What do you think?
Rate this book
The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon
The earliest version of the New Testament, now in English for the first time!
History preserves the name of the person responsible for the first New Testament, the circumstances surrounding his work, and even the date he decided to build a textual foundation for his fledgling Christian community. So why do so few people know about him? Jason BeDuhn introduces Marcion, reconstructs his text, and explores his impact on the study of Luke-Acts, the two-source theory, and the Q hypothesis.
History preserves the name of the person responsible for the first New Testament, the circumstances surrounding his work, and even the date he decided to build a textual foundation for his fledgling Christian community. So why do so few people know about him? Jason BeDuhn introduces Marcion, reconstructs his text, and explores his impact on the study of Luke-Acts, the two-source theory, and the Q hypothesis.
- GenresChristianityNonfiction
404 pages, Paperback
First published November 5, 2013
4 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
About the author
Jason D. BeDuhn
6 books4 followersJason BeDuhn is Professor of the Comparative Study of Religions at Northern Arizona University, a Guggenheim and National Humanities Center Fellow. His book The Manichaean Body (2000) was the winner of the American Academy of Religion Best First Book Award.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 19, 2016
First of all, thanks and kudos to the author for doing so much useful work in reconstructing the texts of the Marcionite canon.
I was hoping the results would bring me some clarity in terms of a bright theological line between the Marcionite and the Catholic texts. Unfortunately, the reconstructed texts remain mystifying. The Marcionite Romans, for example, reads as far too Judaic for Marcion, containing much of the chapter 2 material on the justification of those Gentiles who unwittingly obey the Jewish Law, as well as verses from chapter 7 praising the Law as "sacred... just and good". To give an idea of how bizarre this is, in Robert Price's book on Paul he identifies chapter 2 as a Hellenistic Jewish sermon, and chapter 7 as a Catholic gloss. Why on earth would the anti-Law Marcion have accepted such sentiments as original to Paul, the dogged anti-Judaiser?
This makes me wonder whether the texts seen by the heresiologists, from whose work the Marcionite texts are reconstructed, were really Marcionite texts. Did the Marcionites really canonise texts mined with theological bombs which the Catholic heresiologists gleefully detonated to rebut Marcion's interpretation of Paul? Otherwise we have to imagine Marcionites possessed of superhuman capacity for interpretive acrobatics to get around the dangerous statements they sheltered within their canon.
On the other hand, some of the material present in the Catholic texts but omitted in the Marcionite texts makes sense to me as anti-Marcionite interpolation, including the verses which gave Richard Carrier most trouble to explain away in his argument against the existence of Jesus (about which see my review of his 'On the History of Jesus': https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... )
But the problem remains that, granting these omissions from Marcion's text, so much remains that is very difficult to reconcile with what we thought we knew of Marcion. The author in his commentary keeps to carefully studied refusal to delve into where these confusing epistolary texts really come from. This is not a fault of the book, but a frustration for the reader: after so much hard work of reconstruction, not much seems to be any clearer.
I was hoping the results would bring me some clarity in terms of a bright theological line between the Marcionite and the Catholic texts. Unfortunately, the reconstructed texts remain mystifying. The Marcionite Romans, for example, reads as far too Judaic for Marcion, containing much of the chapter 2 material on the justification of those Gentiles who unwittingly obey the Jewish Law, as well as verses from chapter 7 praising the Law as "sacred... just and good". To give an idea of how bizarre this is, in Robert Price's book on Paul he identifies chapter 2 as a Hellenistic Jewish sermon, and chapter 7 as a Catholic gloss. Why on earth would the anti-Law Marcion have accepted such sentiments as original to Paul, the dogged anti-Judaiser?
This makes me wonder whether the texts seen by the heresiologists, from whose work the Marcionite texts are reconstructed, were really Marcionite texts. Did the Marcionites really canonise texts mined with theological bombs which the Catholic heresiologists gleefully detonated to rebut Marcion's interpretation of Paul? Otherwise we have to imagine Marcionites possessed of superhuman capacity for interpretive acrobatics to get around the dangerous statements they sheltered within their canon.
On the other hand, some of the material present in the Catholic texts but omitted in the Marcionite texts makes sense to me as anti-Marcionite interpolation, including the verses which gave Richard Carrier most trouble to explain away in his argument against the existence of Jesus (about which see my review of his 'On the History of Jesus': https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... )
But the problem remains that, granting these omissions from Marcion's text, so much remains that is very difficult to reconcile with what we thought we knew of Marcion. The author in his commentary keeps to carefully studied refusal to delve into where these confusing epistolary texts really come from. This is not a fault of the book, but a frustration for the reader: after so much hard work of reconstruction, not much seems to be any clearer.
February 5, 2019
An interesting and well-researched and sourced book about Marcion, his place in early church history, and in particular his place in the process of the establishment of the New Testament canon.
October 29, 2022
Not sure if I have nearly enough familiarity in this field of study to write any sort of meaningful review, but in this book, BeDuhn explores an often glossed-over figure and document in a very fair-minded way. His argument is that Marcion was the first person to put forth any sort of formal compilation of the Bible, as well as the first to propose the notion of a canon for the Holy Scriptures. He spends much time considering the arguments as to the veracity of Marcion’s compilation, from both historical and modern figures, as well as the influences from the sources Marcion drew on. Here is where I got lost at many points as I have very limited knowledge of the topical literature, but people more knowledgeable than I will probably find these sections very thorough and fair-minded. He also includes the full text of Marcion’s Bible (though admittedly in fragments due to loss over time), which was very interesting to compare with the current text we have today.
December 26, 2022
The First New Testament is like reading two books. One is the amazing account of the author's research and how the actual First New Testament was put together. The other is the actual First New Testament which itself has two parts. One is the Evangelion which is similar to the Gospel of Luke and the other is the Apostleikon which are of the writings of Paul the Apostle.
More than a few times while reading, I had to stop and gaze in amazement at the scholarship that went into this book. Unravelling the early history of Christianity is not just challenging, it seems near impossible. Since there is no actual book left in existence from the Marcionites, the only way to extrapolate their writings was to use every available resource including (especially) that of their detractors the Apologists and Heresiologists. The author also considers previous scholars' works and problems involving authenticity and probability.
But the best part of reading this book are the writings of the early Christians. It's like reading the Bible from another world. A world closer to the actual time of Jesus Christ. What happened between then and now? Why is Christianity so fragmented and divided? I feel like I know a little of why it's like that but it's not part of this book so I'll keep it to myself. If you want to read a brilliant scholarly work about the early Christians along with some of their early writings, read this book.
More than a few times while reading, I had to stop and gaze in amazement at the scholarship that went into this book. Unravelling the early history of Christianity is not just challenging, it seems near impossible. Since there is no actual book left in existence from the Marcionites, the only way to extrapolate their writings was to use every available resource including (especially) that of their detractors the Apologists and Heresiologists. The author also considers previous scholars' works and problems involving authenticity and probability.
But the best part of reading this book are the writings of the early Christians. It's like reading the Bible from another world. A world closer to the actual time of Jesus Christ. What happened between then and now? Why is Christianity so fragmented and divided? I feel like I know a little of why it's like that but it's not part of this book so I'll keep it to myself. If you want to read a brilliant scholarly work about the early Christians along with some of their early writings, read this book.
August 8, 2022
Excellent. Must read for anyone interested in biblical canon and apologetics. Jason D. BeDuhn is a treasure for anyone who wants to investigate Christianity seriously.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews