More Proof that Tertullian Was Copying Irenaeus

[Secret Alias]

Another thing I am wondering about is that 'gap' that always exists in the natural order of the succession list at Clement. posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=61110 Here's what I think is odd about it. We all agree I think that in the original edition of Hegesippus Marcellina is singled out as the source of all the heresies in Rome. This, I think, is reflected in associating the Gaian heresy with a 'female viper' in De Baptismo but it is by no means critical that this is true.

What I am wondering about now is whether the second edition of Hegesippus (assuming that such a text existed) changed the underlying focus of the original Outlines. Now it wasn't that one heretic 'Marcellina' came to Rome during the reign of Anicetus but now Marcion came to Rome during Anicetus's reign and I wonder, whether other heretics were also added to that list so as to make the overall point of Hegesippus's 'witness' agree with Adversus Haereses.

Why do I think that? Because there appears to be repeated chronological allusion in Adversus Haereses to specific bishops of the Roman Church whenever heresies are mentioned. For instance Cerdo:

Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. [AH 1.27.1]

and again in Book Three immediately following the use of the succession list in chapter 3:

If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics [AH 4.2]

Notice the explicit reference to the ninth and tenth place in the succession list. Notice when Marcellina is mentioned in Book One Hegesippus's original statement (reconstructed by Lawlor from Epiphanius) that the Gnostics started with her appearance is now softened:

From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics.

In Hegesippus it is clearly stated that the Gnostics began with Marcellina's arrival in Rome which is flatly contradicted by what Irenaeus says in Book Three. He says in no uncertain terms "[f]or, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity." Now it might be argued that Irenaeus has in mind specific features of the heresies associated with Valentinus and Marcion distinguished them in such a way that he was justified in saying that prior to Valentinus there were no Valentinians.

But there is a problem here because earlier in Book 1 he says quite explicitly "the first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called "Gnostic" to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows ..." Here there is a pre-existent 'gnostic' heresy but that first gnostic sect is not Marcellina or Carpocratians who - it is said - only 'style' themselves Gnostics. No it would seem that Irenaeus has tried to assimilate a claim possibly from Justin's Syntagma that Simon was the originator of the Gnostics - cf. 1.29.1 "Besides those, however, among these heretics who are Simonians, and of whom we have already spoken, a multitude of Gnostics have sprung up ..."

My sense is then that there is no evidence from Irenaeus's or Eusebius's use of the second edition of Hegesippus that Marcellina had any influence over the gnostics in Rome whatsoever. She might as well have been removed from the succession list and - as I now suggest - the names Cerdo and Valentinus were added before the time Hegesippus claimed Marcellina introduced the 'Gnostics' to Rome:

In Anicetus' time then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates' teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.

It would seem then that Irenaeus's war with the Valentinians - a combative spirit that pervades Adversus Haereses - caused him to alter the contents of Hegesippus's Outlines.

My point is that you can't have developed Adversus Haereses and its argument that Valentinus preceded Marcellina in Rome and preceded her identification of being 'gnostic' if - as the original text of Hegesippus made explicit - Marcellina's visit under Anicetus "made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics" in Rome. Something had to give and I think the second edition of the Outlines made significant changes to the underlying 'history' of the early Church in order to make it accord with Irenaeus's efforts against the Valentinians.

The change from 'Marcellina' to Marcion wasn't part of some plot against the Marcionites. 'Marcion' was something of an afterthought (and the additions to Justin to further 'prove' his existence'). Valentinus had to be proved to be the first 'gnostic' and the first heretic in Rome condemned by Hegesippus. Jerome tries to reconcile the two accounts by effectively saying that Marcellina was the first Marcionite (or perhaps more exactly that the first Marcionite missionary to Rome was female = Marcellina). But the Marcion/Marcellina 'switch' casts serious doubts on the contents of second edition of the Outlines and I believe the existence of Marcion and the Marcionites. There was certainly a tradition identified as 'Marcionite' but as Bauer notes they themselves simply called themselves 'Christians' and it is also odd that in the Acts of Archelaus the dominant orthodoxy in the Marcionite region (Osroene and vicinity) mention a prominent leader-figure named 'Marcellus' as a leader from Rome who founded churches and hospices etc. A group named after a woman named after a woman named Marcellina or a man named Marcellus would likely have the same or similar name I think.

[Secret Alias]

Or maybe not. From Celsus Μαρκελλιανοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκελλίνας

Or maybe Μαρκελλιανοί

[andrewcriddle]

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years. (link)

Φλαύιος δὲ Ἰώσηπος ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ὁ τὰς Ἰουδαϊκὰς συντάξας ἱστορίας καταγαγὼν τοὺς χρόνους φησὶν ἀπὸ Μωυσέως ἕως Δαβὶδ ἔτη γίγνεσθαι φπεʹ, ἀπὸ δὲ Δαβὶδ ἕως Οὐεσπεσιανοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους ͵αροθʹ. εἶτα ἀπὸ τούτου μέχρι Ἀντωνίνου δεκάτου ἔτους ἔτη οζʹ, ὡς εἶναι ἀπὸ Μωυσέως ἐπὶ τὸ δέκατον ἔτος Ἀντωνίνου πάντα ἔτη ͵αωλγʹ.

That period of 77 years is suspicious, is it not? Are we sure this calculation indicates the date of authorship? Or did the author use year 10 of Antoninus in order to use the number 77 (years since the fall of Jerusalem in Vespasian's second year)?

My post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2075&p=46696#p46696 may possibly be relevant (the tenth year of Antoninus is the celebration of 900 years of Rome)

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Yes that's right Andrew. Astute as always. Me, forgetful as always. I forgot you mentioned that.

[Secret Alias]

Another argument in favor of a second 'fuller' edition of Hegesippus is the pattern that exists in various regarding the information which Irenaeus alludes to (cited above). If you look carefully at the Carmen adversus Marcionitas not only does Irenaeus's allusion to Cerdo coming to Rome during the reign of the ninth bishop Hyginus, but Marcion clearly has taken the place of Marcellina in the succession list:

Whom Peter bade to take his place and sit

Upon this chair in mightiest Rome where he

Himself had sat, was Linus, great, elect,

And by the mass approved. And after him

Cletus himself the fold's flock undertook;

As his successor Anacletus was

By lot located: Clement follows him;

Well known was he to apostolic men (is apostolicis bene notus):

Next Evaristus ruled without a crime

The law. To Sixtus Sextus Alexander

Commends the fold: who, after he had filled

His lustral times up, to Telesphorus

Hands it in order: excellent was he,

And martyr faithful. After him succeeds

A comrade in the law, and master sure:

When lo! the comrade of your wickedness,

Its author and forerunner-Cerdo highs-

Arrived at Rome, smarting with recent wounds:

Detected, for that he was scattering

Voices and words of venom stealthily:

For which cause, driven from the band, he bore

This sacrilegious brood, the dragon's breath

Engendering it. Blooming in piety

United stood the Church of Rome, compact

By Peter: whose successor, too, himself,

And now in the ninth place, Hyginus was,

The burden undertaking of his chair.

After him followed Pius-Hermas his

Own brother was; angelic "Pastor" he,

Because he spake the words delivered him:

And Anicetus the allotted post

In pious order undertook (aque Pio suscepit).'Neath whom

Marcion here coming, the new Pontic pest (nova Pontica pestis),

The secret daring deed in his own heart

Not yet disclosed, went, speaking commonly,

In all directions, in his perfidy,

With lurking art. But after he began

His deadly arrows to produce, cast off

Deservedly (as author of a crime

So savage), reprobated by the saints,

He burst, a wondrous monster (mirabile monstrum)! on our view.

There are two options here. Either the poet-author assimilated Irenaeus's many statements about 'Cerdo' coming to Rome under Hyginus to the original (and only) Roman apostolic succession list or - as I would have it - he has before him a second edition of Hegesippus with the name 'Cerdo' added at the entry for Hyginus, Hermas at Pius and Marcion in the place of Marcellina at Anicetus. I think this is the correct interpretation. The alternative that Irenaeus 'started' the process of assimilation of both 'Cerdo' and 'Marcion' to the succession list and then the poet fully incorporated his 'random associations' is a little too much to believe.

The implication clearly is that Marcion is likely a historical fiction.

[Secret Alias]

Another unnoticed parallel:

Irenaeus - Pius, then after him, Anicetus.
Carmen - aque Pio suscepit ANICETUS ordine sortem (And Anicetus the allotted post in pious order undertook)

[Secret Alias]

Epiphanius citing Hegesippus and then paraphrasing the original section and perhaps the material around it in 'ur-Hegessipus' - I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, the successor of Pius and the bishops before him ... In Anicetus' time then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates' teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.

Irenaeus citing the second edition of Hegesippus- Marcion here coming, the new Pontic pest the secret daring deed in his own heart not yet disclosed, went, speaking commonly, in all directions, in his perfidy, With lurking art. But after he began his deadly arrows to produce, cast off deservedly (as author of a crime so savage), reprobated by the saints, he burst, a wondrous monster, on our view.

[MrMacSon]

.
I'm not sure how this fits into what you're outlining here, but I'll introduce it anyway.

From 'Jewish Followers of Jesus and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: Re-examining the Christian Sources' by Isaac W. Oliver (aka de Oliveira)

• Published in 'The Psychological Dynamics of Revolution: Religious Revolts'. Vol. 1 of Winning Revolutions: The Psychology of Successful Revolts for Freedom, Fairness, and Rights. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Pages 109–27. Publisher: ABC-CLIO Praeger, 2014.

---

According to Eusebius, the church of Jerusalem was replenished right after the Second Revolt by a Gentile populace, whose first bishop was a non-Jew by the name of Marcus (Hist. eccl. 4.6.4).

Previously, in Historia ecclesiastica 4.5–6, Eusebius related that, until the Second Revolt, all bishops in Jerusalem had been of Hebrew descent:

• "... until the siege of the Jews, during the time of Hadrian, there were in number fifteen successions of bishops, whom they say were all by origin Hebrews, and purely received the knowledge of Christ, with the result that they were also in fact deemed worthy of the service of bishops among those able to judge such matters. For at that time the whole church was composed by them of Hebrew believers, from the time of the apostles up until the siege they endured at that time, during which the Jews,having rebelled again against the Romans, were conquered after not a few battles." (Hist. eccl. 4.5.2)

Eusebius enumerated the names of fifteen Hebrew bishops from James, the brother of Jesus, to Judas, the fifteenth and last of this initial “dynasty” of Hebrew “bishops”. Scholars have often noted that in Eusebius’s writings the term “Hebrews” carries rather positive connotations, in contradistinction to the more polemically loaded label “Jews”.

Some have rightly questioned Eusebius’s simplistic portrayal of an immediate,smooth transition from a Jewish church to a Gentile one. Such a simplistic historiographical description of the change in the church of Jerusalem during the days of Hadrian seems rather mechanical and simply ignores the complex social reality left behind by an entirely uprooted community, a vacuum that certainly would have only gradually been filled (Irshai 1993, 1:25–26). Equally significant is Eusebius’s belief that, after the Second Revolt, the legitimate ethnic Jewish segment of the Christian church vanished: that is, those of Hebrew descent who had 'truly received the knowledge of Christ'.

Sulpicius Severus wrote 'Mark from among the Gentiles was ... first of all, bishop at Jerusalem'

• "And because the Christians were thought principally to consist of Jews (for the church at Jerusalem did not then have a priest except of the circumcision), he [Hadrian] ordered a cohort of soldiers to keep constant guard in order to prevent all Jews from approaching to Jerusalem. This, however, rather benefited the Christian faith, because almost all then believed in Christ as God while continuing in the observance of the law. Undoubtedly that was arranged by the over-ruling care of the Lord, in order that the slavery of the law might be taken away from the liberty of the faith and of the church. In this way, Mark from among the Gentiles was then, first of all, bishop at Jerusalem."
  (Chron. 2.31.3–6)

Oliver noted the Bar Kokhba Revolt " was refurbished by the church fathers in their attempt to shape the form of Jewish–Christian engagement in their own day and milieu ...[i.e.] the ideological motives of various church fathers in rewriting the Bar Kokhba event."

Oliver noted Justin Martyr's Apology and Dialogue with Trypho illustrate how Justin theologically interpreted and appropriated the Bar Kokhba event in a pro-Christian way, and also he noted Eusebius’s explicit claim that Christians had been persecuted for their refusal to fight against the Romans in the Bar Kokhba revolt signals, more strongly than his predecessor Justin Martyr did, Christian fidelity to the Roman Empire in Eusebius's age, when Rome was officially undergoing a process of Christianization.

Interestingly, Oliver notes that, in Theophania, in which Eusebius comments extensively on the prophecies ascribed to Jesus in the canonical gospels regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Eusebius interprets Luke 21:24 - “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles” - in light of the Second Jewish Revolt:

• 'He says after this, that the city [Jerusalem] shall be inhabited, not by the Jews, but by the Gentiles, when speaking thus, “And Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles.” It was known therefore to Him, that it should be inhabited by the Gentiles . . . . And, how these things have been fulfilled, many words are not wanted (to shew); because, we can easily see with our own eyes, how the Jews are dispersed into all nations; and, how the inhabitants of that which was formerly Jerusalem —but is now named Aelia by Aelius Hadrian— are foreigners, and the descendants of another race.' (in Lee 1843)

[Secret Alias]

I quicker think that the underlying historical figure was the elusive 'Marcellus the Senator' from Rome. He appears in the Acts of Peter (in all its forms) as well as the likely Marcionite Acts of Archaeus. Remember Jerome said that there was a Syriac original, translated into Greek and now we only preserve the Latin copy. The text has been reworked many times but the Marcionite core remains (i.e. Marcellus, Paul as the Paraclete etc) Here are the relevant sections from the last text:

In this city of Mesopotamia there was a certain man, Marcellus by name, who was esteemed as a person worthy of the highest honour for his manner of life, his pursuits, and his lineage, and not less so for his discretion and his nobility of character: he was possessed also of abundant means; and, what is most important of all, he feared God with the deepest piety, and gave ear always with due reverence to the things which were spoken of Christ. In short, there was no good quality lacking in that man, and hence it came to pass that he was held in the greatest regard by the whole city; while, on the other hand, he also made an ample return for the good-will of his city by his munificent and oft-repeated acts of liberality in bestowing on the poor, relieving the afflicted, and giving help to the distressed.

The fact that Mani goes to Harran to appeal his message (that he is the awaited Paraclete) to Marcellus has been slightly altered to explain the unusual situation. I think he originally wanted merely to be recognized by Archelaus who was Marcellus's representative.

Then the narrative goes on about how Marcellus 'redeemed' (a Marcionite concept) a group of slaves who were presumably Palutian Christians or possibly Jewish proselytes:

But let it suffice us to have said thus much, lest by the weakness of our words we rather take from the man's virtues than adduce what is worthy of their splendour. I shall come, therefore, to the task which forms my subject. On a certain occasion, when a large; body of captives were offered to the bishop Archelaus by the soldiers who held the camp in that place, their numbers being some seven thousand seven hundred, he was harassed with the keenest anxiety on account of the large sum of money which was demanded by the soldiers as the price of the prisoners' deliverance. And as he could not conceal his solicitude, all aflame for the religion and the fear of God, he at length hastened to Marcellus, and explained to him the importance and difficulty of the case. And when that pattern of piety, Marcellus, heard his narration, without the least delay he went into his house, and provided the price demanded for the prisoners, according to the value set upon them by those who had led them captive; and unlocking the treasures of his goods, he at once distributed the gifts of piety among the soldiers, without any severe consideration of number or distinction, so that they seemed to be presents rather than purchase-moneys. And those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man's piety and munificence, and were struck with amazement, and felt the force of this example of pity; so that very many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and threw off the belt of military service, while others withdrew to their camp, taking scarcely a fourth part of the ransom, and the rest made their departure without receiving even so much as would defray the expenses of the way.

2. Marcellus, as might well be expected, was exceedingly gratified by these incidents; and summoning one of the prisoners, by name Cortynius, he inquired of him the cause of the war, and by what chance it was that they were overcome and bound with the chains of captivity. And the person addressed, on obtaining liberty to speak, began to express himself in these terms: My lord Marcellus, we believe in the living God alone. And we have a custom of such a nature as I shall now describe, which has descended to us by the tradition of our brethren in the faith, and has been regularly observed by us up to the present day. The practice is, that every year we go out beyond the bounds of the city, in company with our wives and children, and offer up supplications to the only and invisible God, praying Him to send us rains for our fields and crops. Now, when we were celebrating this observance at the usual time and in the wonted manner, evening surprised us as we lingered there, and were still fasting. Thus we were feeling the pressure of two of the most trying things men have to endure—namely, fasting and want of sleep. But about midnight sleep enviously and inopportunely crept upon us, and with necks drooping and unstrung, and heads hanging down, it made our faces strike against our knees. Now this took place because the time was at hand when by the judgment of God we were to pay the penalty proper to our deserts, whether it might he that we were offenders in ignorance, or whether it might be that with the consciousness of wrong we nevertheless had not given up our sin. Accordingly at that hour a multitude of soldiers suddenly surrounded us, supposing us, as I judge, to have lodged ourselves in ambush there, and to be persons with full experience and skill in fighting battles; and without making any exact inquiry into the cause of our gathering there, they threatened us with war, not in word, but at once by the sword. And though we were men who had never learned to do injury to any one, they wounded us pitilessly with their missiles, and thrust us through with their spears, and cut our throats with their swords. Thus they slew, indeed, about one thousand and three hundred men of our number, and wounded other five hundred. And when the day broke clearly, they carried off the survivors among us as prisoners here, and that, too, in a way showing their utter want of pity for us. For they drove us before their horses, spurring us on by blows from their spears, and impelling us forward by making the horses' heads press upon us. And those who had sufficient powers of endurance did indeed hold out; but very many fell down before the face of their cruel masters, and breathed out their life there; and mothers, with arms wearied, and utterly powerless with their burdens, and distracted by the threats of those behind them, suffered the little ones that were hanging on their breasts to fall to the ground; while all those on whom old age had come were sinking, one after the other, to the earth, overcome with their toils, and exhausted by want of food. The proud soldiers nevertheless enjoyed this bloody spectacle of men continually perishing, as if it had been a kind of entertainment, while they saw some stretched on the soil in hopeless prostration, and beheld others, worn out by the fierce fires of thirst and with the bands of their tongues utterly parched, lose the power of speech, and beheld others with eyes ever glancing backwards, groaning over the fate of their dying little ones, while these, again, were constantly appealing to their most unhappy mothers with their cries, and the mothers themselves, driven frantic by the severities of the robbers, responded with their lamentations, which indeed was the only thing they could do freely. And those of them whose hearts were most tenderly bound up with their offspring chose voluntarily to meet the same premature fate of death with their children; while those, on the other hand, who had some capacity of endurance were carried off prisoners here with us. Thus, after the lapse of three days, during which time we had never been allowed to take any rest, even in the night, we were conveyed to this place, in which what has now taken place after these occurrences is better known to yourself.

3. When Marcellus, the man of consummate piety, had heard this recital, he burst into a flood of tears, touched with pity for misfortunes so great and so various. But making no delay, he at once prepared victuals for the sufferers, and did service with his own hand for the wearied; in this imitating our father Abraham the patriarch, who, when he entertained the angels hospitably on a certain occasion, did not content himself with merely giving the order to his slaves to bring a calf from the herd, but did himself, though advanced in years, go and place it on his shoulders and fetch it in, and did with his own hand prepare food, and set it before the angels. So Marcellus, in discharge of a similar office, directed them to be seated as his guests in companies of ten; and when the seven hundred tables were all provided, he refreshed the whole body of the captives with great delight, so that those who had strength to survive what they had been called to endure, forgot their toils, and became oblivious of all their ills. When, however, they had reached the fifteenth day, and while Marcellus was still liberally supplying all things needful for the prisoners, it seemed good to him that they should all be put in possession of the means of returning to their own parts, with the exception of those who were detained by the attention which their wounds demanded; and providing the proper remedies for these, he instructed the rest to depart to their own country and friends. And even to all these charities Marcellus added yet larger deeds of piety. For with a numerous band of his own dependants he went to look after the burying of the bodies of those who had perished on the march; and for as many of these as he could discover, of whatsoever condition, he secured the sepulture which was meet for them. And when this service was completed he returned to Charra, and gave permission to the wounded to return thence to their native country when their health was sufficiently restored, providing also most liberal supplies for their use on their journey. And truly the estimate of this deed made a magnificent addition to the repute of the other noble actions of Marcellus; for through that whole territory the fame of the piety of Marcellus spread so grandly, that large numbers of men belonging to various cities were inflamed with the intensest desire to see and become acquainted with the man, and most especially those persons who had not had occasion to bear penury before—to all of whom this remarkable man, following the example of a Marcellus of old, furnished aid most indulgently, so that they all declared that there was no one of more illustrious piety than this man. Yea, all the widows, too, who were believers in the Lord had recourse to him, while the imbecile also could reckon on obtaining at his hand most certain help to meet their circumstances; and the orphaned, in like manner, were all supported by him, so that his house was declared to be the hospice for the stranger and the indigent. And above all this, he retained in a remarkable and singular measure his devotion to the faith, building up his own heart upon the rock that shall not be moved.

So now we see that there are two Marcellus's in the new narrative. The first who is 'of old' - a previous age - and the Marcellus of the times of the narrative. But both act in the same manner (i.e. 'redemption,' hospitality, building up the Church). Again I think that the reference was originally to the same person who was somehow 'still alive' in the example of Archelaus or that Archelaus communed with the 'Marcellus of old.' But the point is that it sounded too strange to have a particular saint named 'Marcellus' have a Christ-like character. Notice that he effective establishes the Church "... upon the rock that shall not be moved."

[Secret Alias]

The identification of 'the house of Marcellus' as the Church founded upon the rock occurs throughout the text:

Nevertheless, in spite of all his plausible addresses, he failed to move him or turn him aside from the faith in any one particular. For this most devout Marcellus was only found to be like the rock on which the house was built with the most solid foundations; and when the rain descended, and the floods and the winds burst in and beat upon that house, it stood firm: for it had been built on the most solid and immoveable foundations. And the attempt thus made by this person who is now before you, brought dishonour rather than glory upon himself. Moreover, it does not seem to me that he can be very excusable if he proves to be ignorant of what is in the future; for surely he ought to know beforehand those who are on his own side: certainly he should have this measure of knowledge, if it be true indeed that the Spirit of the Paraclete dwells in him. But inasmuch as he is really a person blinded with the darkness of ignorance, he ran in vain when he journeyed to Marcellus, and he did but show himself to be like the stargazer, who busies himself with describing things celestial, while all the time he is ignorant of what is passing in his own home. But lest it should appear as if I were setting aside the question in hand by speaking in this strain, I shall now refrain from such discourse. And I shall also give this man the privilege of taking up any point which may suit him best as a commencement to any treatment of the subject and the question. And to you, as I have said already, I only address the request that you be impartial judges, so as to give to him who speaks the truth the proper honour and the palm.

I think Marcellina, Marcellus and Marcion are part of a garbled tradition.