(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...An important book on understanding the Bible recently appeared: The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christian Read the Same Stories Differently, by Marc Zvi Brettler and Amy-Jill Levine. I have asked both authors to provide a guest post or two, and here is the first. Marc Brettler has long been a prominent scholar of ancient Judaism. Since 2015 he has been the Bernice and Morton Lerner Professor in Judaic Studies at Duke University.
********************
Marcion, an early church theologian active in the first part of the second century, taught that the God of the Old Testament, typified by wrath, was distinct from the loving God of the New. His biblical canon excluded the entirety of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. (His NT canon was also different than the one the Church ultimately settled on, but that story needs to wait for another day.) His views were rejected by the nascent church, and he was ultimately excommunicated in about 140.
As a professor of biblical studies, I know that his legacy continues. This year in particular, I have found some blog posts of this semester’s students surprising and unsettling, even upsetting. I am co-teaching a course called “Scripture” with the NT scholar Mark Goodacre and the scholar of Islamic literature, Ellen McLarney, with TA Abigail Emerson (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament PhD candidate). In the posts for one of the first classes, several students commented on the OT’s angry God—their language—highlighting a small selection of texts that they had read, such as the conquest of the land of Israel by Joshua. But none of these students balanced this presentation with other texts that they also knew, such as the book of Jonah, whose very theme is God’s compassion for all. At the beginning of the next class, I called out this problem, and even showed the entire class a website, which, using principles as selective as Marcion, highlights the loving God of the OT and the fierce and vengeful God of the New.
But it made little difference. Several student posts for the following class, the last one surveying the contents of the OT/Tanakh, called this corpus “hypocritical.” They might as well have been quoting from the refrain in Matthew 23: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” They had no sense of the resonance of this word, and what it might mean to use this word for anyone’s scripture (especially to a Jewish professor). And yes, in the following class I yet again called attention to this issue, gently but firmly, to the students’ attention.
I certainly had heard and read these canards before, but had never seen them in student posts. The three of us had taught Scripture three years earlier, and none of us could recollect similar student posts. So I became curious, wondering if my personal experience in 2021 was representative, and if there was indeed a resurgence of Marcionism; I also wondered, if so, how we might be able to combat it, and what strategies my colleagues at other institutions are using.
So I turned to Facebook, where I posted about my experience. I had over one hundred responses. I would like to share what I learned from these.
To my dismay, I was not alone—several other faculty members had similar experiences, suggesting a recent resurgence of these ideas among their students as well. My FB friends suggested a variety of reasons for this. (Since I was not given permission to cite each of these by name from my FB friends, they will remain anonymous here.) Several connected this to the strengthening of right-wing nationalism, with its attendant antisemitism. I don’t think that most of the students expressing such views identify with this movement, but the trickle-down of its hateful vitriol has been powerful. Others have connected it to a desire to blame a God during the pandemic. (See, e.g., even this prepandemic article, arguing for Marcion’s relevance to our broken world: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-87582018000300002 .) A former student connected it to the fact that most people have not been going to church during covid, and thus are more open to religious influence through websites, including antisemitic ones. Related to this, someone noted: “I wonder if the increase in such an attitude may be the result of the increasing popularity of (poorly trained and informed) evangelical/atheist social media and YouTube commentators and video essayists.” A former high school classmate who also teaches spoke of students who in essence want to remove Revelation from the NT canon, so the OT-wrathful and the NT-full of love dichotomy can prevail more obviously. Another person spoke of the contemporary “promotion of a kind of neo-Gnosticism that holds up the more ostensibly peaceful and spiritual movement within Christianity that rejected the God of Judaism and was itself suppressed by the institutional church.” As a student of antiquity, I cannot judge which, if any, of these explanations is accurate, or how these different factors might interact.
But I feel that I can, and must, offer some strategies about combating this pernicious attitude—some of my own, but also various suggestions, texts, and stories that colleagues have offered.
In class, I showed the brilliant document initiated by Eva Mroczek, who teaches Biblical and Jewish Studies at the University of California at Davis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BG5PvCO5pTTATcgBF-Da5j9p0myFgg9wj1ECkrRhFbI/edit?fbclid=IwAR2YMomv0s6SmBpG9kjOt5rroKd9tkp7XB7m7QaV8iHGEpx-vAbzsJeYpKE . It starts with this contrast: God [in the HB/OT] is compassionate and slow to anger: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.” (Exodus 34:6) vs. Jesus says he has come to sow violence: ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.’ (Mt 10: 34-39). It continues with a series of similar contrasts, and should be shown by all teachers of the Bible in one of the first classes. This post by Notre Dame’s Gary Anderson is also very helpful: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/god-doesnt-break-bad-in-the-old-testament/?fbclid=IwAR18Z1U_cjL7fLM97R4_7ztbnSej0swR4WrSEd55Uegnn4lYD4-RjYzPdOA . But websites are not enough.
Others suggested different ways that this problem needs to be handled. Some professors insist on acknowledging the problem in a clear and straightforward way during the very first class. My Duke colleague Anathea Portier-Young has students read, before the first class, Johanna van Wijk Bos, Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice. Others suggested quoting in class from early church fathers who present, with great authority, the opposite view of Marcion, for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.28.1, where he notes that the punishments noted in the NT are more severe than those in the OT.
The eminent NT scholar Amy-Jill Levine has spent decades trying to educate toward mutual respect and a more historically accurate depiction of early Judaism and Christianity. I have assigned to some of my classes chapters of our recently co-authored The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christian Read the Same Stories Differently, written to encourage mutual understanding rather than viewing religion as a zero-sum game; the key word in the title is “and.” (We hope to blog on this here together in the near future.) The students were surprised to see that two Jews can respect both Jewish and Christian readings of Old Testament / Tanakh texts. I hope that this book can be a model for teaching the Bible.
I am writing my first draft of this on erev Rosh Hashanah, the afternoon before the Jewish New year starts. A significant theme of the day is God’s forgiveness—the prophetic reading (Haftarah) for the second day is Jeremiah 31:2-20, which speaks of the joy that restored Israel will experience from its ever-compassionate God, full of “eternal love” for his people. With this in mind, and with a sense of hakarat hatov, “recognition of the good,” namely appreciating the beneficial things that people have done for you (and have taught you) in the past, a core Jewish value, I would like to conclude with the following story. It is from a former teacher and colleague of mine at Brandeis University, Reuven Kimelman, as shared on Facebook:
In the mid-1970’s when I taught at Amherst College I teamed up with Karl Donfried of Smith College for a course on Judaism and Christianity in the first three centuries. For the last session, we assigned contemporary readings on Jewish-Christian dialogue asking how much of it is rooted in the reality of the first centuries.
The procedure of the course was one of us would lecture, the other would respond, and then give-and-take with the students. After Donfried’s irenic presentation, a student blurted out: “I don’t understand this whole course, the Jews killed Christ and have been getting what they deserve.” Donfried was dumbfounded as if the whole course was in vain. Suddenly, students who had not said much spoke agitatedly, taking sides on the issue. I kept quiet knowing that I would have the last word. At the end, I turned to the student, saying, “I know where you are coming from believing in the God of the NT who holds a grudge for two thousand years, but you must understand where I am coming from believing in the God of the OT who tempers His justice with His mercy.” The course was over.
It never ceases to amaze me how personal faith tints the lenses through which humans perceive & interact with reality.
As APC (Ancient Psychology Castles) commonly known as religions & cultures domesticate humans from birth, humans in return generally tend to defend them because they find identity, shelter & nostalgia in such.
And since current human cognition is still rudimentary, the cognition sees reality in binary vision like good or bad, angry or calm, smart or stupid, beautiful or ugly, etc.
FUCD (fictionally universal cosmic deity) commonly known as God captures the minds of its followers, the perception of that God becomes the benevolence while to its opponents become the illogical to follow.
FUCD of the OT is the same as NT, a fictional entity that mirrors the esteemed values & persona of the writer/speaker which formerly heavily influenced by his contemporary culture.
You mentioned Jonah story which very likely grew as a legend within ancient Israelites to summarize that our God did a favour to the Babylonian & in return the Babylonian will not destroy us.
But what is the end of that story? The mercy was a temporary bail but the destruction was the final verdict.
Is Islam’s Allah any different?
Muslims start anything reciting how merciful he is, though his supposed words are used to wage war & terror against all kinds of humans.
I’d be carefuly about saying what “Muslims” do, any more than one can say what “Christians” do or “Jews” or “Americans” or “Gays” or “Blondes” or any other group. It’s too easy to slip into stereotypes that do more harm than good.
I appreciate your feedback and I totally reject stereotyping but to clarify I didn’t say “muslims do” but rather stated a fact of “muslims recite” a merciful God. Please google Basmala to get some insight.
There is a prominent popular TV megachurch pastor named Andy Stanley who has taken a “follow Jesus only” approach in his pronouncements. He rejects accusations of Marcionism but of course his viewpoint is completely ahistorical.
So here’s a suggestion. Have one or more sessions where you trace where Jesus got his ideas from in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus had good writers. He was hardly original.
Excellent..Thank you!
I believe there is a flip side to this coin that has grown in the past 15 years or so and that is the Warrior Christ, Jesus with an AR15. Christians who believe it’s time to push back and attack and can cite words of Jesus to support their position.
Many conservatives insist on a literal interpretation of all violence in the Old Testament. Some take the Marcion approach. Some take a nontheistic approach. Alternatively, I appreciate taking a nonliteral approach, such as Jerome Creach, “Violence in Scripture. Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church.” (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013). Also, Creach wrote a free encyclopedia article “Violence in the Old Testament” https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-154.
Thank you for the post; it’s always interesting when we get to hear from other scholars. I have problems with the god of the Old Testament, the god of the New Testament, and the god(s) of every other religion I am familiar with (less so than with the Biblical religions, admittedly). I am not anti-Semitic, anti-Christian or Islamophobic; I’m just anti-bad-thinking. The problem as I see it is that God has not truly revealed himself (or herself) to us but rather we are left discussing what people have said about God. And throughout history people have said a lot of wild and crazy stuff about God(s)! Still, I think it’s worthwhile to read the stories and ask difficult questions about them and use them as a stepping stone to discussing life in this world, as long as it is taken as thought provocation, rather than the “gospel truth.”
Hello Ehrman Prof! I read to the first link, where Dr. G. Andrade wrote a wonderful study of Marcion. This is written: “Marcion postulated that Christ was sent by the good God to teach the way in which to escape the created material world, and that the worshippers (the Jews) of the God who created matter killed Jesus…”
Mark’s Gospel makes no reference to the bodily resurrection of Son. The story seems to end when the explorers of the empty tomb were so captivated by fear and amazement that no one was told about what they had experienced because of the fear. And this is where the gospel seems to end. But this is not the case.The original and attentive readers had to realize that with this conclusion, the gospel cannot end, that is, good news. So the gospel is just beginning. The man in the empty tomb, dressed in a white robe, actually sends the reader along with the characters to the beginning of the story, that is, to Galilee. The chiatic structure, which can be seen as an oval wheel, gives another story a boost and the gospel itself begins 🙂 The gospel of Christ/the Anointed One 🙂
How to reconcile the parts of the bible one likes with the parts one doesn’t like is a legitimate question. Marcion’s proposed resolution was never particularly convincing.
I have a very different view of the book of Jonah. In the first verses, we have God, bragging and making a bet with Satan. In the end we see a egocentric God speaking of his own power and importance.
Ummm . . . that’s Job, not Jonah. Job is an extraordinarily difficult book even by Biblical standards. I would say that basically it was one attempt to solve the problem of theodicy – basically, why do bad things happen to good people. The book of Job’s answer was, in essence, “who are You to question GOD?” I would also argue that this answer didn’t satisfy, because a couple hundred years later (give or take a couple hundred years), Jews came up with judgment after death as the answer: If you were good (or bad) in life, you’ll get rewarded (or punished) after you die, no matter what kind of a life you had on earth.
I think part of the problem with the book of Job is the expectations we bring to reading it. If we expect an answer to the question of theodicy then we will be very disappointed. It seems to me that chapters 38ff basically affirm and present us with a God that is beyond our comprehension. We cannot reduce this God to simplistic answers. Chaos is a part of the created order and sometimes it engulfs us all.
Is there any merit to the idea that the gospel of Mark was a reworked gospel of Marcion?
Hello!
Of course. It is only worth separating and not considering it the gospel of Paul.
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised, as I have spent the past several years researching, among other things, the degree to which the history of Christianity is one of, let us say, resistance to reality. While some of what you describe can indeed be attributed to a rise in anti-semitism, I suggest that the demise in the teaching of critical thinking in general is also a factor.
I’m not clear on one point, though. Are you suggesting a line of thought leading directly from Marcion to the present-day anri-semitism (based on the notion that the God of the HB was a violent bully), or that the resemblance is more coincidental?
Best,
Dan
PS: My understanding of the history is that the ANE was generally a violent time, and I would argue that the descriptions of Yahweh of the HB as a violent god are ex post facto explanations of that violence.
thx for your comment. I am not sure that the demise of critical thinking is a major factor; in response to my posting this on FB someone suggested that those who think critically, at least about the Bible, are more susceptible to neo-Marcionism. And I would hope that my Duke students are critical thinkers.
I am not suggesting a direct line from Marcion to now. Neo-Marcionism ebbs and flows, and I was surprised in my class and elsewhere to discover that now was a time when it was increasing, despite the best efforts by many people and organizations.
And I appreciate your comment about the Bible in its violent ancient Near Eastern environment, but the Roman empire in the first century CE was not such a peaceful place either (as may well be reflected in Revelation).
Quite true about the Roman empire. By then, of course, the concept of divine use of military and natural disasters to punish wayward Jews was well established. The rabbis certainly applied it to the destruction: מפני חטאינו and so forth.
How much can we blame the Paul-centric nature of modern evangelicalism? I know Paul’s actual philosophy isn’t antisemitic at all. But there’s a reason Paul was the only scripturist recognized by Marcion: many of his statements, especially strung-together and divorced from context, really seem to hammer on the inadequacy and logical inconsistency of the Torah. His devoted followers Luther and Calvin also weren’t exactly known to evince respect for Jewish people.
My churches all insisted that God was the same character across both testaments. But that doesn’t inspire us to read any less Romans or any more Jeremiah. “Believe as we say, not as we do.” Is this kind of practice latent in the Pauline tradition?
Some of my first impression after reading the Bible was realisation of how otherwise good people can or could justify and perpetrate numbers of atrocities (thinking: if one can justify the Bible, one can justify anything, ANYTHING). If one focuses just and solely on God’s ACTIONS and skips his words and praise od him, I don’t think one can reach a pleasing summary. Bigotry, us-good-them-bad morality, religious intolerance, antidemocratic bias, subjugation of women, you name it wherever one looks. Was I wrong, Dr. Brettler?
It is distracting when a scholar such as yourself brings present day politic into early Christian history. This distraction gives the missed meaning to why a student should attend your courses, i. e., “your better be a bleeding heart liberal if you want to get a grade in his course”. As you have guess I lean conservative. And your thinking that Marcionism is a right wing problem is insulting.
A very good rebuttal of the modern take on Marcion. I suppose the range of authors and agendas across the Bible as a whole (if one takes a purely literary approach) will inevitably produce a variety of ‘characters’ attaching to God – vengeful, wrathful, merciful … you name it. However, I have to say that there is something compelling about Marcion, if you find proto-orthodox Christianity too dull and Gnosticism too mystifying. Marcion is a sort of Gnosticism lite, and on a superficial level, seems pretty convincing. But, as Marc has shown, the devil for Marcion lies in the detail
As a non-religious person it seems to me that 1. People wanting to find a benevolent God and reject a violent God is a good thing; 2. A split in any religion where a smaller group is formed tending to more peaceful, not more violent, is a good thing.
There is A LOT a decent human being can reject in the Old Testament, so a new Christian order of ‘New Testament-only’ Christians sounds good to me. May it grow. Every human endeavour, politics, economics, religion, whatever, should be ENCOURAGED to become more humane and more intelligent and more inclusive over time, IMO. And yes, that would lead to rejecting those parts of the NT that are wicked and cruel. We MUST evolve. The bible has always been cherry-picked, we need to do some latter-day cherry-picking again.
15 or more years ago I converted to Judaism. I had been raised in the Christian faith. I’m currently agnostic member of the Jewish secular society. But I remember what a friend told me when I told him I was converting. With a snarl on his face he said “the Jews killed Jesus,” and walked away. 2000 years later antisemitism is still alive.
I’ve never understood why Christians don’t call ITALIANS Christ-killers, since, after all, the Romans were the ones who crucified him.
I found this post to be quite informative, but I especially found your surprise eye opening, as the vast majority of Christians in my area would agree that the god of the OT is indeed a god of wrath and the NT god is a god of love. I have heard this taught from the pulpit on several occasions and have heard this all my life. It’s generally used (at least by the people I’ve heard repeat it) as a way to gloss over atrocities committed by god (the flood, for example). Perhaps it’s also used as a way to raise Christianity above Judaism as well…an interesting thought. At any rate, I doubt they’ve ever looked for evidence to the contrary as it’s never comfortable to change ones own beliefs.
Before anyone argues, I am not speaking for all Christians, nor am I stating my own beliefs. I’m simply offering my own experiences within the Christian church of the south.
Thank you for your post, and I’m sorry to hear about these widespread attitudes among students. Some things I wonder, related to your call on FB for possible reasons why this is occurring: in the fundamentalist/Pentecostal and prosperity gospel churches I attended growing up (no longer a part of these), there is a general downplaying of the Bible in favor of more self-help, Stephen Covey-esque sermons. One pastor would tell new converts “not to worry about reading” the HB/OT, and to focus on the NT, beginning with the book of John to establish the divinity of Christ. In all the churches I attended, the Bible was used as one long “proof-text” for specific doctrines. There was never a meaningful exploration of the HB. Also, due to the proliferation of Christian media (e.g., Pureflix, Jesus movies and miniseries like The Chosen), Jesus is continually portrayed with so much pathos as this affable, laughing, empathic guy, that this makes him even more of a stark counterpoint to the traditional view of the God of the HB. It would be interesting to see a media effects study of such programming to better understand their influence on audience attitudes toward God in the HB.
Woodystock–you were not wrong. the Bible has been, and can be, used to justify almost anything. It is very varied, and is open to all sorts of interpretations and misinterpretations.
timcfix–I am sorry that you feel insulted, and I believe that you have misread what I have said–i nowehre implied that this is only a right-wing problem. and i disagree with you on at least one fundamental matter–one reason many students take classes in the Bible is because they realize that the Bible has political implications.
GeoffClifton–i appreciate your comment–and let’s remember–details are important!
Bewilderbeast–i don’t understand why your cherry-picking begins with rejecting the entire OT/HB. I can give lots of reasons for this, but for starters–it is almost impossible to understand the NT without the OT/HB. and a NT-only movement is historically misleading–it is, e.g., not Jesus who first said Love your neighbor, but Leviticus, and the same for loving God, where Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5.
“ALMOST impossible to understand the NT without the OT/HB” ? Why bother qualifying it?
But why must we make Marcion the frame of reference on the matter? It’s not as though no one else has ever noticed the problem. Marcion simply tried to solve the problem with a manufactured mythological framework involving pagan-esque hierarchies. What Marcion identified was an inevitible philosophical question. Many others have approached the problem without his influence. Calling people who see a logical incoherence in the character of the God of the OT and NT “Marcionites” is really more of a conversation stopper. In a debate between Michael Brown and Brian Zahnd on the Monster God (available on YouTube) Brown immediately resorts to the Marcionite label to turn the audience against a man who is thoughtful and careful in his exploration of the topic.
I vote we retire the term Marcionite.
What we have today are simply people who want us to explain how it was that Jesus was alledgedly there wiping out sinners in the OT and scolding his disciples for wanting to do it in the NT. They want to know how Jesus could distance himself from an “eye for an eye”, and yet be credited as the Word who inspired the term in the OT.
Really enjoyed reading this excellent piece thank you very much for posting on the blog!
I have been thinking about replying to this for months, but hesitated. Because it seems that by writing this, I might be accused of antisemitism. But still, this post, and a couple others about Marcionism from last fall, makes me upset.
Marcion wanted to create a Christianity with a more humane God than the one in the Bible. Why is that wrong? Why should propagating for Marcionism today be considered as a problem and be counteracted? Is Marcionism worse than most other forms of Christianity and Judaism? On the contrary, I would say that Marcion’s ideas are morally superior to most forms of Christianity and Judaism which existed at his time, although of course they are intellectually untenable, as are all religions.
So what is the problem? Was Marcion an antisemite? Are his wannabe followers today antisemites? But Marcion not only wanted to throw out OT, but most of NT also (the Relevation, for example). So, if the Marcionites are antisemites, they must by same logic be anti-Christian.
You can’t call it antisemitism just because it is a rejection of Judaism. To call something antisemtism it should include harassment, victimization etc. of Jews. Do these wannabe Marcionites do that?
Well, yes they sometimes do. I can’t recall if Marc indicate that Marcion was anti-semitic. If he does, I would disagree. I think anti-semitism is a modern category developed only when anthropologists in the 19th century started coming up with race theories that allowed races (Semites; Aryans; etc.) to be compared. Marcion was strongly anti Jewish (opposed to all things Jewish), but that’s not the same thing.
He wouldn’t be anti-Christian because he was a Christian. It was an internecine dispute. In any event, it’s not clear that he threw out the rest of the NT; most scholars think that he simply didn’t know the rest of it yet. But I’d say we can’t really say. I
Thanks for your reply. But I still wonder: Do you think that this Marcionite trend should be “combated” (a term used by Marc Zvi Bettler in his original post)? If so, why? Is it a threat to Jews?
If it’s a purely religoius belief with no social implications, that’s one thing; if it is used to oppose those of other religions, that’s something else.