Markan Marcion: A Contrarian Synopsis

[Ken Olson]

Three Marcionite arguments are mentioned:

(1) John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.

(2) The title mentions a singular gospel: based on the argument, the title was "the gospel" or "the beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus." The former is a scholarly construct based on all the references, and this reference could be pulled into that. The latter is also possible.

(3) There is no named author, but Mark wrote it. (It's also claimed sometimes that Paul wrote it, particularly in the context of the debates that lie behind De Recta in Deum Fide and Against Marcion.)

Origen is referring to Mark 1:1-3 as they are the very first words of Mark. The very first words of Evangelion are not Mark 1:1-3. Canonical Mark was one of the "many" gospels that were not accepted by them.

The implication here (both in Origen and the Philosophoumena), once Mark 1:1-3 is considered not to be the first words of Evangelion, is that there were two different gospels attributed to Mark. One of them is considered "the" Gospel. The other is rejected and not used by them.

I am finding this difficult to follow.

(1) I think I understand you here. Origen, Comm. John 1.82, 'For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose' says the heterodox suppose John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.

(2) As far as I can see, Origen is talking about the first three verses of the canonical Gospel According to Mark in Comm John 1.81 and has not yet mentioned the heterodox or what they believe, which he will do in the following line (1.82).

I don't see a Marcionite or heterodox argument in 1.81. Have you made an argument for this elsewhere?

(3) I think you may be assuming a different sense of gospel or good news than Origen intends (or than I understand Origen to intend). I think he just means the Christian message, the good news of Jesus Christ, very broadly. You seems to be assuming he means a particular written document. It is possible you are correct, but I would want to see an argument for that conclusion.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Three Marcionite arguments are mentioned:

(1) John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.

(2) The title mentions a singular gospel: based on the argument, the title was "the gospel" or "the beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus." The former is a scholarly construct based on all the references, and this reference could be pulled into that. The latter is also possible.

(3) There is no named author, but Mark wrote it. (It's also claimed sometimes that Paul wrote it, particularly in the context of the debates that lie behind De Recta in Deum Fide and Against Marcion.)

Origen is referring to Mark 1:1-3 as they are the very first words of Mark. The very first words of Evangelion are not Mark 1:1-3. Canonical Mark was one of the "many" gospels that were not accepted by them.

The implication here (both in Origen and the Philosophoumena), once Mark 1:1-3 is considered not to be the first words of Evangelion, is that there were two different gospels attributed to Mark. One of them is considered "the" Gospel. The other is rejected and not used by them.

I am finding this difficult to follow.

(1) I think I understand you here. Origen, Comm. John 1.82, 'For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose' says the heterodox suppose John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.

(2) As far as I can see, Origen is talking about the first three verses of the canonical Gospel According to Mark in Comm John 1.81 and has not yet mentioned the heterodox or what they believe, which he will do in the following line (1.82).

I don't see a Marcionite or heterodox argument in 1.81. Have you made an argument for this elsewhere?

(3) I think you may be assuming a different sense of gospel or good news than Origen intends (or than I understand Origen to intend). I think he just means the Christian message, the good news of Jesus Christ, very broadly. You seems to be assuming he means a particular written document. It is possible you are correct, but I would want to see an argument for that conclusion.

For (2), this discussion was taking place previously in a context where we were discussing how Origen has reframed some Marcionite arguments in "orthodox" terms. In that context, it was implicit that it could be a little of both, i.e. Origen's argument and reflecting a Marcionite perspective. In terms of arguing for what I have said here, more explicitly, I could try to provide a new expression of the point in a separate post.

I had assumed that my original point was too obvious to require much explanation.

For your (3), there are certainly references in Origen that support your interpretation of Origen.

[Peter Kirby]

In that context, I had previously quoted this:

Origen (Commentary on John 5.7-8):

If it is capable of proof that the sacred works are one book, but the non-sacred many...

In addition, I will add an apostolic saying to this demonstration which has not been understood by Marcion's followers. As a consequence, they reject the Gospels. For when the Apostle says, "According to my gospel in Christ Jesus," and does not say "gospels," they fix their attention on this point and say that the Apostle said "gospel" in the singular because there were not any more gospels. They do not understand that as he is one whom the many preach, so the gospel recorded by the many is one in power, and there is truly one gospel through the four.

(8) If these things, then, can persuade us about what the one book is [cf. Jn 20:30] and the many [cf. Jn 21:25]...

[Peter Kirby]

There's also a relevant quote in De Recta in Deum Fide that SA knows by heart that I didn't introduce there. I will find it now.

The Marcionite argument, with the same citation, that Origen mentions here is also found in the Pretty translation of Adamantius, p. 43:

The Apostle did not say, “according to my Gospels,” but “according to my Gospel”? Note how he says that there is one.

But the one Gospel had no author ascribed to it (Against Marcion 4.2):

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

Tertullian had read the Antitheses personally (as I have argued), which (as a sort of cover letter and interpretive explanation of the meaning of what follows) is good as a written guide to what Marcion himself would have said on this point. So Marcion himself didn't ascribe an author to the text of the Gospel in the Antitheses, nor as part of the title of the text on the assumption that a contradictory claim of authorship (by a particular person) in the title of the text would have filtered down into debates with non-Marcionites.

And the argument that the Gospel is from Christ appears as the first answer to the question of who wrote the one Gospel:

AD. Who is the writer of this Gospel which you said is one?
MEG. Christ.

Yet not as being literally true in setting pen to paper, as the subsequent question challenges:

AD. Did the Lord Himself write that He was crucified, and rose on the third day? Does He write in this way?

I will continue in another post to talk a little about what continues in this dialogue and about post-Marcion traditions of authorship by Paul. I will also revisit Origen.

[RandyHelzerman]

As we're frequently reminded on this forum, Tertullian never makes any explicit claim to have seen and read from Marcion's gospel himself. Incidentally, Tertullian does say both that he knows about earlier condemnation of Marcion's gospel and that the text is unknown to "most" (pg. 271).

Because of the high risk of coming across wrong in text vs face-to-face conversation, let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to be glib or flip here. Honest question. God forbid (literally, not metaphorically or rhetorically) I disrespect Peter Kirby.

Does Tertullian ever explicitly say that he's seen and read the text of Matthew, or even of Luke?

I'm reminded of what Ruth Bader Gisnburg said when she was arguing before the Supreme Court. One of the justices pointed out that the Constitution didn't contain the word "Woman". She replied, "The Constitution doesn't contain the word 'Freedom' either."

Kind of like that....does he really have to come out and say, in that many words, that he got a copy of Marcion's gospel from Joe's used books? Surely the default presumption is that a purported line-by-line commentary of Marcion's gospel actually is a line-by-line commentary of Marcion's gospel, in absence of quite strong evidence to the contrary?

Even minor aporia--like that time where it looks for all the world like he's expecting a verse from Matthew to be in Luke--don't really cause us to entertain the possibility that he hasn't really actually seen a copy of Luke or Matthew, no?

Even if he *doesn't* explicitly say any of that, is there any kind of systematic way in which he talks about, uses, mentions, other gospels in any way which is different from how he adverts to Marcions? I don't see any difference, but then again I can only read him in translation, so I might very well be missing something.

[Peter Kirby]

Kind of like that....does he really have to come out and say, in that many words, that he got a copy of Marcion's gospel from Joe's used books?

That's not my argument ("have to").

Surely the default presumption is that a purported line-by-line commentary of Marcion's gospel actually is a line-by-line commentary of Marcion's gospel

I have previously discussed these presumptions and no.

[RandyHelzerman]

I have previously discussed these presumptions and no.

I'm sorry, but, "no" to what?

Also, did you discuss these somewhere in this (wonderfully voluminous) thread? If so, I'll be reading for weeks before I find it Or someplace else?

[Peter Kirby]

Let's see if I can provide a summary here after I finish replying to Ken Olson.

[Ken Olson]

There's also a relevant quote in De Recta in Deum Fide that SA knows by heart that I didn't introduce there. I will find it now.

The Marcionite argument, with the same citation, that Origen mentions here is also found in the Pretty translation of Adamantius, p. 43:

The Apostle did not say, “according to my Gospels,” but “according to my Gospel”? Note how he says that there is one.

But the one Gospel had no author ascribed to it (Against Marcion 4.2):

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

Tertullian had read the Antitheses personally (as I have argued), which (as a sort of cover letter and interpretive explanation of the meaning of what follows) is good as a written guide to what Marcion himself would have said on this point. So Marcion himself didn't ascribe an author to the text of the Gospel in the Antitheses, nor as part of the title of the text on the assumption that a contradictory claim of authorship (by a particular person) in the title of the text would have filtered down into debates with non-Marcionites.

And the argument that the Gospel is from Christ appears as the first answer to the question of who wrote the one Gospel:

AD. Who is the writer of this Gospel which you said is one?
MEG. Christ.

Yet not as being literally true in setting pen to paper, as the subsequent question challenges:

AD. Did the Lord Himself write that He was crucified, and rose on the third day? Does He write in this way?

I will continue in another post to talk a little about what continues in this dialogue and about post-Marcion traditions of authorship by Paul. I will also revisit Origen.

I am familiar with the Adamantius Dialogue and the Marcionite claim that Paul referred to one gospel (singular, not gosples) and that the author of that gospel was Christ.

What confuses me is this:

The implication here (both in Origen and the Philosophoumena), once Mark 1:1-3 is considered not to be the first words of Evangelion, is that there were two different gospels attributed to Mark. One of them is considered "the" Gospel. The other is rejected and not used by them.

I get that Mark 1.1-3 was not the first words of the Evangelion. What I don't get is how this would imply there were two different gospels attributed to Mark, one of them is considered 'the' gospel (by Marcionites, right?). The other (the one we know as canonical Mark, right?) is rejected and not used by them (them = Marcionites, right?).

What is the evidence that the Marcionites attributed 'the' gospel, the one they recognized to Mark? I don't see how you get that from Origen.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

I am familiar with the Adamantius Dialogue and the Marcionite claim that Paul referred to one gospel (singular, not gosples) and that the author of that gospel was Christ.

Apologies. I didn't mean to imply anything else.

What confuses me is this:

The implication here (both in Origen and the Philosophoumena), once Mark 1:1-3 is considered not to be the first words of Evangelion, is that there were two different gospels attributed to Mark. One of them is considered "the" Gospel. The other is rejected and not used by them.

I get that Mark 1.1-3 was not the first words of the Evangelion. What I don't get is how this would imply there were two different gospels attributed to Mark, one of them is considered 'the' gospel (by Marcionites, right?). The other (the one we know as canonical Mark, right?) is rejected and not used by them (them = Marcionites, right?).

What is the evidence that the Marcionites attributed 'the' gospel, the one they recognized to Mark? I don't see how you get that from Origen.

Fair enough. Some also doubt what I would say here regarding Refutation of All Heresies, book 7 (on which, see here). For example, in 2016, Andrew Criddle wrote:

https://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/hippoly ... -and-mark/

In the Refutation of All Heresies Book 7 there is a puzzling passage about Marcion and Mark ...

However, other writers from Irenaeus onwards associate Marcion with a version of the Gospel attributed to Luke rather than the Gospel attributed to Mark. ...

It is possible that Hippolytus is genuinely claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Marcion’s Gospel was a version of Mark. ...

Can we make sense of Hippolytus’ claim that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets) if Hippolytus knew that Marcion’s Gospel was a version of the Gospel attributed to Luke ? I think we can. ...

Similarly, when Hippolytus denies that Mark taught the doctrines of Marcion, I think that he refers to a tradition in which Luke used Mark as a source. We have no other references in ancient writers to Luke using Mark as a source, but the consensus of modern scholarship supports this source theory. If Luke actually did use Mark, then it is prima-facie plausible that a tradition to this effect would survive till c 200 CE.

If I am right, then Hippolytus is arguing:
i/ The Gospel tradition which Hippolytus, (but apparently not Marcion), attributes to Luke derives from Mark and Paul.
ii/ Marcion’s doctrine cannot be derived from Mark and Paul.
iii/ Therefore, Marcion’s doctrine cannot be regarded as a legitimate version of the Lukan Gospel tradition.

There's a lot going on here, but the main thing is the idea that the Marcionites used a gospel that was "a version of the Gospel attributed to Luke rather than the Gospel attributed to Mark" and that the identification was obvious and universal knowledge (at least among those non-Marcionites familiar with the matter and willing to accept it), so it is a good idea to look for a possibility where the "puzzling passage about Marcion and Mark" does not contradict this.

I do understand that:

I don't see how you get that from Origen.

So while I am not going to try to claim that all other interpretations are not possible, please allow me to continue my train of thought here.

I will continue in another post to talk a little about what continues in this dialogue and about post-Marcion traditions of authorship by Paul. I will also revisit Origen.

And if it's still not apparent then, that's okay too.