Loading...Before I move on from Marcion to talk about “Gnostic” understandings of Christ — all in this long thread on where the Trinity came from — I’d like to return to an issue I mentioned briefly in my first post on Marcion, that in many ways his views are alive and well among us. As I have said on the blog before, I have known Christians over the years who in fact have views in many ways close to what Marcion taught. These people would, of course, deny they have anything like the touch of the heretic about them. But at the end of the day, their views are not so different. Maybe they are not as extreme as he was, but they do seem to be dwelling on the fringes of his camp.
First, I have known a lot of Christians who think that the Old Testament has a God of wrath and condemnation and the New Testament has a God of love and mercy. Students say this to me with some regularity. The God of the Old Testament gives difficult laws that no one can possibly follow (how, exactly, are you supposed to keep from “coveting” anything??). And then he condemns people for not keeping them. But no one *can* keep them. So that doesn’t seem fair. The Old Testament God is a God of wrath.
Jesus, on the other hand, proclaims a message of forgiveness, not condemnation. The God of Jesus is the God of love. He loves the world, he loves everyone in it, he loves the sinner. He has mercy on the sinner. He forgives the sinner. He welcomes the sinner. This is a different portrayal of God. The New Testament God is a God of love.
If pressed, of course, these people would say that, literally speaking…
The Rest of this Post can be read by MEMBERS Only. On the upside, joining takes little time, effort, or money. And all proceeds go to help the needy. So join!! Click here for membership options.
Unrelated, but what non-canonical christian writing do you think had the best chances of making it into the NT? (but failed, of course)
The Apocalypse of Peter. I’m writing about it in the scholarly book I’m finishing up now (as one of the chapters)
One explanation of God changing from wrath to love is covenant theology, in which God changes how he relates to mankind as each previous approach fails. This too is problematic, since it begs the question of how God can get it wrong so many times
So what ethical code *did* Marcion and his followers adhere to? I find it difficult to believe that they thought murder, theft and fornication were perfectly fine. Do we know?
He apparently was highly ethical and pushed a strict morality. As taught in both Paul and Luke.
I’ve always had sympathy for Marcion; He was a thinker, and had a backbone. I resolve my own reticence about the Hebrew Bible by my belief that no scriptures are actually “The Word of God” literally (in fact, only prophecy even claims to be “The Word of God” within the books of the bible, and, in that regard, I think about them in light of anyone who claimed that God spoke to him/her directly; is it not reasonable to doubt?), and that I see the historical unfolding of scripture from my view that if God was working among the Israelites, He worked gradually and subtly to evolve humanity from a primitive state to a more refined state. Of course, all this is a matter of faith; just as where I disagree with Marcion, I do so, not based on facts, but on faith.
QUESTION: Jesus, insurrectionist? He appears in all 4 gospels to invade the Temple shortly prior to Passover, apparently “single-handledly” disrupting activities he termed a den of thieves — without arrest by Temple guards. Did he have help? (Did he “organize” this action? — One guy, or many?)
~eric. MeridaGOround dot com
I think not. He believed *GOD* would destroy the current order, but does not appear to have urged others to take up the sword. I give a discussion of this in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. (The temple incident may have been an “enaccted parable” meant to show what was soon to happen when God wiped out the place.)
Or, could a naive Galilean hillbilly have not thought through how pilgrims and Temple sacrifices worked (like where do the sheep come from?) and lost his temper causing a short stir at the lower levels of the Temple complex? A scene related in stories ever expanding in the telling until by the time Mark writes it he’s run out everyone …. otherwise necessary for pilgrims to come to the Temple without half their barnyard, buy Hebrew coin with their Roman money so they could buy something to be sacrificed? By the time Mark writes it whose going to question the security issue?
The salient point of that “current order” would have been Roman occupation and a Roman puppet priesthood. Except for those who were willing to play the Roman game and keep the peace, who seem to have been mostly elite, insurrection and insurrectionists seem to have been popular among the hillbillies. So it’s a bit hard to see how a rather peaceful Jesus would have had much of a following. The incident in the garden of Gethsemane, where at least some of his followers appear to have been armed, suggests that maybe the historical Jesus was more radical than the later gospels indicate? The gospel Jesus would have been easier for Roman power to accept– less threatening. Note what the gospels did with Pilate, who would have crucified a rabble rouser with no qualms at all. The gospels seem to have been written to placate Roman power and make the Jews the enemy– a false narrative, in other words. See Eisenman’s influence? Shame on me!
I would suggest that there were a widespread understanding in ancient times of the concept of a spiritual descend and spiritual ascend. This seems to be present in both:
• Hinduism (s)
• Buddism (basically)
• Hellenism (platonic views of the soul)
• Zoroastianism (where everybody join in the House of Light at the
very end)
• Esoteric Judaism which some viewed he Hebrew bible in a
symbolic, spiritual way. These views seems to be wide spread
within the contemporary judaism.
• Esoteric Christianity which would unite the OT and NT as the
story of the soul descend and ascend into the state of a «New
Jerusalem»
• And different branches of Islam (like Sufism, early islamic
hellenistic views of islam, Druze views, Alewites,) where the soul
is destined to unite with God again.
And different others.
So, if one should apply a esoeric spiritual-symbolic view of the Bible, both the OT and NT fits together on the premis of Jesus as the son of man who lead the human spirit back to the state of «New Jerusalem». The fall of Adam (whould be the spiritaul Adam found in Jewish-Christian views,,,,the fall to the state of “Babylon” ,,,,,,,,,,and,,,,,and,,,and,,,all the way back back as a bride to the spiritual “New Jerusalem” .
I suggest this view wouldn’t be very differnt from the major world religions of today, which was around when Jesus lived (except different brances of Islam mentioned above).
I recently heard a preacher quoting Jeremiah 31:31. Once again we have a prophet announcing a “new covenant” with God. There’s also Noah, Abraham, St Paul, and perhaps the Marcions, depending on how you define “covenant.” So my question is how many covenants did the Jews have with God? Also if one covenant supersedes another, wouldn’t this tend to make the Jews cynical about the whole idea of a covenant with God?
There’s also, of course Moses! There are various ways of counting them. But certainly Noah, Abraham,and Moses; with jeremiah expecting another — which the Christians said was fulflled with Christ.
And which the Mormons could say was not really fulfilled until Joseph Smith came along. Or maybe it’s Islam.
Ok, so the second part of my question was didn’t having more than one covenant lead to cynicism? Or is part of having religious faith being able to tune out the fact that the covenant changes from time to time?
No, I don’t know of any cynicism about it among ancient Jews or Christians. God made a number of agreements with his people, but none of them was “exclusive” of the others.
Thank you for succinctly explaining the problems many Christians today have in thinking the O.T. God is wrathful, while the N.T. God is all-loving. If they only knew how the N.T. explains why God’s laws cannot possibly be kept by anyone, and that the whole point of the law was to waken them up to that impossibility, the good news might dawn on them. But until it does, they will continue to be unwitting followers of Marcion. The contradictions inherent in those who are heading in Marcion’s direction are just as you say. Would you say that their problem is that they have never even bothered reading the O.T., unthinkingly accepting urban myths as excuse enough to dismiss it? And therefore their reading of the N.T. has no foundation upon which to build up understanding of the consistency of God in dealing with the law, and our lawlessness, via Christ?
No, I’d say they typically read it through a particular Christian lens rather than on its own terms.
I think this is an interesting point, and all-to-often overlooked: That is, that for many present-day Christians how they understand God, Jesus, and their relationship(s) would, technically, have been quite heretical when viewed in detail and at earlier times.
For me, the best example of this is Arianism, i.e. roughly that while Jesus is certainly fully divine, he is “simply” God’s son and so, unsurprisingly, a different “person” from God.
For the longest time I struggled with understanding exactly what this meant, until one day it dawned on me:
That while they would never have used the term, or perhaps have stated things so explicitly, this is *exactly* what they taught us in Sunday School all those years ago.
There are plenty of hellfire and brimstone preachers convinced the NT God is wrathful.
I don’t think there are many Christians who think whole of OT is irrelevant for their religion. Instead they value the narratives and stories, but largely gloss over the minutiae of Torah laws, which are superceded by the New Convenant, making Jewish rituals and rites of passage inapplicable. Reformed theologians have developed theories on what OT laws remain applicable e.g. food laws are inapplicable because Acts declared it so, Paul ruled circumcision unnecessary, Jesus confirmed 10 commandments, all moral laws remain applicable.
What makes Christian beliefs about Jesus distinctive against secular culture and other religions with something to say about Jesus (i.e. Judaism and Islam), is the belief in his divinity. Hence Christians would stress his divinity in evangelism and preaching. Unsurprisingly, many lay Christians end up holding docetic views, because it is very difficult to coherently explain how Jesus is 100% divine (characterised by omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality) and 100% human (characterised by absence of these uniquely divine characteristics). So they would invariably err on side of divine characteristics, except immortality. The Christian worldview revolves around the affirmation of Jesus dying for sins of the world.
Having being raised as an ‘Arian’ Christian, the notion that Jesus was God Almighty was a constant source of irritation to me when talking to other Christians. How could Jesus be God when he is the ‘Christ’ I would argue? However, whatever arguement was made, I was told that Jesus could perform any magic trick in the book whenever he wanted because he was both fully God and fully human. Reading Dr Ehrman’s books recently has really enlightened me as to how this absurd belief came about. I hope the holy spirit, the God that became God later than the others, helps all Christians rebalance their faith.
Modern-day Unitarians (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses) have different christology from patristic Arians. Former explicitly denies Jesus’ divinity while the latter affirms it, with both maintaining pre-existent Son who created the world was himself a created being. Lots of contemporary theologians – Catholic&Protestants alike – would defend tooth&nail the doctrine of incarnation (God becoming man while remaining divine), against charge of absurdity (e.g. as argued in “Myth of God incarnate” edited by John Hick 1978). They acknowledge at onset the exact nature of the Trinity is mysterious, but reject the claim that it is incoherent or absurd. There are a number of models theologians proposed to understand the Trinity. Some are obtuse, invoking speculative metaphysical principles (e.g. https://philpapers.org/rec/LOKAKM). The model many Christians would find more intuitive is the kenotic model – inspired by Philippians 2:7 where Paul talks of Jesus “emptying” himself – whereby Jesus divested some divine properties to become man, while maintaining properties essential to divinity (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2007.10819944).
Hurtado suggests in this 2015 podcast (https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-99-dr-larry-hurtado-on-early-high-christology/) that contemporary Christians would find 2nd/3rd century expositions of Jesus’ divinity more illuminating and consistent with NT teachings than 4th century divine ontological conceptions. N.T.Wright(1998) has interesting take on Jesus’ divinity in terms of his “vocation”: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-and-the-identity-of-god/
What I see is that, while Judaism never taught that a person must be Jewish in order to receive God’s blessing and that righteous gentiles will have a place in the world to come, in the more strict version of Christian belief, it doesn’t matter how good or righteous a person you are: if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior–that is, if you are not a Christian, you will be condemned. So, in the end, which testament teaches a more wrathful God?
Yes, I think you are right. Many Christians are a bit hazy on Christology and have their own individual take on exactly who and what Jesus is. I think that many would also recoil from the notion that he was co-creator of the universe, which is certainly what Nicene Christians should believe. Marcion is a fascinating character and I have to say that, despite being a Christian all my life (I’m 65), I first heard of him only when Mark Goodacre briefly mentioned him on a BBC radio programme about 20 years ago. And I only found out exactly who he was when I read Lost Christianities a few years after that.
Excellent post. It makes me wonder how well (or how badly) we understand the point of view of Marcion (or other heretics), given that we have to rely on descriptions from angry adversaries. Maybe Marcion would have agreed with the modern Christians you describe.
Something is Marcion in the state of Christendom.
Dr. Ehrman, I want to thank you for all that you do. Has anyone wrote this line to you? I will try to make it to your live lecture and donate if I attend.
(44) Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.”
Jesus
Blasphemes
Father forgiven
Blasphemes
Son forgiven
Blasphemes
Holy not either or
Or either not holy
Blasphemes forgiven
Son
Blasphemes forgiven
Father
Blasphemes
Jesus
Of course Im the one who sent you this
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
These secret the spoke Didymos wrote
Wrote Didymos spoke the secret these
I have a quick question. Is the a way to change your profile name without starting a new account?
I want to change it to
-ASonOFZeus-
Thanks again.
Just write a letter to our support address; look under “Help” for contact support.
The denomination in which I was raised is guilty of this *practically* if not literally. They of course insist the god of the OT and NT were the same person, while studiously avoiding open acknowledgement of vast swaths of the OT, engaging in amazing contortions to justify the cruelest behavior of the OT god, carefully cherry-picking commandments from the Mosaic Law whilst avoiding others, etc etc. They focus almost myopically on the god of the NT and their hymns of praise tout his qualities as represented there to the exclusion of all else. As to Jesus’ humanity, ask one of them if Jesus went to the bathroom, I dare you 🙂
Like others, I wasn’t trained in academic theology until fairly late in life. So what I know of the Bible had been until then years of readings in the Lectionary on Sundays.
When you said ally “If Jesus wanted to do something that no human could possibly do, he could do it. Not just walk on water and multiply loaves of bread and ascend to heaven. He could literally do anything he wanted. If he wanted to speak Swahili when he was just two months old, he could have done it. ”
I reflected immediately to the Temptations (all Synoptics have this, as you know) and why should the Devil have tempted him if Jesus could do those things already?
Another thought.. I bet most Christians you run across in North Carolina may be different than say, a Catholic parish in Tucson, or the LDS stake in Idaho, or an Orthodox parish in Minnesota. Let alone other countries. It would be interesting to see if any religion surveys have looked at this Christology question.
Yup, it was a real shock when I moved from my mainly Roman Catholic students at Rutgers to my conservative evangelicals at UNC….
What were some of the differences you observed?
At Rutgers, I could talk about contradictions in the Bible till I was blue in teh face, to no effect; but if I said that Jesus had *brothers* the students became completely incredulous!
Wouldn’t it be great to have another Nag Hammadi like find, but only with the letters of Paul, and we discover that Paul actually held very similar views to Marcion…? One can dream can’t they….
What part of Jesus’ teachings do you think is practiced by Christians today? It does not have to be all Christians. It can be a subset of Christians. I ask this question because I find a sizable disconnect between what Jesus said to do and what modern Christians do.
Which Christians? I’d say most would agree that you should love your neighbor as yourself, e.g.
I agree all the sects of the past, including Arian, Gnostics and others, still influence how we see christian faith. It does make me understand why the Catholic Church has since earliest times has operated in accordance with Canon Law. It states, this is the dogma (as they view the bible) and the rules, take it or leave (it). I chose the latter but, sorting out what is true and humane, is not simple and daunting at a global level. But, its there in every holy text in the world, if you look close and there many, many texts!
From my (limited) experience, it seems like some evangelicals have a somewhat «Marcionite» or at least a kind of docetic view of Jesus and the trinity. They often negate, or don’t mention his human aspect as much as his divine. This is just my subjective hunch and I’m sure that if i asked them they would certainly affirm that his «humaness» are equally important.
Of the early church fathers who believed in the Trinity, would they think that Jesus could for example; speak any language (even as a baby) and do everything he wanted at any time, or did they put more emphasis on his human side, than many Christians today?
They don’t say.
Yes. Why not have a book of their own? Why attach the NT to the Jew’s Tanakh? A rabbi occasionally tells this joke:
Why did God invent Mormonism?
Answer: So Christians would know how Jews feel.
Ha! That’s a good one. (Of course, Mormons would be surprised to know they aren’t considered Christians!)
Christian doctrine is that Jesus and the Father are distinct but of one substance, and that Jesus is both completely human and completely divine. I suppose there are rarified thinkers who can maintain a sincere and consistent belief in these doctrines, but I think most Christians find the effort to sustain such contradictory ideas to be too much for them. They end up coming down on one side or the other.
I found Luke 7:28 while looking for a Shakespeare quote (as one does): “I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
So either Jesus was not born of woman or he was lesser than John? I suspect that passage sounded good to Marcion.
@ AstaKask – Interestingly, it was John the Baptist who was “born of women” (and the greatest, at that), but it is never said of Jesus that he was “born of a woman”. Of Mary we are told, “she had brought forth the son of her” (Jesus). But Jesus was not born of [that] woman. The subtle difference here is astoundingly important, when you stop to think about it. And that’s another reason why Jesus’ birth is unique, and cannot be compared with any other human birth. Jesus was NOT born of woman, and WAS greater than John!
Annsan – “It is never said of Jesus that he was born of a woman”? Paul says very clearly in Galatians 4:4 that he was.
Hello Douglas – Gal.4:4 literally reads “And when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth his Son, COME of a woman, come under law.” (Y.L.T.) It does not say the Son was born of a woman. The Greek is ‘come of’ a woman. So, I repeat, the Bible never says that the Son was born of a woman.
Apocalypse of Peter.
from Wiki
People have pure milky white skin, curly hair, and are generally beautiful
The earth blooms with everlasting flowers and spices
People wear shiny clothes made of light, like the angels
Peter, the Apostles or Jesus said nothing like this: it’s so far out of character you might as well say heaven has a 24 hour a day Daytona car race and you can watch the New York Yankees battled it out with the Boston Red Sox every day.
I’m afraid the reality is that we have no idea about most of what they said. Even with Jesus, you can probably quote every word of the Gospels in under two hours. But if he was saying things for, say, 30 years…. (or even for a three year ministry)….
With regards to the Jewish laws, I heard an explanation that they are divided into categories. There’s the moral laws, the priestly laws and I think the third is the ritual laws. Christians only ave to follow the moral laws…the other two categories are for Jews only. I asked a Rabbi if jews divide up the laws into categories like this. The answer was no. Only Christians have categorized them.
Have you heard of this? Is this accurate as to how they determined which laws are still in force and which were jettisoned? Thanks
That’s correct. In ancient Judaism, they did not have these categories. THey do seem to be presupposed in some of the early Christian authors (Paul, Matthew), but even that is debated.
I assume Marian doctrine and liturgy developed, and survives, to emphasize Jesus’ humanity.
To what extent do you think that the polarized nature of US politics is influencing christians’ hesitancy on fulling adopting at least one Marcion viewpoint: that the Old Testament is not valid? They say yes in order to identify with some conservative views, like law and order, military & maybe gun rights, but say no as to not completely dismiss some liberal policies like gay marriage, social justice issues and some women’s rights? I mean, most American christians don’t want to be labeled extreme, so they adopt a more nuanced view. It seems as if current political issues are guiding these specific religious views about old books. Not sure if this question is appropriate (because politics) but since I’m new, figured I’d try 🙂
It’s borderline. 🙂 But in response, the hesitancy has been around for a very long time, back in the stone age when politics involved things like compromise and mutual attempts to understand.
WJV.. the relationship of Christian groups and political leanings is complex. For example at some churches in my denomination, I’ve been told to vote for R’s and at others, to vote for D’s.. Based on different issues being important to the leaders of those congregations. I think Pew did a nice job looking at the patterns and they have a cool graph.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Paul takes up the problem of dual convenant theology in Romans and elsewhere to a lesser degree. Whether he’s successful is another matter.
If I understand him rightly, he says the Law created the sense of inedequacy, which prepared everyone to understand the enomous charity of Jesus’ sacrifice. Hence, the Law was “good,” as it must be a fortiore since God’s will is good. Paul, at least, didn’t envision a break with Jewish scripture and the God they describe, but the fulfillment of scripture and the completion of God’s plan.
One of his “proofs” that obedience to Law cannot be a condition for salvation is that God made his promise to Abraham and his “seed” BEFORE there were laws. That “proves” that those who inherit the promise of Abraham must do so independently of their ability to abide by the laws. Hence the laws must have had a different purpose.
We may not think very much of all this, but Paul acknowledged the problem and tried to address it.
I suspect that the motivation for this quasi-Marcionist streak in some Christian denominations is that they would like to have it both ways. They want God to be loving and forbearing and forgiving toward them, but also wrathful and vengeful toward those they don’t like. This also gives permission to be wrathful and judgmental toward people they don’t like since God presumably feels the same way. I still remember as a student in a Catholic grade school asking about how God could send people to hell for eternity and still be merciful. The standard answer was “God is merciful, but he is also just.” The implication being “those” people deserve hell and God’s mercy just can’t overcome that fact. “God can only forgive those who repent.” Marcionism can’t be allowed because it rejects that Old Testament wrath that Christians would like to cheer on when it is turned against people they hate or consider enemies. Never mind that Jesus of the Gospels rejected hate and enemies and people being judgmental. They needed for God to approve of it when it suited them. Without the Old Testament God, there couldn’t have been a basis for the Inquisitions. IMHO
I am unaware of “personal damnation” consequences in the OT for failing to 100% live up to the Law. Christian apologists who say it was “impossible” seem to presuppose that to fail in the Law was “the end of it all”, hence the characterization (inaccurate, I would say) of the various depictions of God in the OT as being “wrathful.”
Where was the wrath. The Flood? Was that because of violations of the Law (didn’t exist then), or to extinguish the Nephthalim?
Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that read like personal condemnation, or excising a cancer?
Hi Bart, I am a new member and this is my first post!
I think that there is at least one Protestant “denomination”, the Churches of Christ, that formally places greater importance on the New Testament compared to the Hebrew Bible. They put the Hebrew Bible in the canon, but seem to deem it as a lesser part of the canon, i.e. they use terms like “primacy” when talking about the New Testament. Although not exactly aligned to Marcion’s position, would the CoC have been deemed heretical in the second century?
Similarly, there seems to be at least one major protestant group (Seventh Day Adventists) who deem the Sabbath commandment binding and also follow the Hebrew Bible’s dietary rules (I think they deem these binding on Christians owing to the presence of ‘clean/unclean’ animals in the Noah story, and thus believe that these dietary ethics are binding on all humanity, since Noah preceded the covenant with Israel by centuries).
Thanks! Yes, I would say that the Seventh Day Adventists are one of the few Christian groups who continue to adhere to (parts of) the Old Testament. Most others are like the Church of Christ — they have the OT but they don’t think they need to follow the laws, which are “for Jews” and have been superseded by Christ.
Jesus was simplifying the law down to two commandments which obviously would lead to abiding by the last 8. A God of love. Firstly, men wrote the laws according to their understanding of God and keeping order and coherence in the community. Jesus, I believe was “correcting” that understanding by emphasizing “selfless” “love”. Certainly selfless love is contained in every commandment. Jesus also spoke to the “Roman” soldiers (the brutes) example, about being content with their wage, #10 and #8?.
Prof Ehrman,
I have noticed how ‘fulfil’ in Matt 5:17 has been given several meanings depending on one’s theological suasion.
Q1. Please, what was the Greek word used here?
Q2. How is it to be interpreted contextually?
πληρόω PLEROO. It means two things in Matthew. Sometimes it means that something has been predicted and Jesus does what s predicted (he is born in Bethlehem because it was predicted); other times it means that something is said or happens in the Old Testament and he “fills it full” of meaning — he “comes out of Egypt” because Hosea 11:1 indicates that God’s act of salvation entailed delivering the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and Jesus “fills it out” by providing salvation for *all* people.
Thank you for the elaborate response Prof Ehrman. Much appreciated. A follow-up, please.
Both definitions appear very similar to me. Can hardly make out the difference. My understanding of both is that it refers to the act of performing something that has already been predicted. (No pointer to abrogation)
C1. Others have however argued that he completed (ful-fill = fill to full) the Law/ Prophets in the sense of a ‘climactic activity’ that culminates in its completion and ending.
Q1. What is your response to this, please?
Q2. Taking from verse 19 and my comment C1 above, is it to be taken to mean that the Law will be obsolete/ annulled/ abrogated once it was fulfilled (bring to completion) by Jesus?
My view is that the *second* category is not a prediction. Hosea was not *predicting* that the Son of God would come out of Egypt but stating that it had happened already; Matthew is saying that that thing that happened has now had an amplified meaning applied to it by Jesus. That is different from saying something like “The savior will be born in Bethlehem,” which is NOT something that has yet happend but is a prediction. So 1. Yes, that’s true for that kind of fulfillment and 2. For Matthew quite the opposite is the case. The law is still in full force.
In exploring the subject of Matt 5:17, I came across these and wanted your take on them, please.
Q1. Is it true that Marcion maintained that Matt 5:17 had been altered by the Judaisers of the apostolic age and that the right reading was “think ye that I came to fulfill the Law or the prophets? I came not to fulfill, but to destroy”? (source: Ellicott’s commentary)
Q2. Is there any textual variant that supports Marcion’s ‘alleged’ reading, please?
1. I’ve heard that too; but Tertullian explicitly says that Marcion deleted teh verse (e.g., in AdvMarc 4.7); maybe Epiphanius gives it the way you’ are quoting it? 2. No there’s no variant that phrases it that way.
One more observation related to my earlier comment: apparently the Ethiopian Orthodox Church upholds 7th-day Sabbath observance for its members, though services are held on Sundays. The EOC would be the only apostolic church to follow such a practice (to my knowledge)…
Dr. Ehrman:
Contrary to popular opinion, ALL Christians do not read the same Bible! In regards to the New Testament, yes; however, with the Hebrew Bible there is a bit of difference. Catholics have the Deuterocanonical as well as Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christians, albeit differences in this as well; for example, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church has the Book of Enoch as canonical found ONLY in the Ge’ez bible. The Roman/Eastern Catholic Church bibles do not. Another example: The Prayer of Manasseh. This, as you know, was included in the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV bible and the Vulgate. The prayer is chanted in the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Christian services of Great Compline, but not considered canonical as Protestants would view it. In your view, are the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books equivocal with Protestant Bibles? Did you believe this when you were a Christian?
Are you asking if I thought the books outside the Protestant canon were inspired? Definitely not.
Dr Bart Ehrman
is there evidence that mary the mother of jesus had brothers? if so what was there names?
thanks
They are mentioned several times by independeint authors in the NT (Paul, Mark, John) and later one of them by Josephus and then others. Mark names them as James (also named by Paul and Josephus), Simon, Jude, and Joses (Mark 6:3)