Search Results

Marcion, a shipmaster from Pontus on the Black Sea, in about 140 proclaimed a radical distinction between the law and the gospel, putting a negative interpretation on the Old Testament and its God. His partly Gnostic ideas involved revulsion at the physical world and the total depravity of humankind. The negative reaction to Marcion's ideas in the Church caused him to develop an even sharper distinction between the old and the new, giving all the Old Testament references in the gospels and Paul a negative significance.

This chapter situates Acts within debates concerning the Jews in Acts, Acts’ view of empire, and the possibility that Acts, along with canonical Luke chapters 1 and 2, are written in response to Marcion. It argues that the rhetorical method of Acts is to depict nonbelieving Jews as murderous and subversive and to underscore the compatibility of Christianity with the Roman Empire. It then refines arguments of Knox and Tyson concerning the role of Marcion in the final form of Acts, by offering an alternate model of heresy, thus making it possible to understand Luke-Acts as responding to “marcionite” ideas, without pinpointing them to the time of Marcion’s ministry in the East. Finally, by underscoring the martial imagery and rhetoric of vengeance that infuses Luke 1–2, it notes the perfect suitability of this Gospel preface in refuting marcionite associations of Gospel with mercy and peace.

This chapter analyzes the dying forgiveness prayer of Stephen and the related prayer of the Lukan Jesus. By reading these prayers aside related bodies of literature including Maccabees and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, it argues that these prayers are for Luke a Christian proprium. They are potentially more radical than Gospel teaching on enemy love, as Tertullian would have recognized, since the plea for forgiveness of undeserving persecutors, more so than enemy love, challenged the framework of cosmic justice, as Marcion would have affirmed. The prayer was frequently read intransitively, as idealizing the one who so prays, without having any effect on the prayer’s object, thereby functioning analogously to the Roman discourse of clemency. Those who read the prayer otherwise landed upon this radical challenge, which explains the prayer’s complicated reception history, including the scribal omission of Jesus’ forgiveness prayer (Luke 23.34a) from the Gospel of Luke.

This chapter considers the insight that can be gained into the early text of the NT through Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion. Though Adolf von Harnack’s magisterial work on Marcion’s scriptures remains important, recent research has revealed numerous problems with his reconstructions and this chapter seeks to present the results of work done by Ulrich Schmid and the present author on Marcion’s Pauline letter collection and Gospel, respectively. Both Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion reveal affinities to the so-called ‘Western’ textual tradition, though the text is definitely not the ‘D-text’ and likely represents a precursor to the ‘Western’ text. At several points it is shown that Marcion’s text is not as radically emended as has often been assumed, and that in many instances it can be located within and provide insight into the extant textual tradition.

Chapter 1 focuses on the role divine simplicity played in the debates surrounding Marcion of Sinope, the second‐century theologian who distinguished the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New. After reviewing the responses to Marcion offered by Tertullian and Irenaeus of Lyons, particular attention is given to Ptolemaeus Gnosticus (Ptolemy), who like the others sought to avoid attributing contradictory motives to God. Ptolemy achieved this by distinguishing between a first God, who is simple and uninvolved with creation, and a second God, who is complex and involved with matter and the created order. The chapter engages a commonplace modern objection to divine simplicity, that the idea is incompatible with the biblical portrayal of God as active in the world. It notes that ancient theologians like Ptolemy had resources for responding to this that are no longer available. Ptolemy could distinguish a first God and second, active God. Most importantly, however, Ptolemy and the modern objector agree that simplicity is inconsistent with activity. It is left to subsequent chapters to demonstrate how Basil and Gregory reject this assumption without falling into contradiction.

This chapter focuses on the structure of the Hamartigenia. The poem appears in the manuscripts under a Greek title and features a preface written in a different meter—iambic preface followed by a hexameter poem—from that of the poem itself. The main topic of the poem is the origin of sin in the universe and its consequences; it is framed as a refutation of the heresy of Marcion of Sinope, a second-century-CE thinker who preached a dualistic theology. The poem proper begins with an apostrophe to Cain, who was castigated as a “divider of God” and accused of having double vision. The chapter further addresses how the poem illustrates the effects of sin on the universe, the central concept of free will, and the like.

This chapter presents Marcion's poem, which introduced God as the one responsible for evil. Aurelius Prudentius Clemens wrote a counteroffensive on this insidious concept in a segment of the Hamartigenia by using dialectica to associate Marcion with the dialectic reasoning typical of ancient philosophy. In this dialectical process, truth is approached through a series of arguments and counterarguments. Prudentius uses the rhetorical devices of prosopopoeia (giving Marcion a voice) and apostrophe (responding in propria persona to Marcion's speech) to present Marcion's argument as part of a dialectic process. He argues that rational argument has led Marcion to a false conclusion—phrenesis manifesta or obvious madness—by saying that the true identity of Marcion's Creator God cannot be derived through the logic of dialectic, and must rather be derived through faith.

This chapter explores ‘More “Holy Women” in Early Christianity: The Gospels of Mary and Marcion’. It provides a comparison between the role of women as described by the Gospel of Mary and Marcion’s Gospel (and Apostolikon) to that of the canonical Gospels. It emerges that in the two non-canonical texts women were regarded as true witnesses, prophets, and apostles of Christ in contrast to the ambiguous, if not dubious role of the twelve, and especially of that of Peter. The chapter also looks into the role of women in the Roman church where, for example, in Hippolytus (In Song of Songs 25.6) they are still known as ‘Apostles to the Apostles’. This picture differs considerably from what we are used to read, at least at face value, in the canonical texts, and ultimately asks us to consider the editing process that resulted in certain versions of the earliest stories to be erased.

Chapter 2 contends that Marcion's text of Paul's letters was shaped by Marcion's Antitheses and the so-called “Marcionite prologues” (argumenta). These paratexts introduced the principles by which Marcion edited the text, thereby offering justification for “correcting” the text in accordance with his hermeneutic and introducing interpretations of the text under Marcionite rubrics. As an isagogic work, the Antitheses served to guide readers to a Marcionite interpretation of the text. Particularly important is the investigation of the impact of Marcion's Antitheses and argumenta on the reception of his text: Marcion's paratexts were so influential in shaping readers' perceptions of Marcion's text that his opponents consistently indicted him for corrupting the “authentic” text, even for textual readings he did not create, but merely transmitted.

This chapter surveys the context of Irenaeus' theological activity by reviewing all the Christian teachers and communities in Rome during the first two centuries, paying special attention to how those who came to be regarded as heretics separated themselves from the larger Christian fellowship. It examines the details of Irenaeus' interventions in Rome, regards the Quartodeciman Controversy and the disciples of Valentinus, and demonstrates how through Irenaeus' work the initially fractionated communities in Rome coalesced into a united body, with a clear understanding of the structure and framework of Orthodoxy. It concludes by tracing his work to his background in Asia Minor, as a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, and the key theological ideas that he inherited from Polycarp and the circles around John the Evangelist; it suggests a timeline for his life and works.

Despite being members of two different faith communities, the authors of Chapters 1 and 2 have much in common with each other. Both try to answer Jews and Christians who see natural law to be in competition with the revealed law from which each of their respective faith communities takes its fundamental warrant. This Response also discusses how the Christian rejection of Marcion means that Judaism and Christianity base themselves on the same revelation: what has been written in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Like Levering, this Response sees natural law teaching within the Hebrew Bible, especially its teaching that all humans are created in the image of God, and that each tradition emphasizes that the “Golden Rule” as the most basic norm for humans to respect each other's rights, each other's dignity. In this way, the authors of Chapters 1 and 2 attempt to counter the secularist view that human rights need no religious grounding, but only political protection.

In order to provide context for the presentation of the canon lists, here we introduce the major stages in canon history, the data relevant to each stage, and the prominent scholarly theories regarding the development of the biblical canon. Our goal is not to advocate for one particular view, but to help readers understand the significance of the canon lists. We begin by looking at the Old Testament, investigatng how the books came to be accepted as authoritative and whether there might have been a diversity of biblical canons in ancient Judaism. Turning to the New Testament, we examine the evidence for the reception of each section of the New Testament, starting with the Gospels, then the Pauline letters, the Catholic Epistles, the book of Acts, and finally Revelation.

The fundamental goal of this chapter is to present the dynamic to be explored in this book, relating heresy, forgery, and novelty. In its first sections, this chapter probes the contestability of religious novelty and the roles that condemnations of novelty played in Christian heresiological discourse. Then the chapter examines and also chips away at the various perspectives and biases that have prevented exploring the Jewish origins of Christian heresiology. The chapter next considers the extent to which second temple period Jewish writers went to conceal innovations, often by deceitfully disguising recent writings as much more ancient ones. The threads tie together with a restatement of the key dynamic at play: Heresy involves the condemnation of novelty; forgery entails the feigning of antiquity. Novelty ensues with the valorization of innovation, which can harden into supersessionism—the inverse of heresy.

Chapter 2 explores the development and influence of the Pauline Captivity narrative, the dominant story about “Paul in the second century” from the mid-nineteenth century until the late 1970s. Beginning with F. C. Baur, the proponents of this narrative envisioned a second-century Pauline Captivity to Marcion and the “Gnostics,” whose apocalyptic dualism made them the natural receptors of Paul’s radical theology of divine grace. The dearth of references to Paul in several proto-orthodox writers is indicative of their embarrassment about or outright opposition to Paul. More important than describing the narrative and its influence in Pauline Studies, this chapter examines the foundation of its particular image of the historical Paul in the theological preferences of nineteenth-century radical German Protestantism.

This chapter presents and discusses criticisms of the Jewish Scriptures by Marcion and the Marcionites, by Ptolemy, Celsus, and other pagan critics of Christianity, and by the authors of the Didascalia Apostolorum and Pseudo-Clementines. The criticisms demonstrate that violent, warlike texts in the Old Testament were seen as problematic by a number of authors in late antiquity. Some of the critics attempted to address the hermeneutical challenge either by positing two different gods (Marcion) or by denying that the Old Testament is true in its entirety (Ptolemy, the Didascalia Apostolorum, the Pseudo-Clementines); others did not attempt to solve the hermeneutical dilemma but rather sought to highlight it, in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether. Some of these later pagan critics raised pertinent moral concerns; however, as far as we can tell, none of them did so specifically with respect to herem, apart from Celsus.

The novelty of the Christian message was a crucial point of discussion in the early church, a discussion reflected in both canonical and non-canonical gospels. In contrast to texts which saw the gospel events as fulfilling scripture, the Gospel of Thomas in particular is striking in presenting a virtually unqualified rejection of any antecedent revelation. Approaches are by no means confined to this binary contrast. In the Gospel of Truth, a protological myth is contained within the same work as an account of the activity of Jesus, such that praeparatio evangelica and evangelium are juxtaposed. The Nag Hammadi Gospel of the Egyptians undercuts scripture by means of the even more ancient Seth. According to the Gospel of Philip, Christian salvation has been symbolically presaged throughout history. This chapter reassesses the claim that Marcion is the only theologian truly to have claimed newness for the Christian good news.

The close relationship between the two originally anonymous gospels that came to be ascribed to Marcion and to Luke is universally recognized. Attempting to reconstruct Marcion’s Gospel from the patristic sources, one finds passages attested as present, passages attested as absent, and passages that are simply unattested. Though there are a number of passages unattested, there is extant testimony concerning the presence or absence of a significant amount of material in Marcion’s Gospel. Given Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament as scripture for his church, and his rejection of the Creator God and denial that this God was the father of Jesus Christ, it is striking that references to scriptural figures occur in Marcion’s Gospel as well as Luke’s. By raising the question of how these figures are presented and employed in these two gospels, this chapter highlights the inadequacy of simplistic views about the relationship between these texts.

Several references to the Cain–Abel clash occur in the New Testament. Because of Abel’s righteousness Cain murdered him (c.f., 1 John 3:12) and in Matthew 23:29–36, Jesus predicts that scribes and Pharisees will continue their ancestors’ murders of God-sent prophets, and recalls the “the blood of righteous Abel.” These are seeds of a Christianization of the story in which Abel the innocent victim whose voice lives on and inspires, is an ante-type of Christ, while Cain is the murderous resister of God’s will. These characterizations stimulated Irenaeus to include anti-Jewish polemics within his attacks on Marcion and others he counted as gnosticizing heretics. A considerable part of this chapter concerns the artistic Cain and Abel interpreters whose works appear in fresco paintings in Rome’s Via Latina catacomb and in sarcophagus images of the brothers’ offerings. Finally, three writings treating relations in the household of Adam and Eve are investigated.