Talk:Marcion of Sinope

Vandalism?

Edit history shows a lot of IP users vandalizing the lede with various combinations of "the end" "heeeey" "hi" and similar, with a users making partial corrections — bots, I guess? -- CEFGD (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Old Testament

I don't see any metaphysical dualism in Marcion's writings which you do get in Syrian Gnosticism. If we allow Marcion to speak for himself, he simply believes that Christianity is a stand-alone faith and not the fulfilment of Jewish prophesy or messianic expectations. His rejection of Judaism is complete as he denies that the God of the New testament has anything to do with the God of the Old Testament. There's no implication that there really are two Gods, just the true God of Christ and the false God of the Jews. The existence of the Demiurge is a part of Platonism in the belief in Three Hypostasis of God and does not imply dualism. Marcion's identification of the God of the Jews with the demiurge is purely rhetorical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.247.147.150 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the text to: "His theology, completely rejected the existence of the deity described in the Jewish Scriptures and in distinction affirmed the Father of Christ to be the true God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This article included a link to the center for Marcionite research website. That website is part of GeoCities, and will go offline tomorrow, so I have made the link point to a mirror of the website instead 149.254.58.10 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2009 (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)

Sources

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.

I doubt it, very strongly. 'Pope' is ludicrously anachronistic. 'Bishop of Rome' perhaps, but even that is doubtful. Nor is it credible that a letter written to Christians in Rome was unknown to those Christians - where else did Marcion get it from!! OldTownAdge (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to talk

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.)

No, I'm sorry, this is fantasy. How can Marcion have 'presented' Paul's Letter to the Romans to the Romans? Nor does our text of any of these books rely on Roman sources - any 'mutilation' in Rome would have had no impact anywhere else and certainly not on our texts. Marcion may well have admitted his version of Luke was a forgery; so what? Acts is quoted in the Didache, (c.AD100) a long way before 177AD. I have no idea what is meant by the Pastorals being 'discovered' - this appears to be a complete invention. They are echoed in several writings (e.g. Testament of the Twelve) far earlier.OldTownAdge (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

The point of verse 39 being excised is not that it contradicts the rest of the passage but that it runs counter to Marcion's theology. As such it could be included as an example of Marcionite excisions but false statements or interpretation masking as fact (and this is one of the most glaring cases of pseudo-contradictions) have no place here.

The protest above is typical of Wetman, complaining that something that seems clear to his POV (but isn't actually that clear at all), is removed or dePOVed. His screaming "POV!" at the deleter his projecting his own problem unto him. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the idea of a post-Marcionic insertion into Luke's text would seem to contradict the general well-sourcedness of the New (and Old) Testament... to say "Luke 5:39 contradicts 5:36-38", in the indicative, means that the contradiction is obvious. And there is only one obvious (yep) answer to this, which is that it is not. The latter says "do not put new wine in old bottles", the former "and noone that has drunk old wine longs for new wine; rather, he says, the old wine is good" ("chrêstos", which seems to be no comparative, although St. Jerome wrote "better"; but I don't know Greek). Now this can mean a whole lot of things, and I won't debate that here, but there's one thing it plainly is not and that is a contradiction. If you'd ask a logician whether "new wine damages old bottles" and "old wine is good" is a contradiction, he can only shake his head.--2001:A61:2085:EA01:3968:DF8D:7589:7E6D (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

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

That's nonsense. The term "Catholic Church" (as opposed to other groups) first appears in the letters of Ignatius, early in the 2nd century. There is no basis for the "not ... for two more centuries" - what actually happened in 344? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Absolutely not. WP makes use of other encyclopedias as well. One should only note to simply take them as fact and that some encyclopedias are quite dated. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

I agree. It doesn't get any more POV than this. Marcion maybe was attempting this but we cannot simply state so. Nor are the other "attempts" mentioned relevant. However, they do expose the writer's POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lol. It is always amusing to read someone shout "bias" and to immediately expose himself as biased himself. The two entities today usually called "Orthodox" and "Catholic" Church very much later developed out of a common entity which in turn harks back further.

The article suffers from wording monsters like "the groups whose view would later dominate the Great Church". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have added a little on what marcion's position in relation to otrher, more typical Gnostics wasBrentErnestArcher (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Brent Archer

The following passage is false: 'However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought. For Gnostics, every human being is born with a small piece of God's soul lodged within his/her spirit (akin to the notion of a 'Divine Spark').[8] God is thus intimately connected to and part of His creation.' Gnostics also believed that the creator of the material world was an inferior God, as is admitted elsewhere in the article ('According to Marcion, the god of the Old Testament, whom he called the Demiurge, the creator of the material universe, is a jealous tribal deity of the Jews, whose law represents legalistic reciprocal justice and who punishes mankind for its sins through suffering and death. Contrastingly, the god that Jesus professed is an altogether different being, a universal god of compassion and love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy. Marcion also produced his Antitheses contrasting the Demiurge of the Old Testament with the Heavenly Father of the New Testament.') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.197.146 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't write well enough to fix it, but Hans Jonas' The Gnostic Religion is a sufficient source to bring this section in line with the alleged fact, stated earlier in the article, that Marcion was a disciple of a Simonian and a peer of Valentinus - i.e., firmly in the Gnostic tradition. Relevant quote on the (shared with at least the Apocryphon of John and Manichaeism) Marcionite distrust of procreation: "This incidentally provides a conclusive proof, against Harnack, of Marcion's dependence on prior gnostic speculation: for the argument makes real sense only where the souls are lost parts of the godhead to be retrieved—in that case reproduction prolongs divine captivity and by further dispersal makes more difficult the work of salvation as one of gathering-in." The exceedingly transcendent Godhead, the conception of the world as base and demiurgic ("haec cellula creatoris"), and the antagonism with Judaism (especially in the identification of YHWH with Demiurge/Yaldabaoth as mentioned above, which appears also in the Apocryphon of John and Saturninus' doctrine) are all substantially Gnostic. 173.168.12.120 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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." — 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)

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)

Wrong: all of the content on the life of Marcion is hearsay; none is reliable, i.e. contemporaneous and independently verifiable. This entry should be clearly marked as supposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed a big chunk of materail from the Intro which dealt with Marcion's cannon. I did so because this is delat with (exhaustively) later in the articleBrentErnestArcher (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Brent Archer

Bias

This article reads like it was written by one of the Church Fathers themselves: it breathlessly repeats the official story without any kind of historical insight or recent scholarly advancements by Tyson et al.: "Noted New Testament scholar Joseph B. Tyson proposes that both Acts and the final version of the Gospel of Luke were published at the time when Marcion of Pontus was beginning to proclaim his version of the Christian gospel, in the years 120–125 c.e." Algabal (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's bias complaining about bias. Tyson should be mentioned for sure but his views are overwhelmingly rejected by scholars. He is not simply "recent scholarship". The article in no way resembles what Church Fathers would have written and at times was bending over to be nice to Marcion and his views. Furthermore, there is no "official story". It also totally violated NPOV by accepting Harnack's "Marcion was not a gnostic"-claims as fact, however without making the arguments actually fit the claim. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; but I think the problem is that the article makes statements about Marcion, rather than summarising authoritative sources without making judgements about them. There's no reason not to include Tyson (who?) if -- if, he is a Marcion scholar (which he does not sound like) -- but only if he has something to say about Marcion (rather than making claims about the NT, which is irrelevant here).

Also, I can see stuff in the article which I know Sebastian Moll -- who IS a Marcion scholar -- rejects as not found in the sources. There's too much from Harnack, who is long dead, and not enough up-to-date stuff. And the claims of Harnack are given as fact -- in fact everyone's claims are given as fact -- rather than attributed. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone heretic is definitely not neutral! --Oddeivind (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation

Someone asked for citation about Marcion being excommunicated by father. Here you go: (Ty Brumwell (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

References

Legacy

This section reads like two contibutors have had a go one after the other. Around half way there is a paragraph which surely was designed to introduce the section! But my main point is this: The claim that the 'canon' is the 'measuring stick' is reasonable. BUT the point made twice in this section is that Marcion offered an alternative Gospel to the one that ended up in the canon. This is NOT what it meant to use the canon as a measuring stick. What actually happened was that the measuring stick of the canon was used to evaluate other writings, so there were 'good' and 'bad' wrtings. The bad writings did not CHANGE the 'measuring stick' as is implied. The idea that the measuring stick itself can change is twisted logic and innacurate. (Marcion and other heretics did, however, influence the CREED of the church, which is not mentioned here) Jas.C.Brooke (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"More recently"

The current article says "More recently, Bart D. Ehrman suggests that this "seduction of a virgin" was a metaphor for his corruption of the Christian Church, with the Church portrayed as the undefiled virgin.". I doubt if it is accurate - perhaps Ehrman said so (I have no access so just assuming), but it wouldn't be so "recent". In a Japanese source I found a mention to Adolf von Harnack: Harnack have presumed the exact same thing in his Marcion(1ed. 1921, 2ed. 1924), which I have no access either (so sorry for no citation). Not offense, but is it possible Mr. Ehrman just cited Harnack? In more important thing, is it not recently at all? We should give readers an accurate description, and early 20th century argument is not so recent in my impression. --Aphaia (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. via dewiki I found a link to Harnack's. Hope that helps. --Aphaia (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tyler (p. 26) says that "most modern scholars" think this, but it is par for the course for Ehrman fans to attribute all knowledge to him. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to 2005

This version from 2005 seems in many ways superior to the current one. At some point a huge bibliography has been added to "Sources", though most have clearly not been used. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I should have read the other "Talk" sections before creating my own...please permit an "Amen!" to your statement that the 2005 version offers much to commend it over the present one. Thank heavens (oops, another religious reference in this, a neutral forum) that Wikipedia keeps all revisions in entirety and in perpetuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:8041:5800:24AF:A5A:82F8:5DF9 (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV?

This may be nitpicking, but the only modern commentator even mentioned by name in the text of the article is Bart Ehrman, whose quotations here arguably evince an attitude toward Marcion that seems to lean sympathetic, or at least exculpatory concerning the judgment (both by his contemporaries and by centuries of widely held Christian tradition) of Marcion as heretical. Are there no present-day scholars to quote who tend toward the Patristic view? --2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Literal vs literalistic

If the premise that the OT is "absolutely true", and should be read in a "literal" manner, naturally leads one to believe, as Marcion did, that "Yahweh was not the same God spoken of by Jesus", then surely the same conclusion should have been reached by the host of Christian expositors through the ages, both Catholic and Protestant, who have also affirmed a similar premise. The fact that arguably most of them have not come to the same conclusion as Marcion suggests that either their exegesis is mistaken, or (much more likely) we have a confusion in terminology. Kevin Vanhoozer is only one of many theologians who use the word "literalistic" to refer to a system of interpretation, like Marcion's, that appears generally to exclude or downplay the possibility that cultural, linguistic, and other clues could indicate that the author(s) of a given verse or passage might have meant it as something other than straight historical narrative, such as poetry or allegory. Vanhoozer writes in Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Zondervan Academic, 1998), quoted on https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13136/what-is-the-difference-between-a-literal-and-literalistic-interpretation-of:

"It is most important to distinguish literalistic from literal interpretation. The former generates an unlettered, ultimately illiterate [italics in original] reading—one that is incapable of recognizing less obvious uses of language such as metaphor, satire, and so forth. By contrast, the latter attends to what authors are doing in tending to their words in a certain way. ... The distinction, then, is between 'empirically minded' interpreters, who, in their zeal for factual correspondence, take an unimaginative, almost positivist, view of things, and 'literate-minded' readers, who are sensitive to context and familiar with how literary texts work."

One can endlessly debate which system is more faithful to authorial intent, or what is the "best" interpretation of a particular scripture once a system has been agreed upon, or whether authorial intent matters to begin with, etc. — but it seems misleading to make unqualified use of "literal" to refer to Marcion's system, an adjective which implies that his hermeneutic belongs in the same category as that which has produced a vast and enduring body of Church scholarship that not only affirms the literal, absolute truth of both testaments but also finds no contradiction between Yahweh and the God spoken of by Jesus. — 2603:6081:8004:DD5:497E:E054:AD55:9B4E (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Image

Only Robert Eisler maintains that the image in the Evangeliarium of Keirossis is of the apostle John next to Marcion. Marcion's name does not appear in the original illustration. Eisler interprets that this is Juan being angry because he discovers the "contrary feelings" on the part of his secretary Marcion. None of that is evident in the manuscript. The description of the Morgan Library reads: "Evangelist John, decorated nimbus, name inscribed, pen in right hand, open book with inscription (damaged) in left hand, seated on cushioned bench, feet on footstool; man holding inkpot; draped architectural setting; decorated border". I think it is important to note that the image corresponds to Juan and Marcion only in Eisler's fertile imagination. Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)