Talk:Marcion of Sinope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Judaism Portal
Marcion of Sinope is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Marcion completely rejected the Old Testament. -- Wesley

Seems to me it depends on what you mean by "reject." Marcion obviously found the Old Testament unedifying. Though I can't accept his position, when I read some passages in the Old Testament I can see where he was coming from. But my impression of his thinking, though, is that he accepted the OT as a genuine revelation from a supernatural being. He imagined instead that his portions of the New Testament were the revelations from another supernatural being, and urged his followers to spurn the one and cleave to the other.

Perhaps there ought to be an article somewhere about various Christian reactions to the Old Testament, from Marcion to Origen to Calvin and on through Christian fundamentalism and dominion theology. I suspect that such an article would be a true minefield to try to write -- IHCOYC 02:50 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

By "rejected", I mean that Marcion thought the Old Testament should not be part of the Christian Bible, any more than sacred writings of Zeus or Isis should be. He thought that it was of no value to Christians; he thought that Christianity was entirely distinct from Judaism and should not follow any of Judaism's teachings, traditions or practices, since he thought they believed in a completely different and evil god. The New Testament itself however freely quotes from the Old Testament, most often from the Septuagint, and treats it as the Word of God. Jesus identified himself with the God of the Old Testament, with the God of the Jews (at least if you accept all four Gospels). And so Christianity as a whole did keep the Old Testament, at first primarily the Septuagint translation of it, and treat it as the Word of God, together with the New Testament. Christianity also kept those parts of the New Testament that Marcion thought were too Jewish. Wesley 18:13 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

It is better now. "Rejecting" could mean that he rejected it as spurious or apocryphal, which Marcion apparently did not do. Instead, he rejected the OT as the morally suspect of a real but evil supernatural being, while generally taking it at its face value and relying on it as part of his argument. The temptation to allegorize away uncomfortable passages of the Old Testament, like Origen often did, still remains; Marcion took an extreme version of this approach. -- IHCOYC 20:34 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Marcion vs. Marcionism

Take a look at what has been done to the page on Marcionism. Do you think perhaps this page on Marcion should be more focused on the life of Marcion of Sinope, leaving information about his teachings to the latter Marcionism page? -SwissCelt 00:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Errata

I expanded the article considerably based on the entry on him in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

I also removed the reference to his being a bishop -- none of the standard sources I've seen suggests that. (Are there sources that do?)

Bishop of Sinope, see discussion: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
(This specifically describes him as son of the bishop and a shipowner. Corrected again accordingly. --Wetman 4 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Please read the article. Actually, now I'm curious, who says he wasn't a bishop?

Further changed the opening "opinions" to "teachings" -- no one was condemned in the early Church merely for holding heterodox opinions but rather for teaching and spreading them.

Also adjusted the reference to Gnosticism, which was not a single community or belief set but rather a general category for multiple and varied teachings and persons. --Preost 01:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted an anon edit to emphasize what was done historically, rather than current opinions. At that time, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches were the same church, and I think it reads better the way it was. Wesley 05:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I modified the sentence "Like the Gnostics, his Christology was Docetic, denying the human nature of Christ." as it's rather misleading. Some Gnostic beliefs certainly were Docetic, but by no means all of them. As usual, any attempt to make sweeping statements about Gnostic belief run into immense difficulty. --MockTurtle 09:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

" He advocated an ascetic Christianity with some parallels in gnosticism, but also with significant differences." This is fatuous unless it is followed by information on the specific differences and what is significant about them. --Wetman 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

[edit] Firstly, according to some sources, "The Gospel of Luke" and the ten Pauline Epistles were unknown in Rome before Marcion himself appeared in the city with them, and made a present of them to the Pope.

I don't doubt this statement but the sources should be named.

[edit] I moved this paragraph from the article to here where it seems better placed. At least some of the critic seems valid but it should be used to edit the article rather than just added to it. Also, hopefully, some sources will be coming for the claim that Marcion actually brought the scriptures to Rome, in which case that should be added back to the article.

(It is worth noting that much of this is after-the-fact criticism which may not actually have been aplicable to Marcion. Firstly, according to some sources, "The Gospel of Luke" and the ten Pauline Epistles were unknown in Rome before Marcion himself appeared in the city with them, and made a present of them to the Pope. Within several years, it became apparent that the clergy of Rome was mutilating the scriptures Marcion had presented them with in an attempt to bring scripture in line with their own already-existing traditions. While Tertullian claims Marcion was mutilating scripture, Marcionites claimed their master was merely removing spurious information the Roman priesthood had introduced into the text. There is some evidence to support that the content of these scriptures remained fluid for quite a while. For instance, while decrying Marcion Tertullian quotes a line from the 'official' version of Luke that is no longer in the modern, canonical version of that book. Marcionites claimed that Luke was a mutilated expansion of Marcions' own original gospel, and again there may be some truth to this as no one specifically mentions the Gospel of Luke by name until Tertullian himself around 199 AD! The books of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles were not so much rejected by Marcion, as they were unknown to him: Acts is never mentioned by any church father prior to 177 AD, and the Pastorals (1&2 Timothy, and Titus) were likewise unknown or at least uncommented upon until they were conveniently 'discovered' in about 199 AD.)

[edit] Deleted passage

This has been deleted because the possibility that a passage of Luke contradicts another runs counter to the POV of an editor: " For example, Luke 5:39 contradicts 5:36-38, did Marcion delete it from his Gospel or was it added later to counteract Marcionism?" I know nothing of this myself. Was this rightly deleted? --Wetman 06:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Being the deleter in question, I certainly think so. I'm not even sure how it is those two parts of the same passage can be considered contradictory, though:
Luke 5:36-38 (KJV): And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Luke 5:39 (KJV): No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
I'm baffled as to what alleged the contradiction is, and I certainly cannot understand how any of this is relevant to Marcionism. ——Preost talk contribs 12:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Contradiction: 36-38 says new wine is put into new bottles, 39 says oh by the way, but old wine is better anyway, so forget about the new wine stuff. 36-38 is Marcionism, in fact he used it as a proof text of his beliefs. 39 is orthodoxy and nulifies Marcion's claim about 36-38. Marcionism is new wine, i.e. the new teachings/covenant of Paul and Jesus, 36-38 says don't attempt to mix them with the Old Testament, and Marcion didn't, he straight out rejected OT teachings that disagreed with his new covenant. But 39 says forget the new wine altogether, the old wine (OT) is better. If you can't understand how this is relevant to Marcionism, you don't understand Marcionism. From Wace's commentary on Marcion[1]: "The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment," texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Rejecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church."
Well, I can't say that I agree with this interpretation, but if the idea that these passages contradict is going to be in the article, an explanation of the interpretation needs to be there. These verses are certainly not literally contradictory on their face, but are only contradictory if interpreted in certain (Marcionite) ways.
Whether I understand Marcionism or not is not at issue, but whether the article is comprehensible to someone who has never heard of Marcion or his teachings is. As it stands now, the section regarding this Scriptural passage is at best unclear. ——Preost talk contribs 19:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it would help to keep in mind that *MARCION* saw a contradiction between the OT and NT, in fact he saw a contradiction between most of the verses of Luke and the others which he deleted (assuming he deleted them from the gospel he received and not that they were added later by his opponents). I don't think it's important to point out the "contradiction" between 5:36-38 and 39, and the current revision has droped that word. Also, this is an advanced topic, requiring some study on the part of the reader, hence it is brought up in a footnote and a reference book is cited for further study.

[edit] 115 years and 6 months

I found in the CE: "His final breach with the Roman Church occurred in the autumn of 144, for the Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ to the beginning of their sect." This assumes a crucifixion date of 29? By CE above is meant Catholic Encyclopedia. It is possible their reference is Tertullian, http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian121.html , "Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion."

You can skip the CE, but the remark doesn't make sense without quoting the Tertullian reference. Would someone edit it into the text, if this is how we date Marcion's arrival in Rome? --Wetman 19:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Did it myself. How's the text now? --Wetman 00:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. There might be more info in Panarion of Epiphanius which I don't have access to at the moment. Since the CE didn't cite for the "115 years" my guess is there are other references besides Tertullian, but maybe not. Another good reference to check would be the Anchor Bible Encyclopedia found in many libraries.


[edit] Problems with this article

1) The following statement is false:

(who would later be called Catholic as opposed to Marcionite)

It was not a matter of being "Catholic". The Catholic Church did not exist for two more centuries. Futhermore, Marcionite and Catholic are not exactly polar opposites but rather two versions among many

2) Repeated quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia are inappropriate (one Encyclopedia quoting another copyrighted encyclopedia) and somewhat biased.

3) This statement is ridiculous: Marcion's attempt to recover the authentic Jesus has been a constant theme of Christian reformers, reappearing in different guises, for example in the Jefferson Bible, Albert Schweitzer, and the Jesus Seminar.

Marcion was NOT attempting to recover the authentic Jesus. What a stupid statement.

4) This article used to quote extensively from Wace and that made it turgid but it was better then. It needs to be reverted back a few hundred generations.

Overdubbed 05:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica Marcion: "It was no mere school for the learned, disclosed no mysteries for the privileged, but sought to lay the foundation of the Christian community on the pure gospel, the authentic institutes of Christ. The pure gospel, however, Marcion found to be everywhere more or less corrupted and mutilated in the Christian circles of his time. His undertaking thus resolved itself into a reformation of Christen-dom. This reformation was to deliver Christendom from false Jewish doctrines by restoring the Pauline conception of the gospel, -Paul being, according to Marcion, the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ. In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church—to which he was first driven by opposition—amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."

I confess the philosophical arguments are well beyond me, but authorities seem to agree that Marcion was "not quite a Gnostic" - Will Durant. Should Marcion then be included in the list that makes up this series on Gnosticism? I suggest his name be removed from the box(es), at least.Student7 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source is biased

There was no Catholic Church when Marcion was alive. Christianity at that time was just forming into the Orthodox Church, out of which much later the Catholic Church separated. Therefore, any references to Catholicism are as valid as actors with wrist watches in medieval movies.

I believe there is a common usage in the literature of early Christianity to refer to the group that dominated after Nicaea as the "Great Church", and avoid altogether the terms "catholic" or "orthodox". In the context above it might be best to speak of "the groups whose view would later dominate the Great Church" or something along those lines. Spooky turnip 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedias

It is one thing to insert an encyclopedia article in its entirely faut de mieux, but it is not good enough to cite one in an original article. If WP is to improve its scholarship it must move to citing scholarship rather than collections. I fear that it gives WP a bad name.Roger Arguile 14:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets a bad name because of Original Research, not by accurately quoting Wikipedia: Reliable sources. 68.123.73.93 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been looking at Wikipedia articles for years now, and this I've never seen one quoting other encyclopedias as much as this one. Not only that, but old encyclopedias at that! For instance, maybe they thought in 1911 that Marcion wasn't a Gnostic, before Nag Hammuradi, but now most scholars think that what he taught was a variant of the highly varied Gnosticism. --Abdul Muhib (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnostiscm

Perhaps a section on why Marcion wasnt a gnostic would benefit the article.Eagles01836 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that this site could benefit with a comparsion and contrast section between Marcion and Gnosticism because the two are very related in some aspects. Shinybubbles 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little challenge

It is hard to know what to make of the following insertion— "What we know of Marcion comes mostly through his detractors, who are in substantial agreement.[citation needed]" — since the rest of the paragraph continues by mentioning Marcion's detractors. Whenever a statement really does need a citation, one hesitates to insert that little challenge, because it's been wielded clumsily so often. --Wetman 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

I made a major cleanup of the article. Some text were lost, and perhaps some formulations/spelling need an oversight, but I consider the current version to be a clear and concise foundation to build a good article on, which is better than the unstructured compilation of quotes and badly written prose the article consisted of... I hope that rather than to revert my changes, other editors will make use of the references to add further information. / Fred-J 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)