BeDuhn vs. Lieu on Marcion’s alleged bible

[Irish1975]

Judith Lieu and Jason BeDuhn, writing substantial works on Marcion at approximately the same time (about a decade ago), arrive at opposite conclusions about whether Marcion published and/or promoted a “bible” or “canon” or “new testament.”

They come at the question differently, but I don’t see how they could both be right.

HIstorians of Christianity widely acknowledge that Marcion compiled the first authoritative collection of distinctly Christian writings… . In doing so, he defined for the first time a biblical canon — that is, in the useful distinction made by Metzger, not just a “collection of authoritative books,” such as a circulating set of Pauline letters, but an “authoritative collection of books,” with set limits that clearly signaled a unique status for the texts included. Marcion clearly intended his First New Testament [sic] to serve as the touchstone of Christian belief and practice at a time when these were still quite fluid and conveyed in a primarily oral environment. Although we cannot be sure that Marcion himself ever referred to this collection as the “New Testament” … it serves as an appropriate designation for Marcion’s two-volume set of authoritative texts… .

BeDuhn, The First New Testament (2013), p. 4.

What these authors [Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, author of the Adamantius dialogue] DO NOT DO is to credit Marcion with holding his ‘Gospel’ and ‘Apostolikon’ together in the way that they themselves were doing with their authoritative counterparts, as a single ‘New Testament.’ [footnote: Epiphanius had possession, probably temporarily, of ‘two books’ of Marcion (Pan. 42.10.2).]
This contrasts with modern discussion, which often has concentrated on whether Marcion initiated the idea of a ‘New Testament,’ namely the combination of new authoritative writings of different genres into a single, separate, corpus; that he did so has routinely been seen as the converse of his supposed ‘rejection of the Old Testament.’ However, such models are too precise and introduce fixed concepts that are anachronistic both for Marcion and for his opponents. The initial charges against him were that he denigrated the creator or the one ‘spoken about in the law and the prophets’; the defense by his opponents of the essential harmony between ‘Old Covenant’ and ‘New Covenant,’ and their complaint that Marcion sought to establish a division between these, go hand in hand. Hence, the model and the language are theirs [=the Church’s heresiologists], especially as increasingly these ‘covenants’ come to be conceptualized as documents.

Judith Lieu, Marcion & The Making of a Heretic (2015), p. 186.

I am curious whether anyone can cite a text in refutation of Lieu’s negative claim.

There are several layers of this topic to consider. Clearly enough, the Apostolikon is reported to have been a collection of distinct letters. But were these somehow combined with the Evangelion? Combined physically in a codex book, or “two-volume set”? Or rather conceptualized as a single body of scripture? A “canon” or “bible” or “New Testament”? Do we have any evidence at all in support of BeDuhn’s assertions?

If Lieu is right, one ought to at least consider the possibility that Marcion’s “two books” did not begin to circulate at a single moment in time. One might have emerged long after the other.

[GakuseiDon]

I am curious whether anyone can cite a text in refutation of Lieu’s negative claim.

I can't. I think Lieu's claim makes sense. The dividing point was over the Creator God, not the texts (until Marcionism was declared a heresy).

There are several layers of this topic to consider. Clearly enough, the Apostolikon is reported to have been a collection of distinct letters. But were these somehow combined with the Evangelion? Combined physically in a codex book, or “two-volume set”? Or rather conceptualized as a single body of scripture? A “canon” or “bible” or “New Testament”? Do we have any evidence at all in support of BeDuhn’s assertions?

The thing that strikes me is that the Apostolikon and the Evangelion would have been perfectly at home with the proto-orthodox. They may have used them for years themselves as simply another of many Gospels. Other than the "descended into Capernaum" comment, is there anything in either that the proto-orthodox would have had a problem with? Much of Tertullian's comments are around the implications of Old Testament sourced comments being present or absence. But any proto-orthodox reader, having both books in front of them, wouldn't have had a problem with either, as far as I can see. Take out all the Old Testament references in the orthodox canon, and it barely effects the orthodox theological position.

For anyone interested, have a read through a reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, and see if there is anything there that the proto-orthodox would have objected to: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

It's the Antithesis that would have been a problem, and only because it was presented as showing the Creator God in the OT has not the real god. This is what Justin Martyr complains about in his First Apology to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians

Justin isn't complaining about what texts are being used, but rather the promotion of another god, greater than the Creator god. The memoirs are the memoirs.

If Lieu is right, one ought to at least consider the possibility that Marcion’s “two books” did not begin to circulate at a single moment in time. One might have emerged long after the other.

Yes, and used by Marcionites, Credonists and proto-orthodox alike without problem for many years, until the issue was forced over the Antithesis.

[Secret Alias]

The study of Marcion immediately becomes a manifestation of the outer limits of knowledge in the humanities. It's one step removed from an attempt to build models of alien languages.

[Irish1975]

The study of Marcion immediately becomes a manifestation of the outer limits of knowledge in the humanities. It's one step removed from an attempt to build models of alien languages.

And that’s a bad thing?

[MrMacSon]

I am curious whether anyone can cite a text in refutation of Lieu’s negative claim.

I'd need to read Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels again. Or Klinghardt's two-volume tomb.

What [Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, author of the Adamantius dialogue] DO NOT DO is to credit Marcion with holding his ‘Gospel’ and ‘Apostolikon’ together in the way that they themselves were doing with their authoritative counterparts, as a single ‘New Testament.’ [footnote: Epiphanius had possession, probably temporarily, of ‘two books’ of Marcion (Pan. 42.10.2).]

Judith Lieu, Marcion & The Making of a Heretic (2015), p. 186.
.

It would've been easy for later commentators such as these to claim that Marcion did what they were doing or would have done.

This contrasts with modern discussion, which often has concentrated on whether Marcion initiated the idea of a ‘New Testament,’ namely the combination of new authoritative writings of different genres into a single, separate, corpus; that he did so has routinely been seen as the converse of his supposed ‘rejection of the Old Testament.’

Lieu bells the cat here: saying that Marcion developed a "combination of new authoritative writings of different genres into a single, separate, corpus" without reference to anyone else having done so is pretty telling. (does she elsewhere, nearby name or discuss who was part of the [then] 'modern discussion' she's referring to?)

However, such models are too precise and introduce fixed concepts that are anachronistic both for Marcion and for his opponents.

• What models [is Lieu referring to]??

[Irish1975]

I am curious whether anyone can cite a text in refutation of Lieu’s negative claim.

I can't. I think Lieu's claim makes sense. The dividing point was over the Creator God, not the texts (until Marcionism was declared a heresy).

There are several layers of this topic to consider. Clearly enough, the Apostolikon is reported to have been a collection of distinct letters. But were these somehow combined with the Evangelion? Combined physically in a codex book, or “two-volume set”? Or rather conceptualized as a single body of scripture? A “canon” or “bible” or “New Testament”? Do we have any evidence at all in support of BeDuhn’s assertions?

The thing that strikes me is that the Apostolikon and the Evangelion would have been perfectly at home with the proto-orthodox. They may have used them for years themselves as simply another of many Gospels. Other than the "descended into Capernaum" comment, is there anything in either that the proto-orthodox would have had a problem with? Much of Tertullian's comments are around the implications of Old Testament sourced comments being present or absence. But any proto-orthodox reader, having both books in front of them, wouldn't have had a problem with either, as far as I can see. Take out all the Old Testament references in the orthodox canon, and it barely effects the orthodox theological position.

For anyone interested, have a read through a reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, and see if there is anything there that the proto-orthodox would have objected to: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

It's the Antithesis that would have been a problem, and only because it was presented as showing the Creator God in the OT has not the real god. This is what Justin Martyr complains about in his First Apology to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians

Justin isn't complaining about what texts are being used, but rather the promotion of another god, greater than the Creator god. The memoirs are the memoirs.

If Lieu is right, one ought to at least consider the possibility that Marcion’s “two books” did not begin to circulate at a single moment in time. One might have emerged long after the other.

Yes, and used by Marcionites, Credonists and proto-orthodox alike without problem for many years, until the issue was forced over the Antithesis.

I think you would find a lot of stimulating analysis in Vinzent’s Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels. If you haven’t read it already.

[Irish1975]

This contrasts with modern discussion, which often has concentrated on whether Marcion initiated the idea of a ‘New Testament,’ namely the combination of new authoritative writings of different genres into a single, separate, corpus; that he did so has routinely been seen as the converse of his supposed ‘rejection of the Old Testament.’

Lieu bells the cat here: saying that Marcion developed a "combination of new authoritative writings of different genres into a single, separate, corpus" without reference to anyone else having done so is pretty telling. (does she elsewhere, nearby name or discuss who was part of the [then] 'modern discussion' she's referring to?)

However, such models are too precise and introduce fixed concepts that are anachronistic both for Marcion and for his opponents.

• What models [is Lieu referring to]??

Harnack, Campenhausen, Metzger— and their brood of greasy lemmings!

[GakuseiDon]

I think you would find a lot of stimulating analysis in Vinzent’s Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels. If you haven’t read it already.

No I haven't, but I shall certainly add it to my list.

[Secret Alias]

The reason why Marcion tests the limits of the humanities is that we aren't dealing with a lot of solid evidence. The bulk of the reporting is hostile for one. There are assumptions on the part of those reporting that (a) Marcion poses a challenge for the authority of the Church and (b) his scriptures are interpreted in ways which challenge not only central assumptions of the Church but support hostile assumptions in the general population (i.e. that Christians oppose the Roman state). The "anti-Jewish" trope is related to Marcion's antinomianism. Antinomianism has social implications in contemporary Roman society where the populace was governed by a "world ruler" in the very way Marcion and the gnostics were said to oppose the "Jewish god." The complexities involved are such that we are never sure what is what.

For instance, if Philo could embrace two powers in heaven and presumably as a representative of the Alexandrian Jewish population his views carried "political" authority (i.e. he couldn't have been some "anomaly" within contemporary Judaism) in the first century, they represented Judaism. The whole point of Philo's "commentaries" are to make an "apologia" for Judaism to the general pagan population. What point would there be for such an enterprise if, at bottom, his version of Judaism or Jewish interpretation wasn't representative of Jews anywhere? To that end we have to imagine that the two divine names in the Pentateuch were associated with two separate powers in the first century. By the time "the Church" was attacking Marcion in the late second century Philo's Judaism, that is the Judaism which was the "face" of the religion in the early first century, was now considered to be sectarian. What could account for this? Celsus's True Word.

Celsus accuses Jews of being "illogically" drawn toward rebellion by their god and that Christians as an offshoot of these followers of a "bad Logos" had the same instinct for rebellion. Since it is demonstrably self-evident that Celsus wrote at the end of Marcus Aurelius's reign, Celsus is likely reacting to the Alexandrian/Egyptian rebellion of 172 - 4 which likely involved Christians. To that end, we have a context in which "the Church" took Celsus's argument essentially that (a) "there was only true Logos" (b) that the Christian insistence there was another god was tied to an inherited "illogical" nature of the religious tradition generally and (c) that a strange understanding emerges in Judaism and Christianity that the religions were based on worship of only one God, the "ruler of the world" even though two divine names are mentioned in the Pentateuch repeatedly and Philo, the representative of Judaism in the early first century interprets the Pentateuch as if the narrative was centered around the interplay of two powers in heaven.

In other words, the reporting on Marcion can't be objective. We can't get accurate information about his tradition in light of contemporary circumstances.

I am not even arguing here that Marcionism was related to the Judaism of Philo (I believe that, but it is not necessary here). Even if there was no relationship, the fact that Celsus argued that, essentially, the Jews were prone to rebellion because they posited the existence of a god who was not the god of all the nations (or at least the Roman Empire) and this argument was influential EVEN IF Marcionism had nothing to do with traditional Judaism the very fact that it two posited the existence of "two powers" made it impossible for Church Fathers living in an age deeply influenced by the writings of Celsus (Eusebius is still responding to Celsus in the fourth century) to objectively report on the "facts" about Marcion. To defend any aspect of an "anti-monarchian" tradition like Marcionism was tantamount to being sympathetic to rebellion against the "world ruler."

[mlinssen]

Of course the reporting on Marcion isn't objective, you dope. When ever was any criticism objective?

Philo was fake and so is Josephus of course, why would anyone write tons of volumes about complete nobodies whose sole virtue it was to get their asses kicked perpetually by neighbours who took turns in p0wning the whole of Mesopotamia and then naturally needed that small strip of beach for supplies and trade and such

You're hopelessy hogtied up in the Falsifying Fathers, and Jewishness