Loading...In the past couple of posts I have talked about early Christian “docetists,” those who were so convinced that Jesus was completely God that they denied he was a “flesh-and-blood” human being. In the early Christian centuries, no one advanced that view more than the “arch-heretic” Marcion.
Marcion had a huge following. In some parts of the Christian world at the end of the second century, there were apparently more Marcionites than other kinds of Christian. One could argue he his views are still broadly popular today, even among Christians who have never heard of him and among those who, if they have, would say that he was a “heretic.”
Do you know Christians who think that there is a difference between the God of Wrath in the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New Testament, and who think that the Old Testament does not really apply anymore? That is a weakened version of Marcion’s thought. Or do you know people who say Christ was God and so he wasn’t *really* a human – or if they don’t say that, then when they are pressed they say things that make it pretty clear they don’t really think he was human? For example, they don’t think Jesus needed to eat; that he didn’t need to perform bodily functions that every other human does; that he didn’t have human desires; that he actually did know everything and that he really could to anything? That would be Christ the God. But it’s not really Christ the human. And that was Marcion’s view.
No one I know today is *literally* a Marcionite. But I would say his views continue to be present, in less emphatic form. Here is how I explain his views in my book How Jesus Became God.
If you were a member of the blog, you could read all this. And much more! Five posts a week on interesting topics of all sorts connected with the New Testament and Earliest Christianity. There is a small membership fee to join, but every penny (about 55 a week!) goes to charity. So why not?
Quote – ‘Do you know Christians who think that there is a difference between the God of Wrath in the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New Testament, and who think that the Old Testament does not really apply anymore? That is a weakened version of Marcion’s thought.’
Jesus teachings in Matt 5,6 and 7 suggest that Jesus was himself a Marcionite ??????
Jesus and his people were not Marcionites. Every Christian sect that broke away from the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus kept some element of the New Testament. Otherwise they couldn’t claim to be the True Christian Church.
Joseph Smith believed in Jesus, but coming to the New World and restoring the Old Testament. You can argue that all Christians observe elements of Mormonism, ie that Jesus is the Son of God – but that doesn’t make the rest of us latent Mormons.
But the truly important question here is how to pronounce “Marcion”. Do you have a recommendation?
MARsee-on.
Theology appears to be something of a rat hole. Jesus seems to have had no interest in it. Good man!
QUESTION for Bart:
Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious liberal or a religious conservative.? (There seem to be accounts supporting both profiles.)
~eric @ MeridaGOround
I”m not sure those categories apply very well. It would completely depend on what they mean for you.
After I logged in, I still can’t get the rest of this post. Posts for the last few days have been similarly screwed up. What’s going on?
Hmm… I don’t know. Still have htat problem? I haven’t heard others say anything about it. Easiest way to get a quick response on such things is to write “Support” (See “Help” and then “Contact Support”); Ben can usually figure out what the issue is. Hope it’s cleared up for you.
I find Marcion a fascinating character in the early church. He seems to have had a significant influence that is rarely discussed. Please consider more posts on him.
Good idea. I’ve done a few in the past; do a word search for Marcion on the blog and you’ll see some.
Did Marcion use any of the Gospels or did he just go with Paul?
He had a version of what we call Luke; he simply called it his “Gospel” to along with his “Apostle.” His opponents claimed heeavily edited it to get rid of views that he thought could not be original to it (positive references to the God of the OT, e.g.)
He would have had to edit out the birth narrative at least.
Didn’t Marcion think that Paul had a written document called the ‘Gospel’?
He speaks of Paul’s gospel, but he does not indicate it was written. Paul too speaks of his gospel — but he means his gospel “message”
Marcion lived in a world where there existed more than one god, Satan being the “god of this world” (2Cor.4:4), and the Law brought through Moses, is presented in contrast with the grace and truth brought through Jesus (Jn.1:17), as if the Law did not offer grace and truth. The seeds of Marcionism were planted by “Paul” and “John”. Marcion simply picked and chose the texts that made sense to his theological mindset, the same was done by the “orthodox” theologians.
If Marcion had a huge following, how did his opponents turn the tables on him and win?
THey denounced him, said nasty things about him, wrote refutations of his views, and so on. They started out with greater numbers and eventually trounced him. But it took a while.
If Marcion had access to the Gospels, I wonder what he thought of Matthew 5:17-18? I wonder whether that was one of Tertullian’s counter-arguments.
NRSV 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
He apparently had a version of Luke, not of Matthew.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
I am enjoyin every one of your logs!!
I have use your books in my book in spanish of the early chrisitas that I have just finished. you have inspierd me.
keep on!!
Marcion’s ideas make him sound like a proto-Gnostic.
Some scholars used to classify him as a gnostic, but there are serious differences. He had two gods, not an entire pleroma; he did not believe in a divine spark within humans; he thought faith, not knowledge, was the means of salvation; he did not have a complicated mythology; his creator God was just and wrathful, but not an ignorant bungler; he did not use the Jewish Scriptures as a symbol-trove of meaning; and lots of other things. So usually today he’s seen as a different phenomenon.
I have always had the greatest difficulty with the concept/need of Atonement in Christian thought. How would or did the docetists accomodate the “need” for this sacrificial salvific act of the god/man with their rejection of the humanity of Christ?
Some would say he was fooling the Devil. And it worked.
As usual, thanks for this. Something I’ve been meaning to ask: as a Gold member, I love the audio option. I often use them as I’m drifting off to sleep. The length of each means that they’re not the most convenient to use, since it usually takes me 15 minutes minimum. Is it possible for there to be a weekly digest of the audio recordings that someone could listen straight through? Or at least some sort of option to transition immediately to another recording? Just thought I’d throw it out there.
Interesting idea. I don’t know! I’ll look into it.
Marcion would be surprised to see what is credited to him for 1,800 years after his death. Despite 30 years since the fall of communism, in such cases I am reminded of the mythical Yerevan radio and its news service.
“Is it true that the poet Mayakovsky committed suicide?
Yes, even a recording of his last words has survived – Comrades, don’t shoot! “
We should know the “Hebrew Gospel” was written before 40 CE, and the other three testify more against its record the later it was written, such as John. The “words” of God to men have remained consistent from the beginning, and there was no abject “Fall” of man. We need to investigate the Hebrew Gospel. Why not?
onediscipletoanother.org
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think the fact that Marcion, who basically compiled the first New Testament, held Paul in such great esteem places an even higher value on Paul’s letters?
I”m not sure what you’re asking. ARe you saying the modern people might esteem the letters more, since Marcion thought highly of them. I’d say probably not.
Dr. Ehrman,
What I’m saying is do you think it’s a good argument in favor of Paul’s letters being legitimate since right from an early time; the very first version of the New Testament they were included?
Nope, I don’t think it’s a good argument. Someone living 80 years later wold have no way of knowing whether hte letters he took to be Pauline were acdtually written by Paul.
Dr. Ehrman,
Did the amanuensis make more than one copy of Paul’s letters, or did they begin to be copied for the first time by the members of the churches that Paul wrote to?
We don’t know.
Dr. Ehrman,
How did Paul’s letters first surface; how did we come to have them today?
Both Paul’s letters and the letters of those who falsely claimed to be Paul were copied by someone, then copied again, then copied again. So they’ve been around all along.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
I have heard Christian apologists say that Acts must have been written in the late 50s or early 60s because it fails to mention the death of James, Paul or Peter. They also point out it doesn’t mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. What do you think about these claims? Thanks for your help,
Jasper
Since it was the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, and Luke is usually dated to 80-85 (since it certainly used the Gospel of Mark, from around 70), then it would have to be later than that. THe author stops the account with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome for a more interesting reason that that this is when he finished writing. IN his account, NOTHING can stop Paul. You can beat him, imprison him, stone him to death — nothing can stop his Spirit-inspired mission. If Luke narrated his execution, then it would undercut his theme. So he ends with Paul in jail awaiting trial.
That makes a lot of sense! And since there’s no mention of Paul’s martyrdom, it makes sense not to mention those of Peter and James. And the fall of Jerusalem was years after these martyrdoms, so no mentioning that either. Thanks for responding, this is really interesting.
Dr.Ehrman,
Did Marcion write anything about the “good” god of the N.T.? I’m mean specifics: backstory,name,etc. Or is it a mystery?
I”m afraid we don’t know.
It always feels weird when the words “just” and “justice” are used to denote rigid adherence to consequences set out in law, regardless of whether that law is morally defensible. It is a sign that the words are being used rather awkwardly to represent a concept that does not have a precise English translation.
Macmillan, for example, defines “just” as “making judgments in a way that is reasonable and morally right”, and any relevant definition in a modern English dictionary will be similar, emphasising moral reasonableness over legal rigidity.
It is arguably even weirder when the word “deserve” is used in reference to whatever consequence the law assigns.
Dr. Ehrman,
I am reading your work “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, 7th ed” and considering this quote from pg. 8 regarding Marcion’s view of Jesus:
“As the one true God himself, come to earth to deliver people from the vengeful God of the Jews, Jesus was never born, never got hungry or thirsty or tired, and never bled or died. Jesus’ body was a phantasm.”
However, in this blog and other places, you seem to speak of Marcion’s view as that Jesus “belonging to the true god”, “sent by the true god”, etc.
Could you clarify what it is you think Marcion’s view was regarding the relationship between Jesus an the true god? Did he think Jesus was identical to that god or that he was a distinct divine being?
Thank you!
Jesus came from the true God, the one who did not create the material world, and so he had no share in the material world — i.e., he had no actualy body, but only “seemed” to be human. Make sense? (I don’t think he was himself that one and only true God; he was sent by him. As I understand it)
Got it, thanks for the clarification (and so quickly I might add!).
Can you see how this quote from your textbook seems to indicate that Marcion believed Jesus to be “the one true God himself, come to earth…”?
I hadn’t ever looked at it that way! (I don’t think….)