Marcion is considered by many to be the first person to have produced a collection of the books that (in later edited form) are now part of the New Testament, although as Nathaniel Lardner states:
Marcion received only eleven books of the New Testament, and these strangely curtailed and altered. He divided them into two parts, calling the one the Gospel, and the other the Apostolicon. The former contained only one of the four gospels, viz. that of St. Luke, and this mutilated and altered, and even interpolated in a great variety of places. He would not allow it to be called the gospel of St. Luke, erasing the name of that evangelist from the beginning of his copy. (The works of Nathaniel Lardner, Volume 8, section 35)
The majority opinion is that Marcion rejected the other gospels and epistles, but it is possible that he simply did not know at least some of these other books (for example, Acts and the Pastorals). However, as it appears that Cerdon also based his system around these same books it is possible that Marcion based his theology on copies of them as used by Cerdon. Whether it was Cerdon, Marcion or someone else who edited them, or whether perhaps they were early or unfinished copies of Luke and some of the Pauline epistles, is unknown, although the common view is that Marcion made the changes (but if so, where did Cerdon get his ideas from?). However, it is possible that some beliefs attributed to Marcion actually post-date him. It is commonly thought that Marcion created this edited collection of books to suit his theology, with Lardner writing:
This creator, or God of the Jews, they [his followers] considered as of a character very different different from the good God, or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore they asserted that Christ came to destroy the law given by him, because it was opposite to the gospel.
Because Marcion believed that the Old Testament God of the Jews could not be the God of the Christians (i.e. the father of Jesus), Tertullian went to great lengths in books I to III of his Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) to argue that Marcion's two Gods were in fact the one God worshipped by both Jews and Christians, and he devoted Adversus Marcionem book IV to arguing that the words and actions of the Jesus portrayed in EV were exactly the same as the words and actions of the Jesus in Luke, and that hence Marcion's Jesus was in fact Luke's Jesus. P. C. Sense writes:
The Marcionite Gospel gives no support whatever to Tertullian's allegation that Marcion attributed a visionary body to Jesus; on the contrary, in sect. xci. of the Marcionite Gospel there is a very marked desire perceptible to divest Jesus of any supernatural character... The singular sectarian theology which gave a visionary body to Jesus was called Docetic, and the sects that inculcated the doctrine were known as Docetae. I have satisfied myself that the doctrine and the sects that maintained it had no existence in Marcion's days. I have failed to find any evidence of the existence of the doctrine prior to the closing years of the second century, many years after the death of Marcion, which is taken to have occurred not later than A.D. 165.
Unfortunately, none of Marcion’s works have survived to the present day, and therefore we have to rely on his detractors to determine what he wrote or believed. Nevertheless, Marcion appears to have played an important role in creating the New Testament as we know it today:
… the chief importance of Marcion in the second century lies in the reaction which he provoked among the leaders of the Apostolic Churches. Just as Marcion’s canon stimulated the more precise defining of the NT canon by the Catholic Church, not to supersede but to supplement the canon of the OT, so, more generally, Marcion’s teaching led the Catholic Church to define its faith more carefully, in terms calculated to exclude a Marcionite interpretation. (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce)
The problem here of course lies with the adage: “History is written by the victors” (usually ascribed to Winston Churchill). What little we know about Marcion is heavily influenced by his being branded a heretic. In The Challenge of Marcion, a review article, Jordan Almanzar of Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen introduces his reviews as follows:
The significance of the second century for understanding Christian history is summed up by Gerd Lüdemann [Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)], who explains that from the first generation until the end of the second century, “more important decisions were made for the whole of Christianity than were made from the end of the second century to the present day.” The contours of orthodoxy were defined in those years and it was during this time that Marcion and his followers were extracted from the orthodox and branded with the dishonorable label of heretics. Although their movement slowly died, its poignant memory, embodied in the figure of its founder, lingers dimly but permanently on the pages of Christian history.
The major challenge confronting those who study Marcion is that almost everything known about him is communicated through the testimonies of his most vigorous adversaries. For Marcion left no writings of his own [Ed: which indicates that 'Marcion's' gospel and letters were not written by him] and the primary evidences of his existence are recovered in the works of the more orthodox churchmen who wrote against him and his movement. Scholars sift the relevant testimonies in search of kernels of historical truth and assent by varying degrees to the credibility of these ill-suited sources. Yet, the figure of Marcion is so elusive that there has never been a permanent consensus on the man nor his influence on ancient Christianity.
What is most apparent in the accounts of Marcion’s adversaries is that they represent only one side of an intense provocation. Marcion was hated deeply and lastingly and the reasons for this should be taken seriously. Neither he nor his movement could have sparked such vitriolic accusations as the apologists made against him unless a real threat was perceived. It seems reasonable to assume that there was a sustained and equally malevolent provocation from Marcion’s side as well. The obvious difficulty here, however, is that after its defeat, Marcionism was completely eradicated by the orthodox victors. The escalation of the charges against Marcion to the point of sometimes juvenile accusations reveals that the apologists were not combating a problem far removed from themselves. Rather, they were dealing with a rival-at-hand who was made even more so by his similarity…
A key component of such a rivalry is unconscious mimesis, with each party striving to distinguish themselves while inevitably becoming more like the other. The evidence of such a situation with Marcion is striking. For one thing, even the fourth century Marcionite communities could not be easily distinguished from their Christian counterparts in terms of practice, and Christians had to be warned not to stumble into Marcionite communities unawares when entering a new village. With regards to authoritative scripture, it is remarkable that the so called Marcion bible–comprised of a Gospel (shorter version of Luke) and an Apostle (ten letters of Paul)–contained nothing which is not also present in the canonical New Testament.
As indicated above, much has been written about Marcion’s beliefs and the influence he had on Christianity as we know it today, but there is little definite information regarding his life. Around 147-161, Justin Martyr (100–165), an early Christian apologist in Rome, wrote an Apology that in Chapter 26 contained the following:
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 the 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.
Then, in Chapter 2 of ‘A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel,’ Sense writes:
The first Christian writer who speaks of Marcion is Justin Martyr, who says that he was a native of Pontus, and was living in his days (A.D. 150), and was teaching that there was another God greater than the Maker of heaven and earth, and another Christ than the one preached by the prophets. This teaching was already widespread "in every race of men," and many, believing that Marcion was the only one who knew the truth, laughed at the orthodox Christians (First Apology, xxvi. and Iviii,).
From the seeming surprise Justin shows at Marcion still being alive, and from the fact that he has converted or otherwise affected “many of every nation” we can deduce that Marcion was by then quite old, and had been preaching in Asia Minor long before he came to Rome. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VII, vii, 106) calls him the older contemporary of Basilides and Valentinus, making Marcion middle-aged when he arrived in Rome, and the Chronicle of Edessa gives 138 as the beginning of Marcionism, also supporting this view of his age. Slightly later than Justin, in Against Heresies (Adv. Haer.) 1.27, Irenaeus wrote:
Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon [Magus], and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus [c. 139-143], who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent.
Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator.
Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.
Sense notes that:
The above information comprises all that the Christian writers of the first century - Justin, who was a contemporary of Marcion, and Irenaeus, also a contemporary, but who outlived Marcion - have transmitted in their works. We are justified in concluding that all that was most important in the teaching and action of Marcion, so far as was known to these two writers, was set down in their works.
Irenaeus’ comments above regarding Marcion’s ‘mutilation’ of Luke should not be taken as evidence that he knew that Marcion had actually abbreviated Luke, because although this is believed by many to have been the case there is no actual evidence for this procedure. Instead, Irenaeus' comments reflect the church’s view of Marcion as a Heretic, and his list of passages supposedly removed by Marcion from Luke could instead be read as a list of passages added to the gospel promoted by Marcion during the creation of Luke. Of course, Irenaeus’ view of Marcion was constrained by his own worldview, as Joseph Tyson notes:
But Irenaeus knew his own times better than he knew those of formative Marcionism. Indeed it is the challenge of Marcionism and other heresies that led Irenaeus to his convictions about the need for a definite church structure and canon. But Marcion himself must have lived at a more fluid time. Walter Bauer has convincingly shown that the early part of the second century was a time of great diversity in terms of Christian thought and practice. He observed that heterodoxy probably preceded orthodoxy in many locations and that, particularly in the East, Marcionism, or something closely resembling it, was the original form of Christianity.
Imposing late-second-century mores on an early-second-century figure leads to great misunderstanding. Thus to say that Marcion was faced with an authoritative canon of four gospels, selected from one of the four, excised large chunks of material from it, and elevated it to a level above the others, in full consciousness of having chosen a practice opposed to the worldwide church, is anachronistic and misleading.
Although reports of Marcion’s life differ, there are a number of common threads that probably reflect reality. As far as we know Marcion (c. 80–160) was the son of the Bishop of Sinope on the Black Sea, and he became a wealthy shipowner in Sinope until (supposedly) girl-trouble caused his father to cast him out of the church, after which he traveled to Rome c. 130. At some point someone or something caused him to develop a different theology, as in book 4, chapter 11 of his Church History, Eusebius wrote that: “Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless blasphemies.” According to John Henry Blunt, Cerdon:
... rejected the whole of the Old Testament; of the Gospels, accepted only that of St. Luke, and that in part only; he acknowledged parts of some of St. Paul's Epistles, but altogether rejected the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse,
and Marcion:
… regarded Christ as the son of the invisible and incomprehensible God, and therefore as incorporeal. Thus landed in Doceticism, he was led to mutilate the New Testament as unhesitatingly as he had rejected the Old. (Dictionary of sects, heresies, ecclesiastical parties, and schools of religious thought, 1874)
Hippolytus, in his Refutation of All Heresies, Book VII, Chapter 17, suggests that Marcion may have based his beliefs on those of the Greek philosopher Empedocles:
This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions—namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship.
… These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets).
He continues in Book X, where he describes the beliefs of Cerdon and Marcion:
But Marcion, of Pontus, and Cerdon, his preceptor, themselves also lay down that there are three principles of the universe -- good, just, and matter. Some disciples, however, of these add a fourth, saying, good, just, evil, and matter. But they all affirm that the good (Being) has made nothing at all, though some denominate the just one likewise evil, whereas others that his only title is that of just. And they allege that (the just Being) made all things out of subjacent matter, for that he made them not well, but irrationally. For it is requisite that the things made should be similar to the maker; wherefore also they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and the rest of the passage.
Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage. And (he says) that Christ is the Son of the good Being, and was sent for the salvation of souls by him whom he styles the inner than [sic]. And he asserts that he appeared as a man though not being a man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. And he maintains that his manifestation was only phantastic, and that he underwent neither generation nor passion except in appearance. And he will not allow that flesh rises again; but in affirming marriage to be destruction, he leads his disciples towards a very cynical life. And by these means he imagines that he annoys the Creator, if he should abstain from the things that are made or appointed by Him.
Despite the information above, it is possible that Marcion was not Cerdon's successor, at least not in the sense that he took his doctrine from Cerdon. However, he was Cerdon's successor in the sense that both held similar views, and that Marcion followed Cerdon chronologically. Marcion’s changing views caused a rift with the church, as described in The Development of the Canon of the New Testament:
At the end of July, 144 AD, a hearing took place before the clergy of the Christian congregations in Rome. Marcion, the son of the bishop of Sinope (a sea-port of Pontus along the Black Sea) who had become a wealthy ship-owner, stood before the presbyters to expound his teachings in order to win others to his point of view. For some years he had been a member of one of the Roman churches, and had proved the sincerity of his faith by making relatively large contributions. No doubt he was a respected member of the Christian community.
But what he now expounded to the presbyters was so monstrous that they were utterly shocked! The hearing ended in a harsh rejection of Marcion's views; he was formally excommunicated and his largesse of money was returned. From this time forward Marcion went his own way, energetically propagating a strange kind of Christianity that quickly took root throughout large sections of the Roman Empire and by the end of the 2nd century had become a serious threat to the mainstream Christian Church.
Sense points out that although:
Marcion did not abolish the law and the prophets, … he denied that Jesus was the subject of prophecy, and wisely abstained from torturing the words of the Hebrew prophets in the ludicrous manner adopted by second century theologians. But he appreciated and studied the magnificent religious literature of the Jews. This is evident from the references made to it in the Marcionite Gospel. Marcion, far from abolishing the law and the prophets, accepted the application of Hebrew prophecies as interpreted by the Jewish rabbis, while he rejected the forced and tortuous and utterly ridiculous applications of them to Jesus put forth by Christian theologians. Hence the dishonest outcry against him.
In 1891 the Rev. James Hamlyn Hill wrote an English version of "The Original Gospel" as circulated by "Marcion of Sinope," and translated "from the Greek version of Hahn, contained in the Codex Apocryphus of Thilo," writing about it:
While others proposed to extend or complete the gospel, he claimed only to reproduce in its original simplicity the gospel of S. Paul ; but as from the style of the writing it is evidently not that apostle's own composition, Marcion's testimony would agree with the idea, that it was composed by some friend or companion of S. Paul, thus affording a strong confirmation of the opinion, which certainly prevailed in the church fifty years later, that it was written by S. Luke.
Marcion's Gospel was probably the one used by Cerdo, since Tertullian says of him, that he received S. Luke's Gospel only, and not the whole of that. Along with his gospel Marcion published ten of the epistles of S. Paul, and called the latter "The Apostolicon." Together with his gospel they form the first Canon of the New Testament on record; and this canon is often cited as evidence of the early existence of the writings contained in it, especially the written records of some of Our Lord's miracles.
.....
Assuming then that Marcion employed an early recension of S. Luke's Gospel, it is still open to us to suppose, that he left out portions of it, and this seems to many to offer the best explanation of the actual facts, since some of the parts of our third Gospel, that were not in Marcion's, are such as he could not possibly accept, holding the views he did ; whilst others (e.g., the parable of the Prodigal Son) furnish from their contents no sufficient reason, why Marcion should have cut them out; and on the other hand, as Tertullian and Epiphanius abundantly prove, many of the passages retained by Marcion are quite as hostile to his views as any, that he is supposed to have excised. Perhaps future researches may throw light on the question, how much of the missing portions was absent also from the first edition of S. Luke.
Next: Two Gospels, or Two Versions?
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding Marcion or this page please email me at davidinglis2@comcast.net