Marcion of Sinope

             The Marcionite Heresy from Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg's Thought by JAMES B. WHISKER

       G.R.S. Mead: An Introduction to Marcion

           MARCION
       Possible Progenitor of Three Famous Christian Communities:
         Baptists, Catholics, Gnostics

         The GOSPEL OF MARCION and The GOSPEL OF LUKE
            COMPARED

           The Wisdom Religion

The Marcionite Heresy

Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg's Thought
JAMES B. WHISKER

Excerpt:
We must return to the 2nd century A.D., to Marcion of Sinope in Pontus, to see the development of the whole body of literature surrounding the Grail. The greater portion of what stood in contradistinction to both Western Catholicism and the later Orthodox schism from that Church, can be seen at least germinally in Marcion. He, like many, had struggled with the great problem of evil. The Church had not as of that time decided its own explanation of evil in the world. The question was far from settled when Marcion was writing.

The Marcionites believed that evil was a truly real force, not merely the privation of some good. One may, for simplification, regard that evil power as the Devil, Satan, or the Lord of the Flies. He is a power to be reckoned with. The world was the source of sin and corruption, and was to be avoided. It had been created just as the Old Testament had said, but not by God. There was a lesser being, or beings, much like the classic Greek "world artificers." Sometimes known as a Demiurge, that creator had a spark of divinity, for he was a son of God, an emanation from the Most High. Man naturally longs for his true home, but that is unknown to him. He is trapped in a world of corruption and ruination: in matter, the material world, which is not God's creation.

To Marcion, the Old Testament was lie because it was the story of a false god, a deceiver: Jehovah. It and most, if not all, of its various characters were a deceit, and must be rejected. The Jews he considered to be the people of Jehovah, that is, a race dedicated to the false god. He agreed with the Jews on one point: their messiah had not yet come. Jesus Christ was not their redeemer; he had come to liberate men from the false religion of Jehovah. In his anti-cosmic dualism, Marcion put the unknown God in opposition to the inferior creator-god, Jehovah. The salvation of mankind meant, in a word, liberation from Jehovah.

The contrast between the two worlds and their respective gods is very great. Jehovah is presented by Marcion as a warrior-avenger, interested in perpetuating a world of retribution. The gentle Jesus is the agent of the unknown (alien) God, and he is merciful and filled with love. One cannot know the unknown (alien) God directly, and though he may have been suspected by men, he was not revealed to exist until Jesus came into the world. Jehovah was at home in the material world because it was his mirror image, made in his (not the alien-God's) image and likeness. The true God could not exist in this world, for he is pure spirit and is in direct opposition to the conflict and disorder which is inherent in matter.

The Marcionites rejected any and all things which tied one to the material world, or which seemed to tie one there, or which seemed to suggest physical redemption or conversion of material things. Thus they rejected baptism, except as a manifestation of their disdain for the material world. Holy Communion was a great contradiction, for it had as its primary content the transfixion of material things into the realm of the spirit and of the unknown God. All earthly pleasures were to be avoided as distractions which tie one to the temporal world. Sexual contact was another more serious tie to the visible world. Procreation of children meant that more sparks of the spirit were to be entrapped in the world of tears and deceit.

Because he is pure goodness and mercy, the unknown God adopted mankind, or at least that portion which was his own and to whom he could come, and who would accept and love him. God gave us grace quite freely to aid in our salvation, not because we as lowly beings could not merit it, but because he loved us although he did not know us. This is the doctrine of "pure grace," a quintessential part of Marcionite theology. That, in a sense, is the whole of the religion. God so loved the world that, although unknown to him, he chose to bring men to live with him so that he and men could come to know one another in a world far removed from the corruption of the present one.

Morality was not regarded as conformity to some law of Nature; nature was physical, and thus corrupt. God was not in the world. Natural laws were the embodiment of the derni-urge, Satan, not the Unknown God. One ought to avoid contact with nature in all its visible forms, for it leads one away from the true God.

While it is faith, not knowledge, that leads us toward God, we must have access to and know the special knowledge that much of what passes as religion is false. We must know, in Marcion's schema, that the Unknown God is God, and that the creator of the world is only an eon, an evil emanation from God. Christ the Son of God came to bring us to know that which we cannot know directly, in and of ourselves. That we are trapped in matter without hope of redemption unless we know the correct faith is a matter of special, or gnostic, revelation. That God invites us strangers into his home without any knowledge of us, or we of him, is a canon of faith which can be known only through this special knowledge.

Marcion dropped elements of the New Testament that he did not like. What remained were expurgated portions of the Gospels (notably Luke), some of Paul's letters, and bits of the Acts of the Apostles. It is noteworthy that the Western church had not, as of this time, codified the New Testament. Marcion was more restrictive than most of the priests of the time in his choice of acceptable materials for the services. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, although one deviation of the time, possibly not Marcionite, devolved into snake worship, based on the Old Testament tale of the snake tempting Eve. Presumably, the snake was a good symbol for it was set in contradistinction to the ones Marcion had made evil characters. The snake was believed to be bringing certain knowledge of Satan, the creator of Adam and Eve.

In censoring the New Testament, Marcion excised those references made to an early childhood of Christ. Since Jesus was the messenger of the Most High, the Unknown God, he could not have been immersed in matter. Without having to materialize, Jesus had appeared to men to have a body and then only at Capernaum. He came to save those who would reject Judaism and Jehovah. What his precious blood purchased, in a metaphorical sense, was the freedom from the false god, Jehovah. He offered a baptism which would reject the world and all its material evils. One was to be "married" only to Christ so that child-bearing was avoided and man could escape the material world. While the material world would continue to exist, Christ had come to destroy, as an idea, the world of Jehovah.

Read the full article at our webpage: Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg's Thought
 

--------------

THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY

Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments

G.R.S. Mead: An Introduction to Marcion

Archive Notes

This biographical introduction to Marcion is taken from G.R.S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London and Benares, 1900; 3rd Edition 1931), pp.241- 249.

MARCION was a rich shipowner of Sinope, the chief port of Pontus, on the southern shore of the Black Sea; he was also a bishop and the son of a bishop. His chief activity at Rome may be placed somewhere between the years 150 and 160. At first he was in communion with the church at Rome, and contributed handsomely to its funds; as, however, the presbyters could not explain his difficulties and refused to face the important questions he set before them, he is said to have threatened to make a schism in the church; and apparently was finally excommunicated.

But as a matter of fact the origin of Marcionism is entirely wrapped in obscurity, and we know nothing of a reliable nature of the lives of either Cerdo or Marcion. The Church writers at the end of the second century, who are our best authorities, cannot tell the story of the beginning of the movement with any certainty. For all we know, Marcion may have developed his theories long before he came to Rome, and may have based them on information he gleaned and opinions he heard on his long voyages.

This much we know, that the views of Marcion spread rapidly over the "whole world," to use the usual Patristic phrase for the Graeco- Roman dominions; and as late as the fifth century we hear of Theodoret converting more than a thousand Marcionites. In Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Asia Minor and Persia, Marcionite churches sprang up, splendidly organised, with their own bishops and the rest of the ecclesiastical discipline, with a cult and service of the same nature as those of what subsequently became the Catholic Church. Orthodoxy had not declared for any party as yet, and the Marcionite view had then as good a chance as any other of becoming the universal one. What then was the secret of Marcion's success? As already pointed out, it was the same as that of the success of modern criticism as applied to the problem of the Old Testament.

Marcion's view was in some respects even more moderate than the judgment of some of our modern thinkers; he was willing to admit that the Yahweh of the Old Testament was just. With great acumen he arranged the sayings and doings ascribed to Yahweh by the writers, and compilers, and editors of the heterogeneous books of the Old Testament collection, in parallel columns, so to say, with the sayings and teachings of the Christ-in a series of antitheses which brought out in startling fashion the fact, that though the best of the former might be ascribed to the idea of a Just God, they were foreign to the ideal of the Good God preached by the Christ. We know how in these latter days the best minds in the Church have rejected the horrible sayings and doings ascribed to God in some of the Old Testament documents, and we thus see how Marcion formulated a protest which must have already declared itself in the hearts of thousands of the more enlightened of the Christian name.

As for the New Testament, in Marcion's time, the idea of a canon was not yet or was only just being thought of. Marcion, too, had an idea of a canon, but it was the antipodes of the views which afterwards became the basis of the orthodox canon.

The Christ had preached a universal doctrine, a new revelation of the Good God, the Father over all. They who tried to graft this on to Judaism, the imperfect creed of one small nation, were in grievous error, and had totally misunderstood the teaching of the Christ. The Christ was not the Messiah promised to the Jews. That Messiah was to be an earthly king, was intended for the Jews alone, and had not yet come. Therefore the pseudo-historical "in order that it might be fulfilled " school had adulterated and garbled the original Sayings of the Lord, the universal glad tidings, by the unintelligent and erroneous glosses they had woven into their collections of the teachings. It was the most terrific indictment of the cycle of New Testament "history" that has ever been formulated. Men were tired of all the contradictions and obscurities of the innumerable and mutually destructive variants of the traditions concerning the person of Jesus. No man could say what was the truth, now that "history" had been so altered to suit the new Messiah-theory of the Jewish converts.

As to actual history, then, Marcion started with Paul; he was the first who had really understood the mission of the Christ, and had rescued the teaching from the obscurantism of Jewish sectarianism. Of the manifold versions of the Gospel, he would have the Pauline alone. He rejected every other recension, including those now ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and John. The Gospel according to Luke, the "follower of Paul," he also rejected, regarding it as a recension to suit the views of the Judaising party. His Gospel was presumably the collection of Sayings in use among the Pauline churches of his day. Of course the Patristic writers say that Marcion mutilated Luke's version; but it is almost impossible to believe that, if he did this, so keen a critic as Marcion should have retained certain verses which made against his strong anti-Judaistic views. The Marcionites, on the contrary, contended that their Gospel was written by Paul from the direct tradition, and that Luke had nothing to do with it. But this is also a difficulty, for it is highly improbable that Paul wrote any Gospel.

So many orthodox apologists wrote against Marcion after his death, that it is possible to reconstruct almost the whole of his Gospel. It begins with the public preaching of the Christ at Capernaum; it is shorter than the present Luke document, and some writers of great ability have held that it was the original of Luke's version, but this is not very credible. As for the rest of the documents included in the present collection of the New Testament, Marcion would have nothing to do with any of them, except ten of the Letters of Paul, parts of which he also rejected as interpolations by the reconciliators of the Petro-Pauline controversy. These ten letters were called The Apostle ["Apostolikon"].

The longest criticism of Marcion's views is to be found in Tertullian's invective Against Marcion, written in 207 and the following years. This has always been regarded by the orthodox as a most brilliant piece of work; but by the light of the conclusions arrived at by the industry of modern criticism, and also to ordinary common sense, it appears but a sorry piece of angry rhetoric. Tertullian tries to show that Marcion taught two Gods, the Just and the Good. Marcion, however, taught that the idea of the Jews about God, as set forth in the Old Testament, was inferior and antagonistic to the ideal of the Good God revealed by the Christ. This he set forth in the usual Gnostic fashion. But we can hardly expect a dispassionate treatment of a grave problem, which has only in the last few years reached a satisfactory solution in Christendom, from the violent Tertullian, whose temper may be gleaned from his angry address to the Marcionites: "Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, and who yelp at the God of truth, let us come to your various questions! These are the bones of contention, which ye are perpetually gnawing !"

Enough has now been said to give the reader a general idea of the Marcionite position- a very strong one it must be admitted, both because of its simplicity and also because it formulated the protest of long slumbering discontent among the outer communities. It is, however, difficult to deduce anything like a clear system of cosmogony or christology from the onslaughts of the best known haeresiologists on Marcionite doctrines. It has even been doubted whether Marcion should be classed as a Gnostic, but this point is set at rest by the work of Eznik (Eznig or Esnig), an Armenian bishop, who flourished about 450 A.D. In his treatise "The Destruction of False Doctrines", he devotes the fourth and last book to the Marcionites, who seem to have been even at that late date a most flourishing body. Although it is doubted whether the ideas there described are precisely the same as the original system of Marcion, it is evident that the Marcionite tradition was of a distinctly Gnostic tendency, and that Marcion owed more to his predecessors in Gnosticism than was usully supposed prior to the first translation of Eznik's treatise (into French) in 1833.

It will be sufficient here to shorten Salmon's summary of this curious Marcionite myth, calling the reader's attention to the similarity of parts of its structure to the system of Justinus. There were three Heavens; in the highest was the Good God; in the intermediate the God of the Law; in the lowest, his Angels. Beneath lay Hyle or root-matter. The world was the joint product of the God of the Law and Hyle. The Creative Power perceiving that the world was very good, desired to make man to inhabit it. So Hyle gave him his body and the Creative Power the breath of life, his spirit. And Adam and Eve lived in innocence in Paradise, and did not beget children. And the' God of the Law desired to take Adam from Hyle and make him serve him alone. So taking him aside, he said: "Adam, I am God and beside me there is no other; if thou worshippest any other God thou shalt die the death." And Adam on hearing of death was afraid, and withdrew himself from Hyle. Now Hyle had been wont to serve Adam; but when she found that he withdrew from her, in revenge she filled the world with idolatry, so that men ceased to adore the Lord of Creation. Then was the Creator wrath, and as men died he cast them into Hell (Hades-the Unseen World), from Adam onwards.

But at length the Good God looked down from Heaven, and saw the miseries which man suffered through Hyle and the Creator. And He took com-passion on them, and sent them down His Son to deliver them, saying: "Go down, take on Thee the form of a servant [? a body], and make Thyself like the sons of the Law. Heal their wounds, give sight to their blind, bring their dead to life, perform without reward the greatest miracles of healing; then will the God of the Law be jealous and instigate his servants to crucify thee. Then go down to Hell, which will open her mouth to receive Thee, supposing Thee to be one of the dead. Then liberate the captives Thou shalt find there, and bring them up to Me."

And thus the souls were freed from Hell and carried up to the Father. Whereupon the God of the Law was enraged, and rent his clothes and tore the curtain of his palace, and darkened the sun and veiled the world in darkness. Then the Christ descended a second time, but now in the glory of His divinity, to plead with the God of the Law. And the God of the Law was compelled to acknowledge that he had done wrong in thinking that there was no higher power than himself. And the Christ said unto him: "I have a controversy with thee, but I will take no other judge between us but thy own law. Is it not written in thy law that whoso killeth another shall himself be killed; that whoso sheddeth innocent blood shall have his own blood shed? Let me, then, kill thee and shed thy blood, for I am innocent and thou hast shed My blood."

And then He went on to recount the benefits He had bestowed on the children of the Creator, and how He had in return been crucified; and the God of the Law could find no defence, and confessed and said: "I was ignorant; I thought Thee but a man, and did not know Thee to be a god; take the revenge that is Thy due." And the Christ thereupon left him, and betook himself to Paul, and revealed the path of truth.

The Marcionites were the most rigid of ascetics, abstaining from marriage, flesh and wine, the latter being excluded from their Eucharist. They also rejoiced beyond all other sects in the number of their martyrs. The Marcionites have also given us the most ancient dated Christian inscription. It was discovered over the doorway of a house in a Syrian village, and formerly marked the site of a Marcionite meeting-house or church, which curiously enough was called a synagogue. The date is October 1, A.D. 318 and the most remarkable point about it is that the church was dedicated to "The Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Good - "Chrestos", not Christos. In early times there seems to have been much confusion between the two titles. Christos is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah, Anointed, and was the title used by those who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This was denied, not only by the Marcionites, but also by many of their Gnostic predecessors and successors. The title Chrestos was used of one perfected, the holy one, the saint; no doubt in later days the orthodox, who subsequently had the sole editing of the texts, in pure ignorance changed Chrestos into Christos wherever it occurred; so that instead of finding the promise of perfection in the religious history of all the nations, they limited it to the Jewish tradition alone, and struck a fatal blow at the universality of history and doctrine. There was naturally a number of sub-schools of the Marcion school, and in its ranks were a number of distinguished teachers ...

-------------------

MARCION
Possible Progenitor of Three Famous Christian Communities:
Baptists, Catholics, Gnostics

by Ray Embry 2001

Marcion's place in the history of Christianity is still not very well known. Over the last two hundred years, there has been a growing number of studies that have managed to shed more light on Christianity's first two centuries. Significant breakthroughs have been achieved through means of manuscript discoveries and critical reassessments of some strong traditions. One such orthodox claim that has lost support among many researchers is the once dominant tradition that describes Catholicism as the oldest form of Christianity (Walter Bauer. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity).

In the Twentieth Century, the emergence of some significant studies on Marcion has led a variety of Christian thinkers to describe Marcion as the initiator of some important customs and features now found in our modern Christian Faith. Here is a brief list of five things described on the Web as being created by Marcion:

1. The "faith only" movement (solafideism),

2. The theory of dispensationalism,

3. The concept of "New Testament Christianity,"

4. The New Testament itself, as a distinct body of inspired writings,

5. Sola Scriptura, the idea that all Christian teachings should be based solely on the Scriptures (The New Testament).


There are at least eight notable reactions to Marcion that indirectly may be attributed to his early work and mission. After he evangelized the Roman Empire in the Second Century, there began to surface several energetic responses to Marcion's work:


1. The Orthodox began to expand his New Testament,

2. Such ideas as Church Tradition, the Rule of Faith and Apostolic Succession were introduced in order to undermine Marcion's insistence on sola scriptura. These formulations helped crystallize the concept of Orthodoxy (or Catholicism).

3. After Marcion commenced his evangelistic crusade, a significant portion of Christian literature became devoted to apologetics (or polemical defenses) of Orthodoxy (correct doctrines).

4. Forgeries of Christian semi-scriptures mushroomed. Some of these pseudepigrapha (false writings) were composed to counteract some aspect of Marcion's theology.

5. The Apostles' Creed is generally recognized as a forgery. Some scholars, such as Arthur C. McGiffert, recognize it as composed specially to temper Marcion's theism.

6. Even the extra-Biblical and incomprehensible word "Trinity" may be seen as a useful device invented to help fend off Marcionite logic.

7. The Inquisition was originally designed as a mechanism to deal with the dualistic Albigensians who had taken up some of Marcion's ideas.

8. The Rosary, according to Catholic Tradition, was also originally designed as an instrument to aid in the battle against Albigensians.

The following article focuses on an early time in Marcion's teaching career, and it brings to light some aspects of that crucial setting. Marcion enters the scene while a battle was waging for the soul of Christianity. There was a tendency then to see Christianity mainly as a New Israel, and Monotheism was then being put forth as the number one teaching of the Church (Note Clement of Rome's long glorification of the Creator, AD 90).

Marcion was attempting to bring Christianity back to its real roots in Jesus Christ. According to Marcion, faith in our Savior led to the real birth of the family of Christians. Traveling across the ancient world, Marcion spread his message of faith. His great success was due to a number of factors. His personal dynamism may have been important. The staying power of his influence was due in large part to the New Testament that he published. The logic of his thinking was persuasive. His ability to answer the problem of evil made him rise head and shoulders above all philosophers and metaphysicians.

THE GNOSTICS
According to Clement of Alexandria, Marcion preceded in time all the great Gnostic masters: "those that invented the heresies" (The Miscellanies, Book 7, ch. 17. 106f.). That educated scholar from Alexandria (Clement) represents Marcion as an "elder" predecessor to two early Gnostic teachers, Valentinus and Basilides. Another heresiarch, Simon Magus, who is often portrayed as the grand father of Gnosticism, also is described by Clement as succeeding Marcion. "This statement of Clement appears to make Marcion an old man while (Basilides and) Valentinus were still young, and to put Simon Magus posterior to them all in time" (Robert Smith Wilson. Marcion: A Study of a Second-Century Heretic. James Clarke and Co. Ltd. 1932. p. 56). Clement's chronological data is not being so readily dismissed today, and Marcion's career is being dated to an earlier time than before (Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity - An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century. R. Joseph Hoffmann. Scholars Press 1984).

Besides this historical evidence about his priority, Marcion's simple Dualism seems to be the logical antecedent or background for the complex arrangements found in Gnosticism. Indeed, Gnostics are often mistakenly described as Dualists. More correctly, the Gnostic method is essentially an imaginative attempt to give a monotheistic explanation about the rise of evil. (Gnostics seem to be direct heirs of Jewish speculative theology where there was a keen interest in angelology and Logos theories. The Gnostic aethereal matrix was mobilized to counteract the growing influence of Marcion's Antithesis. The Orthodox were less disturbed over the Gnostics than they were over Marcion.) The Gnostics believed they had adequately explained how darkness and corruption could ultimately descend from a singular source of Divine Light.

Between that Perfect Light and our imperfect world, there are (according to the Gnostics) a significant number of stations, events and beings that tend to absorb the attribution of evil away from the highest level of Divine Unity. The various lists of intermediaries found in Gnostic literature identify a number of individuals that seem to be responsible for all the strife and confusion that is so evident in this lower realm. Thus the Highest Cause remains ineffable and unsullied. The Gnostic quest is to return to that great level of Divine Integrity.

Marcion's simple Dualism was not adopted wholesale by any Gnostic system (unless Cerdo was a real Gnostic). All Gnostic theories eventually envision a single source for everything. Sometimes this original point seems to be bipolar and sometimes it is bisected along sexual lines. Even this binary entity acts corporately for the birth or incipience of all else.

All Gnostic theologies seemingly spring forth as ideological children born from the ancient Mosaic idea about an inviolable monotheism. This form of theism sees everything (no matter what) as ultimately deriving from a single Creator. Working within this rigid model of monism, the Judaistic or Mosaic theoreticians could only think in a linear or vertical fashion, where our world lies on one end, while an independent Father of Light stands on the other.

The new Gnostic systems describe every single thing as somehow related, but, due to Marcion's contention, evil is removed as far as possible down the ladder. These semi-Marcionite schemes all attempt to place evil far, far away from the Supreme Being. They make evil seem hardly related to the Most High Entity. In their effort to rebut Marcion's recognition of an independent kingdom of evil, the Gnostics preferred to describe the evil world as an accident or as a disturbance caused by a lack of knowledge. Evil, to the Gnostic, was mostly described as a mixing with Matter which in turn was able to interfere with man's clearness or pureness of vision.

Whenever a sufficient distance is achieved away from the Ultimate Source for Light, then this detached condition seems almost fated to bring about a measure of darkness. By not being directly responsible for an unenlightened world, the Gnostic God of Light and Wisdom was superficially made to resemble Marcion's. However, the Gnostic's ingenious image of divine supremacy was described more in terms of philosophical majesty or profundity. Originally, Marcion's God was known always as the highest example of moral character and civility.

The later Church Fathers loved to describe Marcion as a Gnostic. They could make this allegation effective only at a time when Gnosticism was clearly waning. The original distinction between Marcion and the Gnostics is easily discoverable when the matter of the Christian canon is carefully examined.

Marcion was a man who determined all by the canon (sola scriptura). He did not rely on secret visitations or mysterious documents in order to validate his teaching. He relied solely on the plain message of the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul.

Departing dramatically from Marcion's simple reliance on Scripture, the Gnostics felt no compunction whatsoever about writing down their wild imaginations. They all felt totally justified in this because their holy campaign was looked on by them as a necessary defense of Hebrew monotheism. Many Gnostics alluded to the existence of Jesus, and when they made some such reference, they usually portrayed him as a brilliant Messenger who had been sent to point a way for man to pass back through the great cosmic confusion. A shadow had materialized throughout our world and it managed to obscure mankind's appreciation of pure monotheism.

The Gnostics were generally a scholarly community who tossed around their knowledge of ancient history and traditions. They gleaned much from their library of classics and they mixed legendary and scriptural matters freely. They had pride in mental eccentricity and they gloried in their metaphysical erudition. Their key to the future was their mind's ability to hold onto the secrets of life. Their crowning jewel was their apparent ability to solve Marcion's dilemma without having to abandon monotheism.

Marcion's use of the Christian canon brings him closer to the Scripture-oriented Christianity of the great Councils than it does to the myth-oriented Gnostics. Marcion sponsored an open Christianity that met in churches. The Gnostic affinity or group identity was a secret bond that transcended the local "Christian" congregations. Marcion preached the Gospel to all, while the Gnostics gloried in their elite status by carefully guarding the deepest of their inspired secrets.

Again, the similarity between Marcion and the Gnostics is only superficial. The similarity actually only involves a common vocabulary of a few key words. When the respective usage of these words is taken into consideration, a vast difference slowly emerges. Marcion had a practical and ethical interest. The Gnostic interest was philosophical and argumentative. A Gnostic group could be libertine in its practice, and still it could be recognized as fundamentally faithful to the principles of Gnosticism. Marcion's principles always required the highest degree of morality.

Love, for the Gnostics, was generally only their conscious desire to return to the Highest Heaven, in company with their friends. Marcion recognized Christ's great mission as a journey of compassion to this lost world. Loving our enemies is the heart of this Gospel.

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN"
The historical records about Marcion's contact with Gnostics is very meager. Accepting Marcion's priority makes sense out of the otherwise mysterious origins of Gnosticism. A more recent review of Marcion's chronology places the beginning of Marcion's ministry several years before that of the supposed "Gnostic" Cerdo. Cerdo (or Cerdon) apparently flourished as a teacher after AD 130, "in the time of Hyginus, who was the eighth bishop" (Robert Smith Wilson. Marcion: A Study of a Second Century Heretic. James Clarke and Co. Ltd. 1932. p.54; quoting Irenaeus. Adv. Haer. III.4.53). Hyginus superintended the Roman Ecclesia AD 136-140.

According to a reasonable interpretation of the chronological evidence, Polycarp (while a bishop of Smyrna) was writing in AD 115 about the extensiveness of Marcion's teachings in Asia Minor (Pol. Phil. 2:18,19). Polycarp styled Marcion as "the first-born of Satan" (Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF] vol. 1, p. 416), and the object of Polycarp's criticism in his Epistle to Philippi is directed to this same "[son]."

About the year AD 138, Justin Martyr (a resident of Rome) wrote about Marcion's unusually long and effective teaching career. "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 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. All who take these opinions from these men are, as we before said, called Christian" (Justin's [First] Apology. I.26. ANF. vol. 1. p. 171). The reason for dating this statement to the year AD 138 is discoverable in Blackman's study (Marcion and His Influence. p. 21).

One of the most startling things in Justin's unfavorable review of Marcion is the surprising appearance of the word "Christians" as a commonly used title to describe the members of Marcionite churches. By AD 138, Marcionites could be found in "every nation." At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for "Christian." It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the "Chrestos" (which means the Kind or Helpful One). "… [T]he spelling for 'Chrestos' (=the Good one) [is] derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue" (Daniel Jon Mahar. English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians. p. 1).

Those 'orthodox' believers who were more allied with the Roman Ecclesia were already at this time proudly bearing the title "Catholic." By the time when The Acts of the Apostles was formally published about the middle of the Second Century, the word "Christian" had become very popular as a designation for believers in Jesus. Because of this, there was needed some kind of explanation about its origin.

Not many know that the Sinaiticus manuscript has a peculiar way of spelling the word Christian. Everywhere this title appears, that Fourth Century manuscript spells it "Chrestian." Vaticanus, a manuscript of the same age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling: "Chreistian."

This surely is strong evidence about Marcion's real role. Not only is Marcion's original spelling for "Christian" still evident in such important manuscripts, this also indicates directly the strength and extent of Marcionite effects on the entire Christian community, including its scholars. There is still some bifurcation between the words "Catholic" and "Christian" today.

In AD 49, Rome experienced disturbances in the Jewish community that had been provoked by the preaching of "Chrestus" (based on the account of Suetonius in J. Steven's New Eusebius. no. 2, p. 1). "[Aquila] and his wife Priscilla had recently left Italy because an edict of Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome" (Acts 18:2, Jerusalem Bible). It seems notable at this time (AD 49) that "Jews" in general were expelled, and not simply followers of "Chrestus" or "Chrestians." "Was it because at this early date the Roman authorities did not or could not clearly differentiate between the Christians and the Jews?" (Wilson. Marcion… p. 25). The presence of the Gentile title "Chrestus" in Rome implies also the presence of an accompanying Gentile-oriented Gospel. Some Jews seem to have loudly voiced a degree of intolerance upon hearing this proclamation of "Chrestus."

In Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is not possible to discover how Jesus' main title (Christ) was spelled. A scribal device called "nomina sacra" was employed as a emphatic technique to highlight special words. The highlighted words were shortened. Because of this, the scribes left out the main vowel every time. Most Greek editions restore the vowel as an iota ("i").

By making a back formation from the Sinaiticus' "Chrestian," the word "Chrestos" appears as the proper title for Jesus. Through this logical method, it can be reasonably argued that Jesus' normal title should be fully spelled "Chrestos" throughout Sinaiticus.

Besides the two oldest Greek New Testaments from the Fourth Century, and in addition to the oldest dated church inscription (AD 318), there is an abundance of ancient testimony that shows that the title "Chrestus" for Jesus was very popular among "common" Christians.

The two titles "Chrestus" or "Chrestian" are referred to in the following written sources: Tertullian (AD 210), The Eighth Sibyl (AD 200), Theophilos of Antioch (AD 170), Marcus (AD 145), Apocalypse of Elijah (AD 100), Suetonius (AD 124) and Tacitus (AD 116). There is even a disputed inscription (now lost) from Pompei (AD 79) that is believed to have contained a reference to this lost title of Jesus.

The ruling theologians of orthodoxy denounced the spelling "Chrestus" as based on ignorance. Lactantius (AD 310) said: "The ignorant are accustomed to call Him 'Chrestus'" (ANF. Vol. 7, p. 106).

To the simple believers in Jesus, He is Christ, the Good Shepherd, who seeks and saves the lost. To the intellectuals, He is Christ, the just King, who casts the sinner into hell.

As a token of His merciful character, Jesus was once honored with the title "Chrestus" (which means benevolent one). This probably was the original meaning (and spelling) for Jesus' title in the oldest New Testament, the one that Marcion published.

The theological reason for the Orthodox scribes carefully and stealthily introducing "Christ" as Jesus' main title is explainable from its etymology. "Christ" in Greek means "anointed" (or royal). This meaning matches that of the Hebrew word "Messiah." The Church Fathers preferred Jesus to be known as Israel's coming King.

"Paul put Jesus Christ in the forefront of his preaching, and they ['the early Gentile churches'] can hardly have done otherwise. It is no accident, indeed, that the adherents of the new faith were early called Christians" (Arthur Cushman McGiffert. The God of the Early Christians. p. 44).

THE BEGINNING OF CATHOLICISM
Adolf von Harnack represented Marcion as the creator of the Catholic Church. This characterization mainly refers to the Roman ecclesia's response to Marcion's evangelism. The rapid growth of Marcionite churches across the Roman Empire in the first two decades of the Second Century motivated the presbytery of the "great" Roman congregation to form a more comprehensive hierarchy and outreach.

Before this time, Christianity was often viewed as indistinguishable from Judaism. Marcion's effort called for a clear distinction. Afterwards, Judeo-Christianity became isolated so that it had to take an independent course. This was predictable because its strong Jewish anchor made it totally incompatible with Marcion's idea of New Testament Christianity.

"… [O]nly after Marcion did those in the great church begin the purposeful work of deriving from heaven the holy church, … and of combining the congregations here on earth into an actual community and unity on the basis of a fixed doctrine that is rooted in the New Testament, just as Marcion did. This demonstrates that by means of his organizational and theological conceptions and by his activity Marcion gave the decisive impetus towards the creation of the old catholic church and provided the pattern for it" (Adolf von Harnack. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Labyrinth Press 1990 [1924]. p. 131,132).

"… [C]atholicism is constructed as a defense against Marcion…" (ibid p. ix).

The idea of Christian independence from Judaism became quickly popular. From this point on, Catholicism grew in many ways. Many additional modifications would be made until much of the simplicity evident in Marcion's day became either obscured or entirely lost. By keeping the law about Jewish monotheism as its chief doctrine (as is attested in the creeds), Catholicism opened the door to regain various other features borrowed from the religion of the Old Testament. By following the pattern of ancient Israel, Catholicism began to augment its hierarchy, its ritualism and its animosity towards independent thinkers.

BAPTIST HISTORY
There is an even greater affinity between the Marcionite churches and the Baptist churches. Many Baptist historians trace modern Baptist churches back to the Anabaptists of northern Europe, those who were contemporary with Luther (early Sixteenth Century). The Anabaptist phenomenon is often viewed as a revival of the Albigensian churches of the Fourteenth Century.

The Albigensian Dualists flourished in Languedoc (southern France). The Albigensians, along with the Cathari, are in turn traced by some prominent historians back to the Paulicians of the Ninth Century. These Christian Dualists prospered primarily in Armenia. At last, many view the Paulicians as direct (or indirect) heirs to Marcion's Gospel message. Baptist historians conveniently fail to make this last connection.

The analogy between the Marcionites and the Baptists does not end with this probable evidence of historical lineage. The similar character of the churches is more remarkable. They both were a) simple, b) New Testament oriented, c) non-establishment, d) non-sacerdotal, e) non-sacramental, f) evangelistic, g) faithful to sola scriptura, and h) devoted to Jesus.

On the subject regarding "Marcion's historical position," Adolf von Harnack stated: "It is understandable that Neander could call him {Marcion} the first Protestant. But we may go further. He not only took up again the work and the struggle of Paul, but he also did this in the apostle's understanding and consciousness of faith; for it was his intention to know nothing save Christ the crucified one" (ibid p. 124, 125).

SUMMARY
Prior to Marcion's revival of Paul's theology, Christianity was much identified with Judaism. At that time, the Christian Bible was only the Old Testament. After Marcion openly published the first New Testament in Rome (AD 116), there arose four great divisions in Christianity. These groups were denominated: the Gnostics, the Catholics, the Judeo-Christians and the Marcionites.

Before Marcion published the first truly Christian Bible, Christianity already had been divided into two groups. In Paul's words, there were the "Judaizers" and there were the Pneumatics (the "Spiritual"). The Judaizers were more allied with Peter and James. The Pneumatics upheld Paul's Gospel of freedom.

From http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/marcion.htm

The question of priority, as between these gospels, is one of the most interesting connected with the history of early Christian literature.

From the commencement of the third, down to the beginning of the present century, it has been fashionable to accuse Marcion of corrupting the Gospel of Luke; the emphatic and oft-repeated assertions of Tertullian and Epiphanius to that effect, having been deemed sufficient authority.

Bishop Marsh was one of the first to do Marcion justice. He said there was no proof that Marcion used Luke's Gospel at all [Notes to Michaelis, vol.3, pt. 2, p. 160].

Since then, many of the most intelligent German critics have come to the same conclusion.

Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241].

This author thinks that the Church of Sinope, where Marcion formerly resided, had been furnished by Paul with a collection of the records of the life and teaching of Christ; that Marcion thus obtained his gospel, and brought it to Rome [Ibid.].

Again: "Marcion's Gospel contained a different arrangement of the narrative, from the canonical Luke, and was without many passages which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded,"[Ibid p. 242].

He afterward speaks of differences of arrangement, which are unaccountable on the theory that Marcion corrupted Luke, and says that Marcion's Gospel was without several passages which apparently favor his views.[Ibid, p.243; referring to Luke 11.51; 13.30, 34, and 29 to I6].

Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from the epistles, are certainly insufficient to prove the point; and on the contrary, they go to show that Marcion preserved without alteration, the text which he found in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, (in the epistles), only two are unsupported by other authority: and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left untouched those which are most directly opposed to his system."

-[History of the Canon, p.284].

It is one of the most hopeful signs of the times, that men, even in religious matters, can vindicate the character of an adversary, after it has been aspersed for fifteen hundred years.

Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many others.
 

These writers, perceiving how little reliance is to be placed upon the statements of the fathers, in matters of critical exegesis, or of authorship, or upon their assertions concerning the heretics, have examined carefully the text of Marcion, and findmg the statements of Tertullian and Epiphamus unsupported by internal evidence, have rejected them altogether.
 

WHICH WAS FIRST WRITTEN ?
 

Let us now see if we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty which was first written; the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Marcion. The question of priority, in this case, is closely connected with that of brevity.
 

The first three chapters of Luke were entirely wanting in Marcion, except the opening clause in the third chapter, which was the commencement of the Gospel of Marcion: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." The balance of the first chapter of Marcion is contained with some variations in the fourth of Luke. About half that chapter is wanting entirely, in Marcion.

After passing this, the different chapters of the two gospels correspond, the 2d of Marcion with the 5th of Luke, the 3d of Marcion with the 6th of Luke, and so on.
 

The Gospel of Luke is the most copious throughout. The number of verses in Luke in excess of those in Marcion, is as follows: In chapter 7, seven verses: in ch. 8, one; in ch. 11, ten; in ch. 12, three; in ch. 13, seventeen; in ch. 14, five; in ch. 15, twenty-two; in ch. 18, four; in ch. 19, twenty; in ch. 20, twelve; in ch. 21, three; in ch. 22, thirteen; in ch. 23, one, and in ch. 24, four: total 122 verses. To this add the excess of 23 verses in the 4th chapter of Luke, and we have altogether 145 verses, or more than three average chapters. Add the first three chapters of Luke, which are entirely wanting in Marcion, and the result is, more than six chapters, or more than one-fourth of the entire Gospel of Luke, wanting in Marcion.
 

But this is not all. In a number of places, the verses of Marcion are shorter. Then, again, two or more verses of Luke are contained, in substance, in one of Marcion, and in one place, nine verses of Luke in two of Marcion.
 
 
 

THE LAW OF ACCRETION.*

[* accretion = accumulation, build-up, i.e., words or sentences added later].

LUKE AND MARCION COMPARED.
 
 
 

Leaving out of view, for the present the wholesale accumulation of matter, aggregating 315 verses, the law of accretion will be well illustrated by those cases where one or more verses in Marcion are found swollen into several in Luke, or where a single passage has additions. They are as follows:

1.

The difference is important. According to Matthew, the parents of Jesus, when they returned from Egypt, being warned of God in a dream, turned aside, (they were going to Bethlehem or Jerusalem,) into the parts of Galilee, that a certain prophecy might be fulfilled. The language does not imply that Nazareth was their residence.

The theory of the author of Luke was, that Nazareth was their residence. Accordingly, in this passage, which, though followed in Mark, has no parallel in Matthew; Jesus is addressed as "of Nazareth," a phrase not in Marcion.
 

II.

A corresponding variation will be found in
 

These are probably interpolations, made for the purpose of establishing Nazareth as the birth-place of Jesus.
 

III.
 

There is no reason why Marcion, who had not rejected the miracles of Christ, should omit the closing sentence. It is more probable that it was added in Luke, to give expression to a very natural inference on the part of the writer, as to the object of the multitude in pressing forward toward Jesus, and seeking to touch him.

There is no parallel in the other gospels.
 

IV.
 

V.
 

JESUS AND THE SINFUL WOMAN.
 

This touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion, is spun out, by the author of Luke, into more than three times the number, with no improvement in the story.

The washing of the feet of Jesus, which in Marcion is left as a figurative expression, denoting the great grief of the woman, is stated in Luke as an actual fact. while weeping, "she began to wash his feet with tears." Then, having washed them, she must needs "wipe them with the hairs of her head."

There can be but little doubt, that Marcion was first written, and that the author of Luke drew upon his imagination in filling up the text.

Again, there is a similar variation, in the following reference to the same transaction:
 
 
 

VI.
 

The use here, by Jesus himself, of the figurative expression, "she hath washed my feet with tears," misled the author of Luke into conceiving, and hence expressing, a literal and complete washing of feet, followed by wiping them in the manner described.

This account is not in the other canonical gospels. It is simply a question between Marcion and Luke.
 

VII.

JESUS REBUKING THE STORM.
 

The language of Marcion, as given by Epiphanius, is highly elliptical. It was probably preceded by some sentence having reference to the storm. The text of the synoptics is more copious; especially Mark, in which a pillow is provided for the head of Jesus.
 

VIII.
 

HEALING OF THE WOMAN
 

If these accounts come from a common manuscript, it had passed through many hands, before reaching the author of Luke.
 

IX, X.
 

XI, XII, XIII, XlV.
 

The word aioion, (eternal,) was inserted by the author of Luke, to make more clear the meaning of Marcion.

The argument of Tertullian, (adv. Mar. 4.25), that Marcion struck out aionion, so that the question might be confined to this life, is weak and untenable.
 

XV, XVI, XVII.
 

The last passage illustrates, throughout, the prevailing practice of verbal accumulation. The language of Jesus, "I say unto you," becomes, when it reaches the author of Luke, "I say unto you, my friends;" "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," becomes, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do;" etc.
 

XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI.
 

XXIV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
 

The account in Marcion, besides being shorter, is the more natural. Being struck from behind, or by a stranger, Jesus was called upon to tell who struck him. It was an impulsive action. But the author of Luke has the Jews deliberately blindfold Jesus, before striking him.
 

XXXI.
 

These dying words of Jesus are not in either of the other three canonical gospels. They may have been taken by the author of Luke from the Acts of Pilate, or from a later version of the manuscript used by Marcion.
 

XXXII.

XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.
 

THE OTHER SIDE.
 

We will now give the cases where the text of Marcion is the more copious:

I.
 

MARCION, 5.20. LUKE, 8.21.
 

According to Volkmar, (though not in the schedule or scholion of Epiphanius), in this verse, after the words, "And he answered and said unto them," is the question, "Who are my mother and my brethren?" Balance of the Verse, same as in Luke.

Volkmar may have taken some of his Variations from the "Dialogues," etc., attributed to Origen, to which he appears to have given too much attention.
 

II, III, IV, V, VI.
 

Here are six cases in Marcion, against thirty-six in Luke; or 35 new words in Marcion, to 660 in Luke. If to these we add 315 verses of Luke which are not in Marcion in any form, we have a ratio of 1 to 230.

The strength of the argument, then, based upon the principle of accretion, would be 230 to 1, that the Gospel of Marcion was first written.

But there is other evidence of priority. The Gospel of Marcion is more simple and natural, not only in the mode of expression, but in the order of arrangement.

In the fourth chapter of Luke, Jesus is represented as being tempted in the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; thence he returned into Galilee, and came to Nazareth; [Luke, 4. 16]; where his public ministry commenced. But though commencing, at Nazareth, he is made to refer [v. 23], to works which he had done at Capernaum; a place to which he goes, afterward ;[v. 31.]

In Marcion, on the contrary, his public ministry commenced at Capernaum; [Marcion, 1. 1]; whence, [v.10], he came to Nazareth, and preached; and here, in the natural order, [v.13], he refers to the works done at Capernaum.

This accords with the Gospel of Matthew, which represents that Jesus did not commence preaching until after he had taken up his residence in Capernaum. [Matt. 4. 13 to 17.] Mark follows Luke.

Matthew and Marcion were probably from a common manuscript.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is represented as performing his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, after which he went down to Capernaum. [John 2. 11, 12.] This, therefore, is confirmatory of Marcion.

It is probable that in Luke, the manuscripts were put together out of their natural order, and that this disorder was followed in Mark. It was the opinion of Griesbach that the author of Mark had before him the whole of the present Gospel of Luke. Schleiermacher thinks he had some of the manuscripts which comprise the Gospel of Luke [ Schleiermacher on Luke, p.91].

At the same time, the fact that nearly every word of Marcion is in Luke, besides much additional matter, is strongly suggestive of the theory, that the author of Luke had before him, besides other material, the Gospel of Marcion entire. On the supposition that Marcion was last written, it is difficult to conceive why he should have excluded so large a part of the Gospel of Luke, especially as it is now conceded that it was not done for dogmatic purposes. On the other hand, if Luke was written last, the accumulations were in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the practice of the times. Besides, it was necessary to have a gospel different from that of Marcion, who was a heretic. There is no satisfactory evidence that Marcion had seen either of the canonical gospels, or had even heard of them.

The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic.

Reproduced gratefully from: http://essenes.net/marcionwaite.html

THEOSOPHY, Vol. 55, No. 8, June, 1967
(Pages 237-245; Size: 29K)

THE WISDOM RELIGION(5)

GNOSTICISM: II

[Part 8 of a 12-part series]

CHRISTOS, as a unity, is but an abstraction: a general idea representing the collective aggregation of the numberless spirit-entities, which are the direct emanations of the infinite, invisible, incomprehensible FIRST CAUSE -- the individual spirits of men, erroneously called the souls. They are the divine sons of God, of which some only overshadow mortal men -- but this the majority -- some remain forever planetary spirits, and some -- the smaller and rare minority -- unite themselves during life with some men. Such God-like beings as Gautama-Buddha, Jesus, Tissoo, Christna, and a few others had united themselves with their spirits permanently -- hence, they became gods on earth. Others, such as Moses, Pythagoras, Apollonius, Plotinus, Confucius, Plato, Iamblichus, and some Christian saints, having at intervals been so united, have taken rank in history as demi-gods and leaders of mankind. When unburthened of their terrestrial tabernacles, their freed souls, henceforth united forever with their spirits, rejoin the whole shining host, which is bound together in one spiritual solidarity of thought and deed, and called "the anointed." Hence, the meaning of the Gnostics, who, by saying that "Christos" suffered spiritually for humanity, implied that his Divine Spirit suffered mostly.

Such, and far more elevating were the ideas of Marcion, the great "Heresiarch" of the second century, as he is termed by his opponents. He came to Rome toward the latter part of the half-century, from A.D. 139-142, according to Tertullian, Irenæus, Clemens, and most of his modern commentators, such as Bunsen, Tischendorf, Westcott, and many others. Credner and Schleiermacher agree as to his high and irreproachable personal character, his pure religious aspirations and elevated views. His influence must have been powerful, as we find Epiphanius writing more than two centuries later that in his time the followers of Marcion were to be found throughout the whole world.

The danger must have been pressing and great indeed, if we are to judge it to have been proportioned with the opprobrious epithets and vituperation heaped upon Marcion by the "Great African," that Patristic Cerberus, whom we find ever barking at the door of the Irenæan dogmas. We have but to open his celebrated refutation of Marcion's Antitheses, to acquaint ourselves with the fine-fleur of monkish abuse of the Christian school; an abuse so faithfully carried through the middle ages, to be renewed again in our present day -- at the Vatican. "Now, then, ye hounds, yelping at the God of Truth, whom the apostles cast out, to all your questions. These are the bones of contention which ye gnaw." "The poverty of the Great African's arguments keeps pace with his abuse," remarks the author of Supernatural Religion. "Their (the Father's) religious controversy bristles with misstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. Tertullian was a master of his style, and the vehement vituperation with which he opens and often interlards his work against 'the impious and sacrilegious Marcion,' offers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism."

How firm these two Fathers -- Tertullian and Epiphanius -- were on their theological ground, may be inferred from the curious fact that they intemperately both vehemently reproach "the beast" (Marcion) "with erasing passages from the Gospel of Luke which never were in Luke at all." "The lightness and inaccuracy," adds the critic, "with which Tertullian proceeds, are all the better illustrated by the fact that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually defines the motives for which he expunged a passage which never existed; in the same chapter he also similarly accuses Marcion of erasing (from Luke) the saying that Christ had not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, and he actually repeats the charge on two other occasions. Epiphanius also commits the mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from Luke what is only found in Matthew."

Having so far shown the amount of reliance to be placed in the Patristic literature, and it being unanimously conceded by the great majority of biblical critics that what the Fathers fought for was not truth, but their own interpretations and unwarranted assertions,(1)  we will now proceed to state what were the views of Marcion, whom Tertullian desired to annihilate as the most dangerous heretic of his day. If we are to believe Hilgenfeld, one of the greatest German biblical critics, then "From the critical standing-point one must ... consider the statements of the Fathers of the Church only as expressions of their subjective view, which itself requires proof "

We can do no better nor make a more correct statement of facts concerning Marcion than by quoting what our space permits from Supernatural Religion, the author of which bases his assertions on the evidence of the greatest critics, as well as on his own researches. He shows in the days of Marcion "two broad parties in the primitive Church" -- one considering Christianity "a mere continuation of the law, and dwarfing it into an Israelitish institution, a narrow sect of Judaism"; the other representing the glad tidings "as the introduction of a new system, applicable to all, and supplanting the Mosaic dispensation of the law by a universal dispensation of grace." These two parties, he adds, "were popularly represented in the early Church, by the two apostles Peter and Paul, and their antagonism is faintly revealed in the Epistle to the Galatians."(2)

Marcion, who recognized no other Gospels than a few Epistles of Paul, who rejected totally the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament, and drew a distinct line of demarcation between the old Judaism and Christianity, viewed Jesus neither as a King, Messiah of the Jews, nor the son of David, who was in any way connected with the law or prophets, "but a divine being sent to reveal to man a spiritual religion, wholly new, and a God of goodness and grace hitherto unknown." The "Lord God" of the Jews in his eyes, the Creator (Demiurgos), was totally different and distinct from the Deity who sent Jesus to reveal the divine truth and preach the glad tidings, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all. The mission of Jesus -- according to Marcion -- was to abrogate the Jewish "Lord," who "was opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as matter is to spirit, impurity to purity."

Was Marcion so far wrong? Was it blasphemy, or was it intuition, divine inspiration in him to express that which every honest heart yearning for truth, more or less feels and acknowledges? If in his sincere desire to establish a purely spiritual religion, a universal faith based on unadulterated truth, he found it necessary to make of Christianity an entirely new and separate system from that of Judaism, did not Marcion have the very words of Christ for his authority? "No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment ... for the rent is made worse. ... Neither do men put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." In what particular does the jealous, wrathful, revengeful God of Israel resemble the unknown deity, the God of mercy preached by Jesus; -- his Father who is in Heaven, and the Father of all humanity? This Father alone is the God of spirit and purity, and, to compare Him with the subordinate and capricious Sinaitic Deity is an error. Did Jesus ever pronounce the name of Jehovah? Did he ever place his Father in contrast with this severe and cruel Judge; his God of mercy, love, and justice, with the Jewish genius of retaliation? Never! From that memorable day when he preached his Sermon on the Mount, an immeasurable void opened between his God and that other deity who fulminated his commands from that other mount -- Sinai. The language of Jesus is unequivocal; it implies not only rebellion but defiance of the Mosaic "Lord God." "Ye have heard," he tells us, "that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Ye have heard that it hath been said [by the same "Lord God" on Sinai]: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you; Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5).

And now, open Manu and read:

"Resignation, the action of rendering good for evil, temperance, probity, purity, repression of the senses, the knowledge of the Sastras (the holy books), that of the supreme soul, truthfulness and abstinence from anger, such are the ten virtues in which consists duty. ... Those who study these ten precepts of duty, and after having studied them conform their lives thereto, will reach to the supreme condition" (Manu, book vi., sloka 92).

If Manu did not trace these words many thousands of years before the era of Christianity, at least no voice in the whole world will dare deny them a less antiquity than several centuries B.C. The same in the case of the precepts of Buddhism.

If we turn to the Prâtimoksha Sûtra and other religious tracts of the Buddhists, we read the ten following commandments:

1. Thou shalt not kill any living creature.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not break thy vow of chastity.
4. Thou shalt not lie.
5. Thou shalt not betray the secrets of others.
6. Thou shalt not wish for the death of thy enemies.
7. Thou shalt not desire the wealth of others.
8. Thou shalt not pronounce injurious and foul words.
9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy).
10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.

"Good master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life?" asks a man of Jesus. "Keep the commandments." "Which?" "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness," is the answer.

"What shall I do to obtain possession of Bhodi? (knowledge of eternal truth)," asks a disciple of his Buddhist master. "What way is there to become an Upasaka?" "Keep the commandments." "What are they?" "Thou shalt abstain all thy life from murder, theft, adultery, and lying," answers the master.

Identical injunctions are they not? Divine injunctions, the living up to which would purify and exalt humanity. But are they more divine when uttered through one mouth than another? If it is god-like to return good for evil, does the enunciation of the precept by a Nazarene give it any greater force than its enunciation by an Indian, or Thibetan philosopher? We see that the Golden Rule was not original with Jesus; that its birth-place was India. Do what we may, we cannot deny Sakya-Muni Buddha a less remote antiquity than several centuries before the birth of Jesus. In seeking a model for his system of ethics why should Jesus have gone to the foot of the Himalayas rather than to the foot of Sinai, but that the doctrines of Manu and Gautama harmonized exactly with his own philosophy, while those of Jehovah were to him abhorrent and terrifying? The Hindus taught to return good for evil, but the Jehovistic command was: "An eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth."

Would Christians still maintain the identity of the "Father" of Jesus and Jehovah, if evidence sufficiently clear could be adduced that the "Lord God" was no other than the Pagan Bacchus, Dionysos? Well, this identity of the Jehovah at Mount Sinai with the god Bacchus is hardly disputable. The name Yava or Iao, according to Theodoret, is the secret name of the Phoenician Mystery-god;(3) and it was actually adopted from the Chaldeans with whom it also was the secret name of the creator. Wherever Bacchus was worshipped there was a tradition of Nysa and a cave where he was reared. Beth-San or Scythopolis in Palestine had that designation; so had a spot on Mount Parnassus. But Diodorus declares that Nysa was between Phoenicia and Egypt; Euripides states that Dionysos came to Greece from India; and Diodorus adds his testimony: "Osiris was brought up in Nysa, in Arabia the Happy; he was the son of Zeus, and was named from his father (nominative Zeus, genitive Dios) and the place Dio-Nysos" -- the Zeus or Jove of Nysa. This identity of name or title is very significant. In Greece Dionysos was second only to Zeus, and Pindar says:

So Father Zeus governs all things, and Bacchus he governs also.

But outside Greece Bacchus was the all-powerful "Zagreus, the highest of gods." Moses seems to have worshipped him personally and together with the populace at Mount Sinai; unless we admit that he was an initiated priest, an adept, who knew how to lift the veil which hangs behind all such exoteric worship, but kept the secret. "And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-NISSI!" or Iao Nisi. What better evidence is required to show that the Sinaitic god was indifferently Bacchus, Osiris, and Jehovah? Mr. Sharpe appends also his testimony that the place where Osiris was born "was Mount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount Nissa." The Brazen Serpent was a nis, and the month of the Jewish Passover nisan.

If the Mosaic "Lord God" was the only living God, and Jesus His only Son, how account for the rebellious language of the latter? Without hesitation or qualification he sweeps away the Jewish lex talionis and substitutes for it the law of charity and self-denial. If the Old Testament is a divine revelation, how can the New Testament be? Are we required to believe and worship a Deity who contradicts himself every few hundred years? Was Moses inspired, or was Jesus not the son of God? This is a dilemma from which the theologians are bound to rescue us. It is from this dilemma that the Gnostics endeavored to snatch the budding Christianity.

Justice has been waiting nineteen centuries for intelligent commentators to appreciate this difference between the orthodox Tertullian and the Gnostic Marcion. The brutal violence, unfairness, and bigotry of the "great African" repulse all who accept his Christianity. "How can a god," inquired Marcion, "break his own commandments? How could he consistently prohibit idolatry and image-worship, and still cause Moses to set up the brazen serpent? How command: Thou shalt not steal, and then order the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians of their gold and silver?" Anticipating the results of modern criticism, Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the so-called Messianic prophecies. Writes the author of Supernatural Religion: "The Emmanuel of Isaiah is not Christ; the 'Virgin,' his mother, is simply a 'young woman,' an alma of the temple; and the sufferings of the servant of God (Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 3) are not predictions of the death of Jesus."(4)

Marcion maintained, with the other Gnostics, the fallaciousness of the idea of an incarnate God, and therefore denied the corporeal reality of the living body of Christ. His entity was a mere illusion; it was not made of human flesh and blood, neither was it born of a human mother, for his divine nature could not be polluted with any contact with sinful flesh. He accepted Paul as the only apostle preaching the pure gospel of truth, and accused the other disciples of "depraving the pure form of the gospel doctrines delivered to them by Jesus, mixing up matters of the Law with the words of the Saviour."

Many of our eminent antiquarians trace the Gnostic philosophies right back to Buddhism, which does not impair in the least either their or our arguments. We repeat again, Buddhism is but the primitive source of Brahmanism. It is not against the primitive Vedas that Gautama protests. It is against the sacerdotal and official state religion of his country; and the Brahmans, who in order to make room for and give authority to the castes, at a later period crammed the ancient manuscripts with interpolated slokas, intended to prove that the castes were predetermined by the Creator by the very fact that each class of men was issued from a more or less noble limb of Brahma. Gautama-Buddha's philosophy was that taught from the beginning of time in the impenetrable secrecy of the inner sanctuaries of the pagodas. We need not be surprised, therefore, to find again, in all the fundamental dogmas of the Gnostics, the metaphysical tenets of both Brahmanism and Buddhism. They held that the Old Testament was the revelation of an inferior being, a subordinate divinity, and did not contain a single sentence of their Sophia, the Divine Wisdom. As to the New Testament, it had lost its purity when the compilers became guilty of interpolations. The revelation of divine truth was sacrificed by them to promote selfish ends and maintain quarrels.

        Reproduced gratefully from: http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/Gnosticism-Part2of2.html

Revised: July 18, 2010 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: July 18, 2010  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com