MARCION, HERETIC. - Born in Pontus ca. 85, died in Rome in the second half of the 2nd century. Nothing certain is known about his private life, but it seems that he was a shipowner (Tertullian, De praescr. 30, calls him: nauclerus), a profession that in that era made one wealthy (v. M. Rostovtzeff, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft im römischen Kaiserreich, II, Leipzig n.d., p. 367 ff.) and that explains how "in the first fervor of the faith"
(Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4, 4) he was able to make a gift of 20,000 sesterces to the community of Rome (Tertullian, De praescr. 30). In the year 144, a historic date for his followers, he left the Church under the influence of the Gnostic Cerdo (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. 1, 2), and the community returned his money to him (Tertullian, De praescr. 30). We are today poorly informed about the doctrines of the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo.
The manner in which Harnack has described the relations between Cerdo and M. is not satisfactory. Harnack wanted to deny M.'s relations with Gnosis, but this attempt did not succeed. The idea of the foreign God is not characteristic of M. alone, but, for all of Gnosis, the distinction between a just and an unjust God is not equally exclusive to M. (cf. Didymus, De Trinit., III, 42: PG 39, 992, regarding Menander and Satornilus), and M.'s starting point in his discussion with the Roman presbyters: the Gospel similitude of the good and bad tree (Tertullian, Adv. Marc., I, 2), can only be explained by a Gnostic tradition that identified the two trees in paradise with those of the Gospel parable; therefore M.'s relation to Gnosis is undeniable. To what extent M. upheld Gnostic speculations (e.g., those attributed to him by the Armenian Ezeki) cannot be said with certainty, but that M. was a "biblicist," as Harnack holds, is not plausible. In the book of I. Bidez and Fr. Cumont, Les mages hellénisés (I, Paris 1938, p. 231) the affinity of certain Iranian ideas with those of M. is noted. On the other hand the absolute authority that M. attributes to St. Paul (in contrast to the Twelve) can only be explained by the Gnostic theory that Paul was "pneumatikos" by nature (cf. Didymus, in PG 39, 1672). For the Marcionites Paul sits at the right hand and M. at the left hand of God (Origen, In Luc. hom., 25, ed. Rauer, Leipzig 1930, p. 162, 6 ff.), and this means: both Paul and M. are by nature "pneumatikoi," that is, belonging to the good tree. M. is the author of a work entitled: Antitheses, in which the God of the Old Testament is in opposition to that of the New Testament. The book apparently also bore the name of Proevangelium. An attempt to reconstruct the content of the work is found in Harnack, Marcion (2nd ed., Leipzig 1924, p. 256 ff.). One can observe here too, e.g., in the polemic against insects (cf. Harnack, op. cit., p. 270) Iranian ideas, likewise in the theory that the demiurge knew nothing of the existence of the higher God (cf. Zatsparām, 1, in Zaehner, in Bulletin of the School of Orient. Studies, 9 [1937-39], p. 577). The work insists on the "newness" of the Gospel and sets forth the thesis that while the Demiurge was known by Adam and the others, the Father of Christ was unknown. The God of the Old Testament is just, that of the New Testament is good, the first warlike, the second peaceful, the first created this visible world, the second created nothing or created only the invisible world, the first wants sacrifices, the second is content with hymns and praises. M. never tired of speaking ill of the present creation, which was, according to him, a "quid malum," produced from a bad matter (hyle) by the work of a "just" demiurge (Clement of Alex., Strom., III, 3, 12). The patriarchs and prophets knew nothing of the good God, identified with Christ (Spirit), who in the 15th year of Tiberius manifested himself under the form of an apparent body and who in his descensus to the dead did not free the just, but Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians, etc. This Jesus, who is "foreign" in the world of the Creator, remained unknown even to his disciples, who maintained contacts with the Jewish religion and with the world of the Creator. Therefore it seemed necessary to M. to reconstruct, on the basis of Luke, a new Gospel, to which he placed alongside, in his canon of the New Testament, selected passages from the Pauline epistles, purged according to the tendency of his doctrine. This Gospel is that of Paul, who was called by God after the failure of the Twelve. One may put forward the hypothesis that M.'s vocation too had become necessary after the obscuring of the Pauline doctrine in the Church. Perhaps M. was aware of the theory of a continued prophetism, as is evident in the preaching of Mani. According to the Kephalaia of the Manichaeans there appear, after Paul, other
"just ones," who seek to repair the ills of the Church. One has thought of M. and it may be that the doctrine set forth in the Kephalaia is based on M.'s own affirmation. The Marcionite sect admitted among its adherents only those who abstained from marital relations, practiced severe fasts, abstinence from wine and meat and other ascetic works, wore black garments of penance. On the history of the sect cf. Harnack, op. cit., p. 153 ff.; on p. 177 ff. also on its ramifications.
Bibliography2 works
Erik Peterson
"ADVERSUS MARCIONEM." - Poem in five books against the heresy of M., wrongly attributed to Tertullian.
The original manuscript that served G. Fabricius for the first edition (Basel 1563) is lost. For the reconstruction of the text two centos attributed to a Victorinus in codex Vat. Regin. 582 (9th-10th cent.) are important. The poem teaches nothing new about M. and indeed contains errors. The date is much debated. While K. Holl (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, III, Tübingen 1928, p. 13 ff.) thought of the 5th century (ca. 475-525), M. Müller (Untersuchungen zum Carmen adversus Marcionem, Leipzig 1936) has again argued for the 4th century. But Holl's strong arguments do not seem to be refuted. Isidore of Seville (De viris illustr., 8) knows of a Victorinus episcopus, who would have composed "versibus duo opuscula admodum brevia," one against the Manichaeans and the other against the Marcionites. It does not appear possible to identify the opusculum admodum breve of Victorinus with the present Carmen adversus Marcionem in 5 books. According to Holl, the author would have lived in Gaul.
Bibliography2 works
Erik Peterson