Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:18 pm
Excerpts from Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament Canon: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, 2013, pp.18-23, in part:
Some of th[e] Christian literature contemporary with Marcion reflects a struggle between followers of Jesus and others within the broader Jewish tradition over the meaning and lasting value of the Jewish scriptures. The author of the Letter of Barnabas, for example, insists on the obsolescence of literal application of those scriptures. The typological and allegorical interpretive tradition he promotes would come to dominate non-Marcionite forms of Christianity from that point forward and would allow the continued authority of the Jewish scriptures, primarily as repositories of symbolic imagery whose meaning was detached from Jewish religious practice. Claiming to be the “true Israel,” such Christians laid claim to Jewish heritage while breaking continuity with more literal ways of reading and applying Jewish sacred texts.
Somewhat later than Barnabas, letters penned by Ignatius display considerable concern over the still ill-defined distinction between Christian and Jewish observances [eg. Ign.Mag 9.1 and 10.3; Ign.Phd 6.1]. Ignatius apparently was involved in debates with fellow Christians about the trustworthy foundations of the faith. His opponents refused to believe anything not explicitly supported by the archeiois, the Jewish scriptures; while Ignatius embraced the independent authority of “the gospel”, 'oral instruction' and interpretive tradition of [some] Christian communities.54
“For Ignatius,” William Schoedel concludes, “the teachings and myths of Judaism are ‘old’ (cf. Mag. 9.1; 10.2)—a term that he uses to describe what is opposed to God (cf. Eph. 19.3). ‘Judaism,’ then, is not granted even a historically limited role in the unfolding of God’s plan. Thus, the negative view of Judaism is more emphatic in Ignatius than in the Pastorals and approaches the extreme position of Barnabas” (Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 119).
From the same period, the Letter to Diognetus [chapters 1-10]56 goes even further in criticizing the Jewish tradition in a manner unqualified by any claim that Christianity is a truer Judaism, repeatedly emphasizing the newness of Christianity, instead of the more typical claim that it was something ordained from of old. According to the author, no one had any knowledge of God before the coming of Christ, and God held back his “own wise counsel as a well-guarded mystery.” The author concedes that the one God is the creator, and that the Jews worship this God, but they misunderstand his character. So, while the author has not taken the step—which Marcion did—of distinguishing between the creator god of the Jews and the higher god of the Christians, the Jewish depiction of God comes in for sharp criticism as unworthy of Christ’s Father.
Moreover, the author says, nature in no way serves to direct attention to its ultimate creator; God conceals all until revealing it exclusively to his Son. All other faiths, both Greek and Jewish, are human doctrines and earthly inventions. God revealed his true character, his inherent goodness and power to save, only at the end of time.62 His followers are aliens in this world. This text, then, offers an ideology closely akin to Marcion’s, and suggests the existence of a wider environment from which Marcion drew inspiration.
David Balás sees a role in the process for pressures connected to the Jewish revolts, noting that Marcion’s decision to go to Rome was made at or shortly after the time of the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt and anti-Jewish imperial legislation. “Politically and socially,” he wrote, “Christians, especially Hellenistic Christians with no national or cultural roots in Judaism, found at this time association with Jewish history an embarrassing and dangerous liability”.67
.
BeDuhn also notes
While some sought to appropriate the authority of Paul against Marcion, others apparently found it necessary to attack rather than domesticate Paul himself and, through him, Marcion, under the thin disguise of the arch-heretic Simon Magus in the novelistic Pseudo-Clementine literature.87 The early orthodox tracts against Marcion may have been considered largely worthless to later generations because they reflected views at odds with later orthodoxy, such as overt criticism of Paul, attacks on the Gospel of Luke, or a view of sacred scripture that did not recognize a place for a “new” testament.88
Earlier, at the start of the subsection headed, "Marcion’s Religious Environment", BeDuhn wrote:
From the evidence of the letter of Clement to Corinth46 and the writings of Justin Martyr, Christianity in Rome was deeply committed to its Jewish roots,47 and, when it did not outright reject Paul,48 it relegated him to a very minor place in Christian thought.49 Yet Christian literature produced by others in Marcion’s lifetime reveals a diverse environment in which his break with [a] 'Jewish heritage' was not a unique aberration.
Marcion’s Religious Environment
Some of th[e] Christian literature contemporary with Marcion reflects a struggle between followers of Jesus and others within the broader Jewish tradition over the meaning and lasting value of the Jewish scriptures. The author of the Letter of Barnabas, for example, insists on the obsolescence of literal application of those scriptures. The typological and allegorical interpretive tradition he promotes would come to dominate non-Marcionite forms of Christianity from that point forward and would allow the continued authority of the Jewish scriptures, primarily as repositories of symbolic imagery whose meaning was detached from Jewish religious practice. Claiming to be the “true Israel,” such Christians laid claim to Jewish heritage while breaking continuity with more literal ways of reading and applying Jewish sacred texts.
Somewhat later than Barnabas, letters penned by Ignatius display considerable concern over the still ill-defined distinction between Christian and Jewish observances [eg. Ign.Mag 9.1 and 10.3; Ign.Phd 6.1]. Ignatius apparently was involved in debates with fellow Christians about the trustworthy foundations of the faith. His opponents refused to believe anything not explicitly supported by the archeiois, the Jewish scriptures; while Ignatius embraced the independent authority of “the gospel”, 'oral instruction' and interpretive tradition of [some] Christian communities.54
- 54 Ign.Phd 8.2. Ignatius specifies that by “gospel” he means Christ’s death, resurrection, and the faith he taught. Campenhausen notes that, “despite the strenuous theological controversy both parties agree in affirming the fundamental character of the biblical ‘documents,’ and neither knows of any canon other than the holy ‘archives’ of the past to put alongside of the oral preaching” (The Formation of the Christian Bible, 73).
“For Ignatius,” William Schoedel concludes, “the teachings and myths of Judaism are ‘old’ (cf. Mag. 9.1; 10.2)—a term that he uses to describe what is opposed to God (cf. Eph. 19.3). ‘Judaism,’ then, is not granted even a historically limited role in the unfolding of God’s plan. Thus, the negative view of Judaism is more emphatic in Ignatius than in the Pastorals and approaches the extreme position of Barnabas” (Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 119).
From the same period, the Letter to Diognetus [chapters 1-10]56 goes even further in criticizing the Jewish tradition in a manner unqualified by any claim that Christianity is a truer Judaism, repeatedly emphasizing the newness of Christianity, instead of the more typical claim that it was something ordained from of old. According to the author, no one had any knowledge of God before the coming of Christ, and God held back his “own wise counsel as a well-guarded mystery.” The author concedes that the one God is the creator, and that the Jews worship this God, but they misunderstand his character. So, while the author has not taken the step—which Marcion did—of distinguishing between the creator god of the Jews and the higher god of the Christians, the Jewish depiction of God comes in for sharp criticism as unworthy of Christ’s Father.
Moreover, the author says, nature in no way serves to direct attention to its ultimate creator; God conceals all until revealing it exclusively to his Son. All other faiths, both Greek and Jewish, are human doctrines and earthly inventions. God revealed his true character, his inherent goodness and power to save, only at the end of time.62 His followers are aliens in this world. This text, then, offers an ideology closely akin to Marcion’s, and suggests the existence of a wider environment from which Marcion drew inspiration.
- 56 ... Nielsen, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” contends that the additional material [usually chapters 11-2] represents an adaptation of the original to suit the catholic position after the appearance of Marcion. The “Law and Prophets” suddenly appear as scripture in this last section, along with repeated references to “the apostles” and one to “the gospels” in the plural (11.6) which, if dated as early as the rest of the treatise, would make it the earliest known such reference. This should be contrasted to the extensive arguments against the Jews in chap. 1–10, all made without a single quotation of the OT, that is, without any effort to make the usual appropriation of Jewish scriptures against their former possessors. See also Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, 124. But since the manuscript is late and still distinguishes the first ten chapters from the later, the combination is perhaps to be attributed to a scribe copying what he saw as related material from different sources, and not as a formal re-edition of the original work.
62 Diogn 9.1–2. This dramatic act of salvation evokes from the author of the letter the exclamation, “O unfathomable work of God! O blessings beyond all expectation!” which Nielsen notes is startlingly close to the opening lines of Marcion’s Antitheses (“The Epistle to Diognetus,” 87).
David Balás sees a role in the process for pressures connected to the Jewish revolts, noting that Marcion’s decision to go to Rome was made at or shortly after the time of the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt and anti-Jewish imperial legislation. “Politically and socially,” he wrote, “Christians, especially Hellenistic Christians with no national or cultural roots in Judaism, found at this time association with Jewish history an embarrassing and dangerous liability”.67
- 67 Balás, “Marcion Revisited,” 99. C-B Amphoux draws a similar connection between the Bar Kochba crisis and the emergence various alternative Christian schools in Rome, including Marcion’s, in “Les premières editions de Luc,” 83ff.
.
BeDuhn also notes
While some sought to appropriate the authority of Paul against Marcion, others apparently found it necessary to attack rather than domesticate Paul himself and, through him, Marcion, under the thin disguise of the arch-heretic Simon Magus in the novelistic Pseudo-Clementine literature.87 The early orthodox tracts against Marcion may have been considered largely worthless to later generations because they reflected views at odds with later orthodoxy, such as overt criticism of Paul, attacks on the Gospel of Luke, or a view of sacred scripture that did not recognize a place for a “new” testament.88
- 87 These consist primarily of two closely related works, the so-called Homilies and Recognitions. The two heroes of this literary saga are Peter and, significantly, Clement of Rome. The Jewish Christian character of the material has been widely discussed and usually related to “Jewish Christian” cells in Syria. Few have taken up the issue of why the hero of these cells would be the distant figure of Clement. But this puzzle is resolved once one recognizes that Rome was a major center of “Jewish Christianity” in the first half of the second century. I leave to others better qualified than I a proper definition of the term in scare quotes, in all its own internal diversity; see most recently Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus.
88 Grant, Jesus after the Gospels, 51
Earlier, at the start of the subsection headed, "Marcion’s Religious Environment", BeDuhn wrote:
From the evidence of the letter of Clement to Corinth46 and the writings of Justin Martyr, Christianity in Rome was deeply committed to its Jewish roots,47 and, when it did not outright reject Paul,48 it relegated him to a very minor place in Christian thought.49 Yet Christian literature produced by others in Marcion’s lifetime reveals a diverse environment in which his break with [a] 'Jewish heritage' was not a unique aberration.
- 46 The [Clement] letter is addressed from the Christian community of Rome to that of Corinth. Dionysius of Corinth, writing in the 170s, is the first person to ascribe the letter in question to Clement, without specifying when he lived or wrote. For a thorough dismissal of the traditional arguments for dating Clement at the end of the first century, see Welborn, “On the Date of First Clement.” Clement is referred to as a contemporary by Hermas who, according to the Muratorian Canon, was writing in the 150s. Clement cites over one hundred verses from Jewish scripture, and Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 75–76, provides a dozen examples of the letter’s use of Jewish apocryphal tradition to expand on the biblical text.
47 “... the synagogues... exercised an astonishing influence on the formation of [Christian] theology in urban Roman...” (Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 76).
47 Hermas and Justin do not directly quote or mention Paul at all in their extensive literary output. Clement gives him perfunctory recognition as the founder of the Corinthian church to which he addresses his letter. Hegesippus...in Rome in the latter half of the second century (writing in the time of bishop Eleutheros, post-177 ce), appears to reject Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 2.9 as a false understanding of the faith (Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, 178). Cosgrove, “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon,” argues that the absence of Paul from Justin’s writings is a consciously anti-Marcionite attitude on his part.
47 Rome was by no means unique in its neglect of Paul.
Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Marcion and Polycarp, either did not know or deliberately ignored Paul in his collection of sayings of Jesus (even though Paul would have supplied valuable material for this purpose) and, interestingly, is equally silent on Luke (Grant, The Formation of the New Testament, 72). According to Robert Grant, Eusebius’ negative view of Papias and his writings indicate that “they reflected a form of Christianity close to Judaism which did not later survive. It may be doubted that he had anything like a ‘canon’ of New Testament writings” (Grant, “The New Testament Canon,” 291). Annand likewise sees Papias as representing an anti-Pauline, Judaizing minority in the largely Pauline environment of Asia Minor (“Papias and the Four Gospels,” 49). “So long as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a document as 1 Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old Testament text” (Evans, “The New Testament in the Making,” 234).