The Date of Marcion

[Ken Olson]

This question came up in another thread:

In my view, Mills should corroborate more the his point that Basilides preceded temporally Marcion, rather than insist again and again the too much obvious fact that Basilides used canonical Luke.

I will take the rare step of agreeing with you there. I think that Basilides knew and used canonical Luke and that he died during the reign of Hadrian.

Now, how do we established the date of Marcion?

(The matter is further complicated if we accept Klinghardt's theory that the Evangelion was a work already in circulation that Marcion adopted, rather than being Marcion's own work).

Best,

Ken

When do we date Marcion? Which of the reports of the events of his life, which come to us through hostile patristic authors, are reasonably accurate and when did they take place?

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

I don't know the precise dating but I think it was before the adoptionism/separationism.

The separationist Cerinthus betrayes already an apologetical intent against Marcion, when he says that the carnal Jesus was a pious observant of the Law and the divine Christ was sent from a higher god than YHWH.

[Peter Kirby]

When do we date Marcion? Which of the reports of the events of his life, which come to us through hostile patristic authors, are reasonably accurate and when did they take place?

I once wrote this.

I realize this isn't a direct response to the question of whether Marcion was behind everything, but in my opinion, Marcion most likely dates earlier than Irenaeous, Tertullian, and Epiphanius would lead us to believe. The church fathers had reason to push him as far forward in time as possible; a heretic from the post-apostlic age. Tertullian's 144 CE assertion is often cited.

Yet, if Justin Martyr is correctly dated to 150-160 CE, the 144 CE date cannot be correct. Justin wrote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

"Even at this day" suggests that Marcion and his teachings had been around for quite some time. "Caused many of every nation" similarly suggests too great an influence than would be possible within a decade of Justin. What we can say with certainty is that Marcionism had ripened to the point of developing a large following by Justin's time. Not only because he claimed this, but also because he felt the need to respond to it. And Justin apparently wrote an entire work entitled Against Marcion.

This is a good point. The first apology is usually dated around 155 CE, and approximately ten years wouldn't be enough time to speak of Marcion this way.

We can get a couple points of reference on the time period that Justin considers to be recent. Justin refers to Antinous (died 130 CE) as someone "who was alive but lately." And he mentions the "Jewish war which happened just recently" (132-135 CE). Based on these two references, apparently the past twenty-five years at least were considered to be recent enough by Justin.

Also, Clement of Alexandria in Stromata Book 7: "Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]." Both Justin and Clement suggest old age and a long career as a teacher for Marcion.

This puts the start of Marcion's activity early in the reign of Hadrian (if not earlier, possibly in the reign of Trajan).

It can be mentioned that an interpolation into Justin of the words on Marcion has often been proposed on this forum, but I have never seen it proposed in any context other than as a necessary consequence of defending some other position on Marcion that is contradicted by it. The argument seems to be that interpolations are possible, so an interpolation here is possible. It's difficult to have much of a meaningful discussion in that context, either of interpolations (they're all possible) or the texts themselves (all disagreement can be referred to interpolations). It can be said in agreement, however, that it is possible.

[Peter Kirby]

The Epistle of the Apostles written about 160 AD would establish the personage as historical

On further reflection, this is a fair point.

This reference to Cerinthus together alongside Simon, "the false apostles," could indicate in favor of an early date for him.

[GakuseiDon]

Tertullian wrote in "The Prescription against Heretics":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian11.html

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards, it is true, Marcion professed repentance, and agreed to the conditions granted to him--that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for perdition: he was prevented, however, by death.

"In the reign of Antoninus for the most part" is vague. Antoninus was Emperor from 138 to 161 CE. Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome starting in the 170s CE.

[Peter Kirby]

Tertullian wrote in "The Prescription against Heretics":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian11.html

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards, it is true, Marcion professed repentance, and agreed to the conditions granted to him--that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for perdition: he was prevented, however, by death.

"In the reign of Antoninus for the most part" is vague. Antoninus was Emperor from 138 to 161 CE. Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome starting in the 170s CE.

It does seem vague. If we're wondering whether the activity of someone started after 138 or before 138, I don't think this resolves that question. If we're wondering whether Marcion was alive after 138, we might already have better evidence of this from Justin.

Another ambiguity is the way this canvasses several such men (and their alleged philosophical muses) together.

I'm not sure we can use this to claim that Marcion himself lived to be under the episcopate of Eleutherus. Actually I'm not sure if we can say that about Valentinus either, but that's a separate question.

[Peter Kirby]

This is often quoted here (Against Marcion 1.19):

Well, but our god, say the Marcionites, although he did not manifest himself from the beginning and by means of the creation, has yet revealed himself in Christ Jesus. A book will be devoted to Christ, treating of His entire state; for it is desirable that these subject-matters should be distinguished one from another, in order that they may receive a fuller and more methodical treatment. Meanwhile it will be sufficient if, at this stage of the question, I show — and that but briefly — that Christ Jesus is the revealer of none other god but the Creator. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the spirit of saving health. I cared not to inquire, indeed, in what particular year of the elder Antoninus. He who had so gracious a purpose did rather, like a pestilential sirocco, exhale this health or salvation, which Marcion teaches from his Pontus. Of this teacher there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6-1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion. Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case, that he who came to light for the first time in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in that of Tiberius; in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not revealed by Christ (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius). Now, to prove clearly what remains of the argument, I shall draw materials from my very adversaries. Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself. He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law. Now this peace, which had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ's appearance to the time of Marcion's audacious doctrine, was no doubt maintained by that way of thinking, which firmly held that the God of both law and gospel was none other than the Creator, against whom after so long a time a separation has been introduced by the heretic of Pontus.

It's often assumed that the date involved here is ca. 144 CE. Of the claim:

Of this teacher there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6-1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion.

It's not clear what event in the life of Marcion is being mentioned here. It's often assumed that this refers to a visit of Marcion to Rome. Maybe, maybe not.

Whatever event it is, there may have been earlier activity by Marcion than this.

The idea that Marcion was active at this date is consistent with what we learn from Justin and Clement of Alexandria.

[Peter Kirby]

Irenaeus writes:

"Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus [traditionally 136-142], who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession" (Adv. Haer. 1.27.1)

"Marcion of Pontus succeeded" Cerdo (Adv. Haer. 1.27.2)

The way that Irenaeus dates Cerdo based on his arrival at Rome is consistent with the idea that the date being mentioned in the work of Against Marcion is also to an arrival at Rome.

The placement of Marcion in succession to Cerdo is consistent with the idea that Cerdo (ca. 136-142 based on the traditional date of Hyginus) came to Rome before Marcion (ca. 144 according to the most popular chronological interpretation of the reference of Against Marcion 1.19), an idea expressed here by Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. 1.27.1-2.

One interpretation here is that Marcion and Cerdo had similar opinions on some subjects and that Cerdo came to Rome first to teach about them, and Marcion came to Rome second.

If so, this does not imply that Marcion didn't have any activity that was earlier outside of Rome. In any case, these references don't necessarily exclude such earlier activity.

[Peter Kirby]

Irenaeus makes Cerinthus and Marcion parallel in more ways than just some of their doctrine (AH 3.3.4):

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time — a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles — that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, 'Do you know us?' 'I know the first born of Satan.' Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

This would make out that Marcion was contemporary with Polycarp for the story told.

[Peter Kirby]

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue appears to make Marcion contemporary with John and opposed by him:

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti ... logues.htm

The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully. But the heretic Marcion, after being condemned by him because he was teaching the opposite to him [John], was expelled by John. But he [Marcion] had brought writings or letters to him [John] from the brothers which were in Pontus.

Other interpretations have been made of this passage, but that Marcion and John were partly contemporary and had some interaction seems clear enough to be what the passage is saying.

Of course, like most of these references, it can be questioned whether the story has any truth.