Marcion.

        One of the most dynamic characters in Christian history in the second century was Marcion. Although he wrote little himself, books were written about him and against him, and for a time he seemed to bid fair to dominate the Christian movement and to reshape its scripture, organization, and views. Certainly in organization and scripture, standard Christianity learned much from Marcion, and his influence can be traced in the later effort to organize Christianity into one great body and to add the letters of Paul to its scripture. Marcion was the first man, as far as we know, to attempt these things.

        Marcion was the son of the bishop of Sinope in Pontus. He was born about A.D. 85 and grew up to be a man of affairs, a well-to-do shipowner of Sinope. He felt the incongruity between the picture of God the Creator in the Jewish scriptures, which were the Bible of the churches, and the merciful and loving Father revealed by Jesus. He concluded that they were different beings and, since the Jewish Bible was so largely concerned with the Creator, that it should be dislodged from its place in Christian worship and replaced by really Christian books-the Gospel of Luke and the ten letters of Paul. He went to Rome about A.D. 138 and gave money to the church there, but left the church about 144, although he continued his efforts to prevail upon the western churches to unite upon his platform. He almost succeeded, for Justin, writing in Rome some ten years later, says that Marcion was still at work and had attracted followers from every race (Apology 26:5; 58:1).

        Marcion wrote but one book, his Antitheses, or Contradictions. It was written about the middle of the second century or soon after. In it he sought to show how different Christianity was from what the Jewish prophets had foretold; how history and prophecy had, in fact, contradicted each other. (This idea had been broached as far back as the writing of Matthew, which was written in part to meet it). The Law and the Gospel were set forth as irreconcilable opposites. Passages in Jewish and Christian writings were set up in contrast to each other and probably interpreted, but not by the allegorical method then so popular, for Marcion strongly condemned it. Justin's Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, written in Rome within five or ten years after Marcion's book, has this position in mind in its insistence that Jewish prophecy was fulfilled in Christian history. In fact, the Dialogue may be regarded as a counterattack to Marcion's Antitheses, so directly does it oppose the central idea of Marcion's book.

        Marcion was also immediately opposed, as we have seen, by Justin, who presumably dealt with him faithfully in his book Against All Heresies and may have written a special treatise, Against Marcion. Theophilus of Antioch, who flourished about A.D. 181-90, wrote a treatise, Against Marcion, which is mentioned by Eusebius (Church History iv. 24. 3) and was very probably made immediate use of by Irenaeus, but is now lost. Irenaeus tells of Marcion in the same decade (A.D. 181-89) in his books Against Heresies (1. 27-2; iii. 3. 4) and more than once declared his intention of writing a special treatise against him (1. 27. 4; iii. 12. 12. Eusebius quotes this promise, Church History v. 8. 9, and in iv. 25 speaks as though Irenaeus had written such a work; but, if he did so, nothing is known of it, and Eusebius may be referring to his treatment of Marcion along with the other schismatics m the Refutation. He associates him with an otherwise unknown Philip of Gortyna, who “wrote a most elaborate work against Marcion,” and a certain Modestus, who, Eusebius says, “exposed the man's error more clearly than the rest.” He also mentions Rhodo, a convert of Tatian's, as writing a book Against Marcion, probably at Rome, about A.D. 180-90, but now lost (Church History v. 13. 1).

        Few fragments of Marcion'sbook have been identified, but among them is its opening sentence. Marcion is speaking of the Gospel: “O wealth of riches! Folly, power and ecstasy! — Seeing that there can be nothing to say about it, or to imagine about it, or to compare it to!”[46] It was evidently a book rich in paradox and fraught with strong emotion.

        What with Justin, Rhodo, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Philip, and Modestus there was evidently a whole barrage of books against Marcion. That none of them survived was partly caused by the decline of Marcion's movement and hence of zeal for its correction, but perhaps also by the massive and satisfying way in which Tertullian dealt with it. For Tertullian devoted one of his major works to him-the five books Against Marcion, the first edition, in three books, written about A.D. 200 (198-202). This was soon revised and then again revised ten or twelve years later, a fact which suggests its popularity and influence. This book remains our best source of information about Marcion, of whom Tertullian characteristically inquires, “What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the gospels to pieces?”

        Hippolytus, about A.D. 230, deals with him briefly in his Refutation (vii- 17; x. 15), bracketing him with Cerdo: the Syrian Gnostic who had come to Rome a little before him and influenced him a good deal, although Marcion never became a complete Gnostic; he was too devoted to Paul and his doctrine of faith for that. Clement of Alexandria occasionally mentions Marcion, always to oppose his views. Origen, too, assails him now and then, as in Against Celsus vi. 53. Eusebius has a good deal to say about Marcion, principally about the controversial literature he provoked.

        Marcion's book and his sect continued to flourish with some success for two centuries after his death. His influence upon orthodox Christianity, however, has often been exaggerated. No reader of Ignatius' letters can suppose that Marcion was responsible for the idea of a world-wide church, or for the idea of treating either the gospels or the Pauline epistles as scripture-such a notion would neglect the use of the gospels as scripture in Barnabas and II Clement, to look no farther. Harnack once remarked that in the second century Marcion was the only man who tried to understand Paul-and he misunderstood him. This remark is unfortunate because it not only assumes that Paul should be understood apart from the context of the church but also neglects the obvious influence of central Pauline ideas in I Clement and Ignatius.