Is Irenaeus citing from a Marcionite canonical text?

[Stephan Huller]

I don't know if the readership here has been following my various posts on Marutha (410 CE) in the other threads. Marutha brings forward a great deal of information about the heresies that isn't generally recognized. But the texts of that work have been preserved in a corrupt state. This affected Harack's work (he used a 19th century German translation from a flawed manuscript) but Voobus followed a lot of the decisions of that text preferring the agreement among Marutha MSS over a recycling of the material in Barhadbshabba Arbaya a sixth century Syrian historian.

I have consistently noticed that Barhadbshabba Arbaya actually preserves a more sensible reading of the same material that appears in Marutha. For instance whereas in the section in Marutha dealing with the heresy of Simon the priests are described as having "a thread of scarlet and of the rose (color) they bind at the neck like the priests. The ancients plated the hair of their heads and were occupying themselves with incantations and strange affairs." This is Voobus's rendering. However in a parallel translation of the text of Barhadbshabba Arbaya we read the more sensible description "They wore garlands made of red roses around their neck, they plaited their hair as the priests of Qadisaye, and they used magical prayers and strange practices. Indeed these pagan rites resembled magical rituals."

There are many other examples. The reason this is significant is that Barhadbshabba Arbaya does not have 'saka' (= Sum) as all the manuscripts of Marutha but 'saba' = elder. In other words, we read:

Ceux-ci rejetèrent complètement l'Ancien (Testament) s et ils ajoutèrent et retranchèrent dans le Nouveau. Ils rejetèrent entièrement le livre des Actes et à sa place en firent un autre qu'ils appellent le vieillard (sâba). Au lieu de Pierre, le chef des Apôtres, ils élevèrent Marcion et au lieu des psaumes (ils se firent) des cantiques. Ils ne confessent pas la résurrection de nos corps

the pertinent section can be translated:

The entire Book of Acts they have taken out from the midst and instead of this they have made another and which they call the Elder. Instead of Peter the head of the apostles they raise Marcion ...

When I let this sink in I have started to suspect that Irenaeus's 'elder' in Book Four is actually the Marcionite book of the same name (saba = presbyter). I was always puzzled by Adv Haer 4.30.1 where Irenaeus combats the Marcionites by citing 'the elder.' If this was Polycarp it doesn't make any sense. Why would the words of Polycarp have meant anything to the group Irenaeus's teacher condemned? The answer is that Irenaeus is citing the words of the book 'the Elder' against them throughout this work which I think implies that the work was more influential than previously thought and likely had canonical status in Rome at the time.


https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient23pariuoft

[Stephan Huller]

Charles Evans identifies the elder with Polycarp but Hartog notes "(a) nagging question concerns why Irenaeus did not simply identify the anonymous 'elder'? While Evans's answer basically develops from 'he didn't have to' I think there is something to this strange evasiveness. Tertullian notes that the Marcionites avoided mentioning who their apostle was (i.e. what his name was).

[Stephan Huller]

Sebastian Moll surprisingly comes in defense of rejecting Hill's identification of the Elder with Polycarp or the common assumption that the material is anti-Marcionite. From Moll's book:

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 Marcion71.

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 directed against him, too.72 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 Basilides73. Thus, these other heretics could also be envisaged in the elder’s preaching. In fact, there are certain 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 deficiency74, 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)75. 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 of the Demiurge originating from deficiency which correlates with the Valentinian myth that the origin of the Demiurge is the result of a fallen eon76, 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 God77, 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 heart78 and of the Hebrews’ robbery of gold and silver from the Egyptians79, but not for the rebukes against David, Solomon or Lot and his daughters. 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 Testament80. 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 God on those who disobeyed him81, not only does this sound very much like a Marcionite antithesis, but the Greek term avntitiqe,ntaj itself forms an “allusion transparente”82 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, Irenaeus 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 question 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 person, 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, secondly 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’ part83.

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 Apostles84. 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 disciples85, at least not in a way which would allow for him to recall his teachings so precisely (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 Apostles86,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 doctrine.

Since Moll has done half the work for us, I think I can follow up and demonstrate that the entire work was directed against another heresy (the Valentinians) rather than the Marcionites.

[perseusomega9]

Just off the top of my head, but isn't their an elder presbyter named John floating around Papias, and wasn't Marcion supposed to be a disciple of the 'apostle' John?

[Stephan Huller]

There have been those who have argued that 'the elder' is Papias. But Papias isn't known to have attacked heresies. What we are dealing with here is:

1. a source which Irenaeus can cite verbatim so likely a literary source of some kind
2. a source which attacked 'heresies'
3. a source that can explain why Irenaeus only refers to it as 'the elder'

Why would Irenaeus avoid identifying John, Papias or Polycarp by their real name? Why not say 'John, Papias or Polycarp'? The strength in my theory so far would be (3). Irenaeus calls his source 'the Elder' because that was his/its proper name. He was following established convention.

[Stephan Huller]

Markus Vinzent was kind enough to send me his take on Hill and Moll's previous work just now. I don't think he would mind me sharing this with you as long as I mentioned that his new book on the primacy of Marcion - Marcion and the Primacy of the Synoptic Gospels - is now out. http://kingsreader.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... c-gospels/ (he didn't tell me to do this, I just don't want to piss him off for putting this argument about 'the Elder' up here. Here it is:

An unknown Asian Presbyter

Around the same time, we find an unknown Asian Presbyter[1] – a disciple of the Apostles or somebody who heard from those who had seen the Apostles[2] – whose work (lecture notes?[3]) served Irenaeus as one of his sources about Marcion.[4] The Presbyter not only provides ‘an apology for the Old Testament with the intention to demonstrate that the two Testaments speak of one and the same God’, but also gives us an insight into Marcion’s business: perhaps he was even a former employee of Marcion, before he became a believer, as the extant excerpts will indicate.

The Presbyter, ‘most likely … a contemporary’ of Marcion,[5] develops his subtle arguments with constant reference to the letters of the Apostle Paul as his main authority and to Lord’s sayings, taken mainly from Matthew, but also from Luke. The only reference to a parable of the Lord (Matth. 25:14-30 // Luke 19:12-28) occurs within a report about his interlocutors. The Gospel narratives, therefore, seem to him to be of lesser authority than the Lord’s oracles. But even Paul and the Lord’s sayings are never called Scripture – this name the Presbyter reserves for the Torah![6] Sebastian Moll is correct in his observation that in the opening part of the excerpt from the Presbyter (Iren., Adv. haer. IV 27,4) are presented not only anti-Marcionite arguments, but also those of ‘a Valentinian opponent’.[7] And yet, Marcion is the main, and then in Adv. haer. IV 28-30, the sole target of the Presbyter. The following passage is minted on Marcion:

For in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness. For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the garments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which, when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them? – not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Cæsar; and to those who have not, does not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability? … And [these objectors] allege that [the Israelites] acted dishonestly, because, forsooth, they took away for the recompense of their labours, as I have observed, unstamped gold and silver in a few vessels; while they say that they themselves (for let truth be spoken, although to some it may seem ridiculous) do act honestly, when they carry away in their girdles from the labours of others, coined gold, and silver, and brass, with Cæsar’s inscription and image upon it. If, however, a comparison be instituted between us and them, which party shall seem to have received [their worldly goods] in the fairer manner? Will it be the [Jewish] people, [who took] from the Egyptians, who were at all points their debtors; or we, [who receive property] from the Romans and other nations, who are under no similar obligation to us? Yea, moreover, through their instrumentality the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail where we will… For whatsoever we acquired from unrighteousness when we were heathen, we are proved righteous, when we have become believers, by applying it to the Lord’s advantage.[8]

As Marcion is the main, if not sole opponent of this text, the anonymous author has crafted an intrinsic criticism of Marcion’s wealth, mentioning the ‘large amount of property’ being ‘acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness’, ‘acquired by avarice’, meaning estates and a profit making business, an inheritance ‘from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them’.[9] That the Presbyter adds that ‘even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith’, however, hints at both himself and his target, Marcion, who, as also indicated by Rhodo before, must have carried on with his maritime trade and business while being a teacher at Rome. When the Presbyter mentions ‘we’ who ‘even now acquire’ he clearly states that Christians (including himself) are part of the business which is looked at critically, but not condemned per se. On the contrary, what follows reflects business acumen: ‘For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller?’ Like other Christians in business and finance Marcion obtained his ‘livelihood thereby’, and, as indicated in this text, had the support of the royal palace, a link that Peter Lampe has suspected for Marcion with regard to the vecturae, the privilege of receiving special payments of transport fees from the annona, ‘the imperial agency for importing grain and other foodstuffs into the capital city’.[10] Marcion may well have been one of those Christians who had received such privileges from the palace for his trade. Moreover, the Presbyter seems to have been well acquainted with Christian trade, as he mentions that he has ‘observed unstamped gold and silver in a few vessels’ being carried, and that ‘coined gold, and silver, and brass, with Caesar’s inscription and image upon it’ was earned, hence that money was made ‘from the labours of others’. Perhaps the Presbyter speaks about his own experience as an employee of the one about whom he writes, Marcion, as, again, he clearly includes himself in what he describes: ‘we, [who receive property] from the Romans and other nations … through their instrumentality the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail where we will’. Interestingly, at the end of the passage, the Presbyter rectifies his earlier involvement in the business, while he criticizes his opponent Marcion who still trades in it, when he states: ‘For whatsoever we acquired from unrighteousness when we were heathen, we are proved righteous, when we have become believers, by applying it to the Lord’s advantage.’ How correctly he portrays Marcion can be seen from Marcion’s donation of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman community, given as a deposit from his own assets for the community to receive the proceeds of the money’s interest, before he took the money back, when he started his own community at Rome.

Despite his criticisms, the Presbyter relies heavily on Marcion, while he speaks of Paul only as an Apostle to whose writings he refers, and then mentions the two Testaments. Yet, at the same time, he distances himself from this teacher when he refers to the Gospel by this title only with reference to the Lord’s sayings, and by seeming to base his views on Matthew. Still, the author does not mention an apostolic origin of the Gospel, although he knows of Apostles or of people who had seen them, shows an even stronger reluctance towards the new genre of ‘Gospels’ than has already been noticed in Justin, and underpins his views by Paul. He also pre-empts one of Tertullian’s objections to Marcion, that of accusing Marcion of his insistence on a God of love who will neither judge nor take vengeance. What the Presbyter does not provide us with is the claim of Marcion being a mutilator or distorter of Scriptures. Neither do we find, in those passages where Irenaeus reports a close, textcritical, synoptic reading between Marcion’s Gospel, and Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, perhaps because in these passages he is heavily dependent on the Presbyter, that Irenaeus himself mentions any mutilation or distortion of Scriptures by our mariner.[11]





[1] C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp (2006) wants to identify him with Polycarp of Smyrna, so also P.F. Beatrice, ‘Der Presbyter’ (1990). A problem for such identification is, why does Irenaeus not mention his source of this extract by name, if its author was one of Irenaeus’ greatest authorities, Polycarp? Hill gives a few potential answers to this problem (23f.). The further profile of this Presbyter will reveal that he needs to be distinguished from Polycarp.


[2] The textual evidence is uncertain here. The old Armenian tradition renders both instances Iren., Adv. haer. IV 27,1 and IV 32,1 with the equivalent of discipulus apostolorum, whereas the Latin version has the discrepancy that only the second passage mentions the senior Apostolorum discipulus, while the first speaks of somebody who is one generation younger (ab his qui Apostolos viderant). While SC follows the Armenian text, FC adheres to the Latin text, see S. Moll, The Arch-heretic (2010), 20.


[3] See C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp (2006), 87.


[4] See Iren., Adv. haer. IV 27-32; on this see above.


[5] S. Moll, The Arch-heretic (2010), 21.


[6] See Iren., Adv. haer. IV 30,2 on Ex. 1:13-4, while, for example, PolPhil 12 calls Eph. 4:26 (with an embedded quote from Ps. 4:4) ‘Sacred Scripture’.


[7] See S. Moll, The Arch-heretic (2010), 18-9 who highlights the idea that the maker of the world ‘originated from degeneracy’ (‘in diminutione’) as being not by Marcion.


[8] Iren., Adv. haer. IV 30,2-3: ‘Omnes enim nos aut modica, aut grandis sequitur possessio, quam ex mammona iniquitatis acquisivimus. Unde enim domus in quibus habitamus, et vestimenta quibus induimur, et vasa quibus utimur, et reliqua omnis ad diuturnam vitam nostram ministratio, nisi ex his quae, cum ethnici essemus, de avaritia acquisivimus, vel ab ethnicis parentibus, aut cognatis, aut amicis, de injustitia acquirentibus percepimus? Ut non dicamus, quia et nunc in fide exsistentes acquirimus. Quis enim vendit, et non lucrari vult ab eo qui emit? Quis autem emit, et non vult utiliter secum agi ab eo qui vendit? Quis autem negotians non propterea negotiatur, ut inde alatur? Quid autem et hi, qui in regali aula sunt, fideles, nonne ex eis, quae Caesaris sunt, haben utensilia, et his qui non habent, unusquisque eorum secundum virtutem praestat? ... et illos quidem non signatum aurum et argentum in paucis vasculis, quemadmodum praediximus, accipientes, injuste fecisse dicunt; semetipsos autem (dicetur enim quod verum est, licet ridiculum quibusdam esse videatur), ex alienis laboribus insigne aurum, et argentum, et aeramentum, cum inscriptione et imagine Caesaris in zonis suis ferentes, juste (se) facere dicunt. Si autem comparatio fiat nostra et illorum, qui justius apparebunt accepisse? utrumne populus ab Aegyptiis, qui erant per omnia debitores; an nos a Romanis, et reliquis gentibus, et a quibus nihil tale nobis debeatur? Sed et mundus pacem habet per eos, et nos sine timore in viis ambulamus et navigamus quocunque voluerimus ... Quaecunque enim, cum essemus ethnici, de injustitia acquisivimus, haec, cum crediderimus, in dominicas utilitates conversantes justificamur’.


[9] Astonishingly, C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp (2006), 56-7, in his otherwise detailed commentary on Irenaeus’ extract from the Presbyter does not even quote this passage from Adv. haer. IV 30,2-3, and gives only very brief remarks on it, therefore missing the importance of the text with its historical information.


[10] P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus (2003), 243; see Dig. L 5.3; CIL 2:1180 (mid-second century).


[11] See Iren., Adv. haer. IV 26.1.

[Stephan Huller]

I just want to add that Moll is right about one thing - it is difficult to exactly know where the Elder ends and Irenaeus begins. I just can't get over how the passage cited by Vinzent actually begins with a reference to what presumably is what the Marcionites say about the Catholics and then Irenaeus cites from 'the Elder' to turn them back:

Those, again, who cavil and find fault because the people did, by God's command, upon the eve of their departure, take vessels of all kinds and raiment from the Egyptians," and so went away, from which [spoils], too, the tabernacle was constructed in the wilderness, prove themselves ignorant of the righteous dealings of God, and of His dispensations; as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus; that is, in the faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles. For in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness. For from what source do we derive the houses in which we dwell, the garments in which we are clothed, the vessels which we use, and everything else ministering to our every-day life, unless it be from those things which, when we were Gentiles, we acquired by avarice, or received them from our heathen parents, relations, or friends who unrighteously obtained them?--not to mention that even now we acquire such things when we are in the faith. For who is there that sells, and does not wish to make a profit from him who buys? Or who purchases anything, and does not wish to obtain good value from the seller? Or who is there that carries on a trade, and does not do so that he may obtain a livelihood thereby? And as to those believing ones who are in the royal palace, do they not derive the utensils they employ from the property which belongs to Caesar; and to those who have not, does not each one of these [Christians] give according to his ability? The Egyptians were debtors to the [Jewish] people, not alone as to property, but as their very lives, because of the kindness of the patriarch Joseph in former times; but in what way are the heathen debtors to us, from whom we receive both gain and profit? Whatsoever they amass with labour, these things do we make use of without labour, although we are in the faith.

I have tended to regard the remark of the Elder as just the italicized text. But I think Vinzent wants to make it the whole section. I am not sure if this is correct but then again I may have been overtly influenced by Hill.

[Stephan Huller]

You see because I would only ascribe to the Elder the smallest sliver of that original text I don't see any reason to doubt that Irenaeus was citing Marcion (i.e. the Elder) against his followers. Why else cite someone like Polycarp to them? It doesn't make sense to cite Polycarp against the Marcionites, but Marcion yes.

[Stephan Huller]

So my abstract on this topic has been accepted by the British Patristic Conference in September on this subject. http://www.britishpatristics.com/ For reasons I don't quite understand I feel compelled to work out my paper here at the forum. Any intelligent input from members would be appreciated.

[Stephan Huller]

Here are my basic assumptions

1. Marutha originally mentioned a Marcionite canonical text called saba (= the Elder) not seke (thus some time will be spent justifying the minority reading)
2. Marutha's source said that 'the Elder' took the place of Acts in the Marcionite canon. Do we have any information about where Acts appeared in communities who had a Diatessaron only canon?
3. Most people identify this text with the Antitheses. Why?
4. The Antitheses are generally supposed to have preceded the Marcionite gospel
5. I suspect that when Irenaeus cites from 'the Elder' (Adv Haer 4:27 - 32) he is citing from a common canonical text. I will need to bring up that Irenaeus's canon was not the same as ours (the Shepherd etc)
6. Therefore I don't think that Irenaeus identified 'the Elder' as by Marcion (but I suspect this was the case)
7. Irenaeus never mentions the Antitheses (the sources are Philosophumena and Tertullian).
8. What about Papias mention of the Elder?
9. What about Irenaeus's other mentions of the Elder?
10. Clement identifies Marcion in terms compatible with him being 'the Elder'
11. Is the text in De Recta in Deum Fide identified by Harris as Marcion's Antitheses the Elder?
12. What about Eisler's reconstruction of the Prologue to John?