvious from the above men-
tioned church inscription.
 2. Marcion’s Position within his Church 127

the left hand of Christ (with Paul on the right)³³. Although it is not uncom-
mon that such forms of glorification only appear after someone’s death, we
also have Justin’s contemporary report according to which Marcion was
admired as the “only one who knows the truth”³⁴. Bishop or no bishop, Mar-
cion most certainly held absolute authority in his church, an authority which
among other things must have been due to an “inspiring and energetic person-
ality”³⁵, but probably also to the utter sincerity in what he was doing which
earned him credibility. Together with what we have established in Chapter II,
we are now approaching the secret of Marcion’s success as church founder and
leader, a secret which is mainly due to three elements. Marcion was an organi-
sational talent, he was wealthy, and he had great authority. In other words:
Marcion knew what to do, he could finance it, and nobody was objecting – a
truly powerful combination of qualities. No single man in the orthodox church
of Marcion’s time even came close to the status he had in his church. In a
manner of speaking, one might even refer to Marcion as the first Christian
pope.
Marcion’s powerful position is certainly one of the main reasons for the
quick success of his movement. Already at the time of Justin’s Apology
(ca. 153–154), that is, not even ten years after Marcion’s church came into
being, we hear that it has spread all over the Empire³⁶. However, success is
always a combination of two elements: an individual’s personal effort and the
external circumstances. Marcion’s success is without a doubt based on his qua-
lities as a leader. Still, even the most talented man cannot rally people around
him if he has no cause, something that stirs people, something people long for.
Marcion had found his cause. It was probably a combination of three elements
which attracted Christians to his movement: a widespread negative estimation
of the world³⁷, the unsolved issue of the place of the Old Testament within
Christian faith (see Chapter VII), and, although this was not true for Marcion
himself (see Chapter III), certain anti-Jewish resentments. Bauer described this
phenomenon as follows: „Was bis dahin mehr oder weniger unbestimmt in
ihrem [the Christians’] Inneren gelebt hatte, gewann durch Marcion die feste
Form, die Kopf und Herz befriedigte.“³⁸ But not only had Marcion found an
idea that would bring him a large following, he had also found the perfect
timing to strike. For the Church, which had so far existed as a rather loose
³³ Hom. Lc. 25.5.
³⁴ 1Apol. 58,2: μόνῳ τἀληθῆ ἐπισταμένῳ.
³⁵ Blackman, Marcion, p. 3.
³⁶ 1Apol. 26,5 (a statement which should not be taken too literally (cf. Chapter II), but
which still indicates an enormous success).
³⁷ This estimation was, among other things, undoubtedly conditioned by the persecutions
the Christians were exposed to. How widespread this feeling must have been at the time can
also be seen by the success of the Gnostic groups (see Chapter III).
³⁸ Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, p. 197.
128 VI. Marcion’s Church

federation without united leadership, was simply unprepared for this kind of
energetic attack.³⁹
The position Marcion had in his church also accounts for the split that
affected his movement soon after his death (see the several deformations of
Marcion’s doctrine described in Chapter III). If an entire institution comple-
tely rests upon one single man, it is almost bound to break apart once it loses
its head.⁴⁰ That does not necessarily mean that there could not have been a
succession of bishops in Marcion’s church, as reported in the Adamantius-
Dialogue (see above). However, personal succession is no guarantee for the
conservation of original doctrine.

3. The Members of Marcion’s Church

3.1 Membership Profile

Non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi – not to convert the pagans,
but to pervert our members, that is the motto of the heretics according to Ter-
tullian⁴¹, and it is beyond doubt that in this passage he has above all the Mar-
cionites in mind⁴². Justin had already referred to Marcion as a wolf by whom
his fellow Christians are snatched away⁴³, and even the obviously invented
story about Marcion’s repentance later in life proves this point, for it is clearly
stated that as a sign of his repentance Marcion was supposed to bring back
everybody whom he had corrupted⁴⁴. That Marcion’s movement appealed
above all to pagans, as Wilson claims⁴⁵, is most unlikely. When we remember
some of the key elements of Marcion’s movement (the antithesis between the
God of the Old and the New Testament, the conspiracy theory, the ‘purifica-

³⁹ Cf. Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 193–194: „Die Plötzlichkeit und Energie, mit der
Markion zu seinem Totalangriff gegen das bisherige Christentum angesetzt hatte, wirkte wie
ein Schock, auf den man nirgends vorbereitet war.“
⁴⁰ Harnack, Der moderne Gläubige, p. 321: „Die Zerfahrenheit in der Secte macht sich
frühe geltend […] Es ist dies ein bleibendes Merkmal zu allen Zeiten“. It is interesting to
observe that Harnack changed this original and certainly correct view in his later work, in
which he praises the inner unity of the Marcionite church (Marcion, p. 161). This change is
apparently due to Harnack’s growing idealisation of Marcion’s movement in his later life.
⁴¹ De praescr. 42,1.
⁴² Cf. Dietrich Schleyer, Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum/Vom prinzipiellen
Einspruch gegen die Häretiker, FC 42, Turnhout: Brepols, 2002, p. 58: „Der von Tertullian in
praescr. 42,1 den Häretikern gemachte Vorwurf, nicht darauf aus zu sein, Heiden zu bekeh-
ren, sondern Christen der Großkirche für sich zu gewinnen, könnte vor allem den Marcioni-
ten gelten.“
⁴³ 1Apol. 58,2.
⁴⁴ De praescr. 30,3.
⁴⁵ Wilson, Marcion, p. 65.
 3. The Members of Marcion’s Church 129

tion’ of the ‘perverted’ tradition and so on), it becomes clear very quickly that
we are dealing with inner-church problems here, which would have been com-
pletely incomprehensible to outsiders. In other words: why would a pagan care
about oppositions between texts he never even heard about? It is the explicit
Biblicist approach of Marcion’s theology which makes it only appealing to peo-
ple who are already familiar with the biblical texts, that is, to Christians.⁴⁶ How-
ever, while many heretical groups tried to win members from the Church, Mar-
cion’s movement – due to its lack of natural progeny (see below) – solely
depended on the ‘poaching’ of orthodox Christians⁴⁷. This certainly unique
concept entailed two crucial consequences. Firstly, it put Marcion’s movement
at a colossal disadvantage in its competition with the Church, thus being doubt-
lessly one of the main reasons for its decline. Ironically, at the same time it
made Marcion’s movement more dangerous to the Church than any other
heretical group, for these other groups, after at first probably recruiting mostly
former members of the Church too, developed an independent existence at
some point, whereas Marcion’s movement remained something of an irritating
parasite for the Church until its very end. The enormous threat that Marcion’s
movement posed to the orthodox church, as can be seen by the huge number of
anti-Marcionite writings which the Fathers produced, is thus probably due to
this particular characteristic, rather than to the high number of converts. Mar-
cion was a most successful missionary (see above), but even though his group
was certainly not the smallest, there is no need to assume, as Blackman
implies⁴⁸, that his movement ever actually rivalled the orthodox church in
numbers. This impression probably occurred due to the Church’s enormous
engagement with the Marcionite threat, an engagement which is, however, best
explained by the fact that the Marcionite church won their members exclusively
from orthodoxy, thus being a greater rival to it than any other movement.

3.2 Ethics
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit,
ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi. (Adv. Marc. IV.14,1)
I now come to his orderly arranged series of statements, by which he introduces the
characteristic essence of his doctrine, I come to the edict, so to speak, of Christ.

What Tertullian refers to here as the edict of Christ is the beatitudes and woes
from the sermon on the plain (Lk. 6:17–26), which featured in Marcion’s gos-

⁴⁶ It goes without saying that Jews could not be attracted to Marcion’s doctrine, given the
way their God was depicted in it.
⁴⁷ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 148–149.
⁴⁸ Blackman, Marcion, p. 3.
130 VI. Marcion’s Church

pel and, according to many scholars⁴⁹, were of great significance to the here-
siarch and his ethics. This judgement is in all probability due to a misreading
of the passage cited above. For what is said here about the sermon on the plain
is not Marcion’s wording but Tertullian’s.⁵⁰ It is the Carthaginian who consid-
ers the beatitudes and woes to be the proprietas of Christ’s doctrine and thus
his edict⁵¹. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this phrase refers to
Marcion. He is not named in it or in the immediate context. That the eius
refers to Christ is obvious, since the beatitudes are Christ’s ordinariae senten-
tiae, not Marcion’s. Thus, it would be difficult to imagine Marcion being the
subject to inducit and suae. A more elucidating, while less elegant, translation
would therefore be: “I now come to Christ’s orderly arranged series of state-
ments, by which Christ introduces the characteristic essence of his doctrine, I
come to the edict, so to speak, of Christ.” Marcion may certainly have used the
beatitudes and the woes to support his claim against the Creator, since Christ
(antithetically) blesses those who are miserable in this world and threatens
those who are doing well⁵²; but Tertullian’s entire discussion of these passages
does not reveal any extraordinary interest in them on the part of the arch-
heretic, especially not as far as ethics are concerned. Still, the words and parti-
cularly the actions of Christ do form, in accordance with his Biblicist
approach, the basis for Marcion’s ethics. As we have seen in Chapter III, to
Marcion Christ’s actions were first of all expressions of Trotz against the Crea-
tor, and it is exactly this attitude which Marcion demands of his followers. The
Fathers provide us with several examples of this:
They [the Marcionites] become abstinent not from moral conviction, but out of hatred
for the Creator, thus refusing to use the things he made. (Strom. III.3,12)⁵³
He [Marcion] believes that he spites the Demiurge if he abstains from things which are
created or designated for use by him. (Ref. X.19,4)⁵⁴
He [Marcion] says to fast on the Sabbath for this reason: since it is the day of rest for
the God of the Jews who made the world and rested on the seventh day, we should fast
on that day so that we do not do that which befits the God of the Jews. (Pan. 42.3,4)⁵⁵

⁴⁹ Cf. for example Aland, Marcion/Marcioniten, p. 95; Lampe, Christen, p. 208–209.

Apparently this idea goes also back to Harnack, who called the beatitudes the “Magna Char-
ta” of Marcion’s religion (Harnack, Marcion, p. 127).
⁵⁰ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 255: „Denn was in Adversus Marcionem über das edictum
Christi gesagt ist, stammt nicht von Marcion, sondern von Tertullian.“
⁵¹ Cf. Lukas, Rhetorik, p. 249.
⁵² Cf. De Deo 405.
⁵³ οὐ τῇ προαιρέσει γίνονται ἐγκρατεῖϚ, τῇ δὲ πρὸϚ τὸν πεποιηκότα ἔχτρᾳ, μὴ βουλόμενοι
χρῆσθαι τοῖϚ ὑπ᾽ αυχτοῦ κτισθεῖσιν.
⁵⁴ νομίζων λυπεῖν τὸν δημιουργόν, εἰ τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονότων ἢ ὡρισμένων ἀπέχοιτο.
⁵⁵ τὸ δὲ σάββατον νηστεύειν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν φάσκει· ἐπειδή […] τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ᾽Ιου-
δαίων ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνάπαυσιϚ τοῦ πεποιηκότοϚ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναπαυσαμέ-
νου, ἡμεῖϚ νηστεύσωμεν ταύτην, ἵνα μὴ τὸ καθῆκον τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων ἐργαζώμεθα.
 3. The Members of Marcion’s Church 131

Thus, Marcionite lifestyle means above all abstinence from worldly things,
however, not out of asceticism. Although Marcionite ethics and asceticism
may lead to similar actions on the outside, the motivation is crucially different.
Asceticism is usually motivated by an idea of bettering or purifying oneself. As
we have already seen in Chapter III, feelings of such a kind are completely
alien to Marcion. His motivation for abstaining from worldly things is simply
Trotz against the one who created them.⁵⁶ How different this motivation is
from real asceticism becomes most obvious in the passage cited above from
Epiphanius. Marcion not only demands abstaining from certain things, he
even demands doing things which are forbidden, and for no other reason than
that they are forbidden.⁵⁷ In an almost childish feeling of revenge, Marcion
actually believes that he would irritate the Creator by not using his creation or
by deliberately disobeying his commands. As mentioned above, Marcion
found the role model for his ethics in Christ, and when we remember Mar-
cion’s interpretation of Christ’s actions as established in Chapter III, it is
obvious how. In the pericope of the woman with a discharge of blood who
touched Jesus (Lk. 8:43–48), for instance, Marcion concluded that Christ did
not heal this woman (at least not primarily) out of benevolence, rather “the
Law commanded to stay away from contact with a woman who has a dis-
charge of blood; because of this he felt the urge not only to allow her to touch
him, but also to give her health”⁵⁸.
Speaking concretely, we only know of two things which were definitely for-
bidden to Marcionites: meat and sexual intercourse.⁵⁹ The first restriction is
certainly of minor importance, with hardly any substantial influence on the
Marcionite church, and is obviously again meant ad destruenda et despicienda
opera creatoris⁶⁰, while in the particular case of meat it may also be seen as
“opposition to the cuisine of sacrifice”⁶¹. The second restriction is one of the
most radical demands ever to be found in a Christian community and had far-
reaching effects on it (see above). “Be fruitful and multiply”, those are the

⁵⁶ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 149: „man soll diesen üblen Gott ärgern, ihn reizen, ihm trot-
zen und ihm dadurch zeigen, daß man nicht mehr in seinem Dienst steht, sondern einem
andern Herrn gehört.“
⁵⁷ Such actions are not as unusual as they may seem. Ulrich Zwingli, for instance, seems
to have had a similar motivation when he ostentatiously held a big sausage-eating on the first
day of Lent.
⁵⁸ Adv. Marc. IV.20,9: Lex a contactu sanguinantis feminae summouet, idcirco gestierit
non tantum contactum eius admittere, sed etiam sanitare donare.
⁵⁹ Cf. Ref. VII.30; Adv. Marc. I.29; for the permission of fish, cf. Adv. Marc. I,14,4.
⁶⁰ De ieiun. 15.
⁶¹ McGowan, Eucharists, p. 166. Cf. also Sykes, Bread, p. 214: “Although the avoidance of
meat in sacred meals was normal in Christian circles, it would be given particular bite in
Marcionite circles given the creator’s love of sacrifice and the directions of the Old Testament
for the offering of bloody sacrifices, which would lead to the extension of the prohibition
beyond the sacred repast.”
132 VI. Marcion’s Church

words of the Creator, and of course Marcion, as always, refuses to follow his
instructions⁶², acting in destructione creatoris⁶³. However, the refusal of pro-
creation goes far beyond Marcion’s usual Trotz behaviour. In fact, this time
Marcion’s aversion definitely shows pathological traits⁶⁴. Whether Marcion
realised it or not, this principle ultimately aims at the complete extinction of
mankind. Tertullian naturally detected this absurdity and legitimately com-
ments:
Besides, I am not really sure whether completely suppressing the increase of the human
race goes together with the idea of a supremely good God. How can he want the salva-
tion of a man whom he forbids to be born by taking away the very act from which he is
born? (Adv. Marc. I.29,7)⁶⁵
In addition to his usual feeling of Trotz, Marcion also seems to have had an
enormous, and again slightly pathological, disgust for sexuality as such, when
he calls the womb a sewer in which to find a filthy concretion of fluid and
blood⁶⁶.
Marcion’s ethics are thus purely negative ethics. Christ is Marcion’s role
model, but only as far as his negative attitude to the Creator is concerned.
Nowhere in the sources do we find any mention of Marcion proclaiming the
positive commandment of love. Harnack perfectly realised this situation, but
still came to the conclusion: „mit welcher Stärke er das positive Gebot der Lie-
be verkündet hat, sagen sie [his opponents] uns nicht; aber gewiß hat er es in
seinen Gemeinden in Kraft gesetzt, wenn doch die Gottesliebe der Mittelpunkt
seiner Frömmigkeit war.“⁶⁷ Once again, we experience how Harnack’s personal
concept of Marcion outweighs the actual evidence of the sources, which made
Bauer ask correctly: „Sollte das [the lack of evidence] nicht gegen die Richtig-
keit der Voraussetzung bedenklich stimmen?“⁶⁸
The Marcionites’ despite for the world and life itself is doubtlessly also the
reason why we find a substantial number of martyrs within their church⁶⁹. A
⁶² Cf. for example, Strom. III.3,12: “they do not want to fill the world made by the
Demiurge”.
⁶³ Adv. Marc. I.29,2.
⁶⁴ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 271: „Hier [in the case of marriage] steigert sich die Ableh-
nung ins Krankhafte.“
⁶⁵ Iam vero sementem generis humani compescere totum nescio an hoc quoque optimo
deo congruat. Quomodo enim salvum hominem volet quem vetat nasci, de quo nascitur
auferendo?
⁶⁶ Adv. Marc. III.11,7; Carn. IV.1. Cf. Chapter III.
⁶⁷ Harnack, Marcion, p. 150–151.
⁶⁸ Bauer, Review Harnack, p. 7.
⁶⁹ Cf. Hist. eccl. V.16,21; Adv. Marc. I.24,4 + I.27,5; Strom. IV.4,17. Clement clearly
expresses his view that these martyrs do not truly bear witness, as they only give in to martyr-
dom out of hatred for the Creator. Although the Marcionites are not explicitly mentioned in
this passage, there is a scholarly consensus that they are envisaged by Clement, cf. Annewies
van den Hoek, Clément d’Alexandrie: Les Stromates IV, SC 463, Paris: Cerf, 2001, p. 85 n. 4.
 3. The Members of Marcion’s Church 133

striking exception from these reports, however, is Justin, who, in his Apology
to the Emperor, maintains that the Marcionites are in fact not persecuted by
the State⁷⁰. The reason for this divergence may simply be Justin’s wish to
underline the tragic fate of his own group in distinct dissociation from the
heretics. Whether it is this reason or another, Justin’s single statement cannot
withstand the unanimous testimonies of the other sources that Marcion’s
church definitely produced martyrs, and certainly more “als der Orthodoxie
lieb war, der es große Mühe macht, diese Tatsache ihres Schwergewichtes und
ihres bestechenden Glanzes zu berauben”⁷¹.
The last remaining question concerning Marcionite ethics is whether it can
be said to have some sort of soteriological significance in Marcion’s system of
thought, in other words, the question is: did Marcion believe that his actions
on Earth had any effect on his salvation? Tertullian, implying that he received
this information from an actual discussion with Marcionites, states that they
believe that on the final day every sinner will be cast away out of the sight of
the good God⁷², and will consequently be seized by the fire of the Creator⁷³.
The uncertain element in this context is the term ‘sinner’. What do the Mar-
cionites, if it is not actually Tertullian’s term, understand by this? The Ada-
mantius Dialogue may offer an answer to that question when we hear the Mar-
cionite Marcus say: “The good God saves those who believe in him, without,
however, condemning the unbelievers.”⁷⁴ In this case the term sinner is
replaced by unbeliever, which may in fact be the Marcionite understanding.
As we have established before, any kind of moral understanding of sin is alien
to Marcion, so if he ever actually used the term in connection with his good
God, then he did so only in the meaning of not believing in him⁷⁵. This ele-
ment of Marcion’s theology is in fact the only case where we can actually
detect a certain resemblance to Luther. Sola fide – the salvation lies in faith
alone, for Marcion as well as for the German Reformer. Only those who
believe in Marcion’s good God are saved by him. Tertullian satirises this situa-
tion by pointing out that the good God once again is in need of the Creator’s
element, his fire in this case, to punish sinners, but this time Tertullian’s criti-
cism is beside the point. For Marcion’s good God does indeed, as expressed in
the Adamantius Dialogue, not actively punish anyone. Marcion’s depiction of
Christ’s descent to Hades (see Chapter III) may help to understand this idea.

⁷⁰ 1Apol. 26,5.
⁷¹ Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, p. 95.
⁷² Adv. Marc. I.27,6.
⁷³ Adv. Marc. I.28,1.
⁷⁴ Adam. Dial. 2,4: Ὁ ἀγαθὸϚ τοὺϚ πιστεύσανταϚ αὐτῷ σώζει οὐ μὴν κατακρίνει τοὺϚ
ἀπειθήσανταϚ αὐτῷ.
⁷⁵ Cf. Aland, Sünde, p. 152: „Es ist dieses ungläubige Mißtrauen gegenüber dem göttlichen
Heilsangebot […] was präzise den Inbegriff der Sünde kennzeichnet.“
134 VI. Marcion’s Church

Christ came to save everyone, but he could only save those who would let
themselves be saved. Therefore, the Patriarchs had a chance to be saved, but
they did not believe in Christ’s words, and thus decided to stay behind. Viewed
in this light, Marcion’s good God does indeed not condemn the unbelievers, he
only leaves them, based on their own decision, within the realm of the Creator,
where nothing else awaits them than the Creator’s fire on the final day. Com-
ing back to our original question about a soteriological factor in Marcionite
ethics, the answer is a clear ‘no’ – sola fide. Marcion probably believed, just as
Luther did, that good deeds are the fruits of faith: everyone who believes in
Christ and thus despises the Creator will do their best to defy him without
any ulterior motive.

4. Conclusion

As far as the organisation of Marcion’s church is concerned we have seen that

it shows remarkable parallels to the orthodox church, both in terms of liturgy
and offices. These circumstances confirm what we have discovered in Chapter
II, namely that Marcion was socialised within Christian circles, and at a time at
which certain rituals and office structures had already been established in the
Church, apparently even to the point where their origin was no longer known.
Otherwise it would be inexplicable that Marcion preserved rituals which show
an obvious relation to the Old Testament.
Another important result of this chapter is that the enormous danger which
sprang from the Marcionite church for its orthodox counterpart was probably
not so much due to their large number of members, but to the fact that they
won their members exclusively from converts, without any natural progeny of
their own. The reason for this situation was the Marcionites’ general refusal of
procreation, which was motivated by a feeling of Trotz against the Creator, a
feeling which constitutes the very basis of Marcion’s ethics. With this insight
we have exposed yet another common misconception about Marcion’s theol-
ogy, the misconception – initiated by Harnack – that his ethics are above all
motivated by love and forgiveness, when in actual fact he preaches a strictly
negative code of conduct.
 VII. Marcion’s Time
Qu’est-ce que ça veut dire être un homme de son temps?
Yasmina Reza, “Art”

The second century in many ways shaped the future of the Christian Church. It
is the time in which the Church definitively breaks with the Synagogue, the time
in which Christians reach out to the pagan world surrounding them, and the
time in which the New Testament canon is essentially formed. Another crucial
development in this century, to which less attention is usually devoted, is what
Campenhausen called „die Krise des alttestamentlichen Kanons“¹. The under-
estimation of this factor is all the more surprising as it is immediately linked to
the previously mentioned developments: the Old Testament was the decisive
factor in the Christians’ conflict with the Jews, it was one of the main obstacles
for making Christianity accessible to an educated pagan audience, and its status
and interpretation had immediate influence on the formation of its counterpart.
As we have seen in Chapters III and IV, the Old Testament was also the
decisive factor in Marcion’s system of thought as its literal and purely negative
understanding forms the basis for his entire theology. Due to this crucial
importance the present chapter shall be dedicated to the status of the Old Tes-
tament among Marcion’s contemporaries, both those who were active before
him and whose attitude toward the Old Testament may have influenced him,
as well as his successors, who had to react to the heresiarch’s radical approach
to the problem.

1. The Old Testament before Marcion

1.1 The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 120–140)²

For I heard some say: ‘If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the Gos-
pel’; and when I said to them: ‘It is written’, they answered me: ‘That is the question.’

¹ Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 76. Due to a misprint, the title of the corresponding

chapter (instead of referring to the second century) erroneously reads „Die Krise des alttesta-
mentlichen Kanons im dritten Jahrhundert“.
² Ignatius’ Letters are most difficult to date. Their traditional dating of around 110 has
recently been called into question with the proposal that they were written much later, even
136 VII. Marcion’s Time

My archives, however, are Jesus Christ, the holy archives are his cross, his death, his
resurrection and the faith which comes through him. (Philad. 8,2)³

While Ignatius never systematically addresses the question of the Old Testa-
ment in his Letters, this passage from his Letter to the Philadelphians offers at
least some insight into the bishop’s position on the subject. First of all, how-
ever, there are several terms which call for clarification. Fortunately, a scho-
larly consensus has been reached for all the ambiguous expressions to be found

as late as the latter half of the second century (for a history of recent research, see Paul Foster,
“The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch”, in: Paul Foster (ed.), The Writings of the Apostolic
Fathers, London: T&T Clark, 2007, p. 84–86). The Letters themselves give no hint at any
contemporary event, and the date of Ignatius’ martyrdom given by Eusebius (under the reign
of Trajan) is not very reliable either (cf. ibid., p. 86), so they have to be dated by their theolo-
gical content. Paul Foster has argued that the highly developed ecclesial concept to be found
in the Letters indicates a date much later than 110 (cf. ibid., p. 86–89). Certainly, when we
compare the ecclesial concept of Ignatius to that expressed in the First Letter of Clement
(ca. 96) for instance, the enormous leap forward is obvious. On the other hand, when we
consider the exegetical concept in Ignatius’ Letters, especially considering his attitude toward
the Old Testament and his emphasis on the oral character of the Gospel, and compare this to
the concept to be found in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora (ca. 150), it is striking how far behind
Ignatius is in this regard (see below). However, Barnes has recently argued that a certain pas-
sage to be found in Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp “makes it clear that Ignatius is quoting,
answering and contradicting Ptolemaeus” (Barnes, “The Date of Ignatius”, Expository Times
120/3 (2008), p. 125), thus postulating the activity of Ptolemy as the terminus post quem for
the dating of the Ignatian letters. While the similar sequence of (preternaturally rare) words
in the passage in question is in fact striking, there are three things to be said about Barnes’
argument derived from it. First of all, Barnes is relying on a report by Irenaeus, not on an
actual source by Ptolemy himself, and it is not even certain that this report is actually con-
cerned with the Ptolemaean system (cf. Markschies, Research, p. 249–252), much less that
Irenaeus is literally quoting Ptolemy here. Secondly, a similarity regarding language or termi-
nology can be used as an argument for dependence in both directions. In other words, how
do we know it is Ignatius who reacts to Ptolemy and not the other way around? Finally, if this
particular word sequence was in fact a reaction to Ptolemy, and if we were thus to assume
that Ignatius concerned himself with Ptolemaean theology, it would be most difficult to
explain why he shows, as mentioned above, no awareness whatsoever of the far more impor-
tant exegetical methods within Ptolemy’s system. In fact, this lack of awareness is the great
difference between Ignatius and Justin Martyr for instance (see below), which is why Rein-
hard Hübner, who used an argument similar to that of Barnes while coming to a different
conclusion, is incorrect when he claims a similarity in thinking between the two (Reinhard
Hübner, “Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien”,
ZAC 1 (1997), p. 67). In conclusion, the evidence to support a dependence of Ignatius on
Ptolemaean terminology is not strong enough to be used for the dating of his letters (cf.
Andreas Lindemann, „Antwort auf die ‚Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe
des Ignatius von Antiochien‘“, ZAC 1 (1997), p. 189–190). In the end, one may certainly date
Ignatius’ Letters much later than 110, even as late as 140, but the appearance of such men as
Ptolemy and Marcion remains the terminus ante not post quem.
³ ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτί ἐαν μὴ ἐν τοῖϚ ἀρχείοιϚ εὓρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πισ-
τεύῳ καὶ λέγοντόϚ μου αὐτοιϚ, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά
ἐστιν ᾽ΙησοῦϚ ΧριστόϚ, τὰ ἄθικτα ἀρχεῖα ὁ σταυρὸϚ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ θάνατοϚ καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασιϚ
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ πίστιϚ ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
 1. The Old Testament before Marcion 137

here.⁴ The archives (ἀρχεία) which Ignatius opponents mention can refer to
nothing else but the writings of the Old Testament, just as his own response
‘It is written’ (γέγραπται) does. Ignatius then takes up the term ‘archives’ of his
opponents, but gives it a new meaning by relating it to the Gospel, which for
him is not a book or a document, „sondern die in der Kirche gegenwärtige
Botschaft des Heils“⁵. Thus, the reported discussion presents itself as follows:
a certain group of people within the Christian community of Philadelphia
refuse to believe any element of the Gospel message unless it can be confirmed
by the Old Testament. Ignatius’ rather concise and almost clumsy response,
which sounds a little as if he was saying ‘It is written, what do you want?’, can
of course hardly be satisfying to his dialogue partners, and so they retort to
him ‘That is exactly what we would like to see demonstrated’. Ignatius, appar-
ently unwilling to engage in any kind of exegetical dispute here, then answers
his opponents’ question for authentication of the Gospel from the Old Testa-
ment by asserting that the Gospel does not require any such thing as it is “self-
authenticating”⁶.
Is Ignatius trying to play off the Gospel against the Old Testament here? He
is convinced that the Old Testament Prophets were “disciples in spirit”⁷ and
that their testimony as well as the Law of Moses can be used to refute the here-
tics⁸. Still, in his Letter to the Smyrneans he states: “It is proper […] to listen to
the Prophets, but especially to the Gospel”⁹, and in a more extensive passage in
Philadelphians we hear:
The Gospel has something special, the coming of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, his
passion and resurrection. For the beloved Prophets directed their announcement toward
him, but the Gospel is the completion of incorruption. Everything together is good, if
you believe with love. (Philad. 9,2)¹⁰

⁴ For the following, see William R. Schoedel, “Ignatius and the Archives”, HTR 71 (1978),
p. 97.
⁵ Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 171. Cf. also Charles Thomas Brown, The Gospel and Ignatius
of Antioch, New York: Peter Lang, 2000, p. 205.
⁶ C. K. Barrett, “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius”, in: Robert Hamerton-
Kelly, Jews, Greeks and Christians. Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of
William David Davies, Leiden: Brill, 1976, p. 233.
⁷ Magn. 9,2: μαθηταὶ τῷ πνεύματι.
⁸ Cf. Smyrn. 5,1.
⁹ Smyrn. 7,2: πρέπον οὖν ἐστιν […] προσέχειν δὲ τοῖϚ προφήταιϚ, ἐξαιρέτωϚ δὲ τῷ εὐαγ-
γελίῳ.
¹⁰ έξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιου, τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆροϚ, κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾽Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθοϚ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οἱ γὰρ ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται κατήγγειλαν εἰϚ
αὐτόν τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίαϚ. πάντα ὁμοῦ καλά ἐστιν, ἐὰν ἐν ἀγάπῃ
πιστεύητε. The term ἐξαίρετον (special) in relation to the Gospel is the exact same as in
Smyrn. 7,2 (see above).
138 VII. Marcion’s Time

These lines by Ignatius can be seen as a “summary statement of his view of the
relation between the prophets (Scripture) and the gospel”¹¹. The crucial point
is that for Ignatius there is absolutely no conflict between the Old Testament
and the Gospel, since “everything (Scripture and Gospel) together is good”.
The Gospel may have something “special”, as it represents the “completion”
of what the Prophets could only anticipate, but it is still seen as in line with
the Old Testament, not in distinction from it. Certainly, the Old Testament is
temporally distinguished from the Gospel, “aber eine durch die Dialektik von
Gesetz und Evangelium gekennzeichnete Offenbarungsgeschichte ist Ign unbe-
kannt”¹².
This brings us back to our original passage and to the question who the
people are with whom Ignatius is debating and who have such a different
approach to the Scriptures from the bishop of Antioch. Any attempt to cate-
gorise them into a particular religious group is foiled by the scarcity of evi-
dence¹³. Still, William Schoedel may in fact be right when he suggests that the
‘troublemakers’ in Philadelphia are little more than well-educated Christians
who were fascinated with the Scriptures and who “asked their leaders ques-
tions hard to answer”¹⁴, and that Ignatius, “who seems to have known precious
little about the Scriptures”¹⁵, simply lacked the skills to answer them satisfac-
torily. This would mean that the conflict between the two parties was not so
much between the Old Testament and the Gospel as two different forms of
divine revelation, but rather between Scripture and oral tradition.

1.2 The Letter of Barnabas (ca. 130–138)¹⁶

Moreover I ask this of you […] that you take care of yourselves and not become like
certain people who are piling up their sins by saying: ‘our covenant remains’. For this is
how they [the Jews] lost it forever, although Moses had already received it, as Scripture
says: ‘And Moses fasted forty days and forty nights on the mountain, and he received
the covenant from the Lord, stone tablets written with the finger of the hand of the

¹¹ William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch. A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of

Antioch, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985, p. 210.
¹² Johannes Klevinghaus, Die theologische Stellung der Apostolischen Väter zur alttesta-
mentlichen Offenbarung, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1948, p. 112.
¹³ Klaus Wengst’s identification of the attitude of Ignatius’ opponents with the position
expressed in the Letter of Barnabas (see below) is not convincing (cf. Klaus Wengst, Didache
(Apostellehre). Barnabasbrief. Zweiter Klemensbrief. Schrift an Diognet, Schriften des Urchris-
tentums 2, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984, p. 117).
¹⁴ Schoedel, Archives, p. 105.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ “The developing consensus would seem to be for a Hadrianic date sometime in the
130s.” (James Carleton Paget, “The Epistle of Barnabas”, in: Foster (ed.), Apostolic Fathers,
p. 75).
 1. The Old Testament before Marcion 139

Lord. But they lost it by turning to the idols. For thus says the Lord: Moses, Moses,
come down quickly, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted unlaw-
fully. And Moses understood and threw the two tablets out of his hands.’¹⁷ And their
covenant was smashed to pieces, so that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be
sealed on our hearts in the hope that comes through faith in him. (Barn. 4,6–8)¹⁸

The text of Barn. 4:6b is without a doubt the most disputed single half-verse
within the letter, a fact which is due to the interaction of two factors. On the
one hand, the transmission of the text is badly corrupted, offering three differ-
ent readings for the passage, while on the other hand most scholars attribute
crucial importance to this passage for the understanding of the purpose of the
entire letter. It is mainly due to the recent exemplary work of James Rhodes¹⁹
that the conundrum which this verse proposed for so long has finally received
some clarification. Before Rhodes, the vast majority of scholars preferred the
Latin translation of the verse²⁰, thus reading: “[…] certain people who are pil-
ing up their sins by saying: ‘The covenant is theirs and ours’. Ours it is indeed,
but they have lost it forever […]”. Rhodes, however, has conclusively ques-
tioned the almost undisputed status of this variant for the following reasons²¹:
1. it violates two basic text-critical rules (the preference for the lectio brevior
and the lectio difficilior); 2. the Latin reading cannot explain the origin of the
two Greek variants; 3. the Latin version of the letter as a whole shows many
idiosyncrasies which make its fidelity to the Greek Vorlage questionable.
Due to the untrustworthiness of the Latin reading, Rhodes votes for an
emendation of the Greek variant found in the Codex Sinaiticus (ἡμῶν μέν) into
ἡμῶν μένει, which would be very close to the variant of the Codex Hierosoly-
mitanus ὑμῶν ὑμῖν μένει. Both variants (‘our covenant remains’; ‘your cove-

¹⁷ The reference to Scripture forms a free quotation of Dtn 9:12,16–17. An almost identi-
cal rendering of the story can be found in Barn. 14,2–3, thus demonstrating the enormous
importance this narrative had to the author.
¹⁸ ἔτι καὶ τοῦτο ἐρωτῶ ὑμᾶϚ […] προσέχειν ἑαυτοῖϚ καὶ μὴ ὁμοιοῦσθαί τισιν ἐπισωρεύον-
ταϚ ταῖϚ ἁμαρτίαιϚ αὐτῶν λέγονταϚ, ὅτι ἡ διαθήκη ἡμῶν μένεὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οὔτωϚ εἰϚ τέλοϚ
ἀπώλεσαν αὐτὴν λαβόντοϚ ἤδη τοῦ ΜωϋσέωϚ· λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· καὶ ἦν ΜωϋσῆϚ ἐν τῷ ὄρει
νηστεύων ἡμέραϚ τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκταϚ τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν διαθήκην ἀτὸ τοῦ
κυρίου πλάκαϚ λιθίναϚ γεγραμμέναϚ τῴ δακτύλῳ τῆϚ χειρὸϚ τοῦ κυρίου. ἀλλὰ ἐπιστραφέντεϚ
ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδωλα ἀπώλεσαν αὐτήν λέγει γὰρ οὔτωϚ κύριοϚ· Μωϋσῆ, Μωϋσῆ, κατάβηθι τὸ τάχοϚ
ὅτι ἠνόμησεν ὁ λαόϚ σου, οὒϚ ἐξήγαγεϚ ἐκ γῆϚ Αἰγύπτου. καὶ συνῆκεν ΜωϋσῆϚ καὶ ἔρριψεν
τὰϚ δύο πλάκαϚ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ· καὶ συνετρίβη αὐτῶν ἡ διαθήκη, ἵνα ἡ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου
᾽Ιησοῦ ἐγκατασφραγισθῇ εἰϚ τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν ἐν ἐλπίδι τῆϚ πίστεωϚ αὐτοῦ (altered from the
edition by Wengt according to the suggested emendation by Rhodes, see below).
¹⁹ James N. Rhodes, “Barnabas 4.6B: The Exegetical Implications of a Textual Problem”,
VigChr 58 (2004), p. 365–392. Cf. also idem, The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic
Tradition: Polemics, Paraenesis, and the Legacy of the Golden-Calf Incident, WUNT 2/188,
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, p. 24–30.
²⁰ Cf. Rhodes, Barnabas 4.6B, p. 368. The reading of L for our suggested ἡμῶν μένει is:
illorum et nostrum est. nostrum est autem.
²¹ Cf. ibid., p. 369.
140 VII. Marcion’s Time

nant remains yours’) would then offer a statement of the opponent’s claim
completely different from that of the Latin version, but very similar to each
other. In both cases Barnabas would “not want his audience to have a false
sense of security because, in his view, the fate of Israel demonstrates clearly
that the covenant can be lost if one does not live up to it.”²² Within the context
of the chapter this meaning of the passage is much more likely than the one
conveyed by the Latin version, given its striking similarity to Barnabas’ warn-
ing shortly after in 4:13: “That we may never fall asleep in our sins, believing
we may rest just because we are called”²³. Since the exegetical implications of
the two Greek versions are almost identical, Rhodes bases his decision on the
fact that his proposed emendation can more easily explain both the other
Greek and the Latin variant²⁴, and he is probably right in doing so. The only
thing which seems not as certain as Rhodes believes is his conviction that the
‘certain people’ Barnabas speaks of would refer to the Jews²⁵. While this is cer-
tainly possible, it seems more likely that Barnabas is concerned with a certain
group of people within the Christian community. His concern with a false
sense of security is simply more understandable when we assume that he was
aware of people with such a sense in his own community, who might have a
bad influence on others, whereas it is hard to imagine that Barnabas would be
afraid of his fellow Christians imitating the Jews.
The clarification of this passage was necessary for our own investigation,
since it forbids us to make extensive use of verse 4:6b, as is commonly done²⁶,
for the establishment of Barnabas’ attitude toward the Old Testament. Ironi-
cally enough, even though the Latin translator of the letter was probably not
true to the original, he managed to point out something important, for the key
to Barnabas’ understanding of the Old Testament is in fact the idea that there
is no such thing as an ‘old’ or a ‘new’ covenant but only one, the one covenant
which the Jews rejected and which was therefore given to the Christians. We
are, however, not dealing with a form of ‘replacement theology’ here, accord-
ing to which the old covenant with Israel would have been superseded by the
new covenant with the Church, as Israel never actually entered into a covenant
with God. The Church thus did not take over the place of the Jews, “but they
got the place meant for the Jewish people”²⁷. Accordingly, to Barnabas the
“history of Israel is not salvation history, but rather ‘damnation history’: it
²² Ibid., p. 386.
²³ ἵνα μήποτε ἐπαναπαυόμενοι ὡϚ κλητοὶ ἐπικαθυπνώσωμεν ταῖϚ ἁμαρτίαιϚ ἡμῶν.
²⁴ Rhodes, Barnabas 4.6B, p. 386.
²⁵ Ibid., p. 382–383.
²⁶ Cf. Klaus Wengst, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, Berlin: De Gruyter,
1971, p. 81–82; cf. also Reidar Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose
of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p. 90–98.
²⁷ Hvalvik, Struggle, p. 147 (author’s emphasis).
 1. The Old Testament before Marcion 141

shows how the Jews are increasing their sins, until sin reaches its peak in their
rejection of Christ”²⁸. However, between the time of the ‘Sinai incident’, at
which the Jews refused the covenant, and the Advent of Christ, through which
the Christians entered into the covenant, there have been single individuals
within the Jewish people, such as Moses, David and the Prophets, who under-
stood the will of God and laid it down in the texts of the Old Testament. The
meaning of these texts, the Law as well as the Prophets, is “obvious to us, but
dark to them”²⁹. It may seem like the common statement by Christians that
the Jews do not correctly understand the Scriptures, but that statement is
usually made only as far as their reference to Christ is concerned. For Barna-
bas, however, the situation is completely different:
„nicht ein christologisches Heilsdatum relativiert eschatologisch die Geschichte Israels
und den mit ihr verbundenen Ritus und Kult, sondern die Schrift selber sagt, daß dieses
Volk sich schon immer falsch verhalten hat und daß die Aussagen der Schrift nie anders
gemeint waren, als sie jetzt christlich verstanden werden.“³⁰

The reason that the Christians, unlike the Jews, have rightly understood the
commandments is that God circumcised their hearts and ears³¹. In fact, it
seems that the grace of correctly understanding the Scriptures is, according to
Barnabas, what makes a Christian a Christian. This grace has come upon them
through Christ, who made them his “new people”³², and through whom the
covenant became sealed on their hearts (see above). Thus, the Advent of Christ
has changed the way Scripture is perceived, but it has not changed the actual
meaning of Scripture. While most Christians would certainly agree with Barna-
bas that the Old Testament Prophecies have always pointed to Christ, Barna-
bas is particularly concerned with understanding the Law in its ‘original’ form.
This can best be demonstrated in regard to the laws of Jewish cult. For exam-
ple, according to Barnabas, God never wanted any kind of sacrifice, which he
attempts to prove from such passages as Isaiah 1:11: “‘What to me is the multi-
tude of your sacrifices?’ says the Lord. ‘I have had enough of burnt offerings,
and I do not desire the fat of the lambs or the blood of bulls and goats.’”³³ As
pointed out above by Klaus Wengst, with this argument Barnabas does not
attempt to annul the Old Testament practice of sacrifice by a christological
interpretation, but by the Old Testament itself. Therefore, according to Barna-
bas, one does not need the New Testament in order to understand that the real
meaning of the sacrifices does not lie with the slaughtering of animals, since it

²⁸ Ibid., p. 146.
²⁹ Barn. 8,7: ἡμῖν μέν ἐστιν φανερά, ἐκείνοιϚ δὲ σκοτεινά.
³⁰ Wengst, Didache, p. 132.
³¹ Barn. 10,12. Cf. also 9,3.
³² Barn. 5,7: λαὸν καινὸν.
³³ Barn. 2,5: τί μοι πλῆθοϚ τῶν τυσιῶν ὑμῶν; λέγει κύριοϚ· πλήρηϚ εἰμὶ ὁλοκαυτωμάτων,
καὶ στέαρ ἀρνῶν καὶ αἷμα ταύρῶν καὶ τράγων οὐ βούλομαι.
142 VII. Marcion’s Time

is already said in the Psalms: “a sacrifice to the Lord is a contrite heart”³⁴. Like-
wise for Barnabas, the other Old Testament rites such as circumcision, fasting
or the food laws were never meant in their literal way, but they all implied
ethical commandments.
The important thing to realise in this matter is that this ‘reinterpretation’ of
the ritual ordinances within the Old Testament into ethical commandments is
far more than just a ‘workaround’ for unwelcome passages. Barnabas deeply
believes in these commandments and is convinced that their observance is
necessary for salvation³⁵, which is why he is so concerned with warning his
fellow Christians about negligence in the observation of the covenant (see
above). Any kind of abolition of the Old Testament Law would be unthinkable
for Barnabas.
It is widely assumed that Barnabas’ one-covenant theology would have been
“rather unusual in early Christianity”³⁶. Reidar Hvalvik, while admitting that
“the theological terminology with regard to the covenant was not yet fixed in
Barnabas’ times”, argues that “the idea of an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ covenant is
clearly presupposed by the early Christian writers dealing with the subject”³⁷.
The sources which Hvalvik names to support this claim are, however, rather
questionable. The first two (2Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 8:6–10) were written long
before Barnabas’ time, and the other two (Dial. 24,1; 34,1; Adv. haer. 4.9,1;
4.33,14; 4.34,4) long after him. It is in fact rather telling that Hvalvik was
unable to name any witness for his claim from the immediate context of Bar-
nabas. As we have seen, Ignatius shows no particular distinction of two cove-
nants, and neither does the First Letter of Clement for instance. As a matter of
fact, Clement shows remarkable similarities to Ignatius in his view of the Old
Testament.³⁸ Johannes Klevinghaus summarises correctly: „Die atl Offenba-
rung ist für Kl ihrem Wesen nach mit der Offenbarung Gottes in Christus
identisch.“³⁹ Similarly to Ignatius, Clement views the revelation in Christ as a
completion of the Old Testament revelation⁴⁰, and believes the Church to be
blessed with “greater knowledge”⁴¹, but nowhere in his letter do we find a
reflective distinction between two different covenants/testaments. On the con-
trary, both Clement and Ignatius demonstrate a rather unreflective view of this

³⁴ Barn. 2,10 (Ps. 51,17): θυσία τῷ κυρίῳ καρδία συντετριμμένη.

³⁵ „Das Gesetz ist nicht nur Norm des Lebens, sondern von seiner Befolgung und Nicht-
befolgung hängt auch Bestehen oder Nichtbestehen im Gericht ab; es ist also Heilsweg.“
(Wengst, Tradition, p. 89).
³⁶ Hvalvik, Struggle, p. 92.
³⁷ Ibid.
³⁸ This similarity is one of the reasons which suggest an earlier dating of Ignatius’ Letters
(see above).
³⁹ Klevinghaus, Stellung, p. 75.
⁴⁰ Cf. ibid., p. 76.
⁴¹ 1Cle 41,4: πλείονοϚ γνώσεωϚ.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 143

matter and take the Old Testament for granted as a Christian book⁴². It is thus
a mistake to presuppose that a two-covenant theology would have been com-
mon either in the time immediately before Barnabas, or in those works written
shortly after him such as the Shepherd of Hermas for example⁴³, which
expresses a one-covenant theology very similar to that of Barnabas by comple-
tely identifying the Law and Christ⁴⁴. Therefore, Barnabas is by no means the
isolated instance we occasionally see him as, but may on the contrary with
good reason be called a man of his time.

2. The Old Testament after Marcion

We have seen that in the Christian writings of the early second century until
the time of Marcion there is no clear distinction to be found between the Old
Testament and the Gospel/New Testament.⁴⁵ It is taken for granted that the
Old Testament is a Christian book, either unreflectively as in Ignatius, or in
deliberate dissociation from the Jewish traditions as in Barnabas. Sooner or
later this uncritical use of the Old Testament had to come to an end⁴⁶, and it
found its most radical end possible in Marcion. The heresiarch pointed out the
contrast between the Old and the New Testament so fundamentally that there
was simply no turning back after him. Even though his radical approach did
not stand the test of time, the discrepancy between the two Testaments had
once and for all been identified as an issue, and no Christian theologian after
Marcion could any longer simply proclaim their harmony without offering
some sort of explanation for this contrast.

⁴² Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953,
p. 110–111: „Ein Problem scheint für den Verfasser [Clement] nicht zu existieren; er nimmt
vielmehr ganz naiv das AT als christliches Buch in Anspruch.“
⁴³ „Mehr als einen statistischen Mittelwert aus allen Überlegungen kann man nicht for-
mulieren: Der PH [Pastor Hermae] ist um 140 n. Chr. anzusetzen.“ (Norbert Brox, Der Hirt
des Hermas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, p. 25).
⁴⁴ Sim VIII 3,2. Cf. Klevinghaus, Stellung, p. 114: „Mit aller Deutlichkeit ist hier die Glei-
chung vollzogen zwischen Christus und dem Gesetz.“ Brox is probably correct when he states:
„Auf keinen Fall will H[ermas] die Anforderungen an den Christen auf das alttestamentliche
Gesetz reduziert haben“ (Brox, Hermas, p. 362); but Hermas is still worlds apart from an
actual distinction between Law and Gospel.
⁴⁵ Cf. Verweijs, Evangelium, p. 241–242. Verweijs, in his otherwise excellent study, for
some reason counted Justin among the pre-Marcionite Christians and thus erroneously
applied the same attitude regarding the Old Testament to him.
⁴⁶ Cf. Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 86: „Auf die Dauer kann es bei dieser unreflektierten
christlichen Übernahme und Anerkenntnis der Schrift jedoch nicht bleiben.“
144 VII. Marcion’s Time

2.1 Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora (ca. 150)⁴⁷

Some say it [the Law] has been laid down by God the Father, while others take the
opposite direction and strenuously insist that it was given by the Adversary, the perni-
cious devil, just as they attribute the creation of the world to him, saying that he is the
father and maker of this universe. (Pan. 33.3,2)⁴⁸

At the beginning of his letter, Ptolemy opposes two different opinions held
about the Law: the orthodox one, which identifies (the supreme) God and the
Lawgiver, and Marcion’s, who distinguishes between the two, and considers
the Lawgiver (and Creator) to be evil (see Chapter I). Ptolemy considers both
positions to be erroneous and is about to offer his own solution to the pro-
blem, a sort of middle way. First of all, he distinguishes different parts of the
Law: 1. the part which belongs to God himself; 2. the part which belongs to
Moses (that is, the part which originates from Moses’ own ideas, in distinction
from the Law that God gave through him and which belongs to the first
group); 3. the part which belongs to the elders.⁴⁹
In order to distinguish the first part of the Law from the second part, Ptol-
emy uses the example of divorce. Jesus said: “It was because of your hard-
heartedness that Moses permitted one to divorce his wife. But it was not this
way from the beginning. For God has joined this couple together, and what the
Lord has joined together, let man not separate.”⁵⁰ This, for Ptolemy, serves as
clear proof that the Law of God is different from the Law of Moses. However,
Ptolemy has, unlike Marcion, no interest in discrediting Moses. On the con-
trary, he is very much concerned with saving Moses’ reputation by stressing
that he did not teach contradictory to God’s Law because of personal ambition
or vanity, but simply because of the circumstances, that is, because of the hard-
hearted people, and thus merely chose the lesser of two evils.⁵¹
The third part of the Law, which belongs to the elders, is also identified by a
saying of Christ:
For God said ‘Honour your father and your mother so that it may be well with you’. But
you [the elders] have said ‘Whatever help you might have received from me is an offer-
ing to God’, and you have made void the Law of God for the sake of your tradition. This

⁴⁷ For the dating of the letter, see Chapter I.

⁴⁸ Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸϚ νενομοθετῆσθαι τοῦτον λέγουσιν, ἕτεροι δὲ τούτοιϚ
τὴν ἐναντίαν ὁδὸν τραπέντεϚ ὑτὸ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου φθοροποιοῦ διαβόλου τεθεῖσθαι τοῦτον
ἰσχυρίζονται, ὡϚ καὶ τὴν τοῦ κόσμου προσάπτουσιν αὐτῷ δημιουργίαν, πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν
τοῦτον λέγοντεϚ εἶναι τοῦδε τοῦ παντόϚ.
⁴⁹ Pan. 33.4,2.
⁵⁰ Pan. 33.4,4 (Matt. 19:8,6): ΜωυσῆϚ πρὸϚ τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν τὸ ἀπο-
λύειν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. Ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆϚ γὰρ οὐ γέγονεν οὔτωϚ. ΘεὸϚ γάρ […] συνέζευξε ταύτην
τὴν συζυγίαν, καὶ ὁ συνέζευξεν ὁ κύριοϚ ἄνθρωποϚ […] μὴ χωριζέτω.
⁵¹ Pan. 33.4,6–9.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 145

is what Isaiah declared: ‘These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far
from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.’⁵²

Having thus determined the second and third parts of the Law, Ptolemy now
engages with the first part, the Law of God himself, which he again divides into
three parts: 1. the pure legislation; 2. the law mixed with the inferior and with
injustice; 3. the law which is typical and symbolic.⁵³ The pure law is the Dec-
alogue, a law which is, although pure, still not perfect, as is had to be com-
pleted by the Saviour. The second kind of law is identified as the lex talionis, a
law which is mixed with injustice since two wrongs do not make a right. How-
ever, this law is still just, as it was necessarily given because of the weakness of
those who could not keep the pure law, and thus merely forms, very similarly
to the law of Moses (see above), the lesser of two evils. It is obviously not com-
patible with the nature and goodness of the Supreme God, which is why it had
to be abolished by the Saviour. Finally, there is the figurative part of it, which
includes the laws of Jewish cult, such as circumcision or the Sabbath. These
laws also have been abolished, but only as far as their physical carrying out is
concerned. They are, however, still to be observed spiritually, so that circumci-
sion for instance is no longer to be performed on the bodily foreskin, but on
the spiritual heart. For the existence of this third kind of law Ptolemy finds
proof in Paul, who identified both the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread as images when he said “Our Passover lamb, Christ, has been sacri-
ficed”⁵⁴ and “so that you may be unleavened, having no part of yeast (and by
yeast he means evil), but may be a new dough”⁵⁵.
Although Ptolemy up until this point has always referred to the Law as
being (or not being) of God, this God for him cannot be the Supreme Father,
since the Law of God “is not perfect and needs to be completed by someone
else”⁵⁶. Since it is further obvious that a Law which does away with injustice
cannot be attributed to the devil either⁵⁷, this God must be an intermediate
God, who is between the good and the evil one: he is the just Demiurge.⁵⁸
⁵² Pan. 33.4,11–13 (Matt. 15:4–9/Isa. 29:13): ῾Ο γὰρ θεόϚ […] εἶπεν τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου
καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται. ῾ΥμεῖϚ δέ […] εἰρήκατε […] δῶρον τῷ θεῷ ὃ ἐὰν
ὠφεληθῇϚ ἐξ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν […] Τοῦτο
δὲ ᾽ΗσαΐαϚ ἐξεφώνησεν εἰπών ὁ λαὸϚ οὗτοϚ τοῖϚ χείλεσί με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω
ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντεϚ διδασκαλίαϚ ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων. The
canonical text reads λόγοϚ instead of νόμοϚ. Although Ptolemy is not the only source which
uses νόμοϚ in this passage, it is possible that he deliberately changed the word to emphasise
his point.
⁵³ Pan. 33.5,1–2. For the following cf. Pan. 33.5,3–15.
⁵⁴ Pan. 33.5,15 (1Cor. 5:7): τὸ δε πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη ΧριστόϚ.
⁵⁵ Ibid.: ἵνα ἦτε ἄζυμοι μὴ μετέχοντεϚ ζύμηϚ – ζύμην δὲ νῦν τὴν κακίαν λέγει – ἀλλ᾽ ἦτε
νέον φύραμα.
⁵⁶ Pan. 33.3,4: ἀτελῆ τε ὄντα καὶ τοῦ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου πληρωθῆναι ἐνδεῇ.
⁵⁷ Pan. 33.3,5.
⁵⁸ Pan. 33.7,2–4.
146 VII. Marcion’s Time

Ptolemy’s approach to the Old Testament is a truly pioneering act for sev-
eral reasons. First of all, Ptolemy does not treat the Old Testament as a whole,
but he particularly addresses the problem of the Old Testament Law, which
was obviously the really ‘burning issue’ at the time. That the Prophecies
referred to Christ was common belief among Christians (except Marcion, of
course) and did not need to be justified; the Law, however, was a real chal-
lenge, a challenge that Ptolemy accepted. By further distinguishing different
parts within it, Ptolemy broke the so far undisputed unity of Scripture. Per-
haps his most important innovation, however, was that he relied on the words
of Christ and Paul in order to distinguish these parts, in other words, he uses
the New Testament as the hermeneutical key to understand the Old.⁵⁹ This
concept is crucially new in Ptolemy’s time. Marcion antithetically opposed the
Old Testament and the Gospel, but only in order to show that they are radi-
cally different. He did not need the Gospel in order to discredit the Old Testa-
ment and its God, as the Old Testament itself was quite sufficient to that end
for the arch-heretic (see Chapters III/IV). Barnabas, like Ptolemy, interpreted
the Jewish Laws to be symbolic, but he never referred to the Gospel or Paul to
prove this point and instead also attempted to demonstrate this from the Old
Testament itself (see above). Ptolemy seems to be well aware of the concepts of
his predecessors, and he combines them with his own. For example, he relates
to one of Marcion’s antitheses (see Chapter V) when he states that the com-
mandment ‘an eye for an eye’ was abolished by Christ’s command to turn the
other cheek to anyone who hits the right cheek, since “opposites destroy each
other”⁶⁰. Like Marcion, Ptolemy acknowledges the incompatibility of these two
statements, but in distinction from the Pontic he does not use it to demon-
strate the complete incompatibility of the Old and the New Testament, he only
uses it to show the abolition of one part of the Law, the very lex talionis (see
above). Also, Ptolemy interprets the Old Testament commandment of circum-
cision as a spiritual circumcision of the heart, just as Barnabas did; but again
Ptolemy does not go so far as to use one example as a general rule. To him
only one part of the Law is to be interpreted this way, which is the Jewish laws
of cult. Moreover, Barnabas believed that the Law was always meant to be
understood figuratively, whereas for Ptolemy only the Advent of Christ has
changed the meaning of these commandments.
Ptolemy is, as he states himself in the beginning of his letter, concerned
with an evaluation and a rectification of previous concepts regarding the Law.
In a way, it is already this endeavour which greatly distinguishes him from his

⁵⁹ Cf. Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 102: „Die bisherige ununterschiedene Einheit der

Schrift ist zerbrochen; aber das Urteil über sie soll darum nicht einfach menschlichem Belie-
ben überlassen bleiben, sondern wird allein an Christus und sein Wort gebunden.“
⁶⁰ Pan. 33.6,2: Τὰ δὲ ἐναντία ἀλλήλων ἐστὶν ἀναιρετικά.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 147

predecessors. Ptolemy’s approach of saying ‘there is concept a, there is concept

b, both are insufficient, which is why I propose concept c’ shows that we are
about to encounter an almost scholastic analysis of the problem. Both Barna-
bas and Marcion were very radical thinkers, Ptolemy is far more differentiated
and almost passionless. His letter reveals nothing of Barnabas’ zealous concern
with the right way of salvation or of Marcion’s ardent hatred for the Creator.
Ptolemy’s style rather reveals the philosopher, the intellectual, the academic: all
traits which Marcion in particular did not show.

2.2 Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (ca. 160)

There will never be another God, Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other than
He who made and ordered this universe. Nor do we believe that our God is another
than yours, but that He is the one who led your Fathers out of Egypt ‘with a mighty
hand and an outstretched arm’⁶¹. Nor have we placed our hopes in some other God –
for there is no other –, but in the same as you, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob. However, our hopes are not built up by Moses or by the Law, for then we would
do the same as you. But now I have read, Trypho, that there shall be a final law as well
as covenant superior to all others, which has to be kept by all people who seek for the
inheritance of God. For the law given on Horeb is already old and is yours alone, but
this one is for everybody without exception. But a law placed against another law abro-
gates the earlier one, and a covenant which originated later likewise replaces the pre-
vious one. As an eternal and final law Christ was given to us, and in the covenant we
can trust, after which there shall be no more law, no more ordinance and no more com-
mandment. (Dial. 11,1–2)⁶²
In a way, the Rome of the 140s belonged to the heretics. Marcion, Valentinus,
Ptolemy: those are the names which shape the history of the Church in the
imperial capital at that time, especially as far as the exegesis of the Old Testa-
ment is concerned⁶³. It was thus overdue for orthodoxy to strike back, and it
did in the form of Justin Martyr. Although his Dialogue with Trypho is

⁶¹ Deut. 5:15.
⁶² Οὔτε ἔσται ποτὲ ἄλλοϚ θεόϚ, ὦ Τρύφων, οὔτε ἦν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνοϚ […] πλὴν τοῦ ποιήσαντοϚ
καὶ διατάξαντοϚ τόδε τὸ πᾶν. Οὐδὲ ἄλλον μὲν ἡμῶν, ἄλλον δὲ ὑμῶν ἡγούμεθα θεόν, ἀλλ᾽
αὐτὸν ἐκεἶον τὸν ἐξαγαγόντα τοὺϚ πατέραϚ ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆϚ Αἰγύπτου ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ καὶ
βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ· οὐδ᾽ εἰϚ ἄλλον τινὰ ἠλπίκαμεν, οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰϚ τοῦτον εἰϚ ὃν καὶ
ὑμεῖϚ, τὸν θεὸν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ᾽Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾽Ιακώβ. ᾽Ηλπίκαμεν δὲ οὐ διὰ ΜωσέωϚ οὐδὲ διὰ
τοῦ νόμου ἦ γὰρ ἂν τὸ αὐτὸ ὑμῖν ἐποιοῦμεν. Νυνὶ δὲ ἀνέγνων γάρ, ὦ Τρύφων, ὃτι ἔσοιτο καὶ
τελευταῖοϚ νόμοϚ καὶ διαθήκη κυριωτάτη πασῶν, ὢν νῦν δέον φυλάσσειν πάνταϚ ἀνθρώπουϚ
ὃσοι τῆϚ τοῦ θεοῦ κληρονομίαϚ ἀντιποιοῦνται. ῾Ο γὰρ ἐν Χωρὴβ παλαιὸϚ ἤδη νόμοϚ καὶ ὑμῶν
μόνων, ὁ δὲ πάντων ἁπλῶϚ· νόμοϚ δὲ κατὰ νόμου τεθεὶϚ τὸν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἔπαυσε, καὶ διαθήκη
μετέπειτα γενομένη τὴν προτέραν ὁμοίωϚ ἔστησεν ΑἰώνιόϚ τε ἡμῖν νόμοϚ καὶ τελευταῖοϚ ὁ
ΧριστὸϚ ἐδόθη καὶ ἡ διαθήκη πιστή, μεθ᾽ ὢν οὐ νόμοϚ, οὐ πρόσταγμα οὐκ ἐντολή.
⁶³ Valentinus remains too elusive a figure to say anything substantial about his attitude
toward the Old Testament, which is why he does not feature in this chapter. For a good over-
view on his life and theology see Thomassen, Seed, p. 417–490.
148 VII. Marcion’s Time

designed as a dispute with the Jews, many topics addressed in it are in fact
conditioned by an anti-heretical purpose⁶⁴. In the above quoted passage, Justin
first of all points out that there is only one God, who is both the Creator of the
world and the God of the Jews, that is, who is the God of the Old Testament.
This statement may be considered the anti-heretical truth per se⁶⁵, as it was
exactly these facts which both Marcion and Ptolemy denied and which more
than anything else labelled them as heretics⁶⁶. For with all the dissimilarity
between the two, Marcion and Ptolemy have a common denominator: they
both pointed out the differences between the Old and the New Testament,
thus concluding that the two both documents did not attest the same God. It
is here that Justin has to take up the fight with the heretics if he wants to
defend the above stated truth.
In Dial. 94,1–2 Justin addresses a concrete problem which Marcion had
raised, the problem of God’s inconsistency in on the one hand forbidding the
making of any images while on the other hand commanding Moses to create
the brazen serpent (see Chapter III), an inconsistency which Marcion used in
order to demonstrate that the Old Testament God, due to such unworthy
characteristics, was not the Perfect God to be found in the Gospel. Justin coun-
ters the claim of inconsistency by pointing out that through the ‘mysterion’ of
the serpent God proclaimed that he would
destroy the power of the serpent, which has also caused Adam’s transgression, and he
proclaimed the salvation of those who believe in the one who through this sign, that is,
the cross, was destined to be put to death by the snakebites, which are the evil deeds,
idolatries and other injustices.⁶⁷

Thus, the allegorical interpretation, which Justin knows to be the best way of
countering Marcion’s strict literal approach to the texts, and which had so far

⁶⁴ Cf. Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 106; cf. also Pierre Prigent, Justin et l’Ancien Testa-
ment, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964. Prigent’s study is based on the idea that Justin’s lost
Treatise against all Heresies forms the main source for the Dialogue and the Apology, a theory
which probably goes slightly too far (especially as far as the Apology is concerned), but which
correctly points out the anti-heretical purpose of Justin’s writings, the Dialogue in particular
(cf. Robert M. Grant, Review “Justin et l’Ancien Testament”, JBL 84 (1965), p. 440–443).
⁶⁵ “In this passage the emphatic rejection of ‘another God’ is strikingly out of context […]
Not Trypho, therefore, but Marcion is here in view” (Theodore Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr
and the Mosaic Law, Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975, p. 25).
⁶⁶ In his report on Marcion in his Apology, Marcion’s ditheism is in fact the only real
theological feature Justin mentions about the arch-heretic, cf. Moll, Justin, p. 145–151. Like-
wise, Origen identifies heretics mainly by their distinction between the God of the Old and
the God of the New Testament (cf. Le Boulluec, Notion, p. 509–510).
⁶⁷ καταλύειν μὲν τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ὄφεωϚ, τοῦ καὶ τὴν παράβασιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ γενέσθαι
ἐργασαμένου, εκήρυσσε, σωτηρίαν δὲ τοῖϚ πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τοῦτον, τὸν διὰ τοῦ σημείου τού-
του τουτέστι τοῦ σταυροῦ σῶσαι αὐτοὺϚ μέλλοντα ἀπὸ τῶν δηγμάτων τοῦ ὄφεωϚ, ἄπερ εἰσὶν
αἱ κακαὶ πράξειϚ, εἰδωλολατρεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι ἀδικίαι.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 149

often served as a means in conflict with the Jews, is now for the first time used
against a heretic.
In other passages, we can clearly hear Justin’s awareness of Ptolemy’s cri-
tique of Scripture, for example when he says to his Jewish dialogue partner:
But blame it on your own wickedness that God can be calumniated by foolish people
who claim that He did not always teach everyone the same justice. For to many people
these instructions seemed absurd and unworthy of God, since they had not received the
grace to understand that He called your people, who did evil and suffered from illness of
the soul, to conversion of the spirit [by these instructions]. (Dial. 30,1)⁶⁸
Ptolemy is not mentioned by name, and he is certainly not the only ‘foolish’
one envisaged, but we can easily detect his critique of Scripture is these words.
Justin is arguing against people who dissect the Law into different parts and/or
who believe that the instructions are unworthy of (the Supreme) God, ideas
which are both to be found in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora (see above), the second
point being a critique lodged also by Marcion. Justin thus has to prove that
God always taught the same justice, and that his instructions are in fact worthy
of him, or, in other words, he has to prove that the Old Testament Law is
compatible with the Gospel of Christ.
Justin’s solution to the problem is the distinction between the Law of Moses
and the eternal law represented by Christ⁶⁹. The eternal law is contained in the
two precepts stated by Christ: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, and with all your strength’ and ‘You shall love your neighbor as your-
self’⁷⁰. Christ has come to “actualiser et incarner ces préceptes éternels”⁷¹; how-
ever, they were already identifiable before his coming⁷², and they have indeed
already been kept by people such as Noah, Enoch and Jacob⁷³, which was suf-
ficient for their salvation since “those who did what is universally, naturally
and eternally good are pleasing to God”⁷⁴. The fact that only these two pre-
cepts of Christ are necessary for salvation, as well as the deliberate mention of
Old Testament figures who lived before the time of Moses, already adumbrate
that the Mosaic Law can only have a subordinate function for Justin; and

⁶⁸ Ἀλλὰ τῃ αὑτῶν κακίᾳ ἐγκαλεῖτε ὅτι καὶ συκοφαντεῖσθαι δυνατόϚ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸϚ ὑπὸ τῶν
νοῦν μὴ ἐχόντων, ὡϚ τὰ αὐτὰ δίκαια μὴ πάνταϚ ἀεὶ διδάξαϚ. ΠολλοῖϚ γὰρ ἀνθρώποιϚ ἄλογα
καὶ οὐκ ἄξια θεοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα διδάγματα ἔδοξεν εἶναι, μὴ λαβοῦσι χάριν τοῦ γνῶναι ὅτι τὸν
λαὸν ὑμῶν πονηρευόμενον καὶ ἐν νόσῳ ψυχικῇ ὑπάρχοντα εἰϚ ἐπιστροφὴν καὶ μετάνοιαν τοῦ
πνεύματοϚ κέκληκε. Cf. also Dial. 23,1–2.
⁶⁹ Cf. Philippe Bobichon, “Préceptes Éternels et Loi Mosaique dans le Dialogue avec Try-
phon de Justin Martyr”, RB 111 (2004), p. 238–254.
⁷⁰ Dial. 93,1–3 (Matt. 22,37–39 et parr.)
⁷¹ Bobichon, Préceptes Éternels, p. 241.
⁷² This idea is particularly developed in the Apology, cf. 1Apol. 46.
⁷³ Dial. 45,3.
⁷⁴ Dial. 45,4: ᾽Επεὶ οἲ τὰ καθόλου καὶ φύσει καὶ αἰώνια καλὰ ἐποίουν εὐάρεστοί εἰσι τῷ
θεῷ.
150 VII. Marcion’s Time

indeed it has. According to him, the Law of Moses was only given due to the
hard-heartedness of the Jews:
As circumcision began with Abraham and as the Sabbath, sacrifices, offerings and feasts
began with Moses – and it has been demonstrated that these things were enjoined
because of the hard-heartedness of your people⁷⁵ – so it was necessary that they, accord-
ing to the will of the Father, found their end in Him who was of the family of Abraham
and the tribe of Judah and David, born of a virgin, Christ the Son of God, who was
proclaimed to come to all the world both as the eternal law and as the new covenant,
as the aforementioned prophecies signify. (Dial. 43,1)⁷⁶

In this passage we can perceive Justin’s concept of a certain temporal develop-

ment within the Heilsgeschichte, a concept which is also used in immediate
opposition to the heretics⁷⁷: there is the era until Abraham/Moses⁷⁸, the era of
the Mosaic Law, and the era beginning with Christ. Christ as the new and
eternal law for everybody abrogates the old and only temporary law for the
Jews since “a law placed against another law abrogates the earlier one” (see
above).
While this antithetical view of things may remind us of Marcion at first, it
is actually formulated in immediate opposition to the arch-heretic, for Mar-
cion does not think in categories of old and new nor is any kind of replace-
ment concept to be found in his system. This is in fact the crucial difference
between Justin and Marcion. Both men see Christ in opposition to the Old
Testament Law (or the entire Old Testament in Marcion’s case), but for Mar-
cion this antithesis consists in a permanent fight between two Gods (see Chap-
ter III), whereas Justin believes that the antithetical new law has simply
replaced the old one. Justin is, however, very close to Ptolemy in some of his
thoughts (see above). Both realise a contrast between the Law of Christ and the
Law of Moses, both attribute the Law of Moses to the wickedness of the Jewish
⁷⁵ Cf. Dial. 12–23.
⁷⁶ ῾ΩϚ οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἤρξατο περιτομὴ και ἀπὸ ΜωσέωϚ σάββατον καὶ θυσίαι καὶ
προσφωραὶ καὶ ἑορταί, καὶ ἀπεδείχθη διὰ τὸ σκληροκάρδιον τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν ταῦτα διατε-
τάχθαι, οὔτωϚ παύσασθαι ἔδει κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸϚ βουλὴν εἰϚ τὸν διὰ τὴϚ απὸ τοὺ γένουϚ
Ἀβραὰμ καὶ φυλῆϚ ᾽Ιούδα καὶ Δαυῒδ παρθένου γεννηθέντα υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ Χριστὸν, ὅστιϚ καὶ
αἰώνιοϚ νόμοϚ, και καινὴ διαθήκη τῷ παντὶ κόσμῳ ἐκηρύσσετο προελευσόμενοϚ, ὡϚ αἱ προλε-
λεγμέναι προφητεῖαι σημαίνουσι. In a very similar way already to be found in Dial. 23,3.
⁷⁷ Cf. Quispel, Lettre à Flora, p. 10: “Les attaques des hérétiques ont poussé les auteurs
catholiques à développer, à leur manière, l’idée d’un développement dans la révélation divine.”
(author’s emphasis). Cf. also Stylianopoulos, Law, p. 167: “Justin’s historical interpretation of
the Law, and his tripartite division of the Law, were a result of his debate with the great
second-century heresiarchs. It was the challenge of gnostic and marcionite hermeneutic that
led Justin, the first Christian author explicitly to do so, to recognize the variety of divine dis-
pensations, while maintaining and defending against the heretical teachers the unity of God
and the authority of Scripture.”
⁷⁸ Bobichon further distinguished this first era into two (Préceptes Éternels, p. 246), which
is technically correct, however, Abraham only marks a minor change in history compared to
the other crucial changes, so that Justin’s view of history may in fact be called tripartite.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 151

people, and both understand the Law of Moses allegorically. Nevertheless, the
differences outweigh the similarities⁷⁹, the main difference of course being Jus-
tin’s belief in one God in contrast to Ptolemy’s polytheism. In order to safe-
guard his belief, Justin has to deviate from Ptolemy’s system in several ways.
First of all, if there is only one God, the Law of Moses cannot actually be
opposed to the Law of Christ, for such an idea would play into the hands of
those who claim that God did not at all times teach the same justice (see
above). Thus, in Justin’s thought, the Law of Moses and the natural Law are
not mutually exclusive, rather the natural law, which is on its own sufficient
for salvation, is contained in the Law of Moses⁸⁰, which, on its part, addition-
ally contains many laws only given because of hard-heartedness. Furthermore,
Justin’s historical approach to the divine revelation, which is completely lack-
ing from Ptolemy’s letter, implies that the second era, the era of the Mosaic
Law, was merely an intermediate phase. As stated above, Christ incarnated
the eternal law, but since this law is in fact eternal and naturally perceivable,
it already existed and was kept before Christ and before Moses, so that the
relation of the Advent of Christ to the time of the Mosaic Law is, in manner
of speaking, as the Renaissance to the Middle Ages. For Ptolemy, however, at
least as far as it can be retrieved from his letter, the Advent of Christ revealed
something entirely new and never seen before.⁸¹
Perhaps the most important difference between Justin and the Gnostic
regarding their exegesis of the Old Testament is their use of the New Testa-
ment. Ptolemy embraces the words of Christ (and Paul) as his authority and
checks the words of the Old Testament against them, something which we
have found to be a real novelty in his time (see above). Justin’s approach, how-
ever, is different: „Der hermeneutische Grundsatz, dem er folgt, ist nicht die
Autorität des Worts oder der Lehre Christi, sondern die vorausgesetzte, lük-
kenlose Einheit und Widerspruchslosigkeit der göttlich inspirierten heiligen
Schrift.“⁸² This conviction is explicitly articulated by Justin in Dial. 65,2:
But if such a passage of Scripture was held against me under the pretext that it was
contrary to another, I would still be absolutely convinced that no passage of Scripture
is in contrast to another, and I would rather admit that I myself do not understand what
it means.⁸³

⁷⁹ Even within the similarities described we find differences between the two men. Justin,
for example, attributes above all the laws of cult to the hard-heartedness of the Jews, whereas
Ptolemy classes these laws among the law of God (see above).
⁸⁰ Cf. Dial. 45,3.
⁸¹ Ptolemy’s statement that Christ has revealed the Father (Pan. 33.7,5) seems to imply
that (as with Marcion) this God was never heard of before.
⁸² Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 120.
⁸³ ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τοιαύτη τιϚ δοκοῦσα εἶναι γραφὴ προβληθῇ καὶ πρόφασιν ἔχῃ ὡϚ ἐναντία
οὖσα, ἐκ παντὸϚ πεπεισμένοϚ ὅτι οὐδεμία γραφὴ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἐναντία ἐστίν, αὐτὸϚ μὴ νοεῖν μᾶλ-
λον ὁμολογήσω τὰ εἰρημένα.
152 VII. Marcion’s Time

Accordingly, Justin’s evaluation of the Old Testament derives from the Old
Testament itself, not from the New as in Ptolemy. A good example of this
difference is the use of a passage from the Prophet Isaiah which both Ptolemy
and Justin refer to: ‘These people come near to me with their mouth and hon-
our me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is
made up only of rules taught by men.’⁸⁴ As stated, both men make use of this
quote, Ptolemy for his categorization of the Law, Justin for his general critique
of the Jewish people. The more interesting difference, however, is the fact that
whereas Justin quotes the Prophet himself, Ptolemy only uses his words indir-
ectly through the mouth of Jesus, thus indicating that for him the actual
authority lies not with the Prophet, but with Christ.
All in all, Justin’s concept certainly is in many ways related to the Gnostic’s,
but is also a counter-concept, and as such it has to be seen in distinct dissocia-
tion from it. Especially Justin’s method of interpreting the Old Testament out
of itself actually brings him closer to Barnabas than to Ptolemy, especially
since both Justin and Barnabas, while not explicitly using the words of Christ
as their hermeneutical key to understand the Old Testament, believe that
Christ gave them the gift of understanding the Scriptures correctly⁸⁵.

2.3 Apelles’ Syllogisms (ca. 160–170)⁸⁶

After having heard several different solutions to the problem which the Old
Testament poses to Christians, with Apelles, Marcion’s most prominent disci-
ple, we now encounter what may be called the last possible option of dealing
with the Old Testament, the option of considering it to be simply untrue. This
is what Apelles tries to demonstrate in his Syllogisms, a work of which we for-
tunately have several fragments preserved.

⁸⁴ Isa. 29:13, cf. Pan. 33.4,13; Dial. 27,4.

⁸⁵ Cf. Stylianopoulos, Law, p. 73: “Christ is the hermeneutical principle. But this does not
mean that Justin appeals to the teaching of Jesus. Justin does not quote sayings of Jesus in his
evaluation of the Law. Rather he appeals to the Christ who grants the spiritual gift of inter-
pretation.”
⁸⁶ It is impossible to give an exact date for the origin of the Syllogisms. As terminus post
quem we have Apelles’ break with Marcion’s doctrine, which we may assume did not happen
before Marcion’s church had been fully established, that is, not before ca. 150. Moreover, Jus-
tin never mentions Apelles in his works, so we may take 160 as a vague mark. As terminus
ante quem the debate with Rhodo may serve, at which Apelles was already an old man (Hist.
Eccl. V.13,5). The exact time of this debate cannot be determined, but it seems likely that it
took place not later than ca. 180 (cf. Markschies, “Apelles”, LACL (3rd ed., 2002), p. 44).
Assuming that Apelles changed his attitude toward the Old Testament later in life (see
below), we also have to allow for some time between the writing of the Syllogisms and the
debate with Rhodo, which brings to us to about 170.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 153

An analysis of three of those fragments may suffice to illustrate Apelles’

approach.

Fragment 8 (Ambrosius, De Paradiso 8,38)⁸⁷:

Did God know that Adam would transgress his commandments or did he not? If he did
not know, this is no proclamation of divine power; but if he did know, and still know-
ingly commanded things which would be neglected – it is not for God to command
something superfluous. But he did command that first-formed Adam something super-
fluous, which he knew he would not actually observe. But God does nothing superflu-
ous; therefore the scripture does not come from God.⁸⁸

This syllogism is ideal for a demonstration of Apelles’ method. Not only is it

concerned with one of the most disputed passages from the Old Testament,
particularly discussed by the Gnostics⁸⁹ and Marcion himself (see Chapter
III), it is also one of the few Apellean syllogisms which seems to have been
preserved completely, as it shows the classical form of a syllogism, or, to be
precise, two in one.

Premise A: The scripture either says that God did not know Adam would
transgress his commandment, or that he superfluously com-
manded something which he knew Adam would not observe.
Premise B: God is omniscient and never does anything superfluous.
Conclusion: The scripture does not come from God.

This way of thinking reveals one, if not the crucial difference between Apelles
and his ‘master’ Marcion. The latter had a Biblicist approach (see Chapter IV),
he accepted the Old Testament ‘as it is’, and came to the conclusion that it is
the testimony of a God who in fact is not omniscient and does superfluous
things. That is why May, for instance, is incorrect when he characterises Mar-
cion’s view of the Old Testament God as follows: „Markion hebt eben einfach
jene anthropomorphen Züge des alttestamentlichen Gottes hervor, die jedem
philosophisch gebildeten Zeitgenossen Schwierigkeiten bereiteten.“⁹⁰ The fact

⁸⁷ The numbering of the fragments is according to Greschat, Apelles, p. 50–68, where one
can also find the complete text and an analysis of all the fragments.
⁸⁸ Sciebat praevaricaturum deus Adam mandata sua an nesciebat? Si nesciebat, non est
ista divinae potestatis adsertio, si autem sciebat et nihilominus sciens neglegenda mandavit,
non est dei aliquid superfluum praecipere. Superfluo autem praecepit primoplasto illi Adae
quod eum noverat minime servaturum. Nihil autem deus superfluo facit; ergo non est scrip-
tura ex deo.
⁸⁹ Cf. Peter Nagel, „Die Auslegung der Paradieserzählung in der Gnosis“, in: Karl-Wolf-
gang Tröger (ed.), Altes Testament – Frühjudentum – Gnosis: Neue Studien zu „Gnosis und
Bibel“, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus Mohn, 1980, p. 49–70.
⁹⁰ May, Schiffsreeder, p. 152 n. 42 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 61 n. 46).
154 VII. Marcion’s Time

of the matter is that Marcion, contrary to frequent claims⁹¹, has absolutely no

concept of θεοπρεπέϚ, he established his view of the Creator simply based on
the testimony of the Old Testament. Apelles, on the other hand, has a philoso-
phical approach, he has an a priori concept of God, a God who has all the
features which classical philosophy attributes to him, and he checks this a
priori concept against the evidence of Scripture, bringing him to the conclu-
sion that this Scripture can not come from God. What Marcion and Apelles
have in common, however, is that they both share the same rejection of allego-
rical interpretation and insist on a literal understanding of the texts. Moreover,
both interpret the Old Testament as one unit (unlike Ptolemy and Justin), and
for both their interpretation of the Old Testament is completely detached from
the New⁹² (unlike Ptolemy’s). Thus, one might say that mentor and student
had more in common than is usually assumed⁹³, at least as far as their
approach to the Old Testament is concerned.

Fragment 13 (Origen, In Genesim Homilia II,2):

Under no circumstances would it have been possible to bring aboard [the Ark] so many
species of animals and their food, which was to last for a whole year, in such a short
time. For if the impure animals are said to be led in two by two, that is two male and
two female of each […], and the pure animals seven by seven, that is seven pairs, how
should it have been possible that the space which is written about could even have held
four elephants alone? Thus it is certain that the story is fabricated; and since this is the
case, it is certain that this scripture is not of God.⁹⁴
Apart from the fact that this fragment from Apelles’ work is not technically a
syllogism, it differs from the preceding one in another important way. This
time Apelles is not concerned with a contradiction between his view of God
and the portray of him painted in Scripture, but simply with a factual incon-
sistency within the text. In a way, this argument then still turns out to be a

⁹¹ Cf. for example Lukas, Rhetorik, p. 515–516.

⁹² Eric Junod correctly observed this point for Apelles, but is mistaken when he claims:
“Pour Marcion, il faut l’Évangile pour disqualifier l’Ancien Testament.” (Eric Junod, “Les atti-
tudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, à l’égard de l’Ancien Testament”, Augustinianum 1982
(22), p. 122) ; cf. Chapter IV.
⁹³ Cf. for example Meike Willing, „Die neue Frage des Marcionschülers Apelles – zur
Rezeption marcionitischen Gedankenguts“, in: May (ed.), Marcion, p. 231: „Wäre die Schüler-
schaft des Apelles bei Marcion nicht derart gut bezeugt, würde man aufgrund der überliefer-
ten Lehre zunächst kaum auf den Gedanken kommen, in Apelles einen Marcionschüler zu
sehen.“
⁹⁴ Dicit nullo genere fieri potuisse, ut tam breve spatium tot animalium genera eorumque
cibos, qui per totum annum sufficerent, capere potuisset. Cum enim bina bina ex immundis
animalibus, hoc est bini masculi et feminae binae […], ex mundis vero septena septena, quod
est paria septena, in arcam dicantur inducta, quomodo […] fieri potuit istud spatium, quod
scriptum est, ut quattuor saltem solos elephantes capere potuerit? […] constat ergo fictam
esse fabulam; quod si est, constat non esse hanc a Deo scripturam.
 2. The Old Testament after Marcion 155

syllogism after all, which could be phrased as follows: the story is untrue; God
does not speak anything untrue; thus this story is not of God.

Fragment 1 (Ambrosius, De Paradiso 5,28)

How is it that the tree of life seems to contribute more to life than the breath of God?⁹⁵

What Apelles is referring to here is a certain inconsistency within the biblical

story of Genesis:
„während in Gen. 2,7 davon die Rede war, daß der Mensch sein Leben durch die Ein-
hauchung Gottes mitgeteilt bekommt, erweckt die Erwähnung des Lebensbaumes im
Paradies den Eindruck, als sei dieser Baum noch wichtiger zum Leben als die unmittel-
bar von Gott stammende göttliche Gabe.“⁹⁶

We thus have in front of us a third kind of Apellean criticism of Scripture.

This time he is not concerned with the Scripture’s presentation of God or the
factual impossibility of a certain story, but with inconsistencies within the texts
themselves. Once again, Apelles’ approach proves to be different from that of
his teacher. Marcion also realised such inconsistencies (although this particular
one is not attested for him), but he attributed them to an inconsistent God (see
Chapter III). Apelles, however, could not accept such an idea of a God, and
thus, although it is not explicitly mentioned by Ambrosius this time, it is
obvious that the inconsistency within the text led Apelles to the same conclu-
sion as before: the scripture is not of God.
While it is striking that all of Apelles’ preserved fragments are concerned
with the book of Genesis, it still seems unlikely that he limited his effort to this
book alone. First of all it would be rather strange if Apelles dedicated 38
volumes (or more)⁹⁷ of Syllogisms to the book of Genesis only. Moreover,
Pseudo-Tertullian clearly states that in his Syllogisms Apelles tried to prove
that “whatever Moses has written about God is not true but false”⁹⁸ and Hip-
polytus concurs, reporting that Apelles “composed treatises [apparently the
Syllogisms] against the Law and the Prophets, attempting to destroy them as if
they spoke lies and had no knowledge of God”⁹⁹, and that he “reviles the Law
and the Prophets, saying that the Scriptures are man-made and false”¹⁰⁰.
Hence, the aim of the Syllogisms is clear: to demonstrate that the Old Testa-

⁹⁵ Quomodo lignum vitae plus operari videtur ad vitam quam insufflatio dei?
⁹⁶ Greschat, Apelles, p. 52.
⁹⁷ Cf. De Paradiso 5,28.
⁹⁸ Adv. omn. haer. VI.6: omnia, quaecumque Moyses de deo scripserit, vera non sint, sed
falsa sint.
⁹⁹ Ref. X.20,2: οὓτοϚ κατὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν συντάγματα ἐποίησε, καταλύειν
αὐτουϚ ἐπιχειρῶν ὡϚ ψευδῆ λελαληκόταϚ καὶ θεὸν μὴ ἐγνωκόταϚ.
¹⁰⁰ Ref. VII.38,2: νόμον δὲ καὶ προφήταϚ δυσφημεῖ́ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ ψευδῆ φάσκων εἶναι τὰ
γεγραμμένα.
156 VII. Marcion’s Time

ment contained nothing true about God and was therefore – at least this seems
to be the obvious conclusion – to be abolished.
We could stop our analysis of Apelles’ Syllogisms at this point, if it was not
for several testimonies which conflict with our picture so far. First, there is a
remark by Origen according to which Apelles “did not in every way deny that
the Law and the Prophets are of God”¹⁰¹. Then, there is Epiphanius, who
reports that Apelles relied on the (non-attested) saying by Jesus ‘Become
experienced money-changers’ (that is, become “capable of distinguishing
between good and bad”¹⁰²) and accordingly stated: “I make use of the entire
Scripture and I keep what is useful.”¹⁰³ These two testimonies certainly do not
portray Apelles as the radical Old Testament critic we have encountered above,
and seem rather to bring him in a certain connection to Ptolemy, who also
distinguished between different parts of Scripture (see above). Eric Junod con-
cluded that Apelles must have changed his position on the Old Testament
between the time of the writing of his Syllogisms and his later work Phanero-
seis.¹⁰⁴ Subsequent scholars doubted Junod’s theory, without, however, any
conclusive reason or any alternative solution to the apparent discrepancy
found in the sources.¹⁰⁵ Junod’s theory must remain a theory, but it still seems
to be the most plausible solution available. Unfortunately, we are no longer
able to establish exactly what Apelles’ later position on the Old Testament con-
sisted of. Nonetheless, the simple fact that he changed his attitude toward the
Old Testament during his life remains noteworthy, since such an action is, at
least to the extent of our knowledge, singular among the men discussed in this
chapter. Scholars have often assumed that Apelles, as he was growing older,
lost the interest in and the energy for rational criticism and thus, under the
influence of a certain prophetess named Philumene, became fascinated with

¹⁰¹ Apologia pro Origine 33: licet non omnibus modis Dei esse deneget Legem vel prophe-
tas. The German edition reads: „Apelles […] obwohl er in jeder Hinsicht versichert, Gesetz
und Propheten seien von Gott“, which is an obvious mistranslation (Georg Röwekamp (ed.),
Pamphilus von Caesarea: Apologia pro Origine/Apologie für Origenes, FC 80, Turnhout: Bre-
pols, 2005, 261).
¹⁰² G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 192005,
p. 1400. See ibid. for the occurrence of this Agraphon.
¹⁰³ Pan. 44.2,6: χρῶμαι […] ἀπὸ πάσηϚ γραφῆϚ ἀναλέγων τὰ χρήσιμα.
¹⁰⁴ Junod, Attitudes, p. 131–133. His theory found support from Le Boulluec, Notion II,
p. 526 n. 301.
¹⁰⁵ Greschat (Apelles, p. 110 n. 5) attempted to point out that as an old man, as he is
depicted by Rhodon, Apelles still completely denied the divine origin of the Mosaic stories,
thus questioning Junod’s theory of a change in Apelles’ life. She is, however, mistaken on this
point, as Apelles, in his debate with Rhodon, only makes such a statement regarding the pro-
phecies (Hist. Eccl. V.13,6). It is therefore quite possible that by the time of this debate he
already had a more differentiated view of the Old Testament. Junod’s theory was also ques-
tioned by Robert M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Chris-
tian Literature, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 77–78).
 3. Conclusion 157

prophecy and mysticism and gave in to “la croyance subjective”¹⁰⁶. While the
influence of the prophetess on Apelles is well attested in the sources¹⁰⁷, it is
doubtful that she was responsible for the change in his view on the Old Testa-
ment. There is a more plausible and more intriguing alternative. In this chap-
ter we have seen what a powerful status the Old Testament had among Chris-
tians of all shades in the second century. It thus seems possible that Apelles’
strictly rationalist approach to the texts was simply too radical for the Chris-
tians of his time, especially as it brought him dangerously close to some of the
pagan critics of Christianity¹⁰⁸. And so he learned his lesson: Christianity with-
out the Old Testament does not work.

3. Conclusion

Summing up the observations made in this chapter, the chronological develop-

ment concerning the Christian attitude toward the Old Testament presents
itself as follows.
The second century writers before Marcion (Ignatius and Barnabas) see the
Old Testament in harmony with the Gospel – if understood allegorically. Bar-
nabas, of course, is far more explicit in this matter than Ignatius. Perhaps Bar-
nabas marks the climax of a tendency increasingly common in his time, the
tendency „die Bibel schlechthin den Juden zu entreißen und sie von vornher-
ein zu einem ausschließlich christlichen Buch zu stempeln.“¹⁰⁹ Unfortunately,
Barnabas’ concept contained an obvious flaw. According to his system, only
the coming of Christ revealed the actual meaning of the Covenant/Testament
(see above). It does, however, hardly make any sense to continue proclaiming
ethical commandments over the centuries while their understanding is ‘put on
hold’.¹¹⁰
It is thus perhaps no coincidence that Marcion turned the whole affair
upside down. In a manner of speaking, he gave the Old Testament back to the
Jews, by denying the God attested in it to be the Father of Jesus Christ.¹¹¹ Of

¹⁰⁶ Eugène de Faye, Gnostiques et Gnosticisme: Étude critique des documents du Gnosti-
cisme Chrétien aux IIe et IIIe siècles, Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 21925, p. 188.
¹⁰⁷ Cf. Greschat, Apelles, p. 110–113.
¹⁰⁸ Cf. Harnack, Marcion, p. 195–196: „Durch diese Erkenntnis trat er an die Seite der
gebildeten Griechen, die das Christentum bekämpften, und diese fatale Bundesgenossenschaft
wird der Verbreitung seiner Schule nicht zuträglich gewesen sein.“
¹⁰⁹ Campenhausen, Entstehung, p. 85.
¹¹⁰ Cf. Bultmann’s sneering remark concerning the Letter to the Hebrews: „Wozu diese
ganze Veranstaltung einer Vorabbildung des Heilswerkes Christi, die in der Zeit vor Christus
ja niemand verstehen konnte, eigentlich geschehen sei, würde man den Verfasser […] wohl
vergeblich fragen.“ (Bultmann, Theologie, p. 110).
¹¹¹ At the same time, again completely unlike Barnabas, Marcion harbours no negative
158 VII. Marcion’s Time

course, we should refrain from understanding Marcion’s doctrine to be merely

a solution to an exegetical problem. His conviction goes far deeper than that;
however, the success of his movement may in part be due to this unsolved
issue of his time (see Chapter VI). Still, Marcion’s solution could not be satis-
fying for long; too obvious was the forgery he had to perform on the New
Testament texts in order to make his concept work. Nonetheless, there was no
turning back after Marcion. From now on, Christian theologians had to deal
with the contrasts between the two Testaments.
Ptolemy was the first to react to Marcion’s system by introducing the idea
of different parts within the Old Testament. His letter is not concerned with
the Old Testament as a whole, but solely with the Law. Ptolemy thus identifies
and addresses the actual problem the Old Testament posed to the Christians.
Naturally, by attributing the Law to a God other than the Father of Jesus
Christ, Ptolemy remains fairly close to Marcion, and it was in fact the Gnos-
tic’s polytheistic approach which made his solution unacceptable to orthodox
Christians such as Justin¹¹². The Apologist, on his part, in order to preserve the
idea of one single God being responsible for both the Old Testament (Law)
and the Gospel, introduces his own concept of a temporal development within
the divine revelation, a concept which was to have a remarkable success in the
history of the Church.
Finally, Apelles’ attempt to declare the Old Testament as completely unusa-
ble was destined to be nothing more than an isolated ‘intermezzo’ without last-
ing significance on the development of the Christian use of the Old Testament,
a fact which perhaps even Apelles himself realised later in life.

feelings against the Jews (see Chapter III). What may seem slightly paradoxical at first is in
fact only consistent, for it is people like Barnabas who aim at depriving the Jews of any right
of their own to the Scriptures, cf. Räisänen, Marcion, p. 76.
¹¹² To say nothing about the fact that Ptolemy’s system is far too intricate to ever have
prevailed in the Church.
 Conclusion

At the beginning of this study I declared that I would take up the challenge to
establish a new coherent portrait of Marcion. At its end, it is time for the read-
er to decide whether I succeeded or not. Let me therefore now try to bring
Marcion back to life by bundling the results of the single chapters of my work
into one complete picture (the Roman numerals in brackets refer to the chap-
ters in which the corresponding elements are discussed).
Marcion is born ca. 100–110 AD in Pontus (II). He grows up in a Christian
environment and receives an education at grammar school (II). The time Mar-
cion grows up in is (theologically) marked by a feeling of complete harmony
and unity between the Old and the New Testament (VII). As far as his perso-
nal development is concerned, Marcion’s soul appears to be infested by a fana-
tical hatred of the world (III). Given this psychological precondition of his, he
is most concerned to find an explanation for the ‘terrible’ condition the world
is in, in other words, he longs for an answer to the question: unde malum? (III/
V) It is probably this question which leads him to a literal understanding of
the Old Testament (III/IV), instead of applying an allegorical interpretation
like his contemporaries. For the Old Testament, understood literally, can pro-
vide Marcion with the image of a God who is responsible for the status quo, a
flawed Creator, who even admits himself that he brings evil to the world (III).
Thus, the Old Testament and its God become the starting point and the very
centre of Marcion’s doctrine.
The testimony of the Gospel and of Paul is most important to the here-
siarch, too, probably even just as important as the testimony of the Old Testa-
ment; however, in the genesis of Marcion’s system of thought it remains the
secondary part, a fact which can best be seen by the way he treats these two
groups of texts (IV). As far as the Old Testament is concerned, Marcion com-
pletely adopts the collection of texts which is in use in the orthodox church,
that is, the collection he grew up with himself, without changing anything
within it. As for the New Testament, however, Marcion radically altered it,
not only by limiting it to a small number of texts (the Gospel of Luke and ten
Letters of Paul), but above all by cutting out all passages from those that
remain which show any positive reference to the Old Testament (IV). Thus,
the New Testament has to be adapted to the Old, not the other way around,
160 Conclusion

which means that Marcion does not understand the Old Testament in the light
of the New, he interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old. Marcion is
convinced that Christ’s original Gospel has been falsified by the Church, a the-
ory which, as he believes, finds confirmation in the writings of the Apostle
Paul (IV). In the ‘original’ Gospel (that is, the Gospel of Luke changed accord-
ing to Marcion’s doctrine) the heresiarch finds the counterpart to the evil
Creator, the perfectly good God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who is completely
unrelated to the world and its people, but who still sent his Son to save man-
kind from the reign of the evil God (III). This salvation, however, remains
limited to the afterlife. In this world Marcion and his followers are still ‘com-
panions in misery’, as they designate themselves (III/V).
In 144/145 Marcion settles in Rome (II). He joins the local church and
donates 200,000 sesterces, part of his respectable fortune, which he gained as
a ship-owner (II). By this time, Marcion has already fully developed his doc-
trine, and he now begins to proclaim it in Rome (II). Accordingly, it does not
take long until he and the Roman ecclesia go their separate ways, which causes
Marcion to found his own church (II). This church shows remarkable simila-
rities to its orthodox counterpart as far as liturgy as well as offices are con-
cerned, a situation which shows that Marcion was deeply rooted in the eccle-
sial system of his time and thus simply adopted many of its features without
questioning them (VI). The arch-heretic rules his community with absolute
authority, a fact which, together with his organisational talent and his financial
means, accounts for the enormous success of his movement throughout the
Empire (VI). A particular danger to the Church is the fact that Marcion’s
movement recruits its members almost exclusively from former orthodox
Christians (VI), for the complete ban on procreation among the Marcionites
rules out any chance of natural progeny, and the explicit biblical approach of
Marcionite doctrine (combined with an extremely negative view of the Jewish
texts) makes the movement unattractive to Jews and pagans alike (VI). The
prohibition of sexual intercourse just mentioned is part of the radical ethics
practised in Marcion’s church. These ethics are motivated by a feeling of Trotz
against the Creator: a Marcionite is supposed to deliberately disobey his com-
mands, such as the command to ‘increase and multiply’ (VI).
In the years after the foundation of his church, Marcion conceives those
works which would form the doctrinal basis of his movement: the Antitheses,
in which he tries to demonstrate the opposition of the Old and the New Testa-
ment and thus the existence of two different Gods (V); the letter, which serves
as a concise introduction to Marcionite doctrine (V); and his edition of the
New Testament, an edition which consists of the Gospel of Luke and ten let-
ters of Paul, all texts being completely freed from any positive reference to the
Old Testament (IV).
 Conclusion 161

Marcion’s ideas have an enormous influence on the development of the

Church, especially as far as the Old Testament is concerned (VII). With the
contrast between the Old and the New Testament having been pointed out so
radically, there is no going back to the feeling of perfect unity between them
common among Marcion’s predecessors. Accordingly, within only a few years
after the start of Marcion’s movement, several prominent Christian thinkers,
both within the orthodox and the heretical camp, dedicate their writings to
this question, especially Justin Martyr, who introduces the temporal concept
of an Old and a New Testament in contrast to the heresiarch (VII).
Marcion dies about 165 AD, probably in Rome.
Just as one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, one cannot estab-
lish a new portrait of Marcion without questioning the predominant view of
Harnack. Let us therfore remember and evaluate the main components of this
view.

1. Marcion distinguishes between a just God and a good God.

The distinction between a just God and a good God is attributed to Marcion
by later writers such as Tertullian or Origen (III). However, our analysis has
shown that this distinction represents a later stage in the development of Mar-
cion’s doctrine, as the earliest sources clearly describe his theology as a dualism
between an evil God and a good God (III).

2. Marcion bases his theology on the testimony of Paul.

In a way, the first component leads to the second one, as Harnack identified
Marcion’s (alleged) distinction of a just and good God with Paul’s distinction
of Law and Grace, and thus concluded that Paul’s theology formed the Aus-
gangspunkt for Marcion’s doctrine (III/IV). However, since we have found this
distinction to be absent from the arch-heretic’s system of thought, the conclu-
sion must be considered erroneous, too. Still, the sources leave no doubt that
Marcion attached high importance to the Apostle. But rather than being the
inspiration for Marcion’s doctrine, he was retroactively claimed by the Pontic
in order to legitimise his movement. Certainly, Marcion adopted Paul’s soter-
iology and his critique of the Old Testament to a certain extent (III), but the
Apostle served above all as his guarantor for his theory of the falsification of
the Gospel (IV).

3. Marcion considers the Old Testament to be obsolete.

In contrast to the previous concepts, which can be attributed to a misinterpre-
tation of the evidence found in the sources, this time it was merely Harnack’s
wish which was father to the thought. He believed that he had found a role
162 Conclusion

model for his own theological agenda, which aimed at an exclusion of the Old
Testament from the Christian Bible, and thus projected this agenda onto the
heresiarch (III). Not least because this idea represents above all projection on
Harnack’s part, it may be considered his biggest misconception regarding Mar-
cion’s theology. Our analysis has shown that the Old Testament was anything
but obsolete for him (III/IV). Marcion does not think in such categories as
‘replacement’ or ‘old’ and ‘new’, his system is truly dualistic, which is why it
cannot exist without the negative counterpart to the Gospel of Christ.

4. Marcion is a Protestant Reformer ahead of his time.

The three features above add up to Harnack’s comparison of Marcion and the
modern Protestant Reformers, Luther in particular. Indeed, Luther distin-
guished Law and Gospel (that is, justice and goodness), Luther based his theol-
ogy on the testimony of the Apostle Paul, and Luther, while of course not
entirely neglecting the Old Testament, attached less importance to it compared
to the New Testament. Thus, if the first three features applied to Marcion, a
comparison with Luther would be natural; however, they have all proven to be
erroneous. Apart from the theological dissimilarity between the two men,
however, there is another reason why Marcion does not qualify for a compar-
ison with the German Reformer, a feature we have deliberately avoided in our
previous chapters: the evaluation of Marcion’s historical achievement.
Harnack saw Marcion as a man who correctly identified a wrong develop-
ment within the Church of his time, and as a man who bravely fought against
this situation, but who tragically failed because of the narrow-mindedness of
his contemporaries; in short, he saw him as a genius ahead of his time. Given
all we have discovered about Marcion in the course of this study, we can
clearly identify this as a misleading characterisation. In fact, Marcion was any-
thing but ahead of his time. Being ahead of one’s time means that one has
certain ideas which are not appreciated by one’s contemporaries, but which
will be commonly accepted by future generations. This is certainly not true
for the heresiarch. He contributed to the development of the Church by initi-
ating the crisis of the Old Testament in the middle of the second century; how-
ever, his ‘solution’ to this crisis consisted above all of text forgery. He thus may
have initiated the situation, but his complete inability to offer a real and lasting
solution to it labels his contribution, while crucial, as purely negative and
indirect. Among other things, it is this failure on Marcion’s part which makes
him ineligible for a comparison with such great men as Martin Luther. It is no
accident that Marcion’s movement remained an episode in the history of the
Church, whereas Luther’s became an era.
 Bibliography

1. Texts
Adamantius Dialogue, in: Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, p. 295–345.
Ambrosius, De Paradiso, ed. Schenkl, CSEL 32/1, p. 265–336.
Augustinus, De Baptismo, ed. Petschenig, CSEL 51, p. 145–375.
–, Contra Adimantum, ed. Zycha, CSEL 25/1, p. 113–190.
Barnabas (Letter), ed. Wengst, SUC 2, p. 138–202.
Carmen adversus Marcionitas, ed. Pollmann, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1991.
Clement (First Letter), ed. Fischer, SUC 1, p. 24–107.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, ed. Stählin/Früchtel, GCS 15/17.
Cyprian, Epistulae, ed. Hartel, CSEL 3/2.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad Illuminandos, in: Reischl/Rupp (ed.), Cyrilli Hieroso-
lymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, Hildesheim: Olms, 1967.
Ephraem Syrus, Hymni contra Haereses, ed. and tr. Beck, CSCO 169–170.
–, Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, ed. and tr. Mitchell/Bevan/ Bur-
kitt, London: Williams and Norgate, 1921.
Epiphanius of Salamis, De Mensuris et Ponderibus, ed. Moutsoulas, Θεολογία 41–44.
–, Panarion, ed. Holl/Dummer, GCS 25/31/37.
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Martyribus Palaestinae, ed. Schwartz/Mommsen, GCS 9/2.
–, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Bardy, SC 31/41.
Eznik of Kolb, De Deo/On God, ed. and tr. Blanchard/Young, Leuven: Peeters, 1998.
Filastrius, Diversarum Hereseon Liber, ed. Heylen, CCSL 9, p. 217–324.
Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium, ed. Marcovich, PTS 25.
–, Traditio Apostolica, ed. Botte, SC 11.
Ignatius (Letters), ed. Fischer, SUC 1, p. 142–225.
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, ed. Rousseau/Doutreleau/Hemmerdinger/Mercier, SC 264/
294/211/100/153.
Hieronymus, Commentarii in Prophetas minores, ed. Adriaen, CCSL 76.
–, Epistulae CXXI-CLIV, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 56.
Justin Martyr, Apologiae pro Christianis, ed. Marcovich, PTS 38.
–, Dialogus cum Tryphone, ed. Bobichon, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003.
Martyrium Pionii, ed. Robert, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 1994.
The Canons Ascribed to Maruta of Maipherqat and Related Sources, ed. and tr. Vööbus
Arthur, CSCO 191/192.
Origenes, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos, ed. Hammond-Bammel, AGLB 16/
33.
–, De principiis, ed. Görgemanns/Karpp, Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 31992.
–, Homiliae in Ezecheliem homiliae, ed. Bahrens, GCS 33, p. 318–454.
164 Bibliography

–, Homiliae n Genesim, ed. Bahrens, GCS 29, p. 1–144.

–, Homiliae in Iesu Nave, ed. Baehrens, GCS 30, p. 286–463.
–, Homiliae in Lucam, ed. Rauer, GCS 49, p. 1–122.
Pamphilus of Caesarea, Apologia pro Origine, ed. Amacker/Junod (ed.), SC 464.
Polycarp (Letters), ed. Fischer, SUC 1, p. 248–265.
Ptolemy, Letter to Flora, ed. Quispel, SC 224.
Shepherd of Hermas, ed. Leutzsch, SUC 3, p. 146–359.
Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem, ed. Chapot, SC 439.
–, Adversus Marcionem, ed. Braun/Moreschini, SC 365/368/399/456/483.
–, De baptismo, ed. Refoulé, SC 35.
–, De Carne Christi, ed. Mahé, SC 216.
–, De Ieiunio adversus Psychicos, ed. Reiffenscheid/Wissowa, CCSL 2, p. 1257–1277.
–, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, ed. Refoulé, SC 46.
Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus omnes Haereses, ed. Kroymann, CCSL 2, p. 1401–1410.
Theodoret of Cyrus, Haereticarum fabularum compendium, in: István Pásztori- Kupán,
Theodoret of Cyrus, London: Routledge, 2006, p. 198–220.

2. Secondary Sources
Aland, Barbara, „Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation“, ZThK 70 (1973),
p. 420–447.
–, „Marcion/Marcioniten“, TRE 22 (1992), p. 89–101.
–, „Sünde und Erlösung bei Marcion und die Konsequenz für die sog. beiden Götter
Marcions“, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p.147–157.
Baarda, Tjitze, “Marcion’s Text of Gal 1,1: Concerning the Reconstruction of the First
Verse of the Marcionite Corpus Paulinun”, VigChr 42 (1988), p. 236–256.
Bammel, C. P., Review “Joseph Hoffmann. Marcion: on the Restitution of Christianity”,
JTS 39 (1988), p. 227–232.
Barnes, Timothy D., “Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus”, JTS 30 (1979), p. 47–55.
–, “The Date of Ignatius”, Expository Times 120/3 (2008), p. 119–130.
Barnikol, Ernst, Die Entstehung der Kirche im zweiten Jahrhundert und die Zeit Mar-
cions, Kiel: Walter Mühlau Verlag, 21933.
Barrett, C. K., “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius”, in: Robert Hamerton-
Kelly, Jews, Greeks and Christians. Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in
Honor of William David Davies, Leiden: Brill, 1976, p. 220–244.
Barton, John, “Marcion Revisited”, in: Lee Martin McDonald/James A. Sanders (ed.),
The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002, p. 341–354.
Bauer, Walter, Review „Harnack. Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott“, GGA
185, (1923), p. 1–14.
–, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2
1964.
Beck, Edmund, „Die Hyle bei Markion nach Ephräm“, OrChrPer 64 (1978), p. 5–30.
Bianchi, Ugo, “Marcion: Theologien Biblique ou Docteur Gnostique?”, VigChr 21
(1967), p. 141–149.
Bienert, Wolfgang, „Modalismus“, RGG 5 (2002), p. 1370–1371.
Bill, August, Zur Erklärung und Textkritik des 1. Buches Tertullians “Adversus Marcio-
nem”, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911.
Blackman, E. C., Marcion and his Influence, London: SPCK, 1948.
 Bibliography 165

Bobichon, Philippe, “Préceptes Éternels et Loi Mosaique dans le Dialogue avec Tryphon
de Justin Martyr”, RB 111 (2004), p. 238–254.
Bousset, Wilhelm, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1907.
Brown, Charles Thomas, The Gospel and Ignatius of Antioch, New York: Peter Lang,
2000.
Brox, Norbert, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenäus von Lyon, Salz-
burg: Anton Pustet, 1966.
–, Der Hirt des Hermas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Bruns, Peter, „Epräm der Syrer“, LACL (3rd ed., 2002), p. 221–224.
Buchheit, Vinzenz, “Rufinus von Aquileia als Fälscher des Adamantiosdialogs”, BZ 51
(1958), p. 314–328.
Bultmann, Rudolf, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953.
Campenhausen, Hans Freiherr von, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den
ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Tübingen Mohr Siebeck, 1953.
–, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968.
Carcopino, Jérôme, La vie quotidienne à Rome à l’apogée de l’Empire, Paris: Hachette,
1939.
Casson, Lionel, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 21995.
Dahl, Nils, “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters”, Semeia 12
(1978), p. 233–277.
Deakle, David, “Harnack & Cerdo”, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 177–190.
De Faye, Eugène, Gnostiques et Gnosticisme: Étude critique des documents du Gnosti-
cisme Chrétien aux IIe et IIIe siècles, Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 21925,
Drijvers, Han J. W., “Marcionism in Syria: Principles, Problems, Polemics”, Second Cen-
tury 6/3 (1987/88), p. 153–172.
–, “Christ as Warrior and Merchant”, StPatr 21 (1989), p. 73–85.
Duncan-Jones, Richard, The Economy of the Roman Empire, Cambridge: University
Press, 1974.
Dungan, David L., “Reactionary Trends in the Gospel Producing Activity of the Early
Church: Marcion, Tatian, Mark”, in: M. Sabbe (ed.), L’Évangile selon Marc. Tradi-
tion et rédaction, Leuven: University Press, 1974, p. 179–202.
Eisen, Ute E., Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996.
Enslin, Morton, “The Pontic Mouse”, AThR 27 (1945), p. 1–16.
Evans, Ernest (ed.), Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem: Books I-III, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972.
–, Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem: Books IV-V, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Finn, Thomas M., Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: Italy, North Africa,
and Egypt, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.
Flügel, Gustav, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften, Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862.
Foster, Paul, (ed.), The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, London: T&T Clark, 2007.
–, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch”, in: Foster (ed.), Apostolic Fathers, p. 81–107.
Fowler, James, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for
Meaning, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.
–, “Stages in Faith Consciousness”, in: Gerhard Büttner/Veit-Jakobus Dieterich, Die
religiöse Entwicklung des Menschen, Stuttgart: Calwer, 2000, p. 103–122.
Gager, John G., “Marcion and Philosophy”, VigChr 26 (1972), p. 53–59.
166 Bibliography

Goppelt, Leonhard, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert,

Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1954.
Grant, Robert M., The Letter and the Spirit, London: SPCK, 1957.
–, Review “Justin et l’Ancien Testament”, JBL 84 (1965), p. 440–443.
–, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature,
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Greschat, Katharina, Apelles & Hermogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahr-
hunderts, Leiden: Brill, 2000.
– und Martin Meiser (ed.), Gerhard May. Markion: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Mainz: Phi-
lipp von Zabern, 2005.
Hage, Wolfgang, “Marcion bei Eznik von Kolb”, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion,
p. 29–37.
Hallier, Ludwig, Untersuchungen über die Edessenische Chronik, Leipzig: 1892.
Hannah, Darrell D., “The Four-Gospel ‘Canon’ in the Epistula Apostolorum”, JTS 59/2
(2008), p. 598–633.
Harnack, Adolf von, Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius I, Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1897.
–, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 41924.
–, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 31996 (first edition 1921).
Harrison, P. N., Polycarp’s two Epistles to the Philippians, Cambridge: University Press,
1936.
Hays, Christopher M., “M. vs. Luke. A response to the ‘Plädoyer’ of Matthias Klin-
ghardt”, ZNW 99/2 (2008), p. 213–232.
Hilgenfeld, Adolf, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig: Fues, 1884.
Hill, Charles, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Hirschberger, Johannes, Geschichte der Philosophie I: Altertum und Mittelalter, Herder:
Freiburg, 121980.
Hoffmann, Joseph, Marcion: on the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Develop-
ment of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century, Chico: Scholars Press,
1984.
–, “How then know this troublous teacher? Further Reflections on Marcion and his
Church”, Second Century 6 (1987/88), p. 173–191.
Hübner, Reinhard, “Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius
von Antiochien”, ZAC 1 (1997), p. 44–72.
Hvalvik, Reidar, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of
Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century, Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996.
Jonas, Hans, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist I: Die mythologische Gnosis, Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 21954.
Junod, Eric, “Les attitudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, à l’égard de l’Ancien Testa-
ment”, Augustinianum 1982 (22), p. 113–133.
Kelly, J. N. D., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Kinzig, Wolfram, “Καινὴ διαθήκη: The Title of the New Testament in the Second and
Third Centuries”, JTS 45 (1994), 519–544.
–, Novitas Christiana: Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis Eusebius, Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
Klevinghaus, Johannes, Die theologische Stellung der Apostolischen Väter zur alttesta-
mentlichen Offenbarung, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1948.
 Bibliography 167

Klinghardt, Matthias, “Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten
Falles”, NTS 52 (2006), p. 484–513.
Klostermann, Erich, „Überkommene Definitionen im Werk des Origenes“, ZNW 37
(1938), p. 54–61.
Knox, John, Marcion and the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1942.
Koschorke, Klaus, „Eine neugefundene gnostische Gemeindeordnung“, ZThK 76 (1979),
p. 30–60.
Kühneweg, Uwe, Das Neue Gesetz. Christus als Gesetzgeber und Gesetz: Studien zu den
Anfängen christlicher Naturrechtslehre im 2. Jahrhundert, Marburg: Elwert, 1993.
Lampe, G. W. H. (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 192005.
Lampe, Peter, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 21989.
La Piana, George, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century”, HTR 18
(1925), p. 201–277.
Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York: Doubleday, 1987.
Le Boulluec, Alain, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe-IIIe siècles. Tome II:
Clément d’Alexandrie et Origène, Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1985.
–, Clément d’Alexandrie: Les Stromates VII, SC 428, Paris: Cerf, 1997.
Lindemann, Andreas, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979.
–, „Antwort auf die ‚Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius
von Antiochien‘“, ZAC 1 (1997), p. 185–194.
Lindsay, Thomas, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1910.
Lipsius, Richard Adelbert, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanius, Wien: Braumüller, 1865.
Löhr, Winrich A., „Die Auslegung des Gesetzes bei Markion, den Gnostikern und den
Manichäern“, in: Georg Schöllgen/Clemens Scholten (ed.) Stimuli: Exegese und ihre
Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, Münster:
Aschendorff, 1996, p. 77–95.
–, Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des
zweiten Jahrhunderts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
–, “Did Marcion Distinguish Between a Just God and a Good God?”, in: May/Greschat
(ed.), Marcion, p. 131–146.
Logan, Alastair H. B., “Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’:
Text, Translation and Commentary”, JTS 51 (2000), p. 81–112.
Loofs, Friedrich, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theo-
logischen Quellen bei Irenaeus, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930.
Lüdemann, Gerd, “Zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums in Rom”, ZNW 70 (1979),
p. 86–114.
Lukas, Volker, Rhetorik und literarischer Kampf: Tertullians Streitschrift gegen Marcion
als Paradigma der Selbstvergewisserung der Orthodoxie gegenüber der Häresie. Eine
philologisch-theologische Analyse, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008.
Madigan, Kevin/Osiek, Carolyn (ed.), Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Docu-
mentary History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
Mahé, Jean-Pierre, “Tertullien et l’epistula Marcionis”, RSR 45 (1971), p. 358–371.
Markschies, Christoph, “New Research on Ptolemaeus Gnosticus”, ZAC 4 (2000),
p. 225–254.
–, „Die valentinianische Gnosis und Marcion – einige neue Perspektiven“, in: May/
Greschat, Marcion, p. 159–175.
–, “Apelles”, LACL (3rd ed., 2002), p. 44.
168 Bibliography

–, Gnosis: An Introduction, tr. John Bowden, London: T&T Clark, 2003.

Marshall, Howard, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1978.
May, Gerhard, „Platon und die Auseinandersetzungen mit den Häresien bei Klemens
von Alexandrien“, in: Horst-Dieter Blume/Friedhelm Mann (ed.), Platonismus und
Christentum. Festschrift für Heinrich Dörrie, Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlags-
buchhandlung, 1983, p. 123–132.
–, „Markion und der Gnostiker Kerdon“, in: Alfred Raddatz/Kurt Lüthi (ed.), Evange-
lischer Glaube und Geschichte. Grete Mecenseffy zum 85. Geburtstag, Wien: Evange-
lischer Oberkirchenrat H. B., 1984, p. 233–248 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 63–73).
–, „Ein neues Markionbild?“, ThR 51 (1986), p. 404–413.
–, “Marcion in Contemporary Views: Results and Open Questions”, Second Century 6
(1987/88), p. 129–151 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 13–33).
–, „Der Streit zwischen Petrus und Paulus in Antiochien bei Markion“, in: Walter
Homolka/Otto Ziegelmeier (ed.), Von Wittenberg nach Memphis. Festschrift für
Reinhard Schwarz, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989, p. 204–211
(= Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 35–41).
–, „Der ‚Schiffsreeder‘ Markion“, StPatr 21 (1989), p. 142–153 (= Gesammelte Auf-
sätze, p. 51–62).
–, „Markions Genesisauslegung und die ‚Antithesen‘“, in: Dietmar Wyrwa/Barbara
Aland/Christoph Schäublin (ed.), Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche:
FS Ulrich Wickert, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997, p. 189–198 (= Gesammelte Aufsätze,
p. 43–50).
– und Katharina Greschat (ed.), Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung,
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
–, „Markion in seiner Zeit“, in: Greschat/Meiser (ed.), Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 1–12.
–, „In welchem Sinn kann Markion als der Begründer des neutestamentlichen Kanons
angesehen werden?“, in: Greschat/Meiser (ed.), Gesammelte Aufsätze, p. 85–91.
McGowan, Andrew, Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Meijering, E. P., Tertullian contra Marcion. Gotteslehre in der Polemik, Leiden: Brill,
1977.
Méhat, André, Étude sur les ‘Stromateis’ de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris: Seuil, 1966
Meinhold, Peter, “Polykarpos”, in: PRE 42 (1952), p. 1662–1693.
Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Sig-
nificance, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Minns, Denis/Parvis, Paul (ed.), Justin. Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford: Uni-
versity Press, 2009.
Moll, Sebastian, “Justin and the Pontic Wolf”, in: Parvis/Foster (ed.), Justin Martyr,
p. 145–151.
–, “Three against Tertullian: The Second Tradition about Marcion’s Life”, JTS 59/1
(2008), p. 169–180.
Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, “Marcion’s Jealous God”, in: Donald F. Winslow (ed.), Discipli-
na Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, Cambridge (MA): Philadelphia
Patristic Foundation, 1979, p. 93–113.
Munier, Charles, Justin. Apologie pour les Chrétiens, SC 507, Paris: Cerf, 2006.
Nagel, Peter, „Die Auslegung der Paradieserzählung in der Gnosis“, in: Karl-Wolfgang
Tröger (ed.), Altes Testament – Frühjudentum – Gnosis: Neue Studien zu „Gnosis
und Bibel“, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus Mohn, 1980, p. 49–70.
 Bibliography 169

Norelli, Enrico, “Note sulla soteriologia di Marcione”, Augustinianum 35 (1995),

p. 281–305.
–, “Marcion, Tertullien et le lépreux”, in: Denis Knoepfler (ed.), Nomen Latinum: Mél-
anges de langue, de littérature et de civilisations latines offerts au professeur André
Schneider, Neuchâtel: Faculté de Lettres, 1997, p. 171–180.
–, „Marcion: ein christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die Philosophie?“, in:
May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 113–130.
Orbe, Antonio, “Eccclesia, sal terrae según san Ireneo”, RSR 60 (1972), p. 219–240.
Paget, James Carleton, “The Epistle of Barnabas”, in: Foster (ed.), Apostolic Fathers,
p. 72–80.
Parvis, Paul, “Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The Posthumous Creation of the Second
Apology”, in: Parvis/Foster (ed.), Justin Martyr, p. 22–37.
Parvis, Sara/Foster, Paul (ed.), Justin Martyr and his Worlds, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2007.
Prigent, Pierre, Justin et l’Ancien Testament, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964.
Quispel, Gilles, Ptolémée. Lettre à Flora: Texte, Traduction et Introduction, SC 24, Paris:
Cerf, 21966.
Räisänen, Heikki, Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives on
the Encounter of Cultures and Faiths, London: SCM Press, 1997.
Raveaux, Thomas, Augustinus. Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum: Analyse des
Inhalts und Untersuchung des geistesgeschichtlichen Hintergrunds, Würzburg: Augus-
tinus-Verlag, 1987.
Regul, Jürgen, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, Freiburg: Herder, 1969.
Rhodes, James N., “Barnabas 4.6B: The Exegetical Implications of a Textual Problem”,
VigChr 58 (2004), p. 365–392.
–, The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition: Polemics, Paraenesis, and
the Legacy of the Golden-Calf Incident, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Rius-Camps, Josep, “Orígenes y Marción: Carácter Preferentemente Antimarcionita del
Prefacio y del Segundo Ciclo del Peri Archôn”, in: Henri Crouzel/Gennaro Lomien-
to/Josep Rius-Camp (ed.), Origeniana: Premier colloque international des études ori-
géniennes, Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana antica, 1975, p. 295–312.
Rostovtzeff, Mikhail, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire I, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 21957.
Roth, Dieter T., “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current
Debate”, JBL 127/3 (2008), p. 513–527.
Rottenwöhrer, Gerhard, Unde malum?: Herkunft und Gestalt des Bösen nach heterodox-
er Lehre von Markion bis zu den Katharern, Bad Honnef: Bock und Herchen, 1986.
Röwekamp, Georg (ed.), Pamphilus von Caesarea: Apologia pro Origine/Apologie für
Origenes, FC 80, Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.
Rütten, Almut, „Der Brief des Ptolemäus an Flora. Ein Beispiel altkirchlicher Gesetzes-
auslegung in Auseinandersetzung mit Marcion“, in: Hermann Deuser/Gerhard
Schmalenberg (ed.), Christlicher Glaube und religiöse Bildung, Gießen: Selbstverlag
des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren
Didaktik, 1995, p. 53–74.
Schäfers, Joseph, Eine altsyrische antimarkionitische Erklärung von Parabeln des Herrn
und zwei weitere andere altsyrische Abhandlungen zu Texten des Evangeliums, Mün-
ster: Aschendorffsche Buchhandlung, 1917.
Schleyer, Dietrich, Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum/Vom prinzipiellen Ein-
spruch gegen die Häretiker, FC 42, Turnhout: Brepols, 2002.
Schmid, Ulrich, Marcion und sein Apostolos, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.
170 Bibliography

–, „Marcions Evangelium und die neutestamentlichen Evangelien“, in: May/Greschat

(ed.), Marcion, p. 62–77.
Schoedel, William R., “Ignatius and the Archives”, HTR 71 (1978), p. 97–106.
–, Ignatius of Antioch. A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Schüle, Ernst Ulrich, „Der Ursprung des Bösen bei Marcion“, ZRGG 16 (1964), p. 23–
42.
Schwegler, Albert, Review „W. M. L. De Wette: Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Ein-
leitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments, 4th ed.“, Theologische
Jahrbücher 2 (1843), p 577–582.
Soden, Hans von, “A. v. Harnacks Marcion”, ZKG 40 (1922), p. 191–206.
Steck, Friedemann (ed.), Adolf von Harnack: Marcion. Der moderne Gläubige des
2. Jahrhunderts. Der erste Reformator. Die Dorpater Preisschrift (1870), Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2003.
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair, “Bread and Fish, Water and Wine: The Marcionite Menu and
the Maintenance of Purity”, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 207–220.
Stirnimann, Joseph, Die praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des römischen Rechts und der
Theologie, Freiburg in der Schweiz: Paulusverlag, 1949.
Stöckle, Albert, “Navicularii”, PRE 16 (1935), p. 1899–1932.
Stylianopoulos, Theodore, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, Missoula: Scholars Press,
1975.
Tardieu, Michel, “Marcion depuis Harnack”, in: Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: L’évan-
gile du Dieu étranger, tr. Bernard Lauret, Paris: Cerf, 2005, p. 419–561.
Thomassen, Einar, The Spiritual Seed: The ‘Church’ of the Valentinians, Brill: Leiden,
2006.
Trevett, Christine, Montanism, Cambridge: University Press, 1996.
Trobisch, David, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996.
Trompf, Garry W. (ed.), Adamantius. Dialogue on the True Faith in God, Leuven:
Peeters, 1997.
Tsutsui, Kenji, „Das Evangelium Marcions: Ein neuer Versuch der Textrekonstruktion“,
AJBI 18 (1992), p. 67–132.
–, Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten im Adamantios-Dialog, PTS 55, Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2004.
Tyson, Joseph, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 2006.
Van den Hoek, Annewies, Clément d’Alexandrie: Les Stromates IV, SC 463, Paris: Cerf,
2001.
Verweijs, P. G., Evangelium und neues Gesetz in der ältesten Christenheit bis auf Mar-
cion, Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1960.
Volckmar, Gustav, Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung,
1852.
Waddington, W. H., Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, Paris: Libraire de Fir-
min Didot Frère, 1870.
Waitz, Hans, Das pseudotertullianische Gedicht Adversus Marcionem: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur sowie zur Quellenkritik des Marcionitismus,
Darmstadt: Johannes Waitz, 1901.
Waszink, J. H., “Tertullian’s Principles and Methods of Exegesis”, in: William Schoedel/
Robert Wilken (ed.), Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradi-
tion, Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1979, p. 17–31.
 Bibliography 171

Wengst, Klaus, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971.
Willing, Meike, „Die neue Frage des Marcionschülers Apelles – zur Rezeption marcio-
nitischen Gedankenguts“, in: May/Greschat (ed.), Marcion, p. 221–231.
Wilson, Robert Smith, Marcion: A Study of a Second-Century Heretic, London: James
Clarke, 1932.
Zahn, Theodor, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, Erlangen: Andreas Dei-
chert, 1888.
Zscharnack, Leopold, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen
Kirche, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
 Index of Sources

I. Old Testament
Genesis Psalms
3:9 63 45:4 63
51:17 142
Numbers
21:8–9 63 Isaiah
8:4 80, 112
Deuteronomy 29:13 145, 152
5:15 147 45:7 59

II. New Testament

Matthew Romans
5:22 110 3:30 61
5:39 110 4:15 61
5:43–44 109 5:20 61
15:4–9 145
19:6 144 1 Corinthians
19:8 15, 144 5:7 145
15:3 70
Luke (see also Chapter IV.2,3)
4:30 65 2 Corinthians
5:12–14 67, 115 12:4 98
6:1–11 67 Galatians
6:17–26 129 2:4 84
8:43–48 68, 131 2:9 83
9:20 84 2:11–14 83
9:28–36 68 3:13 70
9:33 84
Ephesians
4:26 109

III. Early Christian Literature

Adamantius Dialogue 1,12 109
1,13 109
1,2 54, 57 1,15 109
1,4 57 1,16 109
1,8 90,124,126 1,19 109
1,9 54 1,21 109
1,10 60,108 1,23 57
174 Index of Sources

1,24 109 Cyril of Jerusalem

1,25 109
1,26 109 Catecheses ad Illuminandos
1,27 70, 71, 109 XVIII.26 121
2,1 54
2,4 109,133 Ephraem Syrus
2,9 64, 71 Hymni contra Haereses
III.7 53
Augustine XIV.7 55
De Baptismo XLVII.3+8 123
3,15 122 XXX.10–12 62
Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion,
Barnabas (Letter) and Bardaisan
2,5 141 II, xxiv 53
2,10 142
4,2–3 139 Epiphanius
4,6–8 139 De Mensuris et Ponderibus
5,7 141 14 78
8,7 141
10,12 141 Panarion
33.3,2 17, 144
Carmen adversus Marcionitas 33.3,4 49, 145
33.3,5 49, 145
1,73–74 52 33.4,2 144
1,123 23 33.4,4 144
1,124 23 33.4,5 15
1,177–179 23 33.4,6–9 144
2,65 21 33.4,10 14
3,296–297 32 33.4,11–13 145
4,21–22 52 33.4,13 152
5,116–117 66 33.5,1–2 145
33.5,3–15 145
1 Clement 33.5,15 145
41,4 142 33.6,2 146
33.7,2–4 145
33.7,3 49
Clement of Alexandria
33.7,3–5 49
Stromata 33.7,5 151
II.39,1 51 42.1,1 42
III.3,12 130, 132 42.1,7 32
III.12,1 51 42.1,8 42, 117
III.21,2 111 42.3,1–2 54
IV.4,17 132 42.3,2 60
VII.17,106–107 38 42.3,3 122
42.3,4 130
Cyprian 42.4,3–4 61
42.4,5 124
Epistulae 42.6,4 62
73,7 122 42.8,1 70
75 123
 Index of Sources 175

42.8,2 71 Irenaeus
42.11,6 94, 97
44.2,6 156 Adversus Haereses
I.5,1–2 19
I.6,1 19
Eusebius
I.13,3 39
De Martyribus Palaestinae I.27,1 32, 54
10,3 124 I.27,1–2 43
I.27,2 42, 43, 50, 65, 66
Historia Ecclesiastica
I.27,3 61, 71
V.13,2–7 50
I.27,4 43
V.13,3 29
III.3,4 13
V.13,5 152
III.4,3 32, 45
V.13,6 156
III.12,12 50
V.16,21 132
III.12,15 84
V.20,4–8 20
III.13,1 86
III.21,1 78
Filastrius III.25,3 50, 62
Diversarum Hereseon Liber IV.27–32 17–21
45,1–3 42 IV.27,1 19
IV.27,4 18
Hippolytus IV.28,1 20, 110
IV.28,3 50
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium IV.30.1 50
Prooemium 36 IV.32,1 20
VII.29–31 52
VII.30 131
VII.30,1 110
Jerome
VII.30,2–3 52 Commentarii in Osee
VII.30,3 52, 66 II.10,1 29
VII.31,1 52
VII.37,1 110 Epistulae
133,4 31
VII.37,2 42
VII.38,2 155
X.19,1 42, 52 Justin
X.19,2 52 1 Apology
X.19,3 117 26,5 39, 49, 104, 127, 133
X.19,4 130 46 149
X.20,2 155 58,1 49
Traditio Apostolica 58,2 127, 128
21 126 2 Apology
1–2 14
Ignatius 2,1–2 15
Letter to the Philadelphians 2,5 15
8,2 136 Dialogue with Trypho
9,2 137 11,1–2 147
Letter to the Smyrneans 12–23 151
5,1 137 23,1–2 149
7,2 137 23,3 150
176 Index of Sources

27,4 152 I.2 116

30,1 149 I.2,2 59
43,1 150 I.2,3 42
45,3 149, 151 I.14,3 23, 122
45,4 149 I.14,3–5 23
65,2 151 I.14,4 131
93,1–3 149 I.15,5 51
94,1–2 148 I.15,5–6 55
I.15,6 55, 63
Martyrium Pionii I.16,4–17,1 112
I.17,1 67, 70
21 124 I.17,4 65
I.19,1 65
Origenes I.19,2 32, 34
Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos I.19,3 33
3,6 61, 62 I.19,4 20, 77, 108, 114
4,4 61 I.20,1 83
5,6 61 I.20,2 83, 84
I.22,4 65
De Prinicipiis I.23,3 71
II.5 51 I.23,4–6 109
II.5,2 18 I.24,3 71
II.5,4 117 I.24,4 132
Homiliae in Iesu Nave I.24,6–7 67
XII.3 18 I.27,5 132
I.27,6 133
Homiliae in Lucam I.28,1 133
25,5 127 I.29 131
I.29,2 132
Pamphilus of Caesarea I.29,7 132
II.5,2 63
Apologia pro Origine II.8 62
33 156 II.9,1 59
II.11,1 56
Pseudo-Tertullian II.12,1 51
Adversus Omnes Haereses II.14 81
VI.2 42 II.14,4 19
VI.6 155 II.16,5 90
II.18,1 62
Shepherd of Hermas II.18,23 62
II.20 19
Sim VIII 3,2 143 II.22,1 63, 81
II.23 63
Tertullian II.24,2 63
II.25,1 63, 81
Adversus Hermogenem
II.25,1–2 81
8,3 29
II.28 63, 108
10,1 56
II.28,1 108
Adversus Marcionem II.29,1 109
I.1,6 33, 41,115, 116 III.2,3 64
 Index of Sources 177

III.5 80 IV.25,10 65
III.6,2 27, 81 IV.33,4 60
III.7,1 81 IV.36,11 66, 67
III.8,1 65 IV.40,5–6 123
III.11,7 65, 132 IV.43,6–8 99
III.13–14 63 V.1,2 84
III.13,1 80 V.3,2 84
III.13,3 80, 112 V.3,2–3 84
III.16,3 63 V.14,10–14 62
III.24,1 71 V.116–117 66
IV.1,1 108, 112
IV.1,1–2 108 De Baptismo
IV.2,3 30 7 126
IV.4,3 40, 41, 116 De Carne Christi
IV.4,4 102, 113 II.4 41, 115
IV.5,3 121 IV.1 65, 132
IV.6,1 77, 114
IV.6,2 83, 84, 102 De Ieiunio adversus Psychicos
IV.6,3 63 15 131
IV.8,3 65 De Praescriptione Haereticorum
IV.9,3 68, 115 7,5 117
IV.9,5 68 23,1–5 84
IV.11,9 90 30,1 29
IV.12,4 67 30,2 30, 32, 45
IV.14,1 129 30,3 45, 128
IV.16,2 109 41,5 124
IV.20,9 68, 131 42,1 128
IV.21,7 84
IV.22,1 68 Theodoret of Cyrus
IV.22,1–2 68, 69
IV.22,4–6 84 Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium
IV.22,6 84 I.24 110
IV.23,4 109 XXIV.41 60
 Index of Modern Authors
Aland, B. 6, 59, 65, 68, 73, 78, 83, 85, Flügel, G. 37
130, 133 Fowler, J. 28

Baarda, T. 64 Gager, J. G. 29
Bammel, C. P. 8 Goppelt, L. 40
Barnes, T. D. 53, 136 Grant, R. M. 81, 148, 156
Barnikol, E. 34 Greschat, K. 9, 10, 29, 41, 53, 56, 59, 71,
Barrett, C. K. 137 74, 89, 153, 155–157
Barton, J. 103
Bauer, W. 4, 9, 44, 47, 58, 60, 86, 117, Hage, W. 53
127, 132, 133 Hallier, L. 36
Beck, E. 53, 56 Hannah, D. D. 90
Bianchi, U. 72, 78 Harnack, A. 1–6, 9, 10, 17, 25–27, 32,
Bienert, W. 64 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 56, 58–
Bill, A. 35 60, 64, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77–79,
Blackman, E. C. 5, 6, 64, 65, 78, 85, 95, 81, 82, 84–90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 104–108,
119, 121, 122, 124, 127, 129 112–116, 119, 124, 128–132, 134, 157,
Bobichon, P. 149, 150 161, 162
Bousset, W. 47, 51, 75 Harrison, P. N. 12–14, 36
Brown, C. T. 137 Hays, C. M. 90, 91, 101, 102
Brox, N. 20, 69, 143 Hilgenfeld, A. 115, 116
Bruns, P. 119 Hill, C. 19, 20
Buchheit, V. 53 Hirschberger, J. 55
Bultmann, R. 59, 143, 157 Hoffmann, J. 6–8, 31, 33, 85
Hübner, R. 136
Campenhausen, H. 90, 103, 106, 125, Hvalvik, R. 140, 142
128, 135, 143, 146, 148, 151, 157
Carcopino, J. 28 Jonas, H. 72
Casson, L. 29 Junod, E. 154, 156

Dahl, N. 12, 87 Kelly, J. N. D. 32, 137

De Faye, E. 157 Kinzig, W. 105, 106
Deakle, D. 41 Klevinghaus, J. 138, 142, 143
Drijvers, H. J. W. 53, 55, 68, 70 Klinghardt, M. 90–92, 99, 101, 102,
Duncan-Jones, R. 30 Klostermann, E. 51
Dungan, D. L. 79 Knox, J. 4, 13, 39, 85, 90–92, 94, 95, 97,
99, 100, 101, 156
Eisen, U. E. 125 Koschorke, K. 44
Enslin, M. 2, 85 Kühneweg, U. 17

Finn, T. M. 122 La Piana, G. 40

 Index of Modern Authors 179

Lampe, P. 14, 15, 28–31, 40, 43, 44, 59, Rhodes, J. N. 139, 140
130 Rius-Camps, J. 51
Layton, B. 17 Rostovtzeff, M. 30
Le Boulluec, A. 13, 37, 148, 156 Roth, D. T. 90, 92
Lindemann, A. 86, 90, 136 Rottenwöhrer, G. 57, 111
Lindsay, T. 126 Rütten, A. 15–17
Lipsius, R. A. 35
Logan, A. H. B. 50 Schäfers, J. 119, 120
Löhr, W. A. 9, 17, 38, 47, 58, 59, 75 Schleyer, D. 128
Loofs, F. 17, 20 Schmid, U. 4, 53, 54, 64, 70, 87–89, 91
Lüdemann, G. 14, 17, 44, 48 Schoedel, W. R. 137, 138
Lukas, V. 121, 130, 154 Schüle, E. U. 55
Schwegler, A. 98–100
Mahé, J.-P. 115–117 Soden, H. 4, 6, 9, 70
Markschies, C. 9, 16, 72, 74, 75, 136, 152 Stewart-Sykes, A. 9, 122
Marshall, H. 94, 98 Stirnimann, J. 33
May, G. 8, 10, 18, 30, 32, 42, 43, 59, 83, Stöckle, A. 30
84, 103, 104, 111, 113, 114, 153 Stylianopoulos, T. 148, 150, 152
McGowan, A. 122, 131
Méhat, A. 37, 111 Tardieu, M. 4
Meijering, E. P. 41 Thomassen, E. 14, 147
Meinhold, P. 13, 14 Trevett, C. 37
Metzger, B. M. 103, 118 Trobisch, D. 104
Minns, D. 11 Tsutsui, K. 53, 54, 64, 92, 108–111
Moll, S. 13, 15, 16, 35, 36, 39, 48, 148 Tyson, J. 4, 78, 85, 90, 91, 92, 95, 100,
Mühlenberg, E. 68 101
Munier, C. 11
Van den Hoek, A. 132
Nagel, P. 153 Verweijs, P. G. 58, 61, 67, 77, 79, 81, 82,
Norelli, E. 8, 9, 29, 60, 85, 114 85, 130, 132, 137, 143
Volckmar, G. 95, 99
Orbe, A. 18
Waddington, W. H. 124
Paget, J. C. 138 Waitz, H. 22, 24
Parvis, P. 11, 15 Waszink, J. H. 80
Prigent, P. 148 Wengst, K. 138, 140–142
Willing, M. 154
Quispel, G. 48, 150 Wilson, R. S. 5, 37, 39, 79, 80, 128

Räisänen, H. 61, 158 Zahn, T. 88

Raveaux, T. 23 Zscharnack, L. 123
Regul, J. 12, 13, 35, 103, 115
 Index of Subjects
Adamantius Dialogue 53, 54, 57, 108, Elder of Adv. Haer. IV.27–32 17–21
110, 124, 126, 128, 133 Eleutherus 32
Allegory/allegorical 18, 78–81, 148, 159 Epicurus/Epicurean 29
Anicetus 32, 45 Epiphanius 26, 32, 35, 42, 43, 45, 54, 57,
Antitheses 104,105, 107–120, 146 61, 69, 70, 78, 92, 94, 97, 117, 122,
Antoninus Pius 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 45 131, 156
Apelles 5, 50, 56, 71, 80, 152–157 Ethics (Marcionite) 129–134
Apostles/Apostolic 20, 38, 84, 86, 101, Eusebius of Caesarea 29, 124, 136
103, 136, 138 Evil God 47–64, 76, 82, 85, 89, 105, 106,
Apostolikon 70, 71, 84–87, 91, 92, 99, 110
101, 102, 109, 113
Aquila 78, 79 Florinus 20
Four-Gospel Canon 89, 90
Barnabas (Letter) 27, 138–143, 146, 147,
152, 157, 158 Gnosis/Gnostic 6, 9, 12, 14–17, 19, 20,
Basilides 18, 38, 45, 75 47, 66, 72–75, 78, 85, 106, 116, 127,
Biblicism/Biblicist 3, 58, 59, 65, 73, 75, 151–153
78 125, 129, 130, 153 God of the Jews 60, 61, 95, 148
Good God 47–71, 85, 89, 105, 106, 133–
Canon 82, 89, 90, 103–106, 118 134
Carmen adversus Marcionitas 21–24, Gospel of Luke 28, 34, 64–69, 89–102
31, 52, 66, 69, 111
Celsus 79 Heresy 2, 33, 44, 46, 74
Cerdo 14, 32, 41–45, 54, 74, 110 Hippolytus 11, 29, 35, 36, 42, 52, 54, 66,
Christology/Christological 64–66, 141 110
Church (Marcionite) 121–134 Hyginus 32
Clement of Alexandria 11, 29, 37–40, 45,
51, 69, 111, 132 Ignatius 7, 135–138, 142, 143
Conspiracy Theory 83, 86, 87, 104, 125, Irenaeus 8, 11, 13, 17–21, 24, 32, 36, 42,
128 43, 45, 50, 54, 61, 66, 75, 78, 84, 110,
Creator 3, 23, 48–50, 55–63, 73, 80–85, 136
130–134 Israel 17, 66, 69, 88, 97, 140
Cyril of Jerusalem 121
Jews/Jewish 27, 60, 61, 63, 71, 78–83,
David 19, 60, 98, 99, 141, 150 95, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135, 137, 138,
Demiurge 19, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 140, 141, 143–146, 148–152, 157, 158,
60, 66, 71, 73, 130, 132, 145 160
Descent to Hades 61, 133 Judaism 27, 40, 60, 71, 79, 113
Docetic/Docetism 12, 65, 99 Judge 50, 58, 62, 81
Dualism 13, 23, 47, 50, 58, 70, 73, 75, 78, Just God 9, 49, 50, 53
85, 105, 161 Justin 11, 13–16, 24, 34, 36, 39, 40, 49,
 Index of Subjects 181

50, 104, 106, 127, 128, 133, 136, 143, Pro-Evangelium 119, 120
147–152, 154 Prophets 13, 27, 66, 69, 120, 137, 138,
141, 155, 156
Law 4, 15–17, 48, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62, 66– Proto-Luke 90, 91
71, 77, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 108–111, Psalms (Marcionite) 118, 119
131, 137, 141–152, 155, 156, 158 Ptolemy (Gnostic) 14–17, 21, 24, 29, 44,
Lawgiver 49, 54, 55, 61, 62, 144 48, 49, 54, 55, 61, 74, 116, 136, 144–
Letter (Marcion) 115–118 152, 154, 156, 158
Letter to Flora 14–17, 44, 48, 49, 136,
144–147 Reformer/Reformation 2, 34, 85, 133,
Literal/Literalism 5, 63, 78–82, 107, 108, 162
114, 135, 142, 148, 154 Rhodo 11, 29, 31, 50, 54, 152
Luther 2, 4, 27, 34, 70, 77, 78, 133, 134, Rome 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 26, 28, 30–44, 48,
162 114, 118, 126, 147, 160, 161
Rule of Faith 83, 88, 92, 125, 146
Marcus Aurelius 45
Messiah 27, 63, 64, 80, 84, 89, 99 Sacraments (Marcionite) 121–123
Modalist/Modalism 64, 65 Sexual/Sexuality 131, 132, 160
Shepherd of Hermas 143
New Testament 3, 4, 11, 13, 64–66, 75, Ship-Owner 13, 26, 29, 31
82–106, 120, 128, 135, 141, 143, 146, Sin 6, 59, 61, 62, 70, 81, 133, 141
148, 159–162 Sinope 26, 36, 78
Sola Fide 133, 134
Offices (Marcionite) 123–125 Soteriology/Soteriological 70, 85, 86,
Old Testament 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17–19, 27, 133, 134
58–69, 76–106, 108–114, 117, 118, Stoic 29, 51
126, 127, 135–162 Syllogisms (Apelles) 152–157
Origen 13, 18, 29, 51, 55, 57, 61, 62, 81,
148, 154, 156 Telesphorus 32
Orthodox/Orthodoxy 2, 17, 27, 28, 30, Tertullian 11, 18–20, 22, 27–36, 40–42,
39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 74, 81, 82, 103, 104, 45, 48, 51, 55–57, 60, 62, 63, 65–69,
114–116, 121–129, 134, 144, 147 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 90, 92, 99, 100,
102, 108–118, 120–123, 126, 128–130,
Paul/Pauline 4, 6, 12–13, 61, 64, 70, 71, 132, 133, 155, 161
77, 82–91, 101, 104, 109, 125, 127, Theodoret of Cyrus 60, 110
145, 146, 151, 159–162 Tiberius 33–35, 37, 63, 93
Peter 83, 84 Trotz 67, 76, 130, 131, 132, 134, 160
Philosophy/ Philosophical 3, 9, 29, 154
Plato/Platonic 29, 55, 73 Valentinus/Valentinian 14, 18, 32, 38,
Polycarp 12–14, 19, 20, 24, 36, 136 45, 53, 118, 119, 147
Pontus 26, 35, 49, 78, 90, 159
Praescriptio 33, 40, 41 Women (in church offices) 123–125