WM 182: Review: John Barton, "Marcion Revisited"

 

WM 176: The "New Perspective" on Marcion

 

I have posted WM 176: The "New Perspective" on Marcion.

Blessings! JTR

Eusebius, EH.5.13: Rhodo the Asian

Image; Marble bust of the Roman emperor Commodus as Hercules, c. AD 192, Capitoline Museum, Rome, Italy. Rhodo the Asian would have written, in  part, sometime during the time of Commodus (emperor, AD 180-192).

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 5, chapter 13. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter introduces Rhodo the Asian, who had been a pupil of Tatian in Rome. For Tatian and his involvement with a heretical sect known as the Encratites, see EH 4.29.

Rhodo is said to have composed several works, including one against the arch-heretic Marcion.

Citations are given from Rhodo's work, noting several heretical teachers within the Marcionite movement, who often put forward contradictory opinions, including:

Apelles, an aged man, how taught one “Principle” (Lake: “Source of being” or “Beginning” or “God”), but who was influenced by the utterances of a “possessed maiden” named Philoumene.

Marcion himself, meanwhile, argued for “two Principles” and was followed by Potitus and Basilicus. He is called “the wolf of Pontus.”

Finally, a man named Syneros even argued for “three Natures.”

Rhodo is cited as having personally spoken to and argued with Apelles. Two problems are noted with his thinking: (1) he did not provide any argument to justify his belief in “one Principle” (God); and (2) persistence in good works were needed for salvation.

Citing again Rhodo’s writings (addressed to Kallistio), reference is made to a work by Tatian “on Problems”, in which “he undertook to set out what was unclear and hidden in the divine Scriptures.”

Eusebius also notes a work by Rhodo on the Hexaëmeron (the six-day creation), while Apelles is condemned for “countless impieties against the law of Moses.”

Conclusion:

This chapter reflects ongoing concerns related to distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy. Rhodo seems to be a teacher who stood somewhere in the middle of these contentions. On one hand, he describes and refutes heretics like Marcion, but, on the other, he was a student of Tatian. Defense of the truth is often engaged in murky circumstances.

JTR

Esuebius, EH.4.10-13: Against Heresies: Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, & Marcus

Image: Marble portrait of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, c. 138-161, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History. Here is Book 4, chapters 10-13. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In chapter 10 Eusebius here marks the transition in Roman imperial leadership from Hadrian to Antoninus Pius. As has been his custom, he likewise traces the transitions of the bishops in the most important cities of early Christianity, focusing especially on Rome and Alexandria.

In Rome, Telesphorus was succeeded by Hyginus.

He notes that according to Irenaeus Telesphorus died as a martyr.

He adds also from Irenaeus that at this time at Rome the heretic Valentinus was active as was Cerdo, the founder of the “Marcionite error.”

Chapter 11 provides an extended citation from Irenaeus on the heresies originating at Rome.

He notes that Cerdo came from the circle of Simon Magus, and that he taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Christ. He adds: “Marcion of Pontus succeeded him and increased the school, blaspheming unblushingly.”

Eusebius says that Irenaeus exposed the “bottomless pit” of Valentinus’s errors, as well those of another man named Marcus, “most experienced in the magical arts,” who conducted a mysterious “bed-chamber” rite for his initiates.

In Rome, Hyginus was succeeded as bishop by Pius (not the emperor, of course), and Pius by Anicetus, and Anicetus by Eleutherus.

While in Alexandria, Eumenes was succeeded as bishop by Marcus (not the magician, of course), and Marcus by Celadion.

Eusebius describes the ministry of Justin Martyr whom he describes as dressed “in the garb of a philosopher” while serving as “an ambassador of the Word of God.”

Eusebius cites Justin’s description of the arch-heretic Marcion of Pontus.

Eusebius relays an interesting observation here from Justin regarding those who called themselves Christians. He says there are many who are called Christians “just as the name of philosophy is common to philosophers though their doctrines vary.”

He further notes that Justin offered an apology or defense of the faith to the emperor Antoninus Pius.

In chapter 12 Eusebius cites from that apology.

In chapter 13 he cites a supposed decree sent by the emperor to his provincial “Council of Asia.” Lake notes in a footnote that this decree is usually considered to be spurious. The decree chastens the council for their harshness in dealing with the Christians, noting their being charged as being atheists, and expressed admiration for the Christians who were willing to die for their faith. The decree also notes several providential earthquakes related to these persecutions.

Conclusion:

Eusebius parallels changes in leadership within the Roman Empire through the succession of the emperors and changes within the churches through the succession of bishops.

He notes the rise of heresies, like that of Marcion, but also the resistance to these heresies by apologists and defenders of the faith like Justin.

JTR

Marcion, the first "restorationist" text critic?

Image:  Woodcut depicting Tertullian, from whose work Adversus Marcionem, we learn much about the heresiarch Marcion.

Marcion (c. second century) was an early Christian heretic, perhaps best known for his rejection of the Old Testament and his “mutilation” of the NT [apparently reducing the NT to a truncated version of both Luke’s Gospel and Paul’s letters].  Most agree that the orthodox reaction to Marcion spurred the formation and acknowledgment of the Christian canon.

When reading Harry Y. Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church (Yale, 1995), I was struck by his comparison of the “restorationist” goals of Marcion and the work of modern text critics:

What is too little recognized, however, is that Marcion’s editorial activity did not arise from caprice, nor from an overbearing ideology, but from his critical, scholastic judgment, however idiosyncratic that might have been.  He had a theory of the history of the texts, and not unlike modern critics he suspected that the texts had been contaminated by glosses, interpolations, and redactions that obscured their original sense.  His revisions aimed at nothing less than the critical reconstruction of a pure text (p. 126).

There are, indeed, some interesting parallels between Marcion and modern textual reconstructionists.  Could we call Marcion the first "restorationist" text critic?

JTR