Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
This post continues notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. Previous posts reconsidering the date of the composition of Acts and the Marcionite challenge can be found in my Tyson and Marcion archives.
Tyson begins with Haenchen. Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: the Marcionite Context (1)”
Marlene Winell discusses this legacy as something derived from the model of Jesus, as an anti-dote to much of the traditional western socialization of males to be aggressive, in control, independent and rational, pursuing power and success. She recalls observing Christian men, on the other hand, submissive to the model of the humility and openness of Jesus, coming across as more sensitive, humble and able to openly express their feelings than commonly found among non-Christians.
I can’t argue with the experiences of others. My memory was that Jesus was more often seen as the aggressive, in control, independent and rational type, being born to rule and conquer. But when I think about it I do recall the impact of dwelling on those verses that enjoined fathers not to provoke their children to wrath, and for husbands to love, “nourish and cherish” their wives as their own bodies. And then there were those warm verses about God gently caring for his own and a man being like a shady rock in a parched desert. And especially verses like those in Philippians requiring us to be like-minded, doing nothing through ambition and conceit, but “in lowliness of mind esteeming others better than ourselves”, to look out for the interests of others, not just our own interests. No doubt such meditations did serve to help bring out the softer side of the men. There was no doubt a negative side to some of this insofar as such a mindset also encouraged too much submission and acceptance of nonsense.
And of course there was always the emphasis on forgiveness, compassion and understanding for those we needed to forgive. And above all, reflection on one’s own responsibility and self-examination in all relationships — if an offence had occurred, to what extent were we ourselves responsible? And the notion of winning over others by doing good.
So maybe I have to concede Marlene is right about this one even in my case. She concludes this section:
With God in charge, there wasn’t the same need to be strong, macho, and in control. Both men and women could be more honest about their weaknesses and shortcomings. This humanness is part of your legacy as well.
See the Winell archives for earlier posts in this series
See also Recovery from Religion
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?”
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).
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”
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””
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 . . . .
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
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.
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”:
Profit with Delight.
Is Richard Pervo actually suggesting by the title that the book of Acts is more than a delightful tale/fiction?
[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. . . .
Although clearly a theological book and a presentation of history, Acts also seeks to entertain.
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.
The one who combines profit with delight, equally pleasing and admonishing the reader . . .
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.
I intend in the near future to write a review of Marion Soard’s review of Profit with Delight.
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.
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. 😉
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.
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. . . .)
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”.
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.
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”