#hebrew scripture

Is the Old Testament Inspired?: The Case Against Marcion

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim

——-

Is the Old Testament Uninspired Because it Doesn’t Mention Jesus?

Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85 – 160 CE) preached that Jesus’ teachings, especially those on love, were completely at odds with the Old Testament (OT) revelations regarding the God of the Jews, whom he saw as legalistic and punitive, with no connection at all to the essential message of the New Testament (NT). One key Marcionite objection to the authority of the Jewish Bible is that the name of Jesus is never once mentioned there. However, the exclusivity of Jesus in the NT does not preclude the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the father cannot be known apart from Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the OT’s canonicity. For example, Acts 4.12 says:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is

no other name under heaven given to

mankind by which we must be saved.

The fact that the name of Jesus is not found in the OT has no bearing on whether this collection of ancient Hebrew writings is inspired or not. After all, the name of Jesus (Ιησοῦς) is found in the Septuagint’s Book of Joshua, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/?tx_buhbibelmodul_bibletext%5Bscripture%5D=Joshua+4

At any rate, these are two fundamentally different questions. The former has to do with Christology (i.e. the study of Christ), whereas the latter has to do with Biblical theology (i.e. the study of the Bible)!

The former has to to do with “Theology proper,” that is to say, with the exclusivity of Jesus as the unique preexistent Word of God (the Logos) through whom “All things came into being” (John 1.1-4), or as the “only begotten Son” (1 John 4.9) who prior to his incarnation “was in the form of God” (Phil. 2.6). Marcionites will therefore argue that Christ is the *only one* who is capable of revealing the Father, given that “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) “through whom he [the Father] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.1-2). For example, John 14.6 reads:

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth

and the life. No one comes to the Father

except through me.’

But this declaration is not a proof-text demonstrating that the OT is not authoritative simply because it doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity. That has to do with progressive revelation, the idea that revelation is given a little at a time.

Holding to a high Christology has little to do with whether or not the Hebrew Bible is inspired. That’s an entirely different issue involving Biblical theology, Pneumatology, and the like. So, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible is not a sufficient reason to dismiss this collection of Books as uninspired.

——-

Is the OT Uncanonical?

If the OT is not authoritative, as some Marcionites have argued, then why would the NT writers quote extensively from an “uninspired” book? And what would be the purpose of the standard *Biblical canon* if the NT authors extensively quoted from so-called “uninspired” books? In other words, if the OT is not authoritative, it would *contradict* the “canon of scripture” principle in which only Biblically-inspired books are accepted into the canon. Not to mention that the OT is widely viewed as authoritative by the NT precisely because it is included as a source of prophetic predictions in many different places, notably in Matthew 24, and especially in the Book of Revelation!

As a matter of fact, the NT authors insist that the OT is inspired! For example, at the time of the composition of the second letter to Timothy, there was no NT Scripture as yet. So, when the Biblical writers referred to Scripture, with the exception of two instances——namely, 2 Pet. 3.16, wherein Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture,” and 1 Tim. 5.18, in which Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture”——they always meant the Hebrew Bible. The proof that they considered the Hebrew Bible to be *inspired* is in Second Timothy 3.16, which reads:

All scripture is inspired [πᾶσα γραφὴ

Θεόπνευστος] by God and is useful for

teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for

training in righteousness.

——-

Does Intertextuality Prove that the OT is Inspired?

All the books of the NT are constantly borrowing and quoting extensively from the OT, a “Book” without which the NT would be lacking a foundation. If we were to remove all those OT quotations, the NT would be insupportable, not to mention incomprehensible!

So, whoever thinks that the OT is uncanonical and uninspired is clearly not familiar with the heavy literary dependence of the NT on the OT (i.e. a process known as “intertextuality”). If you were to open up a critical edition of the NT, you’d be astounded by how much of the OT is actually quoted in the NT. Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel abound all over the place. The Book of Revelation, in particular, is mostly based on a reorganization of OT prophetic material from Zechariah, Joel, Amos, Daniel, and many others. A brief look at a *Chain-Reference-Bible* would quickly illustrate this fact: https://archive.org/details/ThompsonChainReferenceBible/page/n47/mode/2up

So, the proposal to remove this material——-suggested by Marcion of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, by some modern day preachers and closet Marcionites, such as Andy Stanley——is rather absurd as the NT would be without any foundation or justification concerning messianic, eschatological, or prophetic terminology. For example, various questions would inevitably arise: Where did the NT get the idea of the day of the Lord? Or the idea of the resurrection of the dead? Or that of the great tribulation? Or the concept of the Antichrist? Or the notion of the Messiah? All these concepts are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible!

If the OT is not authoritative, then the verbal agreements between the OT and the NT would equally disqualify those same statements as inauthentic NT references. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah verbatim. Many of the Jesus sayings are from the OT. If, say, a Marcionite were to claim that the OT is not inspired, then he would have to concede that some of Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are equally uninspired, since they are derived from the OT. In other words, unbeknownst to the Marcionites, in rejecting the OT, they would also be rejecting the NT as well!

For example, most of the Matthew-24 prophetic material is based on the OT: from the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24.15; cf. Dan. 9.27) to the time when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mt.24.29; cf. Joel 3:15). If these OT prophecies were not inspired or authoritative, then they would certainly not have been used in the NT prophetic literature!

The explicit approval of OT passages as authoritative by the NT writers, and especially by Paul and Jesus——as well as the explicit message that “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16), which obviously includes the OT, given that It has been heavily employed in the NT——argues for the inspiration of the OT!

——-

As for Marcionism, it really involves a syncretism of Christianity and Gnosticism, with all the extra-biblical distortions that this fusion entails, such as the assumed existence of two deities (a lesser and a higher one), and the evil inherent in the material world. These are two diametrically opposed belief-systems between the monotheism of the NT and the polytheism of the Gnostics!

——-

Conclusion

Thus, Marcion, who was an anti-Semite, not only rejected Yahweh as a lesser, evil god, but he went on to dismiss the entire OT as if it were completely uninspired. He felt that it lacked the extravagant love story of the NT, which was ultimately derived from the Supreme God and father of Jesus Christ. He thought that these two testaments pertained to two fundamentally different gods. And so he urged Christians to steer clear of the OT because he considered it to be the product of an inferior deity. However, this is not the view of the NT authors, nor is it part of mainstream NT theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology.

What is more, Marcion obviously did not critically assess both testaments to fully explore the extent to which *intertextuality* was involved within these manuscripts (i.e. the literary dependence of one testament on the other) and how inextricably linked they really were! Therefore, a rejection of the entire OT is simultaneously a rejection of many portions of the NT, including many of Jesus’ sayings. Such a separation would render the NT completely useless both theologically and Christologically, if not also eschatologically. Marcion’s claims would therefore undermine Christianity’s overall integrity, and this is probably why Marcion was denounced as a heretic and was excommunicated by the church of Rome ca. 144 CE.

To be fair, Marcion had the right idea, but the wrong approach. It’s true that there’s a radical shift in the NT from an active obedience to the 10-commandments to a passive acceptance of God’s Grace; from an external circumcision of the flesh to an internal circumcision of the heart (and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to the Aleph and Tav in the Hebrew Scriptures, we are suddenly introduced to the NT revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega (using the first and last letters of the Greek rather than the Hebrew alphabet). After all, the NT is written exclusively in Greek, by Greeks, and written predominantly to Greek communities within the Roman empire. Paul himself maintains that we are “justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law” (e.g. Gal. 2.16). So, there is very little here that is Jewish!

But although the NT is a uniquely Greek “Book,” in which the name of Yahweh is never once mentioned, nevertheless the Hebrew Bible is still its foundation, without which the former would lose not only its historical lineage and theological context but also its reliability, validity, and, ultimately, its credibility!

Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: (Acts 26:5-6 KJV)

As I was falling asleep-very late-yesterday evening, a cool vocabulary expression my voice coach shared with everyone during our Masterclass session while she was explaining the origins of a song someone sang popped into my head as a note to self to remember and integrate where appropriate in conversation.  

My personal approach to making reference to Jewish and Christian scripture has always been to communicate in ways that are appropriate to the context I’m in while being as specific as possible. If I’m relaying the Jewish nature of something, you should expect I will be talking about the Tanach; if I have to draw distinctions between it and its Christian incarnation, then you’ll hear me use the term old testament to do so. If I’m making reference to something strictly Christian in nature (e.g. the gospels) and I’m expected to use specific vocabulary, then I will use the expression new testament to refer to it. Put me in an interfaith environment and you can definitely hear me invoking the terms Hebrew Scripture and Greek Scripture to refer to anything Jews and/or Christians regard as holy. 

As to the expression my voice coach introduced everyone to? She chose to refer to the source of L.’s music as the Christian Bible. Definitely something I will have to remember if speaking to others and making distinctions between Jewish and Christian scripture proves necessary. 

Counterintuitive as it feels to write, I enjoyed myself completely when I went to the funeral run for my friend’s mom this afternoon. She kidded with me after it had finished that it was a kind of Christianity 101 program; frankly I felt more than half was interfaith. I’m not disputing that pretty much every scripture shared during the service came out of the Greek Scripture or anything...I’m simply saying they talked about love, hosting angels and having the right to speak to authorities. As to the Hebrew Scripture, I was happy to hear the 23rd psalm, gentle and reassuring as it is, while having a chance to listen to a lesser-known passage in Isaiah making reference to the fact that God is with us no matter anything. 

As to the music? I was left soaring (or maybe that’s not the right metaphor since I was so relaxed I wound up making some lower harmony with everyone) through its grounding nature. I’m not sure if any of the Christian folk who showed up heard certain adaptations I wound up making-whether deliberately or by accident since I’d learned them differently years ago-or if they were annoyed by that if so, but OMG the hymns picked were so nice and sweet. They included

Holy, Holy, Holy

All things bright and beautiful

Jesus loves me

Abide with Me  

Ode to Joy

If people are making reference to something specific within their faith tradition, it’s safe to assert I’m shocked if they show any kind of allyhood to others. I’m no different; If I’m clearly talking about something scriptural in nature and won’t impact anyone that isn’t Jewish, or I want to emphasize that I’m looking at something through Jewish lenses then I don’t hesitate to refer to our whole text as the Tanach. If I’m trying to build consensus among Christians to show that we share something, to contrast, you’ll only hear me saying Hebrew Scripture.

So, based off that, I was pretty shocked to read something, written by the director of Mission Services, which I’m very aware is a Christian-run organization, even if their programs are accessible to everyone, without regard to their religion (if any), that talked about a story shared in, as he wrote, the Christian bible (going to on to state exactly where it was written).

Since I’m so childish, I couldn’t help smiling that he’d chosen to put it like that. I’m beyond accustomed to anyone Christian always demonstrating religious heterosexism while making reference to anything, whether scripture, holidays or something beyond that while remaining religious in nature.