2008-01-20

The anti-Marcionite character of the Pastoral epistles?

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Since Marcion is assumed to be “anti-Jewish” it seems nonsense at first blush to associate his “heresy” with the “Jewish error” in the Pastorals. But in fact what Marcion rejected was the typographical or allegorical reading of the Jewish scriptures. He read them literally and was accused of believing a form of Jewish error. See my previous post on Literal and allegorical scriptures in orthodoxy and heresy. But to start from the beginning . . . .

Continue reading “The anti-Marcionite character of the Pastoral epistles?”


Reviewing Marion Soard’s review of Pervo’s “Profit with Delight”

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

woops — i originally spoke of marion as a “she” — thanks to a respondent i have been able to correct my gaffe. there is less gender confusion when one consults marion’s (marty’s) homepage. (note added 24/jan/07)

Christopher Price draws on Marion Soards’ review to dismiss the argument of Richard Pervo’s Profit with Delight as being without merit:

Professor Soards points to additional examples of such historiography that Pervo overlooks or downplays:

[S]cholars have long recognized that one of the goals of ancient historians was to please their readers. . . . The presence of entertaining or pleasing elements in an ancient work does not automatically mean that it is not history. Yet Pervo takes this position. He is able to do so largely by ignoring this characteristic in ancient historiography-for example, it is remarkable that while Pervo mentions Thucydides (only!) five times in his study, he completely ignores Herodotus, “The Father of History,” who writes in a lively, engaging, entertaining, and even fantastic manner-not unlike the author of Acts. Similarly, Pervo refers several times to Lucian of Samosata and Xenophon of Ephesus, but he brings Dionysis of Halicarnassus into the study only twice; Polybius, once; and Sallus, three times. Many – perhaps most or all – the common characteristics Pervo identified between Acts and the ancient novel may be located in these ancient historians whom Pervo basically ignores.

Marion Soards further writes (although not cited by Price):

Indeed, Pervo’s case that Acts is novelistic is made largely from Luke’s own lively style and from the inclusion of accounts of miracles in the narrative. But any reader of Herodotus knows that all ancient historians were not as skeptical about the miraculous as was Thucydides; the fact that Acts tells of miracles which Pervo cannot believe occurred is no reason to identify Acts as a novel. . . .

Pervo has far from made an ironclad case for identifying the genre of Acts as the ancient (historical) novel.

Perhaps Price was swayed in how he read Pervo by first reading Soards’ comments. Perhaps he read Profit with Delight by means of injecting into it Soards’ strangely baseless criticisms.

Soards wrote:

The presence of entertaining or pleasing elements in an ancient work does not automatically mean that it is not history. Yet Pervo takes this position. (pp 308-9)

Yet we have already seen (in the previous post re this topic) that simply not true. Pervo quite simply does not “take this position”. He explains in Profit with Delight :

Although clearly a theological book and a presentation of history, Acts also seeks to entertain. (p. 86)

I hope that it is by now clear that relating Acts to ancient novels is hardly a means for writing the book off for being fiction, least of all, pure fiction. (p.122)

My intent is that such comparison proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using historiographical models. Description of Acts as a historical novel does not imply that the author concocted it from thin air. Reconsideration of the question of genre does not eliminate the possibility of sources. (p.137)

Soards develops his misplaced criticism:

Many — perhaps most or all — the common characteristics Pervo identified between Acts and the ancient novel may be located in these ancient historians whom Pervo basically ignores. (p.309)

This misses the very point of Pervo’s thesis:

Although few would quibble at the description of the Gospels and Acts as “popular,” most studies have concentrated upon the profit and ignored the delight. . . . A major task of this book is to elucidate the entertaining nature of Acts. Since one customary means for rejecting popular literature has been to label it pure entertainment, I wish to make clear that there is no intent here to deny Luke’s serious theological program. . . . Through comparison of Acts with ancient popular narratives I seek not only the identification of literary affinities but also clarification of the religious and social values of the milieu in which it emerged. (p. xii)

By reference to novels in general and historical novels in particular I have attempted to provide detailed evidence for the ancient novel’s relevance to the understanding of Acts. My intent is that such comparison proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using historiographical models. (p.137)

Soards’ complaint also misses the details of Pervo’s monograph when he explains that the same motifs can be found in ancient histories. Pervo explains:

Probably not one of the themes, motifs, or modes listed in this section [Pervo has just listed 5 pages of typical features found in ancient novels] does not have numerous attestations in other genres. One cannot define literary categories by typical features alone. They are helpful aids to subclassification and comparison. Reference to them enables appreciation of both the diversity and the sameness of the prose fiction produced by the ancients, revealing the potential of the genre for absorption and development. The sheer number of elements refutes any suggestion that ancient novels were written to a single formula. What is fundamental, however, is the manner in which these themes, motifs, and modes were put to use in the creation of novels. I now turn toward an examination of these works in terms of their social settings, their functions, and the characteristic understandings of life displayed in them. (p.110)

Soards wrote:

Indeed, Pervo’s case that Acts is novelistic is made largely from Luke’s own lively style and from the inclusion of accounts of miracles in the narrative.

It should be clear from the preceding extract from Pervo that this is over simplification to the point of outright misrepresentation.

Soards compared Herodotus:

But any reader of Herodotus knows that all ancient historians were not as skeptical about the miraculous as was Thucydides

Apart from this being a non sequitur in relation to Profit with Delight, any reader of Herodotus knows that Herodotus as a rule expressed two minds about any supposed miraculous event.

Soards concludes:

Pervo has far from made an ironclad case for identifying the genre of Acts as the ancient (historical) novel.

As Thomas Phillips observes in “The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward a Consensus?” (Currents in Biblical Research, 2006, 370)

Although Pervo is often sharply criticized for classifying Acts as an ancient novel (e.g. Walker 1989), he never made a complete equation between the genre of Acts and the ancient novel. His research did, however, highlight both what he regarded as strong parallels between the ancient novel and the book of Acts and what he considered a fruitful point of comparison for subsequent research. Although such comparisons were already in their infancy (e.g. Schlierling and Schlierling 1978; Praeder 1981) before Pervo’s eloquent apology for rethinking the fictive nature of Acts, in the wake of Pervo’s monograph comparisons between Acts and ancient novels became increasingly common in leading peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Dawsey 1989; Alexander 1995; Ascough 1996; Harrill 2000; Schwartz 2003).


2008-01-19

The literary genre of Acts 1(a): Ancient Prologue followup

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

My post on the style, content and function of ancient prologues or prefaces in relation to the Book of Acts has been misunderstood as interpreted by some as an attempt to argue or prove from the prologue itself that the author did not intend to write history. Continue reading “The literary genre of Acts 1(a): Ancient Prologue followup”


Reviewing Chris Price’s and Marion Soard’s critiques of Pervo’s “Profit with Delight”

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Christopher Price has published online a lengthy discussion titled Genre, Historicity, Authorship and Date of Acts (several places, e.g. here and here). In his 12 to 13 page section of this essay where he discusses Richard Pervo’s Profit with Delight he references Marion Soard’s 1990 review of Pervo’s book in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Both Price’s essay and Soard’s review are classic illustrations of how sometimes people can so completely misread the clearest text. Perhaps this is the result of careless assumptions substituting for a careful engagement with the text. In the case of the fundamentalist Price, however, there also seems to be an assumption that any unorthodox critique of the Bible must by definition be a bad argument, and this leads him to misread — or misrepresent — Pervo’s text repeatedly.

I’ll address both Price’s and Sourd’s criticisms of Profit with Delight here. Continue reading “Reviewing Chris Price’s and Marion Soard’s critiques of Pervo’s “Profit with Delight””


The GOOD legacy of a fundamentalist and cultic life: 3

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Continuing from Leaving the Fold Marlene Winell’s encouraging list of some of the good one can take away from the fundamentalist or cultic experience, mingled with my own thoughts . . . .

Vision of the Possible

In the church or cult to which I once belonged a common phrase used was “the human potential”. This was in some ways nothing more than a clever PR term: what it meant in religious language was “salvation”. But still, the term helped focus on a vision of an ideal.

Marlene Winell cites another ex-fundamentalist saying:

I am striving to achieve this dream of a full life. I don’t know anyone who has it, but I must say that I would rather spend my life working for something that might not ever materialize in its entirety than just give up and have nothing.

I personally have found the thought of striving for an ideal to be anathema. It reminds me too much of attempting to live out an “inhuman” perfection, a life governed by “principles” in place of “humanity”. But maybe a lot of this is just semantics. I know I really am constantly mindful of what we/people are, of the nature of humanity and the human condition, and the many different paths individuals and societies opt to follow for “the good life”, or at least the best one possible. This is always at the back and front of my thinking when I bury myself in my hobby readings of history, anthropology, neurology, human evolution and prehistory, even cosmology.

Maybe I do have an ideal, and it is to understand and just be what we are, not what we can never be. Or is that an anti-ideal? Anyway, I do do my bit when opportunities arise to expose and demolish those things I see as crippling us emotionally and mentally or otherwise wasting our lives.

Marlene speaks of “ex fundies” as:

likely to retain idealized notions of love, peace, beauty, compassion, fulfillment, . . . . [They] can probably imagine a life that is expansive and creative, full of power, joy, serenity, and generosity. These are Christian ideals, from the positive side of Christianity.

I guess I do have “idealized notions” of one or two items in that sort of list. But I do not like the word “idealized”. I prefer something much more prosaic and practical and real, that avoids any risk of trying to be something other than human. Nevertheless, compassion, fulfillment, generosity, and a few other things are very important to me.

The trouble with Christianity – and Marlene makes this point – was that it very often taught these “ideals” or good qualities in ways that led to them being dysfunctional goals.

Then they were to be obtained through self-denial, self-abnegation, from without instead of from within, or only after death.

See also Marlene’s new website Recovery from Religion


The literary genre of Acts. 8: clarification

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Some have misread my notes from Pervo’s book as if I/Pervo claimed Acts is itself an ancient romance or a fictional historical novel. Pervo demonstrates that Acts shares many similarities with ancient novels. The theological and historical intent of Acts is expressed through many novelistic features. How much “historical fact” is to be found in Acts is a separate, although inevitably related, question.

Pervo writes in his preface:

[M]ost studies have concentrated upon the profit and ignored the delight. A major task of this book is to elucidate the entertaining nature of Acts. Since one customary means for rejecting popular literature has been to label it pure entertainment, I wish to make clear that there is no intent here to deny Luke’s serious theological program. . . .

Through comparison of Acts with ancient popular narratives I seek not only the identification of literary affinities but also clarification of the religious and social values of the milieu in which it emerged. . . .

In chapter 4 (p86) he writes:

Although clearly a theological book and a presentation of history, Acts also seeks to entertain.

Pervo also concludes with:

By reference to novels in general and historical novels in particular I have attempted to provide detailed evidence for the ancient novel’s relevance to the understanding of Acts.

My intent is that such comparison proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using historiographical models. . . . Reconsideration of the question of genre does not eliminate the possibility of sources.


2008-01-18

For Cadre blog readers only

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The reason I am posting a reply to the Cadre blog here is because Cadre has a history of deleting my posts from their blog. This is a backup.

Most recently, as a result of my blog posts attempting to share what I have found of interest in Richard Pervo’s works (see the Pervo link in the right hand column Categories list, look under Book Reviews and Notes), Layman has written at length “refuting” what he sees as as Richard Pervo’s arguments about the genre of Acts.

Having already defended my views and writings (see my my Comprehension and honesty post) I thought it time to allow Pervo “to speak” for himself in response to Layman’s (Chris Price’s) argument.

Chris Price states categorically that Richard Pervo’s “theory” is that the Book of “Acts is an ancient romance novel” (see the Comprehension and honesty link above).

Chris Price also claims to have read Richard Pervo’s book, Profit with Delight. I ask Layman/Chris Price to cite a single sentence or passage where Richard Pervo makes any claim that Acts is a romance or fictional novel.

Layman/Chris Price has referenced Marion Soard’s Journal of the American Academy of Religion’s review of Profit with Delight. I intend in the near future to write a post discussing Soard’s review in the light of my own reading of Pervo’s Profit with Delight, and will challenge a number of Soard’s apparent “observations” in the light of the actual words I read in Pervo’s book.

But back to Pervo’s “reply to Layman/Chris Price”:

On the front cover

Profit with Delight.

Is Richard Pervo actually suggesting by the title that the book of Acts is more than a delightful tale/fiction?

In the preface

[M]ost studies have concentrated upon the profit and ignored the delight. A major task of this book is to elucidate the entertaining nature of Acts. Since one customary means for rejecting popular literature has been to label it pure entertainment, I wish to make clear that there is no intent here to deny Luke’s serious theological program. . . .

Through comparison of Acts with ancient popular narratives I seek not only the identification of literary affinities but also clarification of the religious and social values of the milieu in which it emerged. . . .

In the middle (p.86):

Although clearly a theological book and a presentation of history, Acts also seeks to entertain.

In the conclusion:

By reference to novels in general and historical novels in particular I have attempted to provide detailed evidence for the ancient novel’s relevance to the understanding of Acts. My intent is that such comparison proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using historiographical models. . . . Reconsideration of the question of genre does not eliminate the possibility of sources.

On the back cover

The one who combines profit with delight, equally pleasing and admonishing the reader . . .

Challenge to Layman/Chris Price

Let him quote or cite pages and paragraphs in Profit with Delight where Pervo claims that Acts is a romance novel, and/or devoid of any historical content or value.

Next: Soard’s review

I intend in the near future to write a review of Marion Soard’s review of Profit with Delight.

Historical facts?

How much historical fact there is in Acts is a separate although inevitably related question entirely. But as we have seen Cadre even misleadingly selectively quotes Sherwin-White on that score.

 


2008-01-17

The GOOD legacy of a fundamentalist and cultic life: 2

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Sense of the Profound

Marlene Winell wrote in Leaving the Fold (p.106):

You also learned to consider things deeply. As a religious person’:” you had to wrestle with ultimate questions of life and death, good and evil, truth, love, humility, dignity, responsibility, freedom, destiny, finite and infinite. While your life may now have become more simple, it will never be trite. You are likely to retain a certain richness in your thinking, a capacity for appreciating the profundities of human existence. As a result, you may always desire some depth of meaning in your life. Ambition and materialism will not be primary motivators. You are not likely to fall prey to keeping up with the Joneses.

Marlene goes on to offer an extract from another ex-fundamentalist who has expressed my sentiments precisely, so it’s probably preferable for me to express my thoughts here.

Sometimes I look at those who seem to be so content and fulfilled over a cup of tea and biscuits with a chat, or with a beer at the local, and I think I really do wish sometimes I could be like them — chatting happily and contentedly with the local gossip, or about someone who got lucky or unlucky (no difference) with a quiz on TV, etc., all the while sipping tea at a coffee table in the afternoon or drinking a pint at a bar in the evening.

But I never seem to be able to hold that wish for long. Otherwise I wouldn’t be excusing myself from their company and retreating to a space where I can indulge in some deeper thoughts with a book or my own reflections.

Although I could never deny, if it came down to a choice, that I’d opt for the beer at the bar in the evening in preference to the tea at the coffee table in the afternoon. 😉


2008-01-16

The GOOD legacy of a fundamentalist / cultic life: 1

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Despite the losses of my years in fundamentalism and cultism there were also some very positive gains. I can’t say I would do it all over again, but I cannot deny the experiences in the more extreme end of religion have given me an outlook, an understanding and I think even a compassion that I suspect I may not have so fine tuned without some of those experiences. Glancing through Marlene Winell’s book, Leaving the Fold, again I was reminded that she had a section sharing the positive legacies that other ex-fundamentalists have also brought with them from their experiences.

Marlene has since started a new website, Recovery from Religion. (Also listed in my Blogroll)

In Leaving the Fold she lists about a dozen positive traits that various ex-religionists have carried over with them from their cultic type experiences. In any process of recovery it’s important to see the good as well as the bad, to draw on the strengths as we step into a new world view and self-identity. Thought I’d enjoy discussing some of these strengths that Marlene cites from other ex fundies, and mix in a few of my own experiences too. But to avoid getting into trouble for spending too much time on the computer at any one sitting I will necessarily break it up into a series of posts.

I can’t say that fundamentalist experiences are actually a “cause” of these legacies. I think extremist religions may attract people with an idealistic streak in the first place. Perhaps the experiences in religion contribute towards some sort of habituation, reinforcement, but especially yield a lot of do’s and dont’s from praxis years as believers. But especially, I think, a deeper humanity can be acquired through some of the less fortunate experiences of religion.

Broad Consciousness

This refers to the habit of seeing the larger view. Extreme religions for all their faults certainly do stress “grand schemes” and global perspectives, of issues as they extend beyond our immediate personal space and time frames.

One is also often thrust into a close community drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds that one would not normally associate with. Wealthy and less wealthy business people, social misfits, academics and people from mission stations can all be found rubbing shoulders, and sharing social activities.

These together often leave a legacy of an ability to see alternative viewpoints.

And since ex fundamentalists learn not to be ashamed of holding views contrary to the popular opinion, they can often have carry with them the courage to continue to speak out for views that do see the broader perspective, and that are not popular.

They may bring with them a legacy that equips them to be agents for positive social change and social education.

(My computer time is up for now. More in a future post. . . .)


Once more on the fundamentalist mindset

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Some time ago I began to engage a few fundamentalists with some critical questions about some of their claims. I know, many will think I was wasting my time and in some ways I was. But one charge these folk raised against me a number of times was revealing. They accused me of “attacking Christianity”. At the time I tended to brush aside the charge or at most offered a simple denial. It should have registered with me at the time that by raising this accusation against me they were in fact informing me why it would be a waste of time continuing any attempt at a critical discussion with them.

They were informing me that they consider any critical questioning from a nonbeliever who is attempting to engage them with the logical and factual fallacies in their dogmas as a form of warfare on the Truth of which they are the guardians. They did not consider it an attack on their particular interpretation of Christianity, but on Christianity itself. In other words, they were revealing that in their minds their fundamentalist view embraces the essence of Christianity — other Christian views must be labelled “so-called Christian” or “false” or something similar.

Their accusation demonstrated a mindset that sees itself under siege in a world of darkness. That they must be prepared to fight enemies who are out to persecute or destroy them.

This victim mentality is actually interpreted as a virtue in the Bible: “Blessed are the persecuted”.

There is no concept of open and honest intellectual exchange as equals. How can their be “equality” between Light and Darkness? And their very identity itself is the embodiment of Light — a concept I discussed more fully in my previous post: Authority and identity in the fundamentalist approach to biblical and scientific debates.

Their world is divided into white and black. Honest intellectual enquiries and debates between proponents of different hypotheses, especially if they result in one person deciding to modify or reject a hypothesis, are in many cases merely signs of a confused and benighted world. (“God is not the author of confusion”, their Bible says, and uncertainty, free enquiry, tentativeness, challenges, are interpreted by the black and white mindset as “confusion”.) As Vinny so aptly put it on a comment here, they know the truth so there is no need for further enquiry in that respect. Debates can have only one purpose for a person who “knows the truth” — to garner ammunition to attack “enemies” who they believe are “attacking Christianity”.


2008-01-15

authority and identity in the fundamentalist’s approach to biblical and scientific debates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

I am trying to recall how I thought when I was a fundamentalist Christian believer, but it’s a bit like a parent trying to recall how he felt when a child. Some things are clear, but so much is also forgotten or coloured by hindsight. But it’s important to understand, and there are luckily a lot of books by fellow-travellers to help jog memories.

The reason this time I was trying to recall was in order to understand why the apparent total incomprehension and/or dishonesty in the way they frame the arguments of their “opponents”. I can’t believe that they think they are being anything but honest and even more comprehending than the original authors — I’m sure I used to feel that way rather than admit to the opposite.

I recall reading and discussing with like-minds fundamentalist literature making a mockery of evolution. One topic that came up from time to time was how to handle school situations, whether as a fundamentalist teacher requiring to teach a biology curriculum or as a parent of a child taking biology in a non-church school. The assumption underpinning the whole conversation was that we were all too smart and knowledgable to know we did not need to study the teachings of evolution ourselves. We knew better than the scientists the fallacies of their arguments. As Jesus said, God reveals wisdom and understanding even to the babes. It was the anti-god arrogance and pride of the “wise” that blinded them from “the obvious” that even a child could see.

It is Authority, their submission to Authority, that has removed them from their past lives and the wider society and given them an identity of which they can feel “humbly proud”. That is as I recall it at the present. Their identification with this absolute authority gives them their own sense of higher wisdom, insight, knowledge, destiny. They are in God’s camp and the rest of the world is in darkness.

Without external authority they are nothing. This self-concept is inculcated as part of their daily prayers. They call it “humility” and “repentance” and “coming to God”.

So when it comes to ethical discussions, they fear that unless they have an Authority to tell them what to think or do, they will be victims of their own authority-less passions and murder, steal, commit adultery. They really believe so totally in their Authority that they think they — and everyone — needs someone to actually tell them it is wrong to rape or kill, how to live their lives. We know the cases of how many will even go so far as to seek guidance (in prayers if not to their cleric) to ask what job they should take, what clothes they should wear.

So consumed are they by Authority that they can no longer even conceive of any life apart from authority. Nonbelievers are therefore viewed as submitting to other authorities that oppose their “one true Authority”. They might include the “authority” of public opinion, of “false” philosophies, of — worst of all — their own passions and desires.

Of course in their submission to their Authority they do deny their own thoughts and feelings, suppressing and hiding them as much as possible. Inevitably, however, what is hidden and denied does cause trouble in other ways. They probably really would go a bit wild at first if they did suddenly somehow lose their Authority. Maybe they sense this, and as a result imagine that the worst passions they suppress really are the norm of anyone anytime without some externally sourced control.

But back to biblical debates. And evolution. Other opinions, those contrary to their Authoritative dogmas, cannot but be read from the perspective of their own personal identities with their Divine Authority. They must therefore “know” beforehand that evolution could not be true, that critical views of the Bible must be Satanic. Yet they must function in the world. It is important to make a few converts from time to time to prove their position. They need to find proof-texts to give them licence to speak to the world on its own terms, to address these “vain thoughts that exalt themselves against their God” in whom they find their own identities.

So they will read something by a critical scholar or evolutionary biologist from that perspective. They know they are grappling with the tools of their enemy.

It is almost inconceivable, or certainly a frightening and truly threatening thought, that they would seek to understand and learn from such “oppositions of science falsely so called” apart from the goal of being in a better position to refute them.

The goal must of necessity be refutation. To defend their Authority. It can be nothing else. Otherwise they will lose their very identities.

To read “the enemy” with a view to engaging with him in open discussion, debate, mutual learning, on his own terms, as equals, is anathema. It threatens their very sense of selves.

To themselves, they are not therefore uncomprehending (although they are) of the arguments of biblical scholars and evolutionists, but necessarily bring a higher — authoritative — comprehension unknown to others.

They are not dishonest in their representations of another’s arguments. They are honestly fighting to preserve their own identity and the source of their identity. As for logical fallacies. No matter.

Any slip is only apparent and can be justified by ad hoc appeals to “the larger picture” hidden from outsiders. “If only you humbly accept the whole package you will see that any contradictions or fallacies are only apparent.” Double binds and contradictions are always only “apparent” — or the faulty insight of the ungodly — when Authority is a higher value than honest reasoning. That, after all, was what the snake tempted the first parents into.

Ad hominem, ridicule and abuse are only fair play — it is the right of light to expose and condemn darkness, which after all, at bottom, is what their struggle (their Bible even tells them their life is a daily warfare) is really all about.


2008-01-14

Marcion’s Challenge

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Marcion presented a formidable challenge to those who opposed his theology and practices. Indeed his opponents spent extraordinary energy in combating his influence, attacking his theology, and constructing alternatives to his practices. It was a massive effort, not only because many people found Marcionite Christianity attractive, but also because his was a complex challenge that, if met at all, had to be engaged on several fronts at once. Marcion’s opponents rightly saw that the very definition of the Chris­tian movement was at stake in the outcome. (Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, p.48 ) Continue reading “Marcion’s Challenge”


Comprehension, honesty and logical issues in a debate with a fundamentalist

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Over the years I have jotted notes from books I have read and when opportunity permits I have edited some of these and posted on this blog. My purpose is to share some of the ideas and studies I have found interesting. That does not necessarily mean I agree with everything that is expressed. In some cases I have moved on as further reading has opened me to more questions and a deeper understanding of the issues. My quest is a positive one, of attempting to better understand the origins of Christianity and the Biblical literature. (Fundamentalists please note, I am well aware that faith in dogma is by definition impervious to reason and evidence so I am not attempting to “attack” your beliefs in these posts.)

I have also attempted on a few occasions to raise critical questions on the Cadre blog when I thought the author was attempting to address a reasoned argument but generally to be met with a mix of insult, ridicule, arrogant condescension from those good Christian folk. Twice they have deleted posts of mine that contained a link to something I had written here that I thought addressed a question they raised in some depth. They have also deleted other entire posts of mine there without explanation. (Though admittedly the second time the moderator cavalierly offered to reinstate one of the links but without offering any explanation why he deleted it in the first place nor with any apology.) So rather than reply to a critique of one of my posts on their blog I am posting my response here where I can be confident it will not be deleted and where I have some control over personal abuse — more on that at the end of this post.

Continue reading “Comprehension, honesty and logical issues in a debate with a fundamentalist”


2008-01-13

Marcion’s Gospel, its character and contents

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Continuing my notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle . . . .

Tertullian’s entire fourth book attacking Marcion is a comparison of Marcion’s gospel with canonical Luke.

Marcion’s opponents never accused Marcion of adding to the Gospel of Luke, but only of omitting sections and changing the wording in places.

Knox compared the pericopes that Harnack believed were found, or possibly found, in common in Marcion’s gospel and canonical Luke and concluded there was a 60 to 75 percent overlap between the two. The wording within the common pericopes may well have varied, sometimes significantly, however.

Harnack‘s reconstruction (not included in the English translation of his book) is the most frequently cited for Marcion’s gospel. The most obvious differences from canonical Luke:

  • Luke 1-2 (birth narrative) has no counterpart in Marcion’s gospel,
  • Luke 3:1a is the beginning of Marcion’s gospel but there is very little from Luke 3:1-4:15 in Marcion,
  • The parable of the prodigal son is not found in Marcion
  • Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is missing from Marcion
  • Jesus’ weeping over Jerusalem is not in Marcion’s gospel
  • Nor is the cleansing of the temple scene in Marcion

These, especially the opening omissions, make a significant difference to how the gospel of Marcion would have been read compared with the gospel of Luke.

Tyson discusses the criticism by David S. Williams of Harnack’s reconstruction, but concludes that his points affect the confidence we can have in the specific wording of Marcion’s gospel as opposed to its general content.

Tyson argues that

  • Marcion’s gospel resembled the canonical gospels, hence contained discourse and narrative:
    • — since its opponents were convinced it was indeed “a gospel”
    • — and since its opponents said to resembled Luke

Tyson further argues that the differences between Luke’s and Marcion’s gospels that offended Marcion’s critics consisted of the wording found within common pericopes. When asked by the young man what must be done to have eternal life Marcion’s Jesus does not respond, as per Luke, “Don’t call me good. One is good, God”, but says, “One is good, God, the Father” — thus pointing to the God above the Creator God; and instead of Christ saying “You know the commandments”, Marcion has him say, “I know the commandments”. So we can think of a scene in common between Marcion’s and the canonical gospel, but with different wordings and messages.

Tyson’s impression of the contents of Marcion’s gospel

“Impression” is the best that can be done. We can’t know the finer details. Much of this is what Marcion’s gospel was “not”. The “nots” are of course as important as the “is’s” in order to appreciate its broader place in the history of early church literature, doctrines and practices. Tyson does not claim his description is the last word, and admits to many problem areas, but does present it as a plausible reading based on the studies of previous “specialists” and what we know of Marcion’s teachings.

  • no predictions of Jesus or John,
  • no reference to their parents, or relationship with John,
  • no birth or infancy narratives
  • no circumcision or presentation at the Temple,
  • and nothing of Jesus appearing in the Temple at 12 years
  • No account of the preaching of John the Baptist,
  • nor John’s imprisonment,
  • and no mention of Jesus’ baptism by John,
  • no temptation in the wilderness,
  • no genealogies
  • begins with the time setting — the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1a) —
  • but jumps immediately to the exorcism of Luke 4:31.

Thus Jesus appears suddenly and without prior notice, “without human connection or local habitation.” Marcion does not associate Jesus in any way with a Christ who was expected by the Jews or the subject of prophecies in scripture. Other examples of Marcion distancing Jesus from the Jewish scriptures:

  • What then was the role of John the Baptist in Marcion’s gospel? John asks Jesus if he is “the coming one”, implying the one expected according to Jewish scriptures. Marcion’s gospel has Jesus reply indirectly — “Whoever is not repelled by me is blessed” — indicating that he is not that Christ. (cf Luke 7:18-23)
  • While Luke 20:41-44 includes a quotation from Psalm 110, this is reference to the Psalms is absent from Marcion’s gospel. The resulting exchange is accordingly a clearer denial that Jesus is not the Son of David Messiah who was the expectation of the Jewish scriptures.
  • In Luke 16:17 Jesus says it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one part of the Law to fail, but in Marcion’s gospel Jesus speaks of “his words” in place of “the Law”.
  • Marcion appears to have seen some, if not permanent, value in the Jewish Torah, however. His gospel’s Jesus tells the healed leper to offer a Mosaic sacrifice as a testimony to him, the leper. (cf Luke 5:14)

Marcion also stressed the distance between Jesus and the original disciples:

  • Jesus does not accept Peter’s confession that he is the Messiah, presumably because his understanding related to Jewish expectations. (cf Luke 9:20)
  • Peter ignorantly wanted to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, thus demonstrating again the misunderstanding that Jesus was closely related to the Law (cf. Luke 9:33)
  • Jesus predicted Peter’s denial, but Tyson notes that “it is curiously unclear whether or not Marcion’s gospel included the story of Peter’s denial that appears in Luke 22:55-62.”

Marcion’s take on the resurrection narrative (Luke 24) — this is the most difficult section of Marcion’s gospel to reconstruct from the sources but Tyson draws on Williams and Harnack to suggest the following:

  • Jesus reminded his witnesses that he had predicted his suffering
  • Jesus rebuked those who had not heeding his words (contrast Luke where Jesus rebukes them for not heeding the words of the prophets of Scripture)
  • Jesus invites witnesses to see his hands and feet

Not included in Marcion’s gospel:

  • No reference to the stone that had been rolled away from the tomb
  • No names are given for the women who first discovered the tomb to be empty
  • No mention of Peter visiting the tomb and then leaving perplexed (the disciples remain blind and do not discover the empty tomb nor believe the women who do)
  • Jesus does not discuss the Hebrew prophets nor claim the prophets foretold him
  • No hint of an ascension

Fragmentary allusions in Marcion’s gospel to the Emmaus road incident also clearly distances Jesus from the Jewish scriptures in Marcion’s gospel:

  • Jesus scolds Cleopas when he expresses disappointment that Jesus had not fulfilled the Jewish Messianic expectations
  • Jesus scolds the two disciples for not believing his words, not the words of the prophets
  • Marcion’s gospel may have included these allusions to Luke’s “Emmaus episode” as part of a single appearance to followers at Jerusalem. Problematic reconstruction here.

The resurrection appearance in Marcion’s gospel is the most problematic:

  • There may have been only one appearance
  • The names of those Jesus appeared to are not given
  • The remaining eleven disciples are mentioned as unbelievers (cf Luke 24:9, 11)
  • There are other unnamed disciples who finally recognize the risen Jesus in what appears to have been a Eucharistic meal of bread and fish
    • (Vridar note: compare Justin Martyr’s account — only one resurrection appearance at which the eucharist was instituted. — The linked page is in need of revision on some significant points but the section on the post-resurrection narrative is still fine.)
  • No appearance to Peter — Peter is not even named in the resurrection narrative. Marcion appears to have excluded him along with the rest of the disciples from a resurrection appearance.
  • No appearances to any of the disciples and they disbelieve the reports that come to them. The apostles are thus left on the outer as disbelieving false apostles.
  • Marcion’s Jesus does say: “Look at my hands and my feet . . . a spirit does not have bones as you see I have”. Tertullian claimed that Marcion interepreted “as you see me having” to refer to “a spirit”, not to “bones”, so that it meant to say that he did not have flesh and bones, but was spirit.
    • (Vridar note: If I recall correctly Gregory Riley in Resurrection Reconsidered argues that this statement of Jesus does not deny what moderns would still call the spirit essence or composition of Jesus. He discusses the various ancient usages of “flesh” when used in relation to both here and now as well as departed persons. Unfortunately I cannot comment off hand on the argument — will have to have another look at the book to refresh my memory re the details.) — Added June 13 2008, See more notes on Riley’s discussion here.

(See also Center for Marcionite Research)