Andrew Hayes takes the measure of Marcions impact on second-century Christianity through a close examination of the topics and structure of Justin Martyrs writings, especially the Dialogue with Trypho, demonstrating that Justin repeatedly described Christianity in a contra-Marcionite fashion. The chief task Justin took for himself was to seize back from Marcion the terms of Christian self-definition. Marcion is thus far more important for Justins work than the few places where he is explicitly named might suggest: they reveal Justins deeper (...) agenda of presenting Marcion as a demonic instrument. (shrink)

GEORG LUK?CS AND HIS GENERATION 1900?1918 by Mary Gluck Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985. 263pp., $25.00.

These are handsome tomes, 7 x 10”, bound in spring green cloth, printed on good heavy paper, with restful clear type pleasingly arranged on the page with broad margins, so that to see the page is a joy. Rosters on the inner margins make it easy to look up a line indicated by its number.

Résumé Depuis la publication en français du Léviathan de Carl Schmitt, l’antisémitisme du juriste a constitué, en France, le cœur des débats autour de la pensée du théoricien du politique. Dans cet article, l’auteur tente d’approcher l’aversion du penseur catholique à l’égard du judaïsme en privilégiant un angle bien particulier. Partant des phénomènes bibliques et des thèmes religieux présents dans les écrits du penseur allemand, cet article cherche à évaluer l’intuition d’après laquelle il existerait une affinité intellectuelle entre Schmitt et (...) Marcion ; intuition entendue çà et là, qui réclame un approfondissement spécifique. Pour ce faire, l’auteur formule l’hypothèse d’un « marcionisme théologico-politique » qu’il tente d’appliquer et de tester à travers l’entière trajectoire de l’œuvre de Schmitt. L’enjeu étant de savoir si, pour le juriste catholique, les implications théologiquement politiques du judaïsme seraient, oui ou non, radicalement incompatibles avec celles du christianisme. (shrink)

Publication date: 31 January 2018 Source: Author: Kwaku Boamah The formation of the Christian canon was not a one day venture. Some scholars maintain it spanned from the first up to about the fourth centuries. This paper has three main parts: the first draws a linear process of canon generation, beginning from text to scripture and possibly becoming canonical. The second focuses on the creation of the Christian canon by exploring the stages and the implications of naming the canon as (...) `Testaments`. At the heart of the study is a consideration of the use and inclusion or exclusion of the Jewish scripture by Christians as discussed by a heretic and three Anti-heretics in the 2nd and/or 3rd centuries of the Roman Empire. The third part takes an example of a modern church whose reception to the Old Testament is one of skepticism. Furthermore, the level of usage of the Old Testament by the Church of Christ is key for the thesis of this paper. It is, therefore, important to assess a possible relationship between Marcion and the Church of Christ. Historical, theological and an interview are employed to explore these developments. The paper concludes that by the naming of the Christian canon and inclusion of the Jewish scriptures, the Christian identity can be described as Judeo-Christian. This description has impacted Christian formation and development a great deal from antiquity to the modern era. Marcion and his followers did not take this lightly in the first four centuries of the Christian history. On the other hand, in the nineteenth century the Church of Christ seemingly follows this example in antiquity on including the Old Testament as part of the Christian canon. (shrink)

111 Cid, que en buena hora babia nacido, pasó de este siglo en «el día de ginqttaesma» o domingo de Pentecostés, 29 de mayo del año 1099. Las Gesto Francarum o crónicas de las Cruzadas señalan esta misma fecha para el inicio de [a marcha y asedio que concluyeron con la toma de Jerusalén por los cristianos. Esta coincidencia de fechas no pudo pasar desapercibida al autor del Poema de Mio Cid. La gesta del Campeador cobraba un valor simbólico que (...) trascendía la geografía de sus hazañas por tierras castellanas hasta Valencia, enlazando con la de las Cruzadas en el extremo oriental de [a cristiandad frente al mismo adversario musulmán. (shrink)

Dans sa polémique contre Marcion, Tertullien définit à maintes reprises Dieu comme « la grandeur suprême ». Pour Tertullien, cette définition qui exprime la transcendance divine est celle que reconnaît « la conscience universelle », celle sur laquelle tous s'accordent. Le débat entre Tertullien et Marcion porte donc sur ce qui convient ou non à « la grandeur suprême » qu'est Dieu. Doit-on la penser, à la manière de Marcion, comme une transcendance telle qu'on ne peut la connaître et qui (...) exclut par principe tout contact réel avec le monde, a fortiori avec la chair ? Doit-on au contraire affirmer, avec Tertullien, que « c'est lorsque Dieu est tout petit au regard de l'homme qu'il est, au plus haut degré, grand. » Dans sa polémique contre Marcion, Tertullien fait appel à la raison : il dé¬nonce l'irrationalité du Dieu de Marcion. Pourtant, pour justifier l'incarnation, il n'hésite pas à utiliser à plusieurs reprises le paradoxe Pour dépasser ce qui paraît de prime abord contradictoire, il faudra s'interroger sur le statut du paradoxe, sur son rapport à la raison, mais aussi à la foi.In his polemic against Marcion, Tertullian frequently defines God as “the supreme greatness”. For Tertullian, this definition, which expresses divine transcendence, is the one that “the universal conscience” recognizes, the definition everyone agrees upon. Hence, the debate between Tertullian and Marcion is about what it is properly or not related to the “supreme greatness” that is God. Should this be thought of, as for Marcion, as a trancendence one cannot know and that excludes in principle all real contact with the world, a fortiori with the flesh? Or, on the contrary, must one say, with Tertullian, that it is “when God is quite small in the eyes of man that He is, in the highest degree, great”? In his polemic against Marcion, Tertullian appeals to reason: he denounces the irrationality of the God of Marcion. However, in order to justify the incarnation, Tertullian does not hesitate to use paradox several times. In order to surmount what may at first appear contradictory, we must question the status of paradox, its relation to reason and also to faith. (shrink)

La gnose constitue un des phénomènes les plus fascinants de l’histoire des idées. Elle est apparue sous le Haut-Empire romain (Ier-IIe siècle), période brillante et inquiète, qui voit aussi l’essor du christianisme. Les gnostiques, Basilide, Valentin, Marcion, prêchent des doctrines étranges se présentant comme une connaissance secrète (gnose) que Jésus-Christ aurait transmise à ses proches. Christianisme philosophique ou sulfureuse contrefaçon? Sagesse élevée ou charlatanisme? Religion sui generis ou maladie infantile du christianisme? Ultime expression de la philosophie grecque ou anticipation de (...) l’existentialisme? Vecteur d’influences juives ou au contraire rejet du judaïsme? La gnose garde une partie de son mystère. Née en Orient (Syrie, Egypte), répandue à Rome, dénoncée par les Pères de l’Eglise (saint Irénée, Tertullien), elle connaît peut-être son sommet aux confins de l’Empire perse avec Mani (IIIe siècle) dont la doctrine, le manichéisme, se répand jusqu’en Chine et pourrait avoir inspiré le bouddhisme. Depuis la fin des cathares (XIVe siècle), dernier avatar de la gnose européenne, celle-ci se survit par des traditions initiatiques (franc-maçonnerie, théosophie), des lignées de maîtres spirituels qui s’en réclament et des influences diffuses sur la littérature, particulièrement romantique, la musique, la philosophie. Par son rejet radical du monde réel ou sa volonté d’émanciper l’esprit des contraintes de la condition charnelle, le mode de pensée gnostique imprègne à bien des égards la culture contemporaine. Sur un sujet complexe et controversé, l’auteur présente, dans une perspective historique, une synthèse claire, vivante et équilibrée. (shrink)

This groundbreaking monograph on Bardaisan, his relation to Origen, and his Middle Platonic framework has argued, through a painstaking analysis of all evidence, that Bardaisan was a Christian Middle Platonist, a philosophical theologian who built a Logos Christology, possibly the first supporter of apokatastasis, and there is a close relation between Origen, Bardaisan, their thought, and their traditions [further proofs in an edition with essays: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming]. This monograph (and a related HTR essay) was received far beyond the field (...) of patristics, among others by P. Crone (Princeton IAS). * Dedication Page (page 5) * Table of Contents (page 7) * Preface (page 11) * 1 By way of Introductory Essay: Methodological Guidelines (page 17) * 2 Critical and Comparative Analysis of the Sources (page 45) o 1 The Very First Possible Witness: Clement (page 45) o 2 Two Early Witnesses Close to Origen and Very Appreciative of Bardaisan: Africanus and Didymus (page 46) + 2.1 Julius Africanus’ Acquaintance with both Bardaisan and Origen (page 46) + 2.2 The Origenian Didymus the Blind: The Most Appreciative Source on Bardaisan (page 56) o 3 Hippolytus (page 62) o 4 The Liber Legum Regionum (page 70) o 5 Porphyry and the Utmost Importance of His Fragments from Bardaisan: The Cosmic Christ, Middle Platonism, and a Christian Reading of the Timaeus (page 107) + 5.1 The Fragments from Bardaisan’s De India in Porphyry’s De Styge (page 107) + 5.2 Bardaisan’s Work in Porphyry’s De Abstinentia (page 124) o 6 Achilles Tatius and the Knowledge of Bardaisan in Late-Second-Century Alexandria (page 126) o 7 The Acts of Thomas (page 127) o 8 A Very Positive Witness: the Origenian Eusebius (page 131) o 9 The Origenian Gregory of Nyssa and His Own Work Against Fate (page 138) o 10 Diodore of Tarsus and His Closeness to Origens Eschatology and Refutation of Fate (page 142) o 11 Bardaisan’s Fight Against Marcionism (page 161) o 12 Jerome’s Parallel Turn: From Admirer to Criticizer of both Origen and Bardaisan (page 164) o 13 The Dialogue of Adamantius and the Portrait of a Bardaisanite (page 168) o 14 Ephrem between Documentation and Misunderstandings (page 172) o 15 Transition: The Transformation and Worsening of Bardaisan’s Image (page 254) o 16 Epiphanius’ Information: A ‘Mixed Bag’ (page 255) o 17 Two Heresiological Accounts Deriving from Epiphanius’ (page 261) o 18 Sozomen (page 262) o 19 Theodoret’s Account (page 266) o 20 Interesting Clues in a Very Appreciative Armenian Witness: Moses of Chorene (page 269) o 21 Philoxenus of Mabbug, an Anonymous, Isho’dad, and the Assimilation of Bardaisan to Valentinus or Mani (page 303) o 22 Rabbula and Theodoret (page 307) o 23 Appreciation of Bardaisan in a Local Source: the Chronicon of Edessa (page 312) o 24 The So-Called Cosmological Traditions: Importance and Methodological Guidelines. Barhadbshabba ‘Arbaya, Plus Comparisons with (Ps.) Maruta and Jacob of Edessa (page 314) o 25 Theodore Bar Konai (page 328) o 26 Theodore Abû Qurra (page 338) o 27 Moses Bar Kepha (page 339) o 28 (Ps.) John of Dara (page 347) o 29 Agapius and the So-Called Third Cosmological Tradition (page 352) o 30 Michael the Syrian’s Cosmological Testimony (page 353) o 31 Barhebraeus’ Cosmological Account (page 354) o 32 Mutaman ad-Dawla (page 355) o 33 From the “Cosmological Traditions'' to Other Doxographies and the Biographical Accounts. Masudi’s Biographical Information (page 355) o 34 The Fihrist and Arabic Sources on Bardaisan’s Anti-Dualism (page 358) o 35 Michael the Syrian’s Biographical Account (page 366) o 36 Barhebraeus (page 374) o 3 Conclusions and Contribution to Research (page 379) o Essential Bibliographical References on Bardaisan (page 381) o Index (page 389) . (shrink)

Cet article s�insère dans une recherche en cours sur l�ouvrage perdu de Justin Martyr contre Marcion et toutes les hérésies. Des remarques sur les �uvres conservées de Justin (Apologies, Dialogue avec Tryphon) et des comparaisons avec d�autres auteurs qui ont écrit contre les hérésies peu après lui, en premier lieu Irénée de Lyon et Tertullien, permettent d�identifier des sections de texte qui semblent bien remonter au Syntagma de Justin. En particulier, le présent article dégage une ligne argumentative qui, en réfutant (...) les objections marcionites contre la prescience du Créateur, développait le thème du libre arbitre des humains et des anges, ainsi que celui de la chute des anges rebelles, leur activité dans l�histoire du monde et leur châtiment final. (shrink)

The anonymous author of the Syriac Liber Graduum never mentions his theological opponents. The article analyses a few examples taken from his biblical exegesis and from his most typical theological concepts and shows that these peculiar features are better explained as a hidden polemic against Marcionism, thus casting new light on the nature of the Liber Graduum and providing new data for the study of Syriac Marcionism.

Abstrak: Kekerasan dalam Alkitab boleh dikatakan merupakan sebuah topik alkitabiah yang unik dan abadi, baik dari sudut pandang akademis maupun spiritual. Orang tidak hanya perlu memahaminya untuk orang lain, tetapi juga untuk diri sendiri. Sejak Marcion di abad pertama sampai saat ini, meskipun sudah amat banyak tulisan dihasilkan, tidak pernah ada suatu solusi yang memuaskan semua pihak. Tulisan ini menawarkan sudut pandang yang jarang disentuh, yaitu sudut pandang Gereja Katolik. Membaca Alkitab sebagai orang Katolik berarti membaca dengan memperhatikan juga ajaran-ajaran (...) Gereja tentang (pokok-pokok tertentu dari) Alkitab sebagaimana terungkap dalam dokumen-dokumen resmi Gereja. Ajaran Gereja khususnya Dei Verbum artikel 11 dan 12 memuat paling tidak pemahaman akan tiga hal yang dapat membuka kemungkinan untuk memahami persoalan ini secara lebih utuh. Pokok-pokok yang dimaksud adalah soal inspirasi, paham tentang Alkitab, dan kesatuan seluruh Alkitab sebagai kunci penafsiran Alkitab dalam Gereja. Pembacaan Alkitab secara menyeluruh menunjukkan bahwa klim kekerasan dalam Alkitab adalah sebuah klim sepihak yang tidak memperhatikan keseluruhan Alkitab sebagaimana dipahami dan di terima Gereja sebagai buku iman. Kata-kata Kunci: Kekerasan dalam Alkitab, Ajaran Gereja, Dei Verbum, inspirasi, paham tentang Alkitab, kesatuan seluruh Alkitab, jenis sastra. Abstract: Violence in the Bible could be considered a unique eternal theme in the Bible, be it from academic or spiritual perspective. One needs to understand it not only for helping others, but also for himself. Since Marcion in the first century up to our time, there has been no solution which is acceptable and could satisfy everybody, notwithstanding the abundance literature on this topic. To read the Bible as Catholic means to read it employing the Church’s teachings on the Bible which are found in the official Church documents as the hermeneutical key. The teaching of the Church especially Dei Verbum 11 and 12 offers an understanding on three important points that could be useful for comprehending the topic in a more comprehensive way. Those three points are the notion of biblical inspiration, the Catholic understanding of the Bible and the unity of the Bible. They could be the key to a correct interpretation of the Bible within the Church. The holistic reading of the Bible shows that the claim of biblical violence is actually a one-sided claim that does not pay fair attention to the unity of the Bible as a whole as it is understood and accepted by the Church as the book of faith. Keywords: Violence in the Bible, Church’s official teaching, Dei Verbum, divine inspiration, notion of the Bible, the unity of the Bible, literary genre. (shrink)

Dans ses lectures des nombreux récits de l’Évangile de Jean dans lesquels l’évangéliste mentionne Satan, Thomas d’Aquin montre un souci constant de démolir toute notion selon laquelle le premier des anges déchus peut être identifié à un être maléfique suprême, un summum malum, qui pourrait être identifié avec le démiurge malveillant décrit par les penseurs gnostiques tels que Marcion, Valentin, Mani, ou le mouvement médiéval associé à ce dernier, souvent connu sous le nom de Cathares. La principale de ses préoccupations (...) est la réfutation du déterminisme moral qu’il trouve dans leur pensée, qui est particulièrement incompatible avec la liberté donnée à tous par Dieu pour recevoir la filiation divine, liberté qu’il retrouve tout au long de l’Évangile de Jean. (shrink)

While Schelling’s anticipation of Freudian psychoanalysis is well established, it has thus far gone unnoticed that Schelling’s ideas also proved fruitful in the context of a distinctively philosophical theory of the psyche developed by a younger contemporary of Freud. During the 1920s Helmuth Plessner, a key figure of philosophical anthropology, outlined a complex conception of the psyche as an individualized, inner region of reality. Although Plessner did not present his philosophical psychology in a systematic form, its building blocks can be (...) found in The Unity of the Senses, The Limits of Community, and Levels of Organic Life and the Human, among other writings. Moreover, Plessner left a clue as to how these building blocks fit together, which suggests that Plessner viewed his philosophical psychology as structurally analogous to the model of personality outlined in Schelling’s 1809 treatise on human freedom. I propose that Plessner sought to formulate an alternative to both idealism and realism about the psyche that might reconcile the insights motivating these rival positions. Schelling provided Plessner with a workable model for such a reconciliation. After reviewing textual evidence for my hypothesis, I sketch Schelling’s predecessor theory. Based on the Schellingian template, I then reconstruct Plessner’s non-reductively naturalistic theory of the psyche, which aligns the real bodily ground of the psyche with its ideal existence. Highlighting the strengths of Plessner’s philosophical psychology against the foil of Paul Ricoeur’s and John McDowell’s relevant arguments, I argue that the theory reconstructed here deserves contemporary consideration as a plausible contender. –––– NOTE: It was only after publication of this article that I came across an important piece of biographical evidence in support of my claim about the significance of Schelling's Freiheitsschrift for Plessner's philosophical psychology. In 1923, Max Scheler claimed to be powerfully impressed by two of his recent readings, namely, Adolf von Harnack’s major study on the second-century Christian heretic Marcion and Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift (Peter Wust, “Schelers Lehre vom Menschen,” Das Neue Reich 9 [1928–29], 138, quoted in Guido Cusinato, “Schelling come precursore dell’antropologia filosofica del Novecento,” Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 9/2 [2010], 64.). Given that Scheler and Plessner were in constant intense exchange during the relevant period, it seems likely that Plessner’s invocation of Marcion in the concluding passage of Levels of Organic Life and the Human reflects a familiarity with that author that was mediated by Scheler’s reading of Harnack. By the same token, Scheler’s praise for Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift in 1923, along with the textual indications noted in my paper, suggests that the Freiheitsschrift was very much present on Plessner's intellectual horizon when he referred to “the ur-ground character, or better said un-ground character of the psyche” in The Limits of Community, which was published a year later. (Whether it was Scheler who alerted Plessner to the Freiheitsschrift or the other way around is a moot question.). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Origen and Prophecy: Fate, Authority, Allegory, and the Structure of Scripture by Claire HallMilanna FritzOrigen and Prophecy: Fate, Authority, Allegory, and the Structure of Scripture by Claire Hall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 195 pp.Origen's (AD 185–255) surviving corpus is studied by scholars across the disciplines of theology philosophy and classics. Drawing from each of these fields, in Origen and Prophecy, Clare Hall applies Origen's self-proposed tripartite exegesis (...) of Scripture, in which verses can be read at a "somatic, psychic, or pneumatic level," to his conceptualization of prophecy [End Page 293] (193). Hall's argument examines the "landscape of pagan, Jewish, and early Christian religiosity" and considers the "whole range of Origen's corpus" in relation to "wider structures and themes in his work" (4, 25). In doing so, Hall presents a compelling analysis embedding Origen's system of exegesis and theology of prophecy within the intellectual history of prophecy in the late classical and early Christian world.In her first few chapters, Hall explores Origen's definitions of prophecy in relation to its Jewish and Greco-Roman influences and his system of scriptural exegesis. Hall remains cognizant of terminology used by classical authors as she describes Origen's word choice, noting, for instance, that he varies his language most when the prophetic validity of the author is in question (9–12). She summarizes Greek, Roman, and Jewish conceptualizations of prophecy, then turns to Scripture and early Christian texts, all of which shape Origen's own "notions of wisdom, knowledge, and prophecy" (20, 29). Hall argues that Origen's On First Principles and homilies on Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are underlaid by a coherent exegetical system. Further, she explains, Origen's Commentary on the Song of Songs applies this same system to other forms of knowledge, including prophecy, which has a future-telling sense, a moral sense, and a mystical and revelatory sense (27, 50, 39–45). In her analysis, Hall provides insight into the philosophical and theological foundations for the "revelatory potential of allegory" as understood by Origen and other early Christian authors and carefully distinguishes Origen's own beliefs from the tenets of Origenism (30–31). To strengthen her argument, Hall cites a plethora of secondary scholars on Origen, including Caroline Bammel, Gunnar af Hällström, Robert Hauck, and Ilaria Ramelli (18–25).In her next few chapters, Hall unfolds Origen's system of distinguishing between true and false prophets and his advocacy for the unity of prophecy within Scripture in his response to Marcionism (199, 149–52). Chief among Hall's insightful contributions, however, is her treatment of the complex interrelation of prophecy and human autonomy: within Origen's framework, how does providential foreknowledge permit human free choice? To approach an answer, Hall traces the emerging conception of free will as "freedom of decision" among Greek authors such as Aristotle, Chrysippus and the Stoics, the Platonists, the Epicureans, and Alexander of Aphrodisias, who, she argues, laid the groundwork for Origen's "innovative narrative understanding of free will" in the context of "epistemological considerations surrounding prophecy" (55–71, 75). These sections of her book present a striking glimpse into early Christian departure from the Greek classical tradition, and her exploration of Origen's defense of both free will and [End Page 294] divine foreknowledge opens the door to further research on his theology of conversion and the relation between grace and nature (75–85, 91).While the entirety of her work is thought-provoking, some elements of Hall's presentation of Origen's theology may be open to a critical response by patristic scholars. Throughout her work, Hall consistently characterizes Origen's spiritual readings of Scripture—and prophecy—in direct opposition to its literal readings. For instance, she writes that, for Origen, just as "some verses do not have a somatic reading and cannot be taken literally," some prophecies are intended to be read as "stumbling blocks or riddles for the exegete to ponder," rather than accurate or "coherent" predictions of the future (193, 53). Additionally, Hall ties Origen's insights on prophecy in the Old Testament to his depiction of Christ as the "ultimate content of... (shrink)

The paper offers a preliminary treatment of the problems of profiling Apelles as a Marcionite of the late second century. It takes into consideration the available sources on one of the two works of Apelles, the context of which content can be partially reconstructed, namely the Συλλογισμοί. The tradition concerning this work is traced back to three different lines, the first going back to Rhodon’s treatise against the Marcionites, the second to Theophilus of Antioch’s work against Marcion and the third (...) one to Origen’s Commentary on Genesis. Only Origen seems to have quoted the Συλλογισμοί explicitly and all the fragments we possess are transmitted by him, directly or via Ambrose’s treatise On Paradise. (shrink)

The expression “Gnostic Empedocles” refers to the summary of the teachings of this philosopher presented by Hippolytus of Rome in the Refutation of All Heresies. Above all, it concerns the notice devoted to Marcion and his disciples, who were accused of following the poems of Empedocles rather than the Gospel. However, Hippolytus is inspired by the readings of Empedocles provided by different groups of Gnostics. This interpretatio gnostica was also known in Christian circles. The analysis of this interpretation, based on (...) the notice about Marcion, allows us to propose a new interpretation of Bardaisan’s thought — mentioned by Hippolytus — as an unknown testimony of the reception of Empedocles. (shrink)

The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have desired to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, because it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke, which came to be called the Synoptic Gospels. The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on the point that there is a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another but at (...) the same time includes different aspects. This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of discussion is based on the reading of the Synoptic Gospels from a birds-eye-view, as seen together, and as comparatively in relation to each other. The aim of the discussion is to reach accurate historical information about Jesus and the birth of Christianity by analyzing the possible relationship between the Synoptic Gospels through their sources. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the solution of the Synoptic Problem. However, all the modern studies in the context of the problem are carried out by Western scholars. In other words, Synoptic Problem is a relatively unknown subject in the Turkish academic circles. So in this paper the aim is to draw the attention of the Turkish academy to the substance and framework of the Synoptic Problem through an introductory survey. In addition, some results that can be reached in this context will be exemplified by getting help from the redaction criticism. Summary: The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have been trying to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, for it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church (namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called the Synoptic Gospels). The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another one, but at the same time including different aspects. This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels, and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of this discussion is based on the broad reading of the Synoptic Gospels as well as a comparison in relation to each other. The aim of the discussion is to reach accurate historical information about Jesus and the birth of Christianity by analyzing the possible relationship between the Synoptic Gospels through their sources.The traditional four Gospels have been debated since ancient times. There have been many dimensions of these discussions. However, whether the Gospels contain contradictory information or not has always been at the forefront. Pagan writers, such as Celsus or Porphyry, criticized the Gospels in this respect. Christian writers, such as Marcion or Tatian who lived in the second century when the Gospels were not seen as canon yet, raised some suggestions based on the doubts that the Gospels were incompatible with the Jewish scriptures and contained contradictions among themselves. Marcion included a single Gospel that was close to the Gospel of Luke in his New Testament canon. Tatian made a mixed version of the four Gospels. In the next stage, the contradictions in the Gospels were explained by the Christian writers, such as Origenes or Augustine. However, the four Gospels were more prominent in this new era and they were regarded as canons by the Church. Therefore, the Christian writers’ approach to the Gospels also began to change. Origen emphasized allegorical interpretation which had been known since the Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 50) in Alexandria. Thus, he wanted to protect the contradictory texts from being seen as the source of the problem. He argued that the problem was the human mind that could not grasp the allegorical mystery of the text or the narrative in the text. Augustine had a similar approach with the suggestion that the Gospels should be read by a faithful heart. According to Augustine, it is natural that the Gospels reflect different characters because the Gospel writers describe Christ differently. In order to be able to comprehend the divine meaning in these texts, the Gospels must be read in a spiritual mood. After all, all these Christian writers aimed to respond to the criticism by the pagan writers regarding the Gospels, as well as the current suspicions in the minds of Christians.Origen was the first Christian thinker to devote an effort to solve the debates on the Gospels in a logical and systematic way. As for Augustine, he was the starting point of the Synoptic Problem since Augustine was the first to mention the links between the Gospels texts, namely the idea that the authors of the Gospels may have used each other as sources. However, in the modern sense, the Synoptic Problem has been transformed into an academic discipline by the intellectuals who followed the path of Enlightenment thinkers, such as Reimarus (1684-1768), Lessing (1729-1781), Griesbach (1745-1812), and Eichhorn (1752-1827). Because modern researchers differ from old writers based on Church ideologies, they began to demolish traditional beliefs about the Gospels. Thus, the effort to harmonize incompatible narratives in the Gospels is left aside. Indeed, the ancient writers put a lot of effort into it. Now, in the places where indirect relations can be established between the Gospels, the idea of finding the common hypothetical sources of these Gospels is prominent. The claim that the Gospels were directly connected to Jesus as a historical figure has been gradually faded away. The basis of the Synoptic Problem is the comparative reading of the Synoptic Gospels. In the modern sense, this comparison and its interpretation was made by J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812) for the first time. Griesbach was the first scholar to compare Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a way to create a synopsis. His comparison is based on a reading done by placing several passages or narratives from the Gospels side by side.Many hypotheses have been put forward for the solution of the Synoptic Problem. Two-Source Hypotheses, Four-Source Hypotheses, and Farrer Theory are the most popular ones among researchers. These views are based on Marcan Priority. In this context, independently from each other, Matthew and Luke used Mark’s text as their sources. Also, according to the Two-Sources and Four-Source Hypotheses, the authors of Matthew and Luke used another written document as their sources. This document is named the “Q” which derives from the German word “Quellen.” In this way, it is assumed that the Q-document and the Gospel of Mark are the sources of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.The writers of the Gospels wrote their own texts by using written and oral sources. One of the scholarly methods is the redaction criticism that explores how the Gospel writers shaped the old literary documents by arranging, re-shaping, and revising them. This theory looks at whether the source used by an author is known and available today in order to understand whether how the author used his sources would provide important clues about his tendencies or ideologies. In this regard, the theory of the Marcan priority can be rendered functional along with the redaction criticism. In doing so, it is possible to reach important conclusions about Jesus and the birth of Christianity, as well as the theological and ideological ideas of the unknown authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. First of all, the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark’s text as their sources. Secondly, we have these three Gospels today. And finally, the ways in which the writers of Matthew and Luke shaped the text, phrases, or expressions of Mark reveal important results about their thoughts. The analysis shows that the authors of Matthew and Luke sometimes made additons that could be called interpolation to Mark’s text; sometimes they wanted to censor some statements in Mark; sometimes they tried to explain or clarify some statements in the Mark, or sometimes they tried to blur clear expressions and expositions in Mark's text. These authors did not do such things without a reason. They wanted to reshape Mark’s text in accordance with their theological understanding of Jesus as Christ. In this context, according to some expressions in Mark, Jesus' power had a limit. The authors of Matthew and Luke did not find these statements appropriate, because they changed Mark’s some statements to create an impression that Jesus’ power was not limited. This proves that the authors of Matthew and Luke re-arranged their resources to present Jesus as a superhuman being. Similarly, in Mark, there are lines in which Jesus declares his loyalty and servitude to the God of Israel. In such passages, he presented his personality in a low Christology context against God. However, the authors of Matthew and Luke were disturbed by such statements, because they intervened in these statements in Mark. They wanted to change some of the meanings and contexts in Mark’s text through such interventions and presented Jesus as Christ in a high Christological context to their readers. In the end, all these researches also responded to the question of to what extent the Gospels provide reliable information on a historical basis. (shrink)

Starting with the observation that the canon of the Bible differs among the Christian denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic), and that definitive decisions on the canon were not made before the 16th century, the author gives a brief account of the process of the development of both the Jewish and the bipartite Christian canon. Due to more recent textual discoveries, earlier views of the making of the Jewish or the Christian canon have undergone significant changes. For the Jewish canon, the (...) discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran texts) provided the opportunity to study the making of the canon from manuscript evidence, and to alter the overall view from the pattern of a three stage canonization to the pattern of a “canonical process”, leading to the Hebrew canon and, later and in Christian circles, to the canon of the Septuagint. This pattern is also useful for studying the making of the bipartite Christian canon or the New Testament canon. Here, the author focuses on the challenge provided by Marcion’s “canon”, the early beginning of the canonical process and its late closure, and the various factors in the process, which can be studied by including the manuscript evidence and taking into account the character of several apocryphal texts and the context and intention of the various lists of canonical texts. The biblical canon as presupposed throughout the Middle Ages is the result of a complicated and variegated canonical process. But in spite of the problems of the criteria and factors involved, the biblical canon is theologically valuable and “well-chosen”. (shrink)

The development of the biblical canon in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. A brief account of the process of the development of both the Jewish and the bipartite Christian canon is given. It is argued that due to insights gained from recent textual discoveries, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, earlier theories about the history of canonisation had to be reviewed. With the New Testament canon the authors focus on the influence of Marcion as well as the various other factors that (...) played a role in the process of canonisation. It is shown that canonisation was the result of a complicated and variegated canonical process. But in spite of the problems of the criteria used and other factors involved, the biblical canon is theologically valuable and ‘well-chosen’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews Catherine Osborne. Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics. London: Duckworth, 1987. Pp. viii + 383. NP. A quick look at Kirk, Raven, and Schofield's standard The PresocraticPhilosophers(Cambridge University Press, 1983) or Barnes's recent Early GreekPhilosophy (Penguin, 1987) reveals a clear distinction between (a) direct quotations (ipsissima verba) of the Presocratics and (b) testimonia (doxographic or otherwise) about their thought. This bifurcation into original (...) fragments and testimonia is called into question by Osborne in her book. For Osborne, the standard procedure of identifying fragments within a larger context and then interpreting the fragments without reference to that context is to be put aside "in favour of reading the text of the Presocratics as embedded texts within the context of the interpretations they were selected to illustrate" (183). This new methodology is not offered by Osborne as applicable across the board, for all the Presocratics. It is a nonstarter for, say, Parmenides, for whom we have (obvious) verbatim quotation in Simplicius (and consequently no need to take into account the Simplician context). But in the case of some other Presocratics we are not on such secure grounds. Or so Osborne thinks, and the book illustrates her hermeneutical principles with reference to Heraclitus and Empedocles as their thought is embedded in the text of Hippolytus of Rome's Refutation of All Heresies. Osborne's strategy proceeds in two distinct stages: (1) She first offers us a couple of examples of Hippolytus's interpretive skills, both of which, in different ways, reveal him as a pretty reliable (if biased) and interesting philosophical and textual exegete. In this regard she presents Hippolytus's discussion of Aristotle's doctrine of substance in the Categoriesand Metaphysics Z (in the context of Hippolytus's refutation of the heretic Basileides) and, secondly, his reworking of Irenaeus's life of Simon Magus, the reputed founder of gnosticism. Aristotle is a particularly good test case because we can, of course, check Hippolytus's report against the original. Having done so, Osborne is led to conclude that "little of interest can be derived from the limited amount of material that is quoted directly from Aristotle" (183; cf. also 66). Nonetheless, for Osborne comparison with Aristotle's text reveals Hippolytus as not bereft of philosophical acumen, even though his interpretation is colored by the particular polemics in which he is engaged. In sum, then, Osborne understands Hippolytus as an intelligent (if biased) interpreter of Aristotle and not a particularly good source for ipsissimaverba. (2) On the basis of these conclusions about Hippolytus as a source for Aristotle's metaphysical theory and for the life of Simon Magus, Osborne turns to Hippolytus's discussion of Heraclitus and Empedocles (in the context of his refutations of the [ll9] 120 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28"1 JANUARY ~99 o heretics Noetus and Marcion). Her goal is to urge a new nonfragment-based methodology for the study of the Presocratics, grounded in the conclusions she has just reached about Hippolytus as an interpreter of Aristotle and Irenaeus. The major obstacle which she faces in validating such a methodology is that in the cases of Heraclitus and Empedocles we have no original text by which to judge Hippolytus's reliability or interpretive skills. In lieu of such original texts all that Osborne has at her disposal is her own conclusion just reached about Hippolytus as a generally reliable (if biased) interpreter of Aristotle and Irenaeus. But just here is the major problem with Osborne 's proposed methodology: granting for the sake of argument that Hippolytus is a pretty good interpreter of Aristotle and Irenaeus, this does not entail that he is a reliable exegete of anyone else. He might be, he might not. We don't know and, more importantly, we have no way of finding out. Osborne assumes that Hippolytus had a greater knowledge of the relevant texts than we do (67, 185), and thus interpreted the Presocratics on this basis. He might have, he might not. In any event, Osborne's assumption is a case of special pleading. Equally plausible is that Hippolytus possessed no more of Heraclitus or Empedocles than we do and, consequendy, had... (shrink)