The Evil Creator

The Evil Creator

Origins of an Early Christian Idea

M . DAV I D L I T WA
Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Litwa, M. David, author.
Title: The evil creator : origins of an early Christian idea / M. David Litwa.
Description: New York, NY, United States of America :
Oxford University Press, [2021] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021013674 (print) | LCCN 2021013675 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197566428 (hb) | ISBN 9780197566442 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: God (Christianity)—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30-600. |
Good and evil—Religious aspects—Christianity. | Gnosticism. |
Marcion, of Sinope, active 2nd century. |
Bible. New Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Classification: LCC BT98 .L58 2021 (print) | LCC BT98 (ebook) |
DDC 231/.8—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021013674
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021013675

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
I dedicate this book to my son, Darian
 Contents

Preface  ix
Abbreviations  xi

PA RT I . E G Y P T IA N A N D J O HA N N I N E
A P P R OAC H E S T O T H E EV I L C R E AT O R
Introduction: Why the Evil Creator?  3
1. The Donkey Deity  15
2. The Father of the Devil  40

PA RT I I . M A R C IO N I T E A P P R OAC H E S T O
T H E EV I L C R E AT O R
Introduction to Marcion  57
3. Creator of Evils  67
4. The God of This World  90
5. Destroyer of the Law I  109
6. Destroyer of the Law II  122
7. The Curse of the Creator  140
Conclusion: The Evil Creator at Large  157

Bibliography  171
Index of Ancient Sources  197
Subject Index  205
 Preface

All translations in this volume, unless otherwise noted, are my own. All
biblical translations, unless otherwise specified, come from the Septuagint
(LXX). Throughout this work, I do not capitalize the “g” in “god” so as not to
offer a value judgment, even implicit, as to which ancient deity is considered
to be true or false, real or unreal. “Law” is capitalized when it refers to Jewish
Law or Torah.
Here I gratefully acknowledge the readers who have provided comments
on draft chapters of this work: my colleagues Ben Edsall, Stephen Carlson,
Kylie Crabbe, Sarah Gador-​Whyte, and Devin White offered feedback on
Chapters 1, 4, 5, and 6. In addition, Dylan Burns, Tuomas Rasimus, Francis
Watson, and John Barclay provided comments on Chapters 1, 2, and 4. An
earlier version of Chapter 7 was presented as a paper at the 2018 ACU
(Australian Catholic University) annual Rome seminar and published in
a different form as “The Curse of the Creator: Galatians 3.13 and Negative
Demiurgy,” in Telling the Christian Story Differently, ed. Francis Watson
and Sarah Parkhouse (London: Bloomsbury Academic Press, 2020), 13–​30.
Chapter 2 was offered as a seminar paper at the Biblical and Early Christian
Studies Seminar at ACU in late 2019. It is published in a different form as
“The Father of the Devil (John 8:44): A Christian Exegetical Inspiration for
the Evil Creator, VC 74:5 (2020): 540–​65. My plan to offer a shortened ver-
sion of Chapter 4 at the North American Patristics Society Meeting in 2020
has now been shifted to 2021 (an Open Call session dedicated to the topic of
negative demiurgy). I thank all the participants at these events for their gen-
erous feedback.
 Abbreviations

AAH Pseudo-​Tertullian, Against All Heresies

AH Irenaeus, Against Heresies
AM Tertullian, Against Marcion
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
Cels. Against Celsus
DGWE Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, ed. Hanegraaff
EH Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones, eds. Greek-​English Lexicon
LXX Septuagint
NHC Nag Hammadi Codices
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth
PG Patrologia Graeca
PGM Greek Magical Papyri
Ref. Refutation of All Heresies
SC Sources Chrétiennes
VC Vigiliae Christianae
ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum
 PART I
EG YPT IA N A N D JOHA NNI NE
A PPROAC HE S TO T H E
EV IL C R E ATOR
 Introduction: Why the Evil Creator?

Free will was the excuse for everything. It was God’s alibi. They had
never read Freud. Evil was made by man or Satan. It was simple that
way. But I could never believe in Satan. It was much easier to believe
that God was evil.
—​Graham Greene1

Of the many beliefs held by early Christians, the notion of an evil cre-
ator is perhaps the most scandalous. It was fundamental to Platonism—​
the ascendant philosophy during Christianity’s infancy—​that the creator,
though distinct from the high god, was good.2 Of all possible worlds,
the creator made this world following the finest of all possible models. The
creator’s unstinting care for the universe—​called providence—​was widely
accepted in antiquity as the only pious option available.3 The bright sun,
clear air, and fresh water were silent but eloquent witnesses of divine good-
ness, not to mention the very gift that made gratitude possible: human in-
telligence. Far from shutting out people from the richest of benefits, the

1 Greene, The Honorary Consul (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 239.
2 Plato, Timaeus 29e. See further J. Halfwassen, “Der Demiurg: Seine Stellung in der Philosophie
Platons und seine Deutung im Antiken Platonismus,” in Le Timée de Platon: contributions à l’histoire de
sa réception, ed. Ada Neschke-​Hentschke (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 39–​62; Jan Opsomer, “Demiurges
in Early Imperial Platonism,” in Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch: Götterbilder-​ Gottesbilder-​
Weltbilder, ed. Rainer Hirsch-​Luipold (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 51–​99; Adam Drozdek, “Plato and
the Demiurge,” in Greek Philosophers as Theologians: The Divine Arche (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007),
151–​68; Carl Séan O’Brien, The Demiurge in Ancient Thought: Secondary Gods and Divine Mediators
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 18–​34. On the gradual dominance of Platonism, see
Troels Engberg-​Pedersen, ed., From Stoicism to Platonism: The Development of Philosophy 100 BCE–​
100 CE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); George Boys-​Stones, Platonist Philosophy
80 BC to AD 250: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2018), 1–​80, and 148–​49 (on divine goodness).
3 Alcinous, Handbook of Platonism 12.1. On Providence, see further Gretchen J. Reydams-​Schils,

Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999);
George Boys-​Stones, “Providence and Religion in Middle Platonism,” in Theologies of Ancient Greek
Religions, ed. Esther Eidinow et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 317–​38; Dylan
Burns, Did God Care? Providence, Dualism and Will in Later Greek and Early Christian Philosophy
(Leiden: Brill, 2020), esp. 103–​88.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0001
4 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

creator equipped them, according to Plato, to become as much like the di-
vine as possible.4
By contrast, some early Christian groups thought that the creator of this
world (known in Hebrew as “Yahweh,” or “the lord”) was an evil or hostile
being opposed to the true and transcendent deity. To quote just a sample of
some early Christian texts:

The chief creator was a fool. He despised condemnation and acted with
audacity.5

The ruler was a joke, for he said, “I am god and no one is greater than I . . . I am
a jealous god . . .” He is conceited and does not agree with our Father.6

What kind of god is this? First, he begrudged Adam’s eating from the tree of
knowledge. Second, he said, “Adam, where are you?” [This] god does not have
foreknowledge. He has certainly shown himself to be a malicious envier.7

The concept of a wicked creator was the hallmark of Christians who today
are still grouped under the global category of “gnostic.”8 We shall shortly

4 Plato, Theaetetus 176b. On assimilation to god, see Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics, Old and

New (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 52–​71. J. M. Armstrong, “After the Ascent: Plato on
Becoming Like God,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 26 (2004): 171–​83; George H. Van Kooten,
Paul’s Anthropology in Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 129–​99; Gretchen Reydams-​Schils,
“ ‘Becoming Like God’ in Platonism and Stoicism,” in From Stoicism, ed. Engberg-​Pedersen, 142–​58.
5 Origin of the World (Nag Hammadi Codices [NHC] II,5) 107.34–​35.
6 Second Treatise of Great Seth (NHC VII,2) 64.17–​65.2.
7 Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3) 47.14–​48.4. Hugo Lundhaug and Lance Jenott count twenty-​

one Nag Hammadi texts with a negative evaluation of the creator and ten with a positive evaluation
(The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 86–​87). The
fact that negative evaluations are more than double the positive indicates to Jonathan Cahana-​Blum
that the negative readings predominated also in the case of the twenty-​two texts wherein the eval-
uation of the creator is unclear (Wrestling with Archons: Gnosticism as a Critical Theory of Culture
[London: Lexington, 2018], 40).
8 The third century CE philosopher Porphyry presented a double title for Plotinus’s treatise

2.9: “Against the Gnostics” (Πρὸς τοῦς Γνωστικούς), and “Against Those Who Declare the Creator of
the World to Be Evil” (Πρὸς τοὺς κακὸν τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ κόσμου . . . λέγοντας) (Life of Plotinus
5.33; 24.55). Within this treatise, Plotinus reproved these “Gnostics” for blaming the “governor of
this universe” (2.9.6.60). According to Michael Williams, the demonizing of the demiurge was “the
innovation of Gnostic myth” (“The Demonizing of the Demiurge: The Innovation of Gnostic Myth,”
in Innovations in Religious Traditions, ed. Michael A. Williams, C. Cox, and Martin S. Jaffe [Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1992], 73–​107 at 73). See further Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, “The Demonic Demiurge in
Gnostic Mythology,” in The Fall of Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 148–​60 at 148; Christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction (London: T&T
Clark, 2003), 16–​17; Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking
Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 158, 171–​72; Winrich Löhr, “Gnostic
and Manichean Interpretation,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge
 Introduction 5

take the opportunity to improve on this fuzzy and contested term. For now,
it is sufficient to note that these early Christians were spread out in major
urban centers across the Mediterranean world (Antioch, Alexandria, Rome,
Carthage). Their founders and theologians were educated and gifted writ-
ers. They knew how shocking it was to proclaim an evil creator in their time,
but they composed lengthy origin stories to depict him in living and lurid
images—​such as a lion-​headed serpent.9 The question is why—​why did they
affirm a malevolent creator, and how did they know that he was malign?
Scholars have searched for broader philosophical motives to explain the
origin of the evil creator idea.10 Some Platonists of the second century CE
were prepared to contemplate evil emerging from nature, matter, or the err-
ing fluctuations of a World Soul.11 A distinctly evil creator, however, was
generally not even considered as a philosophical option among the major
schools, since it would conflict with divine providence.12 Now educated early
Christians often wished to appear philosophical. Yet philosophy was little

University Press, 2013), 584–​604 at 584; George E. Karamanolis, The Philosophy of Early Christianity
(London: Routledge, 2013), 21; Hebert Schmid, Christen und Sethianer: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion
um den religionsgeschichtlichen und den kirchengeschichtlichen Begriff der Gnosis (Leiden: Brill, 2018),
417; Jutta Leonhardt-​Balzer, “Yaldabaoth und seine Bande. Die Gegner im Johannesapokryphon,” in
Dualismus, Dämonologie und diabolische Figuren: Religionshistorische Beobachtungen und theologis-
che Reflexionen, ed. Jörg Frey and Enno Edzard Popkes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 351–​66.
9 See, e.g., Ap. John, Nat. Rulers, and Orig. World, all in Nag Hammadi codex II. For the “trans-

gressive orientation” of early gnostics, see April D. DeConick, The Gnostic New Age: How a
Countercultural Spirituality Revolutionized Religion from Antiquity to Today (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2016), 256, 263.
10 Jaap Mansfeld, “Bad World and Demiurge: A ‘Gnostic’ Motif from Parmenides and Empedocles

to Lucretius and Philo,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, Festschrift Gilles Quispel,
ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 261–​314; Einar Thomassen, “The
Platonic and Gnostic ‘Demiurge,’” in Apocryphon Severini Presented to Søren Giversen, ed. Per Bilde,
Helge Kjaer Nielsen, and Jorgen Podemann Sorensen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 227–​
44; Carl B. Smith, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 28–​
33; Zlatko Pleše, “Evil and Its Sources in Gnostic Traditions,” in Die Wurzel allen Übels: Vorstellungen
über die Herkunft des Bösen und Schlechten in der Philosophie und Religion des. 1.–​4. Jahrhunderts, ed.
Fabienne Jourdan and Rainer Hirsch-​Luipold (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 101–​32.
11 Plato, Laws 896d–​e and 898c; Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 369d, 370f; On the Generation of the Soul in

the Timaeus, 1014e–​1015e. See further Arthur H. Armstrong, “Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and
Christian,” in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, ed. Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (Albany: SUNY
Press, 1992), 33–​54 at 38–​39; Karin Alt, Weltflucht und Weltbejahung: Zur Frage des Dualismus bei
Plutarch, Numenius, Plotin (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993), 23–​24; Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel,
“Evil Without a Cause: Proclus’s Doctrine on the Origin of Evil and Its Antecedents in Hellenistic
Philosophy,” in Zur Rezeption des hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike: Akten der 1. Tagung
der Karl-​und-​Gertrud-​Abel-​Stiftung vom 22.–​25. September 1997 in Trier, ed. Therese Fuhrer, Michael
Erler, and Karin Schlapbach (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999), 229–​60 at 235–​44; Karamanolis, Philosophy,
67; Burns, Did God Care, 111–​12.
12 One might cite Plutarch (Isis-​Osiris 369d), Numenius (frag. 52.37–​39, 44–​64, Des Places), and

Empedocles (Mansfeld, “Bad World”) as exceptions here. Even so, they manage to prove the rule.
6 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

help for those Christians who imagined an evil creator. There must therefore
have been other motives for some Christians to envision such a being.
The apostle Paul, following a trend in ancient Jewish theology, demonized
the pantheons of all other peoples (1 Cor 10:20, following Ps 96:5). Paul lived
in a world teeming with demons whom he called “rulers”—​provincial poten-
tates reigning from the lower heavens (Rom 8:38–​39; 1 Cor 2:6–​8).13 Paul
also believed in their chief ruler: a quasi-​divine figure of evil who had various
aliases: the devil, Beliar, Satan, and so on.14 Here was a “homemade” anti-​
divine agent in Jewish lore whose oppositional role could readily be trans-
ferred to the creator.
Yet it is difficult to see why or how such a transfer would take place, since
the creator in Jewish tradition was overwhelmingly conceived of as blessed
and worthy of devotion. Jewish scriptures regularly called the creator com-
passionate, caring, and just. The Psalms sung at length of the abundance of
divine mercy, forgiveness, and lovingkindness.15 Thus to imagine the creator
as a malicious being arrayed against a higher, benevolent deity required an-
other, much bolder step.16
Yet what was it? Could it have been the experience of horrible social and
political turmoil suffered by the Jews between 66 and 135 CE? During this
period, Jewish groups drew up their battle lines against the Romans and
thrice raised the ululations of war. In 66 CE, they proclaimed freedom in
Jerusalem, slaughtered the Roman garrison, and defended their besieged city
until mothers reportedly ate their own children.17 A party of radicals held out
three additional years in the fortress of Masada, committing mass suicide the

13 See further Wesley Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of

the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Armin
Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld, eds., Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der
israelitisch-​jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003); David Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); Chris Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds.,
Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); Frey and
Popkes, Dualismus, Dämonologie und diabolische Figuren: Religionshistorische Beobachtungen und
theologische Reflexionen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018); Emma Wasserman, Apocalypse as Holy
War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).
14 See further Elaine Pagels, Origins of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics

(New York: Vintage, 2011); Miguel A. de la Torre and Albert Hernández, The Quest for the Historical
Satan (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2011).
15 Michael Bergmann, Michal J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, Divine Evil? The Moral Character of

the God of Abraham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1.

16 In this investigation, I exclude conceptions of the creator as a just (or righteous) being (as in

Valentinian Christian thought). I only consider conceptions of the creator as an evil being. For the
Valentinian creator, see, e.g., Ismo Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle and Society in the
School of Valentinus (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 119–​58.
17 Josephus, Jewish War 2.430 (capture of the garrison), 6.200–​21 (eating of children).
 Introduction 7

night before an enraged Roman army rammed through their charred gates.18
From 115 to 117 CE, Jewish militia in Libya, Egypt, and Cyprus took over en-
tire cities, slaughtering at will and desecrating temples.19 Finally, in 132 CE,
Jews in Palestine carved out a rebel kingdom in the Judean foothills, using
the tactics of guerilla warfare until they were hunted, starved, or flushed out
from every underground hideout and rocky fort.20
Ancient Romans and Greeks could not understand why this tiny nation
continually rebelled while larger and more powerful kingdoms lowed quietly
under the Roman yoke. There were a bevy of socioeconomic and political
reasons, but from the perspective of these Jews themselves, theological con-
siderations played the most prominent role. These Jews acted as they thought
their god had commanded—​to rid the Holy Land of “heathen,” to set up a
kingdom governed by divine law, and to await the Messiah’s iron rod reign.
But none of this ever happened. The Jewish deity did not intervene, and
whole Jewish communities were drowned in their own blood. In Alexandria
of 117 CE there was a virtual genocide, with Jews of all ranks murdered in
the streets.21 Further down the Nile, festivals were arranged celebrating
the defeat and slaughter of the Jews for over a century.22 Throughout the
Mediterranean world, Jews were forced to pay a burdensome tax (the fiscus
Iudaicus) simply because they were Jews or converts to Judaism.23 By 135
CE, they were banned from living in Jerusalem—​renamed Aelia Capitolina—​
then the location of a gleaming new temple to Zeus. Jews were prevented
even from setting foot on the island of Cyprus. According to one report, Jews

18 Josephus, Jewish War 7.389–​406.

19 For the Jewish revolt under Trajan (115–​117 CE), see Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander
Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957–​
1964), 2.225–​60; Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor
Trajan, trans. Robert Cornman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 198–​225; Smith, No Longer Jews,
72–​112; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil 116–​117 CE: Ancient Sources and
Modern Insights (Leuven: Peeters, 2005); William Horbury, Jewish War Under Trajan and Hadrian
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 164–​277.
20 See further Werner Eck, “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View,” Journal of

Roman Studies 89 (1999): 76–​89; Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in the Graeco-​Roman World
(London: Routledge, 2003), 145–​62; Schäfer, ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives
on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Hanan Eshel, “The Bar
Kochba Revolt, 132–​135,” Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. 4: Late Roman-​Rabbinic Period, ed.
Steven T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 105–​27.
21 See further Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 198–​230; Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 276–​78; Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil;
Horbury, Jewish War, 164–​277.
22 Annemarie Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Theological Studies, 2008), 16–​17.

23 Marius Heemstra, Fiscus Iudaicus and the Parting of the Ways (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
8 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

that were shipwrecked there could be hacked to pieces on the shores with
impunity.24
Thus in the first forty years of the second century, political events turned
sour, to say the least, for many Jews in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Yet de-
spite apocalyptic prophecies new and old, the world never ground to a halt,
and the thick veil of heaven remained untorn. Targeted by the tax system,
and stigmatized by failed rebellions, Jews, according to one theory, looked
around and began to see themselves “as strangers and afraid in a world their
God had never made.”25
Despite the enticements of this lachrymose tale, however, it does not ac-
tually explain how the notion of an evil creator arose. After all, Jews with
apocalyptic and Messianic hopes—​as is typical in Abrahamic religions—​
overwhelmingly blamed their sins for disasters, not the creator.26 If Jews be-
came alienated from the world, this hardly meant alienation from god or the
belief that their deity did not create the world. Failure on earth might, indeed,
have tied their hearts more tightly to heaven. Even if it did not, why would
Jews—​whose sole hope and commitment was to exalt their putatively unique
lord—​rewrite scripture to portray Yahweh as foolish and evil? It would have
been simpler for them to renounce the faith, assimilate to the larger society,
and move on. (And indeed, some did.)
Perhaps, however, we have been looking for an answer in the wrong place.
Perhaps it was not the Jews at all who turned in desperation against their
deity. Christians, after all, had just entered history in significant numbers.27
Newly converted Gentile Christians had no original love or loyalty for the
Jewish god, and they already had a vested interest in criticizing the rules
and regulations of Yahweh’s Law, the so-​called yoke of compulsion.28 Early
Christians also paraded their Messiah as the true object of worship, declaring

24
Dio Cassius, Roman History 68.32.3.
25
R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press,
1966), 37. For similar theories, cf. Birger Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity
(Minneapolis, Fortress, 1990), 51; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the
Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 119; Smith, No Longer Jews, 53–​58.
26 E.g., Dan 9:9–​10; 4 Ezra 3:21–​27; 2 Bar 1:2. See further A. Laato and Johannes C. de Moor,

eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Christopher Rowland, “The Parting of
the Ways: The Evidence of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Mystical Material,” in Jews and
Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993), 213–​38 at 236–​37.
27 For (very) rough estimates, see Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders

History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3–​29.

28 E.g., Epistle of Barnabas 2.6 (ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης). See further William Horbury, “Jewish-​Christian

Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr,” in Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians, 315–​46.
 Introduction 9

the Jews to be blind for misinterpreting their own prophecies.29 If any group
could suddenly turn on the Jewish god, it was the Christians, who had al-
ready turned against Yahweh’s people to carve out a space for their own iden-
tity as priests and kings in a new “kingdom of god.”30
Who were, we might ask, the Christians most hostile to the Jews? It was, we
were once told, those Christians who were expelled from the synagogues.31
They were expelled because the Jews pointed out that they worshiped one
god, not a divine Messiah and his reputed Father. One could not confess “the
Lord is one” if one worshiped two distinct beings—​or so the earliest rabbis
thought. Against such reasoning, a group of Christians supposedly identified
the Jews with “the world” and concluded that the world itself was evil because
it had rejected and isolated early Christians.32
Yet here again we run into the same problem we did before: the conception
of a bad world does not necessarily or immediately lead to a bad god-​who-​
made-​the-​world. Besides, a large contingent of Christians simply claimed the
Jewish god for themselves, identifying him with their all-​good and merciful
father. They even appropriated Jewish scriptures, claiming that the Messianic
prophecies were about Jesus and that the lord had in fact chosen them—​not
unbelieving Jews—​before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).
To be sure, the Jewish scriptures themselves could sometimes speak of
other divine beings in the heavens. The book of Exodus speaks of an “Angel
of Yahweh” who bears Yahweh’s name and—​according to later tradition—​
participates in the work of creation. This angel sometimes punishes sin,
but he is never described as evil, nor is it clear why or how such an angel
would ever become evil and be equated with the Jewish deity.33 This logic,

29 2 Cor 3:14; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Tertullian, Against the Jews.
30 See further Judith M. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the
Second Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 261–​76; Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews
and Christians 70–​170 CE (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Pierluigi Lanfranchi and Joseph Verheyden,
ed., Jews and Christians in Antiquity: A Regional Perspective (Leuven: Peeters, 2018).
31 This trajectory of interpretation was initiated by J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology of the

Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 2003), 46–​100. See more recently
Martinus C. De Boer, “Expulsion from the Synagogue: J. L. Martyn’s History and Theology in the
Fourth Gospel Revisited,” New Testament Studies (NTS) 66 (2020): 367–​91.
32 Alan Segal, “Ruler of This World: Attitudes Toward Mediator Figures and the Importance

of Sociology for Self-​definition,” in Jewish and Christian Self-​definition Vol. 2, ed. E. P. Sanders
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 245–​68, esp. 259.
33 Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts

of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 336. Fossum’s
studies (including his “Origin of the Gnostic Concept of the Demiurge,” Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 61 [1985]: 142–​52) employ late Samaritan sources (from the fourth to the fourteenth
century CE) along with speculative interpretations of texts widely scattered in space and time. For
10 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

though argued vigorously, is missing several steps and is often based on late
evidence.34
Nevertheless, paying close attention to scriptural interpretation does, I be-
lieve, set us on the right track. There were, after all, numerous “hard sayings”
and stories in scripture—​texts that seemed like thorns in the eyes of educated
and philosophically informed readers.35 Typical examples come from the
first six chapters of Genesis. Why, for instance, did the Jewish god prohibit
the first humans from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2)? Why
did he not seem to know Adam’s location in the garden of Eden? Why did he
eventually cast Adam and Eve out of Eden (Gen 3)? Why did he later send a
flood to wipe out most of humanity (Gen 6-​8)? And—​beyond the book of
Genesis—​why did Yahweh repeatedly say that he was jealous? Assuming he
was the most powerful being in the universe, whom could he possibly envy?36
These were questions that early Jews and Christians were asking already
in the late first and early second centuries CE. Most Jews and Christians, it
seems, found a way to answer them while preserving the glory and goodness
of the Jewish lord. For other Christians, however, these problematic sayings
and stories produced a cumulative case against the benevolent character of
the creator. As more and more negative stories were told about the creator
based on his own scriptures, the reading of these scriptures helped to culti-
vate a deep-​rooted suspicion that the creator was not benign after all.
Although this hypothesis is hardly new, it has not, to my knowledge,
been the subject of a book length investigation. Naturally, able scholars have
written dozens of essays on individual scriptures that could be taken to sup-
port an evil creator, but these have mostly focused on passages from Jewish
texts.37 In this book, I ultimately grant more weight to distinctly Christian

critique, see Michael Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Category (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1996), 222–​24; Smith, No Longer Jews, 40–​41.
34 See the more detailed history of research in M. David Litwa, “The Curse of the Creator: Gal

3.13 and Negative Demiurgy,” in Telling the Christian Story Differently: Counternarratives from Nag
Hammadi and Beyond, ed. Francis Watson and Sarah Parkhouse (London: Bloomsbury Academic
Press, 2020), 13–​30 at 13–​15.
35 Noted Williams, “Demonizing,” 87–​91.
36 Williams, Rethinking, 265–​ 66. Note also Williams’ comments on Guy Stroumsa, Another
Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden: Brill, 1984), in Rethinking, 221–​23.
37 See, e.g., Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent (New York: Random House, 1988), 55–​77; G. P.

Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Jaan
Lahe, Gnosis und Judentum: Alttestamentliche und jüdische Motive in der gnostischen Literatur und
das Ursprungsproblem der Gnosis (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Ismo Dunderberg, “Gnostic Interpretations
of Genesis,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, ed. Michael Lieb, Emma
Mason, and Jonathan Roberts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 383–​96; Karen King, “A
Distinctive Intertextuality: Genesis and Platonizing Philosophy in the Secret Revelation of John,”
 Introduction 11

scriptures (the “New Testament”), in part because the Christian interpreta-

tion of these texts gives a sense for the hermeneutical frameworks that were
then applied to Jewish scriptures.38

Figures and Sources

Before we dive into the maelstrom of early biblical interpretation, however,

we must inquire about the Christians who used scripture to derive the evil
creator. In many cases, their names have been utterly forgotten. We can rea-
sonably refer to certain Christian conventicles as “Sethians” (aka the Seed
of Seth, the Immovable Generation, the Generation Without a King) in the
sense of a distinct sociological group.39 It is inaccurate, however, to speak
globally of “G/​gnostics” as if this label included every supporter of the evil
creator idea. It did not, for instance, typically include Marcion, a key second-​
century Christian theologian and our focus in Part II.
Here in Part I, I examine the origin of the evil creator idea among other
early Christian groups. In Chapter 1, I refer to people whom Epiphanius of
Salamis (about 315–​403 CE) called “Phibionites” in Egypt.40 I will compare
the views of these Phibionite Christians with the description of the evil world
rulers in the Secret Book of John and the so-​called Ophite diagram. The Secret

in Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honor of John Turner (Leiden: Brill,
2013), 3–​22.
38 See further Gerhard Luttikhuizen, “Sethianer?” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum (ZAC) 13:1

(2009): 76–​86 at 82–​85; Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 17–​28; Michael Waldstein, “The Primal
Triad in the Apocryphon of John,” in The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years, ed. John D. Turner
and Anne McGuire (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 154–​87 at 174–​75; Alistair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and
Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 182–​83, 283,
and in general Christoph Markschies’s attempt to reintegrate Gnosis into second-​century ecclesias-
tical history (Gnosis und Christentum [Berlin: Berlin University Press, 2009], 34–​82).
39 I agree with David Brakke that we can speak etically of a “Gnostic” school of thought roughly

equivalent to what other scholars designate by the term “Sethian” (The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and
Diversity in Early Christianity [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010]). But the concep-
tion of the evil creator was not limited to this particular school, and the writings of this group do not
clearly reveal how its theologians arrived at this conception.
40 Epiphanius, Panarion 25.2.1; 26.3.7; cf. 26.4.6. Epiphanius himself testified that he had met these

people between about 330 and 335 CE (Panarion 26.17.4, 8). Van den Broek considers Epiphanius’s
Phibionites to be an “offshoot” of the “Gnostics” who adhered to the system described by Irenaeus
(AH 1.29) and the Secret Book of John (“Borborites,” in DGWE (Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism), ed. Wouter Hanegraaff [Leiden: Brill, 2006], 196). Hans Martin Schenke grouped
Epiphanius’s “Phibionites” and “Archontics” into his Sethian category (“The Phenomenon and
Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in Rediscovery of Gnosticism, ed. Benton Layton (Leiden: Brill,
1981), Vol. 2, 588–​616 at 589. See also Williams, Rethinking, 179–​84.
12 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

Book is widely held to be the classic work of the Sethian school of Christian
thought.41 The “Ophite diagram” was named after a group that heresiologists
called “Ophite” (“Serpentine”). We do not know how the latter group labeled
itself, although “Christian” seems a fair guess since Celsus, a Platonist writing
about 178 CE, assumed their Christian identity.42
In Chapter 2, we encounter other types of Christians labeled “Peratic,”
“Archontic,” “Severian,” and “Manichean.” Once again, it would be a mistake
to clump together these systems under one global category, “gnostic,” since
none of them belonged to a single school of thought or shared a coherent
spirituality.43 What united them in this case were certain hermeneutical
strategies for interpreting John 8:44. They all agreed, as it turned out, that
John 8:44 spoke of “the father of the devil,” a being whom they identified with
the putatively wicked god of the Jews. 44

Method

In large part, this is a work of reception history—​more specifically the history

of interpretation. I define the latter as the study of the activated meanings of
a text in a given historical context.45 The historical focus of this book is the
period between the mid–​second and the late fourth century CE. Accordingly,
I do not aim to uncover the earliest (“original”) meanings of biblical texts.
Rather, I attempt to recover what they meant at a particular time frame to the
particular Christian interpreters studied here.

41 Brakke, Gnostics, 36–​37, 54–​70. The label “Classic Gnostic” is proposed by Rasimus, (Paradise,

5) to signify the fusion of Sethite, Ophite, and Barbeloite mythology so tightly interwoven in the
Secret Book.
42 Origen, Against Celsus (Cels). 6.24. For Ophite mythology, see Rasimus, Paradise, 41–​64,

283–​94.
43 Roelof van den Broek, “Archontics,” in DGWE 89–​91 at 90; Brakke, Gnostics, 45, 51. See further

Michael A. Williams, “Sethianism,” in A Companion to Second-​Century Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antti

Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 32–​63.
44 Chapters 3–​7 of this work will be summarized in the Introduction to Part II.
45 For reception history, see further Emma England and William John Lyons, eds., Reception

History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 45–​46; Robert Evans,
Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in Current Practice
(London: Bloomsbury, 2014); David Paul Parris, Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics
(Eugene: Pickwick, 2008). On the reception history of Paul, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul, the
Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010);
Benjamin L. White, Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the Apostle
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Jennifer R. Strawbridge, The Pauline Effect: The Use of the
Pauline Epistles by Early Christian Writers (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015).
 Introduction 13

As a scholar, I acknowledge that I have my own interpretive horizon,

best disclosed, perhaps, through a discussion of hermeneutical presupposi-
tions. I assume, first of all, that there is no “plain” reading of biblical texts,
but simply readings that make sense in certain cultural environments to
certain persons or groups for certain reasons.46 No text is hermeneutically
determined. There is a hermeneutical fullness—​caused in part by semantic
gaps—​in biblical texts that allow searching minds to fill in the blanks and
make inferences. In new contexts, interpreters ask different questions and
bring out distinctive facets of a text not readily visible to those in different
times and intellectual traditions.47
I presuppose, furthermore, that interpretation is always selective and lim-
ited by the horizon of the interpreter (whether ancient or modern). As a re-
sult, reception history is always our reception of an earlier reception. We are
the ones who imagine and reconstruct the earlier interpretive horizon that is
to some degree fused with our own.48
It used to be thought that so-​called gnostic exegesis was an intentionally
perverse kind of “protest exegesis.” This view has been thoroughly criticized
and is no longer tenable, at least as a generalization.49 When the earliest
Christian interpreters read John 8:44, for instance, it was not to counter a
standard or “normative” reading of the verse, since such a reading had not
yet emerged.
The greatest benefit of reception history for this study is that it allows a
clearing of the table—​a suspension (though obviously not a complete liqui-
dation) of our value judgments in the interest of reading and hearing bib-
lical texts as they were interpreted in antiquity. This suspension is especially
needed when dealing with a theologically charged topic like the evil cre-
ator. Traditional (“orthodox”) readings of Christian scripture have in effect
made the evil creator an impossible idea—​or if possible, then blasphemous
and dangerous. To the best of our ability, we must bracket these traditional
readings to endeavor to understand interpretations from a fundamentally
different—​though still Christian—​preunderstanding. It is pointless to defend

46 See, e.g., Stanley Fish, “With the Compliments of the Author: Reflections on Austin and

Derrida,” in Doing What Comes Naturally (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989), 37–​67.
47 See further David W. Jorgensen, Treasure in a Field: Early Christian Reception of the Gospel of

Matthew (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 20–​30; Benjamin A. Edsall, The Reception of Paul and Early
Christian Initiation: History and Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 253.
48 Hans-​Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 2003), 278–​388.
49 See esp. Williams, Rethinking, 54–​79; Jorgensen, Treasure, 266–​77; Austin Busch, “Characterizing

Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation,” ZAC 21:2 (2017): 243–​71; Busch, “Gnostic Biblical and Second
Sophistic Homeric Interpretation,” ZAC 22:2 (2018): 195–​217.
14 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

readings that construct an evil creator. At the same time, it is historically im-
portant charitably to understand them, in part because—​as I point out in the
Conclusion—​analogous readings have resurfaced in the modern world.
In our quest for understanding, however, I must offer the following caveat.
The early Christian interpreters discussed in this book were no friends of
the Jewish deity and were likely no friends of the Jewish people either. Some
of them were staunch critics of Jewish scriptures, at least insofar as these
scriptures portrayed the creator as the true deity. A great deal of what these
Christians wrote might seem (sometimes crassly) anti-​Jewish in modern
ears. As historians, we owe it to the ancients to understand them on their
own terms and faithfully to report their words, their logic, and their infer-
ences. It should go without saying, however, that I myself do not support or
condone any interpretation that might lead to anti-​Judaism in any form at
any time for any reason. This point should be obvious, yet the terrible forces
of racism that still lurk in our world compel the clearest of speech. In investi-
gating the nature and sources of evil, we must never succumb to it.
 1
The Donkey Deity

Snout: O Bottom, thou art changed! What do I see on thee?

Bottom: What do you see? You see an asshead of your own, do you?
—​Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 3.115–​18

Introduction

There was an ancient story recorded in two gospels that Jewish leaders mur-
dered a righteous man called Zechariah between the inner shrine of the
temple in Jerusalem and the bronze altar of its outer court (Matt 23:35; Luke
11:51). Although the tradition is mentioned as if well known, the circum-
stances of the murder and its motives went unstated. Indeed, even the iden-
tity of this “Zechariah son of Berachiah,” as recorded in Matthew, remains
unclear.1
By the early second century CE, Christians identified Zechariah with
the father of John the Baptist, who—​according to the gospel called Luke—​
briefly served as the Jewish high priest. When this Zechariah was wafting
incense in the Holy of Holies, his priestly service was delayed by the sudden
apparition of the angel Gabriel. Gabriel prophesied the birth of Zechariah’s
son. Yet when Zechariah asked a seemingly innocent question (“How will
I know this?”), the angel’s wrath flared; he numbed Zechariah’s tongue
for the next nine months. Accordingly, when the priest emerged from the
temple doors, he could not explain the wonders he saw except by signals of
his hands (Luke 1:5–​25).
In this episode, however, Zechariah was not murdered—​nor was there
cause. Such a cause was later invented, however, and appeared in the account
called the Birth of Mary (aka the Protoevangelium of James, mid–​second

1 See further Jean-​Daniel Dubois, “La mort de Zacharie: mémoire juive et mémoire chrétienne,”

Revue des Études Augustiniennes 40 (1994): 23–​38, with earlier sources on 31–​32.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0002
16 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

century CE).2 The launch point of this tale was Matthew’s story of the infants
in Bethlehem slaughtered by king Herod (2:1–​18). In the Protoevangelium,
Herod further sent representatives to the priest Zechariah demanding the
whereabouts of his son John—​a presumed royal pretender. Zechariah pled
ignorance, a tactic that inspired an enraged Herod to dispatch soldiers to
slaughter Zechariah. This unholy rite the soldiers performed in the very fore-
court of the temple. Eerily, however, Zechariah’s body vanished and his blood
congealed into stone—​a permanent witness to murder licking the base of the
temple altar.3
Yet this spicier tale still proved unsatisfactory since it did not explain why
Jesus said that “you”—​Judean people, not Herod’s soldiers—​“murdered
Zechariah” (Matt 23:35). Accordingly, in another text called The Birth (or
Offspring) of Mary, we find a competing narrative that in some ways is closer
to what we find in Luke, though in other ways distant.4
As in Luke, Zechariah entered the temple, beheld a vision, and was made
dumb. As he was releasing a cloud of incense from his censor, he beheld, to
his surprise, a person standing in the Holy of Holies. This mysterious being
lurking in the smoke was no Gabriel, however, but a being with the face or
form of a donkey (onou morphēn). This was the creature who silently—​and
secretly—​received the devoted worship of the Jewish people.
The stunned Zechariah stormed out of the temple intending to shout to
the bystanders: “Woe to you! Whom are you worshiping?!” He would have
done so, had not the ass deity—​much like Gabriel—​stopped up his mouth.
But the powers of the donkey god were evidently frail, because Zechariah
managed to soften his stony tongue and relate to the Jews the horror he be-
held inside.5

2 Émile de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques (Brussels: Bollandist

Society, 1961), 211–​12.

3 Protoevangelium 23. Origen reported that Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, defended Mary

the mother of Jesus’s right to pray in the place of virgins and was killed by “the men of that generation”
(Series Commentary on Matthew 25, translated by Ronald E. Heine, The Commentary of Origen on the
Gospel of Matthew 2 vols [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018], 2.575–​76).
4 The title of the work is Γέννα Μαρίας. Liddell-​S cott-​Jones, Greek-​ English Lexicon (LSJ),
lists under the headword γέννα: “descent, birth, origin” (I), but also “offspring, son, creation,
family” (II).
5 Zechariah’s intended proclamation puts him into the mold of a prophet and in particular the

mold of the prophet Zechariah killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20–​22. Before his death, this Zechariah
claimed that the Jewish people had abandoned Yahweh, so Yahweh abandoned them.
 The Donkey Deity 17

The people were aghast—​not (or not only) to learn of the perverse shape of
their deity—​but that Zechariah the high priest would say things so disturbing
as to strike at the root of their religious worship. And so—​as if Zechariah
himself were some sacrificial bull or goat—​they cut him down then and there
at the foot of the temple altar.6
This story from the Birth of Mary was used by a Christian sect that
Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, called “Phibionite.”7 These Epiphanian
Phibionites lived somewhere in Egypt around the year 335 CE. The pre-
history of this group, however—​along with the composition of the Birth
of Mary—​is masked in shadows.8 Previous scholars have proposed a mid–​
second century date for what became the Phibionite Birth of Mary, slightly
before the Protoevangelium of James.9
Yet the Phibionite Birth of Mary depends upon a much older Egyptian tra-
dition, one that depicted the Jewish deity as a donkey god (or rather, donkey
demon). In this chapter, I trace the roots of this tradition before judging its
significance for the early Christian notion of the evil creator. My proposal
is that whoever wrote and used the Phibionite Birth of Mary came to accept
Egyptian revisionary lore polemically aimed at the Jews. The writers main-
tained, in short, that the Jewish deity was a form of the Egyptian god Seth.
Long before Christianity was born, Seth’s wicked character and donkey-​
shaped appearance had been transferred to the god of the Jews such that it

6 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.11.12–​26.12.4.

7 Epiphanius, Panarion 25.2.1; 26.3.7. For their background, see Stephen Benko, “The
Libertine Sect of the Phibionites according to Epiphanius, Vigiliae Christianae (VC) 21:2 (1967):
103–​19; Michel Tardieu, “Épiphane contre les Gnostiques,” Tel Quel 88 (1981): 64–​91, esp. 88;
Williams, Rethinking, 179–​84; Birger Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2007), 54–​59; Christoph Markschies, “Die Geburt Mariens,” in Antike christlichen Apokryphen
in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Jens Schröter and Christoph Markschies (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012) I/1, 416–​19.
8 Epiphanius implied that his “Phibionites” forged the Birth of Mary (Panarion 26.11.12), but he

cannot be taken as reliable. Stephen Gero, believing Epiphanius too much, traces these “Phibionites”
back to second-​century Nicolaitans (“With Walter Bauer on the Tigris: Encratite Orthodoxy and
Libertine Heresy in Syro-​Mesopotamian Christianity,” in Nag Hammadi Gnosticism and Early
Christianity, eds. C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986], 287–​307, at 304).
See further van den Broek, “Borborites,” in DGWE, 194–​96.
9 A. Berendts, Studien über Zacharias-​ Apokryphen und Zacharias-​ Legenden (Leipzig:
Deichert’sche, 1895), 36–​37; Jean-​Daniel Dubois, “Hypothèse sur l’origine de l’apocryphe Genna
Marias,” Augustinianum 23 (1983): 263–​70; Enrico Norelli, Marie des apocryphes: Enquête de la
mère de Jésus dans le christianisme antique (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2009), 91–​92.
18 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

was possible for early Gentile Christians in Egypt immediately to associate

him with chaos and evil.10

The Egyptian Seth

Since the time of the Assyrian occupation of Egypt (670 BCE), Egyptians rec-
ognized their native god Seth as a source of evils and misfortunes. He was
god of violent storms and unforgiving desert sands. He protected nomads,
watched over foreign countries, and provided for resident aliens in Egypt.11
Even before the Persians assaulted the land of the Nile, Seth was identified
with the Phoenician storm god Baal—​the theological cousin, so to speak, of
Yahweh in Judea.12
Important for our purposes, Seth was frequently described as having the
form or skin of a donkey.13 From ancient times, he appeared in Egyptian
art as a human figure with the head (or mask) of a creature showing long,
cropped ears and a drooping snout.14 The Greeks, at least, identified this
creature with a donkey, and the donkey was portrayed—​along with the pig—​
as Seth’s sacred animal (see Figure 1.1).15

10 See further Wolfgang Fauth, “Seth-​ Typhon, Onoel und der eselköpfige Sabaoth: Zur
Theriomorphie der ophitsichen-​barbelognostischen Archonten,” Oriens Christianus 57 (1973):
79–​120.
11 H. Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 91–​94, 118, 128, 139–​40, 145–​46, 148–​

49; Birger Pearson, “Egyptian Seth and Gnostic Seth,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar
Papers, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (Missoula: SBL, 1977), 25–​43 at 25–​30; K. van der Toorn, “Seth” in
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and
Pieter W. Van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 748–​49; J. W. van Henten, “Typhon” in ibid., 879–​
81; Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New
Haven: Nota Bene, 2000), 17–​21; Jan Assmann, Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of
Monotheism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2008), 28–​52.
12 Te Velde, Seth, 109, 119–​20, 124–​29.
13 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 362f–​363b.
14 The exact nature of the creature is still disputed. See Te Velde, Seth, 7–​26; Bezalel Bar-​Kochva,

The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 236, n.99.
For images, see Richard Wünsch, Sethianische Verfluchungtafeln aus Rom (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898),
16, 40; A. Procopé-​Walter, “Iao und Set (Zu den figurae magicae in den Zauberpapyri),” Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft 30 (1933): 34–​69 at 49, 60; Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in
Translation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 169; G. Michailides, “Papyrus con-
tenant un dessin du dieu Seth à tête d’âne,” Aegyptus 32:1 (1952): 45–​53.
15 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 362f; 363c; 371c. See further J. Gwynn Griffiths, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride

(Cardiff: University of Wales, 1970), 409–​10, 418; Te Velde, Seth, 3–​26; Bar-​Kochva, Image, 245.
Seth-​Typhon is symbol of superstitious fear and hatred (Ps.-​Plutarch, Banquet of Seven Sages 150f;
Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11.6). Practitioners of spells, when they referred to the “blood of Typhon,”
referred to donkey blood (Greek Magical Papyri [PGM] 4.3260).
 The Donkey Deity 19

Figure 1.1. The Seth animal. Reproduced by permission from Hans Dieter
Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic Spells,
2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 169.

Interpretatio Graeca

Since the fifth century BCE (and probably earlier), there was a Greek cultural
practice of identifying foreign gods now dubbed interpretatio Graeca.16 In
short, Greeks would identify two different gods from two different cultures
based on shared traits. For instance, the Egyptian god Thoth was identified
with the Greek Hermes because both were considered clever;17 Hathor was
fused with Aphrodite because both were goddesses of love; Horus morphed
with Apollo since both shared solar characteristics, and so on.

16 See Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-​Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 5–​9, 243–​83; Clifford Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and
the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 43–​58; Alexandra von Lieven,
“Translating Gods, Interpreting Gods,” in Greco-​ Egyptian Interactions: Literature, Translation,
and Culture 500 BC–​AD 300, ed. Ian Rutherford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 61–​83;
Océane Henri, “A General Approach to interpretatio Graeca in the Light of Papyrological Evidence,”
in Platonismus und spätägyptische Religion: Plutarch und die Ägyptenrezeption in der römischen
Kaiserzeit, ed. Michael Erler and Martin Andreas Stadler (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 43–​54. See also
Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1997), 50–​54.
17 See further M. David Litwa, Hermetica II: The Excerpts of Stobaeus, Papyrus Fragments, and

Ancient Testimonies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 2–​9.

20 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

When it came to Seth, the Greeks had long identified him with Typhon,
lord of chaos.18 Typhon was more of a monster than a god. The archaic
poet Hesiod had described him as a hundred-​headed dragon with sparks
shooting from his eyes, roaring surreally.19 Another Greek poet described
him as “enemy of gods.”20 Yet another said that he withstood all the gods,
furiously hissing terror with his horrid jaws.21 Typhon, an unstoppable blitz-
krieg, was known for boasting loudly against the great gods, and for a time he
even overcame their king, Zeus, by stealing his sinews.22
Analogously, Seth buried alive the king god Osiris and later hacked up his
body in order to taste the sweetness of a fleeting rule.23 Even though both Seth
and Typhon were reconquered, they continued to wreak havoc by sending pow-
erful storms. Thus it was logical for Greeks to identify Seth with Typhon, and in
scholarly literature his name regularly appears in hybrid form as “Seth-​Typhon.”
Hellenized Egyptians capitalized on this cultural practice of translation
by viewing the Jewish god Yahweh as a form of Seth. In this case, however,
malice seems to have been the chief motive, and the translational practice
was part of a larger program of mythmaking. Put briefly, Yahweh became
Seth for Egyptians when they revised their historical memory to oppose the
perceived political and cultural threat posed by Jewish lore in Egypt.

Exodus Lore

The Jewish story of the Exodus was translated into Greek (third century BCE)
and retold in iambic trimeter by Ezekiel the Tragedian (probably second cen-
tury BCE).24 The case of Ezekiel is important because he adapted the story for
the stage. Theater was enjoyed, not just by Jews, but by Egyptians, Greeks, and

18 The identification is already made by Herodotus, Histories 2.144, 156, and apparently by

Pherecydes according to Celsus in Origen, Cels. 6.42.

19 Hesiod, Theogony, 820–​80.
20 Pindar, Pythian Odes 1.15.
21 [Aeschylus], Prometheus Bound, 353–​63; cf. Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, 493–​4.
22 Pseudo-​Apollodorus, Library 1.6.3 with Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary

and Artistic Sources, 2 vols. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 1.48–​51.
23 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 356b–​359d; Diodorus, Library of History 1.21.
24 R. G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (OTP), ed. James

H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2.803–​20. Greek text in Carl Holladay, Fragments
from Hellenistic Jewish Authors II: Poets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 376–​78. See further John
M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–​117 CE)
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 35–​47, 132–​38; Tim Whitmarsh, “Politics and Identity in Ezekiel’s
Exagoge,” in Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2013), 211–​27.
 The Donkey Deity 21

by the many peoples of mixed cultural heritage in Egypt. If Ezekiel’s play was
staged (as its form indicates25), it was probably presented to a wide audience.26
The biblical Exodus spoke of the Hebrews as an innocent people, about
seventy strong, invited to stay in Egypt to escape starvation but later betrayed
and oppressed by a hostile Pharaoh. As a ploy to stave off the Israelite pop-
ulation explosion, Pharaoh ordered the slaughter of Israel’s male infants by
having them tossed, helpless, into the Nile (Exod 1–​4).
After 400 years, the Jewish deity responded by unleashing ten horrific
plagues against Egypt—​epidemics that decimated the countryside, Egypt’s
sacred river, and its youth. In the words of the Wisdom of Solomon (first
century BCE or CE), the Egyptians were “whipped by foreign showers of rain
and hail, pursued by relentless storms, and utterly torched by fire” (16:16).
Finally broken by the tenth plague—​which destroyed his own son—​Pharaoh
agreed to release the Hebrews, who burst forth from Egypt wearing the gold
and silver bangles of the Egyptians (Exod 11:2; 12:35–​36). Their final triumph
was enacted at the Red Sea where Yahweh opened a dry channel for his people’s
safe crossing but let the waters come crashing down on Pharaoh’s army.
When, toward the beginning of the third century BCE, the Jews became
established in Egypt, native Egyptians and Greeks became increasingly aware
of the god of Exodus and his plagues. In the fragments of Ezekiel’s play, this
deity speaks to Moses:

By this wand all these evils you shall create:

The river [Nile] shall run with blood in spate
Along with all the springs, pools, and bogs.
I’ll cast on the ground teeming lice and frogs;

25 Robertson notes that the “possibility that the play was intended for the stage is enhanced by the

evidence which indicates that Ezekiel transformed certain material from the Exodus account which
would have been virtually impossible to present upon the stage. The plagues, for example, have been
completely relegated to a speech delivered by God to Moses” (OTP 2.806).
26 Howard Jacobson, “The Exagoge was written for non-​ Jews as well as Jews” (The Exagoge of
Ezekiel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983], 8). Jacobson thought that there was al-
ready “present an element of polemic against anti-​Semitic Exodus-​traditions. Further, Ezekiel leaves
out material from the Biblical narrative that would be offensive to non-​Jews or that would put the
Jews in a bad light” (ibid., 18). A similar point is made by Holladay, Fragments II 303: “Ezekiel’s con-
cern [was] to commend the Jewish faith to a Greek audience” (311, emphasis his). Likewise K. B.
Free, “Thespis and Moses: The Jews and the Ancient Greek Theater,” in Theatre and Holy Script, ed.
Shimon Levy (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999), 149–​58 at 153; Allen, “Ezekiel the Tragedian
and the Despoliation of Egypt,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17:1 (2007): 3–​19, at
9. For opposing views, see Erich Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 136; Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le
Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 157–​64.
22 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

Then sprinkle ashes from the oven

So ulcerous sores burst upon men.
Next, dog-​flies shall come and prick
The hides of Egyptians fast and thick.
They of hardened heart shall expire
When I from heaven send hail and fire
When mortal corpses rot and burn;
Against their crops and cattle I’ll turn
Darkness I’ll create for three days successive,
Then locusts, fearsome and aggressive
Will chew up every green shoot grown wild.
To top it all, I’ll kill everybody’s firstborn child.27

Egyptian priests, including famous historians like Manetho and Chaeremon,

would have been horrified by the Exodus myth’s rhetorical violence wielded
against Egypt, its people, and its gods.28 The Egyptian gods were depicted as
powerless to defend themselves against the relentless attacks of a foreign deity,
a being who showed open favoritism to his own people while unleashing the
equivalent of biological warfare against the Egyptian populace.29
Beginning in the first century BCE, Hellenized Egyptian literati punched
back to refute and reverse elements of the Exodus story using the resources of
their own millennia-​long cultural memory. In their retellings, the Egyptians
were not plagued; it was the Hebrews who were afflicted with leprosy and
boils.30 Instead of the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea, it was the Hebrews
drowned in lakes on leaden rafts. Instead of the Hebrews bursting out of
Egypt weighted with gold, they were disgorged into the desert—​the realm of

27 Ezekiel, Exagoge, 1.132–​47.

28 For Manetho, see John Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2018). Manetho in the third century BCE did not depend on Septuagintal traditions
(Gruen, Heritage 62–​68; Russell E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic
Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch [London: Bloomsbury, 2006], 187; Jan Assmann, Moses the
Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1997], 23–​44). Nevertheless, the reworking of Manetho’s history and its reception by Josephus and
Theophilus (Autolycus 3.21) show that later readers used Manetho’s account to support anti-​Jewish atti-
tudes and policies. On Chaeremon, see Pieter W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic
Philosopher (Leiden: Brill, 1983), esp. 9, 50–​51. Chaeremon evidently derived the names “Moses” and
“Joseph” from Genesis and Exodus. He possibly obtained the name “Ramesses” from Exodus 12:37, and
his total number for the forces against Egypt (630,000) is close to the 600,000 men in Exodus 12:37.
29 Josephus’s comment may be significant here: “At Alexandria there had been constant strife

(ἀεὶ . . . στάσις) between the natives and the Jewish element ever since Alexander [the Great, died 323
BCE]” (Jewish War 2.487).
30 Josephus, Against Apion 2.21–​24.
 The Donkey Deity 23

Seth—​and left there to wander with nothing.31 The flight of a liberated people
was retooled as an expulsion of a diseased and doomed tribe.32

Seth-​Yahweh

Our focus, however, is on the Egyptian depiction of the Jewish deity. From the
Greco-​Egyptian perspective, Yahweh and Seth shared several traits: they were
both gods of foreigners, of the desert, and of frightening storms. They both sent
calamities. Indeed, Egyptians could not help but notice that some of the plagues
unleashed by Yahweh resembled disasters customarily inflicted by Seth: dark-
ness, eclipse, and pestilence.33 Red was the distinctive hue of Seth,34 and Yahweh
turned the Nile crimson before ordering the Hebrews to paint their lintels with
blood.35 Mount Sinai, the desert crag from which Yahweh revealed his Law,
quaked as it was enveloped in thunder, lightning, and fire—​all phenomena
associated with Seth.36 Finally, the Greek word for Yahweh (Iaō)—​with a per-
verse twist of the tongue—​sounded like the native Egyptian word for donkey
(eiō or simply iō).37 These factors, even if judged artificial today, were more than
enough for Hellenized Egyptians to portray Yahweh as a form of Seth.38

31 The last three sentences represent the account of the Alexandrian writer Lysimachus, whose work on

the history of Egypt Bar-​Kochva (Image 336) dates from 110 to 100 BCE. Its contents are partially trans-
mitted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.305–​11, with translation and discussion in Menahem Stern, Greek
and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
1974), 1.382–​88. See further John G. Gager, Moses in Greco-​Roman Paganism (Nashville: Abingdon,
1972), 113–​33; C. Aziza, “L’utilisation polémique du récit de l’Exode chez les écrivains alexandrins (IV
siècle av. J.-​C.-​1 siècle ap. J.C.,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW), ed. Wolfgang Haase,
II.20.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 41–​65, esp. 46–​61; Schäfer, Judeophobia 15–​33.
32 On the cultural logic of this anti-​ Jewish mythmaking, see John M. G. Barclay, “Hostility to
Jews as a Cultural Construct: Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Early Christian Paradigms,” in Josephus
und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 365–​86, esp. 370–​75.
33 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 368f; 369a; 373d; cf. Exod 9:15–​35; 10:21–​23; 11:4–​6.
34 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 359e; 362e; 363b; 364b; Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History 1.88.4.
35 Exod 12:7, 13, 22–​23.
36 Plutarch Isis-​Osiris 373d; 364a; 366d; 376f; cf. Exod 19:16–​18; PGM 4.180–​96.
37 W. E. Crum includes ⲓⲁⲱ as a variant spelling for ⲉⲓⲱ (A Coptic Dictionary [Oxford:

Clarendon, 1939], 75). Adolf Jacoby speculated that the Hebrew Yahu (a form of Yahweh) was morphed
with the Coptic ⲉⲓⲁ ϩⲟ or “donkey head” (“Der angebliche Eselskult der Juden und Christen,” Archiv
für Religionswissenschaft 25 [1927]: 265–​82 at 273); Griffiths (De Iside, 409) notes that the spelling of
the donkey noise was sometimes written iao. See also Stern, Authors, 1.98; Assmann, Moses, 37. For a
different opinion, see Bar-​Kochva, Image, 244. On Greek and Roman knowledge of the name “Iao,” see
Diodorus, Library of History 1.94.1–​2; Varro in Augustine, Agreement of the Gospels 1.27.42.
38 It may also be significant that Yahweh, perhaps identical to the “angel of Yahweh,” chose a donkey

to speak for him in the story of Balaam’s ass (Num 22:22–​35). Other talking donkeys akin to this one
appear in early Christian literature, for instance, in the Acts of Thomas 39–​41, 68–​80. See further
Janet E. Spittler, Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: The Wild Kingdom of Early Christian
24 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

There was an additional motivation. For centuries, Jews had scorned

the religion of Egypt as the worship of dumb beasts.39 One way for learned
Egyptians to fight back was to depict the Jewish deity as himself the most
vile and ridiculous beast.40 If Yahweh was a form of Seth, then he could be
portrayed in Seth’s ass-​like shape. Thus there arose the tradition that the Jews
(secretly) worshiped Yahweh as a donkey or as a man standing upright with
an ass’s head.41

The Ass God

We see this tradition recounted by several writers. Around 200 BCE, a man
called Mnaseas (an Alexandrian originally from what is now southern
Turkey), told a story of an Idumean (southern Palestinian) who entered
the Judean temple and tore off the golden head of a pack ass from the inner
sanctuary.42 This head was evidently attached to a body, whether human or

Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 199–​223. Already in the third century BCE translation
of the Pentateuch, Jewish translators avoided the word “donkey” when connected with Moses, as in
Exod 4:20; Num 16:15 (LXX). The avoidance is noted in b. Megillah 9b.
39 Rom 1:23–​28; Wisd 11:15; 12.24, 27; 13:14; 15:18–​19; Letter of Aristeas 135; Philo, Decalogue

76–​80; Contemplative Life 8–​10; Embassy 139, 163; Josephus, Against Apion 1.225, 254; 2.66, 81, 86,
128–​29, 139. See further K. A. D. Smelik and E. A. Hemelrijk, “‘Who Knows Not What Monsters
Demented Egypt Worships?’ Opinions on Egyptian Animal Worship in Antiquity as Part of the
Ancient Conception of Egypt,” ANRW, ed. Haase, II.17.4, 1920–​1981 at 1910–​19. According to Erik
Hornung, ancient Egyptians viewed animals not as gods but as dwelling places, vehicles, and living
images of the gods (Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines
[Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1982], 137–​38). Ingvild Saelid Gilhus speaks of Egyptian animals
sharing the divine essence of the gods (Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in
Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Ideas [London: Routledge, 2006], 100).
40 Plutarch observes that the donkey is the stupidest of tame animals (Isis-​Osiris 371c).
41 For what follows, see John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion: Translation and Commentary

(Leiden: Brill, 2007), 350–​52; Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and
Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 499–​501,
n.12; Schäfer, Judeophobia 55–​62; Jan Willem van Henten and Ra’anan Abusch, “The Depiction of
the Jews as Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra
Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek,
ed. Louis H. Feldman and John R. Levison (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 271–​309 at 284–​88; Gmirkin, Berossus,
277–​96; Gilhus, Animals, 231–​34; Philippe Borgeaud, “Quelques remarques sur Typhon, Seth, Moïse
et son âne, dans la perspective d’un dialogue reactive transcultural,” in Interprétations de Moïse: Égypte,
Judée, Grèce et Rome, ed. Borgeaud et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 173–​85; Bar-​Kochva, Image, 206–​516.
42 Josephus, Against Apion 2.112–​14 = §28 in Stern, Authors, 99–​100 (in the Greek text ἀκανθῶνος

has been emended to κάνθωνος to agree with the Latin asini). For commentary, see Barclay, Apion,
228–​29. Mnaseas had an Egyptian connection as a pupil of Eratosthenes, who thrived in the late
third century BCE (Suda s.v. “Eratosthenes”). Probably Mnaseas told the story in his Periplus, a work
that Bar-​Kochva claims had wide circulation (Image, 206–​31 at 207). See also P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic
Alexandria, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1.524–​25, 781–​82; Pietro Cappelletto, I Frammenti di
Mnasea: Introduzione testo e commento (Milan: LED, 2003), 14–​39, 89–​90, 266–​71.
 The Donkey Deity 25

donkey. The reader would have understood that the Jews (secretly) wor-
shiped Yahweh as a donkey in the Jerusalem temple, since gold was char-
acteristically used for cult statues of gods.43 Egyptians knew only one other
deity in ass-​like form: Seth. We presume that Mnaseas adapted this story
from someone, if not ethnically Egyptian, then at least embedded in Egyptian
culture—​which would include Mnaseas himself.44
Over a hundred years later, two respected scholars teaching on the island of
Rhodes—​the rhetor Apollonius Molon and the philosopher Posidonius (both
flourishing from 100 to 70 BCE)—​passed on a tradition that the Jews vener-
ated their deity in the form of a golden donkey head.45 According to their ver-
sions (whose differences we cannot precisely discern), it was the Macedonian
king—​archenemy of the Jews—​Antiochus IV Epiphanes who discovered the
donkey head when he ransacked the Jewish temple around 167 BCE.46 This
tradition was recalled—​or perhaps invented—​when Antiochus’s later suc-
cessor (called Sidetes) was also poised to take over Jerusalem around 134 BCE.
Variants of this story fusing the form of Seth and Yahweh spread like a
cancer. Probably in the first century BCE or CE, a man called Damocritus
wrote a treatise On the Jews, in which he stated that the Jews worshiped the
golden head of an ass.47 In the 90s CE, Josephus the Jewish historian opened
rhetorical fire against these traditions when they were recycled and adapted
by his archenemy Apion (flourished 20–​45 CE). Despite the efforts of
Josephus, the tradition continued to be repeated by educated elites, including
the eminent Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote (early in the second cen-
tury CE) that the Jews dedicated in their holiest shrine a statue of a wild ass.48

43 The story assumes that by stealing the god, the Idumean deprived the Jews of their power to fight

a war (cf. 1 Sam 5:2). Here I oppose Bar-​Kochva (Image, 237), who leans toward the view that for
Mnaseas the donkey head/​statue was a mere votive offering.
44 Stern, Authors, 1.97–​98; Bar-​Kochva, Image, 224; cf. 217.
45 The fragments of Apollonius Molon relating to the Jews are gathered by Stern, Authors, 1.148–​

56. See further Bar-​Kochva, Image, 469–​516, with earlier sources cited on 470, n.4. Bar-​Kochva has a
lengthy discussion of Posidonius (Image, 338–​457, esp. 443–​57). In part because he sees Posidonius
as the source for Diodorus, Bar-​Kochva concludes that Apion falsely named Posidonius as his refer-
ence for the ass-​head story (443). Contrast Stern, Authors, 1.141–​47; Barclay, Apion, 350–​52.
46 Apion passed on the report of Molon and Posidonius according to Josephus, Against Apion 2.80.

See Barclay, Apion, 350–​52. Compare the tradition in Diodorus, Library of History 34/​35.1.1–​5. In
this passage, Epiphanes finds a stone statue of Moses riding a donkey. But here the Jewish deity is not
in focus.
47 Suda s.v. “Damocritus” in Ada Adler, Suidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1931), 2.5, n.49.

See further Stern, Authors, 1.531.

48 Tacitus, Histories 5.4.2, with Stern, Authors, 2.2–​25. Tacitus referred to his story of a pack of wild

asses guiding Moses to water in the desert, allowing him to assuage the thirst of the dying Israelites
(Histories 5.3.2). This is also a tradition known from Plutarch, Table Talk 4.5.2 (670d). See further
Heinz Heinen, “Ägyptische Grundlagen des antiken Antijudaismus: Zum Judenexkurs des Tacitus,
26 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

We gather that the tradition of the Jews (secretly) worshiping their god in
donkey form was widely known by the early second century CE. Whoever
originally invented the tales of the statue(s) was probably a person of
Egyptian cultural heritage attempting to depict Yahweh as a form of Seth.49
But the image had gone viral and could be learned in Syria, Rhodes, Greece,
Egypt, Rome—​and evidently the places in between.
Thinking of Yahweh as donkey shaped was perverse because educated
Greeks and Romans knew that the Jews claimed to use no pictures or statues
to represent their deity.50 But claiming that the Jews were in fact hypocrites
in this regard was part of the polemical twisting of the knife. The donkey-​god
tradition also “explained” why Jews were so selective about who entered their
temple—​they were ashamed of the shape of their deity.
Apart from broader knowledge of the Sethianization of Yahweh, it was
unclear why Jews would have worshiped an ass god. But the same writers
(like Apion and Tacitus) who told the donkey god stories also knew the re-
visionary Exodus stories (Jews as lepers expelled from Egypt). Even if some
writers did not fully grasp the context of the Seth–​Yahweh fusion, they had
enough information to link the two deities, as is shown by the Greek poly-
math Plutarch.
In his treatise On Isis and Osiris (composed 100–​120 CE), Plutarch re-
corded a tradition that Seth escaped a battle by fleeing Egypt on the back of a
donkey.51 Now a donkey is no glamorous getaway vehicle, but educated read-
ers would recognize the braying beast of Seth.52 This particular tradition was
directed against the Jews, for it included an etiology of the Sabbath (Seth’s

Historien V2 2–​13,” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 102 (1992): 124–​49, esp. 137–​40. There were also
authors who knew the Egyptian revisionary mythology of the Hebrew Exodus but did not mention
Jewish onolatry (e.g., Pompeius Trogus, Philippic History, in Stern, Authors, 1.332–​43).
49 Following Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 1961), 365–​66, Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 500–​501; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 55–​72; Barclay,
Apion, 352; Bar-​Kochva, Image, 244, n.126.
50 E.g., Hecataeus in Diodorus, Library of History 40.3.4, and in Josephus, Against Apion 1.199;

Strabo, Geography 16.2.35 (Stern, Authors, 1.300).

51 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 363c–​d, in Stern, Authors, 1.563.
52 Pace Bar-​Kochva (Image, 243–​46), it is methodologically incorrect to blend this story of Plutarch

with the tradition passed on by Diodorus (that there was a statue of Moses riding a donkey set up
in the Jewish temple). The argument that Plutarch, or the inventor of the tradition he passed on,
considered Moses to be Seth is unconvincing (Bar-​Kochva, Image, 241–​43). Bar-​Kochva’s statement
that Tacitus viewed the effigiem not as a depiction of the Jewish god but as a votive offering is incor-
rect. The Latin term votiva mentioned by Bar-​Kochva (Image, 242) is not found in the passage he
cites (Tacitus, Histories 5.4.2). The fact that Artapanus described Moses as “fiery red” (in Eusebius,
Preparation for the Gospel 9.37) indicates that Moses was Typhonic, not Seth-​Typhon.
 The Donkey Deity 27

journey took seven days).53 It also made Seth the father of Hierosolymus and
Judaeus (fictive ancestors of the Judeans who lived in Jerusalem).54
We do not know who first told this particular tale. We infer that the story’s
author was familiar with Egyptian political myth and wanted to depict Seth
as the forefather of the Jews. The Jews, according to the story’s logic, later dei-
fied their ancestor Seth.55 That is to say, the Jews worshiped Seth as their god
Yahweh, just as the Greeks worshiped Zeus, king and culture-​bringer of old.
Plutarch knew that Jewish elements were “dragged into” this story, though he
may have assumed that Jews themselves were the culprits.56

Onocoetes

The Seth–​Yahweh fusion is also illustrated by early Christian writers. Many

early Christians adopted the Jewish creator as their supreme deity. Due in
part to this adoption, the accusation of donkey worship was easily trans-
ferred to them. Early readers of Tacitus assumed that the donkey-​headed
deity in the Jewish temple was the Christian god as well.57 Yet one did not
have to be a reader of Tacitus to be familiar with the ass god of the Christians.
According to a late second-​century report, a former Jew hired himself
out in the wildly popular animal shows at Carthage (or possibly Rome).
Apparently he was a kind of bullfighter and entertainer all rolled into one.
This particular individual was known for holding up a placard exhibiting a
being with donkey ears and a cloven hoof poking out of his toga. This being
was labeled: “ONOCOETES, GOD OF THE CHRISTIANS.”58

53 This is the length of time it took the Israelites to reach Israel from Egypt (according to Apion in

Josephus, Against Apion 2.21; cf. Ezekiel, Exagoge 169 (OTP 2.815); Tacitus, Histories 5.4.3 (Stern,
Authors, 2.25).
54 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 363c–​d. Tacitus wrote that the Jews came from Egypt during the reign of

Isis under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Juda (Histories 5.2.2). See further Theodor Hopfner,
Plutarch Über Isis und Osiris Zweiter Teil: Dei Deutungen der Sage (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche,
1967), 143–​47; Griffiths, Iside, 418–​19.
55 For the deification of great ancestors, see Franco de Angelis and Benjamin Garstad, “Euhemerus

in Context,” Classical Antiquity 25:2 (2006): 211–​42; Marek Winiarczyk, The “Sacred History” of
Euhemerus of Messene (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013); Nickolas P. Roubekas, An Ancient Theory of
Religion: Euhemerism from Antiquity to the Present (London: Routledge, 2017).
56 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 363d.
57 Tertullian, Apologeticum 16.1.
58 Tertullian, Against the Nations 1.14.1–​2; Apologeticum 16.12. Manuscripts of Against the Nations

vary on the spelling of the donkey god. The names onocholtes and oenocholtes have been corrected
by the later use of onochoetae. See further Jean-​G. Préaux, “Deus christianorum Onocoetes,” in
Hommages à Léon Hermann (Brussels: Latomus, 1960), 639–​54 at 639–​41; Lukas Vischer, “Le pré-
tendu ‘culte de âne’ dans la Église primitive,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 139:1 (1951): 14–​35;
28 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

The meaning of Onocoetes is obscure. Onos is the Greek word for

“donkey,” and koitēs is a common word for “(marriage) bed.” The fusion
of these two words could signify that the Christian god was born from the
union of a donkey and a woman. (In the mid–​second century, the novelist
Apuleius depicted a lascivious upper-​class lady who enjoyed intercourse with
a donkey.59) The Romans associated the donkey with sexuality. According
to one source, the emperor Commodus (reigned 180–​192 CE) nicknamed a
man known to have a large penis “Donkey.”60
In the placard, the Christian deity was depicted as a donkey hybrid. Since,
however, the donkey was the token of Seth-​Typhon, he was no less a god. It
was this ass deity who was regularly exhibited to thousands of spectators, a
spectacle that reportedly inspired much guffawing in the audience.61
Minucius Felix (died around 250 CE) revealed how a Roman intellec-
tual could think that Christians worshiped a donkey-​headed figure. In his
dialogue Octavius, he portrayed two Roman elites who locked horns in de-
bate: Caecilius, the opponent of Christianity, and its champion Octavius.
In the debate, Caecilius accuses Christians of worshiping a donkey head.
Caecilius does not (or feigns not to) know why Christians do this. He simply
assumes that they are stupid and worship a deity who fits their perverse
morality.62
In his rebuttal, Octavius mentions Egypt—​best known for animal wor-
ship (he mentions the Apis bull, for instance, and “dog-​headed deities”).63
Octavius portrays Egyptian worship as foreign and perverse in order to
distance its practices from Christian worship.64 At the same time, he links

Claude Aziza, “Recherches sur l’Onokoites’ des écrits apologétiques de Tertullien,” in Hommage a
Pierre Fargues (Philologie, Littératures et histoire anciennes), ed. Wolfgang Haase (Paris: Belles Lettres,
1974), 283–​90; Odile Ricoux, “Des Chrétiens accusés d’onolâtrie à Carthage,” Lalies 16 (1996): 53–​73;
Xavier Levieils, Contra Christianos: La critique sociale et religieuse du Christianisme des origines au
Concile de Nicée (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 321–​30.
59 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.21–​23; cf. Juvenal, Satires 6.332–​34.
60 Historia Augusta, Commodus 10.9.
61 Tertullian, Against the Nations 1.14.2.
62 Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.4.
63 Minucius Felix, Octavius 28.7–​9; cf. 25.6 (Egyptian gods as ominous monsters); 22.1–​2 (Isis

worship in Rome).
64 Christians preserved the cultural memory that Egyptians worshiped the donkey, for instance,

Athanasius, Against the Nations 9: “They [non-​Christians] . . . venerate . . . the donkey-​heads of

the Egyptians” (οἱ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις . . . ὀνοκέφαλοι). Cf. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4.13: gens
Aegyptiorum . . . asinos divino nomine consecrarent (“the Egyptian race . . . worship donkeys with the
divine name”); Epiphanius mentions rites at Diospolis performed τῷ ὄνῳ εἰς ὄνομα τοῦ Σήθ, δῆθεν
τοῦ Τυφῶνος (“for the donkey in the name of Seth, that is Typhon”; On Faith 12.3).
 The Donkey Deity 29

supposedly Christian ass worship with the memory of Egypt. Was he ges-
turing toward the tradition of Seth-​Yahweh?

Excursus: Seth-​Yahweh in Spells and Gems

In at least four surviving spells, Seth and Yahweh are invoked in such a way
as to suggest their close association and perhaps identity. The spells come
from papyrus books discovered in Egypt and now held in Paris. The books
are dated to the fourth century CE, but many of their spells are thought to
come from second-​or third-​century prototypes.
In a multipurpose spell for restraining charioteers, sending dreams, and
inspiring love, a cat-​headed sun god is invoked under various names. One
of the names inscribed on a metal leaf and inserted into the earholes of a
drowned cat is “IŌ SETH.”65 The spell is relevant only if IŌ is a form of IAŌ
(the Greek form of Yahweh). Even if IŌ represents the Egyptian word for
donkey (EIŌ) or the donkey’s bray, however, a double meaning (IŌ = IAŌ)
could be in play.66
A second spell, written in the form of a letter from Nephotes (an Egyptian
sage) to a Pharaoh of the seventh or sixth century BCE, promises Pharaoh
the power to get special information from a deity revealed through bowl
divination. The deity is a sun god identified with “mighty Typhon, ruler of
the realm above and master, god of gods.”67 A long list of names for the god
follows. Among the names can thrice be distinguished IAŌ.68 In this spell,
Birger Pearson considered it “clear” that “Seth-​Typhon is identified with the
god of the Jews.”69 Pearson upheld a similar identification in the following
two spells.
The first is an incantation of Typhon’s soul represented by the Great Bear
constellation. The practitioner anoints his or her lips with the fat of a black
donkey and uses hairs from the same donkey to make a plaited cord wrapped

65 PGM 3.77: ιωσηθ. For Seth as god of the blazing (vaporizing) sun, see Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris

367d–​e.
66 See further Reinhold Merkelbach, Abrasax: ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts.

Band III: Zwei griechisch-​ägyptsiche Weihezeremonien (Die Leidener Weltschöpfung-​Die Pschai-​Aion-​

Liturgie (Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1992), 19–​20, 44, 124–​25, 214; Raquel Martín Hernández, “More
than a Logos: The ΙΩΕΡΒΗΘ Logos in Context,” in Litterae Magicae: Studies in Honour of Roger S. O.
Tomlin, ed. Celia Sánchez Natalías (Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico, 2019), 187–​210.
67 PGM 4.179–​80.
68 PGM 4.204, 208.
69 Pearson, “Egyptian Seth,” 28.
30 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

as a crown.70 The practitioner then kneels and prays to daemonic rulers,

among them being SABAŌTH IAŌ. He or she then writes the hundred-​
lettered name of Typhon on papyrus and ties it to the cord used as a crown.71
Another spell was designed to afflict a woman with terrible pains. The
practitioner is bid to draw on an unbaked brick the picture of a running
donkey with the title IAŌ IŌ on its face.72 The spell inscribed on the brick
begins with the names of the deity addressed. The key deity invoked is “the
great, great Typhon!”73
Despite Pearson’s judgment, in none of these spells is it actually “clear”
that Typhon is a form of Yahweh. The name of Yahweh may be invoked in
its Greek form (Iao), but is it really the god of Jewish scripture?74 Granted,
at least some magical practitioners knew that Iao was the god of the Exodus.
Celsus (about 178 CE) observed that “the god of the Hebrews” and “the
god who drowned the king of Egypt and the Egyptians in the Red Sea” was
a common formula used by exorcists.75 In a curse tablet buried in a grave
near Carthage (first to third century CE), we find reference to Iao who “split
the sea,” who is also called “Adonai Sabao” (names for Yahweh in biblical
Hebrew).76 Another spell refers to the one who appeared to Israel in a bright
pillar (Exod 13:21–​22), “who delivered his people from Pharaoh and who
inflicted the ten plagues.” This “mighty god Sabaoth,” made the “Red Sea
uncrossable” after “Israel went through” (cf. Exod 14:27).77

70 Plutarch, Isis-​Osiris 359d (τὴν [ψυχὴν] δὲ Τυφῶνος ἄρκτον), with Griffiths, Iside, 373 (Seth as

Great Bear). PGM 4.1331 (ὄνου μέλανος στέαρ).

71 PGM 4.1377 (Σαβαώθ Ἰάω); 1380 (τὸ δὲ ἑκατονταγράμμματον τοῦ Τυφῶνος).
72 PGM 4.3257 (ϊαωϊω or ϊαω ϊω).
73 PGM 4.3270. See further Rita Lucarelli, “The Donkey in the Graeco-​ Egyptian Papyri,”
in Languages, Objects, and the Transmission of Rituals: An Interdisciplinary Analysis on Ritual
Practices in the Graeco-​Egyptian Papyri (PGM), ed. Sabina Crippa and Emanuele M. Ciampini
(Venice: Cafoscarina, 2017), 89–​103; Eleni Pachoumi, The Concepts of the Divine in the Greek Magical
Papyri (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 143–​50.
74 See further Morton Smith, “The Jewish Elements in the Magical Papyri,” Studies in the Cult of

Yahweh, ed. Shaye Cohen, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2.242–​56. Smith suggests that some of what
was known of Judaism could go back to the form of Judaism known from Elephantine. See further
Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
194–​226.
75 Origen, Cels. 4.34. See further Pieter W. van der Horst, “‘The God Who Drowned the King of

Egypt’: A Short Note on an Exorcistic Formula,” in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and
Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerhard P. Luttikhuizen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 135–​39.
76 Gager, Curse Tablets, 67. See further PGM 4.3007–​86.
77 PGM 4.3033–​7; 3052–​5 (trans. Granger Cook). See further Cook, The Interpretation of the Old

Testament in Greco-​Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 42–​48; Wünsch, Sethianische
86–​118; Procopé-​Walter, “Iao,” 64–​65; Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, “The God Iao and His Connection with
the Biblical God, with Special Emphasis on the Manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb,” Vetus Testamentum
et Hellas 4 (2017): 21–​51. Jarl Fossum and Brian Glazer, “Seth in Magical Texts,” Zeitschrift fur
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994): 86–​92.
 The Donkey Deity 31

We should also take into consideration certain engraved gems that de-
pict a donkey-​headed deity with snake legs and a shield bearing the name
IAŌ.78 The donkey head indicates Seth, the snake legs indicate Typhon,
and the name “IAŌ” indicates that Seth-​Typhon is also Seth-​Yahweh. The
carvers of these gems are unknown. In the early twentieth century, Adrien
Blanchet traced them back to the “Ophites.” But if the donkey image of Seth-​
Yahweh was widely recognized, a wide variety of persons could be respon-
sible for them.
Other artifacts deserve brief mention. The first is an oval-​shaped lead tablet
featuring a snake-​footed figure with the head of a donkey inscribed with the
name IAŌ.79 The second is an amulet featuring on its obverse a large-​headed
snake with seven rays on its head. Above it are six stars with the name “IAŌ”
inscribed on the left. On the reverse stands a donkey-​headed god in a kilt
with a short staff and carrying an ankh (Egyptian symbol of life).80 A third
item, a gem from the British Museum, shows the same donkey-​headed figure
in a kilt carrying an ankh and a scepter (see Figure 1.2). He is labeled “IAŌ”
and is surrounded by the names of the four archangels (Uriel, Suriel, Gabriel,
and Michael).81 It seems hard to deny that these donkey-​headed figures are
images of Seth-​Yahweh.
Although we do not know who made them, who used them, and for what
purpose they were made, they testify to the recognizability of Seth-​Yahweh
as a cultural symbol or “meme” recognizable in antiquity.

The Alexamenos Graffito

Probably in the early third century CE, an unknown graffiti artist carved
into the plaster of a palace chamber in Rome a donkey-​headed deity

78 Adrien Blanchet, “Intailles representant des genies de la secte des Ophites,” Comptes rendus des

séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-​Lettres 64 (1920): 147–​56. For the Christian use of
amulets, see ibid., 153, n. 5. For photos, see A. Delatte and Ph. Derchain, Les Intailles magiques Gréco-​
Égyptiennes (Paris: National Library, 1964), 39; cf. 172.
79 Michel Rostovtsew and M. Prou, eds., Catalogue des plombs de la antiquité de la Bibliothèque na-

tionale (Paris: C. Rollin and Feuardent, 1900), 375, no. 820.

80 Campbell Bonner, “Amulets Chiefly in the British Museum: A Supplementary Article,” Hesperia

20 (1951): 301–​45 and plates 96–​100 at 328, with plate 97, fig. 28. This amulet was also published by
Erwin Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-​Roman Period (New York: Pantheon, 1953), Vol. 3,
fig. 1176, with brief discussion in Vol. 2.280. See further Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly
Graeco-​Egyptian (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1950), 24, 130–​32, 238–​39.
81 S. Michel, Die Magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum (London: British Museum Press,

2001), 30, no. 46 (Campbell Bonner Magical Gems Database-​425).

32 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

Figure 1.2. Gem of Seth-​Yahweh in the British Museum. Campbell-​Bonner

database number 425, found at http://​cbd.mfab.hu/​cbd/​425/​?sid=97.

dangling from a cross (see Figure 1.3). At the foot of the cross stands
a stumpy, loutish figure with hand raised in adoration. The caption,
written in Greek, reads: “Alexamenos worships god.” Alexamenos—​a
slavish buffoon given his posture and dress—​is evidently a Christian
worshiping the crucified Christ. It just so happens that Christ has the
head of an ass.82
From where did this image arise? It is possible that a Roman slave or
schoolboy who worked in the palace was familiar with a being like Onocoetes,
a Christian amulet, or the donkey worship mentioned by Minucius. It is also
possible, however, that whoever scratched the crucified donkey into the
plaster was familiar with alternative Christian traditions that portrayed the

82 Felicity Harley-​McGowan, “The Alexamenos Graffito,” in From Celsus to the Catacombs: Visual,

Liturgical, and Non-​Christian Receptions of Jesus in the Second and Third Centuries CE, ed. Chris
Keith (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 105–​40; John Granger Cook, “Envisioning Crucifixion: Light
from Several Inscriptions and the Palatine Graffito,” NovT 50 (2008): 262–​85 at 282–​85.
 The Donkey Deity 33

Figure 1.3. Alexamenos Graffito. Reproduced by permission from Felicity

Harley-​McGowan, “The Alexamenos Graffito,” in Christ Keith, ed., From Celsus
to the Catacombs: Visual, Liturgical, and Non-​Christian Receptions of Jesus in the
Second and Third Centuries CE (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 105–​40, fig. 66.5.

creator or one of his minions as a donkey-​headed demon.83 He would then

be invoking the idea of “like father, like son”: donkey-​headed father god gives
birth to donkey-​headed son (Jesus).
To more fully understand this option, we must return to Epiphanius’s
“Phibionites.”

83 For this theory, see J. Haupt, “Das Spottkruzifix im Kaiserl. Palaste zu Rome,” Mitteilungen der

K. K. Zentral-​Kommission Wien XIII (1868): 150–​68; Wünsch, Sethianische, 110–​15; Erich Dinkler,
Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1967), 150–​53.
34 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

“Phibionites”

Reportedly, the Christians called “Phibionites” presented a group of seven

demonic rulers who governed the regions outlined by the circles of the plan-
ets (see Figure 1.4). The higher the circle, the higher one ascended in the
cosmos. The point of ascending was to break out of the universe after burst-
ing through the boundary of what they thought was the highest planetary
circle, that of Saturn.

Saturn

Jupiter Mars
Mercury

Earth
Moon
Venus

Sun

Figure 1.4. The geocentric cosmos.

Knowing the names of the planetary rulers was essential for breaking
past them. Most of these rulers had Semitic-​sounding names that could
be invoked to control them. The names vary, but for the “Phibionites,” the
first ruler was called Iao, the second Saklas; Seth ruled the third circle, and
Davides the fourth. Then there came Eloaeus. Some “Phibionites” said that
Yaldabaoth ruled the sixth heaven. Sabaoth—​the chief demon associated
with Saturn and the Sabbath—​ruled the highest circle.84
Sabaoth, sometimes identified with Yaldabaoth, was identical to the Judean
creator.85 After the souls of the redeemed depart from this world, they make

84 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.10.1. See further Rasimus, Paradise, 103–​7, esp. his chart on 104.
85 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.10.1–​3. Similar lists of planetary rulers occur in Irenaeus, Against
Heresies (AH) 1.30.5.
 The Donkey Deity 35

their way past every ruler. The last and most difficult ruler to evade is the
creator, who cannot be passed apart from the attainment of full knowledge
(gnosis).86
These Christians believed that Sabaoth had either the shape of a donkey
or of a pig.87 The pig was associated with Seth, as we observed, and Jews were
occasionally accused of worshiping a pig-​god.88 Nevertheless, the donkey
shape was the more characteristic form of Seth-​Yahweh. In short, this
Christian group adapted the Seth–​Yahweh fusion to portray a hostile cosmic
ruler—​the creator.
The appearance of the donkey god raises the question: did these Christians
conclude that the creator was evil and then depict him with the features of
Seth, or did they adopt the pre-​made negative portrayal of Seth-​Yahweh that
already prompted them to think of the Judean god as evil? It is conceivable—​
since there were various reasons for considering the Judean creator to be
wicked—​that depicting him with the features of Seth, with all its negative
associations, was secondary.89
Nevertheless, since the Seth–​Yahweh fusion was already a recognizable
meme with considerable symbolic capital, it seems probable that at least
some of the preestablished negative valence of Seth-​Yahweh was adopted by
Christian “Phibionites” and then applied to the Judeo-​catholic creator. By the
early fourth century, and probably earlier, Epiphanius’s “Phibionites” dwelt in
Egypt where they had access to Egyptian revisionary mythology. They also
preserved The Birth of Mary, which portrayed the Jewish deity as an ass-​
headed demon (effectively Seth-​Typhon) worshiped in the Jerusalem temple.

The Secret Book of John

The “Phibionite” Christians of Epiphanius were not alone in exploiting the

Seth-​Yahweh tradition. Donkey imagery is attributed to one of the lesser

86 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.10.6–​7.

87 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.10.6.
88 Petronius, Poems 24: Iudaeus licet et porcinum numen adoret (Let a Jew worship even a porkish
power).
89 Rasimus writes that the “theriomorphic imagery was attached to Ialdabaoth only when he was

identified as the devil. In fact, the theriomorphism seems to presuppose the demonization, which,
as suggested, derives from a controversy over monotheism” (Paradise, 186–​87, cf. 128). In the
Introduction to Part I, I have explained why a controversy over monotheism (advocated by Alan
Segal) is inadequate to explain the conception of the evil creator. We cannot conclude that the de-
monization of Yahweh happened before his animalization (already a kind of demonization). The an-
imal imagery has a distinctively Egyptian flavor, and the Egyptian mythmaking about Seth-​Yahweh
predates revisionary anti-​Yahweh mythology in Sethian Christian texts.
36 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

cosmic rulers in the Secret Book of John. This work survives in two different
versions (longer and shorter), which are attested by four different Coptic
manuscripts (three of them in the Nag Hammadi codices). Its earliest Greek
version appeared around 150 CE, likely in the context of a small conclave run
by a master-​teacher in Antioch or Alexandria.90
One copy of the shorter version of the Secret Book reports that the chief
creator Yaldabaoth “had the face of a snake and the face of a lion.” In the
longer version, he is described as “a lion-​faced serpent.”91 These traits were
reminiscent of Seth-​Typhon’s snake heads and lionlike roar—​not to mention
his eyes, “flashing like fires of lightning.”92 One etymology for Yaldabaoth is
“child of chaos” (Aramaic yalda bahuth). Even if the etymology is incorrect,
it well describes Yaldabaoth’s commonality with Seth.
When it comes to donkey features, however, one must attend to
Yaldabaoth’s offspring. These include the seven planetary rulers. The second
of these, called Eloaios, had the face of a donkey.93 In one manuscript,
Eloaios’s donkey face is explicitly called “the face of Typhon.”94 The notion of
“like father, like son” seems to be implied. Eloaios activated the typhonic po-
tential embedded in the chief creator, Yaldabaoth.
Evidence for this view is Yaldabaoth’s shape-​shifting character. As a being
expressing chaos, he had a “crowd of faces”—​innumerable appearances that
he could manifest at will.95 Whenever he desired, apparently, Yaldabaoth
could manifest donkey features.96 Eloaios was the child of the creator, and his
donkey visage realized one of Yaldabaoth’s many forms.

90 Logan, Gnostic Truth, 29–​32 (Antioch); Karen L. King, The Secret Revelation of John (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 11–​17 (Alexandria).

91 For the dual serpent and lion face, see Secret Book of John Berlin Gnostic Codex (BG) 37.21.

For the “lion-​faced serpent,” see NHC II,1 10.9 in Nag Hammadi Codices 2.61. See further Howard
M. Jackson, The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).
92 Hesiod, Theogony, 825–​ 34. Cf. Secret Book of John (NHC II,1) 10.10–​11. See further J. E.
Goehring (“A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” Vigiliae Christianae [VC] 35:1
[1981]: 16–​23), who posits other influences from classical myth (note in particular Yaldabaoth and
Typhon’s asexual birth from a female).
93 Secret Book of John (BG) 41.19–​20 (ⲡⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲗⲱⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲫⲟ ⲛ︥ ⲉⲓⲱ).
94 Secret Book of John (NHC II,1) 11.28. Other theriomorphic rulers are mentioned in other texts,

without specifying which, if any, were onomorphic (Reality of the Rulers [NHC II,4] 87.27–​29; Origin
of the World [NHC II,5] 119.16–​18). See further Gilhus, Animals, 215–​17.
95 The “crowd of faces” (ⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲣⲟⲥⲱⲡⲟⲛ) comes from Secret Book of John (NHC II,1)

11.36–​12.1. The innumerable faces (ⲡⲁϯⲁϣⲏ ⲙⲙⲟⲣⲫⲏ) that appear correspond to the language of
BG 42.11–​13. See further Bernard Barc, “Samaèl-​Saklas-​Yaldabaôth: Recherche sur le genèse d’un
mythe gnostique,” in Colloque international sur les Textes de Nag Hammadi: Québec 22–​25 août 1978
(Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 132–​50 at 136–​38.
96 Rasimus remarks: “It is likewise possible that Ialdabaoth is imagined as being able to assume his

sons’ animal forms at will” (Paradise, 119).

 The Donkey Deity 37

The “Ophite” Diagram

A third example of the donkey deity comes from the “Ophite” diagram.97
This diagram, drawn by Christian theologians sometime in the mid–​second
century CE, presents yet another list of “ruler angels.”98 These rulers I take
to be equivalent to the “ruler demons” later depicted in bestial form.99 The
seventh of these demons manifests a donkey face (onou . . . prosopon); he is
called Thaphabaoth (aka Thartharaoth), but his more relevant name, for our
purposes, is Onoel (“Donkey-​god”).100
The relation of Onoel to a second list of heavenly gatekeepers is contested.
One of these lords is donkey shaped (onoeidē), so we presume that the ruling
demons are also gatekeepers.101 If so, then an argument can be made for
Onoel being another name for Yaldabaoth, the chief creator.102 The two sets
of names are parallel and can be listed in descending order:

7. Onoel 7. Yaldabaoth
6. Erathaoth 6. Iao
5. Thauthabaoth 5. Sabaoth
4. Gabriel 4. Adonai
3. Raphael 3. Astaphaeus
2. Suriel 2. Ailoaeus
1. Michael103 1. Horaeus

97 The relevant description of the diagram can be found in Origen, Cels. 6.27–​ 32. See the
commentary of Bernd Witte, Die Ophitendiagramm nach Origenes’ Contra Celsum VI,22–​ 38
(Altenberge: Oros, 1993), 98–​125.
98 On the “Ophites,” see Pearson, “Ophites,” in DGWE, 895–​98; Rasimus, Paradise, 65–​282; Fred

Ledegang, “The Ophites and the Ophite Diagram in Celsus and Origen,” in Heretics and Heresies
in the Ancient Church and in Eastern Christianity: Studies in Honour of Adelbert Davids, ed. Joseph
Verheyden and Herman Teule (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 51–​84.
99 The ruler angels are mentioned in Origen, Cels. 6.27, and the ruler demons appear in 6.30.
100 Origen, Cels. 6.30.
101 Origen, Cels. 7.40.
102 Origen, Cels. 6.27; 6.30; 7.40. A. J. Welburn argued for the identity of Yaldabaoth and

Onoel (“Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram,” Novum Testamentum (NovT) 23:3 [1981]: 261–​
87 at 263–​ 65). Cf. his “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon Johannis,’ ” VC 32
(1978): 241–​54 at 244. Other scholars associate Yaldabaoth with Michael because they are in sym-
pathy (τῷ λεοντοειδεῖ ἄρχοντι συμπαθεῖν). Possibly the lists describe two separate groups: the
ruling daemones control the sublunar region, while the gatekeepers (planetary rulers) are
superlunary (Rasimus, Paradise, 112–​14).
103 Michael is explicitly “first” among the ruling demons, and Horaeus is assigned power over “the

first gate” (Origen, Cels. 6.30–​31). Yaldabaoth has control over the seventh gate, which I take to be
the highest, and Onoel is called “seventh.” Complicating matters is that Yaldabaoth is called “first and
seventh” (6.31), but “first” here probably expresses primacy. If Yaldabaoth also represents the planet
Saturn, he is said to be in sympathy with the first power Michael (6.31). Sympathy, however, does
38 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

The presence of the donkey demon shows that the Christians who drew
this diagram (or diagrams) were dipping into the cultural memory of Seth-​
Yahweh. They too adapted this preestablished meme to identify the creator as
an evil ruler. The creator was a hostile deity who sat atop the universe trying
to prevent souls from escaping his domain.104 Although his cosmic place and
role are different from what we see in Egyptian lore, his donkey form was al-
ready charged with the negative valence of Seth.105

Conclusion

It is time to sum up. Briefly put, Seth-​Yahweh was a donkey-​shaped god of

evil established in pre-​Christian cultural memory and adapted by alternative
Christian groups to express a hostility toward the Judean creator that had
been voiced for centuries. This means that so-​called Phibionite, Sethian, and
Ophite Christians did not have to invent Yahweh as an evil character out of
whole cloth. The wicked creator was already available, and his symbolic value
was cashed out in new mythmaking practices that could be aimed not (or
not only) at Jews but also at other Christian opponents who had adopted the
Jewish creator as their chief deity.
The application of the Seth-​Yahweh tradition to the creator requires us
to rethink the sources of early Christian theology, particularly in Egypt.
We cannot assume that Gentile Christians living in second-​century Egypt
drank solely from the wells of the Septuagint and Philo.106 Just as Greek and
Roman authors learned about the Jewish god from retooled Egyptian cul-
tural memory (Chaeremon and Apion), Gentile Christians living in Egypt
learned about the Jewish god from the same traditions featuring Seth-​
Yahweh. Having Seth-​Yahweh in their cultural encyclopedia, many Gentile

not mean identity. I disagree with Nicola Denzey (Lewis) that the ruling demons only represent the
days of the week (“Stalking Those Elusive Ophites,” in Essays in Honour of Frederik Wisse, ed. Warren
Kappeler [Montreal: ARC, 2005], 89–​122 at 100–​103).
104 In the second Book of Jeu, in a fragment describing the journey of the soul past the ruler of the

middle, the ruler is described as Typhon. He is a donkey-​faced, powerful archon who carries off souls
by theft (Carl Schmidt, ed., and Violet MacDermot, trans, The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text of
the Bruce Codex [Leiden: Brill, 1978], 141). Similarly in Pistis Sophia, Typhon—​called an assessor of
the fourth rank—​steals souls and imprisons them for 138 years (Schmidt-​MacDermot, Pistis Sophia
[Leiden: Brill, 1978], 364–​65).
105 This conclusion holds even if Onoel is not, in the end, identical to Yaldabaoth and is only—​like

Eloaios in the Secret Book of John—​one of the creator’s lower reflections.

106 Cf. Gruen, Heritage, 71–​72.
 The Donkey Deity 39

Christians would not have assumed that the Jewish creator was the kindly
god and father of Jesus Christ. They would have, rather, imagined him as cha-
otic and evil—​and thus not like Christ at all.
Therefore, if ever there were floodwaters nourishing the thought of the evil
creator, it was the preestablished tradition of Seth-​Yahweh. Its adaptation by
alternative Christian groups in the second century is shown by the donkey-​
like appearance of the creator or one of his minions in four Christian sources
(Epiphanius’s report on “Phibionites,” the Secret Book of John, the Ophite dia-
gram, and the Birth of Mary).
This discussion lends credence to the idea that the idea of an evil creator,
if not born in Egypt, was in part the result of culturally appropriating po-
lemical Egyptian traditions that originally targeted Egyptian Jews.107 These
traditions were later redeployed against early Christians who worshiped the
Judean creator. These other Christians, it was thought, continued to worship
the ass god, who—​lurking in the smoke of ancient tradition—​did not wholly
have to become evil in the Christian imagination; rather, his wicked nature
had long been embedded in the cultural memory of Seth-​Yahweh, the ono-
morphic god of chaos and evil.

107 Cf. Thomas Gaston, “The Egyptian Background of Gnostic Mythology,” Numen 62:4

(2015): 387–​407. Douglas M. Parrott (“Gnosticism and Egyptian Religion,” NovT 29:1 [1987]: 73–​93)
cites earlier studies.
 2
The Father of the Devil

The lord would not have said, “My father who is in heaven” unless he
had another father, but he would have said simply, “My father.”
—​Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) 55.34–​36

Introduction

There is a secret lurking in the gospel of John, a secret obscured by virtually

all major English translations on the market today.1 This secret is buried in
what is perhaps the most anti-Jewish remark in the entire New Testament—
Jesus’s daring declaration to the fictional Jews that their father is the devil
(John 8:44). What is not widely recognized is that this verse can be translated
another way, not that the Jews have the devil for a father, but that their father
is the devil’s father—namely, the father of all, or the creator. This father, as it
turns out, is no better than the devil his son, for he manifests the same mur-
derous and deceptive disposition. In this chapter, we examine how to under-
stand this reading and discuss its implications for the early Christian view of
the evil creator.2

1 See note 11 below.

2 A longer version of this chapter appears in M. David Litwa, “The Father of the Devil (John
8:44): A Christian Exegetical Inspiration for the Evil Creator,” VC (Vigiliae Christianae) 74.5
(2020): 540–​65. I here acknowledge my debts to April D. DeConick, who has argued that Jesus’s dec-
laration “you are from the devil’s father” is the “clear,” “plain,” or “literal” reading of John 8:44a (“Why
are the Heavens Closed? The Johannine Revelation of the Father in the Catholic-​Gnostic Debate,”
in John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland
[London: Bloomsbury, 2013], 147–​79 at 150, 168). Cf. her Gnostic New Age, 142. DeConick’s reading
has been countered by Stephen Robert Llewelyn, Alexandra Robinson, and Blake Edward Wassell,
who show that the phrase in Greek is ambiguous (“Does John 8:44 Imply That the Devil Has a Father?
Contesting the Pro-​Gnostic Reading,” Novum Testamentum [NovT] 60 [2018]: 14–​23). A general
treatment of John in “gnostic” interpretation can be found in Charles Hill, The Johannine Corpus
in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 205–​93. See also Helmut Koester,
“Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12–​59,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early
Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986), 97.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0003
 The Father of the Devil 41

Literary Context

The gospel commonly known today as “John” depicts Jesus’s fictional Jewish
opponents as unable to accept his identity as the divine Word.3 Jesus is sent
from his divine father to save the world, and he does his father’s “works” or
miracles (John 10:36–​37). His opponents fail to recognize him and despise
his works. Jesus accuses them of stubborn spiritual blindness (John 9:41;
12:39–​40). Their blindness is naturalized by the practice of genealogizing.
These Jews cannot understand Jesus because they are said to have a different
father.
Their father is unveiled in a heated speech during the Jewish Feast of
Tabernacles (John 7:2). Jesus begins by declaring himself to be “the light of
the world” (8:12), a claim that his opponents take as invalid self-​testimony.
Jesus invokes his “father” as a second witness, a being whom “the Jews,” ac-
cording to Jesus, do not and have not known (8:19, 55). Similarly in John
5:37, Jesus tells the Jews that they have never heard the voice of his father “nor
seen his form.”4
If Jesus’s father is taken to be the Jewish deity, Jesus asserts that the Jews
do not know their own god—​a statement that flies in the face of biblical
tradition. What about the revelation at Sinai when Yahweh spoke from the
mountain—​not to mention the prophetic oracles?5 Isaiah testified, “I saw the
Lord” (6:2), and “the word of the Lord came to me” is a prophetic mantra.6
One is led to infer that Jesus’s father is a different being than the Jewish deity.
Only in this way can “the Jews” know their own god yet fail to know Jesus’s
father.
The Jews of the story claim to be Abraham’s children (John 8:33). Jesus
seems to acknowledge this point (8:37) but later denies it because they fail
to perform Abraham’s works (8:39). The patriarch was honored for his hos-
pitality, but Jesus’s opponents, though they deny it, seek to murder him (7:1;
8:40; 10:39; 11:55).

3 On John’s Ἰουδαίοι, see R. Hakola, Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness (Leiden: Brill,

2005), 10–​15; Adele Reinhartz, Cast Out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-​Judaism in the Gospel of John
(Lanham: Lexington-​Fortress Academic, 2018), 93–​108.
4 Wayne Meeks called this statement “a cavalier denial of a central Jewish belief ” (“The Divine

Agent and His Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in
Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1976], 43–​67 at 58).
5 Cf. Exod 19:16–​25; Deut 4:11–​12, 33.
6 E.g., Mic 1:1; Ezek 20:5: “I [Yahweh] was known by your fathers in the desert” was pointed out by

the Marcionite Megethius (Adamantius 1.23). See further Ascension of Isaiah 3:8–​9.
42 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

Escalating their defense, the fictional Jews claim god as their father (8:41).
Jesus denies that god is their father, for if he were, the Jews would “love” Jesus
(8:42). He explicitly says that his opponents are not from god (v. 47), though
he well knows that they would identify Jesus’s father with their god (v. 54).
Jesus himself is not prepared to identify his father with the being these Jews
call “god.” He implicitly identifies the true and supreme god (ho theos) with
his father. But he refuses to acknowledge this being as the father of the Jews
(8:47). Instead, Jesus claims:

a. You are from the father of the devil [or: from the father, the devil]7
b. And the desires of your father you want to do;
c. He was a murderer from the beginning,
d. And stands not in the truth, since the truth is not in him;
e. Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own resources
f. Because he is a liar, as well as his father [or: the father of it].8

As noted by the brackets, ambiguity occurs in two clauses, (a) and (f). In
clause (a), Jesus either says: “You are from the devil’s father” (the relational
reading) or “You are from your father, the devil” (appositional).9 In clause (f),
one could understand either the devil’s father as a liar (possessive), or take
the devil as the father of the understood antecedent in clause (e), “the lie.”10
These readings have four possible combinations, three of which feature the
devil’s father:

Appositional possessive Relational possessive

father, devil . . . as his father father of the devil . . . as his father

Appositional antecedent Relational antecedent

father, devil . . . father of it father of the devil . . . father of it

7 ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ.

8 ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ.
9 The appositional reading might be supported by the Hebrew usage of ‫( בני־בליעל‬Deut 13:13;

Jud 19:22; 1 Sam 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 2 Sam 16:7; Nah 2:1). 1 Kings 21:13 (Vulgate) even has filiis
diaboli, “sons of the devil.”
10 Some manuscripts have a καθώς or ὡς in 8:44a, making clear that two persons are spoken of

(ψ = 044, 850, 157, Coptic, Syro-​Palestinian, and Georgian MSS). Eleven Old Latin witnesses (Vetus
Latina 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9A*, 9Ac, 11, 14*, 14c, 15) attest the reading sicut et pater eius in 8:44f (http://​
www.iohannes.com/​vetuslatina/​edition/​index.html). See further W. J. Elliott, D. C. Parker, and
Ulrich Schmid, eds., The New Testament in Greek IV, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1995–​1997), 2.253; Bart
D. Ehrman, Gordon D. Fee, and Michael W. Holmes, The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of
Origen, Volume One (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 215.
 The Father of the Devil 43

The appositional antecedent reading has been naturalized in modern

English translations of John 8:44 (“you are from your father the devil”), but it
is problematic.11 Consider: for Jesus to say that the father of the Jews—​whom
the Jews claim to be their god (8:41)—​is the chief demon (the devil) is un-
precedented. No previous Jewish tradition identifies Yahweh with the devil.
Yet it was Jewish—​and early catholic—​tradition to say that both the devil and
the Jewish people ultimately stem from the creator. All creation—​fallen or
not—​ultimately derives from the biblical god.
Moreover, there is a long tradition of Jews being the children of Yahweh.
Yahweh says, “Israel is my son” (Hos 11:1), even “my firstborn son” (Exod
4:22); with Israel responding: “you, Yahweh, are our father” (Isa 63:16).12
There are thus theological grounds for choosing the relational reading. In
this case, the father of the Jews is the father the Jews have always known—​the
Jewish god. It simply turns out that the Jewish deity is not the father of Jesus,
but of “the devil”—​where “the” indicates that we are dealing, not with some
lesser minion, but with the chief demon, Satan.

Irenaean “Others”

To be sure, the devil’s father is probably an unfamiliar character to most

modern readers, but we should not assume he was unfamiliar to the ear-
liest readers of John. For example, in Book 1 Chapter 30 of his work Against
Heresies (about 180 CE), the early catholic writer Irenaeus of Lyons treated
those whom he called “others,” whom he considered to be a sect of Christian
opponents. After Irenaeus, this group was called “Ophites.”13 According to
them, the Jewish deity (called Yaldabaoth) generates a son from matter.
This son is called Mind and exists in the form of a serpent.14 This is the
same serpent in paradise who convinced Adam and Eve to eat from the

11 The appositional antecedent reading appears in the NRSV, RSV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NIV trans-

lations of the English Bible.

12 Cf. Deut 14:1; Mal 2:10; Jub 1:24–​28; 2:20; 19:29–​30. See further Marianne Meye Thompson,

The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox,
2000), 35–​55; Hermann Spieckermann, “The ‘Father’ of the Old Testament and Its History,” in The
Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, ed. Felix
Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 73–​84.
13 The best modern introduction to the Ophites is Rasimus, Paradise.
14 Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 37.4.4 (“Ophites”): Yaldabaoth “sired a power that looked like a snake,

which they also call his son”; Pseudo-​Tertullian, Against All Heresies (AAH) 2.4: Ialdabaoth . . . ex
semetipso edidisse virtutem et similitudinem serpentis (“Yaldabaoth produced from himself a power,
the likeness of a serpent”).
44 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

tree of knowledge (Gen 3). As a result, this serpent—​named devil—​was

expelled from heaven and from him arose all worldly elements. In brief,
Yaldabaoth is depicted as—​and directly called—​father (pater) of this ser-
pentine devil.15
Irenaeus never said how this tradition arose. One immediately detects
an exegesis of Genesis 1–​3 (for there we read of primal light, spirit, waters,
humanity’s creation, and fall). Yet another passage inspiring the narrative,
I argue, was John 8:44. There are several indications of this. First, John 8:44a
is the only biblical passage that, in the relational reading, says that the Jewish
deity has the devil for a son. Nothing in Genesis would independently sug-
gest this point. Second, even though Yaldabaoth wished to call himself father,
this name was stripped from him, “since there was already the incorrupt-
ible father” above him.16 The logic of this theology was suggested by Jesus in
John, namely, that the true god is not the father of the fictional Jews. Third,
the father of the devil (Yaldabaoth) is depicted as a liar and murderer. He lies
by claiming to be the only deity; he murders by killing Adam and Eve.17 He
later tries to drown all of humanity with a flood. His murderous character
culminates in his conspiracy to kill Jesus.18
I submit that the “others” of Irenaeus mapped the theology of John 8:44
(relational reading) onto their exegesis of Genesis 1–​6, such that the devil
had a father who is the primal liar and murderer (Figure 2.1). To chart their
position:

Irenaean “Others”

Jewish deity = Yaldabaoth

Devil = Serpent = Mind

All worldly elements

15 Irenaeus, AH 1.30.5, 8. That Yaldabaoth is the Judean deity is clear from 1.30.10, where he makes

a covenant with Abraham and rescues Abraham’s descendants from Egypt.

16 Irenaeus, AH 1.30.7 (cum esset pater incorruptibilis olim).
17 Irenaeus, AH 1.30.6–​7.
18 Irenaeus, AH, 1.30.10, 13.
 The Father of the Devil 45

Peratai

The Peratai were Christians active probably in the mid-​to-​late second century
CE. Their theology is discussed by the anonymous author of the Refutation
of All Heresies, head of a Greek-​speaking church in Rome who completed his
work about 222 CE.19 This author understood the name “Peratai” to derive
from the Greek verb perasai, “to traverse.”20 In English, the Peratai are thus
the “Traversers.”
What did the Peratai traverse? Just as the Israelites of old crossed the Red
Sea, the Peratai hoped to traverse the regions of corruption to attain the
realm of pure being above the stars. The true exodus was the one out of this
world.21 The exit door for the universe was through the constellation Draco,
the revolving snake in the sky taken to be a symbol of Christ.22 That a snake
could symbolize Christ was proved by Moses’s bronze snake, the sight of
which healed those Israelites who were perishing from snakebites (John 3:14;
Num 21:4–​9).23
The Peratai believed that the son of god, the divine snake, was the medi-
ating link between the unborn father and the corruptible world. The son
communicates the powers of incorruption to matter like colors leaking from
a rainbow. Thus matter is formed into an ordered whole. Humans strong
enough to discern the father’s colors in themselves ascend after death to be
born into the father’s realm.24
When Jesus mentioned his heavenly father, he referred to his transcendent
father above this cosmos. This father is distinguished from—​to quote the
Peratai—​“Your father [who] murders humans from the beginning” (John
8:44c). They called this father “the ruler and creator of matter.”25 Since the

19 Refutation of All Heresies (Ref.) 5.12.1–​5.18.1; 10.1. See further M. David Litwa, Refutation of

all Heresies (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), xxvii–​liv. The Peratai are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria
(Stromata [Strom.] 7.16.108.2), who takes the adjective “Peratic” as a place name (ἀπὸ τόπου).
20 Ref. 5.16.1, 5–​6; cf. the pun in 5.18.1.
21 Ref. 5.16.1–​7.
22 Ref. 5.16.14–​ 15. Cf. Ref. 4.47.2–​4. See further Tim Hegedus, Early Christianity and Ancient
Astrology (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 291–​92; April D. DeConick, “From the Bowels of Hell to
Draco: The Mysteries of the Peratics,” in Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and
Other Ancient Literature: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty, ed. Christian H. Bull, Liv Ingeborg
Lied, and John Turner (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 3–​38, esp. 31–​32.
23 Ref. 5.16.8–​12.
24 Ref. 5.17.1–​6.
25 τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ δημιουργὸν τῆς ὕλης (Ref. 5.17.7).
46 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

devil is not a maker or orderer of matter, this is evidently a reference to the

biblical creator.26
We can thus chart the Peratic position (Figure 2.2):

Peratai

Creator

Devil

Fictional Jews in John

The logic appears to be as follows. The Peratai took a relational reading

of John 8:44a (“you [Jews] are from the devil’s father”) and took the devil’s
father to be the creator (the biblical father of the Jews). This creator is a mur-
derer (8:44c) in the sense that he makes humans mortal.27 All creations are
mortal because the creator worked with matter, a substance inherently un-
stable and subject to decay. To call the creator a “murderer” implies a degree
of hostility toward him. Given Peratic Christian theology, this hostility is un-
derstandable, since their aim was to transcend the world of matter, traverse
the stars, and be born anew in the heights of the transcendent father.

Other Christian Groups

While discussing so-​called Cainite Christians, Epiphanius mentions other

Christian conventicles who, basing themselves on John 8:44, traced the an-
cestry of the devil to the creator who was seen not as the devil’s father, but as
his grandfather. To translate the key passage:

The other sects, on the basis of this passage [John 8:44], claim that the father
of the Jews is the devil, and that he has another father, and that his father has
a father in turn . . . Indeed, they trace the devil’s family relation to the master

26 Athenagoras calls the devil “the ruler of matter” (ὁ τῆς ὑλῆς . . . ἀρχών). But the devil is never

depicted as creator (Embassy 24.5).

27 Ref. 5.17.7.
 The Father of the Devil 47

of all—​god of Jews, Christians, and all people—​affirming that he is the father

of his [the devil’s] father. This is the one who gave the law through Moses . . .28

These otherwise unidentified sects are significant because they reveal that
several different Christian groups proposed relational possessive readings of
John 8:44, perhaps independently.
Two points in Epiphanius’s report surprise. First, even though these
Christians supported a relational reading of 8:44a (the devil has a father),
they still made the devil the father of the Jews. Technically the reading of
8:44a ought to indicate that the Jews’ father is the devil’s father. Either these
sects read the text in multiple ways, or Epiphanius erred. I support the latter
view based on this writer’s often loose and careless style of reporting.29
Second, the creator is made not the devil’s father, but his grandfather. April
D. DeConick has inferred the interpretive basis of this theology.30 The devil
has a father according to the relational reading of 8:44a: “You are from the
devil’s father.” “He”—​referring to the devil’s father—​“was a murderer from
the beginning” (8:44c) and “his father” is a liar (8:44f). These Christians, in
short, preferred the relational possessive reading of 8:44 and so counted two
fathers: the father of the devil, and the father of the father of the devil. The
devil’s grandfather was identified as the Jewish lawgiver (the creator).31

28 Epiphanius, Panarion 38.4.3–​4 (ὅθεν καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι αἱρέσεις ἀκούουσαι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο πατέρα

μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων φάσκουσιν εἶναι τὸν διάβολον, ἔχειν δὲ πατέρα ἄλλον καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα
πάλιν πατέρα καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸν πάντων δεσπότην, θεὸν Ἰουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν καὶ πάντων, τὴν
συγγένειαν ἐκείνῳ ἀνάγουσι. τοῦτον πατέρα τοῦ ἐκείνου πατρὸς εἶναι λέγοντες. τὸν νομοθετήσαντα
διὰ Μωυσέως καὶ τοσαῦτα θαυμάσια πεποιηκότα).
29 See further Aline Pourkier, L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine (Paris: Beauchesne, 1992);

Young Richard Kim, Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, 2015); Andrew Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016).
30 DeConick, “Why?” 159.
31 For his part, Epiphanius agreed with the relational possessive reading. In this case, the devil

is Judas, according to John 6:70 (“one of you is a devil”); the devil’s father is Cain; in turn, Cain’s
father is the devil (Satan). Structurally speaking, then, Epiphanius’s understanding mirrors that of
“other sects,” even though the characters differ (Panarion 38.4.5–​38.5.3). Reading Cain into John
8:44 was popular among early Christian fathers, with 1 John 3:8 taken as an intertext (Tertullian,
On Patience 5.15; Gospel of Philip [NHC II,3] 60.34–​61.12; Protoevangelium 13:1; Secret Book of John
62.3; see further Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels [Polyk. 7.1
und Joh 8.44],” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. Walther
Eltester and Franz H. Kettler [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965], 69–​84; Guy Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies
in Gnostic Mythology [Leiden: Brill, 1984], 35–​70; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible
As It Was At the Start of the Common Era. [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998], 78, 100,
121, 123, 147, 157). The problem is that John and 1 John seem to have been written, if not by different
authors, then at different times and contexts (see R. Hakola, “The Reception and Development of
the Johannine Tradition in 1, 2 and 3 John,” in The Legacy of John: Second-​Century Reception of the
Fourth Gospel, ed. T. Rasimus [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 17–​47). Besides, if John 8:44 referred to Cain,
Jesus would have said “You are from the son of the devil” not “the father of the devil.”
48 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

Archontics

The “Archontics” (so Epiphanius) were a Christian group with roots in Palestine
but most active in Armenia.32 They were interested in a reading of Genesis 4 in
which the devil sired Cain from Eve. Cain attacked Abel out of jealousy, since
they both romantically loved their sister.
In support of their reading, the “Archontics” cited John 8:44. Epiphanius here
cited an abbreviated version of 8:44a that favored the appositional reading: “You
are from Satan.” We should not assume that “Archontic” Christians read 8:44a
appositionally, however, since their interpretation as a whole supports a rela-
tional understanding:

From this passage [John 8:44] they say that Cain is [from] the devil, since he
[Jesus] has said that he [Cain] was a murderer from the beginning. [They cite
it] also to show that his [Cain’s] father is the devil, and that the devil’s father is
the lying ruler whom . . . they say is Sabaoth.33

Again we have a relational possessive reading, though tweaked:

Archontic
Christians

Sabaoth (the
creator)

Devil (Satan)

Cain

32 See further H.-​Ch. Puech, “Archontiker,” in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. Theodor

Klauser et al. (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1950), Vol. 1, 634–​43; van den Broek, “Archontics,” in
DGWE, 89–​91.
33 Epiphanius, Panarion 40.3.6–​7: δῆθεν εἴπωσι <ἐκ> τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι τὸν Καïν ἐπειδὴ εἴρηκεν

ὅτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν καὶ ἵνα δείξῃ πατέρα μὲν αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὸν διάβολον, τοῦ δἐ διαβόλου
εἶναι πατέρα τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν ψεύστην ὅν . . . φασιν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Σαβαὼθ.
 The Father of the Devil 49

Sabaoth, according to the “Archontics,” is the Jewish deity, distinguished

from the incomprehensible god whom the “Archontics,” perhaps following
the logic of Jesus in the gospel of John, called “father.”34

Severian Christians

Severian Christians also seem to have favored a relational reading of John

8:44. The first mention of Severians occurs in the Ecclesiastical History
of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (early fourth century CE).35
Severus is said to be a follower of Tatian (who flourished in Rome around 170
CE), and to have interpreted scripture (including the gospels).36
For his part, Epiphanius made Severus a “successor” to Marcion’s student
Apelles and related that Severians survived until the late fourth century.37
According to Epiphanius, Severus posited a good, unnamable god above the
creator. The creator, according to Severus, was called Yaldabaoth. He had a
son, the devil, a snake later cast to earth.38
The idea of the devil as the creator’s son probably goes back to John 8:44 for
reasons already stated: (1) John 8:44a is the only biblical text that indicates,
on the relational reading, that the devil’s father is the creator, and (2) John’s
gospel already suggested that there was a father superior to the Jewish deity.
Epiphanius linked the Severians to the Archontics on the basis of their
reputed doctrine that women are the work of Satan.39 Perhaps they were
also linked by their relational reading of John 8:44. If so, the Severians were
one of those “other sects” Epiphanius mentioned who supported a relational
reading of John 8:44.

34 Epiphanius, Panarion 40.2.8.

35 See further Birger Pearson, “Eusebius and Gnosticism,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism,
ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 291–​310; Mary Verdoner, Narrated
Reality: The ‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ of Eusebius of Caesarea (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011),
esp. 140–​6.
36 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.29.4–​5 (χρῶνται . . . εὐαγγελίοις . . . ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες). Cf.

Epiphanius, Panarion 45.4.1 (ἑτέρως μεταχειρίζονται). Theodoret (Heretical Fables 1.21) only adds
that Severians are Encratites and that Mousanos, Clement of Alexandria, Apolinarios, and Origen
wrote against them.
37 Epiphanius, Panarion 45.1.2; 45.4.9.
38 Epiphanius, Panarion 45.1.2–​5.
39 Epiphanius, Panarion 45.2.1.
50 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

“Mani”

Mani (about 216 to 277 CE) was a Persian prophet who began a successful
version of Christianity that eventually reached from Spain to China.40
Some sixty years after Mani’s death (between 330 and 348 CE), a document
appeared claiming to be a transcription of a debate between Mani and a
catholic bishop in the city of Carchar (a disputed location in what is now
Iraq).41 The document, which survives complete in Latin, is called the Acts
of Archelaus. Although in these Acts the character Mani is fictional, he still
propounds “authentic Manichaean readings of the New Testament.”42
In the debate, Archelaus invites “Mani” to quote biblical texts “written
against the Law.” When Mani quotes John 8:44, he presents an appositional
possessive reading: “You are from your father the devil . . . he is a liar just as
his father.”43
Archelaus disputes neither Mani’s text nor his possessive reading of 8:44f.
He concurs that the devil has a father but widely stretches the sense of “fa-
ther.” For Archelaus, a father is anyone who “gives birth” to Satan, and one
“gives birth” to Satan simply by doing his works. In this way, the Edenic ser-
pent becomes the devil’s father, as did Cain, Pharaoh, Judas (although Judas
had an “abortion”).44 Archelaus ends by demonizing Mani himself, suggest-
ing that he, too, is the devil’s father.45
“Mani” did not approve of Archelaus’s reading. For him, the devil’s father
is the creator. At least this is how Epiphanius understood the text (he read the

40 For an introduction to Mani, see Johannes van Oort, “The Paraclete Mani as the Apostle of Jesus

Christ and the Origins of a New Church,” in The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought, ed. Anthony
Hilhorst (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 140–​57; Albert Viciano, “The Life and Works of Mani and the
Expansion of Manichaeism (216–​276),” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), 647–​69; Iain Gardner, The Founder of Manichaeism: Rethinking the Life of Mani.
The Jordan Letters in Comparative Religion, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London May 30–​June 2 2016 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).
41 Samuel N. C. Lieu, Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelaus) (Turnhout: Brepols,

2001), 1–​32; Jason BeDuhn and Paul Mirecki, eds., Frontiers of Faith: The Christian Encounter with
Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 9–​14. Latin text edited by Charles Henry
Beeson, Hegemonius. Acta Archelai (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906).
42 BeDuhn and Mirecki, Frontiers 98. On John 8:44, see Kevin Kaatz, “The Light and the Darkness,”

in ibid., 115–​16.
43 Acts of Archelaus 33.1–​2, 46: vos ex patre diabolo estis . . . mendax est sicut et pater eius. The

English translation by Mark Vermes does not bring out the possessive reading of John 8:44f. He
translates this phrase in 33:2: “[the devil is] a liar and also the father of a lie” (Acta Archelai, 88), but
the sicut shows that this rendering is incorrect, as does the reference to “the devil’s father” in 15.6.
Adimantus the Manichean believed that John 8:44a (“Jews” as devil’s children) contradicted Gen 1:26
(humans as image of god; Augustine, Against Adimantus 5.1).
44 Acts of Archelaus 37.1–​15.
45 Acts of Archelaus 37.12.
 The Father of the Devil 51

Acts of Archelaus in Greek). After quoting Mani’s reading of 8:44, Epiphanius

reported that Mani meant that “the creator of heaven and earth is father of
the devil.”46
The reason why Jesus spoke the words of John 8:44, according to “Mani,”
is “because whatever the ruler of this world wished and desired, he wrote
through Moses and gave to humans as acts that must be performed.”47
“Mani’s” mention of the “ruler of this world” hints at a wider knowledge of
John (12:31; 14:11; 16:30).48 For “Mani,” the ruler of this world is the creator
and lawgiver, Satan’s father.
From this data, it is evident that “Mani” knew: (1) the devil had a father
based on John 8:44f, (2) this father was in league with the devil mentioned in
8:44a, and (3) the devil’s father is the wicked creator.49

Results

These six witnesses (Irenaeus’s “others,” the Peratai, Epiphanius’s “other

sects,” the Archontics, Severians, and “Mani”) indicate that several Christian
groups saw the devil’s father in John 8:44. It would be tendentious, I think, to
dismiss their readings as secondary supports for preconceived notions about
an evil creator. John 8:44—​a scriptural text putatively reporting the direct
words of Jesus—​was a generative source for their theologies, as it was for vir-
tually all other Christians.
The creator, in the relational reading, is wicked, as is proved by the context
of John 8:44. The Jews wish to do the desires of the devil’s father (the Jewish
god, Yahweh). What are Yahweh’s desires? In this case, we can only infer his
desires from the similar desires of his children. The fictional Jews covertly
wish to kill Jesus (John 18:31; 19:6, 15). The implication is that the creator
also (secretly) wants to murder him—​a point made explicitly by Irenaeus’s
“others.”50

46 Epiphanius, Panarion 66.63.2: ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ . . . ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ψεύστης ἦν.

Βούλεται [Μανής] λέγειν τὸν ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς πατέρα εἶναι τοῦ διαβόλου.
47 Beeson, Hegemonius. Acta Archelai (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906), 46.
48 Epiphanius indicated that Manicheans read John 12:31 and 14:30 together with 2 Cor 4:4 to refer

to the creator (Panarion 66.66.1). Mani’s wider knowledge of John is indicated by his claim to be the
paraclete promised in John 14:16, 26. See also Iain Gardner, ed., The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The
Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 307.
49 The Acts of Thomas 32 also seems to assume that the devil has a father. The serpent who speaks

describes himself as Satan and remarks that he is “a baleful son of a baleful father” (trans. Elliott,
Apocryphal New Testament 460; cf. Acts of Thomas 76).
50 Irenaeus, AH, 1.30.10, 13.
52 Egyptian and Johannine Approaches to the Evil Creator

In the Johannine gospel, Jesus opposes “the ruler of this world” (John
12:31; 14:30). This figure could be Satan, but he could also be Satan’s father
(the creator).51 Given that lying and murdering ran in the family, the choices
are not mutually exclusive. In later reception history, the ruler of this world
is the Jewish deity Yaldabaoth.52 The Secret Book of John, designed as a kind
of continuation to John’s gospel, presents Yaldabaoth in the position of world
ruler, a position he earns by virtue of creating the world.53 One cannot but
think that the author of the Secret Book understood the Johannine “ruler of
this world” to refer to the creator. Peratic Christians apparently made the
same deduction from 8:44 itself: the devil’s father is “the creator and ruler of
matter.”
Assuming that the ruler of this world is the creator, then the creator attacks
Jesus directly before the crucifixion. “The ruler of the world is coming,” says
Jesus in John 14:30. Even though the world ruler has no cause against the sin-
less Jesus, he succeeds in having him crucified. But if the creator succeeded
in killing Jesus, then he is not the true god, but—​as Jesus himself said—​a liar
and a murderer. He is a liar because he posed as the true god, and the fictional
Jews accepted him as such (John 8:54); he is a murderer because he killed
Christ and effectively all other people by making their bodies frail and sub-
ject to death.

Conclusion

I conclude that it was possible, from the words of Jesus in John 8:44, for early
Christians to make five deductions—​some direct, some by inference:

1. That the devil has a father (by the relational and/​or possessive reading)
2. This father is also the father of the fictional Jews (8:44a)
3. This father of the fictional Jews is the Jewish deity (based on traditional
Jewish theology)
4. That the Jewish deity and the devil are liars and murderers (stated di-
rectly given the relational reading)

51 Beliar is called the “ruler of this world” and the “king of the world” in Ascension of Isaiah 2:4; 4:2

(Ethiopic).
52 Secret Book of John (NHC II,2) 10.19–​13.13, passim.
53 John D. Turner, “The Johannine Legacy: The Gospel and Apocryphon of John,” in Legacy of

John: Second-​century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Rasimus (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 105–​44.
 The Father of the Devil 53

5. That the Jewish deity had a hand in murdering Jesus (if “the Jews” do
the same works as their father, according to John 8:41)

The reception history of this verse indicates that many if not all of these
deductions were made by some early Christian groups. These groups repre-
sented the Jewish deity as an evil being in league with the devil his child. The
devil’s father, the ruler of this world, worked behind the scenes to murder
Jesus. For Christians who took this reading, then, the Jewish deity unmis-
takably exhibited his evil nature. This deduction gave some early Christian
groups license to rewrite stories about the wicked actions of the creator in
Genesis and beyond (as evidenced in the Secret Book of John and the Reality
of the Rulers, among other early Christian texts). This investigation indicates
that the idea of an evil creator emerged from second-​century Christian read-
ings of a distinctly Christian text, namely, the words of Jesus in John 8:44.
 PART II
MARC ION IT E A PPROAC H E S
TO T HE EV IL C R E ATOR
 Introduction to Marcion

If the gods do something foul, they are not gods.1

—​Euripides.

Marcion of Pontus is the major focus of Part II and thus merits a brief
introduction here.2 This early Christian theologian was born in the late first
century CE in Pontus (north-​central Turkey), immediately south of the
Black Sea. Although most of his early history recorded by his opponents is
unreliable, it is relatively secure that he became a shipowner who managed
an affluent shipping business. He was wealthy enough, at least, to make a
large donation to a church in Rome when he settled there sometime in the
late 130s CE.3
In Rome, Marcion met Cerdo from the Roman province of Syria. The
report of Cerdo’s teachings and the extent of his influence on Marcion
are unclear.4 Apparently both men distinguished the Judean creator
from the good and true deity revealed in and through Jesus Christ.5

1 Euripides as quoted by Plutarch, Stoic Self-​Contradictions 1049f (Εἰ θεοί τι δρῶσι φαῦλον, οὐκ

εἰσὶν θεοί); cf. Origen, Cels. 5.23.

2 For recent treatments of Marcion, see Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in

the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser; ed. Marshall D. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2003), 241–​ 56; Andrew McGowan, “Marcion’s Love of Creation,” Journal of Early Christian
Studies 9:3 (2001): 295–​311; Sebastian Moll, The Arch-​heretic Marcion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2010), 25–​47; Heikki Räisänen, “Marcion,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed. Stephen
Westerholm (Malden: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 301–​15; Judith Lieu, Marcion and the Making
of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2015); Stephen G. Wilson, “Marcion and Boundaries,” in Crossing Boundaries in Early Judaism and
Christianity: Ambiguities, Complexities, and Half-​forgotten Adversaries, ed. Kimberley Stratton and
Andrea Lieber (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 200–​220; David E. Wilhite, “Was Marcion a Docetist? The Body
of Evidence vs. Tertullian’s Argument,” Vigiliae Christianae (VC) 71 (2017): 1–​36; Markus Vinzent,
ed., Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur (Leuven: Peeters, 2018).
3 Tertullian, Prescription 30.1. See further Lampe, From Paul, 241–​46; Moll, Arch-​heretic, 30.
4 This unclarity need not lead to a skepticism that would deny Cerdo’s existence, pace David W.

Deakle, “Harnack and Cerdo: A Reexamination of the Patristic Evidence for Marcion’s Mentor,”
in Markion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung, ed. Gerhard May and Katharina Greschat
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 177–​90.
5 Cerdo was said to distinguish a just and good god (Irenaeus, AH 1.27.1; affirmed in Ref. 7.37.1;

contradicted in 10.19.1), whereas Marcion distinguished a good god and an evil creator. Pseudo-​
Tertullian, however, said that Cerdo distinguished a good and “savage” (saevum) god (AAH 6.1), and

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0004
58 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Likely, however, Marcion already made this distinction before coming to

Rome.6
At the time, Roman Christian movements formed a loosely connected
network of churches run by individual leaders called presbyters. Individual
presbyters jostled for preeminence with no undisputed leader. Claims about
a succession of single bishops suggesting a unified organization appeared
only later (in the 160s CE).7
After some years laboring within established ecclesial networks, there was
an opportunity for Marcion to present his views to a group of presbyters.
A meeting—​we do not know how official or how large—​was convened. It
became clear on this occasion that Marcion’s conception of an evil creator, al-
though based on a biblical principle—​that good character cannot come from
evil actions (Luke 5:36–​37; 6:43)—​was not supported by the majority.
Marcion was not excommunicated.8 He left the established networks
of his own accord. Probably using the cash of his previous donation (duti-
fully returned to him), Marcion organized his own ecclesial movement in
Rome.9 From Rome, he began an ambitious mission to establish his form of
Christianity in other parts of the empire.

Marcionite Scriptures

By Marcion’s time, there was already an edition of Paul’s letters known where
he grew up in Pontus.10 Marcion republished an edited version of these letters

Epiphanius said he distinguished a good and wicked (πονηρός) god (Panarion 41.1.6). On Cerdo, see
further G. May, “Marcion und der Gnostiker Kerdon,” in Evangelischer Glaube und Geschichte, Grete
Mecenseffy zum 85. Geburtstag, ed. A. Raddatz and K. Lüthi (Vienna: Oberkirchenrat, 1984), 233–​48.
6 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.17.106.4–​7.17.107.1 (Marcion appeared with his teaching

in the reign of Hadrian, 117–​138 CE). Barbara Aland thought that Marcion’s theology could be un-
derstood against the backdrop of “gnostic” notions of an evil creator (“Marcion: Versuch einer neuen
Interpretation,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 70 [1973]: 420–​47 at 445). I agree that Marcionite
and Sethian Christians shared notes on the topic, even if both derived their notions independ-
ently from scriptural interpretations. See further R. Joseph Hoffman, Marcion: On the Restitution
of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century
(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1984), 155–​84.
7 Hegesippus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (EH) 4.22. See further Lampe, From Paul, 397–​408.
8 Pace Moll, Arch-​heretic, 44.
9 A skewed account of this event can be found in Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1–​8; cf. Pseudo-​

Tertullian, AAH 6.2; Filastrius, Diverse Heresies 45. See the comments of Lampe, From Paul, 393;
Einar Thomassen, “Orthodoxy and Heresy at Second-​century Rome,” Harvard Theological Review
97:3 (2004): 241–​56 at 243.
10 Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 58–​63.

 Introduction to Marcion 59

(the Apostolikon). To it he attached a single gospel, called the Evangelion, ev-

idently an early form of the gospel now referred to as Luke.11 Marcion also
published a prefatory tract called Antitheses (or Oppositions), which I will in-
troduce in Chapter 3.
Marcion had several leading disciples (Lucanus, Potitus, Basilicus,
Syneros, Apelles, and Prepon are named in the sources). In these sources, it
is often hard to distinguish their teaching from the master’s. To highlight this
confluence (and ambiguity), I will often use the descriptor “Marcion(ites).”
When Marcion died and under what circumstances are unknown,
but his church movement lasted several centuries, notably in the eastern
Mediterranean. Epiphanius said that in his day (about 375 CE), Marcionites
existed in Rome, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, Persia—​
among other places.12 A Syrian bishop (about 450 CE) spoke of converting
over a thousand Marcionites in a Syrian town and mentions eight other en-
tirely Marcionite villages in his area.13 Evidently Marcion’s message proved
compelling to many, and in some areas Marcionite Christianity was the
most widely known form.14 An inscription found in Damascus refers to a
Marcionite congregation (synagogē) and dates from 318 to 319 CE.15 In the
mid–​fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem advised Christians that, if they arrive
in a new town, always to ask for the catholic church, lest someone lead them
to the Marcionite counterpart.16 To Marcionites themselves, their Christian

11 The debate rages as to whether Marcion modified what is now canonical Luke or used an

earlier version that was later revised to become canonical Luke. See, e.g., Andrew Gregory, The
Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 173–​210; Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-​Acts: A Defining
Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006), 24–​49; Jason D. BeDuhn, The First
New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2013), 25–​98; Markus Vinzent,
Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 255–​348; Dieter Roth, “The Link
Between Luke and Marcion’s Gospel: Prolegomena and Initial Considerations,” in Luke on Jesus,
Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know?, ed. Joseph Verheyden and John S. Kloppenborg
(Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 59–​80; Daniel A. Smith, “Marcion’s Gospel and the Synoptics,” in Gospels
and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Experiments in Reception, ed. Jens Schröter, Tobias
Nicklas, and Joseph Verheyden (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019), 129–​73; Matthias Klinghardt, The Oldest
Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels (Leuven: Peeters, 2021).
12 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.1.2.
13 Theodoret, Letter 113; Letter 81. See further Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the

Alien God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham: Labyrinth, 1990), 102–​3; Edwin Cyril
Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948), 3–​5; Lieu, Marcion, 179–​80.
14 Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971),

22–​32.
15 Philippe Le Bas and William Henry Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et Latin de la Syrie

(Rome: L’Erma, 1968), Vol. 3, 582, no. 2558.

16 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18.26, translated by John Henry Parker (London:

Rivington, 1845).
60 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

identity was not in doubt, and their movement produced not a few martyrs
who died confessing the name of Christ.17

Marcion’s Teachings

I follow the current consensus that Marcion’s intellectual project was not so
much the separation of Law (“Old Testament”) and gospel (“New Testament”)
as it was the distinction between two superhuman entities competing for the
hearts and minds of human beings.18 Marcion compared two scriptural anthol-
ogies (now called the Old and New Testaments) to show that they were inspired
by two different superhuman figures with two opposing characters.
Under the influence of the famous church historian Adolf von Harnack,
older scholarship maintained that Marcion opposed a good god and a just
creator. More recent interpreters, however, understand that he contrasted a
good god with an evil creator.19 Although later Marcionites came up with a
range of theological positions (causing confusion in the sources), Marcion’s
own position, it seems, was that the creator was evil.20

Marcion and Philosophy

Based on his literary activity, scholars infer that Marcion had a solid educa-
tion in grammar, though he probably lacked formal philosophical training.21

17 Eusebius, EH 4.15.46; 7.12.1; History of the Martyrs of Palestine 10. Cf. Clement, Stromata 4.4.17.1–​2.
18 Lieu, Marcion, 256, 400; Matthew J. Thomas, Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of
Second Century Reception (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 141–​42.
19 Irenaeus, AH 3.12.12 (alterum quidem bonum, alterum autem malum); Ref. 7.29.1 (ἀγαθὸν τινα

λέγων καὶ τὸν ἕτερον πονηρόν), 7.30.2 (δημιουργὸν φῇς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου πονηρόν). See further
Winrich Löhr, “Did Markion Distinguish Between a Just God and a Good God?” in Marcion, ed. May
and Greschat, 131–​46; Moll, Arch-​heretic, 47–​76, 161. Dieter Roth, although he agrees that for Marcion
the creator is evil, sees Marcion as setting up a more varied set of contrasts between the creator and the
superior deity (“Evil in Marcion’s Conception of the Old Testament God,” in Evil in Second Temple, ed.
Keith and Stuckenbruck, 340–​55 at 354–​55).
20 Lieu maintains that for Marcion the creator is not evil but the source of evils (Marcion, 347–​49).

Nevertheless, if she admits that for Marcion the creator makes evils, that he is jealous and is therefore
characterized by “ignorant hubris” (340), that he is “severe, ignorant . . . capricious . . . petty, a lover of
war” (347), that he is “angry, jealous, proud, and angry” (as in Tertullian AM 2.16.3), and if these adjec-
tives describe the creator’s character (in accordance with Lieu’s subtitle and discussion beginning on her
Marcion, 337), then it is hard to see how the creator, for Marcion, is not wicked. Lieu avoids asserting
that for Marcion the creator is evil is because she is concerned that such an assertion will make Marcion
“a principled dualist” (348). Yet Marcion was hardly a “principled dualist” if, as I argue, the creator was
not considered to be a true deity.
21 See further Lampe, From Paul, 252–​56.
 Introduction to Marcion 61

At the same time, popular philosophical ideas had long dyed the wool of
Marcion’s mind, forming his sense of what was theologically appropriate.22
Christian scripture teaches that god alone is good (Luke 18:19). Marcion,
following Plato, went further by his assumption that god, to be god, must be
good—​in fact the Good and source of all good for all beings. This Platonized
Christian divinity was immensely powerful but had one limitation: he could
not do evil.23 Indeed, it was sacrilegious to say that god did anything morally
base.24
By Marcion’s time, belief in god’s exclusive goodness had become cultural
common coin. The idea appears in Philo, Plutarch, Alcinous, Numenius,
and Apuleius—​all leading Middle Platonists of the period.25 The Chaldean
Oracles scold the ignorant: “you do not know that every god is good, you
drudges. Sober up!”26 Bellerophon, a character in one of Euripides’s famous
plays, declared “If the gods do something bad, they are not gods.”27 The idea
that god(s) must be good was widespread. In essence, then, all Marcion had
to show was that the actions and character of the Judean creator were not—​or
not exclusively—​good. Marcion could thereby show that the Judean god was
no god at, but rather an imposter.

Two Gods?

It is often stated that Marcion believed in two gods, but this formulation
is not correct.28 Marcion would not have described himself as a ditheist (a

22 Ugo Bianchi, “Marcion théologien biblique ou docteur gnostique?” VC 21 (1967): 141–​49; John

G. Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy,” VC 26:1 (1972): 53–​59. In the opinion of Enrico Norelli, Marcion
faced the great philosophical problems of his day but answered them in an anti-​philosophical way
(“Marcion: ein christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die Philosophie?” in Marcion, ed. May
and Greschat, 113–​30 at 128).
23 Plato, Republic 379b–​c; cf. 509b. Cf. Philo: “God is the cause of good things only and of nothing

at all that is bad” (Confusion of Tongues 180).

24 Plato, Timaeus 29e; Republic 379b–​c; 380b–​c; 391e1–​2; Laws 672b; 899b; 900d; 941b.
25 Philo, Decalogue 176; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers 7.147; Plutarch, Decline of

Oracles 423d; Plutarch, Epicurus Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible 1102d; Alcinous, Handbook on
Platonism 10.3; Numenius, frag. 2, 16, 19 (Des Places); Apuleius, On Plato and His Doctrine 5. See
further Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970), 68–​151; David Runia,
Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005), 236–​44; Claudio Moreschini,
Apuleius and the Metamorphosis of Platonism (Turnout: Brepols, 2014), 45–​47.
26 Ruth Majercik, ed., The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill,

1989), 55, frag. 15 (translation hers).

27 Euripides as quoted by Plutarch, Stoic Self-​Contradictions 1049f.
28 See further M. David Litwa, “Did Marcion Call the Creator ‘God’?” Journal of Theological

Studies, forthcoming autumn 2021.

62 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

kind of polytheist). He maintained that there was another god superior to

the creator, without affirming the creator’s deity in an absolute sense.29
Marcion’s distinctive term for the “god” of Jewish scripture was the “creator”
or “cosmocrator” (“world governor”).30
Marcion’s most thoroughgoing opponent, Tertullian, called both
Marcion’s supreme deity and the creator “gods” in a polemical attempt to
portray Marcion as a polytheist. Indeed, Tertullian opened his description
of Marcion’s theology with the claim that Marcion “presents two gods.”31
Tertullian made this charge even though he largely adopted Marcion’s way of
referring to the Jewish deity as “the creator.”32
Tertullian well knew that for Marcion the creator was wicked, or at least not
good. The creator, as Tertullian’s Marcion observed, was known to become
enraged, grow jealous, exalt himself, become irritated, and so on.33 Marcion
called him “severe, ignorant . . . capricious . . . petty, a lover of war,” and “most
pitiless.”34 Whoever Marcion’s creator was, therefore, he was not good; and a
being who lacked goodness, no matter how powerful, could not be god.35
Superhuman beings overcome by nasty emotions and who stirred
up trouble for humanity shared a common designation in Christian
thought: they were demons. It is nowhere attested that Marcion called the
creator a demon, though one early writer—​a theologian named Ptolemy—​
indicated that for Marcion the creator was the devil.36 In our description of
Marcion’s theology, we cannot blindly follow Ptolemy, but neither should we
follow heresy hunters in calling Marcion’s creator “god,” since Marcion him-
self demonstrably preferred other terms.

29 Justin, 1 Apology 26.5 (ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν). The Refutator said

that Marcion “posited two principles in the universe” (Ref. 7.29.1, δύο ἀρχὰς). In this case, only the
good principle is explicitly called god (7.30.3). When the Refutator introduces the other principle as
“evil” (πονηρός), he did not add the noun “god.”
30 Irenaeus, AH 1.27.2.
31 Tertullian, Against Marcion (AM) 1.2.1 (cf. 1.3.1; 1.6.1), likely following Irenaeus, AH 3.12.12.
32 Lieu observes: “Tertullian probably owes the term Creator to Marcion,” citing René Braun (Deus

Christianorum: Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullian [Paris: Études Augustiniennes,

1977], 374–​75), who notes that 763 of the 800 occurrences of the word creator in Tertullian are found
in AM. See further E. P. Meijering, Tertullian contra Marcion: Gotteslehre in der Polemic (Leiden: Brill,
1977), 23–​24. Ephrem, when he attacked Marcion, predominately refers to “the Maker” (S. Ephraim’s
Prose Refutations: Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan, trans. C. W. Mitchell, 2 vols. [Piscataway: Gorgias
Press, 2008], 1.lii–​liii).
33 Tertullian, AM 2.16.3.
34 Tertullian, AM 3.4.2. Further references in Lieu, Marcion, 347.
35 Irenaeus, AH 3.25.3.
36 Ptolemy, Letter to Flora 3.2.
 Introduction to Marcion 63

For Marcion one could reasonably say that the creator looks more like
what most early Christians called a demon than a god. Christians since the
days of Paul had been demonizing competing gods (on the basis of Ps 96:5).
The idea that Marcion demonized the creator fits this trend, especially since
some of the very criticisms that early Christian apologists hurled against
Greco-​Roman gods were launched, by Marcion, against the Judean creator.37
Although Marcion recognized the creator’s power and his control over this
world, he complained of his wicked character and refused to worship him as
god.38 When compared with the supremely good Father, the creator was one
of those falsely named “gods” who, to adapt a Pauline phrase, are “by nature
not gods” (Gal 4:8).39

Biblical Interpretation

If Marcion’s assumptions were informed by philosophy, the springs of

his thinking were biblical through and through. He had his own canon,
the Evangelion and Apostolikon. Marcion also used the Jewish Bible as a
source for his thinking, though not as scripture. It would be a mistake to
think that Marcion’s depiction of the evil creator is based “completely on
Old Testament testimony.”40 For Marcion, the Law and the Prophets told
the true (if partial) story of a false god. Yet the wicked character of the cre-
ator was equally—​if not more so—​exposed in Marcion’s “New” Testament.

37 Aristides accused the god Ares of being πολεμιστής (warlike) and ζηλωτής (jealous)

(Apology 10.7). He also criticized Apollo for being a θεὸν ζηλωτήν (a jealous god) (11.1) in J.
Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robinson, eds., The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), 106. Plutarch accused Typhon of doing terrible
things through envy (φθόνος) and ill-​will (δυσμενείας) (Isis-​Osiris 361d).
38 Tertullian’s question for Marcion—​“Certainly you confess that the creator is a god?” (2.16.5; cf.

1.13.2)—​belies certainty. Marcion’s disciple Apelles thought of the creator as an angel of the higher
god (Tertullian, Prescription 34.4). The Manichean Adimantus referred to Yahweh as the “Jewish
daimon,” not a god (Augustine, Against Faustus 18.2).
39 φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς, attested in Tertullian, AM 5.4.5–​6. See further Hans J. W. Drijvers,

“Marcion’s Reading of Gal 4:8. Philosophical Background and Influence on Manichaeism,” in

A Green Leaf. Papers in Honour of Jes. P. Amussen, ed. W. Sundermann (Leiden: Brill, 1988),
339–​48.
40 Moll, Arch-​heretic, 58. In his attempt to undercut Harnack’s views, Moll is prone to over-

statement. For instance: “Marcion’s system was so radically different from the one of Paul that it
seems unlikely to assume any substantial influence of the Apostle on the arch-​heretic” (85–​86).
See further Todd D. Still, “Shadow and Light: Marcion’s (Mis)Construal of the Apostle Paul,” in
Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson (London: T&T Clark,
2011), 91–​107 at 106-7.
64 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Only by contrasting the god revealed in Christ did the evil of the creator
shine through.41
The task of exploring the logic of Marcionite biblical interpretation is
complicated because hostile reporting has obscured Marcion’s interpretive
decisions. Heresy hunters generally presented Marcion’s teaching as daring
doctrine with little or no discussion of its biblical background or logic.
Fortunately, there are careful scholarly reconstructions of Marcion’s scrip-
tures that provide the basis of his interpretations.42
We also possess reliable editions of the chief anti-​Marcionite tracts. The
longest of these, a Latin work by the aforementioned Tertullian, was com-
posed in North Africa (its third edition dated to 207 CE).43 Another useful
work is the Adamantius, a late third or fourth century dialogue featuring two
different Marcionite speakers (Markus and Megethius).44 Finally, there is the
ample report on Marcion made by Epiphanius, a bishop and heresy hunter
whom we have already had occasion to meet.45

Roadmap

To summarize our itinerary for Part II, then: Chapter 3 studies Marcion(ite)
interpretations of Jewish scripture whence derived the evil creator idea. Of

41 According to Moll, “Marcion did not understand the Old Testament in light of the New, he inter-

preted the New Testament in light of the Old” (Arch-​heretic, 82, repeated on 106, italics original). This
is a false opposition; both were understood in light of each other.
42 Ulrich Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der

Marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995); Dieter Roth, The Text of Marcion’s
Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2015); Matthias Klinghardt, Das ältesten Evangelium und die Entstehung der
kanonischen Evangelien, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Francke, 2015); Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel. See also
BeDuhn’s reconstruction, translated into English as The First New Testament.
43 Followed here is the five-​volume Sources Chrétiennes (SC) edition edited by René Braun and

Claudio Moreschini: Tertullian, Contre Marcion. 5 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 1990–​2004). See the English
translation by Ernst Evans, ed., Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
44 Traditionally this work has been dated between 280 and 313 CE, but Kenji Tsutsui moves the

date range to between 350 and 360/​378 CE, with Syria or perhaps Asia Minor as the place of com-
position (Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten im Adamantios-​Dialog: Ein Kommentar zu
den Büchern I–​II [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 108–​9). See also Gregor Emmenegger, “Adamantius
et le De recta Fide,” in Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne des origenes à 451, ed. Bernard
Pouderon (Paris: Belles Lettres, 2017), 393–​98. For the Greek edition, we must still depend on
W. H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, ed., Der Dialog des Adamantius ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΝ ΟΡΘΗΣ
ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901). This edition is deficient because Bakhuyzen assumed the pri-
ority of Rufinus’s Latin translation, as, unfortunately, did the English translator Robert A. Pretty,
Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
45 For Epiphanius, see further Pourkier, L’hérésiologie esp. 29–​ 52; Kim, Epiphanius esp. 17–​43;
Jacobs, Epiphanius; Todd S. Berzon, Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits
of Knowledge in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016), esp. 130–​44, 186–​217.
Further sources for Marcionite Christianity are discussed by Lieu, Marcion, 15–​176.
 Introduction to Marcion 65

chief importance was Isaiah 45:7, where the creator confessed to making
“evils.” The creator also admitted to being jealous and enraged (Exod 20:5; Isa
5:25). Marcion’s special talent was contrasting the divine character deduced
from Jewish scripture with the divine character of Christ. For example: (1)
the creator’s command to despoil the Egyptians with Christ’s exhortation
to voluntary poverty, (2) the creator’s directive to punish “eye for eye” with
Christ’s principle of non-​retaliation, (3) the creator’s genocidal violence with
Christ’s call to be free from anger.
Chapter 4 treats the Marcionite interpretation of 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Marcion(ites) understood “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), to be the cre-
ator because (1) this is one of the creator’s known scriptural titles, (2) it
accords with his well-​known function (ruling creation), and (3) it concurs
with his past actions (cognitive incapacitation). According to Marcion, “the
god of this world” joined forces with the blind “rulers of this world” who cru-
cified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). This wicked alliance encouraged the idea that the
creator was evil.
Chapter 5 examines the Marcionite reception of Ephesians 2:15 (Christ
“destroyed the Law of commandments by [his] teachings”). If Christ
destroyed the Law by his teachings, the Law could not be good. Paul called
the Law “good” in the sense of “just” (Rom 7:12). For Marcion, however, the
creator’s justice was only a cover for his savagery. From his perspective,
the Law revealed sin and thus enslaved people to the creator. Christ came
to abolish this Law to free humanity from slavery. Since Christ came as de-
stroyer of the creator’s Law, he proved that the Law was evil. If the Law was
evil, so was the Lawgiver.
Chapter 6, in turn, shows how Christ “destroyed” the Law from stories
in Marcion’s Evangelion. After treating Evangelion 23:2 (Jewish leaders ac-
cuse Christ of “destroying the Law”), the discussion focuses on Jesus’s con-
crete violations of the Law. For example, Christ touched lepers in violation of
the Law and healed them apart from the Law’s purification rites. Moreover,
Christ controverted the Law to honor parents by requiring a would-​be dis-
ciple not to bury his father, and in general by urging his disciples to abandon
their families. Finally, Christ, according to Marcion(ites), violated Sabbath
laws on numerous occasions, even claiming to be lord of—​effectively over—​
the Sabbath.
Chapter 7, finally, examines the Marcionite interpretation of Galatians
3:13. In this verse, Christ “becomes” a curse on the cross. As the source text
(Deut 21:23) shows, Jesus was cursed specifically by the creator. The creator’s
66 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

curse against Christ, despite its presumed salvific benefit, was an act of harm
incompatible with the view that a divine being cannot inflict evil. Marcionite
Christians understood the creator’s curse against Christ as incriminating the
creator’s character. Whatever good resulted from the curse was not planned
by the creator and could not exculpate him. A being who cursed the sinless
savior was not only lacking goodness from a Marcionite perspective, he was
also evil.
Finally, a word about method—​here also reminding readers of what was
said in the Introduction to Part I. In what follows, I will try to reconstruct
how Marcion read or would have read certain scriptural texts as productive
of the evil creator idea. This is my primary aim. To achieve that aim, I will
appeal to the grammar and context of the text that we think Marcion was
interpreting. In no case, however, am I trying to determine what the text
“actually” or “originally” meant. I will also occasionally invoke interpreters
roughly contemporary with Marcion to get a better idea of what might have
been plausible to Marcion or indicative of his logic. In rare cases, I will invoke
modern interpreters who read biblical texts in a way analogous to Marcion.
All this data is gathered to support and reconstruct what I think was the
Marcionite reading of a particular text. I make no claim whatsoever to ex-
egete texts in a way that covers their entire biblical context or that engages
with all the recent scholarly literature (most of which is miles apart from a
Marcionite mentality). My endeavor is, through and through, to understand
texts as Marcion(ites) would.
 3
Creator of Evils

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries,

the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness,
with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more con-
sistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of God.
—​Thomas Paine1

Introduction

Irenaeus accused Marcion of “impudent blasphemy” for saying that the god
proclaimed in Jewish scripture was “the maker of evils.”2 Yet Marcion was
a student of these same scriptures. He pointed out that in the book of the
prophet Isaiah, the creator announced: “I am he who creates evils” (kitizōn
kaka, 45:7).3
These “evils” are sometimes translated by the word “woe,” an archaic term
still featured in the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Other English
translations opt for “calamity” (New King James, English Standard Version,
New American Standard). The original Hebrew term rāʽ includes disasters
like famine, pestilence, and war, but it also includes morally perverse actions.
Translators bring out this moral sense of the term when they refer to the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil (rāʽ) (Gen 2:17). This same ambiguity be-
tween moral and physical evil is present in the Greek translation kaka (Isa
45:7).4 The Lord who creates kaka could be interpreted not only as the creator

1 Paine, The Age of Reason (Newburyport: Open Road Media: 2017), 16 (Part I, chap. 7).
2 Irenaeus, AH 1.27.2. Cf. Plutarch, who accused Typhon of filling land and sea with evils (κακῶν)
(Isis-​Osiris 361d).
3 Joseph Ziegler, ed. Isaias, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 291. Cf. 4 Ezra

15:5–​11; Tertullian, AM 1.2.2; 2.14.1; 2.24.4; Augustine, Against Adimantus 27; Enemy of the Law
1.48–​49. See further Andrew Davies, Double Standards in Isaiah: Re-​evaluating Prophetic Ethics and
Divine Justice (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 193–​99; Stoyanov, Other God, 56–​59.
4 See further Thomas Römer, “The Origin and the Status of Evil according to the Hebrew Bible,” in

Die Wurzel allen Übels: Über die Herkunft des Bösen und Schlechten in der Philosophie und Religion

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0005
68 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

of pestilence and plague, but also of moral vices like jealousy, rage, and
bloodlust.
Isaiah 45:7 was not the only verse Marcion(ites) used to associate the cre-
ator with evil.5 In Jeremiah 18:11, the creator announced to his own people,
“behold I fashion evils (kaka) against you”; in Micah 1:12 it is said that “evils
(kaka) have descended from the Lord against the gates of Jerusalem,”6 and
in Amos 3:6, the prophet asks: “will there be evil (kakia) in the city which
the Lord has not caused?”7 It is instructive also to note that the creator sends
“an evil spirit” against his anointed king Saul in order to choke him (1 Sam
18:10).8
From the Jewish deity’s production of “evils,” Marcionites deduced an evil
creator. Their mode of thinking, I propose, was shaped by their reading of
their gospel. They recalled and often repeated the saying of Jesus that a bad
tree produces bad fruit (Evangelion 6:43). The principle is simple: evil doings
emerge from an evil character.9
In this chapter, I focus on the creator’s malign character with evidence
from Marcionite readings of Jewish scripture. Throughout this discussion,
I remain open to the idea that texts from the Hebrew scriptures were forma-
tive in Marcionite conceptions of the creator, not just secondarily applied as
proof texts. I take for granted that Marcion and his followers did not read
these scriptures in a vacuum but understood them in terms of philosophical
conceptions regarding exclusive divine goodness. These conceptions, how-
ever, were not the driving force generating the idea of an evil creator. Rather,
they provided an interpretive framework for discovering the evil creator in
Jewish scripture.

des 1.–​4. Jahrhunderts, ed. Fabienne Jourdan and Rainer Hirsch-​Luipold (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015), 53–​66 at 63–​65.
5 Origen, First Principles 4.2.1.
6 Jerome, Commentary on Micah 1:12: “Both the Marcionites and the Manicheans use this

scripture to show that the god of the Law is the creator of evil things” (trans. Thomas P. Scheck,
Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Vol. 1: Jerome [Downers Grove: IVP
Academic, 2016], 74).
7 This verse is also cited by Adimantus in Augustine, Against Adimantus 26.
8 1 Sam 18:10 is roughly equivalent to 1 Kingdoms 15:14 LXX, a verse noted by Origen, Cels.

6.55; Cf. the “angel of the Lord” trying to kill Moses on his way back to Egypt (Exod 4:24). See fur-
ther Heikki Räisänen, The Idea of Divine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine
Hardening, Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Quran (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical
Society, 1976), 47–​52.
9 Tertullian, AM 1.2.1; Origen, First Principles 2.5.4; Adamantius 1.28; 2.20.
 Creator of Evils 69

The Vain Claim

The Jewish scriptures, according to Marcion, did not tell the story of a good
creator. In the very same chapter of Isaiah in which the creator confessed to
making “evils,” he declared: “I am the master, the god, and there is no other
god besides me . . . I am the god and there is no other” (45:5, 22). The Greek
practice of using a definite article (the god) was a way of signifying that the
creator claimed to be the chief god—​and in this case, the only god. Perhaps
in their original setting, these declarations sounded with a ring of comfort.
Isaiah’s creator cradled the world in his hands, invisibly tugging the strings of
global politics. But to Marcion(ites), the creator’s words sounded presump-
tuous. Any Gentile in the ancient Mediterranean could look around and
observe that Yahweh was hardly the only god; he was barely even heard of
outside the confines of the province of Judea. Yahweh was in every way a par-
ticular deity, dyed in local color, showing open favoritism for his own nation.
To the average Greek or Roman, there was nothing particularly unique about
this deity except perhaps his claim to be so.10
Marcion—​who was probably of Greek or Anatolian heritage—​did not as-
sume the creator’s uniqueness. To be sure, he believed, like other Christians,
in a transcendent, loving Father revealed by Jesus. But the creator’s partic-
ularity and malice showed that he was not that transcendent, good deity.
Marcion and his followers were thus led to interpret the creator’s claim to be
singular as ignorant.11 The creator was simply unaware of the true deity ex-
isting above him, so he foolishly declared that he alone was god.
Yet foolishness and ignorance were not the creator’s only flaws. His trum-
peted uniqueness sounded to Marcion’s ears like arrogance—​widely consid-
ered to be a vice in antiquity. The Epicurean philosopher Philodemus (about
110–​40 BCE), for instance, studied arrogance in his work On Vices. In it, he
defined arrogance as a disposition involving a sense of superiority and the
haughty scorn of perceived competitors.12 The competitors of the creator
were the other deities worshiped by the nations (e.g., Exod 20:3; 34:14).

10 E.g., Numenius, frag. 56 (des Places): the Jewish god “considers no one worthy to share his

honor.”
11 Tertullian, AM 1.11.9. Cf. Tertullian, Flesh of Christ 24.1–​ 2. Cf. Ephrem in Mitchell, Prose
Refutations 2.xxviii; cf. 2.xliv.
12 Philodemus, “On Arrogance,” 2.27, with Voula Tsouna, The Ethics of Philodemus (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2007), 145. See further Tsouna, “Aristo on Blends of Arrogance,” in Aristo of
Ceos: Text, Translation and Discussion, ed. William Fortenbaugh (London: Routledge, 2017), 279–​92.
70 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

A sign of the creator’s arrogance, according to Marcion(ites), was the fact

that he swore by himself (Isa 45:22–​23: “I am god; there is no other, I swear
by myself ”).13 In effect, the creator lacked evidence for his uniqueness, so he
appealed to his own authority, employing a kind of self-​authenticating and
self-​deifying rhetoric.14
Jewish scripture typically presented self-​deifiers as horrible sinners suf-
fering a swift demise. For instance, the personified city of Babylon pro-
claimed: “I am, and there is no other!” (Isa 47:10). Yahweh himself responded
to this proclamation with heated words: “Destruction shall seize you, though
you don’t anticipate it; there will be a pit into which you fall” (Isa 47:11).
A similar oracle was addressed to Lucifer the morning star: “You said in your
heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven . . . I will be like the Most High,’ but now you go
down into hell!” (Isa 14:12–​14; cf. Ezek 28:1–​10).
The most open and stubborn form of self-​deification, however, was not
perpetrated by Lucifer or Babylon. The most patent self-​deifier in Jewish
scripture was the creator himself, who repeatedly announced, “I am
god and there is no other!” (Isa 45:22); “I am god, there is no one like
me!” (Isa 46:9); “Behold, behold that I am, and there is no god except me!”
(Deut 32:39).15
When Marcionite Christians encountered these apparent boasts, they
made a logical conclusion: this god was not simply asserting his authority
and control over world history; he was infected with the vices of ignorance
and arrogance.16 He did not know that the Father revealed in Christ—​the
true god who performed no evil—​was far superior.

13 Tertullian, AM 1.11.9: “How is it that the creator, ignorant—​as the Marcionites allege—​that an-

other deity exists above him, even states on oath that he is alone . . . ?” Cf. 2.26.1 and Eznik of Kolb,
On God 358: “Marcion says that when the god of the Law, who was lord of the world, saw that Adam
was genteel and worthy for service, he contrived how he might be able to steal him from matter and
join him to his own side. Having taken him to one side, he said, ‘Adam, I am god, and there is no
other, and apart from me there is no other god for you’ ” (trans. Blanchard and Young [modified], A
Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Kolb [floruit c.430–​c.450]: An English Translation,
with Introduction and Notes [Leuven: Peeters, 1998], cf. §370).
14 M. David Litwa, Desiring Divinity: Self-​deification in Ancient Jewish and Christian Mythmaking

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 47–​65.

15 Note also Isa 43:10; 44:6; 45:5–​7, 18, 21–​22.
16 For other Christians who accused the creator of boasting, consult Secret Book of John (NHC

II,1) 11.20–​21; 13.8–​9; Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) 86.30–​31; Origin of the World (NHC II.5)
103.11–​12; Irenaeus, AH 1.29.4; 1.30.6; Ref. 6.33; 7.25.3; Ps.-​Clement, Recognitions 2.57.3; Second
Discourse of Great Seth (NHC VII,2) 64.20–​26. See further Dahl, “Arrogant Archon,” in Rediscovery of
Gnosticism 2.689–​712 at 692–​706; Steve Johnston, “Le mythe gnostique du blasphème de l’Archonte,”
in Les textes de Nag Hammadi: Histoire des religions et approaches contemporaines. Actes du colloque
international réuni à Paris, ed. M. Jean-​Pierre Mahé, M. Paul-​Hubert Poirier, and Madeleine Scopello
(Paris: AIBL, 2010), 177–​201.
 Creator of Evils 71

Evil in Eden

For a number of early Christians, the vice of the creator was showcased in
the very first law legislated for humanity. Yahweh commanded Adam not
to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). This
unexplained rule seemed to many an arbitrary obstacle to humanity’s
education and growth. To quote the famous line from the Testimony of
Truth (NHC IX,3): “What kind of god is this? First, he begrudged Adam’s
eating from the tree of knowledge . . . He has certainly shown himself to be
a malicious envier.”17
Marcion’s disciple Apelles helped to bring out the logic of this accusation.
Apelles inferred that the creator himself knew good and evil. He reasoned
that if it was good for the creator to know good and evil, then it was good
for humanity as well.18 Nevertheless, the creator prohibited human beings
from sharing this knowledge. The prohibition indicated that the creator
begrudged humanity a positive good.19
What struck Marcion(ites), in addition, was that the creator commanded
a law he knew the first humans would transgress. It was as if the creator fore-
knew that humans would run headlong off a cliff but still set them playing
like children on the edge of a precipice.20 This precipice, moreover, was not

17 Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3) 47.14–​48.4. See furtherWillem Cornelis van Unnik, “Der Neid

in der Paradiesgeschichte nach einigen gnostischen Texten,” in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in
Honour of Alexander Böhlig, ed. M. Krause (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 120–​32; Miriam von Nordheim-​
Diehl, “Der Neid Gottes, des Teufels und der Menschen—​eine motivgeschichtliche Skizze,” in
Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. Renate Egger-​Wenzel and Jeremey Corley (Berlin: de Gruyter,
2012), 431–​50.
18 See further Meike Willing, “Die neue Frage des Marcionschülers Apelles—​zur Rezeption mar-

cionitischen Gedankenguts,” in May and Greschat, Marcion, 221–​31. Cf. Augustine, who addressed
the claim that humanity’s “maker kept the people he had made from a great good, when he wanted
humankind to be like an animal without discernment of good and evil” (Enemy of the Law 1.19).
19 Apelles in Ambrose, Paradise 6.30. See further Katharina Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei

theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 54–​56. Theophilus of Antioch
may have opposed Apelles (or other Marcionite opponents) when he claimed: “god did not envy
Adam, as some suppose, by ordering not to eat from the [tree] of knowledge” (Autolycus 2.25–​26). Cf.
Irenaeus: “god did not envy him the tree of life, as some dare to declare” (AH 3.23.6). Cf. Life of Adam
and Eve (J. Tromp, ed., The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. [Leiden: Brill, 2005]) 18:4
(the serpent speaking): “god knew that you would be like him, envied you and said not to eat from it.”
See further Gerhard May, “Marcions Genesisauslegung und die ‘Antithesen,’” in Die Weltlichkeit des
Glaubens in der Alten Kirche. Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert, ed. Dietmar Wyrwa (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1997), 189–​98; Williams, Rethinking, 68–​72; Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 72–​82; Lautaro Roig
Lanzillotta, “The Envy of God in the Paradise Story According to the Greek Life of Adam and Eve,”
in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García
Martínez, ed. Anthony Hilhorst et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 537–​50.
20 The precipice image comes from Tertullian, AM 4.38.1. On the basis of AM 2.4.5–​6 it can be

gathered that Marcion(ites) cited Gen 2:17 to undermine the goodness of the creator.
72 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

some necessary evil, but the creator’s own design. He deliberately crafted
an object—​a beautiful tree with ripe and seductive fruit—​and himself
decreed the lethal punishment for eating from it (Gen 2:17). Given this data,
Marcion(ites) accused the creator not simply of carelessness, but of malice.
We can again trace this argument through Apelles, whose comments are
likely reflected in the early Christian novel Recognitions.21 Apelles asked
why the creator forbade Adam to know good and evil so that Adam could
knowingly avoid evil and choose the good. Then, because Adam tasted of
the tree and realized what was good, the creator condemned him to death.
But if humanity was bound to be harmed by the tree, why did the creator
plant it at all?22
Earlier we saw how Apelles criticized the creator for keeping the first
humans ignorant. He also argued that in Eden the creator led Adam into
death either because the creator was too weak to prevent it or because he was
cruel.23 We find a similar argument in the Recognitions: the uncorrected evils
of the world show either that the creator is weak or, if he is capable, that he is
evil because he does not will to remove evils.24
With this argument we can compare another attributed to Marcion
himself:

If god is good and knows the future and is able to prevent evil, why did
he allow humanity, his own image and likeness—​even his own substance
on account of the soul25—​to fall from obedience to the Law into death,
outwitted by the devil? For, given the fact that god is good, he would not
have wanted such a horror to occur, and given the fact that he foreknows,
he would not be ignorant of what was to come, and given the fact that he
is powerful, he would be able to prevent it. Therefore what cannot occur
under these three conditions of divine majesty could by no means have

21 This novel uses the character of Simon as a mouthpiece for Apelles, as argued by F. Stanley Jones,

“Marcionism in the Pseudo-​Clementines,” in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques, ed.

Albert Frey and Rémi Gounelle (Lausanne: Zèbre, 2007), 225–​44. See further Harnack, Marcion,
113–​22; Greschat, Apelles, 17–​136.
22 Pseudo-​Clement, Recognitions 2.53.4–​7. From Ambrose (Paradise 8.38) we know that Apelles

believed that the creator commanded something superfluous (Gen 2:17) because he knowingly bid
Adam to follow a rule that would be broken. Apelles undermined the goodness of the creator’s com-
mand (Paradise 8.40). See further Greschat, Apelles, 60–​61. On divine evil in the garden of Eden, see
David Penchansky, What Rough Beast? Images of God in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1999), 5–​20.
23 Apelles in Ambrose, Paradise 7.35 with the comments of Greschat, Apelles, 58–​60.
24 Pseudo-​Clement, Recognitions 2.54.5.
25 Adamantius 2.7: “The soul is the infused breath (ἐμφύσημα) of the creator.”
 Creator of Evils 73

happened. But given that it [the fall into evil] did happen, we must conclude
that god is neither good, foreknowing, or powerful.26

Here we focus on the creator’s lack of goodness. As was pointed out by

Skeptic (Pyrrhonic) philosophers in antiquity, the goodness of god is threat-
ened if (1) god foresees evil, (2) is able to prevent it, but (3) proves unwilling
to do so.27 Marcion(ites) assumed that the creator could foresee evil and that
he was strong enough to prevent it. Given the actual presence of evil in the
world, however, the only other option was that the creator lacked the will to
prevent it. Ergo, the creator could not be good.28
In response, opponents of Marcion appealed to human freedom. In their
view, the creator did not want to prevent evil because that would under-
mine humanity’s free will. But this argument had been undercut at least
a century before Christianity. Philosophers of the Skeptical Academy ac-
cused the creator of a simple design flaw. If god is all powerful and all good,
he should have designed human rationality so as to preserve both freedom
and goodness. The fault does not lie with human vices, but with the de-
signing deity who should have given humans a rational faculty that pre-
cluded vice and blame.29
There were additional problems. Even if the creator “did not create evil
himself,” as Tertullian put it, “he still allowed its creation by some author or
from some source.”30 Evil, in short, must be traced back to the creator. If the
creator is the creator of all, that includes evil, even if it emerges indirectly
through the will of his creatures. The creator is indirectly the maker of evil,

26 Tertullian, AM 2.5.1–​2. See further E. P. Meijering, Tertullian contra Marcion: Gotteslehre in der

Polemik Adversus Marcionem I–​II (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 100–​101; Lieu, Marcion, 66–​69, 285–​88.
27 Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 3.11: if he is able to foresee everything but not willing,

he [god] would have to be regarded as malevolent (βάσκανος).” Cf. Lactantius, Wrath of God 13.20–​
21: “if he is able but will not, he is envious/​hostile (invidus).” Tertullian was aware of this argument
(Hermogenes 10): “If he was able and yet unwilling, he was evil, as having favored evil.” See further
Victor Naumann, “Das Problem des Bösen in Tertullians zweitem Buch gegen Marcion,” Zeitschrift
Katholische Theologie 58 (1934): 311–​63 at 337–​38; Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy,” 56–​58; Lampe,
From Paul, 254–​55; Volker Lukas, Rhetorik und literarischer “Kampf ”: Tertullians Streitschrift gegen
Marcion als Paradigma der Selbstvergewisserung der Orthodoxie gegenüber der Häresie (Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2008), 517–​18.
28 Cf. Apelles in Ambrose, Paradise 8.40: “if you say that god knew humankind would sin but

impressed on him the common notions of good and evil so that by the admixture of evils humanity
could not keep eternal life . . . then in this respect you do not seem to display a good god.” See further
Greschat, Apelles, 61–​62. Cf. Augustine, Enemy of the Law 1.28.
29 Cicero, Nature of the Gods 3.31.76. Cf. Life of Abercius 33; Augustine, Enemy of the Law 1.20.
30 Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 10.1: nullus omnino deus liberetur ista quaestione, ut non auctor

mali videri proinde possit quisquis ille est, qui malum, etsi non ipse fecit, tamen a quocumque et unde-
unde passus est fieri.
74 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

since it would not have existed apart from his creation. By creating, he fa-
vored the advent of evil, became its enabler, thereby proving to Marcionite
interpreters that “he was himself evil.”31

Jealousy

Plato famously wrote that, “There is no jealousy in the divine choir.”32

Aristotle (384–​322 BCE) made the same point more prosaically: “the divine
is not susceptible to jealousy.”33 To be sure, Aristotle could distinguish zeal
(zēlos) from jealousy (phthonos).34 Both jealousy and zeal are desires to attain
certain perceived goods and the feeling of distress when those desires are not
fulfilled. Zeal is a kind of competitive spiritedness useful as a motivator for
anyone striving to be the best they can. Jealousy, however, tends to denigrate
a competing party.35 The jealous lover, for instance, becomes enflamed when
a third party obtains the affections and favors of the beloved. Jealousy is thus
associated with anger, which is often fierce.36

31 Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 10.3. In the immediate context Tertullian mentioned “heretics,”

who, discovering the evil of the creator, concluded that there was “another supremely good god”—​
the trademark of Marcion(ites).
32 Plato, Phaedrus 247a (φθόνος γὰρ ἔξω θείου χοροῦ ἵσταται). Cf. Timaeus 29e; Musonius

Rufus, Discourses 17; Celsus in Origen, Cels. 8.21; Corpus Hermeticum 4.3; Alexander of Lycopolis,
Against the Manicheans 10. See further Ernst Milobenski, Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophie
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964), 21–​58; Thomas Rakoczy, Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid
der Götter: Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur (Tübingen: Gunter
Narr, 1996), 247–​70; F. G. Herrmann, “φθόνος in the World of Plato’s Timaeus,” in Envy, Spite
and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, ed. David Konstan and N. Keith Rutter
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), 53–​84; Esther Eidinow, “Popular Theologies: The Gift
of Divine Envy,” in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religions, ed. Eidinow et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2016), 205–​32.
33 Aristotle, Metaphysics 982a (οὔτε τὸ θεὸν φθονερὸν ἐνδέχεται εἶναι). See further Michael J.

Mills, “ΦΘΟΝΟΣ and Its Related ΠΑΘΗ in Plato and Aristotle,” Phronesis 30:1 (1985): 1–​12.
34 Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.11, 1388a35b6. Aristotle defined φθόνος as “having to do with what people

compete for and seek prestige for in activities or possessions or fame, or any chance good, and espe-
cially things which they think they need to have so that, with more, they rise in status; and with less,
they lack.”
35 Chrysippus defined φθόνος as “pain felt due to the goods of others with the wish to den-

igrate a third party so that one dominates” (H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vols.
[Leipzig: Teubner, 1903], 3.418). Cicero defined it as “distress arising from the fact that another
person has gained possession of what oneself desires” (Tusculan Disputations 4.17).
36 Although Aristotelians saw a place for anger, Stoics considered it slavish, a sign of weakness

(e.g., Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.18.5). For various philosophical and popular conceptions of
jealousy and anger, see William V. Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical
Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), esp. 88–​128; David Konstan, The
Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2006), 41–​76, 111–​28, 219–​43.
 Creator of Evils 75

By Marcion’s day, a (true) god could not be jealous.37 Genuine deity desires
nothing for the simple reason that it lacks nothing. Jealousy assumes a de-
gree of insecurity and emotional fluctuation. But god, according to Platonic
theology, does not change.38 Deity is already perfect, complete, and self-​
sufficient.39 Thus it is impossible for god to feel jealousy, or in fact to feel any
negative emotions (“passions”) at all.40
This enlightened conception of god created a major stumbling block for
early Christians and Jews. A famous passage in the Jewish scriptures has
the creator declare himself to be a “jealous god.” This declaration was mem-
orable given its place at the opening of the Ten Commandments (Exod
20:5; cf. Deut 5:9). It was emotionally loaded because in context, the cre-
ator promised to punish the children of sinful fathers as far as the fourth
generation.41
The creator’s jealousy was not a passing mood, but a defining attribute. His
very name was “Jealous,” as recorded in Exodus: “Do not worship another
god, for the Lord god, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god” (34:14).42
Modern Hebrew Bible experts concur that jealousy is a key trait of the
Hebrew deity. It is “the very center of his self-​revelation,”43 “the essential

37 Philo (about 20 BCE–​45 CE) rooted out all jealousy from his conception of god, refusing to refer

to the creator as a “jealous god” (Special Laws 2.249; Every Good Person Is Free 13; On the Creation 21,
77; Cherubim 127; Allegorical Interpretation 1.80; 3.164, 203; Questions on Genesis 1.55). See further
David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 136; Lieu, Marcion,
338. In the Septuagint (LXX) , jealousy (φθόνος) was already a negative attribute. See Tob 4:7, 16; 1
Macc 8:16; 3 Macc 6:7; Wisd 2:24; 6:23; 7:13; Sir 14:10. Irenaeus agreed that “jealousy is alien to god”
(AH 5.24.2). Cf. Clement, Stromata 7.2.7.2; 5.4.24.1.
38 Plato, Republic 380d–​382a.
39 Alcinous, Handbook of Platonism 10.3: “The primary god is self-​perfect (that is, deficient in

no respect), ever-​perfect (that is, always perfect), and all-​perfect (that is, perfect in all respects)”;
Apuleius, Plato and His Teaching 1.5: god “needs nothing” (nihil indigens).
40 Marcion openly represented this point of view. In the words of Tertullian: “Marcion denies that his

god is disturbed,” that is, by passions (AM 4.31.5, negat Marcion moveri deum suum). Cf. 5.4.14: “the
God of Marcion knows neither how to get angry nor take revenge.” Cf. Alcinous, Handbook 10.4: the
primary god “never moves anything, nor is he himself moved.” See further Herbert Frohnhofen,
Apatheia tou Theou: Über die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und be den grie-
chischsprachigen Kirchenvätern bis zu Gregorios Thamaturgos (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987),
143–​57, 221–​31; Anthony Ellis, “The Jealous God of Ancient Greece: Interpreting the Classical Greek
Notion of Φθόνος Θεῶν Between Renaissance Humanism and Altertumswissenschaft,” Erudition
and the Republic of Letters 2 (2017): 1–​55.
41 Marcion criticized multigenerational punishment as a travesty of justice (Tertullian, AM 2.15.1–​

2; cf. 4.27.8). Tertullian treated the topic of jealousy against Marcion on numerous occasions. See,
e.g., AM 1.28.1; 2.29.3; 3.23.7; 4.21.10; 4.25.2–​3; 4.27.8; 4.39.18; 4.42.2; 5.5.8; 5.7.13; 5.16.6.
42 Adimantus noted this passage according to Augustine, Against Adimantus 11. Adimantus

believed, perhaps following Marcion, that a jealous god could not be just.
43 Christoph Dohmen, “Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name (Ex 34,14). Ursprung und Bedeutung der alt-

testamentlichen Rede von Gottes Eifersucht,” Theologisches Zeitschrift 46:4 (1990): 289–​304 at 290.
76 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

description of God,”44 and “the foundational component of the entire Old

Testament understanding of God.”45
The creator’s jealousy was linked with rage. For at the same time he
announced himself to be jealous, he warned the Israelites that—​if they wor-
ship other gods—​he will flare with anger and wipe them from the face of the
earth (Deut 6:15). When the Israelites did enflame the creator’s jealousy, the
creator confessed to wrath and vowed to pay them back by favoring another
nation (Deut 32:21).46
Given the ambiguity of the Greek phrase theos zēlōtēs (“jealous god” or
“zealous god”) one might argue that the creator simply felt a sense of rivalry.
Yet this is doubtful. First, there is the linguistic consideration that the mean-
ings of zēlos and phthonos had blended by the second century CE, as can be
seen in both Jewish and Christian texts.47 Second, the biblical creator was
threatened by and aimed to undermine other beings called “gods” (Exod
20:3; cf. Ps 82:1). These beings competed for the affections and worship of
the Israelites and on many occasions these Israelites seemed to have favored
them. Evidently, the creator yearned for human love and worship, which in-
dicated a need or lack.
In the second century, Marcionites were known for exposing the creator’s
jealousy.48 Jealousy indicated that the creator was somehow deficient, sub-
ject to change and so to corruption. If the creator was subject to corruption,
then he could and would perish with every other being in the universe bound
by the laws of decay.49 Marcion(ites) probably adapted this argument from

44 E. Reuter, “qn’” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck

and Helmer Ringgren, Vol. 7 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993), 51–​62 at 57, 60.
45 Walther Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments Volume 1, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz,

1957), 133, n.15 (die Grundkomponente des ganzen alttestamentlichen Gottesbegriffs anerkannt
werden). I owe the references in this and the two previous notes to Rik Peels, “Can God Be Jealous?”
Heythrop Journal 59:1 (2018): 1–​15.
46 Deuteronomy 32:20–​21 is quoted by Tertullian in AM 4.31.6. See further R. Miggelbrink, Der

zornige Gott. Die Bedeutung einer anstössigen biblischen Tradition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche,
2002); S. Joo, Provocation and Punishment. The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and
Deuteronomistic Theology (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); J. Jeremias, Der Zorn Gottes im Alten Testament.
Das biblische Israel zwischen Verwerfung und Erwählung (Neukirche-​Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2009).
47 1 Macc 8:16; 1 Clement 3.2; 4.7; 5.2. This point was made by Lieu, Marcion, 340.
48 Tertullian, AM 4.27.8 (zelotes, qualem arguunt Marcionitae). Marcionites were not alone in

underscoring the creator’s jealousy. See, e.g., Irenaeus, AH 1.30.7; Secret Book of John (NHC II)
13,5–​13; Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) 96.3–​6. The creator proclaims his jealousy in Irenaeus AH
1.29.4; Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III,2) 58.25–​26. Note also Julian, Against the Galileans 155c–​e.
See further A. H. B. Logan, “The Jealousy of God: Exod 20,5 in Gnostic and Rabbinic Theology,”
Studia Biblica 1 (1978): 197–​203; Ekkehard Muehlenberg, “Marcion’s Jealous God,” in Disciplina
Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, ed. Donald F. Winslow (Philadelphia: Patristic
Foundation, 1979), 93–​114.
49 Tertullian, AM 2.16.3.
 Creator of Evils 77

Skeptical philosophers: if god experiences any kind of distress, he is incom-

plete, and if he is incomplete, he desires change, and if he is changeable, he
is also perishable, but a god cannot perish.50 A god who can change and
perish—​such as the creator—​is not god.51

Antitheses

Marcion’s special talent was contrasting information gleaned from the

Hebrew scriptures with knowledge gained from his own “New Testament.”
He collected his contrasts into a work called Antitheses. The Antitheses
was an introductory tract that Marcion attached as a kind of preface to his
scriptures.52 Although the Antitheses does not survive today, reports and
reminiscences of it indicate that it belonged to a well-​known genre in the
ancient world called the introductory text (eisagōgē). These kinds of texts
were designed to initiate new trainees into a discipline and to reinforce the
essentials for those already familiar with the topic.53 In Marcion’s case, the
Antitheses shaped the minds of his readers to interpret Jewish and Christian
texts in his own way.54
The primary purpose of the Antitheses was not to show the separation
of Law (Jewish scriptures) and gospel (Christian scriptures).55 Proving the
fundamental difference between these two “testaments” was only instru-
mental. The chief end was to prove that these two anthologies described the
character of two different beings: the true god revealed by Jesus, and a local
godling wrongfully claiming to be the most high.56 Stated briefly, Marcion’s
Antitheses compared the characters of two different superhuman beings by

50 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists 1.157, 170. Carneades and Panaetius concluded

that “what receives suffering must also accept death” (Cicero, Nature of the Gods 3.32; Tusculan
Disputations 1.79).
51 Jealousy was associated with the devil (Wisd 2:23). For the death of daimones, see Plutarch,

Decline of Oracles 17, with Philippe Borgeaud, “The Death of the Great Pan: Problems of
Interpretation,” History of Religions 22:3 (1983): 254–​83.
52 Tertullian’s longest description of the Antitheses occurs at the opening of book 4 of AM. Other

references can be found in Eric W. Scherbenske, “Marcion’s Antitheses and the Isagogic Genre,”
Vigiliae Christianae (VC) 64:3 (2010): 255–​79 at 257, n.5.
53 Scherbenske, “Marcion’s Antitheses,” 258.
54 On this point see Eric W. Scherbenske, “Marcionite Paratexts, Pretexts, and Edition of the Corpus

Paulinum,” in Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013), 71–​115. See also Moll, Arch-​heretic, 107–​14; Lieu, Marcion, 272–​89; Markus
Vinzent, Tertullian’s Preface, 267–​92; Roth, “Evil,” 352–​53; Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, 148–​52.
55 Tertullian, AM 1.19.4; cf. 4.1.1.
56 For daimones claiming to be the highest deity, see Porphyry, Abstinence 2.42.2.
78 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

describing their traits based on their recorded practices—​or those of their

human representatives.57
I make no claim here to reconstruct any of Marcion’s original antitheses.
Discussed are some oppositions made in the anti-​Marcionite literature that
could go back to the Antitheses. Of these, I focus only on those seeking to un-
derline the creator’s evil character. Other contrasts that highlighted his igno-
rance, self-​contradiction, and favoritism will be left aside.58

Despoiling Egypt

We begin with a story in Exodus. We have already sketched Exodus lore in

Chapter 1, so there is no need to repeat the storyline here. What bothered
Marcion about the Exodus was not so much that the creator inflicted dev-
astating plagues upon the Egyptian populace, but that he twice commanded
the Hebrews to gather from them gold, silver, and fine clothing.
The creator’s stated purpose was to “despoil” or “pillage” the Egyptians
(Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:36). The Greek verb operative here is skuleuō—which
could be used of stripping valuables off the body of a slain enemy. The
word indicates that the creator did not demand wage compensation for the
Israelites (as was often alleged), but military spoils.59 Marcion used the cre-
ator’s demand for spoils to illustrate his bellicosity and greed.60
The following is a version of the Marcionite antithesis as recorded in the
Adamantius:

The god of generation ordered Moses as he left the land of Egypt, saying,
“Be prepared! Have your loins girded, your sandals tied, your staffs in your

57 Tertullian, AM 1.19.4. Tertullian understood that Marcionites “prove the difference between

the gods by the difference of the two documents’ propositions” (ex diversitate sententiarum utri-
usque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumententur deorum). Tertullian indicates that the focus of
Marcion’s attention in his Antitheses was the ingenium (character) of the two gods as revealed by their
laws (leges) and powerful deeds (virtutes) (AM 2.29.1). See further Löhr, “Did Marcion?,” in May, and
Greschat, Marcion, 145.
58 In the early twentieth century, Harnack provided a reconstruction of the Antitheses based on

ancient sources (Marcion, 60–​63) found in Appendix V of his German edition (Marcion: Das
Evangelium vom fremden Gott: eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen
Kirche [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921], 256̽–​314̽).
59 The wage compensation argument occurs, e.g., in Irenaeus, AH 4.30.1–​3; Tertullian, AM 2.20;

Epiphanius, Ancoratus 111.1–​3. Manicheans also complained about the creator ordering “the Jews to
take the Egyptians’ clothing” (Epiphanius, Panarion 66.70.3; cf. 66.83.2).
60 The attempt to deflect criticism based on the spoliation can already be detected in Philo, Life of

Moses 1.140–​42; Josephus, Antiquities 2.314; Jub 48:18; Wisd 10.17.

 Creator of Evils 79

hands and your wallets attached! Cart off from the Egyptians gold, silver
and everything else!” But our Lord [Jesus], the good, when he sent out his
disciples into the world, says, “Don’t have shoes on your feet, nor wallets,
nor two shirts, nor cheap coins in your belts.”61

In other words, Marcion(ites) contrasted the creator’s demand to despoil

with Christ’s command to his disciples not to carry extra supplies with them
on their missionary journeys (Evangelion 9:1–​3).62
Although the contexts of the commands are different, Marcionites thought
them worthy of contrast. They assumed, like other Christians, that if the tes-
taments came from a single deity, there should be a theological continuity
between them. If Jesus was the Christ of the creator, their instructions for
advancing the kingdom should have agreed.
Yet this was not the case. In the one passage, Jesus invited his disciples
to accept voluntary poverty and full dependence upon god as they sought
to inaugurate the kingdom. In Exodus, by contrast, the creator ordered the
Hebrews to weigh themselves down with gold, silver, and clothing so they
could decorate his tabernacle in the desert. Marcionites concluded that the
creator’s kingdom is material, based on worldly wealth, whereas Christ’s was
immaterial, based on almsgiving and voluntary self-​limitation.
But it was not the materialism of the creator that bothered Marcion(ites)
as much as the command openly to defraud the Egyptians. In short, the cre-
ator commanded his people to get rich off the spoils of their enemies—​many
of whom had perished in the preceding plagues. Taking such spoils, even if
they were given “voluntarily” and on the spur of the moment, was a form of
robbery typical of plundering.63 An element of deceit is highlighted by the
fact that Moses spoke with the Israelites “in secret,” urging them to ask their
neighbors for expensive items (Exod 11:2). Little did these neighbors know
that what was “borrowed” would never be returned.
Marcion’s chief criticism was that the creator “commanded the theft
(fraudem) of silver and gold.”64 This command contradicted one of the Ten
Commandments (“do not steal,” Exod 20:15), widely taken to exemplify

61 Adamantius 1.10. Cf. Tertullian, AM 4.24.1–​2; Acts of Archelaus 44.8.

62 Cf. Augustine, Against Adimantus 20.1.
63 The late first-​century BCE historian Pompeius Trogus (Justin, Epitome 2.12–​13) believed that

Moses carried off the sacred vessels of the Egyptian by stealth (sacra Aegyptiorum furto abstu-
lit) in Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.335. See further J. Allen, “Ezekiel the Tragedian and the
Despoliation of Egypt,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17.1 (2007): 3–​19.
64 Tertullian, AM 2.28.2; cf. 5.13.6.
80 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

basic morality even today. Far from upholding this morality, the creator or-
dered his servants to engage in serious robbery—​what amounted to pillage.
These were immoral acts, and the creator who ordered them could only have,
according to Marcion, a corrupt character.

Retaliation

“An eye for an eye” is still a well-​known saying today. It refers to a law of
the Jewish scriptures called the ius talionis or “law of retaliation.” The cre-
ator commanded the Israelites: “Show no pity: eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
foot for foot” (Deut 19:21; cf. Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20). The order to “show
no pity” indicates that the creator was not speaking metaphorically. He ac-
tually demanded that, if someone knocked out a person’s eye or tooth, then
that same act had to be performed on the perpetrator. It was a brutal logic in
which punishment quite literally fit the crime.
By the second century CE, this law of retaliation was not assumed to be
just, especially by Christians familiar with Jesus’s sayings. A Marcionite in
the Adamantius contrasted the retaliation principle with Christ’s words in
the gospel: “It says in the Law, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’,
but the Lord, because he is good, says in the gospel, ‘If anyone slaps you on
the cheek, turn the other one to him.’ ”65
In other words, Marcion(ites) understood Christ’s command to engage in
self-​sacrificial submission as a rejection of retaliation. They assumed a prop-
osition articulated by Justin Martyr: “a law placed against another law abro-
gates the earlier one.”66 Even Tertullian agreed that the retaliation principle
“has been cancelled” and “abolished.” “For the old Law used to . . . gouge out
eye for eye and would pay back injury with revenge. However, the new Law
[of Christ] ordained clemency.”67

65 Adamantius 1.15: ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λέγει ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, ὁ

δὲ κύριος ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἐὰν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ εἰς τἠν σιαγόνα, παράθες αὐτῷ καὶ
τὴν ἄλλην. The statement is virtually a quotation of Matthew 5:38–​39; cf. Evangelion 6:29. See fur-
ther Tertullian, AM 2.18.1; 4.16.4–​6; Origen, Cels. 7.25; Acts of Archelaus 44.9; Augustine, Against
Adimantus 8.
66 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 11.2: νόμος δὲ κατὰ νόμου τεθεὶς τὸν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἔπαυσε.
67 Tertullian, Against the Jews 3.10. Geoffrey D. Dunn, who dates this work to 195–​96 CE, considers

the work to be authentic and to be addressed to a primarily Christian audience (Tertullian’s Adversus
Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003],
173–​82).
 Creator of Evils 81

For Marcion(ites), Christ rejected the creator’s law of retaliation not only
because it was unkind, but because it was unjust. This was not simply a disa-
greement of law but of principle. Christ forbade retaliation, while the creator
enforced it. The moral character of the Christ who rejected retaliation was
therefore significantly different from the creator who commanded it.
If the creator was “just,” Marcion(ites) thought, his justice was a mask for
cruelty. The creator’s justice really meant severity, harshness, and savagery,
which could hardly be described as good.68 A justice without goodness was
no justice at all but, rather, a travesty of justice emerging from a depraved
character.

Child Murder

Another antithesis recorded in the Adamantius went as follows: “The prophet

of the god of generation told a bear to come out of a thicket and devour the
children who met him, but the good Lord says, ‘Let the children come to me,
for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Evangelion 18:16).69 Tertullian also
recorded this contrast: “Christ loves the little children, teaching that those
who always wish to be great should become such as these. But the creator
launched bears against young boys, taking vengeance for their insult suffered
by the prophet Elisha.”70
To explain: Marcion(ites) appealed to the story in Jewish scripture where
Elisha the prophet, while traveling to the city of Bethel, was met by young
children who mocked his baldness. The prophet responded by cursing the
children in the name of the creator. The creator immediately fulfilled the
curse by sending two bears against the children who were immediately
mauled (2 Kings 2:23–​24).

68 The “just” god is in effect the savage god, e.g., in Tertullian, AM 4.8.7: “The god who is a judge

wants to be feared, and he has the traits that inspire fear: wrath, savageness, vindictive judgment,
condemnation.” Although I agree with Harnack in distinguishing justice and goodness, his attempt
to distinguish the creator’s justice from his wicked nature (e.g., Marcion, 69–​70, 75–​76) fails. Yet
even Harnack allowed that, for Marcion, the justice of the creator “turns into wickedness” (Marcion,
87). See further Löhr, “Did Marcion Distinguish,” in May, and Greschat, Marcion, 131–​46; Lieu,
Marcion, 343–​49.
69 Adamantius 1.16: ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως ἄρκτῳ εἶπειν ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ δρυμοῦ καὶ

καταφαγεῖν τοῦς ἀπαντήσαντας αὐτῷ παῖδας. ὁ δὲ ἀγαθὸς κύριος «ἄφετε,» φησίν «τὰς παιδίας
ἔρχεσθαι πρὸς με, τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.» Cf. Matt 19:14; Mark 10:14.
70 Tertullian, AM 4.23.4: Sed ecce Christus diligit parvulos, tales docens esse debere qui semper

maiores velint esse, creator autem ursos pueris immisit, ulciscens Helisaeum Propheten convicia ab eis
passum.
82 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

It is tempting to soft-​peddle the troubling details of this story. According

to the Septuagint, Elisha cursed not wily teenage toughs, but “small children”
(paidaria mikra). He cursed not just two or three of these children but “forty-​
two” of them—​all of whom were gored. He cursed them not for a repeated
offense, but for a single occurrence of jesting, and for a relatively minor
infraction—​for exposing the prophet’s baldness. Consequently, Elisha’s curs-
ing of the children indicates serious moral flaws in both his character and the
character of the being he represented—​the creator.
There were, of course, attempts to mitigate the morally problematic nature
of the story. One ancient commentator blamed the parents of the children for
bad childrearing, but this hardly makes up for child murder.71 Attempts are
made in the modern period to make the children’s insult more cutting—​to
say that baldness was a sign of Elisha’s prophetic office or indicative of lep-
rosy.72 But even if these speculations proved convincing, Elisha’s curse still
lies beyond the moral pale.
For Marcion(ites), the angry, cursing prophet represented the character of
the one who sent him—​the creator. The anger of the creator and his jealous
need to retaliate has already been discussed. In the bear attack episode, it was
the creator who perpetrated the crime, for it is he who sent the bears against
the children.
These bears quite literally tore the children apart. The Greek verb at play
(anerrēxan) expresses incredible violence. It can be used to describe breaking
through a wall, or of a lion ripping open a carcass. Etymologically, the verb
means “break up,” and one can almost hear the sound of the children’s bones
cracked by the bears’ teeth—​though their screams go unmentioned. Far from
showing any compassion, the cursing prophet continued his journey as if
nothing had even happened.73
Such, for Marcion(ites), was the justice of the creator. The crime committed
was petty; its punishment was swift, cruel, deadly. The creator’s prophet was

71 Ephrem, whose comments are translated in Marco Conti, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture V: 1–​2 Kings, 1–​2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008),
149. On the same page, Caesarius of Arles is quoted as saying that Elisha’s purpose in having the chil-
dren “torn to pieces” was not revenge but their “amendment.”
72 Bernard P. Robinson opted for the baldness as a religious tonsure (“II Kings 2:23–​25: Elisha

and the She-​Bears,” Scripture Bulletin 14:1 [1983]: 2–​3). Richard G. Messner (“Elisha and the Bears,”
Grace Journal 3 [1962]: 12–​24 at 18) cited arguments for baldness signifying leprosy.
73 John Gray comments: “The supposition that Elisha invoked the name of Yahweh to curse the

boys, with such terrible consequences . . . borders on blasphemy” (I and II Kings: A Commentary, 3rd
ed. [London: SCM, 1977], 480). See further Penchansky, What Rough Beast? 81–​90; Brian P. Irwin,
“The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of Elisha,”
Tyndale Bulletin 67:1 (2016): 23–​35.
 Creator of Evils 83

quick to curse, and the creator who mirrored his character proved hasty to
fulfill it. Elisha cursed in the name of the creator. This is significant, for as we
shall see in Chapter 7, the creator is characterized by cursing. A curse in his
name is duly effective. Indeed, the creator had already warned the Israelites
by adding curses to his covenant. If Israel did not follow his laws, the creator
would send “wild animals” against them who would bereave them of family
members by devouring them (Lev 26:22). As the creator himself put it: “I will
send the teeth of beasts!” (Deut 32:24).
Marcion opposed the curse against the children to what occurs in the
gospel. Votaries of Jesus brought infants and small children to him so that
he could bless them. When his disciples tried to prevent this, Jesus invited
the young to approach, saying: “Let the little children come to me and do
not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven is made up of their kind” (Luke
18:15–​17).74 In short, Jesus transmitted the blessings of the true god to the
children, whereas Elisha effectively destroyed kids by the curse of the creator.
One can argue here that the two scenes are fundamentally different. The
children of the gospel, after all, do not mock Jesus. If they did, perhaps his
response would have been different. But we have little reason to think so, for
when Jesus was rejected and refused hospitality by the (adult) Samaritans, he
did not curse them. When his disciples suggested they call down fire from
heaven like the prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:9–​13), Jesus rebuked them as if they
were raving mad (Evangelion 9:54–​55).75 For Marcion(ites), Jesus was on a
different wavelength than the prophets of the creator. He did not represent
their character. He certainly did not replicate the character of the creator,
whose “justice” was exposed as cruel, even murderous.

Violent in War

The Marcionites in the Adamantius presented three more significant contrasts:

The prophet of the god of generation [Moses], when a battle commenced

against his people, climbed to the top of a mountain and extended his hands

74 The full passage is not attested in Marcion’s Evangelion, so I cite the Lukan text.
75 Tertullian specifically mentioned this as a point made by Marcion(ites) (AM 4.23.8: “The creator,
at Elijah’s demand, brings down a plague of fire upon that false prophet. I grant the judge’s severity,
and by contrast Christ’s gentleness when reproving the disciples as they call for the same punishment
upon that village of the Samaritans”). See further Lieu, Marcion, 280.
84 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

to his god in order to slaughter masses of people in the battle (Exod 17:8–​9).
But our Lord [Jesus], since he is good, stretched out his hands [on the cross]
not to slaughter human beings but to save them.76

The prophet of the god of generation, in order to kill as many as possible in

battle, had the sun stand still that it might not go down until the adversaries
of the people were utterly annihilated (Joshua 10); but the Lord, since he is
good, says, “Let not the sun set on your rage.” (Eph 4:26)77

The prophet of the god of generation says, “My bows are taut and my arrows
are sharpened” (Isa 5:28; Deut 32:23), but the apostle says, “Put on the full
armor of god, that you may be able to quench the fiery arrows of the evil
one.” (Eph 6:11, 16)78

To understand these contrasts, we must examine the biblical contexts.

Amalekites
We begin with the first, namely, Exodus 17:8–​15, which can here be sum-
marized. In an apparent attempt to protect their borders, a tribe called the
Amalekites drew up its battle lines against Israel.79 According to Exodus, over
half a million armed Israelite men had recently marched from Egypt and were
moving up toward the desert of the Negev (modern-​day southern Israel). This
was the homeland of the Amalekites, a people stemming from the grandson
of Israel’s brother Esau (Gen 36:12). According to this family tree, Amalekites
and Israelites were cousins. Yet family ties could not prevent the clash of war.
Moses immediately ordered his military lieutenant Joshua to choose his
best troops to array themselves against the Amalekites. For his part, Moses
climbed a nearby hill to oversee the battle. Whenever Moses lifted his hands,

76 Adamantius 1.11: ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως, πολέμου συστάντος πρὸς τὸν λαόν,

ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφῆν τοῦ ὄρους ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα πολλοῦς τῷ πολέμῳ
ἀνέλῃ. ὁ δὲ κὐριος ἡμῶν ἀγαθὸς ὤν, ἐξέτεινε τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ ὀυχὶ τοῦ ἀνελεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
ἀλλὰ τοῦ σῶσαι.
77 Adamantius 1.13: ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως, ἵνα πολεμῶν πλείονας ἀνέλῃ, ἔστησεν

τὸν ἥλιον τοῦ μὴ δῦσαι μέχρι συντελέσῃ ἀναιρῶν τοὺς πολεμοῦντας πρὸς τὸν λαόν. ὁ δὲ κύριος
ἀγαθὸς ὤν λέγει «ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπῖ τῷ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν.»
78 Adamantius 1.19: ὁ προφήτης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς γενέσεως λέγει «τὰ τόξα μου ἐντεταμένα καὶ τὰ

βέλη μου ἤκονημένα,» ὁ δ’ ἀπόστολός φησιν «ἐνδύσασθε τῆν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι
τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι.»
79 Philo wrote that the king of Amalek feared being pillaged by the incoming Israelites (πόρθησιν

εὐλαβηθείς, Life of Moses 1.215).

 Creator of Evils 85

the Israelite troops cut down their enemies. But when his arms lowered in
exhaustion, the Amalekites rallied. Realizing this, Moses’s companions sat
him down and supported each of his arms until the Israelites completely
slaughtered—​not just the Amalekite army—​but its civilian population with
the edge of the sword.80 The creator then sent Moses a dispatch that he would
“utterly wipe out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”81
Yet it was the Israelites themselves who did the dirty work, for Moses
later commanded them to “wipe out the name [that is, existence] of Amalek
from under heaven” with the heated warning “Do not forget!” (Deut 25:19).
“This command,” in the words of a recent interpreter, was meant “to return
Amalek to a state of non-​existence, i.e., Amalek is to be drummed out of the
world order.”82
The creator himself did not let the command to slaughter slip away from
his mind. Four hundred years later, he informed his anointed king Saul: “I
will take vengeance because of what Amalek did to Israel . . . . Now, advance
and strike Amalek . . . and utterly destroy it by dedicating it to me, all that
belongs to it. Do not spare anything; kill man and woman, infant and suck-
ling child, calf and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Kingdoms 15:3 LXX). When
Saul spared—​not the women and children—​but the choice animals of the
Amalekites, the creator regretted making Saul king and vowed to dethrone
him (15:9–​35).
What interested Marcion in this story was the contrast in divine character,
a contrast he illustrated by a posture dear to Christians—​the outstretched
hands. Contemporaneous Christian writers had already interpreted Moses’s
outstretched hands as a foreshadowing of Christ’s arms extended on the
cross.83 For Christians, the open arms were a sign of sacrificial love and

80 ἐτρέψατο Ἰησοῦς τὸν Αμαληκ καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας (Exod 17:13, em-

phasis added), in John William Wevers, ed., Exodus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991),
220–​22.
81 Ἀλοιφῇ ἐξαλείψω τὸ μνημόσυνον Ἀμαλῆκ ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν (Exod 17:14). Philo, although

he acknowledged the slaughter of the Amalekites, omitted any mention that god told Moses he would
erase Amalek’s memory (Life of Moses 1.214–​19). The same is true of Josephus, who added that the
Israelites, after slaughtering the Amalekites, inspired great terror and gained great wealth (Antiquities
3.56–​57). See further Avi Sagi, “The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the
Moral Problem,” Harvard Theological Review 87:3 (1994): 323–​46; Louis H. Feldman, “Remember
Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-​Philo,
and Josephus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 19–​21, 29–​37.
82 Feldman, “Remember Amalek!” 10.
83 Epistle of Barnabas 12.2; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 90.4; Irenaeus, AH 4.21.1; Sibylline Oracles

8.251–​52; Acts of Archelaus 51.7.

86 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

forgiveness. For Marcion, however, Moses’s outstretched hands signaled the

opposite—​war and bloodlust, the slashing of swords, and the (attempted) an-
nihilation of a whole tribe.
Such was the character of the creator, who held a grudge against Amalek—​
not simply for four generations but for four hundred years—​secretly war-
ring against them (Exod 17:16) until he could annihilate every man, woman,
child, and animal. There was simply no similarity, for Marcionites, between
the outstretched hands of Moses and Christ. “What is the likeness here?”
cried out the Marcionite in the Adamantius. “The one by stretching out his
hands slaughters, while the other saves!”84

Stopping the Sun

The second Marcionite contrast refers to a story in the book of Joshua
(10:1–​15). To set the scene: Moses had recently died. The Israelites invaded
Canaan (modern Israel) under the command of Joshua. Their armies anni-
hilated several towns west of the Jordan River, but one of the cities guilefully
signed a peace treaty with Israel. A coalition of Canaanite kings then attacked
that city. When Joshua’s army came to its defense, his soldiers proceeded to
slaughter their opponents to a man. Realizing that there was not enough time
in a day to kill them all, Joshua commanded the sun to stand still to provide
sufficient light to cut them down.
Marcion(ites) contrasted this halting of the sun—​caused by none other
than the sun’s creator—​with the biblical saying not to let the sun set on
one’s rage. This particular directive comes from “the Lord” in a broad
sense, since it is found in a Pauline letter (Eph 4:26). But Marcionites un-
derstood the original Pauline epistles as inspired by the true deity. The
contrast highlighted a difference in character. The creator interfered with
the physical laws of the universe to make time for Joshua to finish spilling
human blood in the Judean hills. The creator thereby showed himself to
be bellicose—​determined to wipe out his enemies to support a program
of invasion.
By contrast, the lord known to Paul was not even willing for his servants to
stay angry overnight before reconciling. The creator, in support of a bloody
battle, cut short the night; the true god, however, commanded that anger
cease before nightfall.

84 Adamantius 1.11: Τί οὖν ὅμοιον; ὁ μὲν διὰ τῆς ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν ἀναίρει, ὁ δὲ σώζει. See fur-

ther Tsutsui, Auseinandersetzung, 161–​62; Lieu, Marcion, 288–​89.

 Creator of Evils 87

Arrows of the Evil One

The final Marcionite contrast quoted a verse from the prophet Isaiah. In
context, the prophet had just finished an oracle condemning Israelites for
buying up too many properties, for being excessively drunk at parties, and
for acquitting people who accepted bribes (Isa 5:8–​23). He then launched
this speech:

The lord of armies was enraged with wrath against his people; he pressed
his hand against them and struck them. The mountains shuddered; their
bodies became like dung on the street. Yet with all this, his anger did not
abate, his hand remained high. And so, he will raise a signal to the nations
far away and will whistle for them from the height of earth—​swiftly they
will come. They will not labor nor grow tired; they will not doze nor sleep;
they will not loose their belts or untie their sandals—​their arrows are sharp
and their bows are taut. (Isa 5:25–​28)

The Marcionite quotation reads as if the creator spoke it in the first

person: “My bows are taut and my arrows are sharpened.” This may be
a simple deduction: since it is the creator who organized the attack on his
people, effectively he is the one who bent the bows and launched the arrows.
Yet Marcion(ites) may have blended in their memory of Deuteronomy
32:23, 42 where the creator said against his people, “I will gather evils against
them and expend all my arrows against them . . . I will make my arrows
drunk with blood” (cf. 4 Ezra 16:13). Whatever the case may be, the cre-
ator was ultimately responsible for declaring war against his own people. To
Marcion(ites), the creator seemed hostile, warlike, and unstable—​all traits
indicating a vicious character.
The contrast Marcion(ites) drew in this instance is unlike anything we
have seen before. It comes from a Pauline letter that invites Christians to don
the armor of god. The armor is spiritual because, as the author points out,
“our battle is not against flesh and blood but . . . against the spiritual forces
of evil” (Eph 6:12). Thus the call to arms is not a call to literal war and blood-
shed. It is a call for defense against spirit beings, and specifically against “all
the fiery arrows of the evil one” (Eph 6:16).
But the only arrows of which Isaiah 5:28 and Deut 32:23 speak are the
arrows of the creator. We are to deduce, then, that the “arrows of the evil
one” are in fact arrows of the creator. The creator, for Marcion(ites), was the
evil one.
88 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

This interpretation is daring to be sure, but not arbitrary. Even apart from
the intertextual connections, the evil of the creator had already been estab-
lished elsewhere in the “Old” Testament. Marcionites knew that the creator
was a being who—​using human armies to be sure—​fought and killed his own
people, leaving their bodies like dung on the streets.
This is not the action of a good deity. The creator’s abandonment and
killing of his own people—​though it might be “just” from the perspective
of the scriptural author—​is yet another example of his desire for vengeance
and jealous hostility when his people fail. For Marcion(ites), to be sure, one
could hardly force oneself to love this being. The only appropriate action was
to take defensive measures against him in an attempt to quench the flames of
his demon-​like attack.85

Conclusion

Marcionites were, like all readers of the Bible, selective (perhaps culpably
so). Yet whereas most Christians today read Jewish scripture to emphasize
the creator’s goodness, Marcionite Christians underscored precisely the
opposite—​his wicked character. As it turned out, they hardly lacked mate-
rial. Indeed, we have barely scratched the surface of the texts they treated,
hindered as we are by the loss of the Antitheses and the selective reporting of
Marcion’s views. We have only discussed the creator as maker of evils, igno-
rantly boasting, designing evil in Eden, jealous of other gods, commanding
pillage, issuing brutal punishments, murdering children, and savage in war.
We know from various lists, however, that Marcion(ites) underscored
other offenses of the creator. According to Tertullian, Marcion(ites) empha-
sized the creator’s wiping out of humanity with a flood, his firebombing the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, his plagues against Egypt, his hardening of
Pharaoh’s heart, and his killing of the Israelites in the desert.86 In the report of

85 For the Hebrew creator and violence, see further Bernhard Lang, The Hebrew God: Portrait of an

Ancient Deity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 45–​74; David Penchansky and Paul L. Reddit,
Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), esp. 1–​42; Eryl W. Davies, The Immoral
Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics (London: Bloomsbury, 2010); M. Carroll, R. Daniel, and J. Blair
Wilgus, Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2015); Terrence Fretheim, What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terrence E. Fretheim, ed. Michael J.
Chan and Brent A. Strawn (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015), esp. 129–​58.
86 All these episodes are mentioned by Tertullian, AM 2.14.4. Origen added the killing of the

Israelites in the desert (First Principles 2.5.1). Cf. Jerome, Commentary on Micah 1.9: “But if he [the
 Creator of Evils 89

Irenaeus, the creator “makes evils, is lustful for war, is inconstant in his judg-
ments, and contradicts himself.”87
Two additional sin lists (combined here) from the Pseudoclementine
Homilies (a fourth-​century CE novel related to the Recognitions) sum up
the Marcionite critique of the creator from the Jewish scriptures: the cre-
ator lies, tempts people while playing dumb, flies into fits of anger, changes
his mind, becomes jealous, hardens hearts, blinds people, makes them
deaf, counsels people to pillage, mocks them, shows weakness, creates
evils, delights in war, shows no familial affection, and is not faithful to ful-
fill his promises.88 For Marcion(ites), such a being could not be described
as good.
In their minds, Marcionites did not invent the evil creator. Rather, they
exposed him from his own scriptures. Despite the accusation of anti-​
Marcionite reports, Marcionites did not simply proof-​text scriptural docu-
ments. Rather, they performed serious exegetical and comparative work to
display the creator’s wicked character. They were innovative and poignant in
the art of contrast, showing how the character of Jesus and the god revealed
by him was incompatible with the character of the creator.
Marcion’s enemies did their best to show how the two characters were in
fact compatible, with the creator, for instance, altering his salvific program
in response to human maturation. But the enormity of the anti-​Marcionite
response from the second to the fifth centuries CE shows just how pow-
erful and enduring Marcionite arguments were perceived to be.89 Marcion
strongly argued from the creator’s own scriptures that the creator’s justice
was a form of cruelty, and that his repeatedly evil actions—​which he himself
confessed (Isa 45:7)—​proved that he was malign.

creator] seems to us to be cruel, harsh and bloodthirsty, since he obliterated the human race in the
flood, rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, drowned the Egyptians in the waters
and made the corpses of the Israelites fall in the desert . . .” (trans. Thomas P. Scheck).
87 Irenaeus, AH 1.27.2.
88 Pseudo-​Clement, Homilies, 43–​44: ψεύδεται . . . πειράζει ὡς ἀγνοῶν . . . ἐνθυμεῖται καὶ

μεταμελεῖται . . . ζηλοῖ . . . σκληρύνει καρδίας . . . τυφλοῖ καὶ κωφοῖ . . . ἀποστερεῖν συμβουλεύει

. . . ἐνπάιζει . . . ἀδυνατεῖ . . . ἀδικεῖ . . . κακὰ κτίζει . . . πολέμους αὐτὸς ἀγαπᾷ . . . τὰ κακὰ
κτίζει . . . ἄστοργος αὐτός . . . πιστὸς οὐκ ἔστιν περὶ ὥν ὑπισχνεῖται. See further Homilies 3.38, where
the creator is “without foreknowledge, imperfect, needy, not good, and a slave to countless horrid
passions.” Tertullian, addressing Marcion, listed some of the creator’s passions: he becomes enraged
(irascitur) and jealous (aemulatur), exalts himself (extollitur), and becomes irritated (exacerbatur)
(AM 2.16.3); he is also “most pitiless/​bitter (acerbissimus)” (3.4.2).
89 For the enormity of the anti-​Marcionite response, see Harnack, Marcion, 99–​103; Lampe, From

Paul, 250–​51.
 4
The God of This World

Who comes to the road that seduces, to the beginning of the two
poison roads (and) to the gate of hell? It is . . . the one who worships
the devil and addresses him as god.
—​Manichean Confession1

Introduction

Marcion was famous chiefly as an interpreter, not of Jewish scriptures, but of

Pauline texts. For Marcion, the Pauline epistles were the favored mine from
which he chiseled out the ore of his theology. If the Jewish scriptures could be
used to prove the wicked, spiteful, and jealous character of the creator, it was
Paul who gave Marcion the eyes to behold him. One of the most important
Pauline texts in this regard was 2 Corinthians 4:4.
What does this text say in context? In 2 Corinthians 3:14, Paul claimed that
a veil lies over the hearts of the Jews whenever they read Jewish Law. Yet al-
though Paul promoted himself as a minister of a superior covenant (2 Cor
3:1–​6), he admitted that sometimes his message about Christ was also veiled.
It was veiled to those “who are being destroyed.” They are being destroyed, in
part, because “the god of this world blinded their minds so that they do not
behold the brilliance of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4).2
In this chapter, I explore the Marcionite reception of this verse with a
view to understanding how Marcionites derived their conception of the
wicked creator.3 Before delving straight in, however, I will lay out some of the

1 Translated by Jes P. Asmussen, Manichean Literature: Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle

Persian and Parthian Writings (Delmar: Scholars’ Facsimiles, 1975), 72.

2 ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words in bold are attested in Marcion’s Apostolikon
(Tertullian, AM 5.11.9). See Schmid, Marcion, 329.
3 Long ago, Andreas Lindemann recognized the importance of 2 Corinthians 4:4 for Marcion

but left the issue unexplored (Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die
Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion [Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1979], 384).

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0006
 The God of This World 91

interpretive groundwork of the verse with an eye to how it might have been
interpreted by a second-​century reader. These readers, just like readers today,
were challenged to answer key questions. We can isolate three inquiries here.
First, who is “the god of this world”? What are his deeds and character in
both the larger biblical context and in the context of 2 Corinthians? Finally, is
“the god of this world” a good or an evil being?

Terminology

First, a word about the “world” in the phrase “the god of this world.”4 The
Greek term at play here (aiōn) can also be translated as “age.” (Tertullian,
for instance, took it in this sense.) My translation “world” already fits a
particular trajectory of reception. Today, it is common to say that Paul
was an apocalyptic thinker who assumed a present age overlapped by an
age to come.5 But to those removed from an apocalyptic worldview, Paul’s
language of aiōn could be taken in a spatial sense to refer to our cosmic
realm.6
Paul referred not just to a god of this world but to “the god” (ho theos)—​
designating a definite deity, evidently the one who controls the world. There
was some cause to take this being as the creator since early Christians gener-
ally assumed that there was no other god who ruled this world. He ruled the
world, to state it most simply, because he created it.7
To support this understanding, early Christians had only to recall their
own scriptural or para-​scriptural texts. The book of Tobit records that all the
nations will one day bless “the god of the world” in righteousness (14:7).8
Daniel 5:4 (LXX) censures those who bless idols and not “the god of the

4 According to Victor Paul Furnish, Paul’s phrase ὁ αἰών οὑτός (1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; Rom

12:22) is not essentially different from his references to ὁ κόσμος οὑτός (1 Cor 3:19; 5:10; 7:31)
(II Corinthians Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary [New York: Doubleday,
1984], 220).
5 E.g., Clinton Arnold, Powers of Darkness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 102. See in general

Barry R. Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism
(London: Bloomsbury, 1996).
6 For the spatial sense of αἰών, see Wisd 13:9; 14:6; 18:4; Heb 1:2; 11:3.
7 Tertullian remarked: “the ages (saecula = αἰῶνες) belong to the creator” (AM 5.6.3). Interestingly,

Tertullian referred to the creator as princeps potestatis saeculorum (“prince of the power of the ages”),
semantically close to the deus huius saeculi of 2 Corinthians 4:4 (AM 5.17.7).
8 τὸν θεὸν τοῦ αἰῶνος in Robert Hanhart, ed., Tobit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1983), 179–​80, from Codex Sinaiticus (‫)א‬. Most other MSS have, instead of τὸν θεὸν τοῦ αἰῶνος,
simply τὸν κύριον.
92 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

world” who holds power over their breath.9 The Greek version of I Enoch
1:4 identifies “the god of the world” with the god of Exodus who treads upon
Mount Sinai.10 In all three passages, “the god of the world” is the Jewish deity,
creator of heaven and earth.

The God Who Blinds

The fact that “the god of this world” blinded people (2 Cor 4:4) might sound
repellent today, but it is not out of character for the deity known from Jewish
scripture. The creator repeatedly hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod 4:21;
7:3–​4; 9:12, 35), ordained that life-​saving advice be refused (2 Sam 17:14),
and incited a wicked spirit to speak lies in the royal court (1 Kings 22:20–​24).
Yahweh also hardened the heart of his people (Isa 63:17), threatened to inflict
them with blindness (Deut 28:28), and sealed the eyes of Israel’s prophets (Isa
29:10, cf. 14).
The phenomenon of divine blinding and mental incapacitation is not re-
stricted to Jewish scripture. According to Paul in Romans 1:28, god “gave up”
people who worship the divine through images “to a debased mind” so that
they would perform shameful acts. In 2 Thessalonians, god “sends the opera-
tion of deceit” so that unbelievers accept “the lie” of the “man of lawlessness”
(2:11). If this god is not himself a deceiver, he is not above sending agents of
deceit or performing operations that result in blinding people from the truth.
In the second century, a paradigm proof text for the god who blinds was
Isaiah 6:10. In the Hebrew version of this verse, Yahweh commanded Isaiah
to dull (literally “fatten”) the hearts of his people, to close (literally “make
heavy”) their ears, and to blind (or “smear something over”) their eyes.
Septuagintal versions of Isaiah attempted to avoid the fact that Yahweh
commanded blindness to afflict his own people. It said that the heart of the
Israelites “became stupid; they heard poorly with their ears and they closed
their eyes so that they do not see with their eyes.” The word “stupid” could
more literally be translated “thick,” “fat,” or “dense.” It represents a passive

9 τὸν θεὸν τοῦ αἰῶνος in Joseph Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et

Draco. Editio secunda versionis iuxta LXX interpretes textum plane novum constituit (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 310.
10 ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος in M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 19.

In a Christian spell ( K. Preisendanz and A. Henrichs , eds., Papyri Graecae magicae, 3 vols., 2nd
ed. [Stuttgart: Teubner, 2001], 2.221 = §13.8) Christ himself who came from the father’s right hand is
called “the god of this world” (ὁ θεός τοῦ αἰῶνος).
 The God of This World 93

verb, often taken to be a divine passive (epachunthē). The creator, in other

words, is likely the one who incites the stupidity, an interpretation in accord
with the previous verse, where the creator orders Isaiah: “Go and say to this
people, ‘With hearing you will hear and certainly not understand; seeing you
will see and certainly not perceive.”11 The statement is worded like a predic-
tion. But the certainty of Yahweh indicates that he willed the prediction to
come true and apparently played a role in realizing it. As we learn from the
context (6:11), Yahweh had already sealed Israel’s fate: the people would be
exiled and their country destroyed.12
A similar logic of divine incapacitation appears in late first-​century cita-
tions of Isaiah 6:10. In John 12:40, the narrator understands Isaiah 6:10 as a
prophecy explaining the fictional Jews’ refusal to believe in Jesus. For them,
the creator “has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart so that (hina)
they do not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and convert”
(emphasis added). This purpose clause (also attested in Mark 4:12 and Luke
8:10) brings out the idea that the creator actually intended to blind his own
people from seeing the light of Christ.13
Sources from the Nag Hammadi codices present a heightened vilification
of the creator buttressed by Isaiah 6:10. According to the Secret Book of John
(the earliest version dated to the mid–​second century CE), the creator in-
duced a slumber in Adam. The main text adapted is Genesis 2:21–​22, but the
creator’s bestowal of a “spirit of stupefaction” (Isa 29:10) lurks in the back-
ground, for Adam’s sleep is interpreted as an intellectual numbing. The cre-
ator made Adam “heavy,” Jesus explains, “with senselessness.”14 Jesus then
recalls Isaiah 6:10 to illustrate the stupefying behavior: the creator “will make
the ears of their hearts heavy so that they do not understand and see.”15
The Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3) also questions the creator’s behavior
in Eden. The creator gives an arbitrary command. When Adam disobeys it,
the creator cannot locate Adam and does not know who instructed him to
disobey. He begrudged Adam both the gift of knowledge and that of eternal
life. To support this negative portrayal of the Hebrew deity, the author quoted

11 Isa 6:9–​10 in Ziegler, ed., Isaias, 143–​44. See further Räisänen, Hardening, 60–​66, 88–​93.
12 Later reflections of Isaiah 6:10 emphasize the guilt of Israel (Isa 42:20; 43:8; Jer 5:21–​23; Ezek
12:2–​3). C. A. Evans shows that later versions of Isaiah 6:10 (LXX, Targums, and Peshitta) soften
the theme of divinely inflicted obduracy (To See and Not Perceive: Isa 6.9–​10 in Early Jewish and
Christian Interpretation [London: Bloomsbury, 2009], 61–​80, 164).
13 Evans, To See, 91–​136.
14 Secret Book of John (BG) 58.20–​59.1 (ⲁϥⲑⲣ︥ ϣⲟϥ ϩⲛ︥ ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲓⲥⲑⲏⲥⲓⲁ).
15 Secret Book of John (BG) 59.3–​4; compare the longer version (NHC II,1) 22.26–​28.
94 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

a version of Isaiah 6:10: “I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their
minds to become blind, that they might not understand or comprehend the
things that are said.” The creator in this rendering is quite clearly the cause of
his people’s blindness.16
In all likelihood, Marcion cited Isaiah 6:10 in his Antitheses. Whereas the
creator tells his own people, “Hear but do not understand” (Isa 6:10), Christ
says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 8:8).17 The contrast
in character was clear to Marcion: Jesus invited his disciples to understand,
whereas the creator darkened his people’s minds. The opposed actions of
these reputedly divine figures indicate their conflicting characters.
The shorter version of the Secret Book of John suggests yet another inspira-
tion for understanding the creator’s work of cognitive incapacitation. Before
citing Isaiah 6:10, Jesus says that Yaldabaoth (the creator) “veiled” Adam’s
“perception with a veil.”18 The veiling languages echo Paul’s in 2 Corinthians
3:14–​4:3.19 Quite possibly, then, 2 Corinthians 3–​4 was also an intertext in
this passage of the Secret Book.
In 2 Corinthians 3:14, Paul noted that the minds of the Jews were hard-
ened (epōrōthē, probably another divine passive). He used the same verb to
refer to the Jews in Romans 11:7–​8: “But the rest were hardened.” He then
quoted a mixture of Isaiah 29:10, where the creator gave his people “a spirit
of stupefaction,” and Deuteronomy 29:3, where he treated his people like he
treated his enemy Pharaoh, refusing to grant them “a heart to know, eyes to
see, and ears to hear.”
This is exactly the sort of incapacitation imposed by “the god of this world”
(2 Cor 4:4): he blinds minds. The analogous action reinforces the idea that
when Paul referred to “the god of this world,” he spoke of the creator, with
his long track record of dulling human senses. Based on this track record, it
was possible and even plausible, for Marcion(ites), to identify “the god of this
world” with the creator.

16 Testimony of Truth (IX,3) 48.8–​14; 29.6–​9. For other allusions to Isaiah 6:10, see Secret Book of

John (NHC II,1) 30.9–​11; Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2) 28.3; Second Revelation of James (NHC V,4)
60.5–​10; Revelation of Peter (NHC VII,3) 73.11–​16. See further Evans, To See, 160–​61.
17 Harnack, Marcion, 61. The Marcionite use of Isaiah 6:9–​10 can be gleaned from Irenaeus, AH

4.29.1 (which seems to follow the Hebrew text); Tertullian, AM 3.6.5; 4.19.2; 5.11.9. The contrast
between Luke 8:8 and Isa 6:10 derives from Tertullian, AM 4.19.2: “from difference [of characters],
Christ permits a hearing which the creator removes.”
18 The word used for veil in the Secret Book (BG) 58.18–​20 (ⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ ϩⲱⲃⲥ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲛ︦ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲓⲥⲑⲏⲥⲓⲥ

ϩⲛ ⲟⲩ ϩ︦ⲃⲥ︦) is the same word used in the Coptic version of 2 Corinthians to translate Paul’s language
of veiling.
19 2 Cor 3:14 (ⲡⲓϩⲃⲥ︦); 2 Cor 4:3 (ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲕⲉⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ϩⲟⲃⲥ︦) in G. W. Horner, Sahidic New

Testament in the Southern Dialect (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2010).

 The God of This World 95

Inflicting cognitive dysfunction on people collided head-​on with Greek

philosophical conceptions of deity in the early second century CE. Basic to
Platonic philosophy (but not limited to Platonism) is the idea that “god is
good and in no way promotes falsehood, neither through ignorance of the
truth nor through any deceit.”20
This doctrine is based on the passage in Plato’s Republic where Socrates
asks: “Would a god want to be false, either in word or deed, by presenting
an illusion?” After discovering no morally satisfactory motivation for a deity
to do so, Socrates concludes that the divine is “in every way free from false-
hood.”21 Any person who upheld this rule (that deity does not deceive) while
simultaneously believing that the blinding “god” of 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers
to the creator could not assert that the creator was (the true) god. The logic
was simple: a deceitful creator was not good, and if he was not good, then he
was not (the true) god.

Satan?

Understandably, some early Christians balked at the idea that the creator
would blind people from seeing the light of Christ, so they understood “the
god of this world” to refer to Satan.22 Modern scholars are so accustomed to
this reading that it is even inscribed in the pages of a leading dictionary of
New Testament Greek.23 But is this the most plausible reading for someone

20 Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, trans. L. G. Westerink (Wiltshire: Prometheus,

2011), 15 = §7.23.
21 Plato, Republic 382a, e: ψεύδεσθαι θεὸς ἐθέλοι ἄν ἤ λόγῳ ἤ ἔργῳ φάντασμα προτείνων; . . . Πάντῃ

ἄρα ἀψευδὲς τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ θεῖον. Cf. Plato’s Laws: “Truth leads the list of goods for gods and
people alike” (730c). This Platonic sentiment had a long afterlife. According to Philo, for instance, to
make god a witness to a lie is the most impious thing imaginable (Decalogue 86). Peter in the Pseudo-​
Clementine Homilies remarks that if the creator lies, “who tells the truth?” (2.43.1); “if he makes
blind and deaf, who has given sight and hearing?”
22 E.g., Tertullian, AM 5.11.13—​though he presents the “god of this world = Satan” reading as

secondary. See further Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13.8–​9. Modern commentators gen-
erally take “the god of this world” to be Satan. See, e.g., Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 2nd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 222–​23; Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 196; Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary (Louisville:
Westminster/​John Knox, 2003), 101–​2. The most recent extensive defense of Satan as the referent in
2 Cor 4:4 is that of Derek Brown, The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle
Paul (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 130–​51.
23 Frederick William Danker, A Greek-​ English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 452; s.v. θεός, under defi-
nition 5, informs us that the ὁ θεός τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in 2 Cor 4:4 refers to the devil.
96 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

in the second century? Would they have thought that Paul referred to Satan
as “the god of this world”?
Presumably they would have known that calling Satan “the god of this
world” is without parallel in Paul’s writings. True, Paul criticized his oppo-
nents by calling their god their “belly” (Phil 3:19). But this instance of invec-
tive differs from the apparently sober point expressed in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
It is Paul who refers to and believes in “the god of this world” as a real and
powerful entity in the cosmos.
A “god” as defined in Mediterranean antiquity was a being with immor-
tality and superhuman power.24 “The god of this world” is presumably a
being with power over the entire world. For Jews and early Christians, the
implication would be that a god with control over the entire world had such
power because he created the world. Yet Paul’s Satan never had power over
the cosmos genuinely to master it, let alone create it.
It is true that in the gospel called Luke, the devil is given authority over
the kingdoms of the inhabited world (4:5–​6). But Luke’s devil is not a god, as
is indicated by Jesus’s refusal to worship him. Beginning in the late second
century, Johannine texts were invoked to prove that Satan ruled the world.
These texts refer to the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) who—​
though expelled and judged—​remains powerful.25
One should not, however, assume that for an early Christian reader, the
“ruler of this world” was automatically viewed as the devil. The “ruler of this
world” could be the devil’s father (John 8:44), as noted in Chapter 2. The fa-
ther of the devil is also the father of the Jews. This father is evidently the bib-
lical deity, whom the Jews claim for themselves (John 8:41).26
Even apart from these intertexts, it would be difficult simply to assume that
Paul’s Satan merited the title “god.” At most, Tertullian argued, Satan “filled

24 Albert Henrichs, “What Is a Greek God?,” in The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and

Transformations, ed. Jan N. Bremmer and Andrew Erskine (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2010), 19–​39; David Levene, “Defining the Divine in Rome,” Transactions of the American
Philological Association 142 (2012): 41–​81; M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in
Paul’s Soteriology (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 37–​57, esp. 55–​56.
25 Ignatius employs a Johannine turn of phrase in his references to ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου

(Eph 17:1; 19:1; IgnMagn 1:2; IgnTrall 4:2; Rom 7:1; Phila 6:2). This is evidently his title for the
devil. Ascension of Isaiah 2:4 (Ethiopic) also uses “ruler of this world” to refer to Beliar. Beliar later
hangs Christ on a tree (9:14–​15; cf. 4:4–​13). Neither text uses “the god of this world” to refer to
Satan or Beliar.
26 Segal believed that “within the [Johannine] conception of the Lord of the World lies the clue to

the negative portrayal of the demiurge in Gnosticism.” Yet he wrongly assumed that “the Lord of the
World is not yet the gnostic demiurge, for he is not the creator of the world” (“Ruler of This World,”
262). Segal’s statement is in tension with his earlier observation that “ruler of this world” is “clearly a
normal epithet for the Hebrew God [= the creator]” (250).
 The God of This World 97

the whole world with his lying pretense of deity.”27 If he only ruled the hearts
of unbelievers, his kingdom was meager to be sure. Patristic authors con-
ceded to him control over the air (following Eph 2:2), but anything higher
than the moon was a no-​fly zone for demonic lords.28 Granting Satan the
title “the god of this world” thus seems grandiose, even if metaphorical. Paul
never even called Christ a god—​at least without ambiguity.29 Would he have
bestowed this title upon the one who—​at best—​can masquerade as a lumi-
nous angel (2 Cor 11:14)?
The devil may have ruled the cosmos in the past, but he did not do so after
Christ’s advent.30 His power, in the early Christian imagination, had been
broken. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, however, Paul was not referring to a past “god
of this world” but to a present one who hinders Christian enlightenment. If
this god’s blinding activity occurred in the past, its consequences continued
in the “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17).31
The strongest argument that “the god of this world” is not Satan, however,
comes from the literary context of 2 Corinthians 4:4. Eight verses earlier (2
Cor 3:14), Paul observed, following the logic of Isaiah 6:10, that the minds
of the Jews “were hardened.” By who? Here Marcion, among others, could
have seen a divine passive: the hardener was the creator.32 Thus when in 2
Corinthians 4:4, Paul wrote that “the god of this world” blinded unbelievers,
this is the same god assumed in 3:14. One “god” hardens minds, the other
“god” blinds them. It is in fact the same activity stemming from the same
creator.33

27 Tertullian, AM 5.17.9.
28 Tertullian observed: “Nor can he who is the prince of the power of the ages [that is, god] be
described as the prince of the power of the air” (AM 5.17.7, quoting Eph 2:2).
29 Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), esp. 143–​72.

30 This is the interpretation of Per Bilde, “2 Cor. 4,4: The View of Satan and the Created World in

Paul,” in Apocryphon Severini, ed. Per Bilde et al. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 29–​41.
31 The aorist ἐτύφλωσεν (2 Cor 4:4) is probably ingressive, denoting the inception of an ongoing

condition.
32 Cf. Margaret Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 1994),

1.262; Furnish, II Corinthians, 207–​8.

33 After about 150 CE, patristic interpreters who understood “the god of this world” to be Satan

were probably already responding to an earlier Christian (Marcionite) interpretation that took this
god to refer to the creator (e.g., Tertullian, AM 5.11.9–​13). Nevertheless, even in the fourth and fifth
centuries CE, some patristic readers still took “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) to refer to the creator.
See, e.g., Epiphanius, Panarion 66.68.9; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 6.28–​29; Adamantius
2.21; Augustine, Against Faustus 21.2; cf. Augustine, Enemy of the Law 2.7.29; John Chrysostom,
Homilies on Second Corinthians 8.2 (Patrologia Graeca [PG] 61.455). Chrysostom’s interpretation
inspired Frances M. Young and David Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (London: SPCK,
1987), 115–​17. Other modern scholars who doubt that Satan is “the god of this world” include Jerome
Murphy-​O’Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge
98 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Two Gods?

“The god of this world,” according to Marcion(ites), implied a god of another

world.34 If there was “this world” or cosmic space, then presumably there
were other worlds or cosmic spaces not ruled by the god who blinds.35 If the
god of this world blinds people from seeing Christ’s brilliance, there is an-
other god who does precisely the opposite. This other god is the one referred
to in 2 Corinthians 4:6: the one who shines the light of the knowledge of
Christ into human hearts.36 In the space of three verses, Paul contrasted two
beings whom he, at least rhetorically, called “gods.” These beings are starkly
opposed:

2 Cor 4:4 2 Cor 4:6

“the god of this world” “the god who said, ‘From darkness,
light will shine.’ ”

Modern interpreters often conclude that the god who made light shine
from darkness is the creator. Most detect an allusion to Genesis 1:3 (“god
said: ‘let there be light!’ ”).37 Nonetheless, we cannot assume that the allu-
sion was recognized by readers in the second century. Strictly speaking, 2
Corinthians 4:6 combines parts of two other verses: Isaiah 9:1 LXX (“light
will shine”) and Job 37:15 LXX (“from darkness”).
Even if we grant the allusion to Genesis 1:3, we cannot presume that the
light referred to in “let there be light!” was physical light.38 Other early
second-​century readings, for instance, indicate that the light designated

University Press, 1991), 42; B. J. Oropeza, Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship
and Rivalry (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 263. Cf. Thrall, Second Epistle, 1.307.
34 Tertullian, AM 5.11.9: “By reading ‘. . . the god of this age,’ Marcion . . . suggested a different god

of another age.”
35 Paul mentioned a “third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:2.
36 ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ

Χριστοῦ. Marcion’s Apostolikon apparently replaced τοῦ θεοῦ with αὐτοῦ (Schmid, Marcion, 329).
37 E.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 223; George W. MacRae, Studies in New Testament and Gnosticism,

ed. Daniel J. Harrington and Stanley B. Marrow (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), 258.
38 Philo, for his part, clearly distinguished between perceptible light (αἰσθητὸν φῶς) and the light

that god used for himself before creation (ἑώρα δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πρὸ γενέσεως φωτὶ χρώμενος ἑαυτῷ)
(God Is Unchanging, 58).
 The God of This World 99

the primal Man. This idea is rooted in the linguistic ambiguity between
“light” and one of the Greek words for “man” (both phōs in Greek, though
with a different accent). In a first-​century Enochic text (now called 2
Enoch), the Light Man was Adoil, an angel involved in creation.39 For
second-​century Christians, the Light Man became Christ, the father’s per-
fect Image (2 Cor 4:4). In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says: “I am the Light
above them all,” and John 1:9 calls Christ the true Light.40 All this is to say
is that if “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) refers to the creator, the god
who unveils the primal Light (namely Christ, 2 Cor 4:4) is not necessarily
the same being.41
Paul opposed the deities of 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 6 in terms of their
actions. The first god blinds people’s minds from seeing Christ’s light; the
second performs the opposite by shining the same light into human hearts.
The first god is effectively Christ’s opponent, the second, his revealer.
Patristic evidence testifies that Marcionites saw two opposed figures
in 2 Corinthians 4:4-​6, namely, the creator and the true god. After citing
4:4, Irenaeus writes: “there is one god of this world, they [Irenaeus’s oppo-
nents] say, but another who is over every principality and rule and power
(Eph 1:21; Col 1:16).”42 Tertullian, making the same point, reveals the pre-
cise target: “Marcion aimed at this when he read ‘In whom the god of this
age,’ so that by pointing to the creator as the god of this age he might sug-
gest the idea of a different god of a different age.”43 Markus, a Marcionite
speaker in the Adamantius, observed: “I cite the clear voice of the apostle
which shows that there is another god of the universe.”44 The text cited was
2 Corinthians 4:4.

39 2 Enoch 11 with the comments of Jarl Fossum, The Name of God and Angel of the Lord

(Leiden: Brill, 1985), 289–​91; Andrei A. Orlov, “Adoil Outside the Cosmos,” in Histories of the Hidden
God: Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions, ed. April D.
DeConick and Grant Adamson (London: Acumen, 2016), 30–​57. Compare god as φώς (man) in
Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 70, with Andrei A. Orlov, Enoch-​Metatron Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2005), 197–​200.
40 Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2), logion 77 Among the “others” reported by Irenaeus (AH 1.30.1),

the incorruptible light of Christ (called the Third Man) is produced from Spirit (invoking Gen 1:2–​
3). See further Elaine Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” Journal of
Biblical Literature (JBL) 118 (1999): 477–​96 at 483–​84; Rasimus, Paradise, 168, 175–​80.
41 This is a point missed by George MacRae (“Anti-​ Dualist Polemic in 2 Cor 4,6?,” in Studia
Evangelica IV, ed. F. L. Cross [Berlin: Akademie, 1968], 420–​31), although he observed: “The Jewish
god could not effectively had said, ‘Let there be light,’ for he belonged essentially to the realms of
darkness” (424).
42 Irenaeus, AH 3.7.1–​2.
43 Tertullian, AM 5.11.9, my emphasis.
44 Adamantius 2.2, emphasis added.
100 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Rules of Grammar

It was this implication of another god—​the true revealer of Christ—​that

some patristic authors strove hard to undercut. They were willing to go to
great lengths, even to the point of forcing Paul’s grammar. Beginning with
Irenaeus, they took the qualifier “of this world,” which immediately fol-
lows “god,” and mentally moved it to modify another noun five words away,
namely, “unbelievers.”45 In this reading, “god” blinded “the unbelievers of
this world.”
Yet such a reading tortures the Greek and has little to vouch for it seman-
tically. In antiquity, Didymus of Alexandria (313–​398 CE) already pointed
out the major problem: “unbelievers of this world” is redundant—​what other
world would they belong to?46
The weakness of the Irenaean reading helps to gauge the perceived threat
of the Marcionite interpretation. Patristic writers were willing to make im-
plausible grammatical choices to undermine an alternative Christian reading
(the creator blinds people, including Jews and perhaps some Christians). In
the end, however, grammar did not resolve the problem of two “gods” with
two opposed actions in 2 Corinthians 4:4–​6.

One God?

The “two gods” interpretation opens up a larger interpretive question: how

could a reader of Paul, a man who asserted that for him god was one (1 Cor

45 Irenaeus, AH 3.7; Tertullian, AM 5.11.10 (reading ita non huius aevi deus sed infidelium huius

aevi excaecat cor with Norbert Brox, “Non huius aevi deus (Zu Tertullian adv. Marc. V 11,10,”
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) 59 [1968]: 259–​61); Adamantius 2.21
with the discussion of Paul-​Hubert Poirier, “Exégèse manichéenne et antimanichéenne de II
Corinthiens 4,4 chez Titus de Bostra (Contre les Manichéens IV, 108),” in Gnose et Manichéisme.
Entre les oasis d’Egypte et la Route de la Soie: Hommage à Jean-​Daniel Dubois, ed. A. van den
Kerchove and L. G. Soares Santoprete (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 273–​86 at 276–​81. Patristic
authors appealed to the grammatical technique of hyperbaton, but a pure concern for grammar
was not their driving motive. Cf. John Calvin: “If everyone read Paul’s words [in 2 Cor 4:4] with
a composed mind, no one would intend to twist them into a forced meaning, but because their
enemies pressed them, they were more anxious to repel them than to inquire into Paul’s mind”
(quoted by Alfred Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1915], 116, emphasis added).
46 Didymus: “If there are unbelievers of this world, other unbelievers will be found not of

this world; for every unbeliever is of this world” (πᾶς γὰρ ἄπιστός ἐστι τούτου τοῦ αἰῶνος)
in Staab, Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt.
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1933), 23. See further BeDuhn, First New Testament, 181.
 The God of This World 101

8:6), conceive of two gods? Two worlds or two ages is possible, but two gods
seem too much.
For a second-​century reader, however, two considerations must be kept in
mind. It is easy to call Paul a monotheist (a term created in the sixteenth cen-
tury), but Paul did not proclaim the univocal unity of god.47 Instead, in the
context of the passage just cited, he proclaimed one god and one lord—​two
manifestly different beings (1 Cor 8:6).48 Paul evidently saw these two dis-
tinct beings as one in power, but they were still two. Of these beings, Christ is
consistently depicted as subordinate to his father, both now and in the future
(1 Cor 15:28).49
The second consideration is that proclaiming a deity to be “one” in the
ancient world had less to do with quantity than with asserting mastery and
greatness.50 In the Roman imperial era, “There is one god!” generally meant
not that “My god is mathematically one,” but that “My god has supreme
power.”51

47 On the problems of the category monotheism applied to ancient texts, see Nathan MacDonald,

Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 5–​58; Litwa, We
Are Being Transformed, 229–​57.
48 Harris, Jesus as God, 47. The fact that Paul was reworking the Shema does not detract from this

argument. Claudio Moreschini notes that “For the whole of the 3d-​century Christian theology had
been binitarian in nature, wherein the Father was God in the fullest sense, and the Son, while still
God, was nevertheless considered inferior to the Father” (“Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem and
Middle Platonism,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum [ZAC] 21:1 [2017]: 140–​63 at 152).
49 The subordination is maintained by Justin in the second century (Dialogue with Trypho

56.3–​4). In the third century, Tertullian vouched for divine monarchy (Against Praxeas 3.2) since
monarchy allowed for multiple divine agents (Father, Son, and Spirit). See further Peter Hayman,
“Monotheism—​a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1–​15 at 15.
50 Erik Peterson and Christoph Markschies, Heis Theos: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und

religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: Nachdruck der Ausgabe von Erik Peterson mit Ergänzungen
und Kommentaren (Würzburg: Echter, 2012). Examples: Isis as numen unicum in Apuleius,
Metamorphoses 11.5; Asclepius as unique in Aristides, Orations 42; Nero as “one and alone” (εἷς καὶ
μόνος) (Christoph Auffarth, “Herrscherkult und Christuskult,” in Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung
in Rom und seinen Provinzen, ed. Hubert Cancik and Konrad Hitzl [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003],
283–​318 at 294–​306). See also Christoph Markschies, “Heis Theos-​Ein Gott? Der monotheimus und
das antike Christentum,” in Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients,
ed. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot (Münster: Ugarit, 2002), 209–​34; Nicole Belayche, “Deus
deum . . . summorum maximus (Apuleius): Ritual Expressions of Distinction in the Divine World in
the Imperial Period,” in One God: Pagan Monotheism in The Roman Empire, ed. Stephen Mitchell and
Peter van Nuffelen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 141–​66.
51 Suzanne Nicholson, Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul’s One-​ God
Language (Cambridge: James Clark, 2010), 59; Paul A. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology
in 1 Corinthians 8:4–​6” (D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1987), 105–​46; Oskar Skarsaune, “Is
Christianity Monotheistic? Patristic Perspectives on a Jewish/​Christian Debate,” Studia Patristica
29 (1997): 340–​63, esp. 355–​61; Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, “Jewish Monotheism and Christian
Origins,” in Empsychoi Logoi—​Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem
van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 227–​46; M. V. Ceruti, “‘Pagan
Monotheism?’ Towards a Historical Typology,” in Monotheism Between Pagans and Christians in Late
Antiquity, ed. Stephen Mitchell and Peter van Nuffelen (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 15–​32.
102 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

All this being said, Marcion probably did not think that “the god of this
world” was a true deity. This being only claimed godhead, like the creator
who ignorantly claimed: “I am god and there is no other!” (Isa 45:5). In short,
the “god” of this world is called “god” because he controls and creates the
world, not because he is the true, transcendent god.

Of This World

To sum up the Marcionite argument so far: there are two superhuman beings
in 2 Corinthians 4:4–​6: one of this world, and one of another world. But what
did it mean to be “of this world,” and what did this imply about the character
of the so-​called god of this world?
We know that there is “both the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) and “rulers
of this world” (1 Cor 2:8) who killed Christ because they failed to know di-
vine wisdom.52 To quote the key text from Marcion’s Apostolikon:

We speak wisdom among those who are initiated, (but not the wisdom of
this world nor that) of the rulers of this world, who are being destroyed.
(Rather), we speak god’s hidden wisdom in a mystery, which god foreor-
dained before the worlds for our glory, which none of the rulers of this
world knew; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the lord
of glory. (1 Cor 2:6–​8)53

Common to both “the god” (2 Cor 4:4) and the “rulers” (1 Cor 2:8) here
is the qualifier “of this world.” The identical qualifier hints that “the god”
and “rulers” of this world are somehow aligned.54 At least this is how some

52 On the identity of these rulers, see Gene Miller, “ΑΡΧΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΩΝΟΣ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ—​A

New Look at 1 Corinthians 2:6–​8,” Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 91:4 (1972): 522–​28; Wesley
Carr, “The Rulers of This Age—​1 Corinthians II.6–​8,” New Testament Studies (NTS) 23 (1976–​
77): 20–​35; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 233–​39.
53 Schmid, Marcion, 321: Σοφία (δὲ) λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις . . . (σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου

οὐδὲ) τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων· (ἀλλὰ) λαλοῦμεν θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν
μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν
ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν· εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. In
Schmid’s reconstruction, words in parentheses supplement firmly attested words and are designed to
produce a readable text (Marcion, 313).
54 Robert Ewusie Moses observes: “we are to see them [the god of this age and the rulers of this

age] as part of the same phenomenon: opposing powers that lie upon on the opposite side of God and
Christ in the cosmic struggle” (Practices of Power: Revisiting Principalities and Powers in the Pauline
Letters [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014], 208). “Rulers” (ἄρχοντες) are typically not viewed positively,
 The God of This World 103

second-​century readers saw it. The author of the Ascension of Isaiah, for in-
stance, related this story:

The lord [Christ] will indeed descend into the world in the last days . . . and
they [the rulers of this world] will think that he is flesh and a man. And the
god of that world [2 Cor 4:4] will stretch out his hand against the son, and
they [the evil rulers] will lay their hands upon him [Christ] and hang him
upon a tree, not knowing who he is.55

In this text, the rulers of this world (1 Cor 2:8) are ignorant about the iden-
tity of Christ.56 They are subject to the “the god of this world” (in this text,
Beliar) who directs them to crucify Christ. The assumption is that the god
and the rulers “of this world” cooperated.
Marcion(ites) were probably familiar with this type of reading even if they
identified “the god of this world” with the creator.57 According to Tertullian,
Marcion “argues that the rulers of this age affixed the lord . . . to the cross, and
this [act] is thrown back in the face of the creator.”58 Tertullian also observed
that Marcionites say that the Christ of the true deity was forced onto the cross
“by the forces and powers of the creator (a creatoris virtutibus et potes­tatibus),
as if he [the creator] was jealous.”59

but as the enemies of god and Christ (Rom 8:38; Col 2:15). Lieu (Marcion, 260) notes: “Although
Tertullian passes over in silence his own, or his opponent’s, interpretation of ‘the rulers of this age
who are coming to naught’ (2.6), it seems highly probable that Marcion would have found here also
a reference to the Creator. This would prepare for the position that Tertullian’s subsequent vehement
denials project, namely . . . that the rulers of this age, being the representatives of the Creator . . . cru-
cified ‘the Lord of glory’, Christ, out of ignorance (AM V.6.1–​9; cf. III.23.5).”
55 Ascension of Isaiah 9:13–​15 (trans. M. A. Knibb in OTP 2.170). Compare 10:11–​12, where the

deity addresses Christ: “none of the angels of that world shall know that you (are) Lord with me of
the seven heavens and of their angels. And they shall not know that you (are) with me . . . that you
may judge and destroy the princes and the angels and the gods of that world” (OTP 2.173). Again the
“princes” and “gods of that world” are closely aligned—​evidence that 2 Cor 4:4 and 1 Cor 2:6–​8 were
being read together. The interpretation is also reflected in Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.53.
56 The ignorance of the rulers recurs in Sethian texts, for instance, the Secret Book of John (II,1)

30.11–​21, where Pronoia enters the prison house of the world unrecognized by the powers. Compare
the powers who do not see the illuminator but “punish the flesh of the man upon whom the Holy
Spirit came” (Apocalypse of Adam [NHC V,5]) 77.4–​18. For this theme adapted in the fourth cen-
tury, see Nicholas P. Constas, “The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception in Greek Patristic
Interpretations of the Passion Narrative,” Harvard Theological Review 97:2 (2004): 139–​63.
57 See the citation of 1 Cor 2:8 in Tertullian, AM 5.6.1–​5. Cf. AM 3.6.4: “for unless he had been un-

recognized (ignoratus) [by the rulers] he [Christ] could surely not have suffered [at their hands].” See
also the comment of Lieu in n. 54 above.
58 Tertullian, AM 5.6.5.
59 Tertullian, AM 3.23.5, my emphasis.
104 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Marcion assumed, in short, the connection between the creator and his
rulers. There was a link between the actions of the rulers of this world and the
character of the god of this world (the creator). In effect, the creator arranged
for his (demonic) powers to crucify Christ.60
What world is it that “the god of this world” and his rulers were thought
to control? It is the world to which believers must not conform (Rom 12:2);
a world whose wisdom they must reject (1 Cor 2:6; 3:18); a world that Paul
called “evil” (ponēros in Gal 1:4). To be sure, ponēros can mean “grievous,
painful, toilsome” as well as “useless, good for nothing.”61 Nevertheless,
ponēros also has a moral sense: “wicked, evil, base”—​and it is this moral sense
that is accentuated in early Christian texts.62 The very name for the devil in
many of these texts is ho ponēros—​“the evil one.”63
Now if Paul spoke of a “present evil world” (Gal 1:4), then the rulers of it
are presumably evil—​a point confirmed by their actions. Indeed, by cruci-
fying Christ, the rulers performed, in Christian eyes, perhaps the most hid-
eous crime imaginable (1 Cor 2:8).
The actions of both the god and rulers of this world, moreover, relate to
spiritual blindness. The rulers crucified the Lord of glory because they did
not know secret divine wisdom, a wisdom that would have revealed Christ
as lord of glory (2 Cor 2:8). In turn, the “god of this world” blinded unbe-
lievers so that they did not perceive Christ’s glory (2 Cor 4:4). Note the par-
allel: the rulers of this world were blind to Christ’s glory; and the “god of this
world” inflicted spiritual blindness that hides Christ’s glory. In both cases, it
is a blindness that conceals Christ’s glory.
In the late second century, Irenaeus remarked that unbelievers (evidently
including Marcionites) “impute blindness” to the god of this world on the
basis of 2 Corinthians 4:4.64 To understand why they did so requires some re-
verse engineering. What was it about 2 Corinthians 4:4 that made other early

60 In blaming the creator for Christ’s death, Marcion deflected attention from the Jews, whom

Tertullian, among others, blamed for killing Christ (Against Marcion 2.15.3; cf. 2.28.3). For Marcion
and the Jews, see further Lieu, Image and Reality, 261–​76; Lieu, Marcion, 69; Wilson, Related
Strangers, 207–​21; Heikki Räisänen, Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives
on the Encounter of Cultures and Faiths (London: SCM, 1997), 73–​76; Joseph B. Tyson, “Anti-​Judaism
in Marcion and His Opponents,” Studies in Christian-​Jewish Relations 1 (2005): 196–​208; M. Vinzent,
“Marcion the Jew,” in Judaïsme Ancien-​Ancient Judaism 1 (2013): 159–​200 at 179–​200.
61 LSJ s.v. I.2, II.1.
62 LSJ III.1. The first definition of πονηρός in Danker, Greek-​English Lexicon, is “pert[aining] to

being morally or social worthless, wicked, evil, bad, base, worthless, vicious, degenerate” with many
examples (851–​52).
63 For instance, Matt 13:19; John 17:15; Eph 6:16.
64 Irenaeus, AH 4.29.1. Moll takes AH 4.27–​32 to be anti-​Marcionite, or at least 4.28–​30 (Arch-​

Heretic, 17–​21).
 The God of This World 105

Christian interpreters, including Marcion(ites), suppose that the god of this

world was himself blind?
At least two considerations may have led to this conclusion. First, in terms
of actions, the god of this world was aligned with the lower rulers. These
lower rulers were blind to Christ’s glorious identity (1 Cor 2:8) and were else-
where characterized by darkness.65 Second, the god of this world himself
inflicted blindness. If he was aligned with the blind rulers of 1 Corinthians
2:8, he evidently suffered from the same spiritual malady. The spiritual blind-
ness and ignorance that the creator inflicted were proper to him.66
The blindness of the creator is well known from Nag Hammadi texts. The
author of the Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) opens his work with the re-
mark: “The leader of the authorities is blind.”67 The warrant for this asser-
tion is the ruler’s self-​deifying assertion, “I am god and there is no other!”
(see Chapter 3). This egotistic boast, however, says nothing directly about the
Jewish deity being blind.
The exegetical origin of the blindness is more likely to be an intertextual
reading of 1 Corinthians 2:8 (blind world rulers) and 2 Corinthians 4:4 (the
god of this world who blinds). The creator’s self-​deifying assertions were then
recalled in a secondary act of narrativizing in order to illustrate the creator’s
blindness (i.e., ignorance and likely stupidity). Blindness is so fundamental
to the portrait of the evil creator that it is inscribed in his very name. Some
early Christians called the creator “Samael”—​the blind god.68

Moral Implications

For Christians, what does it imply about “the god of this world” that he
blinds people from Christ’s brilliance? We have already seen that hardening
hearts and minds is characteristic of the creator (Isa 6:10; 2 Cor 3:14). In his
Antitheses, Marcion apparently observed: “The god of generation did not re-
store the sight of Isaac suffering from cataracts, but our lord [Jesus], because

65 Eph 6:12; cf. Col 1:13; Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3) 30.17; 33.1. Accordingly, in the Second

Revelation of James (NHC V,4), the ignorance of the rulers is transferred to the creator (56.20–​57.3).
66 Marcion’s text for 2 Cor 3:14 apparently read ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αἰῶνος, in which αἰών

was taken to refer to the creator on the basis of 2 Cor 4:4 (“god, who is this age,” θεός τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου, epexegetic genitive). Marcion could thus have deduced the blindness of the creator more di-
rectly from 2 Cor 3:14. See Tertullian, AM 5.4.15, 5.11.5 with Schmid, Marcion, 118, 259.
67 Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) 86.27–​28.
68 Secret Book of John (II,1) 11.16–​18. Cf. Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) 87.3; 94.25; Origin of the

World (NHC II,5) 103.7–​18; Three Forms of First Thought (NHC XIII,1) 39.27.
106 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

he is good, opened the eyes of many blind people” (Luke 7:21).69 But the
contrast ran deeper. The god of this world is not only a god who refrains from
healing the blind; he is also a god who actively inflicts spiritual blindness on
people so that they cannot see Christ’s light.
Elsewhere this kind of blinding was seen as morally incriminating. In the
Secret Book of John, the creator uses fate to blind human beings from seeing
the true god (NHC II,1 28.26–​29). In the Apocalypse of Adam, the creator
split the first human into male and female, removing their spiritual insight.70
We have already seen how in the Secret Book the creator inflicted cognitive
numbness on Adam in the garden of Eden.71
Some early Christians rose to the creator’s defense. They believed that
people were blinded because of their antecedent unbelief. Yahweh hardened
Pharaoh’s heart, but Pharaoh hardened his own heart too (Exod 8:32). Thus
the creator who inflicted blindness on sinners escaped incrimination.72
To be sure, the creator may be just when inflicting blindness on sinners,
but his justice was, according to Marcion, rather cruel. After all, is it just for
the creator to keep people in the dark? What is the point of blinding them
after their initial unbelief? Presumably the god of this world would not need
to blind unbelievers if there was no chance that they might at some point
glimpse Christ’s glory and repent. By purposefully blinding them, this god
effectively takes away their chance for repentance and hastens their dam-
nation.73 Thus regardless of whether the god of this world is originally re-
sponsible for people’s unbelief, he is still responsible for them not coming to
repentance and salvation in the future.
Evidence for the moral incrimination of the creator based on 2 Corinthians
4:4 comes from the Adamantius. The Marcionite Markus remarks: “See that
he [Paul] calls the god of this world evil, since he does not make enlight-
enment shine.”74 Any being who blinds people from the enlightenment of
Christ cannot be good, even if the people blinded previously disbelieved.

69 Adamantius 1.20: ὁ θεὸς τῆς γενέσεως ὑποχυθέντα τὸν Ἰσαὰκ οὐκέτι ἐποίησε διαβλεψαι,

ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀγαθὸς ὤν, πολλῶν τυφλῶν ἤνοιξεν ὀφθαλμούς. Harnack attributed this line
to Marcion’s Antitheses (Marcion, 89–​92; further sources in his appendix to the German edition,
Marcion, 266̽-​296̽).
70 Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V,5) 64.6–​65.23; cf. 66.23–​25.
71 Secret Book of John (BG) 59.3–​4; compare (NHC II,1) 22.26–​28.
72 Irenaeus, AH 4.29.
73 One could say that εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι in 2 Cor 4:4 expresses not purpose but result. The inten-

tional action of blinding is clearer in the adaptations of Isaiah 6:10. Cf. John 12:40; Mark 4:12.
74 Adamantius 2.21: ἴδε ὅτι πονηρὸν λέγει τὸν θεὸν τούτου τοῦ αἰῶνος, τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα

καταυγάσαι τὸν φωτισμόν. See further Lieu, Marcion, 258–​59. Compare Faustus: Paul “adds that [the
 The God of This World 107

Although in the Adamantius Markus’s interpretation is mocked and op-

posed, he presses home his point: “Is it characteristic of a good god to
blind?”75 His opponent can only cite analogous cases of extreme but “just”
punishment: Christ casting nonbelievers into eternal darkness (Matt 25:41)
and Paul handing over a fellow believer to Satan (1 Cor 5:5). These examples
of harsh punishment did not, however, exculpate the creator. For Markus,
guaranteeing peoples’ punishment by blinding them was still problematic.76
It was problematic because the people blinded were blinded from seeing
the light of Christ. If it was a vague physical blinding like that afflicted on the
men of Sodom (Gen 19:11), perhaps the punishment could be approved. But
the blinding of 2 Corinthians 4:4 is a blinding that specifically results in the
inability to know Christ’s glory. It is a blinding that, if not healed, results in
separation from (the true) god.
Thus from a Marcionite Christian point of view, it was hard to imagine
how this sort of blinding could be viewed as good. Actually, Marcionites and
their opponents were agreed on this point. To prevent the vision of the light
of Christ was enough for them to morally incriminate the character of the
blinder in 2 Corinthians 4:4. They disagreed about the blinder’s identity (the
creator versus Satan), but not about the wickedness of his character.

Conclusion

To wrap up the argument as a whole: an early Christian group (the

Marcionites) understood “the god of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 to refer
to the creator. The actions of “the god of this world” (namely, blinding) were
viewed as malign and as indicating the creator’s wicked character. The evil
actions of the creator were deliberately contrasted with the actions of another
deity who did the opposite by revealing Christ’s brilliance in human hearts (2
Cor 4:6). In terms of actions, this latter being was the true god, while “the god
of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) proved to be an immoral imposter.

god of this world] blinds minds so that it is understood he is not the true god (non esse verus deus)”
(Augustine, Against Faustus 21.1).
75 Adamantius 2.21.
76 Similarly “Mani,” after citing 2 Cor 4:4, asks: “Is that god good, who does not want his own

people to be saved?” (trans. Mark Vermes and Samuel N. C. Lieu, Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (The
Acts of Archelaus) [Turnout: Brepols, 2001], 15.7, p. 60, modified).
108 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

If Marcion(ites) opposed “the god of this world” to the illuminator deity,

they closely aligned “the god of this world” with the “rulers of the world” (1
Cor 2:8). The god and rulers of this world both condemned Christ to the
cross and suffered from the same spiritual blindness that they inflicted on
others. By keeping people blind (effectively removing their ability to repent),
and by incriminating Christ, both the god and rulers of this world demon-
strated their wickedness.
Tertullian argued that the so-​called evil acts of the creator were acts of
just punishment.77 But the one single act that Christians could not view as
just in any sense was the crucifixion of Christ. The rulers who crucified the
Christian Savior decisively proved their wicked character.78 Yet these rulers
were only following orders from their lord—​the god of this world—​who was,
for Marcionites, the creator.
In short, Marcionites traced the crime of the crucifixion back to the cre-
ator.79 Blaming the creator for the crucifixion is clearest in the Adamantius
when a Marcionite speaker claims: “the creator wanted to conspire against
him [Christ], and ordained by Law that he be crucified.”80 This interpretive
trajectory is the logical endpoint of Marcion’s own tendency to concentrate
the evil of the crucifying world rulers onto a single villain—​namely, the cre-
ator himself.

77 E.g., Tertullian, AM 2.14.2–​4.

78 Irenaeus observed: “indeed the death of the lord is the damnation of those who affixed him to
the cross” (AH 4.28.3).
79 Tertullian, AM 5.6.5.
80 Adamantius 2.9: ὁ δὲ δημιουργός ἠθέλησεν αὐτῷ ἐπιβουλεῦσαι, ὅθεν καὶ ἐνόμισεν αὐτόν

σταυροῦν. Cf. Eznik of Kolb, where the good god says to Christ, “Heal . . . so that the lord of crea-
tures [the creator] might see you and be jealous and raise you on a cross”; the creator later admits
to the resurrected Christ that “I . . . slaughtered you ignorantly” (On God, 358, trans. Blanchard and
Young, modified). Marcionites were not alone in this exegesis. According to the “Ophite” report of
Irenaeus: “the rulers and the father of Jesus [Yaldabaoth] were indignant [because of Jesus’s wonders
and announcement of the unknown father] and conspired to kill him” (AH 1.30.13). The author of
the Second Revelation of James (NHC V,4) was so sure the creator killed Christ that he exculpated the
Jewish leaders: “it was not you [Jews] who did these things [referring to the events of the crucifixion],
but [your] lord [the creator]” (59.8–​10. See Armand Veilleux, La seconde apocalypse de Jacques [NH
V,4] [Quebec: University of Laval, 1986], 177). The creator as crucifier is also assumed by Celsus,
who criticized the transcendent father for being “unable to pay back the creator when he has caught
the one [Christ] whom he had sent” (ὅν γε ἐξέπεμψεν [πατήρ] . . . τοῦτον ἁλόντα ἐκδικήσαι μὴ
δυνάμενος) (Cels. 6.53).
 5
Destroyer of the Law I

Christ wiped out the debt record, the consent to the Law, by his own
teachings.
—​Severian of Gabala1

Introduction

According to Ephesians 2:15, Christ “destroyed the Law of commandments

by decrees.”2 This passage, attested in the Apostolikon, provided Marcionite
Christians with perhaps the clearest statement about Christ’s destruction of the
creator’s Law.3 Marcionites were not distinct from many other Christian groups
in their (selective) rejection of Mosaic regulations, but they were different in
their view that Christ came to destroy the Law. Christ came to destroy the Law,
in their view, since it was hostile and wicked insofar as it enslaved humanity. The
Law was so destructive, indeed, that Christ had to redeem humanity from its
curse. The wickedness of the Law in terms of both content and effect implied,
for Marcion(ites), the malign nature of the one who gave it, namely, the creator.

Paul and the Law in Marcionite Reception

Marcion’s enemies had a penchant for pointing out that for Paul, the Law
was “holy, just, and good” (Rom 7:12).4 But as they acknowledged in other

1 τὸ χειρόγραφον, τὴν συγκατάθεσιν τὴν πρὸς τόν νόμον, ἐξήλειψε τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δόγμασιν ὁ

Χριστός, in Staab, Pauluskommentar, 323–​24. Cf. J. Christian Beker: “Marcion came close to Paul’s
intent when he defined the law as the inferior revelation of the Demiurge, which the new reve-
lation of the God of Christ abolishes” (Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997], 186–​87).
2 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας. The subject Χριστός is understood from Eph 2:13.
3 The attestation comes from Tertullian: si legem praeceptorum sententiis vacuam fecit (“If he

[Christ] has invalidated the law of commandments in/​by decrees”) (AM 5.17.15). See the text in
Schmid, Marcion, 339.
4 E.g., Tertullian, AM 5.14.15; Origen, First Principles 2.5.4; Epiphanius, Panarion 42, Elenchus 5

and 32; Adamantius 2.20. Cf. 1 Tim 1:8: “The Law is good to one who uses it lawfully.”

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0007
110 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

contexts, Paul associated the Law with divine rage (Rom 4:15), as well as sin
(Rom 5:20; 8:2), slavery (Rom 7:25; Gal 4:1–​7; 5:1), death (2 Cor 3:6–​7; Rom
8:2), imprisonment (Rom 7:6; Gal 3:22–​23), and cursing (Gal 3:10).5
According to Marcion’s version of Galatians 3:10, “As many as are under
Law stand under a curse (hupo kataran).”6 The wording indicates that the
curse applies to all under the Law, not just to those who fall short of it (for in
that case the text would have said: “As many as disobey the Law stand under
a curse”). The Law played a role in salvation history, to be sure—​as a warden
to keep putatively immature Israelites in line (Gal 4:2–​3), or as a document of
incriminating debt (Col 2:14).7 As Paul wrote: “I would not have known sin
except through Law” (Rom 7:7).8
Even though the apostle once considered himself legally “blameless” (Phil
3:6), he later concluded that those who lived by Law did not obtain divine
righteousness (Rom 10:4). He even opined that the righteousness obtained
from Law was nothing more than “refuse” or “dung” (skubala) compared
with the righteousness gained by faith in Christ (Phil 3:8–​9). Paul resolved
that “no one is justified before god by Law” (Gal 3:11). He later put it: “from
the works of the Law no flesh will be justified before” god, “since through the
Law is the recognition of sin” (Rom 3:20).

5 Here I adapt the language of Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon: A New Covenant

Commentary (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2009), 81. On modern views of Paul and the Law,
the bibliography is massive. See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought: A Contribution to the
Development of Pauline Theology, trans. James C. G. Greig; ed. John Riches (London: T&T Clark,
1984); Jan Lambrecht, “Gesetzverständnis bei Paulus,” in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament, ed. Karl
Kertelge (Freiberg: Herder, 1986), 88–​127; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1983); Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2017), 108–​30; Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). C. Marvin Pate argues that the nullification of the Law was already
Paul’s position, a position he arrived at by reflecting on the curse of the crucified Jesus (Reverse of the
Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 212–​23). For a similar view, see
Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 42–​40, 56–​62.
6 Schmid, Marcion, 316. On the interpretation of this verse, see Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Under a

Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–​14,” New Testament Studies (NTS) 36 (1990): 481–​511; R.
Barry Matlock, “Helping Paul’s Argument Work? The Curse of Galatians 3.10–​14,” in The Torah in the
New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-​Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, ed. Michael Tait
and Peter Oakes (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 154–​79.
7 Although Col 2:14 is unattested in the sources for Marcion’s Apostolikon, the next sentence

(Col 2:16) is doubly attested (Tertullian, AM 5.19.9; Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.7 §1[39]). This
gives grounds for inferring the presence of Col 2:14, its (theo)logical basis. Neither Tertullian nor
Epiphanius was exhaustive in their quotation of the Apostolikon, especially when it came to Eph and
Col. See BeDuhn, First New Testament, 317.
8 See further Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 42–​ 202; Räisänen, “Freiheit vom Gesetz im
Urchristentum,” Studia Theologica 46:1 (1992): 55–​67.
 Destroyer of the Law I 111

Around 200 CE, Clement of Alexandria observed that some Christian

groups kept shouting Paul’s words: “through Law is the knowledge of sin.”9
Clement was referring, at least in part, to Marcionite Christians.10 These
Christians also said (in Clement’s summary): “until the Law there was no
sin in the world” and “apart from Law sin is dead” (compare Rom 5:13;
7:8).11 In his Commentary on Romans, Origen noted that his opponents
“accuse the god of the Law, that the Law is a bad root and a bad tree through
which the knowledge of sin comes.”12 This is a distinctly Marcionite argu-
ment. In the same work, Origen mentioned Marcion as one who destroys
the Law.13 Tertullian called Marcionites “enemies of the Law” (adver-
sarii legis) who ascribe inconstancy to god for the purposes of abrogating
the Law.14

Ephesians 2:15

Yet it was not hostility to the Law that set Marcionite Christians apart; it
was their depiction of Christ—​not Marcion—​as destroyer of the Law. For
this idea, they had a biblical basis. The epistle to the Ephesians (known to
Marcionites as Laodiceans15) read in the Apostolikon:

But now in Christ you who were once far off have come near by his blood.
For he is our peace, since he made the two one, broke down the wall of en-
mity in (his) flesh, and destroyed the Law of commandments by teachings,
so that, enacting peace, he might make in himself the two into one new
human, and reconcile both to god in one body after slaying the enmity in it
through the cross. (2:13–​16, emphasis added)16

9 Clement, Stromata 2.7.34.4. Cf. Acts of Archelaus 45.6.

10 See how Tertullian traced the citation of Rom 7:7 to Marcion(ites) in AM 5.13.13–​14.
11 Clement, Stromata 4.3.9.6.
12 Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.3.10. See further Winrich Löhr, “Die Auslegung des Gesetzes

bei Markion, den Gnostikern and den Manichäern,” in Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in
Antike und Christentum: Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, ed. Georg Schöllgen and Clemens Scholten
(Münster: Aschendorff 1996), 77–​95, esp. 77–​80.
13 Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.8.2.
14 Tertullian, On Idolatry 5.3.
15 Tertullian, AM 5.11.12 (with Schmid, Marcion, 111); 5.17.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.8;

42.12.13. The Latin Laodiceans preserved in Codex Fuldensis is a different letter.

16 Schmid, Marcion, 339: νυνὶ δὲ ἐν χριστῷ (Ἰησοῦ) ὑμεῖς οἱ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν

τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν, λύσας τὸ μεσότοιχον τῆς
112 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

The verb translated in the phrase “he destroyed (katargeō) the Law” is the
same verb Paul used to describe the destruction of the world rulers who cru-
cified Christ (1 Cor 2:6; 2 Thess 2:8), the discharge of the old self from the
Law by death (Rom 7:6), and the destruction of death itself (1 Cor 15:26).17
The tense of the verb indicates that Christ set about his work of destruction at
a specific point in time—​on the cross (2:16).
The object of destruction is clear: ho nomos (Eph 2:15)—​nomos being
Paul’s customary word for the Mosaic Law.18 In context, the Law is thought
of as a wall dividing Jews and Gentiles (2:14).19 When Christ destroyed
“the Law of the commandments,” he reconciled Jew and Gentile. What
kept them at war were the commands of Law. Once this Law was destroyed,
peace between Jews and Gentiles was established on the basis of a new way
of life.
It has been argued that Paul criticized “(works of) the Law” like circum-
cision and Sabbath keeping only insofar as these works defined a particular
people (the Jews).20 Nevertheless, Marcion understood “Law” in this letter
in the broadest sense of divine “commandments,” and he made no apparent
attempt to distinguish which commandments were ethical and which we
might call ethnic.21

ἐχθρὰς ἐν τῇ σαρκί, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολὼν (ἐν) δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοῦς δύο κτίσῃ ἑαυτῷ εἰς
ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην (καὶ) ἀποκταλλάξη τοῦς ἀμφοτέρους τῷ θεῷ ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι διὰ
τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ.
17 In Heb 2:14, the one who held the power of death, the devil, is also destroyed (καταργήσῃ).
18 Pheme Perkins, “The Letter to the Ephesians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck

12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), Vol. 11, 399. According to Räisänen, “nomos in Paul refers to
the authoritative tradition of Israel, anchored in the revelation on Sinai, which separates Jews from
the rest of mankind” (Paul and the Law, 16). Cf. Michael Winger, By What Law: The Meaning of
Νόμος in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 197.
19 The Letter of Aristeas (about 150–​50 BCE) used a similar metaphor: “the legislator . . . sur-

rounded us [Jews] with . . . iron walls to prevent our mixing with any of the other peoples in any
matter” (§139, trans. R. J. H. Shutt in OTP 2.22).
20 James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal 3.10–​ 14),” NTS 31:4
(1985): 523–​42. Dunn fends off his critics in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians
(Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 1990), 237–​41; “Yet Once More: ‘The Works of the Law’, a
Response,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 46 (1992): 99–​117. Further interpre-
tive options are reviewed by Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary
on Chapters 1–​3 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 287–​91. In Col 2:14, Markus Barth and Helmut
Blanke understood δόγματα to refer to “OT law, because only this—​and not any kind of regula-
tion of a ‘religion’ designated as deception—​can be the legal basis for the divine list of transgres-
sions” (Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, trans. Astrid B. Beck
[New York: Doubleday, 1994], 370).
21 Charles H. Talbert: “Jesus’ death destroyed the law of commandments in decrees, that is, the

Mosaic law covenant (cf. Rom 10:4; Gal 3:23–​26), not just the casuistic interpretation of the law
or the ceremonial, as opposed to the moral, law” (Ephesians and Colossians [Grand Rapids: Baker
 Destroyer of the Law I 113

The fact that the author of Ephesians cited one of the Ten Commandments
(to obey parents, Eph 6:2–​3) does not indicate that the Law was consid-
ered valid. Early Christians openly rejected the Law while at the same time
appropriating all sorts of Jewish precepts into their ethical systems. In the
Apostolikon, the command to obey parents (Eph 6:2–​3), moreover, was not
marked as part of Torah.22 It simply said “Honor your father and mother”
without the phrase, “this is the first command with a promise.” Whether or
not this was Marcion’s deletion, someone else’s, or an earlier reading of the
letter remains moot.23

Decrees or Teachings?

Ephesians 2:15 mentions “the Law of commandments in dogmata.”24 The

parallel text in Colossians 2:14 reads: “the document of debt in dogmata.”
Now dogmata could refer to the “decrees” of Jewish Law.25 If dogmata refers
to the rulings of the creator in Jewish Law, one could understand them as
describing the format of the commands: Christ “destroyed . . . the command-
ments (which are) in (the form of divine) decrees.” When the Marcionite
Megethius (in the Adamantius dialogue) said that Christ overthrew the
decrees (dogmata) of the creator, he referred to the decrees of Law.26 The lan-
guage possibly derives from Ephesians 2:15 and/​or Colossians 2:14—​since
these are the only places where dogmata appear in Pauline writings linked to
the Law.

Academic, 2007], 81). See also Perkins, “Ephesians” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 11.399–​400;
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 4 (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009), 43–​46; Minna Skhul, Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text
(London: T&T Clark, 2009), 113–​28.
22 Tertullian, AM 5.18.11.
23 See further Schmid, Marcion, 94–​95, 113, who notes that there were other motives for removing

this clause, since the command to honor parents was not the first (πρώτη) commandment.
24 Schmid, Marcion, 339. It is not clear if Tertullian’s sententiis represents ἐν δόγμασιν or simply

δόγμασιν. Only in P46 and some manuscripts of the Vulgate is ἐν δόγμασιν omitted, probably by
scribal error. C. J. Roetzel accepted the reading of P46 and drew substantial conclusions from it
(“Jewish Christian-​Gentile Christian Relations: A Discussion of Ephesians 2.15a,” Zeitschrift für
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 [1983]: 81–​89 at 86).
25 Cf. the usage of δόγματα in Josephus, Against Apion 1.42; Antiquities 15.136; 3 Macc 1:3; 4

Maccabees 10:2; Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.54–​55; Giants 52.

26 Adamantius 1.4. Similarly, certain “Cainites” according to Epiphanius believed that Christ

“wanted to pervert the provisions of the Law” (Panarion 38.3.3).

114 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Nevertheless, dogmata was also a general term for “teachings.” Thus

many ancient interpreters understood dogmata instrumentally, referring to
Christ’s instructions. In this reading, Christ destroyed the Law by his teach-
ings.27 This reading is also suggested by the (probably) second-​century au-
thor of The Concept of Our Great Power (NHC VI,4), where Christ’s “teaching
has abolished the Law of the age.”28 This is hardly a “gnostic” reading.
John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (died 407 CE), also proposed
it: “What does it mean to say ‘He destroyed it [the Law] by teachings? . . . ei-
ther he calls faith a teaching (dogma) . . . or he refers to the precept” of Christ.29
On the basis of Ephesians 2:15, then, one can see why Marcionite Christians
claimed that Christ destroyed the Law.30 This point is consistent in their re-
ported views. As Tertullian remarked: “Jesus descended . . . to destroy the
Law.”31 According to Epiphanius, Marcion “says that Christ has descended
from on high for the salvation of souls and to refute (epi elegchō) . . . the
Law.”32 Ephrem the Syrian said that the Marcionite Christ “abrogated the
former commandments”—​meaning those given in Jewish Law.33 Of course,
these opponents of Marcion did not present his teachings as the result of bib-
lical interpretation. Nevertheless, given that Ephesians 2:15 openly stated
that Christ “destroyed the Law,” Marcionite readers could readily infer that
this was one of the purposes for his coming.

Marcionite Evidence

Regrettably, we must admit that we lack direct evidence to show how

Marcion(ites) read Ephesians 2:15. We do, however, gain an important
glimpse of Marcionite exegesis in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora. In the 130s
or 140s CE, Ptolemy probably became a student of the Christian teacher

27 So also BeDuhn, First New Testament, 253.

28 Concept of Our Great Power (NHC VI,4) 42.5–​6: ⲁⲡⲉϥⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲛ.
I take “law” here to refer to Jewish Law and “aeon” to refer to “this present evil aeon” (Gal 1:4). For a
different interpretation, see Francis E. Williams, Mental Perception: A Commentary on NHC VI,4. The
Concept of Our Great Power (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 123.
29 Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 5 (PG 62.39.53–​ 58). Cf. Theodoret, Commentary on
Ephesians in PG 82.524B: “he called gospel teaching dogmata.”
30 Irenaeus, AH 1.27.2.
31 Tertullian, AM 4.36.11.
32 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.4.2. Epiphanius claimed that Cerdo first took this position, along with

many other sects (Panarion 41.1.8). Cf. Celsus reported by Origen, Cels. 6.53: Christ destroyed the
creator’s creations (διαφθείρει τὰ τούτου δημιουργήματα).
33 Ephrem in Mitchell, Prose Refutations, lvii.
 Destroyer of the Law I 115

Valentinus in Rome. There Ptolemy eventually gained disciples of his own.

This Ptolemy may be identified with a martyr of the same name who died
for confessing Christ about 152.34 If so, his Letter to Flora, evidently a
Roman matron, was probably composed around 150 CE. If not, the letter
could have been written anytime between 150 and 180 CE, the latter date
being when Irenaeus attacked Ptolemy’s students, since evidently their
master had perished.35
In his letter, Ptolemy noted that some Christians vigorously maintain
that the Law was given by the devil. The fact that they also conceived of
this devil as the creator indicates that these Christians were Marcionites.36
Now it must immediately be pointed out that Ptolemy misrepresented
Marcionite language (Marcionites never directly called the creator
“devil”).37 Ptolemy did, however, accurately report that the Marcionite cre-
ator was the “opponent” of Christians, the “maker of corruption,” and a
wicked lawmaker.38
Ptolemy portrayed himself as moderating the Marcionite position.
Not all the Law is evil, he urged—​only the part “entangled with injustice,”
which Christ “entirely abolished.” To illustrate, Ptolemy cited a well-​known
Marcionite example: the ius talionis or law of retaliation (see Chapter 3). This
principle was entangled with injustice and abolished by the Savior, who com-
manded the opposite attitude (“turn the other cheek,” Matt 5:38–​40).39
Ptolemy’s direct proof for Christ’s destruction of the Law was Ephesians
2:15. The apostle showed that Christ destroyed unjust laws, “when he
said that Christ destroyed the Law of commandments by his teachings.”40

34 For the identity of the two Ptolemies, see Lampe, From Paul, 238–​ 40; Dunderberg, Beyond
Gnosticism, 90–​92 with n.97.
35 Irenaeus, AH 1 pref. 2.
36 Ptolemy, Letter to Flora 3.2: ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου φθοροποιοῦ διαβόλου τεθεῖσθαι τοῦτον [τὸν

νόμον] ἰσχυρίζονται.
37 Note, however, that “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2) in patristic exegesis was the

devil, but for Marcion it was the creator (Tertullian, AM 5.17.7–​8). Likewise, Tertullian indicated
that Marcion(ites) took the devil in Eph 6:11 to be the creator (Tertullian, AM 5.19.12; cf. 5.18.13).
See further Moll, Arch-​Heretic, 48–​49, 144–​52; Rasimus, “Ptolemaus and the Valentinian Exegesis of
John’s Prologue,” in Rasimus, ed., Legacy of John, 145–​71, at 147–​48.
38 For different views on how to interpret this passage in Ptolemy, see Roth, “Evil,” 346–​ 47;
Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism, 87–​90. Dunderberg states that “Marcion did not describe this [cre-
ator] god as ‘evil’ (kakos), but only as ‘imperfect’ or ‘wretched’ (ponēros)” (87). Yet πονηρός also has
the sense of “(morally) wicked, base” (Danker, Greek-​English Lexicon, 851–​52).
39 Ptolemy, Letter to Flora 6.2. Compare 5.4, where Ptolemy reveals his own position, that the ius

talionis is necessary (ἐπάναγκες), and so not entirely evil. Tertullian did not disagree that Christ
annulled the ius talionis (On Patience 6.4–​5), although he tried to justify it as a means of deterrence
given to a “most calloused” and “unfaithful” people (AM 2.18.1).
40 Ptolemy, Epistle to Flora 6.6.
116 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Nevertheless, this passage—​ though obviously useful to Ptolemy—​ did

not entirely fit his argument. Ephesians 2:15, after all, does not argue for
a partial nullification of the Law (Ptolemy’s position). It says that Christ
“destroyed the Law of commandments” simpliciter. Thus the verse better fits
a Marcionite line of argument, an argument that Ptolemy plausibly adapted
from Marcion(ites) just as he did the example of the ius talionis. Ptolemy’s
letter can thus serve as indirect evidence that Marcion(ites) knew Ephesians
2:15 and used it to support their position (that Christ destroyed the Law
unconditionally).

Enemy of the Law

Marcion(ites), I propose, inferred from Ephesians 2:15 that Christ was “an
enemy of the Law.”41 Tertullian, who reported this point, took the opposite
tack. Christ was the Law’s “helper.” Tertullian agreed that Christ annulled the
Law, but only by fulfilling it (Matt 5:17). Instead of mentioning the aboli-
tion of the ius talionis (Matt 5:38), Tertullian turned to neighboring verses
in the gospel called Matthew (a work, it should be noted, not accepted by
Marcion as scriptural). The commandment against adultery, for instance, is
superseded because Christ made a law against lust (Matt 5:27–​28). Likewise,
the command against murder became superfluous when Christ condemned
slander (Matt 5:21–​22).42 But there is slippage in this argument. Ephesians
2:15 says that Christ destroyed the Law, whereas the restrictions that Christ
added to the Law in Matthew 5:21–​28 did not nullify the creator’s laws.
Rather, they reinforced them and made them stricter—​a point emphasized by
several early Christians.43
Here we can learn something from broader Christian discussions about
the Law. In commenting on Colossians 2:16, Tertullian agreed with Marcion
that the Law was “pushed aside” (exclusa) by Christ.44 Tertullian made similar

41 Tertullian, AM 5.17.15.
42 Tertullian, AM 5.17.15. Cf. To His Wife 2: “it was necessary that in former times there be practice
which afterwards had to be abrogated . . . For the Law had first to intervene; at a later date, the Word of
God was to replace the Law.” See further Jorgensen, Treasure, 198–​99.
43 Irenaeus, AH 4.13.1; Ptolemy, Letter to Flora 6.1; Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 5 (PG

62.39–​40); Augustine, Enemy of the Law 1.31. This position has many modern reiterations. Cf.
Michael Tait: “Matthew’s Jesus makes it crystal clear that he has not come to destroy the Law but to
fulfil it, which, in the context of the rest of the Sermon, means that none of the Law will be abrogated
but rather its demands made radical and interior” (“The End of the Law: The Messianic Torah in the
Pseudepigrapha,” in Torah in the New Testament, 196–​207 at 205).
44 Tertullian, AM 5.19.19.
 Destroyer of the Law I 117

remarks in his opening comments on Romans. Most Christian interpret-

ers, he said, agree that Paul in Romans rebuffs (again, excludere) the Law.45
Tertullian had no dispute with these interpreters, remarking, “We embrace
that well-​known total destruction (abolitionem) of the old Law,” citing Luke
16:16, “the Law and the prophets until John,” and Romans 10:4, Christ is the
“cessation” (finem) of the Law.46 Accordingly, both Tertullian and Marcion
actually agreed that Christ destroyed the Law, but for different reasons. For
Tertullian, there was nothing morally wrong about the Law. For Marcion, the
Law itself was corrupt, enslaving, and not in tune with the character of the
true god revealed in Christ.

Bad Law, Bad Lawgiver

“What sort of a tree the Law is,” Origen wrote, “is shown by its fruits, that is,
by the words of its precepts. For if the Law is found to be good, then undoubt-
edly he who gave it is believed to be a good god.”47 Origen here employed
Marcionite logic, based on Marcion’s well-​known exegesis of Evangelion
6:43: “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit.”48
Marcionites, however, made the converse point: if the Law is shown to be
evil, this indicates that the divine Lawgiver is evil as well. To quote Origen
again: given that the Law “is a bad tree with a bad root,” then Marcionites
logically accused “the god of the Law (deum legis accusant).”49 The god of

45 Tertullian, AM 5.13.1. See, for instance, Epistle of Barnabas 2:6; 9:4; Diognetus 4:1; 6:10. The au-

thor of the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (probably late second century CE) stated that Jesus
“came and crucified what is in the Law” (ⲉ͡ⲓ ⲁϥⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲧϩⲙ� ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ, NHC III,2 65.18 = IV,2
77.15). Simon of Samaria, according to Epiphanius, claimed that “the Law is not god’s, but belongs to
the power on the left” (Panarion 21.4.5; cf. Pseudo-​Clement, Homilies 3.2.2). According to Theodore
Stylianopoulos, “Justin remains within the older Christian tradition and insists on the radical abol-
ishment of the Law by Christ” (Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975],
168), citing Dialogue with Trypho 11–​13. See also Kathleen Gibbons, The Moral Psychology of Clement
of Alexandria: Mosaic Philosophy (London: Taylor & Francis, 2016), 9–​32.
46 Luke 16:16 in Tertullian, AM 5.2.1–​ 2. A. Kroymann in the Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina (CCSL) edition prints legis veteris amolitionem (“removal of the old Law”), as found in codex
Montepessulanus 54. Possibly it represents a softening of abolitionem, but the meanings are not sig-
nificantly different. For Rom 10:4 in Tertullian, see his AM 5.14.7. Tertullian believed that the creator
planned to reject his Law all along, and signaled this in the prophets (AM 1.20.5–​6). Lieu points out
that “it is Tertullian himself who repeatedly identifies slavery with the Law, even supplying it where
it is absent from Paul’s argument” (Marcion 253, 257, citing Tertullian, AM 5.4.5–​9). Cf. Tertullian,
Exhortation to Chastity 6; Monogamy 7, 13–​14.
47 Origen, First Principles 2.5.4.
48 Origen, First Principles 2.5.4; Tertullian, AM 4.17.11 (cf. 1.2.1); Adamantius 1.28; Ref. 10.19.3.
49 Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.6.9.
118 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

a hostile and corrupt Law himself must be hostile and corrupt. Therefore
Christ came not only to destroy the Law, but also to destroy the Lawgiver.
About 375 CE, Epiphanius observed that “gnostics deny the Law . . . And if
they deny the Lord’s Law, together with the Law they also carp at the speaker
in it.”50 Marcion(ites) (who could be called “gnostic” in Epiphanius’s vague
way) would have agreed with this line of reasoning. For Marcion(ites),
Christ’s exposé and destruction of the Law was tied to his exposé and de-
struction of the creator, since (1) the Law is the Law given by the creator, and
thus (2) the Law reveals the creator’s character.
The destruction of the Law and the destruction of the creator was a con-
sistent connection made by Marcion’s opponents. Marcion taught that
Christ not only “abolished . . . the Law” but also “all the works of his god
who made the world” (Irenaeus).51 Epiphanius wrote that “The Lord
directed his teaching against the Law and the god of the Law”.52 Tertullian
stated that “Jesus came down from another god to expose the creator and to
destroy the Law”.53
It is a tension in Tertullian’s argument that Christ destroys the Law but is
not a “destroyer of the Law.” Tertullian did not want to affirm, with Marcion,
that Christ destroyed the creator’s work, let alone the creator. Yet for Marcion,
the character of the Law was inextricably connected to the character of the
creator. Marcionites thus linked Christ’s destruction of the Law with his hos-
tility to the creator. But if Christ proved hostile to the creator, then the creator
could not be good.
The connection between the hostile Law and the hostile creator partially
emerged out of a reading of Paul. Marcionites, according to Origen, often
cited Romans 4:15: “The Law brings rage, and where the Law does not exist
there is no violation.”54 The violation here is violation of the creator’s Law.
The rage, then, was taken to be the creator’s rage against law-​breaking human
beings. Paul said that the Law was the power of sin (1 Cor 15:56). By placing

50 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.15.1–​2.

51 Irenaeus, AH 1.27.2, emphasis added: et omnia opera eius dei qui mundum fecit.
52 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.16, Elenchus 1: κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ νόμου. In the Adamantius, Christ

destroyed the “Law of the creator” (τὸν νόμον τοῦ δημιουργοῦ κατέλυσεν) (Adamantius 2.10, em-
phasis added; cf. 2.15). Lieu underscores the key point: “The character of that Law and the character
of the Demiurge are inseparable from each other” (Marcion, 356).
53 Tertullian, AM 4.36.11 (ad detectionem creatoris), emphasis added.
54 Origen, Commentary on Romans 4.4.3. That Marcion is in view is indicated by Origen,

Commentary on Romans 5.6.1, where he refers to Marcion et ceteri heretici, who, on the basis of
Rom 5:20, assert that the Law was given to make sin abound. Marcion and Tertullian agreed that the
wrathful god revealed from heaven was the creator (Tertullian, AM 5.13.3).
 Destroyer of the Law I 119

humans under his Law, the creator generated a system in which sin and
(eternal) punishment were the inevitable result (think also of the first com-
mandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge, Chapter 3). As the prophet
Ezekiel put it: “the soul who sins shall die” (18:20). If death is an evil, then the
Law, by Marcionite logic, is evil because it represents the evil character of the
one who used it to punish humanity with death.

Colossians 2:14

Ephesians 2:15 affirmed Christ’s destruction of the Law to unite Jew and
Gentile. But uniting Jew and Gentile was not Marcion’s overriding concern.
His goals are better represented in the parallel passage of Colossians 2:14,
where Christ obliterated the debt record (cheirograph) against humanity.
Many ancient interpreters took this record to be—​or at least to involve—​the
Law (the list of god-​given duties that humans fail to perform).55 Marcionites
likely took it a step further: if Christ destroyed the Law in Ephesians 2:15 and
destroyed the debt record in Colossians 2:14, then the Law and the debt re-
cord were one and the same.
In Colossians, the debt record is said to be both “against” humans and to
be “hostile” to them. If the debt record is the Law itself, as seems likely in
Marcionite interpretation, then the Law is hostile to humanity. But if the Law
is an enemy to human beings, then it cannot be good. In Romans 7:12, the
Law is called good, a goodness qualified by justice. Yet the creator’s justice,
from a Marcionite point of view, was not in fact good but a mask for cruelty
(see Chapters 3–​4).56
According to Colossians 2:14, Christ paid the debt record that stood
against humanity. He paid it not to the devil, but to the one who gave the
Law. The devil did not give the Law. Thus humans owed nothing to him.
For Marcion(ites), there was only one being to whom the debt of sin was
owed: the creator. It was the creator who made people debtors to himself. He

55 E.g., Hilary of Poitiers, Tractates on the Psalms 129.9: “who, affixing the debt record of the Law

to the cross, destroyed the edict of ancient condemnation (edictum damnationis veteris delevit)”;
Severian of Gabala: Christ “wiped out (ἐξήλειψε) the debt record, the consent to the Law (τὴν
συγκατάθεσιν τὴν πρὸς τόν νόμον), by his own teachings” (Staab, Pauluskommentar, 323–​24);
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–​428 CE): “he calls the Law the debt record, for we were obligated to
fulfill all its decrees as laid down by god” (The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul, trans.
Rowan A. Greer [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2010], 408–​9).
56 Moll wrote that “[F]‌or Marcion there was no doubt that the Law was evil” (Arch-​Heretic, 61).
120 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

managed the heavenly ledger and kept tabs on human sin. He was the heav-
enly lord from whom humanity needed to be redeemed.
Christ’s destruction of the Law was thus tied to the Marcionite story of
redemption. Christ bought back humans from their status of being “under
Law” (Gal 4:5). Being “under Law” was evidently something negative and
limiting (otherwise, why be redeemed from under it?). Marcion(ites) took
it a step further: if people needed redemption from the Law, then the Law
could not be good.
Paul declared that those who lived by the Law were under a curse from
which Christ redeemed them (Gal 3:10, 13). Paul euphemistically called
it the “curse of the Law,” but the Law was not really an agent. The “curse of
the Law” was that of the Lawgiver himself. In effect, Christ literally bought
humans from the creator who made (and thus owned) them.57 Marcionite
redemption was thus liberation from the creator and his enslaving legal
system. When Christians were bought by Christ, they were no longer debtors
to the Law and slaves of the creator.
Marcion applied the parable of the strong man to the creator (Evangelion
11:21–​22).58 A strong man (the creator) can protect his property (human
beings). But when someone stronger than him arrives (Christ), he overcomes
the strong man and takes over his property. In short, Christ came to earth to
fight the strong man (the creator). He fought him by undermining his Law
and by removing humans from his government.
The redemption occurred at the cross. There, Christ reconciled Jew and
Gentile to (the true) god through the cross, and by it (presumably the cross)
killed hostility (Eph 2:16). Whose hostility? It could be the hostility between
Jew and Gentile, but for Marcion(ites) it was more likely the hostility be-
tween humans and the creator (recall the creator’s wrath, Rom 1:18; 4:15).
In the parallel passage of Colossians 2:14–​15, Christ nailed the damning
debt record (for Marcionites: the Law itself) to the cross, thereby parading
and triumphing over demonic rulers. When Ephesians and Colossians were
read together, a connection was thus formed between destroying the Law

57 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.8.1–​2: “we were someone else’s creation, and he thus bought as at the

price of his own life.” Ephrem (in Mitchell, Prose Refutations, 2.xli) spoke of a “bargain” between
Christ and the creator (see Lieu, Marcion, 169–​73). Eznik of Kolb (On God 358) told a more de-
tailed story: the resurrected Christ goes to trial with the creator, and since the creator disobeyed his
own Law (by killing Christ), he agrees that Christ can take believing humanity in exchange. Eznik
also “quotes” Marcion: “We [believers] are the price of the blood of Jesus” (§386). Christ “purchased
humankind” by his crucifixion (§387). Further texts are cited in the German edition of Harnack,
Marcion, 288̽; BeDuhn, First New Testament, 267. See also Moll, Arch-​Heretic, 70–​71.
58 Tertullian, AM 5.6.7.
 Destroyer of the Law I 121

(Eph 2:15) and destroying the demonic rulers (Col 2:15). For Marcion, these
beings were nothing but minions of the creator. These minions, “the rulers
of this world,” crucified the Lord of glory under the command of the creator
(Chapter 4).

Conclusion

To sum up: Marcion(ites) read Paul’s ambiguous portrait of the Law by

accentuating its negative functions: it brings rage, death, a curse, and con-
demnation. The claimed goodness of the Law was a reflection of the creator’s
justice, which demanded punishment for violations and created a mountain
of debt. The Law thereby led to humanity’s condemnation, created hostility
between humans and the creator (Col 2:14), and enslaved people to the cre-
ator himself. Therefore Christ came to destroy it (Eph 2:15). If Christ came to
destroy the Law that was pitted against humanity, then the Law itself was part
of a system of evil.
Marcion(ites) then deduced the theological implications: if the Law repre-
sents the character of the Lawgiver, then a wicked Law comes from a wicked
Lawgiver. Christ destroyed the Lawgiver (the creator) not only by his teach-
ings, but also by his death. Christ paid a price to the creator to remove believ-
ers from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13). If Christ performed the ultimate
sacrifice to destroy the creator, then the creator was not a good and loving
deity, but rather a dark lord, a tyrant. In this way, the creator was shown to
be evil.
 6
Destroyer of the Law II

[They will] call him (Christ) “the impious man” and the “[im]pure
transgressor of the Law.”
—​Melchizedek (NHC IX,1 3.8–​9)

Introduction

Marcionites knew from Ephesians 2:15 that Christ destroyed the Law. The
destruction occurred on the cross (2:16). Yet for Marcionites, it did not begin
there. According to them, “Jesus came down from another god to expose the
creator and to destroy the Law (ad detectionem creatoris, ad destructionem
legis).”1 As the purpose of Christ’s coming, the destruction of the Law was
also the hallmark of his ministry. It was Christ’s continuous conflict with the
Law that indicated his clash with the Law’s creator. This clash proved the cre-
ator was opposed to Christ. The ultimate opposition was manifested in the
creator’s plot to kill Christ by the stipulations of the Law. For Marcionites, the
killing creator could not be good.

Jesus and the Law

According to early Christians, Jesus had several run-​ins with the Law. Indeed,
Christ’s conflicts with the Law were a theme in the gospels—​including
those that became canonical. When speaking to the fictional Jews in John,
Jesus twice referred to the Law as “your Law” (8:17; 10:34; cf. 15:25; 18:31),
insinuating that it was not his own.2 Early Christians believed that Christ
“taught against the observances of the Law,” with regard to foods and Sabbath

1 Tertullian, AM 4.36.11.
2 See further Francis Watson, “Jesus Versus the Lawgiver: Narratives of Apostasy and Conversion,”
in Telling the Christian Story, ed. Watson and Parkhouse, 45–​62.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0008
 Destroyer of the Law II 123

observance especially. “And any observant person,” one preacher observed,

“will find many other teachings of the same sort.”3
Marcionite Christians were especially observant in this regard. They
noticed that at some points, Christ seemed deliberately to disobey the Law,
even rubbing it in the face of Jewish leaders. These leaders regularly pointed
out that Jesus failed to obey Mosaic regulations regarding the Sabbath,
cleansing before meals, touching impure people, tithing, and so on.4
Of course, the historical Jesus was Jewish. But for many early Christians,
the Jewish identity of Jesus was not a historical fact in need of recovery. It
paled in significance to Jesus’s divine identity as son of god and savior.
Therefore we cannot assume that merely because Jesus was born Jewish, early
Christians understood him to be subject to Jewish Law.5
Consider: the Jesus of the canonical gospels is never once portrayed as
performing a sacrifice according to Jewish Law. Jewish males were required
to appear in festivals at Jerusalem three times a year (Exod 23:14–​17; Deut
16:16). The Jesus of the Synoptic gospels never shows independent concern
for these holidays. He once desired to eat the Passover meal (Luke 22:15) but
in the course of it dramatically changed its meaning.6 In John, Jesus gave
the impression that he would deliberately not travel to attend a festival in
Jerusalem (7:8). The Jesus of the gospels, finally, was never said to rest on the
Sabbath and never encouraged anyone else to do so.7
According to canonical Luke, Jesus was presumably circumcised as a child.
As an adult, however, he was never heard to recommend circumcision as
ordained by Law. He called the proselytes of the Pharisees (who would have

3 Severian of Gabala (in Staab, Pauluskommentar, 323). Faustus, bishop of Milevis, invited his read-

ers to undertake this thought experiment: “Imagine that the Jews had also said to him [after hearing
that he came to fulfill the Law], ‘Why are you acting in such a way that we are able to suspect this? Is it
because you mock circumcision, violate the sabbath, reject the sacrifices, and mix different foods to-
gether? . . . What more could he have done or what could he have done that was more clearly aimed at
the destruction of the Law . . .?” (Augustine, Against Faustus 17.2). See further Michael F. Bird, “Jesus
as Lawbreaker,” in Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against
the Historical Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 3–​26.
4 H. Basser, Studies in Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses, 70–​300

CE (Leiden: Brill, 2000), esp. 42, 48, 17–​33, 110–​15.

5 Adele Reinhartz argues that “Jesus’ discourses employ such a sharp dichotomy between Jesus

and believers on the one hand, and the unbelieving Jews on the other, that the term ‘Jew’ cannot
comfortably be used to describe the Jesus we find in this Gospel” (“How ‘the Jews’ Became Part of the
Plot,” in Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-​Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust,
ed. Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz [Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 2002], 103). See fur-
ther Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? 2nd ed. (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 2–​42.
6 Roth, Text, 433; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 1019.
7 Faustus in Augustine, Against Faustus 18.2.
124 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

been circumcised as adults) children “of hell twice over” (Matt 23:15).8 Jesus
was never said to follow kosher laws. In fact, he proclaimed against Jewish
“lawyers” that nothing entering the mouth can defile them (Mark 7:15; Matt
15:11). This latter teaching stands in apparent opposition to lengthy lists of
foods prohibited by Jewish Law (Lev 20:25; 11:14–​15; Deut 14:13–​14).9
Finally, in the literary depiction of Jesus’s trial, Jesus putatively broke the
Law by putting himself on a level with god (consenting, after initial evasion,
to be god’s son). At least from the Jewish perspective represented in the text,
he committed blasphemy and introduced idolatry into Israel by making him-
self a kind of (subordinate) deity.10

The Charge of Destruction

Thus it is hardly surprising when, in Marcion’s Evangelion, the Jews ac-

cuse Jesus of destroying the Law (23:2).11 They do so in the indictment be-
fore Pilate, which is portrayed as little more than a hurling of accusations.
Several charges stand in Luke 23:2. For instance, Jesus perverted the Jewish
nation, forbade taxes to Caesar, and called himself a king. In Marcion’s
Evangelion, the fictional Jews make this additional accusation: “We found
this person . . . destroying the Law and Prophets.”12 Epiphanius claimed that
Marcion added this clause, though it is well attested in Old Latin witnesses to
Luke, indicating that it was a pre-​Marcionite reading in the second century.13

8 υἱὸν γεέννης διπλότερον ὑμῶν, noted by Faustus in Augustine, Against Faustus 18.2.
9 As pointed out by the Manichean Adimantus in Augustine, Against Adimantus 15.1–​2. Cf.
Augustine, Answer to Faustus 16.6. See further Barnabas Lindars, “All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus
and the Law,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed.
Lindars (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), 61–​71 at 61; Lindars, Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SPCK,
1990), 37–​60; Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 237–​51; Sigurd
Grindheim, “Jesus and the Food Laws Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 31 (2020): 61–​
76. For a different view, note Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of
Ritual Impurity Within First-​century Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 187–​96.
10 Mark 14:62–​63; Luke 22:70–​71; John 19:7; Deut 13:1–​16. See further Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the

Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 63–​74.

11 Roth, Text, 433 from Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6, Scholion 69.
12 Roth, Text, 433: τοῦτον εὕρομεν . . . καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας. See also

Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 1061.

13 Adolf Jülicher, Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung (Berlin: de Gruyter,

1954), XXIII, 256–​57, though note the presence of “our” Law (solventem legem nostram et prophe-
tas) in b e ff2 i l q. See also The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel according to St. Luke, Part 2,
ed. American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 204. BeDuhn points out that Jesus destroying the Law in Luke 23:2
was accepted in several editions of the Vulgate and passed without comment in Tertullian (First New
Testament, 190; cf. Roth, Text, 337).
 Destroyer of the Law II 125

The charge is similar to the indictment of Stephen in Acts 6:14. According

to Stephen’s opponents: “We have heard him saying that Jesus of Nazareth
will destroy this place [the Jewish temple] and alter the customs which Moses
handed down to us.” These “customs” are evidently synonymous with “the
Law” of Moses mentioned in the previous verse.14 Stephen himself is said to
have spoken against the temple and the Law (Acts 6:13), but he spoke in ref-
erence to what Jesus would do, the very same Jesus who altered Mosaic cus-
toms. To be sure, for the author of Acts, Christ was not opposed to Law, but
Marcionites would have likely agreed with Stephen’s opponents: Jesus quite
intentionally undermined both the temple and the Law.
In the so-​called Gospel of the Ebionites (probably mid–​second century
CE), Jesus was recorded as saying: “I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if you
do not cease from sacrificing, divine rage will not cease from you.”15 Since all
manner of sacrifices are mandated by Law, this Jesus annulled a divine ordi-
nance. The author of the Pseudo-​Clementine Recognitions also argued that
Christ, the “true prophet,” rejected both Jewish sacrifices and the temple.16
The tradition that Christ destroyed the Law is also reflected in the (prob-
ably fourth-​century) Gospel of Nicodemus. In this text, the Jewish leaders ac-
cuse Jesus of profaning the Sabbath and wishing “to destroy the Law.” Pilate
responds: “And what things does he do that he wishes to destroy it?” The Jews
explain: “We have a law that we should not heal anyone on the Sabbath. But
this man with his evil deeds has healed on the Sabbath the lame, the muti-
lated, the withered, the blind, the paralytic, the deaf, and the demoniacs.”17
This report is consistent with gospel stories. Jesus did heal such people on

14 Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–​11;

Matthias Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft,
Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988),
115–​17.
15 Quoted by Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.5: ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ παύσησθε

τοῦ θύειν, οὐ παύσεται ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ἡ ὀργή. See Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, The Apocryphal
Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 210–​11; A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-​
Christian Gospel Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 27–​43.
16 Pseudo-​Clement, Recognitions 37.3; cf. 39.1 (“by the compassion of god he admonished them to

stop sacrificing”). These passages go back to The Ascents of James, which Robert E. van Voorst dates
to the late second century CE, though any date between 135 and 260 CE is possible (The Ascents of
James: History and Theology of a Jewish-​Christian Community [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989], 79–​80.
On anti-​sacrificial traditions, see ibid., 166–​70, and F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian
Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-​Clementine Recognitions 1.27–​71 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995), esp. 160. The Clementine Homilies (3.51.2) says more directly that Christ appeared to be
destroying the Law (φαίνεσθαι αὐτὸν καταλύοντα), but states that what was destroyed did not belong
to the Law (ἅ κατέλυεν οὐκ ἦν τοῦ νόμου).
17 Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate A) 1.1.
126 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

the Sabbath and in some cases seemed to have deliberately chosen that day in
order to confront his opponents.
In the Acts of Philip, Ananias the high priest declares that Jesus “disre-
garded both the Law and the temple, and abolished Sabbath observation, the
purification rites of Moses as well as New Moon observances, because he said
these had not been instituted by god. When we saw that he was destroying
the Law in this way, we rebelled and crucified him.”18 It is likely that the wide-
spread Christian view of Christ destroying the Law went back to the reading
of proto-​Luke 23:2 where that point was explicit.
Even if modern editions of Luke do not print the destruction of the Law
in 23:2, the substance of the idea runs through the gospels like a red thread.
“There is no one who does not know,” remarked one fourth-​century bishop,
“that the Jews always fiercely attacked the words and deeds of Christ. And
since they inferred from them that he was destroying the Law . . . they were
necessarily angry.”19
If Christ “destroying the Law” was original to what became Luke, it was
removed from later versions.20 It was quite possibly removed because it con-
tradicted Matthew 5:17.21 Epiphanius, for instance, could not accept Christ
“destroying the Law” in Luke 23:2 for this very reason.22 Proto-​Luke 23:2 ap-
parently said that Christ came “destroying the Law and Prophets” whereas
in Matthew, Christ declared: “Do not suppose that I came to destroy the Law
and Prophets” (5:17). The language is virtually identical, simply negated.23
Even if the author of Matthew did not rebut an ancient version of Luke 23:2,
he could have attacked the common (not distinctively Marcionite) Christian
understanding that Christ destroyed the Law.

18 Bovon, The Acts of Philip: A New Translation, ed. François Bovon and Christopher R. Matthews

(Baylor University Press, 2012), 42. See further Hans Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles: An Introduction, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), 232–​43.
19 Augustine, Against Faustus 19.1.
20 On this phenomenon, cf. Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early

Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford, 1993), entire.
21 As Roth notes, Matt 5:17 “figures prominently in Tertullian’s refutation of Marcion.” Roth cites

references or allusions to the verse in AM 1.23.4; 4.2.2; 4.6.4; 4.9.10; 4.22.11; 4.33.9; 4.36.6; 4.39.17;
4.39.19; and 4.42.6 (“Matthean Texts and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,” Journal of
Theological Studies 59 [2008]: 580–​97 at 581, n.2).
22 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11, Elenchus 69.
23 For an argument that Matthew was affected by proto-​ Luke (Marcion’s Evangelion), see
Matthias Klinghardt, “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion,” NovT
50 (2008): 1–​27. Hans Dieter Betz queried: “Has the S[ermon on the] M[ount] picked up such a
saying [“I came to destroy the Law”] from actual circulation?” (A Commentary on the Sermon on
the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–​7:27 and Luke 6:20–​49) [Minneapolis:
Fortress1995], 175).
 Destroyer of the Law II 127

Tertullian claimed that Marcion expunged Matthew 5:17.24 But since

Marcion did not recognize Matthew as scripture, he would have no need to
remove the verse.25 Later Marcionites, however, dealt with it squarely. Markus
in the Adamantius claimed that Jesus actually said, “I came not to fulfill the
Law, but to destroy it.”26 The altered sense of the verse at least accorded with
some of Jesus’s actions in the gospels and the general Marcionite belief that
“Christ came . . . and destroyed the Law of the creator.”27

Claimed Violations

We now attend to what Marcion(ites) took to be Christ’s violations of the

Law, limiting ourselves to what is attested in the Evangelion.28 It is important
to note, first of all, what the Evangelion did not contain. It did not feature the
Lukan infancy narrative. Thus it did not say anything about John the Baptist’s
father being a priest, the Law-​abiding character of Jesus’s parents, or his ap-
pearance in the temple as a child.29 All of these traditions did not exist for
Marcionites, or—​if they knew them—​they considered them corrupt addi-
tions to the original gospel.
Other omissions were equally significant. In the Evangelion, Jesus went
to the synagogue at Nazareth, but he did not preach a sermon about himself

24 Tertullian, AM 4.7.4; 4.9.15; 4.12.14; 5.14.14. Cf. Augustine, Against Faustus, 17–​19.
25 Tertullian referred to Matthew as “that gospel which you [Marcion] have not received”
(non . . . recepisti illud . . . evangelium) (AM 4.34.2). Roth proposed that Tertullian referred to Marcion
deleting a passage from the fourfold gospel (“Matthean Texts,” 593), though Marcion did not recog-
nize the fourfold gospel either.
26 Adamantius 2.15: οὐκ ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ καταλῦσαι.
27 Adamantius 2.10: ὁ ἐλθὼν χριστὸς . . . τὸν νόμον τοῦ δημιουργοῦ κατέλυσεν. Cf. 2.15. Cf.

Adamantius 15, where Christ “annuls the Law (τὸν νόμον λύει), destroys the punishment and cancels
the judgment.”
28 For modern treatments of the Law in canonical Luke, see Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in

the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); Klinghardt, Gesetz, 16–​17,
314–​20; Wilson, Luke and the Law; Craig L. Blomberg, “The Law in Luke-​Acts,” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament (JSNT) 22 (1984): 53–​80; K. Salo, Luke’s Treatment of the Law. A Redaction-​
Critical Investigation (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1991), 43–​167; William R. G. Loader,
Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 273–​38; François Bovon, Studies
in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 59–​73; Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting
Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 149–​97. For
more general discussions, see Karl Kertelge, ed., Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament (Freiberg: Herder,
1986); Ingo Broer, ed., Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992).
29 According to Roth (Text, 412), Luke 1:1–​2:52 was not present in Marcion’s Evangelion. Luke

3:2–​20 is indirectly attested as not present, and 3:21–​4:13 was not present. Epiphanius (Panarion
42.11.4) noted the absence of these passages. Klinghardt explained their significance in light of his
theory of the Evangelion’s priority over canonical Luke (“ ‘Gesetz’ bei Markion,” 99–​128 at 111; Älteste
Evangelium II, 457–​64).
128 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

fulfilling Isaianic prophecy (Luke 4:16–​30). He refused to heal the people

of his hometown (citing not Jewish scripture, but a common proverb). The
people responded by throwing him—​not just out of the synagogue—​but al-
most off a cliff!30
In a similar episode, the resurrected Jesus met his disciples on the Emmaus
road (Evangelion 24:13–​31). But he did not give them a speech about how his
sufferings were predicted in the Law. He rebuked them only for not paying
sufficient attention to the things he had said to them before his death.31 This
text agrees with Christ’s multiple predictions of his death (Evangelion 9:22,
44)—​where he himself did not appeal to Hebrew prophecy. It also agrees
with the angels’ announcement to the women at the tomb: “Remember what
he spoke to you in Galilee”—​Jesus, not the Law (Evangelion 24:6).

Lepers

Let’s turn to positive evidence wherein Jesus’s actions speak louder than
words. In Evangelion 5:12, Christ touched and healed a leper out of com-
passion. In doing so, Marcion, according to Tertullian, believed that Christ
destroyed the Law.32 The Law forbade people from touching lepers or from
having any contact with them at all. According to Leviticus 13:45: “As for the
leper . . . let his clothes be rags, his head uncovered, his mouth covered; he
will call out ‘Unclean!’ ” This ritual of self-​isolation ensured that no one be-
sides a priest came close to a leper. Yet even in this case there was probably no
touching. By reaching out to touch the leper, Christ acted in open violation
of Jewish Law.33
After making contact, Jesus told the leper to appear before the priests
as a testimony. According to the Evangelion, the testimony was not for the
priests, but for the leper.34 Priests had the duty of pronouncing lepers clean,

30 For the text, see Roth, Text, 412–​13; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 464–​65.
31 Roth, Text, 435 (24:25: ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐπι πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάληθη
πρὸς ὑμᾶς). Epiphanius and Adamantius both attest the reading ἐλάλησα πρὸς ὑμᾶς (the things “I
spoke to you”), a reading printed by Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II 1131.
32 Tertullian, AM 4.9.4.
33 Naturally, modern scholars debate this point. See, e.g., John Dominic Crossan, The Historical

Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: Harper One, 1991), 263; Kazen, Jesus
and Purity, 98–​127; Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death, 43–​68.
34 ἵνα ᾖ εἰς μαρτύριον τοῦτο ὑμῖν attested by Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6 §1. Who the plural ὑμῖν

refers to is disputed, but it presumably includes the leper. Cf. Tertullian, AM 4.9.10: ut sit vobis in
testimonium. See further Roth, Text, 413; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 486.
 Destroyer of the Law II 129

according to Leviticus 13–​14. But Christ proclaimed the leper clean without
priestly authority (Evangelion 5:13). Thus the “testimony” was, in effect, that
Christ violated the Law.35 The leper went to the priests, the reader intuits, but
to reveal that healing could be pronounced and accomplished without their
authority.
Similarly, when Jesus healed the ten lepers (Evangelion 17.11–​19), he com-
manded them to show themselves to the priests. According to Marcion(ites),
Christ intended to cast scorn upon the Law, for the lepers were healed apart
from the Law’s regulations.36 Tertullian himself conceded that Christ, by
healing the ten lepers, “transgressed the solemn rites of the Law.”37

The Bleeding Woman

According to Harnack, Marcion wrote in his Antitheses: “The Law forbids the
touching of a woman who has an issue of blood; Christ not only touches them
but heals them.”38 In the report of Tertullian, it was first the bleeding woman
who disobeyed the creator’s Law by touching Jesus in a clandestine way
(Evangelion 8:42–​48). The fact that Jesus readily healed her only reinforced
his (later explicit) approval of her action and breach of the creator’s Law.
In this case, even if Jesus did not himself reach out his hand, he still invol-
untarily broke the Law, for “anyone who touches her [a woman with a flow
of blood] will be unclean” (Lev 15:19). Yet Jesus was not defiled. He did not
return to his home and remain unclean until evening. His purity and healing
power showed that he was not under the Law’s authority.39 Jesus approved
the woman’s faith, a faith that he shared and that, according to Marcion, held
the Law in contempt.40

35 See further Tertullian, AM 4.9.11–​1.

36 Roth, Text, 427–​28; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 895.
37 Tertullian, AM 4.35.4: praevenientem sollemnia legis etiam in curatione decem leprorsorum.
38 Harnack, Marcion, 62.
39 Naturally, modern scholarly opinion differs on this point. See, e.g., Marla Selvidge, “Mark 5:25–​

34 and Leviticus 15:19–​20: A Reaction to Restrictive Purity Regulations,” Journal of Biblical Literature
(JBL) 103 (1984): 619–​23; Amy-​Jill Levine, “Discharging Responsibility: Matthean Jesus, Biblical
Law, and Hemorrhaging Woman,” in Treasures New and Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies, ed.
David Bauer and Mark Allan Powell (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 379–​97; Kazen, Jesus and Purity, 127–​
64; Cecilia Wassen, “Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5:25–​34: Insights from Purity
Laws from Qumran,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea
Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 641–​60;
Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death, 69–​96.
40 Tertullian, AM 4.20.9–​10: Sed hanc vis mulieris fidem constituere, qua contempserat legem.
130 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Dead Gravediggers

In the Evangelion 9:60, Christ invited a man to become his disciple. Though
the man was willing, he asked first to bury his father. Such was the sacred
obligation of the Jews, modeled by the patriarchs (Gen 25:9), and widely
considered to be part of the fifth Commandment to honor parents (Exod
20:12).41 Nevertheless, Christ told the man to follow him despite his father’s
demise, commenting simply: “Let the dead bury their own dead.”42
In response to the Marcionite use of this passage, Tertullian stated that
Jesus (and apparently others) were free from the obligation to bury parents
by virtue of laws applying to high priests and Nazirites.43 The fact that neither
in Luke nor in the Evangelion is Jesus a priest or Nazirite undermines this
objection. One scholar has argued that Jesus took a Nazirite vow at the Last
Supper.44 But these vows, even if we accept them, came too late in the story.
When Jesus addressed his would-​be disciple in Evangelion 9, he not only
failed to mention his Nazirite status, but also affronted those people who
bury their parents by calling them (metaphorically or spiritually) “dead.”
Here there is more than a suspicion that Jesus demanded a discipleship that
superseded Mosaic regulations.45
Marcion(ites) would have agreed with several later interpreters that
Jesus annulled the commandment to honor parents by his order to ne-
glect a father’s burial.46 This point is specifically mentioned by Adimantus,
Manichean Christian writer of the Disputations (late third century CE).47

41 Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. James Greig

(New York: Crossroad, 1981), 8. On the requirement to bury, see Tobit 4:3; 6:14; 14:11–​12; Jub 23:7;
36:2, 18–​19; m. Berakhot 3:1a. Holmén notes, “In the Old Testament, being denied burial is pictured
as the ultimate punishment and horror” (Jesus and Jewish Covenant, 188, citing Deut 28:26; Jer 7:33;
8:1–​2; Ezek 6:5; 29:5). See further Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death, 97–​122.
42 We know from Clement of Alexandria that Marcionites appealed to this passage (Stromata

3.4.25.3).
43 Tertullian, AM 4.23.10–​11 (appealing to Lev 21:1; Num 6:6–​7).
44 Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakah and the Beginning of Christian

Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 23–​48. Bockmuehl writes that “Jesus himself appears
to have uttered a Nazirite vow on the eve of his execution” but admits that “This evidence is too weak
to support a direct Nazirite setting for Matt 8.22 par.” (47). For a critique of Bockmuehl, see Crispin
H. T. Fletcher-​Louis, “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the
People of God,” JSNT 26 (2003): 39–​68 at 42–​48.
45 See further Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 169–​71.
46 Hengel, Charismatic, 13, n.31, 14. Hengel also quoted A. Schlatter: “such sayings [as Luke 9:60]

could easily suggest to the disciples the thought that Jesus was abolishing the Law” (14).
47 Augustine identified Adimantus as Addas, one of Mani’s disciples (Retractions 1.22.1; Enemy

of the Law 2.12.41–​42). See further Giulea Sfameni Gasparro, “Addas-​Adimantus unus ex discipulis
Manichaei: For the History of Manichaeism in the West,” in Studia Manichaica IV: Internationaler
Kongress zum Manichäismus Berlin 14–​18 Juli 1997, ed. Ronald E. Emmerick et al. (Berlin: Akademie,
 Destroyer of the Law II 131

Adimantus is important because, since Harnack, scholars have (with good

reason) judged that his Disputations was a revised version of Marcion’s
Antitheses.48 Adimantus wrote that the command in Exodus, “Honor your
father and mother” (20:12), is contrary to Jesus’s command to “let the dead
bury the dead.”49 In the latter verse, according to one modern interpreter,
Christ “consciously require[d]‌disobedience of a commandment understood
by all Jews to have been given by God.”50
Related to Evangelion 9:60 is Jesus’s saying, “If someone does not leave
one’s own father and mother and brothers and wife and children . . . such a
person is not worthy to be my disciple” (Evangelion 14:26).51 In this case,
we are not dealing with a one-​time, situation-​based command to follow
Christ at a certain place and time. It is presented as a universal rule. Loyalty
to Christ supersedes loyalty to family. The fifth commandment demands that
one honor one’s father and mother. Abandoning father and mother (not to
mention wife and children) is presumably not a way to honor them. Here
it seemed to Marcion(ites) that Christ annulled the Law—​indeed, one of its
central pillars.

The Law Until John

In Evangelion 16:16, Jesus, after criticizing the greed of the Pharisees, said
that “The Law and the Prophets were until John; from then the kingdom of
god is being proclaimed as good news.”52 Here Jesus delimited two eras: the

2000); 546–​59; Jacob Albert van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichean Missionary Practice: The
Case of Adimantus and Augustine (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 11–​48.
48 Here I adopt the language of BeDuhn, Frontiers, 139. BeDuhn cites the German edition of

Harnack, Marcion, 97̽, 219̽, 292̽, 349–​50̽. See further W. H. C. Frend, “The Gnostic-​Manichaean
Tradition in Roman North Africa,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 13–​26 at 20; van den
Berg, Biblical Argument, 24–​25, 157–​58, 218–​20 (Adimantus was a former Marcionite). Augustine,
Enemy of the Law 1.20.43.
49 Augustine, Against Adimantus 6.
50 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), 254. Cf. Holmén, Jesus, 198–​99.
51 Attested in Tertullian, AM 4.19.12; Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17; Elenchus 70. Roth (Text, 78,

n.74) says that it is not clear that Epiphanius drew from Marcion’s Evangelion. Cf. Klinghardt, Älteste
Evangelium II, 843.
52 Roth (Text, 426): ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἕως Ἰωάννου (ἐξ or ἀφ’) οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ

εὐαγγελίζεται (Klinghardt prints ἀπαγγελίζεται, Älteste Evangelium II, 868). Matthew’s version of
the saying presented a different meaning. Instead of “the Law and the prophets [were] until John,”
Matthew used a different verb: “for all the prophets and the Law was prophesied until John” (Matt
11:13).
132 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

time when the Law was valid, and the time when it became invalid—​the min-
istry of John the Baptist serving as the pivot.
Early patristic writers supported this view. Irenaeus wrote that “Since
the Law originated with Moses, it then ceased with John. Christ had come
to fulfill it: and so the Law and the Prophets were with them until John.”53
Tertullian also agreed with Marcion that the Law was destroyed (destrui)
since John’s time. There was a moment, then, when “Judaism” ceased, ac-
cording to Tertullian, and “Christianity” began.54 The new period of
Christianity is characterized by the “cessation of the Law” (sedatio legis), its
“sunset,” or even “destruction” (occasu).55 Other Christians of his time—​not
just Marcionites—​understood Luke 16:16 to mean that “the legal and pro-
phetical antiquities have been abolished.”56
Yet the following verse in Luke (16:17) seems to contradict the pre-
ceding: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single jot of
the Law to fall.” Significantly, however, Marcion’s Evangelion had an alter-
native and seemingly more logical reading: “It is easier for the heaven and
the earth to pass away than for a single jot of my words to fall.”57 Tertullian
accepted this latter reading without qualm.58 The reading is consistent with
Jesus’s statement in Luke 21:33 (attested in the Evangelion): “heaven and
earth will pass away, but my words will not.” In short, Jesus heralded the end
of the Law while proclaiming the eternity of his own teachings. Without
mincing words, he opposed the temporary Mosaic Law to his own eternal
revelation.59

53 Irenaeus, AH 4.4.2 (quoniam igitur a Moyse lex inchoavit, consequenter in Johannem desivit, ad

impletionem eius advenerat Christus: et proper hoc lex et prophetae apud eos usque ad Johannem).
54 Tertullian, AM 5.3.8.
55 Tertullian, AM 4.33.8. According to the OLD (Oxford Latin Dictionary) (p. 1232), occasus can

mean “downfall, decline, destruction, ruin.” Cf. Tertullian’s citation of Luke 16:16 in AM 5.8.5.
56 Tertullian, On Fasting 2.2: abolitis legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus; cf. 11.6. Tertullian thought

that the “burdens” of the Law lasted until John, but the “remedies” (remedia) remained (On Modesty
6.2–​3). Cf. Acts of Archelaus 45.7: Mani “would say that ‘the law and prophets were until John,’ . . . for
by the fact his head was cut off it was made manifest that all his predecessors and superiors had been
cut off.”
57 Following Roth, Text, 426: εὐκοπώτερον . . . τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἤ τῶν λόγων

μου μίαν κεραίαν παρελθεῖν. Cf. Klinghardt: ταχύτερον ἤ μία κεραία τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου (Älteste
Evangelium II, 868).
58 Tertullian, AM 4.33.9.
59 For modern interpretations of Luke 16:16, see Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke, trans.

Geoffrey Buswell (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), 12–​17, 20–​27, 101, 112; W. G. Kummel, “Das
Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis Johannes’—​Lukas 16,16 im Zusammenhang der heilgeschich-
tlichen Theologie der Lukasschriften,” in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70.
Geburtstag, ed. Otto Böcher and Klaus Haacker (Wuppertal: Rolf Brockhaus, 1972), 89–​102; Wilson,
Luke and the Law, 43–​51; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 173.
 Destroyer of the Law II 133

Sabbath Violations

Perhaps the crowning violation of Jesus was his reputed failure to keep the
Sabbath. According to Raymond E. Brown, “That Jesus violated the rules
of the scribes for the observance of the Sabbath is one of the most certain
of historical facts about his ministry.”60 It was part of Marcion’s Antitheses,
at any rate, that “the creator of the world ordained the Sabbath, but Christ
banishes it.”61 In the late fourth century CE, bishop Faustus of Milevis pre-
sented the theological background for Sabbath keeping:

Moses above all teaches that one should abstain from all work on the
Sabbath, and he claims that the reason for this observance is that, when
god made the world and everything in it, he devoted six days to work, but
stopped on the seventh, which is the Sabbath. Consequently he blessed it,
that is, made it holy, as the haven of his tranquility, and issued a law that
anyone who violated it should be put to death. (Exod 20:8–​11; 31:13–​15)62

The bishop knew that Sabbath law was not just part of the Ten
Commandments, spoken by the Jewish deity (Exod 20:8–​11); it was the law
of creation, built into the cosmos by the creator himself. Sabbath law was, as
it were, the script of nature, and it was performed as a precedent by the cre-
ator (Gen 2:3).63 To violate the Sabbath, therefore, had direct implications for
one’s attitude toward the creator.
The Evangelion attested three of Jesus’s Sabbath violations, two of which
are shared with the gospels called Mark and Matthew. The shared episodes
are plucking grain (Evangelion 6:1–​5//​Mark 2:23–​28//​Matt 12:1–​8), and the
man with a shriveled hand (Evangelion 6:6–​11//​Mark 3:1–​6//​Matt 12:9–​14).
The Evangelion had another violation story: the crippled woman in the syna-
gogue (13:10–​17). It may also have included the story of the man healed from
dropsy (Luke 14:1–​6), though it is unattested.
We begin with the grain rubbing episode. In Evangelion 6:1–​2, Jesus’s dis-
ciples pick and rub heads of grain on the Sabbath. Some of the Pharisees in-
form them that this act is unlawful, since it is a form of harvesting, an act that

60 Brown, Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 1:210. Cf. Yong-​Eui

Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). For a different
view, see Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death, 149–​78.
61 Harnack, Marcion, 62.
62 Augustine, Against Faustus 16.6.
63 For the connection of Sabbath and creation, see Aristobulus, frag. 5 (OTP 2.841–​42).
134 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

was not permitted on the Sabbath.64 The Pharisees were not just nitpickers.
Both Irenaeus and Tertullian agreed that the act of harvesting performed in
these verses was unlawful.65 There was, moreover, no life-​threatening need
for the disciples to pluck the grain since, despite their hunger, they were in no
danger of starvation.
Yet Jesus stoked the rhetorical fire. He justified his disciples based on the
example of David, who took—​one might say stole—​prohibited bread from
the creator’s tent shrine (1 Sam 21:1–​6). (For Marcionites, Christ’s appeal to
this story did not indicate that he accepted Jewish scripture as divine truth.
Christ used it, like Marcion, as an illustration, authoritative for his enemies
and thus useful in debate.)
Yet Jesus did not stop there. To ground his allowance of Sabbath violation,
he presumed to call himself “Lord of the Sabbath.”66 Tertullian confessed that
this claim put Christ in apparent conflict with the Law.67 Christ as Lord of the
Sabbath was also “destroyer of the Sabbath” (sabbati destructor).68 Epiphanius
concluded from the harvesting episode that “the Sabbath was abolished.”69
Eznik of Kolb concluded that Christ, “like a lord of the Law, put a stop to the
Law.”70 Several modern interpreters follow this line of interpretation. S. G.
Wilson, for instance, wrote that, “As lord of the sabbath he [Christ] stands
above the law.”71
Christ proclaiming himself lord of the Sabbath not only made him lord
of the Law, but also lord over creation. He was lord over creation, not of it,
since Christ evidently did not agree with the script of creation established by
the creator. The Sabbath was written into nature and kept by the creator, but
Christ annulled it. He defended the violation of the Sabbath on his own per-
sonal status as superior to the creator’s ordinance.

64 Exod 34:21: “on the seventh day you shall rest . . . in harvest you shall rest.” Cf. Philo: “it is not

permitted [on the Sabbath] to cut any shoot or branch, or even a leaf, or to pluck any fruit whatso-
ever” (Life of Moses 2.22).
65 Irenaeus, AH 4.8.3; Tertullian, AM 4.12.5.
66 Tertullian, AM 4.12.11; Irenaeus’s claim that David was a priest is inaccurate (AH 4.8.3).
67 Tertullian, AM 4.12.1: the question concerning Sabbath violation, “could have no substance if

Christ had not proclaimed himself lord of the Sabbath.”

68 Tertullian, Spectacles 30.
69 Epiphanius, Panarion 30.32.3.
70 Eznik, On God, 392 (trans. Blanchard and Young).
71 Wilson, Luke and the Law, 33, citing Bank, Law, 121–​22. Later Wilson adds: “the sabbath in-

stitution as such is subordinated to its lord, the Son of Man. Taken to its logical conclusion this
Christological claim mounts a fundamental challenge to the sabbath and ultimately to the law it-
self ” (39). For a counterpoint, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching
(New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 183–​85.
 Destroyer of the Law II 135

Jesus did not only defend the Sabbath violation of others; he also trans-
gressed it himself. He performed two Sabbath healings in synagogues before
the astounded eyes of Jewish leaders. The first was a man with a shriveled
hand (6:6–​11); the second was a crippled woman (13:10–​16). Both individ-
uals did not need to be healed on the Sabbath since their conditions were not
lethal. In spite of this, Jesus publicly healed them in Jewish religious spaces.
In each case, Jesus ignited a conflict, first by asking provokingly whether one
can do good on the Sabbath (6:9), and secondly by calling his opponents hyp-
ocrites because on that day they untie farm animals (13:15).72
The creator, at least as portrayed in Jewish scripture, was hostile to any
Sabbath breaker. Setting a precedent, Yahweh condemned a man to death for
collecting sticks on a Saturday morning (Num 15:32–​34). Adimantus, pos-
sibly dependent on Marcion’s Antitheses, believed that this story of execution
contradicted the spirit and action of Jesus, who healed the man with a shriv-
eled hand.73
To be sure, there is no explicit law against healing on the Sabbath—​only
against work.74 But the Sabbath disputes hinged on the idea that Jesus’s heal-
ings were a form of labor. The synagogue leader in Evangelion 13:14 declared,
“There are six days in which one must work; come on these days to be healed
and not on the Sabbath day” (emphasis added).
The Jesus of the gospels never disagreed that his healings were a form of
work.75 He even agreed with the charge of illegality in the grain rubbing
episode. The disciples did something “unlawful” on the Sabbath and were
justified because David also did something “unlawful” (Luke 6:2, 4). The rep-
etition of “unlawful,” and the fact that it is precisely the element of illegality
that binds the two (otherwise different) incidents together, indicates that
Jesus made no attempt to evade the charge that he worked on the Sabbath
and that he approved of such transgression when others performed it.76

72 Roth, Text, 414, 425; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II, 519, 813. See further Allison, Resurrecting

Jesus, 173. According to Lutz Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -​praxis im antiken Judentum und
Urchristentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 446: “healing on the Sabbath in the eyes of his oppo-
nents represented a breaking of Sabbath Law” (Heilen am Sabbat in den Augen seiner Gegenspieler
einen Sabbatbruch darstellt, emphasis his).
73 Augustine, Against Adimantus 22; cf. Acts of Archelaus 44.9–​10 (which also mentions the disci-

ples plucking grain on the Sabbath).

74 A point made by Irenaeus, AH 4.8.2.
75 In John, Jesus implicitly treats healing as a form of work. He publicly heals a paralytic on the

Sabbath. When he is accused of Sabbath violation, he declares: “I am working and my father is

working” (John 5:17). Here Jesus’s “father” is evidently different than the Jewish god since Yahweh
observed the Sabbath (Gen 2:2; Jub 2:18; Gen. Rabb. 7.5; 11.5, 9).
76 Wilson, Luke and the Law, 33; Holmén, Jesus, 101–​2; David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and

Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 207–​8; Allison,
136 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

For Marcion(ites), this was not merely an issue of interpreting the Law
differently. The Evangelion nowhere made the distinction between Law
and human tradition as is found in Mark 7:1–​2; 10:2–​3. The Jesus of the
Evangelion (the only Jesus Marcionites held as authoritative) knew exactly
what would be offensive to Jewish Law observers and performed it based on
his own personal authority.77

Christ Against the Law(giver)

Heresiologists underscored the (solely Matthean) tradition that Christ came

to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17), but as R. Hakola has commented, “It is not likely
that any Jew would have understood how one can fulfil the purpose of the
law by acting deliberately against one of its principal commandments”—​here
referring to sabbath keeping.78 In context, Hakola quoted the famous scholar
of ancient Judaism, E. P. Sanders: “obedience to the Torah is the condition for
retaining the covenant promises; intentional and unrepenting disobedience
implies rejection of the law, rejection of the covenant for which it is the con-
dition, and rejection of the God who gave the law.”79
Here Sanders—​no Marcionite to be sure—​put his finger on something
Marcion and his followers saw in the second century. Repeated repudiation
of the Law implied rejection of the god who gave it. But Jesus would only have
rejected the Lawgiver if this Lawgiver was not good. Thus if Jesus rejected the
Law, then, so Marcion(ites), he did not confirm the goodness of the god who
gave the Law.
As we saw in the last chapter, Marcionite Christians made an even stronger
point: undermining the Law meant undermining the Law giver. If Jesus was
hostile to the Law of the creator, then he was hostile to the creator. For the one
who gave teaching contrary to the Law is, as Tertullian voiced the Marcionite

Resurrecting Jesus, 167. The Mishnah equates practicing medicine with work (m. Sabb. 14:3–​4). See
further Robert Doldenberg, “The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World,” ANRW II.19.1, ed. Wolfgang
Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), 414–​47 at 430–​34.
77 See further Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 168.
78 Hakola, Identity, 129–​30.
79 Quoted in Hakola, Identity, 130. Holmén concluded that Jesus “did not take part in the activity

integral to the covenant thinking of his time which aimed at learning how to keep the covenant”
(Jesus, 333). For similar opinions, see Berndt Schaller, Jesus und der Sabbat: Franz-​Delitzsch-​Vorlesung
1992 (Münster: Delitzsch Judaic Institute, 1994), 126–​27.
 Destroyer of the Law II 137

inference, “contrary to the creator.”80 If Christ was the destroyer of the Law,
he was “destroyer of the creator.”81
The inference may seem extreme today, but its basis was taken to be Jewish
and Christian scripture. The Law is the Law of the creator. Attacks on the
Law, therefore, are not simple transgressions, but acts of sacrilege against the
creator. The author of Acts, for instance, makes a connection between blas-
pheming the Law and blaspheming god. Jewish opponents accuse Stephen of
saying blasphemous words “against Moses [i.e., the Law], and against god”
(Acts 6:11).82 To say words against the creator’s Law was in effect to speak
against the Judean “god.”

The Law Killed Christ

What decisively showed the wickedness of the Lawgiver was that Jesus died
under his regulations. Historically, it seems, Jesus was put to death for sedi-
tion against Rome. According to the Evangelion, however, he was arrested
and executed for destroying the Law (23:2). The culmination of Christ’s Law-​
destroying activity was his blasphemy against the creator.83
In Jesus’s trial, the high priest asked him if he considered himself to be god’s
son. Jesus was initially evasive: “If I tell you, you won’t believe” (Evangelion
22:67). Nonetheless, he went on to state that he, in his capacity as the heav-
enly redeemer, would rule from a throne at god’s right hand (22:69). The high
priest needed no additional testimony. He rent his robe and declared Jesus a
blasphemer (v.71).
Jesus, as every Christian knew, was god’s child. Yet Jesus as god’s child
could not—​so Marcion—​be the child of the creator, for he consistently, and
seemingly intentionally, transgressed the creator’s laws. Internal to the text,
Jesus’s actions were interpreted to be an insult to the creator and his Law. The
fictional Jews in Jesus’s trial believed that he could not be the son of their god.
Marcion(ites) inferred that he was the son of another, true deity. In either

80 Tertullian, AM 4.7.8: adversus legem . . . et hoc nomine adversus creatorem.

81 Tertullian, AM 4.8.7: destructor creatoris.
82 For “Moses” as a reference to Jewish Law, see Klinghardt, Gesetz, 121–​23.
83 See further Tobias Nicklas, “‘Du bist nur ein Mensch und machst dich selbst zu Gott’ (Johannes

10,33): Das Motiv der Gotteslästerung bei Johannes vor dem Hintergrund der Synoptiker,” in
Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden
et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 239–​56; Darrell L. Bock, “Jesus as Blasphemer,” in Who Do My
Opponents, 76–​94.
138 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

reading, Christ committed blasphemy against the creator by admitting that

he was, as it were, a deity himself.
Tertullian was willing to admit that Jesus destroyed “Judaism,” thereby
provoking the Jews to kill him by their law (suo iure).84 A later church fa-
ther wrote that according to Marcion, Jesus “was found worthy of death
many times over by those laws” since he was curtailing and obstructing
Jewish Law.85 The Law commanded that “Every Jew who breaks the Law” be
killed—​in particular Sabbath breakers. Thus by the Law, Jesus was “worthy of
death.”86 But if the Law of the creator could kill the innocent Christ, could the
Law be good? And if it was not good, how could its creator be good?

The Creator Killed Christ

Instead of blaming the Jews for killing Christ, Marcion(ites) ultimately ac-
cused the creator. In the words of Megethius, “The creator, having seen the
good [Christ] dissolving his Law, conspired against him.” Yet the creator not
only conspired, he ordained by law—​namely his own Law—​that Christ be
crucified.87
The Lawgiver had a motive for killing Christ, for Christ undermined the
creator by dissolving his Law. This destruction of the Law is the charge that
the Jews brought to Pilate (Evangelion 23:2)—​but Pilate himself cared not a
fig for Jewish Law. The one chiefly offended by Jesus’s blasphemy was not the
Roman establishment, but the lord of this world, the creator. The Jewish plot
to kill Christ was only a reflection, so Marcion, of the creator’s machinations
against the child of the true deity.
In brief: for Marcion(ites), Christ was attacked and killed by the one most
threatened by him. This was neither the Romans nor the Jews, but the Jewish
lord. The creator was threatened by Christ because Christ was destroying his
Law. As a result, the creator attempted to destroy Christ by a “lawful” execu-
tion. Jesus died as a violator of the Law and received the punishment man-
dated for blasphemers.

84 Tertullian, AM 3.7.10.
85 Eznik, On God, 387 (trans. Blanchard and Young).
86 Eznik, On God, 389 (trans. Blanchard and Young).
87 Adamantius 2.9. Tertullian also assumed that the creator, in the Marcionite conception, fixed

Christ to the cross (in cruce eum figere, AM 5.6.7). Manicheans asked: “If he [Adonai, the Jewish
deity] is the Lord of all, why did he crucify his own son?” (Hans-​Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk
Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993], 127).
 Destroyer of the Law II 139

Christ died according to the Law because he broke it. But the judgment
Christ experienced exposed the Law’s falsity—​along with the falsity and cru-
elty of the one who gave it. Christ was innocent, as every Christian confessed.
Therefore his crucifixion in accordance with the Law showed once and for all
that the Law was corrupt, as was the one who gave it.

Conclusion

From a Jewish perspective, Christianity could be depicted as a kind of mass

idolatry because it involved the worship of a human being, a being distinct
from the creator known from Jewish scripture. Marcionites who worshiped
Jesus hardly considered themselves to be idolaters. But they took seriously the
Jewish viewpoint that Christ’s claim to be divine undermined a core teaching
of the Law and ignited the jealousy of the creator. The fictional Jews were ful-
filling the regulations of Torah when they pushed for the execution of a Law
breaker. They were doing the will of their deity, at least as they perceived it.
Jesus worked to destroy the Law, and the Law ended up by destroying him.
But the Law was only the instrument of the Lawgiver. One had only to as-
sume that the Law represented the will of the Lawgiver (a basic Jewish and
Christian assumption). If, according to the Law, Jesus had to die, then Jesus’s
death was the will of the Lawgiver. So it was ultimately the creator, according
to Marcionites, who fixed Christ to the cross.88 Christ’s death at the hands of
the creator proved decisively that the creator could not be the father of Jesus
Christ, and furthermore, that the creator who opposed Christ—​scheming to
crucify him—​was not good and in fact nothing short of evil.

88 Tertullian’s discussion assumed this point: nec in cruce eum figere (“he [the creator] did not fix

him to the cross . . . ”) (AM 5.6.7). Cf. AM 3.23.7, where the creator is said to be going to kill Christ
(interempturus).
 7
The Curse of the Creator

Jesus conformed to the terms of the creator’s law in order to “pur-

chase” mankind from sin and death, so Christ becomes the victim of
the creator’s curse.
—​J. Christiaan Beker1

Introduction

Our final chapter focuses on the Marcionite reception of Galatians 3:13—​

itself an interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:23 (“every person hung on a tree
is cursed by god”). The latter verse was widely taken to mean that the Judean
deity cursed the victims of crucifixion. This interpretation gave grounds
for perceived Jewish charges against Jesus. In the early second century CE,
Marcion adapted these charges in the service of his anti-​creator reading. His
interpretive trajectory was opposed by patristic writers who attempted to un-
dercut, by various strategies, the creator’s curse against Christ. Manichean
Christians continued the Marcionite line of interpretation and to a certain
extent allow us to look back, as through a mirror, onto their Marcionite
predecessors.

The Pauline Context

We begin by translating Galatians 3:10–​13 from Marcion’s Apostolikon.

Since sizable chunks of Galatians 3 were absent from this version of the letter,
verse 13 was brought into further relief:2

1 J. Christiaan Beker, “Christologies and Anthropologies of Paul, Luke-​ Acts and Marcion,” in
From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed.
Martinus C. de Boer (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 174–​82 at 180.
2 According to Schmid (Marcion, 316), Gal 3:6–​9, 14a, 15–​18, and 19 were absent.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0009
 The Curse of the Creator 141

For as many as are under Law are under a curse, since the righteous person
will live from faith. The one who does them shall live by them. Christ
purchased us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse on our be-
half: “Accursed is everyone hung upon a tree.” (Deut 21:23)3

Paul’s source text (Deut 21:23) records that every person hanging on a
tree is cursed by god (hupo theou).4 The perfect tense of the verb “to curse”
(kekatēramenos) expresses the completeness and continuance of the curse.
Paul replaced this word with the adjective epikataratos, “accursed”—​perhaps
taken from Deuteronomy 27:26.
Paul omitted the words “by god.” Possibly this change was unintentional,
since Deuteronomy 27:26 left the agent of cursing unmentioned. It is con-
ceivable, however, that Paul already wanted to avoid the thought that the
Jewish deity cursed his own son on the cross.5 Whatever the case may have
been, Paul’s omission of “by god” is important because a reader unfamiliar
with Deuteronomy 21:23 would not conclude from Galatians 3:13 that
Christ was cursed by the creator. Only someone independently familiar with
Deuteronomy 21:23 could arrive at this conclusion.
Those independently familiar with this verse were the traditional caretak-
ers of Jewish scripture, the Jews. Around the turn of the fifth century CE,
Jerome complained that “the Jews, to disgrace us [Christians], customarily
raise the objection that our Lord and Savior became a curse at the hands
of god (sub dei).”6 This was not a debate that started in Jerome’s time. The
same charge was made around 160 CE by the Jewish interlocuter in Justin’s
Dialogue with Trypho.7

3 Schmid, Marcion, 316: ὅσοι γὰρ ὑπὸ νόμον (εἰσίν), ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως

ζήσεται, (ἀλλὰ) ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. Χριστὸς . . . γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα (ὅτι
γέγραπται) ἐπὶ κατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξὐλου. Cf. BeDuhn, First New Testament, 231,
264–​65.
4 Some MSS read “by the god” (τοῦ θεοῦ) with definite article or “by the lord” (κυρίου)—​

κύριος being the standard substitution for Yahweh (John William Wevers, ed., Genesis
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974], 249).
5 So Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1963), 133–​34; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982),165; Pate, Reverse, 215. Note also Stanley, “Under a Curse,” 505, n.64. In
the post-​LXX Greek translations of the Hebrew text of Deut 21:23, god is also disassociated from the
curse. See the versions quoted by Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2 on 3:13b.
6 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2 on 3:13b–​14.
7 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 32.1: “Your so-​called Messiah became dishonored and robbed of

glory to such an extent that he fell headlong under the most extreme curse in god’s Law (τῇ ἐσχάτῃ
κατάρᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ)—​for he was crucified.”
142 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

In fact, some scholars believe that Paul himself, when he first opposed
Christians, opposed them for worshiping a crucified—​and thus cursed—​
Messiah.8 These developments suggest that the creator’s curse against
Christ was originally—​ at least perceived to be—​ a first-​
century Jewish
9
charge supported by Deuteronomy 21:23. The Didascalia (an early third-​
century Christian document probably originating in Syria) even claims that
Deuteronomy 21:23 was added to scripture in a deliberate attempt to blind
the Jews by making them believe that their deity cursed Jesus on the cross.10

Cursing

What, in second-​century Christianity, did it mean to curse? In its most basic

sense, to curse meant to wish evil or harm on another person or thing.11
When the agent of a curse was a deity, the harm inflicted was often perma-
nent. In this case, “to curse” meant “to damn.”12 For the creator in particular,

8 P. Feine, Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899), 18. See further

A. J. Hultgren, “Paul’s Pre-​Christian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpose, Locale, and Nature,”
Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 95 (1976): 97–​111 at 102–​4; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s
Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 46–​48; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 249; Mark A. Seifrid,
Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Leiden: Brill, 1992),
164–​65; Pate, Reverse, 150–​52.
9 See Jeremias, Lehrer, 134–​ 35; Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal
Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM Press, 1973), 232–​37; Heinz-​Wolfgang
Kuhn, “The Impact of Selected Qumran Texts on the Understanding of Pauline Theology,” in
The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls Volume Three: The Scrolls and Christian Origins, ed. James H.
Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 153–​86 at 173–​74; Florentino García Martínez,
“Galatians 3:10–​14 in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed.
Jean-​Sébastian Rey (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 51–​67 at 56–​60; David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and
Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 241–​52. For a different view, see
Kelli S. O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy
21.22–​23,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 29 (2006): 55–​76.
10 R. Hugh Connolly, Didascalia apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and Accompanied by

the Verona Latin Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 222, 230, 233 (comments on lx–​lxi). It is
significant that in the Acts of Pilate 16:7, Deut 21:23 is put in the mouth of the Jewish teachers (J. K.
Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1993], 184). Herod the Jew is also the
one who quotes Deut 21:23 in Gospel of Peter 2:5 (ibid., 154).
11 For cursing in antiquity, see Werner Riess, Performing Interpersonal Violence: Court, Curse,

and Comedy in Fourth-​century BCE Athens (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012); Dan Levene, Jewish-​Aramaic
Curse Texts from Late Antique Mesopotamia (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Daniela Urbanová and Natalia
Gachallová, Latin Curse Tablets of the Roman Empire (Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, 2018).
12 Matt 25:41 (κατηραμένοι, spoken of the damned on the Day of Judgment); Job 3:5 (καταραθε

ίη, Job curses—​wishing to annihilate—​the day of his birth); 4 Kings 9:34 (κατηραμένην, of the dead
Jezebel eaten by dogs); Num 22:6 (ἄρασαι, Balak’s intended curse of annihilation against Israel). Cf.
Origen, Homily 17 on Numbers: “the one who curses Christ . . . is damned by an everlasting curse”
(PG 12.711d, qui maledicit Christo . . . perpetua maledictione damnatus est); Augustine, Ennarations
on Psalms 108.20: “a curse, by which I mean eternal punishment” (maledictionem, hoc est poenam
aeternam).
 The Curse of the Creator 143

speech results in action (as we learn from the “Let there be” refrain in Genesis
1). Thus when the creator pronounced his curse over the serpent, the ground,
and Cain in Jewish scripture (Gen 3:14–​19; 4:11–​12), it took immediate
effect—​the snake ate dust, the ground bore thorns and thistles, and Cain
trembled upon the earth.
In Galatians 3:13, Paul spoke of the “curse of the Law.” Yet the Law
was given by the Jewish deity, as Paul knew.13 Paul’s comments about the
Torah thus raise the question, “if the Law itself brings a curse, what does
this say about the Lawgiver?”14 To adapt the question of the Testimony of
Truth: “What kind of god is this?”15 He curses people in and after a harsh
method of execution. He commands that their bodies be taken down before
sunset. Yet he does so not out of mercy, but because his land would other-
wise be defiled (Deut 21:23).16
Perhaps, as Paul described, Christ assumed the curse for Christians as
an act of interchange.17 Yet the positive result of assuming the curse did not
exculpate the one who inflicted it. The divine character, in other words, is
not justified by its salvific result. The curse stands, and Paul never denied
its reality. In fact, he accentuated it: Christ became (genomenos) a curse at
the hands of god. The creator’s act of cursing Jesus—​whatever its results—​
communicated something about his character.

God Does Not Curse

As underscored in the Introduction to Part II, a popular philosophical prin-

ciple of Marcion’s time was that god could only be and thus do good. A god
who inflicted harm—​especially the harm of cursing—​could not be good and
therefore could not be god.

13 Rom 7:22; 8:7; 1 Cor 9:9, 21; Gal 3:21.

14 Richard N. Longenecker comments: “of course, ‘the curse of the law’ is another way of saying
‘cursed by God’ ” (Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary 41 [Columbia: Word, 1990], 122). Similarly,
Seifrid: “Paul’s citation of Deut 21:23 . . . carries the implication that God himself—​not merely the
Law—​pronounced the curse on the crucified” (Justification, 168).
15 Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3) 47.15.
16 11QTemple 64.10–​11 is the only Jewish text to interpret Deut 21:22–​23 to mean that the cruci-

fied person is also cursed: “those hanged on the tree are cursed of god (‫ )מקוללי אלוהים‬and men.”
The meaning of this phrase, according to James L. Kugel, is: “it is [only] the accursed by God who
is to be hanged” (Traditions of the Bible, 873). See further Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient
World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 84–​85.
17 For interchange, see Morna Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990).

144 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Understandably, then, the Jewish philosopher Philo (about 20 BCE–​45

CE) soft-​pedaled divine cursing. The scriptural passages in which the creator
inflicted a curse Philo either avoided or transformed by allegorical interpre-
tation.18 Yet what would a Gentile Christian do with these same passages—​a
Christian who held Philo’s philosophical presuppositions while shunning his
allegorical impulse? There are many possibilities, of course, but one logical
chain of inference has already been presented: If the creator cursed Jesus on
the cross (Gal 3:13), then he could not be good. If the creator was not good,
then he could not be god.

Marcion

Such, I think, was the conclusion made by Marcion and his followers.
Admittedly, we do not know exactly how Marcion arrived at this conclusion.
But Galatians 3:13—​or more broadly the notion that the Jewish deity cursed
Jesus—​seemed to have played a significant role.
Galatians 3:13 was probably one of the texts showcased in Marcion’s
Antitheses.19 If so, Marcion would likely have contrasted it with Christ, who
was accustomed to bless—​possibly with an extra appeal to the command in
Romans 12:14, “Bless and do not curse.” Tertullian acknowledged that in the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus forbade people from speaking curses against
their neighbors (Matt 5:22). Even if a Christian had cause to curse—​such as
extreme injury—​the act was utterly prohibited.20
Tertullian reported Marcion’s view that Christ “received in himself the cre-
ator’s curse by being hung from a tree.”21 Here it is specifically the creator’s
curse.22 The words are Tertullian’s, but in this case they accurately convey a
Marcionite emphasis. The curse of the crucified was inflicted by the creator,

18 For instance, Philo quotes Deut 21:23 in Posterity of Cain 26 (including the ὑπὸ θεοῦ phrase)

but interpreted it to mean that the life of the evildoer “hangs” on the body (cf. § 61; On Dreams
2.213). Philo exposited Deut 21:23 in Special Laws 3.151–​52 but did not mention the curse. The only
place to my knowledge where he acknowledged that god cursed is in his account of Cain (Rewards
and Punishments 72, ἀρὰν ἐπηράσατο τῷ ἀδελφοκτόνῳ). See further Chapman, Crucifixion, 133–​35,
186–​88.
19 Harnack, Marcion, 61–​62. See the sources cited in the German edition, 288̽, 307̽.
20 Tertullian, On the Shows 16: deus etiam cum causa maledicere non sinit (“god does not permit

cursing even with just cause”).

21 Tertullian, AM 1.11.8. Tertullian preferred the language of crucis maledicto (“the curse of the

cross”) (AM 4.21.11).

22 Cf. Tertullian, AM 5.3.10: a creatore iam tunc in lege maledictus (“in the Law Christ is now cursed

by the creator”).
 The Curse of the Creator 145

for it is his Law that announced the curse (Deut 21:23), and—​as already seen
in Chapter 4 and 6—​the creator plotted to put Christ on the cross.
For Marcion, a god who curses is atrox, a Latin word that can mean
“savage,” “harsh,” “cruel,” “fierce,” “dreadful,” “shocking,” “heinous,” “ruth-
less,” “inflexible,” or “unrelenting.”23 Jerome said that Marcion, based on
Galatians 3:13, called the creator “a bloodthirsty, cruel judge.”24 A god who is
savage and cruel could be just in name only. An unjust and savage deity could
not be the god of Jesus Christ.25 The fact that Jesus was cursed by the cre-
ator indicated to Marcion that the Law was opposed to Jesus, and that Jesus
belonged to a higher deity incapable of cursing.26 From this data, we can re-
trace the Marcionite logic. Galatians 3:13 indicated: (1) that the Jewish cre-
ator was savage in character, therefore (2) not good, and accordingly (3) not
(the true) god.
These points were distinct from prior Jewish criticisms of Jesus based
on Deuteronomy 21:23 for two reasons. First, the Marcionite criticisms
were based on a reading of Galatians 3:13 and not independently on
Deuteronomy 21:23. Second, they sought to discredit not the cursed Christ
of the Christians, but the author of the curse—​the creator imagined by some
Christians (wrongly, according to Marcionites) to be Jesus’s divine father.
The Marcionite debate concerning Galatians 3:13, in other words, was
an intra-​ Christian one about the nature and character of deity.27 The
Marcionites who inferred an evil creator from Galatians 3:13 had a persua-
sive goal: to convince their fellow Christians that the true deity was not and
could not be the creator who cursed Christ on the cross.

Justin Martyr

Writing in the wake of Marcion, Justin Martyr (died around 165 CE) denied
that the crucified Jesus was cursed. He presented Trypho, a Jew in a fictional

23 Tertullian, AM 5.3.9–​10. See OLD, s.v. atrox.

24 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2 at 3:13a (sanguinarium, crudelem . . . iudicem). Jerome’s
witness is important because it selectively reproduces Origen’s commentary on Galatians. Harnack
(Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, 2 vols. [Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1918–​1919], 149) identified this very passage as deriving from Origen.
25 Philosophically speaking, gods only bless whereas demons curse (Origen, Homilies on Numbers

13.4.6).
26 Tertullian, AM 5.3.9–​10, cf. 3.18.1.
27 Lieu, Marcion, 356.
146 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

debate, as saying that Jesus “fell headlong under the most extreme curse in
the Law of god—​for he was crucified.”28 Justin waited nearly fifty chapters of
his Dialogue with Trypho to answer this objection; when he did so, however,
he offered a full defense.29
First, Justin avoided restating Paul’s view that Christ “became” a curse.30
Only in passing did Justin speak of Jesus “receiving” a curse.31 In the main,
Justin dealt with the curse by undercutting it: the curse was only “seeming,”
and Jesus was only “supposedly cursed.”32
In making these points, Justin was keen to defend the creator’s innocence.
As in Plato’s Republic, the true god is blameless of wrongdoing.33 The cre-
ator willed Christ to receive the curses meant for all people.34 He prophesied
Jesus’s death in symbols.35 These prior signs indicated that Christ was not
actually cursed.36 Justin concluded: “the passage spoken in the Law, ‘Cursed
is every person hanging upon a tree,’ does not indicate that god cursed this
crucified one.”37
Justin’s quote, however, was selective. Deuteronomy 21:23 says that the
crucified is “cursed by god,”38 and Justin’s mention of “god’s curse” shows that
he was well aware of this reading.39 The fact that the Christian Messiah was
cursed “by god” was certainly not lost upon Trypho, the fictional Judean who

28 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 32.1 (τῇ ἐσχάτῃ κατάρᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ περιπεσεῖν).

Trypho was not concerned to distinguish the true deity from the creator. Yet anti-​Marcionite
polemic plays a role later in the dialogue (89.2; 90.1), and Justin argued against Marcionites
in 35.2–​ 6. See further Andrew Hayes, Justin Against Marcion: Defining the Christian
Philosophy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), esp. 156–​62; Matthijs den Dulk, Between Jews and
Heretics: Refiguring Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (London: Routledge, 2018); Sebastian
Moll, “Justin and the Pontic Wolf,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul
Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 145–​51.
29 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 89–​96. On this section, see Craig D. Allert, Revelation, Truth,

Canon, and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Leiden: Brill, 2002),
232, 236–​38.
30 Rodney Werline, “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with

Trypho,” Harvard Theological Review 92:1 (1999): 79–​93 at 91.

31 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 95.2 (ἀναδέξασθαι). See further Chapman, Crucifixion, 247–​48.
32 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 90.3 (τὴν δοκοῦσαν κατάραν); 95.2 (ὡς κεκατηραμένου).
33 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 94.5.
34 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 95.2.
35 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 90–​95.
36 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 94.5.
37 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 96.1: οὐχ ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ καταρωμένου τούτου τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένου.

It did not even indicate, according to Justin, that Christ was cursed by the Law (111.2: Χριστὸς οὐ
κατηράθη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου).
38 See Joost Smit Sibinga, The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 96–​99.
39 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 96.1. Elsewhere (91.4), Justin was content to add that the serpent

was cursed “by god” (ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ) even when these words are lacking in Gen 3:14.
 The Curse of the Creator 147

used the passage to say that Christ was god’s enemy and accursed,40 nor was
it lost upon Marcionite Christians who saw implied in it a negative portrayal
of the creator.41

Tertullian

About fifty years after Justin, Tertullian denied that Christ was cursed, of-
fering two reasons. First, Jesus did not die for his own sins, and second, he
died to fulfill prophecies (largely restating Justin’s arguments).42 Yet Marcion
knew that even a sinless Christ can be cursed, for in Deuteronomy 21:23—​as
quoted by Tertullian—​“everyone hung on a tree is cursed by god.” Moreover,
a curse still applies even if predicted. Indeed, the fact that Jesus was sinless
and that the Jewish deity planned to curse Jesus ahead of time seems only to
worsen the problem.
Elsewhere Tertullian accepted the reality of the curse against Christ
but avoided connecting it with the creator. Following Paul’s emphasis, he
insisted that it applied “to the son from the Law.”43 In his treatise On Patience,
Tertullian remarked: “When you are cursed, rejoice, The lord himself was
cursed in the Law.”44 “In saying that Christ is crucified,” Tertullian elsewhere
urged, “we do not curse him, but refer to the curse of the Law.”45 In short, it is
the Law, not the creator, who is blamed for the curse—​even though the cre-
ator is the (unacknowledged) author of the Law.

40 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 93.4. See further Chapman, Crucifixion, 248–​51.
41 See further Willem Cornelis van Unnik, “Der Fluch der Gekreuzigten: Deuteronomium 21,23 in
der Deutung Justinus des Märtyrers,” in Theologia Crucis, Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler
zum 70, ed. C. Andresen and G. Klein (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 483–​99.
42 Tertullian, Against the Jews 10.3–​4 (written between 198 and 208 CE). For the authenticity of

this work, see Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A
Literary History, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell, 2 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 1.339; Geoffrey
D. Dunn, Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis (Washington, DC: Catholic University
of America Press, 2003), 5–​30.
43 Tertullian, Against Praxeas 29.3.
44 Tertullian, On Patience 8.3. In context, Tertullian argued for the joyful acceptance of

persecution.
45 Tertullian stated that it is blasphemy if the father god is said to be cursed, but not blasphemy in

the case of the son: “Just as concerning a being who is said to have a capacity for something, this is
said without blasphemy, so with regard to one who does not have the capacity, to say it is blasphemy”
(sicut autem de quo quid capit dici sine blasphemia dicitur, ita quod non capit, blasphemia est si dicatur,
Against Praxeas 29.3–​4).
148 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Ambrosiaster

A Roman clergyman now called “Ambrosiaster,” writing between 366 and

384 CE, openly denied that Christ “became accursed.” To argue this point, he
had to make a subtle distinction. Christ, he said, was made “a curse” (maledic-
tum), but he was not accursed (maledictus). Christ was made a curse because
he bore the creator’s curse on the cross. Since he was innocent, however, he
did not become accursed.46
This kind of distinction, though innovative, is lacking in the text of
Galatians. Paul says that Christ became a curse and immediately quotes the
text in which the crucified victim is said to be “accursed.” To become a curse
and to be accursed are equivalent expressions. Arguably, “to become a curse,”
even says more than calling Jesus “accursed.” If Christ was accursed, we could
distinguish the curse and Christ, but if Christ became a curse, there is no ap-
parent distinction.

Epiphanius

Ambrosiaster did not tell us whose interpretation he tried to over-

come. Epiphanius (about 375 CE) made his arguments explicitly against
Marcion(ites). He vitriolically denied the reality of god’s curse. “The
fool”—​referring to Marcion—​“is wholly unaware that Christ has not be-
come a curse either—​god forbid!”47 Like Justin, Epiphanius appealed to
interchange theology and fulfilled prophecy to mitigate the force of the
curse.48 In this way, he discounted the notion that cursing reflected poorly
on the creator.

Jerome

Taking a different tack, Jerome contended that it is only because of one’s

crime that one is cursed, not because one is crucified. Nevertheless, the text

46 Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians 3.13.

47 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.8.3; cf. 66.79.10.
48 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.12, Elenchus 2.
 The Curse of the Creator 149

he dealt with said: “cursed by god is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Deut
21.23)—​everyone, whether innocent or guilty. Jerome was so bothered by the
creator’s curse that he claimed (in line with the Didascalia) that interpolators
added “cursed by god” to Deuteronomy 21:23 in both Christian and Jewish
versions of the text. He added that, “in no place is it written [in scripture] that
anyone is cursed by god and wherever a curse is made, the name of god is not
added.”49
But when Jerome quoted the curse against Cain (“You are accursed,”
Gen 4:11), he failed to mention that it is the creator who speaks.50 In the
other curse texts Jerome mentioned, the creator brings the curses as well.
When Noah cursed his grandson Canaan (Gen 9:25), for instance, the
creator fulfilled that curse by later commanding and overseeing the an-
nihilation of the Canaanites (Deut 20:17; Josh 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39;
11:11, 14).
But it was not just the creator’s enemies that he cursed, but his own people.
In the fifty-​four verses of Deuteronomy 28:15–​68 there are eighty-​two curses
that threaten the Israelites. To quote just a sample:

It will happen if you do not obey the voice of the lord your god to keep
and perform all his commandments . . . there will come upon you all these
curses—​and they will overtake you. You will be accursed in the city, ac-
cursed in the country, accursed will be your storehouses and reserves, ac-
cursed the offspring of your womb and the products of your land, the herds
of your cattle and the flocks of your sheep. Accursed you will be in your
leaving and accursed in your coming. The lord will send you poverty, wast-
ing hunger, and the withering of everything you attempt, whatever you do,
until you are annihilated . . . (Deut 28:15–​20)

When one goes looking, in fact, there are many examples of the creator
cursing, and Jerome’s discussion helps to bring these out.51

49 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2 at 3.13: nullo loco scriptum a deo quemquam esse maledic-

tum et ubicumque maledictio ponitur nunquam dei nomen adiunctum.

50 This point was not lost on Adimantus in Augustine, Against Adimantus 3.4.
51 Origen wrote that the creator threatens and speaks abusively (ἀπειλεῖ . . . ὁ θεὸς καὶ λοιδορεῖ)

in the Law and the Prophets, and that “abundant curses” (ἀραὶ πλεῖσται) are recorded in Leviticus
(26:14–​46) and Deuteronomy (Cels. 2.76). Ephrem also commented that god said “concerning the
unjust, ‘You are cursed’ ” (Prose Refutations in Mitchell, 2.xxv, modified).
150 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

The Cursing God

Indeed, it is useful to study these curses more fully to understand the Marcionite
critique. In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve disobey the creator by eating from the tree
of knowledge. The creator responds with a double curse:

To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase your sufferings and your
groans; with suffering you will bear children; you will resort to your hus-
band and he will dominate you.” To Adam he said: “Because you listened
to your wife and ate from the tree, . . . accursed is the soil when you work it;
with sufferings you will eat it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it
will produce for you and you will eat field grass. By the sweat of your face
you will eat bread until you resort back to the soil from which you were
taken.” (Gen 3:16–​20)

Despite the harshness of these punishments (physical suffering, male

domination, lifelong labor, and so on), only the snake and the soil are ex-
pressly said to be cursed, as some interpreters pointed out. Philo, for in-
stance, argued that Adam could not be cursed because he represents mind
or intelligence, the precipitate of the creator’s breath.52 Irenaeus denied that
the creator cursed Adam, in part because a curse implied damnation.53
Adamantius, the early catholic exponent in the dialogue named after
him, argued that the creator did not curse the first human—​only the
ground. His Marcionite opponent countered that the creator did curse
Adam, for Adam was taken from the ground. This curse, moreover, im-
plied the creator’s condemnation: “he bestowed on [Adam] a curse—​how
could this not be condemnation?”54 Origen of Alexandria agreed that the
creator’s curse against “the earth in your works” was directed “to Adam.”55
He also spoke generally of “the curse of Adam” and the “curses pro-
nounced against Eve.”56
In certain Nag Hammadi retellings of the Paradise story, the creator’s
curse against the first humans is accentuated. In the shorter version of the

52 Philo, Questions on Genesis 1.50.

53 Irenaeus, AH 3.23.3. For Irenaeus, indeed, the idea that Adam was not saved was heresy (1.28.1).
54 Adamantius 2.7: κατάραν αὐτῷ ἔδωκε, πῶς οὖν οὐ κατεδίκασεν;
55 Origen, Homilies on Numbers 15.3.1.
56 Origen, Cels. 4.40. Augustine rejected the idea that Adam was subject to god’s curse (Enemy of

the Law 1.24).

 The Curse of the Creator 151

Secret Book of John, the chief creator sees Adam and Eve separate from him
after eating the fruit and curses them.57 An expanded set of curses appears
in On the Origin of the World, where blind rulers first curse the instructing
serpent, then Eve and her children, and finally Adam, the earth, and the fruit
because of him: “Everything they created they cursed. There is no blessing
from them. Good cannot be born from evil.”58
The last line may go back to Marcion’s explanation of Jesus’s parable
that a bad tree does not bear good fruit (Evangelion 6:43).59 If so, both
the Christian and philosophical backgrounds of the criticism are evi-
dent. The true god, who is good and can only do good, cannot curse.
Accordingly, the god who does curse cannot be good and thus forgoes his
claim to be god.
In some cases, the “god” who curses is himself an accursed god. Origen
claimed that, since the creator cursed the knowledge-​giving snake, “Ophite”
Christians directed their curses against the creator.60 Origen’s opponent
Celsus (writing about 178 CE) scored rhetorical points by highlighting this
“accursed god” of the Christians.61 The creator and his minions are also said
to be cursed in the Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4): they “have no blessing,” to
give, “for they are under a curse.” In the same text, the main heroine, Norea,
calls the rulers “accursed.”62
Based on these texts, we gather that for some ancient Christians, there
was a connection between a cursing creator and an accursed creator. A tree
is known by its fruit, and a cursing god is himself accursed. Although
Marcionites did not, on present evidence, argue this specific point, they
would have plausibly agreed that a cursing creator is himself cursed—​in par-
ticular one who cursed the sinless Christ.

57 Secret Book of John (BG 8502,2) 61.7–​10. Yaldabaoth immediately makes Adam master of Eve,

has his angels chase them from Paradise, and clothes them in thick darkness.
58 Origin of the World (NHC II,5) 120.3–​11. The cursing of Adam and Eve is also explicit in the

“Ophite” report of Irenaeus, AH 1.30.8: “so that the spirit [of Adam] from the principality . . . might
not share in the [creator’s] curse.”
59 See the re-​established text in Roth, Text 415; Klinghardt, Älteste Evangelium II 555. See also

ibid., 4.4.20; 7.4.7; 8.8. Cf. Origen, First Principles 2.5.4 (“that famous question of theirs”); 3.1.18;
Commentary on John 13.73; Ref. 10.19.2; Pseudo-​Tertullian, AAH 6.2; Filastrius, Diverse Heresies 45;
Augustine, Enemy of the Law 1.47. For the Manichean reception, see J. Kevin Coyle, “Good Tree,
Bad Tree: The Matthean/​Lukan Paradigm in Manichaeism and Its Opponents,” in The Reception and
Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Montreal Colloquium in Honour of
Charles Kannengiesser, ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucian Turcescu (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 122–​44.
60 Origen, Cels. 6.28.
61 Origen, Cels. 6.27–​28.
62 Reality of the Rulers (NHC II,4) 91.6–​7, 92.23.
152 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Manichean Reception

There is one final way to reconstruct what would appear plausible in

Marcionite interpretation, and that is through its Manichean reception.
Following Marcionites, Manicheans—​who claimed to be the true followers
of Christ—​were avid interpreters of Galatians 3:13. One such interpreter we
have already met—​Adimantus, writer of the Disputations. Adimantus is par-
ticularly important because his Disputations may have been a revised expan-
sion of Marcion’s Antitheses (see Chapter 6).
Following the format of the Antitheses, Adimantus highlighted the fol-
lowing tension: whereas the Jewish deity cursed crucified people (Deut
21:23), Jesus invited his disciples to take up their cross and follow him (Matt
19:21; cf. 16:24). The conflict highlighted here was between the character of
Christ—​who invited people to die sacrificially on the cross—​and the char-
acter of the creator, who cursed the righteous sufferers of crucifixion.63
Centuries after the cessation of crucifixion, it is easy to read Christ’s
command, “take up your cross” in figurative fashion, but as early Christian
literature indicates, several of Jesus’s disciples (for instance, Peter and
Andrew) embraced literal crucifixion for their commitment to Christ.64
Manicheans believed that their founder Mani was also crucified, making
him, by extension, a victim of the creator’s curse.65 The fact that the Jewish
deity cursed the righteous victims of crucifixion manifested his wicked
character.
Against Adimantus, the North African church father Augustine (died 430
CE) took a figurative reading of Matthew 19:21. The person who takes up the
cross, he said, is not literally crucified like Christ. Rather, only one’s “old self ”
is crucified (using the language of Rom 6:6). Augustine identified the old self
with the “old life” inherited from Adam.
In his response to Adimantus, Augustine avoided the idea that god actu-
ally cursed Christ. “It was not the lord. . . but death itself that merited the
curse which our lord annulled in the act of assuming it.” The language indi-
cates that Augustine, like Justin before him, was more comfortable with

63 Augustine, Against Adimantus 21: maledictus omnis, qui in ligno pependerit . . . quod ex evangelio

Adimantus obponendum putavit, ubi dominus ait: si vis perfectus esse . . . tolle crucem tuam (Corpus
scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum [CSEL] 25.1:179–​80); translated as Disputation 21 in van den
Berg, Biblical Argument, 116.
64 Acts of Andrew 54–​55; Martyrdom of Peter 36–​40 translated by Elliott, Apocryphal, 262, 424–​26.
65 Asmussen, Manichaean Literature, 54.
 The Curse of the Creator 153

Christ assuming a curse than with actually becoming a curse, as is written

in Galatians 3:13. Augustine’s wording was careful: he admitted that Christ
assumed “the most shameful kind of death known to human beings,” but he
did not concede that Christ was cursed.66
Augustine returned to Galatians 3:13 in his Answer to Felix. Felix,
a “learned man” in the Manichean church, came to spread his faith in
Augustine’s city (Hippo Regius) toward the end of 404 CE.67 Felix’s scriptures
were confiscated according to a law that sentenced Manicheans to be burned
along with their writings. Felix offered to discuss the contents of the books
with Augustine in order to prove their harmlessness. If he failed in his en-
deavor, Felix agreed to be burned.68
In the second day of the debate, Felix argued that the power which is
against the true god—​the evil power that crucified Christ—​cannot belong
to god. Augustine countered that this power, which catholics called Satan,
derived from god. Manicheans thought this position blasphemous, because
it traced evil back to god. It made Satan himself “a power of god”; and if he
was a power of god, then he was effectively god’s employee. If god’s employee
holds power over humans by divine permission, this reflected poorly on god,
or what the catholics took to be god.
The true view, according to Felix, is that humans are in bondage to a hos-
tile power, one who does not belong to god. The hostile power proves its evil
nature by cursing everyone hung on a cross (Gal 3:13). This power was not
the devil —​though he too was evil—​but the creator. The creator, Felix con-
cluded, was not the true (that is, good) god.69
There is one final piece of evidence. This comes from Faustus of Milevis,
whom we have met in Chapter 6. Faustus was a Manichean bishop of North
Africa who wrote a critical and exegetical work, the Capitula, between 386
and 390 CE. Faustus had met Augustine around 382 when the latter was a
young and inquisitive Manichean.70 Four years later, Augustine converted to
early catholicism, and some thirteen years after that (between 398 and 400),
Augustine wrote a reply to Faustus that preserved most of Faustus’s Capitula
through quotations.

66 Augustine, Against Adimantus, 21.

67 Augustine, Retractions 2.8 (35).
68 Augustine, Against Felix 1.12. See further Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social
Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 99–​102.
69 Augustine, Against Felix 2.10.
70 Augustine, Confessions 5.6.10–​5.7.11.
154 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

In the Capitula, Faustus proffered his interpretation of Galatians 3:13.

Although the bishop focused his attack on Moses, the creator’s prophet, his
comments still apply to the creator. According to Faustus, Manicheans curse
Moses because Moses “knowingly and willingly cursed” the crucified Christ.
Indeed, Moses in Deuteronomy 21:23 cursed “all righteous people and mar-
tyrs, as many as left this life by a like suffering . . . Moses does not say that
they are cursed before the world—​that is humans only—​but cursed by god.”71
Early catholics, claimed Faustus, did not want to admit god’s curse, because
this curse would also include Jesus.72
In his reply, Augustine at first seemed only prepared to allow—​as he did
with Adimantus—​that god cursed death: “Is it any wonder that god curses
what he hates?” Yet since only death was cursed, god hated not Christ, but
death. But then Augustine changed tactic. He conceded to Faustus that
“absolutely every person” crucified is cursed, including the son of god.
This is what Manicheans do not want, Augustine claimed, “For you are
displeased that he is cursed for us, because you are displeased that he died
for us.”73
This is an interesting attempt to turn the tables. Augustine argued that,
since Manicheans did not accept that Christ was actually hurt on the cross,
they did not accept his death, and therefore they could not accept that he
was cursed. But Faustus did accept that he was cursed, and that by “god”. The
problem, then, was with the god worshiped by early catholics, as Faustus
urged: “a divine spirit would not curse Christ.”74
In a subsequent critique of Faustus, Augustine brought in the Jews. If
Faustus really believed, said Augustine, that Jesus was cursed by the creator,
then logically Faustus would have been the first to attack Christ if they were
contemporaries. In this regard, Faustus would have no quarrel with the Jews
“who, in persecuting Christ with heart and soul, acted in obedience to their
own god.”75
The fact that Augustine could refer to the god of the Jews (dei sui, as if this
being was different from his god), and acknowledge—​if only for the sake of
argument—​that the Jews obeyed their god in crucifying Christ, returns us to
the heart of the Manichean—​and earlier Marcionite—​critique. At least one

71 Augustine, Against Faustus 14.1.

72 Augustine, Against Faustus 32.5.
73 Augustine, Against Faustus 14.6.
74 Augustine, Against Faustus 16.5.
75 Augustine, Against Faustus 32.5.
 The Curse of the Creator 155

reason why the idea of an evil creator arose is because some Christians real-
ized that the creator was the driving cause of Christ’s crucifixion, and that he
added his imprimatur by cursing Christ on the cross.
Indeed, Felix made this point explicitly: “See what the apostle said (Rom
8:7; 2 Cor 4:4; 12:7–​8); see what the evangelist said (Matt 25:34, 41). Mani
said that he who wages war against god is external to god. Christ was cruci-
fied as well as all the apostles for the sake of god’s command.”76 If the creator
commanded Christ’s crucifixion, Christ could not belong to the creator. By
attacking Christ, the creator “wages war against [the true] god” and so proves
that he is evil, foreign to Christ, and to what is truly divine.
Again, these Manichean sources are not direct witnesses to Marcionite
interpretations of Galatians 3:13. Still, I would argue that they give us a
sense for what would have been a plausible Marcionite reading of this verse.
Marcion probably engaged with Galatians 3:13 in his Antitheses. Adimantus
probably rewrote—​or at least borrowed—​from the Antitheses. We know that
Faustus read Adimantus’s work, and likely the same can be said for Felix. All
three Manichean leaders agreed with Marcion that Christ “received in him-
self the creator’s curse by being hung from a tree.”77 They all concluded that
a “god” who curses the crucified Christ—​not to mention all other victims of
crucifixion—​was not good and thus not (the true) god.

Conclusion

Patristic authors employed various strategies to confront the creator’s

curse against Christ (Gal 3:13). Yet virtually all agreed that this curse must
somehow be avoided or denied, despite Paul’s language that Christ “became”
a curse. Early catholic writers like Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine must
have had strong motives for overriding what was for them biblical language.
One of these motives, I believe, was to protect the goodness of the creator
against Marcionite—​and later, Manichean—​attacks.
Marcionites and their interpretive heirs viewed the creator’s curse against
Christ as incriminating the creator’s character. Whatever good resulted from
the curse was not planned by the creator and could not exculpate his curs-
ing character. A being who cursed the sinless savior could not under any

76 Augustine, Against Felix 2.2 (end), italics added.

77 As reported by Tertullian, AM 1.11.8.
156 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

circumstances be considered good. But the creator who cursed Christ not
only lacked goodness; he also proved himself to be malign. In short, the cre-
ator’s curse against the sinless Christ manifested once and for all the creator’s
hostility toward Christ and served to hoist up, as it were, his wicked character
for all to behold.
 Conclusion
The Evil Creator at Large

We should assuredly be quite different if the Christian era had been

inaugurated by the execration of the Creator, for the permission
to abuse Him would not have failed to lighten our burden, and to
render the last two millennia that much less oppressive.
—​M. Cioran1

In 1995, Jack Miles published a book called God: A Biography. In this volume,
he performed a character analysis on the deity of the Hebrew Bible. He
pointed out significant character development in this figure and was not
afraid to hide his destructive side. “God is no saint,” he remarked. “There
is much to object to in him, and many attempts have been made to improve
him. Much that the Bible says about him is rarely preached from the pulpit
because, examined too closely, it becomes a scandal.”2
In the fifth century BCE, the playwright Aeschylus—​or an imitator—​
performed another kind of character analysis. He focused on Zeus, who
chained Prometheus, benefactor of humanity, to the face of a cliff. In the
Roman era, this punishment was understood to be a form of crucifixion.3
(One might liken it to offshore detention and torture.) Parading before
Prometheus, the various characters in the play do not hesitate to berate Zeus
as a tyrant.4
Marcionite Christians performed a similar kind of character analysis on
the creator—​not out of literary interest, but from theological concern. Based

1 M. Cioran, The New Gods, ed. Richard Howard (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 8.
2 Jack Miles, God: A Biography (London: Simon & Schuster), 6.
3 Hengel, Crucifixion, 11–​12. For Prometheus crucified, see Lucian, Sacrifices 6; Zeus Catechized 8;

Tertullian, AM 1.1.3–​4.
4 [Aeschylus], Prometheus Bound 222, 310, 736, 761, 942, 957.

The Evil Creator. M. David Litwa, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197566428.003.0010
158 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

on biblical stories, they pointed out flaws in his character (that he was blood-
thirsty, jealous, arrogant, irascible, and so on).5 They exposed questionable
actions like preventing knowledge, sending a flood, and killing children.
From these biblical stories, as channeled through their theological assump-
tions and hermeneutical frameworks, they concluded that the creator was
wicked.
Today it seems strange that some early Christians would read biblical docu-
ments without the felt need, in Milton’s phrase, “to justify the ways of God to
men.”6 Yet this assumes that all early Christians presupposed that the Judean
deity was the universal god of pure goodness, and that so-​called gnostic and
Marcionite Christians were responsible for a subsequent “split” in the deity.7
But what if this isn’t true? After all, Gentile Christians of the early second cen-
tury may never have been acculturated to Jewish theological traditions.8 Even
if they became familiar with Jewish scripture, they may never have viewed the
Judean deity as either universal or good. They lived in a culture in which wide-
spread social antagonism toward perceived Jewish peculiarities was already
fused with theological criticism.9 Celsus (about 178 CE) observed that some
Christians “will concede that their god is the same as that of the Jews, while
others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposi-
tion.”10 Celsus is usually thought to be referring to Marcionite Christians, but
it is possible that he had several groups of Christians in mind.11 After all, ac-
cording to Celsus, all it took was an interpretation of Plato to derive the idea of “a
God above the heavens . . . higher than the heaven in which the Jews believe.”12
Note also, on this score, Marcion’s contemporary Basilides, a Gentile
Christian theologian from Alexandria.13 He lived through both Jewish

5 Documented by Lieu, Marcion, 337–​49, 357–​66. Cf. Augustine, Enemy of the Law 1.30.
6 John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1.26. For theodicy-​oriented readings of scripture, see Williams,
“Demonizing,” 90–​91.
7 For the split theory, see Birger A. Pearson, “Gnosticism as a Religion,” in Was There a Gnostic

Religion? ed. Antti Marjanen (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2005), 81–​101 at 83. DeConick
speaks of a “bifurcation” of the Jewish god into a good father and a malicious lawgiver performed by
a transitional gnostic Christian—​the author of the fourth gospel (“Why” at 178; Gnostic New Age,
146–​47). Irenaeus already accused the Marcionites of “slicing the godhead in two” (dividens deum in
duo, AH 3.25.3). Cf. Origen’s “they divide the godhead” (διακόπτουσι τὴν θεότητα, On Prayer 29.12).
8 Cf. Arnobius, a Gentile Christian from North Africa: “Jewish fables . . . do not concern us and

have nothing at all in common with us”; those that are shared require the allegorical interpretation of
exegetical experts (Against the Nations 3.12).
9 Helpfully summarized in Schäfer, Judeophobia, 34–​196.
10 Origen, Against Celsus 5.61.
11 Horacio E. Lona, Die “Wahre Lehre” des Kelsos (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 310.
12 Origen, Against Celsus 6.19.
13 For Basilides, see esp. Winrich Alfried Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie-​

und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); Löhr, “Christliche
 Conclusion 159

uprisings (the revolt under Trajan, 115–​117 CE, and the Bar Kochba war,
132–​135 CE). Perhaps in response to these uprisings, Basilides developed
his own theory as to why the Jews rose up and why the other nations joined
forces to suppress them. The god of the Jews, he thought, was actually a pow-
erful angel in charge of Judea who sought to expand his power and subdue
the nations. This angelic “god” repeatedly incited his own people to revolt, an
act that inspired the backlash of other peoples (led by their angelic lords).14
In deriving this theory, Basilides never “split” the Jewish god away from a
transcendent father deity. He never actually assumed that these two different
entities were one. The Judean deity was always a subordinate ruler, whose
local rule in Judea actually had a biblical foundation (Deut 32:8–​9).
Both Basilides and Epiphanius’s “Phibionites” lived in Egypt along with
several other Christian groups (Carpocratians, Valentinians, among others)
over the course of two centuries (from at least 115–​350 CE). Egypt was the
land where—​centuries before Basilides and Marcion—​hostile intellectuals
had propagated the view of Yahweh as a form of Seth-​Typhon. This under-
standing of Yahweh gained cultural currency by the late first century. In this
environment, it seems that many Gentiles who became Christians in the con-
text of the Jewish revolts began by considering the local god of Judea to be
“other,” dangerous, and bellicose—​especially when compared with the god
revealed in Jesus Christ.15
In opposing this “split” theory of deity, I seek to undermine the assumed
originality of a particular constructed tradition: that all early Christians, Jew
or Gentile, adopted Yahweh as their deity and worshiped him as “the lord.” In
my view, this understanding gained much of its traction in hindsight when
historical reconstructions, such as those we find in the book of Acts, began
to leaven the Christian imagination in the late second century. The author of
Acts depicted earliest Christianity as chiefly spread by Jewish missionaries

‘Gnostiker’ in Alexandria im zweiten Jahrhundert,” in Alexandria, ed. Tobias Georges, Felix Albrecht,
and Reinhard Feldmeier (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 413–​33.
14 Basilides, as reported by Irenaeus, AH 1.24.4.
15 Hostility toward Judaism and the Jewish deity may have increased across the empire after the

Jewish uprisings of 66–​71, 115–​17, and 132–​35 CE. See further Martin Goodman, “Trajan and the
Origin of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past & Present 182 (2004): 3–​29; John M. G. Barclay, “The
Politics of Contempt. Judeans and Egyptians in Josephus’ Against Apion,” in Pauline Churches and
Diaspora Jews (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 277–​300; Bar-​Kochva, Image, 206–​52; Daniele
Tripaldi, “From Philo to Areimanios: Jewish Traditions and Intellectual Profiles in First–​Third
Century Alexandria in the Light of the Apocryphon of John,” in Jews and Christians in Antiquity, ed.
Lanfranchi and Verheyden, 101–​20.
160 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

who first targeted Jews. He is significantly silent, however, about the spread
of Christianity in places like Egypt, North Africa, Pontus, Edessa—​among
other places.16 Truth be told, we still do not know how Christianity was
spread in these areas and whether the converts had any significant incultu-
ration in Jewish customs and theology. Thus we cannot assume that they all
adopted the Judean deity as their supreme lord, as opposed to the deity re-
vealed in gospel proclamations (whether oral or written).
I would propose that at least some Christians, including intellectuals like
Basilides (from Alexandria) and Marcion (from Pontus), did not have any
significant commitment to Jewish theology prior to their faith in Christ.
These Christians, that is, never adopted the Judean creator as their deity
and did not feel any need to do so. In this development, I think, Marcion
and Basilides are only representatives. They represent, that is, segments of
Christians who never worshiped the creator as the true and universal god.
Their form of Christianity thus already had a different framework for under-
standing the creator, who—​as in Platonic theology—​was not identical to the
supreme deity.
Gradually, Gentile Christians became familiar with stories in the
Septuagint, stories that were also reflected in historical texts, spells, amulets,
and oral lore in antiquity. Their interpretation of stories in which Yahweh
floods the earth, plagues Egypt, destroys Amalek, and so on, eventually con-
vinced some of them to view the Jewish creator as actually evil and tyrannical
in character.
But they did not limit themselves to Jewish scriptures. In fact, the most
critical evidence for the creator’s wickedness came from a central story in
what are distinctly Christian scriptures. I refer to the story of the crucifixion,
a story in which the “rulers” of this world, in obedience to “the god of this
world” (the creator) plotted behind the scenes to nail Christ to the cross (1
Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 4:4). The Judean deity’s plot might have been forgiven if it
occurred under a different dispensation for pedagogical purposes against
someone who truly deserved it. Instead, the creator plotted against, killed,
and cursed the Christian savior, whom Christians identified with the spot-
less lamb (1 Cor 5:7) of the (true) god. Since crucifying the innocent Christ
was, in the Christian imagination, demonstrably evil, Marcionite—​among
other—​Christians concluded that the creator himself was evil. My overall ar-
gument agrees with Simone Pétrement’s older observation that the notion

16 See the classic study of Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy (entire).

 Conclusion 161

of the evil creator was primarily “brought about within and by Christianity,
the crucifixion of Christ, the Pauline theology of the cross.”17 Yet we need to
make this formulation sharper: it was the creator who put Christ on the cross
and therefore decisively proved, beyond any lurking doubt, the corruption of
his character.
Whatever one thinks of this thesis, my argument has shown at the very
least that Marcionites—​among several other early Christian groups—​had
exegetical reasons for believing that the creator was evil. I do not deny that
there were other—​potentially many other—​reasons for ancient Christians
to conclude that the creator of this world was hostile to both Christ and to
themselves. Yet the key inspiration, as developed in this book, were partic-
ular readings of Christian scripture (both “Old” and “New” Testaments).
To be sure, Marcionite (among other) Christians did not read their Bibles
in a vacuum. They already carried with them (1) a predetermined opposi-
tional stance toward rabbinic-​style Judaism motivated (at the very least) by
the need to assert their Christian identity, and (2) popular philosophical
assumptions of the day that informed them about what traits were and were
not appropriate for a deity.
Merely by virtue of being Christian, Marcionites (among other Christians)
were opposed to a religious ideology that centered on the temple and obe-
dience to the Torah. Their opposition to this ideology was born out of their
need to craft their own Christian identity, which—​while trying to avoid the
disgrace of the Jewish tax and the stigma of perceived treason (between 115
and 135 CE)—​was constantly trying to siphon off symbolic capital from
Jewish scripture and tradition.18
This growing Christian animus against what they took to be recalci-
trant Jews was, I surmise, in some cases re-​expressed as an animus against
the Jewish god. This animus might have motivated them to find and accen-
tuate passages wherein the biblical creator failed to measure up to what was
considered to be divine (omnibenevolent) status. The creator’s statements,
actions, and character proved that he was not only not good, but also pos-
itively evil—​jealous, hostile, and angry—in particular at Christ and those
Christians endowed with deeper insight about the nature of the divine.

17 Simone Pétrement, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, trans. Carol Harrison

(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 10.

18 For nuanced discussion, see Judith M. Lieu, “Self-​ definition vis-​à-​vis the Jewish Matrix,”
in Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 214–​29; Lieu, Image and Reality (entire).
162 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

Terminology

As my argument now draws to a close, I want to offer a practical suggestion

regarding terminology that might in some way help us to surmount the cur-
rent impasse about the use of “Gnosis” or “gnostic” as a global term. I pro-
pose that we call the idea (or ideology) of an evil creator, present in several
early Christian groups, “negative demiurgy.” The related phrase “biblical
demiurgy,” as proposed by Michael A. Williams in 1996, was generally not
accepted by scholars.19 I myself understand it to be overly vague—​since ef-
fectively it could apply to all theories of the biblical creator, whether he is
viewed as good, evil, or as something in between. “Negative demiurgy” is
more precise and thus more useful as an analytical tool and comparative cat-
egory. In the second century CE, it would describe the views of Marcionite
and Sethian Christians, for instance—​neither of whom we need call “gnostic”
in a global sense.
Negative demiurgy, I think, should not be understood as the central idea
of a separate religion or religious phenomenon. Instead, I take it as a par-
ticular view possible in several discrete traditions, though mostly within
what I would prefer to call summodeistic faiths (including early Judaism and
Christianity).20 It is, to be sure, a minority position in the Abrahamic tradi-
tions. Yet it should not be left unstudied, not only since it is important for
early Christian history and the history of biblical interpretation, but also be-
cause it is alive and well in modern times.

The Evil Creator Today

A key inspiration for negative demiurgy in contemporary discourse is—​once

again—​Christian scripture.21 This time, however, the most vocal critics of
the biblical creator are not alternative Christian theologians but humanists
and freethinkers still endeavoring to detach politics, science, and education

19 William, Rethinking, 218. See, e.g., the critique of Burns, Did God Care, 184–​86.
20 For summodeism, see Litwa, We Are Being Transformed, 229–​57.
21 On the continued influence of the Bible, see Mark A. Noll, “The Bible Then and Now,” in The Bible
in American Life, ed. Philip Goff, Arthur Farnsley, and Peter Thuesen (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017), 331–​44; Corwin E. Smidt, “The Continuing Distinctive Role of the Bible in American
Lives,” ibid., 203–​24.
 Conclusion 163

from the structures of religious ideology.22 In so doing, they continue the

project of the Enlightenment, which proved so influential for the founding of
Western democracies.
In 1979, Ruth Hurmence Green, in the throes of her battle against cancer,
published The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible. By her own report, she
had been a skeptic the previous fifty years of her life, but an in-​depth exami-
nation of scripture in her sunset years made her an outright atheist.23 It was
in the Bible that she observed the “unspeakable cruelty of the Christian God,
manifested in his sentencing of a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath
to be stoned to death.” Such cruelty reached its height when god “destroyed
all the inhabitants of the earth [with a flood] except for one family of his own
choosing.”24 God preordained human sin but blamed humankind” in Eden.25
He sent she-​bears to “devour 42 children . . . [who were] playfully teasing
Elisha.”26 “God also,” she observed, “makes use of evil spirits. He sends one
upon Saul.”27 Furthermore, god ordered the Amalekites to be slaughtered by
the edge of the sword—​every man, woman and child.28
Green’s criticisms were not limited to the Hebrew Bible. What most hor-
rified her was the story of the “capture, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus.” She
was both astounded and disgusted that human beings were blamed for such
a tragedy, since it is none other than god who needed to cause “all this ghastly
panorama in order to fulfill the prophecies.”29 She inquired: “If the concept
of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children
as beautiful and as worthy of society’s admiration, what types of human be-
havior can be presented to them as reprehensible?”30 Green—​a churchgoing
Methodist most of her life—​then made a peculiarly Marcionite conclusion—​
though ultimately more daring than Marcion—​“The God of the Bible is a
demon.”31

22 An exception here is Archbishop Jonathan Blake, The Old Devil Called God Again: The Scourge

of Religion (Winchester: John Hunt, 2014), 30–​38. In the book, Blake argues that “the biblical God is
immoral, cruel, and abusive” (8).
23 Ruth Hurmence Green, The Born-​ again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible with the Book of Ruth
(Madison: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1979), vii.
24 Green, Guide, 21.
25 Green, Guide, 23–​24.
26 Green, Guide, 27.
27 Green, Guide, 30.
28 Green, Guide, 103, 129.
29 Green, Guide, 97.
30 Green, Guide, viii, emphasis hers.
31 Green, Guide, 30.
164 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

In 2001, American atheist Richard Carrier e-​published an intellectual bi-

ography explaining how he had become an atheist. As it turns out, simply
reading the Bible, by his own report, proved to be the decisive factor. Someone
had encouraged him to read “the good book” cover to cover. Accordingly,
Carrier picked up the New International Version (an American Evangelical
translation) and began to search the scriptures. Between the covers, Carrier
discovered, to his surprise,

a terrible, sinful God . . . a jealous, violent, short-​tempered, vengeful

being whose behavior is nonsensical and overly meddlesome and
unenlightening. . . .
Though called a wise father, there is not a single example in the Old
Testament of God sitting down and kindly teaching anyone, and when
asked by Job, the best of men, to explain why He went out of His way to
hurt a good man by every possible means, including killing his loved ones,
this “wise father” spews arrogant rhetorical questions, ultimately implying
nothing more than “might makes right” as his only excuse. I revulsed in
horror at this demonic monster . . .32

When Carrier closed his Bible after finishing the final page, he (by his
own testimony) declared aloud, though alone in his bedroom: “Yep, I’m an
atheist.” In this case, “atheist” meant not only that he did not believe in the
biblical god but also that he indignantly opposed the character of its putative
deity. In Carrier’s own mind, at least, the act of Bible reading played a consti-
tutive role in helping him toward his negative demiurgical conclusions.
These experiences are hardly unique. An article of an anonymous
American author was published on News24 (a South African online news
outlet) on October 25, 2012. It is entitled, “What if God was the Evil One?” In
it we find statements such as these:

Throughout the bible there are numerous accounts of god dishing out di-
vine punishment by way of genocide, plagues, ethnic cleansing, and the like.
If the bible were the word of god, then god supports infanticide, slavery,
torture, genocide and all manner of death, destruction, and suffering. Just
take the crucifixion as an example—​the foundation of the Christian reli-
gion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow

32 https://infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html. Visited on September 25, 2019.

 Conclusion 165

sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his
own son, a “good man” by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so
that “bad” people could be let off their crimes? If the answer is that god
loves us all and wants us to be forgiven, why did he not just do that? Why
insist on a bloodthirsty crucifixion?33

The implied conclusion is that the god who enforces Christ’s crucifixion is
in fact malign. This line of thought has analogies in Marcionite Christian the-
ology. Unlike ancient Marcionites, however, this anonymous author does not
assume that there is a beneficent deity higher than the creator. Like Carrier
and Green, s/​he assumes and responds to a traditional Christian theology
that seems to have muscled out other interpretive options. According to this
theology, there is one god, the creator who does battle with a completely sep-
arate but subordinate lord of evil (Satan). Yet this was only one option, as it
turns out, in early Christian theology.
Still more criticisms of the creator appear on a website called the “Evil
Bible.com.” This site first appeared in 2003 and is apparently the work of
atheist Chris Thiefe.34 On the home page, we encounter this remark:

The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy
Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many
mass-​murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing . . .

Here Marcionite-​like criticisms crop up once more. The difference, again,

is that atheists like Thiefe do not envision the creator as a subordinate ruler.
Instead, they renounce their belief in what they consider to be the only ver-
sion of god on the market (the all-​powerful, all-​good creator).
In 2009, David Plotz, a writer of Jewish heritage, published a work called
The Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring
Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible.35 At the end of
this work, Plotz concluded: “After reading about the genocides, the plagues,
the murders, the mass enslavements, the ruthless vengeance for minor sins
(or no sin at all), and all that smiting—​every bit of it directly performed,

33 https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/What-if-God-was-actually-the-evil-one-20121025.

Visited on September 21, 2019.

34 We learn this from an article on Rational Wiki, https://​rationalwiki.org/​wiki/​Evil_​Bible.com

(accessed September 23, 2019).

35 Plotz, The Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things

I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible (New York: Harper Perennial, 2010).
166 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

authorized, or approved by God—​I can only conclude that the God of the
Hebrew Bible, if He existed, was awful, cruel, and capricious. He gives us
moments of beauty—​sublime beauty and grace!—​but taken as a whole, He
is no God I want to obey, and no God I can love. Why would anyone want to
be ruled by a God who’s so unmerciful, unjust, unforgiving, and unloving?”36
When later asked if he still believed in god, Plotz paused for a moment and
mused, “I guess not.” He later reflected, “Even if somehow it was true that the
God of the Hebrew Bible existed, who would want to believe in him? Why
would I want any ‘relationship’ with such a jealous, erratic, brutal, unmer-
ciful, unloving, unkind God?”37
Particularly helpful for discovering an evil god in scripture is Steve Wells’s
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. This work highlights in the margins of the (ad-
mittedly outdated) King James Version all of the putatively questionable
passages of Christian scripture, with mini-​icons indicating categories of per-
ceived “absurdity” (2,178 instances), “injustice” (1,541 instances), “cruelty
and violence” (1,316 instances), and “intolerance” (701 instances).38 Wells’s
two appendices identify 471 perceived contradictions in scripture, and 135
cases wherein god kills people, beginning with Noah’s flood and ending with
Jesus’s crucifixion.39
In his introduction, Wells notes that to make the Bible “a truly good
book . . . would require massive surgery . . . for nearly all passages in the
Bible are objectionable in one way or another. But with a little luck and
much careful editing, perhaps a small pamphlet could be produced from
the Bible—​one that could honestly be called good.”40 Wells seems unaware
that “purifying” the canon of scripture was one of Marcion’s most (in)famous
accomplishments. Wells’s statement that “the believer is simply stuck with
the Bible” indicates an unawareness of diverse canons today and the plethora
of Christian literature that pointed out problematic passages (such as the
Antitheses) in antiquity.41
On the American Humanists Association website, Joseph C. Sommer
explains why secular Humanists reject the Bible. It is because, he says,

36 Plotz, Good Book, 302–​3.

37 Plotz, Good Book, “Afterward,” 8–​9.
38 Steve Wells, Skeptic’s Bible (Moscow, ID: SAB, 2013), xi–​xii.
39 Wells, Skeptic’s Bible, 1597–​632. See further Steve Wells, Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the

Bible (Moscow, ID: SAB, 2010).

40 Wells, Skeptic’s Bible, ix–​x.
41 Wells, Skeptic’s Bible, x.
 Conclusion 167

It approves of outrageous cruelty and injustice. In civilized legal systems, a

fundamental principle is that the suffering of the innocent is the essence of
injustice. Yet the Bible teaches that God repeatedly violated this moral pre-
cept by harming innocent people.

Sommer offers examples of the creator’s cruelty:

He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because
of the acts of two people ([Adam and Eve] Genesis 3:16–​23; Romans 5:18);
he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the
time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20–​23); he tormented the Egyptians and their
animals with hail and disease because Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites
leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8–​11, 25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the
time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29–​30). After the Exodus he ordered the
Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations
and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1–​2) . . . He sent wild animals such as
bears (II Kings 2:23–​24).42

Just as Marcion implicitly compared the creator with unstated philosoph-

ical assumptions about the goodness of god, Sommer sees the creator as vio-
lating a baseline morality embodied in “modern legal systems.” He appeals,
in other words, to a concrete instance of shared morality to show how the
biblical creator falls short. This is basically a Marcionite procedure, though
Sommer, like all the other writers mentioned here, has evidently never heard
of Marcion or radical diversity in early Christianity. Nor is he interested in
contrasting the mentality of Christ with the character of the creator. The
Bible, in the view of Sommers and most other atheistic critics, seems mono-
lithic and univocal, which—​as the history of biblical interpretation shows—​
is not at all accurate.
A similar univocal reading of scripture is manifest in Dan Barker’s 2016
book God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. In this work, Barker
unpacks Richard Dawkins’s (in)famous statement that the “Old Testament”
god is “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-​
freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homo-
phobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal

42 Visited on September 21, 2019.

168 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”43 To this (already rather

full) list, Barker adds negative attributes of his own: god is “a pyromaniacal,
angry, merciless, curse-​hurling, vaccicidal [cow killing!], aborticidal, canni-
balistic slavemonger.”44
Ninety percent of Barker’s book is comprised of proof-​texting biblical pas-
sages stripped of their contexts, and with the most gory, violent, and lurid bits
printed in boldface. His last chapter turns to Jesus with some interesting the-
ological conclusions. “According to the New Testament,” he says, “Jesus was
the God of the Old Testament.”45 Barker concludes that Jesus “was identical
with the God of the Old Testament” based on passages in John where Jesus
appears to claim unity or identity with his father (John 10:30; 14:9).46 Though
hardly nuanced in his Christology, Barker assumes orthodox Christian the-
ology in identifying Jesus’s father with the creator. Captivated by American
Evangelical frameworks—​or, rather, his need to undermine them—​Barker
seems unaware of any other interpretive options.
To my mind, it is regrettable that these modern critics of the biblical god
do not know enough of the history of biblical interpretation to realize the
host of interpretive options available to them. They end up endlessly having
to reinvent the wheel, even though much of what they have been saying was
already said nineteen centuries ago in a more thoroughgoing and nuanced
way. Presumably if these critics knew more about the history of biblical in-
terpretation, they could better understand the issues at stake and craft better
arguments. At the very least, they would not assume the sole legitimacy of a
particular tradition (that Jesus’s father is the creator) that was constructed
in dialogue with other interpretive options presented by Marcion and other
early Christian thinkers in antiquity.
Marcion did not reject the existence of the creator; instead, he redescribed
him as a tyrannical being whose influence and power were both dangerous
and deadly. This particular viewpoint may seem bizarre today, but it at least
takes seriously the need for an honest character analysis of the biblical cre-
ator. It also witnesses to a certain resilience in Christian theology. Even if the
Flood-​sending, plague-​bearing, Christ-​cursing creator proves to be an evil
being, Christians can still worship the true god. Their first act of worship is

43 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006), 31. See also Dawkins, Outgrowing

God: A Beginner’s Guide (New York: Random House, 2019), 72–​92.

44 Barker, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (n.p.: Sterling, 2016), 291.
45 Barker, God, 289.
46 Barker, God, 289.
 Conclusion 169

actually coming to know what true deity is. God is only good, so the basic
principle is: if a god is not good, he’s not god.
Whatever its truth value, Marcionite, Phibionite, and Sethian Christian
teaching (etc.) reminds us that, in the struggle to generate an ethical and
informed culture, the Bible need not be utterly rejected, but reframed. It is
reframed simply by viewing it not as the word of the (potentially evil) creator
but as the historical expression of thoughts about a very particular deity at
discrete times and in different locales of the Mediterranean basin. The Bible
is also reframed by viewing it as a secret code sent by the true god in allego-
ries and parables—​unfortunately misunderstood and adulterated by human
beings.
By their precipitous rejection of the biblical creator, the so-​called new
atheists reverse the conclusions but maintain the hard-​line mentality fea-
tured among so-​called orthodox Christian writers (past and present). These
writers actively endeavored to uproot any interpretation that could be used
to support the idea of an evil creator. But they were and continue to be unsuc-
cessful. This dangerous and disturbing idea keeps cropping up even without
the Marcionite trademark, among people with strikingly different social con-
texts, cultures, and interpretive horizons.
Why does the idea of an evil creator constantly reinvent itself? It keeps
resurfacing, I surmise, because the very scriptures still upheld as the word of
god are susceptible to an alternative, yet still sensible, construction (despite
shifting cultural presuppositions). According to this construction, the bib-
lical creator does not simply lack goodness; he is a kind of tyrant who proved
his evil nature in numerous acts of violence, jealousy, and self-​glorification.
His wicked character is clinched by his secret but successful plot to kill Jesus,
who was at minimum an innocent man and at maximum the savior and child
of the true deity. To be sure, my language here is deliberately provocative to
drive home a point easily missed by readers who start from within the tradi-
tion of a divine, sinless creator. That tradition hardly represents all the data
of scripture. As long as people continue to read scripture, they will persist in
discovering data that undermines what have become (outdated, insufficient)
traditional readings.
If this book does anything in the lives of modern readers, I hope that it will
further enhance our collective ability to read the Bible through the eyes of
the “other,” and that it will inspire new thoughts and categories allowing us to
read this monument of literature in more nuanced, honest, and ethical ways.
We must never allow negativity about the character of the biblical creator to
170 Marcionite Approaches to the Evil Creator

translate into hostility toward those who worship the creator by their own
lights and according to their own traditions. At the same time, we should
continue to think seriously about developing positive images of god, for we
are what we imagine. If deity is tyrannical, bloodthirsty, egoistic, jealous, and
evil, then there is and always will be an excuse for us to be so. Thankfully, the
sword cuts both ways: in portraying deity as good, loving, kind, and merciful,
we uphold a flourishing exemplar for the divine image, which is, or is at least
imagined to be, ourselves.
 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Adler, Ada. Suidae Lexicon. 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–​38.

[Aeschylus.] Prometheus Bound. Edited by Alan H. Sommerstein. LCL 145. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Alcinous. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon. Edited by John Whittaker. Paris: Belles
Lettres, 1990.
Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in epistulas paulinas Pars tertia. Edited by Henricus
Iosephus Vogels. Vienna: Tempsky, 1969.
The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project,
eds. The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel according to St. Luke, Part 2. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987.
Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press, 2003.
Apuleius. Opuscules philosophiques. Edited by Jean Beaujeu. Paris: Belles Lettres, 2018.
Ascensio Isaiae. Edited by Enrico Norelli. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995.
Augustine. Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum. Edited by K.-​D. Daur. Turnholt:
Brepols, 1997.
Augustine. Contra Faustum, Contra Felicem. CSEL 25/​1–​2. Vienna: Tempsky, 1891.
Augustine. Enarrationes in Psalmos CI–​CL. CCSL 40. Edited by D. Eligius Dekkers and
Iohannes Fraipont. Turnholt: Brepols, 1956.
Bakhuyzen, W. H. van de Sande, ed. Der Dialog des Adamantius ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΝ
ΟΡΘΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901.
Beeson, Charles Henry. Hegemonius. Acta Archelai. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906.
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic
Spells, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Black, M., ed. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Charlesworth, James, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1985.
Coptic Gnostic Library, A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Edited by James
M. Robinson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. Translated by John Henry Parker. London:
Rivington, 1845.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by W. K. Reischl and J. Rupp. 2
vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967.
Dio Cassius. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert Baldwin Foster. 9 vols. LCL.
London: Heinemann, 1914–​1927.
Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Epiphanius. Ancoratus and Panarion. Edited by Karl Holl, Marc Bergermann, Christian-​
Friedrich Collatz, and Jürgen Dummer. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Berlin: Akademie, 1980–​2013.
172 Bibliography

Evans, Ernst, ed. Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
Gardner, Iain, ed., The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in
Translation with Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Hanhart, Robert, ed. Tobit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Harris, J. Rendel, and J. Armitage Robinson, eds. The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the
Christians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891.
Heine, Ronald E. The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2018.
Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies. 10 vols. Edited by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau.
SC. Paris: Cerf, 1974.
Jerome. Opera Pars I Opera Exegetica 6 Commentarii in epistulam Pauli Apostoli ad
Galatas. Edited by Giacomo Raspanti. CCSL 77a. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1926–​1965.
Jülicher, Adolf. Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1954.
Justin Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1997.
Le Bas, Philippe, and William Henry Waddington. Inscriptions grecques et Latin de la
Syrie. Vol. 3. Rome: L’Erma, 1968.
Minucius Felix. Octavius. Edited by H. A. Holden. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1853.
Mitchell, C. W., trans. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations: Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. 2 vols.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008.
Numenius. Fragments. Edited by Édouard des Places. Paris: Belles Lettres, 2003.
Origen. Commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains. Tome II, livres III–​V. Edited by Caroline P.
Hammond Bammel. SC 539. Paris: Cerf, 2010.
Origen. Contra Celsum libri VIII. Edited by M. Marcovich. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Origen. Matthäuserklärung. Edited by Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz. 3 vols.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935.
Origen. Origenes Werke 2. Edited by P. Koetschau. Griechischen Chritlichen Schriftsteller
3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899.
Petronius. Translated by Michael Heseltine. LCL 15. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1969.
Philo. Opera. Edited by Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland. 7 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter,
1962–​1963.
Plato. Opera. Edited by E. A. Duke, W. F. Hicken, W. S. M. Nicoll, D. B. Robinson, and J.
C. G. Strachan. 5 vols. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Plotinus. Opera. Edited by Paul Henry and Hans-​ Rudolf Schwyzer. 3 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1951–​1973.
Plutarch. De Iside et Osiride. Edited by J. Gwynn Griffiths. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press, 1970.
Preisendanz, K., and A. Henrichs, eds. Papyri Graecae magicae. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 2001.
Pseudo-​Clement. Die Pseudoklementinen. Homilien; Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung.
Edited by Bernhard Rehm and Georg Strecker. Berlin: Akademie, 1992–​1994.
Ptolemy. Lettre a Flora. Edited by Gilles Quispel. 2nd ed. SC 24. Paris: Cerf, 1966.
 Bibliography 173

Scheck, trans. Thomas P. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets.
Vol. 1: Jerome. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.
Schmidt, Carl, ed. and Violet MacDermot, trans. Pistis Sophia. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Schmidt, Carl, ed., and Violet MacDermot, trans. The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text of
the Bruce Codex. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Sextus Empiricus. Opera 1: ΠΥΡΡΩΝΕΙΩΝ ΥΠΟΤΥΠΩΣΕΩΝ. Edited by Hermann
Mutschmann, and I. Mau. Leipzig: Teubner, 1958.
Staab, K. Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesam-
melt. Münster: Aschendorff, 1933.
Tcherikover, Victor A., and Fuks, Alexander. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957–​1964.
Tertullian. Adversus Iudaeos mit Einleitung und kritischem Kommentar. Edited by
Hermann Tränkle. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964.
Tertullian. Contre Marcion. Edited by René Braun and Claudio Moreschini. 5 vols. SC.
Paris: Cerf, 1990–​2004.
Tertullian. De Idololatria: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary. Edited by J. H.
Waszink and J. C. M. van Winden. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Tertullian. Opera. Edited by A. Kroymann and E. Evans. 2 vols. CCSL 2/​1–​2. Turnholt:
Brepols, 1954.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul. Translated by
Rowan A. Greer. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2010.
Theodoret. Correspondence II–​III. Edited by Yvan Azéma. 2 vols. SC 98, 111. Paris: Cerf,
1964–​65.
Theophilus. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Robert M. Grant. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970.
Tromp, J., ed. The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Von Arnim, Hans, ed. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903.
Westerink, L. G., trans. Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Wiltshire:
Prometheus, 2011.
Wevers, John William, ed. Exodus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Wevers, John William, ed. Genesis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Isaias, 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Ziegler, Joseph, and Olivier Munnich, ed. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Editio secunda
versionis iuxta LXX interpretes textum plane novum constituit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1999.

Secondary Sources

Aland, Barbara. “Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation,” Zeitschrift für Theologie
und Kirche 70 (1973): 420–​47.
Allen, J. “Ezekiel the Tragedian and the Despoliation of Egypt,” Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha 17:1 (2007): 3–​19.
Allert, Craig D. Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s
Dialogue with Trypho. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters.
London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Alt, Karin. Weltflucht und Weltbejahung: Zur Frage des Dualismus bei Plutarch, Numenius,
Plotin. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.
174 Bibliography

Ando, Clifford. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2008.
Annas, Julia. Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
Armstrong, Arthur H. “Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian.” Pages 33–​54 in
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, ed. Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman. Albany: SUNY
Press, 1992.
Arnold, Clinton. Powers of Darkness. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Armstrong, J. M. “After the Ascent: Plato on Becoming Like God,” Oxford Studies in
Ancient Philosophy 26 (2004): 171–​83.
Assmann, Jan. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Assmann, Jan. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2008.
Asmussen, Jes P. Manichean Literature: Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle Persian
and Parthian Writings. Delmar: Scholars’ Facsimiles, 1975.
Auffarth, Christoph. “Herrscherkult und Christuskult.” Pages 283–​318 in Die Praxis der
Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, ed. Hubert Cancik & Konrad Hitzl.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Aziza, Claude. “Recherches sur l’Onokoites’ des écrits apologétiques de Tertullien.” Pages
283–​90 in Hommage à Pierre Fargues (Philologie, Littératures et histoire anciennes).
Edited by Jean Granarolo, et al. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1974.
Aziza, C. “L’utilisation polémique du récit de l’Exode chez les écrivains alexandrins (IV
siècle av. J.-​C.-​1 siècle ap. J.C.” Pages 41–​65 in Auftstieg und Niedergang der römischen
Welt (ANRW). Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Vol. I.20.1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987.
Bagnall, Roger S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Banks, Robert. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1975.
Barc, Bernard. “Samaèl-​Saklas-​Yaldabaôth: Recherche sur le genèse d’un mythe gnos-
tique.” Pages 132–​50 in Colloque international sur les Textes de Nag Hammadi: Québec
22–​25 août 1978. Leuven: Peeters, 1981.
Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Barclay, John M. G. “Hostility to Jews as a Cultural Construct: Egyptian, Hellenistic,
and Early Christian Paradigms.” Pages 365–​86 in Josephus und das Neue Testament:
Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan
(323 BCE–​117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Barclay, John M. G. “The Politics of Contempt. Judeans and Egyptians in Josephus’
Against Apion.” Pages 277–​300 in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2011.
Barker, Dan. God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. N.p.: Sterling, 2016.
Bar-​Kochva, Bezalel. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2010.
Barnes, Timothy David. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1971.
Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–​3.
Garden City: Doubleday, 1974.
 Bibliography 175

Barth, Markus, and Blanke, Helmut. Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, trans. Astrid B. Beck. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Basser, H. Studies in Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses,
70–​300 CE. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
BeDuhn, Jason D. The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon. Salem, OR:
Polebridge, 2013.
BeDuhn, Jason D., and Paul Mirecki, eds. Frontiers of Faith: The Christian Encounter with
Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Behr, John. Irenaeus of Lyon: Identifying Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Beker, J. Christiaan. “Christologies and Anthropologies of Paul, Luke-​Acts and Marcion.”
Pages 174–​82 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in
Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed. Martinus C. de Boer. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993.
Beker, J. Christian. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1997.
Benko, Stephen. “The Libertine Sect of the Phibionites According to Epiphanius, VC
(Vigiliae Christianae) 21:2 (1967): 103–​19.
Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil 116–​117 CE: Ancient Sources and
Modern Insights. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Berendts, A. Studien über Zacharias-​ Apokryphen und Zacharias-​ Legenden. Leipzig:
Deichert’sche, 1895.
Bergmann, Michael, Michal J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea. Divine Evil? The Moral
Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Berzon, Todd. Classifying Christians: Ethnography, Heresiology, and the Limits of
Knowledge in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016.
Betz, Hans Dieter. A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on
the Plain (Matthew 5:3–​7:27 and Luke 6:20–​49). Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Belayche, Nicole. “Deus deum . . . summorum maximus (Apuleius): Ritual Expressions
of Distinction in the Divine World in the Imperial Period.” Pages 141–​66 in One
God: Pagan Monotheism in The Roman Empire, ed. Stephen Mitchell and Peter van
Nuffelen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Bianchi, Ugo. “Marcion théologien biblique ou docteur gnostique?” VC 21 (1967): 141–​49.
Bilde, Per. “2 Cor. 4,4: The View of Satan and the Created World in Paul.” Pages 29–​41
in Apocryphon Severini, ed. Per Bilde, Helge Kjaer Nielson, and Jorgen Podemann
Sørensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993.
Bird, Michael F. Colossians and Philemon: A New Covenant Commentary. Cambridge:
Lutterworth, 2009.
Bird, Michael F. “Jesus as Lawbreaker.” Pages 3–​26 in Who Do My Opponents Say that
I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight
and Joseph B. Modica. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Blackman, Edwin Cyril. Marcion and His Influence London: SPCK, 1948.
Blake, Archbishop Jonathan. The Old Devil Called God Again: The Scourge of Religion.
Winchester: John Hunt, 2014.
Blanchard, Monica J., and Darling Young. A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by
Eznik of Kolb (floruit c.430–​c.450): An English Translation, with Introduction and Notes.
Leuven: Peeters, 1998.
176 Bibliography

Blomberg, Craig L. “The Law in Luke-​Acts,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament
(JSNT) 22 (1984): 53–​80.
Bock, Darrell L. “Jesus as Blasphemer.” Pages 76–​94 in Who Do My Opponents, ed. Scot
McKnight and Joseph B. Modica.
Bockmuehl, Markus. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakah and the Beginning of
Christian Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
Borgeaud, Philippe. “The Death of the Great Pan: Problems of Interpretation,” History of
Religions 22:3 (1983): 254–​83.
Borgeaud, Philippe. “Quelques remarques sur Typhon, Seth, Moïse et son âne, dans la
perspective d’un dialogue reactive transcultural.” Pages 173–​85 in Interprétations de
Moïse: Égypte, Judée, Grèce et Rome, ed. Borgeaud et al. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Bovon, François. Studies in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Bovon, François, and Christopher R. Matthews, eds. The Acts of Philip: A New Translation.
Baylor University Press, 2012.
Boys-​Stones, George. Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250: An Introduction and
Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Boys-​Stones, George. “Providence and Religion in Middle Platonism.” Pages 317–​38 in
Theologies of Ancient Greek Religions, ed. Esther Eidinow et al. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2019.
Brakke, David. Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early
Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
Braun, René. Deus Christianorum: Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullian.
Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1977.
Broer, Ingo, ed. Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992.
Brown, Derek. The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Brown, Raymond E. Gospel According to John, 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966.
Brox, Norbert. “Non huius aevi deus (Zu Tertullian adv. Marc. V 11,10,” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) 59 (1968): 259–​61.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Burns, Dylan. Did God Care? Providence, Dualism and Will in Later Greek and Early
Christian Philosophy. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Busch, Austin. “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation,” Zeitschrift für Antikes
Christentum (ZAC) 21:2 (2017): 243–​71.
Busch, Austin. “Gnostic Biblical and Second Sophistic Homeric Interpretation,” ZAC 22:2
(2018): 195–​217.
Cahana-​Blum, Jonathan. Wrestling with Archons: Gnosticism as a Critical Theory of
Culture. London: Lexington, 2018.
Cappelletto, Pietro. I Frammenti di Mnasea: Introduzione testo e commento. Milan:
LED, 2003.
Carr, Wesley. Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of
the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981.
 Bibliography 177

Carr, Wesley. “The Rulers of This Age—​1 Corinthians II.6–​8,” New Testament Studies
(NTS) 23 (1976–​77): 20–​35.
Carroll, M., R. Daniel, and J. Blair Wilgus. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in
the Old Testament. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Ceruti, M. V. “‘Pagan Monotheism?’ Towards a Historical Typology.” Pages 15–​32 in
Monotheism Between Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity, ed. Stephen Mitchell and
Peter van Nuffelen. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Chapman. David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Chiapparini, Giuliano. “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus: Orthodoxy and Heresy in
the Church of Rome Around the Middle of the Second Century,” ZAC 18:1 (2013):
95–​119.
Cioran, M. The New Gods, ed. Richard Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2013.
Connolly, R. Hugh. Didascalia apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and
Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Constas, Nicholas P. “The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception in Greek
Patristic Interpretations of the Passion Narrative,” Harvard Theological Review 97:2
(2004): 139–​63.
Conti, Marco, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture V: 1–​2 Kings, 1–​2 Chronicles,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell. New York: Harper
& Brothers, 1960.
Cook, Granger. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-​Roman Paganism.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Coyle, J. Kevin. “Good Tree, Bad Tree: The Matthean/​Lukan Paradigm in Manichaeism
and Its Opponents.” Pages 122–​44 in The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late
Antiquity: Proceedings of the Montreal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser,
ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucian Turcescu. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.
New York: Harper One, 1991.
Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7.1 und
Joh 8.44).” Pages 69–​84 in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem 70.
Geburtstag, ed. Walther Eltester and Franz H. Kettler. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Arrogant Archon.” Pages 689–​712 in Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.
2, ed. Bentley Layton.
Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-​English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Davies, Andrew. Double Standards in Isaiah: Re-​Evaluating Prophetic Ethics and Divine
Justice. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Davies, Eryl W. The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics. London: Bloomsbury, 2010.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam, 2006.
Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide. New York: Random House, 2019.
Deakle, David W. “Harnack and Cerdo: A Reexamination of the Patristic Evidence for
Marcion’s Mentor.” Pages 177–​90 in Markion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung,
ed. Gerhard May and Katharina Greschat. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
178 Bibliography

de Angelis, Franco, and Benjamin Garstad. “Euhemerus in Context,” Classical Antiquity

25:2 (2006): 211–​42.
De Boer, Martinus C. “Expulsion from the Synagogue: J. L. Martyn’s History and Theology
in the Fourth Gospel Revisited,” NTS 66 (2020): 367–​91.
DeConick, April D. “From the Bowels of Hell to Draco: The Mysteries of the Peratics.”
Pages 3–​38 in Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient
Literature: Studies for Einar Thomassen at Sixty, ed. Christian H. Bull, Liv Ingeborg
Lied, and John Turner. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
DeConick, April D. The Gnostic New Age: How a Countercultural Spirituality
Revolutionized Religion from Antiquity to Today. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2016.
DeConick, April D. “Why Are the Heavens Closed? The Johannine Revelation of
the Father in the Catholic-​ Gnostic Debate.” Pages 147–​ 79 in John’s Gospel and
Intimations of Apocalyptic, ed. Catrin H. Williams and Christopher Rowland. London:
Bloomsbury, 2013.
de la Torre, Miguel A., and Albert Hernández, The Quest for the Historical Satan.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 2011.
den Dulk, Matthijs. Between Jews and Heretics: Refiguring Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with
Trypho. London: Routledge, 2018.
Denzey, Nicola. “Stalking Those Elusive Ophites.” Pages 89–​122 in Essays in Honour
of Frederik Wisse: Scholar, Churchman, Mentor, ed. Warren Kappeler. Montreal:
ARC, 2005.
de Strycker, Émile. La forme la plus ancienne du Protevangile de Jacques. Brussels: Bollandist
Society, 1961.
Dillery, John. Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2018.
Dinkler, Erich. Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen
Archäologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967.
Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -​ praxis im antiken Judentum und
Urchristentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
Dohmen, Christoph. “Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name (Ex 34,14). Urprung und Bedeutung
der alttestamentlichen Rede von Gottes Eifersucht,” Theologisches Zeitschrift 46:4
(1990): 289–​304.
Doldenberg, Robert. “The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World.” Pages 414–​47 in ANRW
II.19.1. ed., Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979.
Dreyer, Oskar. Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike mit beson-
derer Berücksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970.
Drijvers, Hans J. W. “Marcion’s Reading of Gal 4:8. Philosophical Background and
Influence on Manichaeism.” Pages 339–​48 in A Green Leaf. Papers in Honour of Jes.
P. Amussen. Leiden: Brill, 1988.
Droge, Arthur J. “The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History.” Pages 492–​
509 in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata.
Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Drozdek, Adam. “Plato and the Demiurge.” Pages 151–​68 in Greek Philosophers as
Theologians: The Divine Arche. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007.
Dubois, Jean-​ Daniel. “Hypothèse sur l’origine de l’apocryphe Genna Marias,”
Augustinianum 23 (1983): 263–​70.
 Bibliography 179

Dubois, Jean-​Daniel. “La mort de Zacharie: mémoire juive et mémoire chrétienne,” Revue
des Études Augustiniennes 40 (1994): 23–​38.
Dunderberg, Ismo. Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle and Society in the School of
Valentinus. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
Dunderberg, Ismo, “Gnostic Interpretations of Genesis.” Pages 383–​96 in The Oxford
Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, ed. Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, and
Jonathan Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Dunn, Geoffrey D. Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Washington,
DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal 3.10–​14),” NTS 31:4
(1985): 523–​42.
Dunn, James D. G. “Yet Once More: ‘The Works of the Law,’ a Response,” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 46 (1992): 99–​117.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians.
Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 1992.
Eck, Werner. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View,” Journal of Roman
Studies 89 (1999): 76–​89.
Edsall, Benjamin A. The Reception of Paul and Early Christian Initiation: History and
Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Ehrman, Bart. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford, 1993.
Ehrman, Bart D., Gordon D. Fee, and Michael W. Holmes. The Text of the Fourth Gospel in
the Writings of Origen, Volume One (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).
Ehrman, Bart, and Zlatko Pleše. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theologie des Alten Testaments Volume 1, 5th ed. Stuttgart: Ehrenfried
Klotz, 1957.
Eidinow, Esther. “Popular Theologies: The Gift of Divine Envy.” Pages 205–​32 in Theologies
of Ancient Greek Religions, ed. Esther Eidinow et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2016.
Elliott, W. J., D. C. Parker, and Ulrich Schmid, eds. The New Testament in Greek IV, 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1995–​1997.
Ellis, Anthony. “The Jealous God of Ancient Greece: Interpreting the Classical Greek
Notion of Φθόνος Θεῶν Between Renaissance Humanism and Altertumswissenschaft,”
Erudition and the Republic of Letters 2 (2017): 1–​55.
Emmenegger, Gregor. “Adamantius et le De recta Fide.” Pages 393–​98 in Histoire de la
littérature grecque chrétienne des origenes à 451, ed. Bernard Pouderon. Paris: Belles
Lettres, 2017.
Engberg-​Pedersen, Troels. From Stoicism to Platonism: The Development of Philosophy
100 BCE–​100 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
England, Emma, and Lyons, William John, eds. Reception History and Biblical
Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
Eshel, Hanan. “The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132–​135.” Pages 105–​27 in Cambridge History of
Judaism Vol. 4: Late Roman-​Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
180 Bibliography

Evans, C. A. To See and Not Perceive: Isa 6.9–​10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation.
London: Bloomsbury, 2009.
Evans, Robert. Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss
in Current Practice. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Fauth, Wolfgang. “Seth-​Typhon, Onoel und der eselköpfige Sabaoth: Zur Theriomorphie
der ophitsichen-​barbelognostischen Archonten,” Oriens Christianus 57 (1973): 79–​120.
Feine, P. Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899.
Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from
Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Feldman, Louis H. “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in
the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-​Philo, and Josephus. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 2004.
Fish, Stanley. “With the Compliments of the Author: Reflections on Austin and
Derrida.” Pages 37–​67 in Doing What Comes Naturally. Durham: Duke University
Press, 1989.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching. New York: Paulist
Press, 1989.
Fletcher-​Louis, Crispin H. T. “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the
Redefinition of the People of God,” JSNT 26 (2003): 39–​68.
Fossum, Jarl. The Name of God and Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of
Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Fossum, Jarl. “Origin of the Gnostic Concept of the Demiurge,” Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 61 (1985): 142–​52.
Foster, Paul, and Sara Parvis, eds. Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, and Legacy. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2012.
Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
Fredriksen, Paula. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.
Free, K. B. “Thespis and Moses: The Jews and the Ancient Greek Theater.” Pages 149–​58
in Theatre and Holy Script. Ed. Shimon Levy. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999.
Frend, W. H. C. “The Gnostic-​Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa,” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 13–​26.
Fretheim, Terrence. What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terrence E. Fretheim, ed.
Michael J. Chan and Brent A. Strawn. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015.
Frey, Jörg, and Enno Edzard Popkes. Dualismus, Dämonologie und diabolische Figuren:
Religionshistorische Beobachtungen und theologische Reflexionen. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2018.
Frohnhofen, Herbert. Apatheia tou Theou: Über die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der grie-
chischen Antike und be den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvätern bis zu Gregorios
Thamaturgos. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987.
Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary.
New York: Doubleday, 1984.
Gadamer, Hans-​Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum, 2003.
Gager, John G. “Marcion and Philosophy,” VC 26:1 (1972): 53–​59.
Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-​Roman Paganism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.
Gager, John G. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian
Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
 Bibliography 181

Gantz, Timothy. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, 2 vols.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Gardner, Iain. “Mani’s Life.” Pages 225–​34 in The Gnostic World, ed. Garry W. Trompf.
London: Routledge, 2018.
Gasparro, Giulea Sfameni. “Addas-​Adimantus unus ex discipulis Manichaei: For the
History of Manichaeism in the West.” Pages 546–​59 in Studia Manichaica IV, ed.
Ronald E. Emmerick. Berlin: Akademie, 2000.
Gaston, Thomas. “The Egyptian Background of Gnostic Mythology,” Numen 62:4 (2015):
387–​407.
Gero, Stephen. “With Walter Bauer on the Tigris: Encratite Orthodoxy and Libertine
Heresy in Syro-​ Mesopotamian Christianity.” Pages 287–​ 307 in Nag Hammadi
Gnosticism and Early Christianity, ed. C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1986.
Gilhus, Ingvild Saelid. Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in
Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Ideas. London: Routledge, 2006.
Gibbons, Kathleen. The Moral Psychology of Clement of Alexandria: Mosaic Philosophy.
London: Taylor & Francis, 2016.
Gmirkin, Russell E. Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and
the Date of the Pentateuch. London: Bloomsbury, 2006.
Goehring, J. E. “A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” VC 35:1 (1981): 16–​23.
Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origin of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past & Present
182 (2004): 3–​29.
Gowler, David B. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and
Acts. New York: Peter Lang, 1991.
Grant, R. M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1966.
Gray, John. I and II Kings: A Commentary, 3rd ed. London: SCM, 1977.
Green, Graham. The Honorary Consul. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.
Green, Ruth Hurmence. The Born-​Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible with the Book of Ruth.
Madison: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1979.
Gregory, Andrew. The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for
Luke in the Second Century. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Greschat, Katharina. Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten
Jahrhunderts. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Griffiths, Gwynn. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1970.
Grindheim, Sigurd. “Jesus and the Food Laws Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus 31 (2020): 61–​76.
Gruen, Erich. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Hakola, Raimo. Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Hakola, R. “The Reception and Development of the Johannine Tradition in 1, 2 and 3
John.” Pages 17–​47 in The Legacy of John: Second-​Century Reception of the Fourth
Gospel, ed. T. Rasimus. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Halfwassen, J. “Der Demiurg: Seine Stellung in der Philosophie Platonis und seine
Deutung im Antiken Platonismus.” Pages 39–​62 in Le Timée de Platon: contributions à
l’histoire de sa reception. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
Hanegraaff, Wouter, ed. DGWE (Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism). Leiden:
Brill, 2006.
182 Bibliography

Harley-​McGowan, Felicity. “The Alexamenos Graffito.” Pages 105–​40 in From Celsus to

the Catacombs: Visual, Liturgical, and Non-​Christian Receptions of Jesus in the Second
and Third Centuries CE, ed. Chris Keith. London: T&T Clark, 2020).
Harnack, Adolf. Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes.
2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1918–​1919.
Harnack, Adolf. Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur
Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921.
Harnack, Adolf von. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D.
Bierma. Durham: Labyrinth, 1990.
Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Harris, William V. Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Hayes, Andrew. Justin Against Marcion: Defining the Christian Philosophy. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2017.
Hayman, Peter. “Monotheism—​a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish
Studies 42 (1991): 1–​15.
Heemstra, Marius. Fiscus Iudaicus and the Parting of the Ways. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2010.
Hegedus, Tim. Early Christianity and Ancient Astrology. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.
Heinen, Heinz. “Ägyptische Grundlagen des antiken Antijudaismus: Zum Judenexkurs
des Tacitus, Historien V2 2–​13,” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 102 (1992): 124–​49.
Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. James Greig.
New York: Crossroad, 1981.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
Henri, Océane. “A General Approach to interpretatio Graeca in the Light of Papyrological
Evidence.” Pages 43–​54 in Platonismus und spätägyptische Religion: Plutarch und die
Ägyptenrezeption in der römischen Kaiserzeit, ed. Michael Erler and Martin Andreas
Stadler. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017.
Henrichs, Albert. “What Is a Greek God?” Pages 19–​ 39 in The Gods of Ancient
Greece: Identities and Transformations, ed. Jan N. Bremmer and Andrew Erskine.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.
Herrmann, F. G. “φθόνος in the World of Plato’s Timaeus.” Pages 53–​84 in Envy, Spite and
Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, ed. David Konstan and N. Keith
Rutter. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.
Hill, Charles. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004.
Hoffman, R. Joseph. Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the
Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1984.
Holladay, Carl. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors II: Poets. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989.
Holmén, Tom. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Hooker, Morna. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
Hopfner, Theodor. Plutarch Über Isis und Osiris Zweiter Teil: Dei Deutungen der Sage. Dar
mstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1967.
 Bibliography 183

Horbury, William. “Jewish-​Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr.” Pages

315–​46 in Jews and Christians, ed. Dunn.
Horbury, William. Jewish War Under Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014.
Horner, G. W. Sahidic New Testament in the Southern Dialect. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2010.
Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John
Baines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Hübner, Hans. Law in Paul’s Thought: A Contribution to the Development of Pauline
Theology, trans. James C. G. Greig, ed. John Riches. London: T&T Clark, 1984.
Hultgren, A. J. “Paul’s Pre-​Christian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpose, Locale,
and Nature,” Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 95 (1976): 97–​111.
Irwin, Brian P. “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the
Prophetic Authority of Elisha,” Tyndale Bulletin 67:1 (2016): 23–​35.
Jackson, Howard M. The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the
Platonic Tradition Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Jacobs, Andrew. Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016.
Jacobson, Howard. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Jacoby, Adolf. “Der angebliche Eselskult der Juden und Christen,” Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft 25 (1927): 265–​82.
Jeremias, Gert. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963.
Jeremias, J. Der Zorn Gottes im Alten Testament. Das biblische Israel zwischen Verwerfung
und Erwählung. Neukirche-​Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2009.
Johnston, Steve. “Le mythe gnostique du blasphème de l’Archonte.” Pages 177–​201 in Les
textes de Nag Hammadi: Histoire des religions et approaches contemporaines. Actes du
colloque international réuni à Paris, ed. M. Jean-​Pierre Mahé, M. Paul-​Hubert Poirier,
and Madeleine Scopello. Paris: AIBL, 2010.
Jones, F. Stanley. An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-​
Clementine Recognitions 1.27–​71. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Jones, F. Stanley. “Marcionism in the Pseudo-​Clementines.” Pages 225–​44 in Poussières de
christianisme et de judaïsme antiques, ed. Albert Frey and Rémi Gounelle. Lausanne:
Zèbre, 2007.
Joo, S. Provocation and Punishment. The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and
Deuteronomistic Theology. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.
Jorgensen, David W. Treasure in a Field: Early Christian Reception of the Gospel of Matthew.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.
Karamanolis, George E. The Philosophy of Early Christianity. London: Routledge, 2013.
Kazen, Thomas. Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? 2nd ed.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Keegan, Peter. Graffiti in Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2014.
Keith, Chris, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds. Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early
Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Kertelge, Karl, ed. Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament. Freiberg: Herder, 1986.
Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981.
Kim, Young Richard. Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, 2015.
King, Karen. “A Distinctive Intertextuality: Genesis and Platonizing Philosophy in the
Secret Revelation of John.” Pages 3–​22 in Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Late Ancient
184 Bibliography

World: Essays in Honor of John Turner. Ed. John Turner, Kevin Corrigan, and Tuomas
Rasimus. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
King, Karen. The Secret Revelation of John. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.
Klauck, Hans Josef. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction, trans. Brian
McNeil. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008.
Klijn, A. F. J. Jewish-​Christian Gospel Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Klimkeit, Hans-​Joachim. Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia.
New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
Klinghardt, Matthias. Das ältesten Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen
Evangelien. 2 vols. Tübingen: Francke, 2015.
Klinghardt, Matthias. Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes
nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988.
Klinghardt, Matthias. “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New
Suggestion,” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008): 1–​27.
Kugel, James. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was At the Start of the
Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Koester, Helmut. “Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12–​59.” Pages
97–​110 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity, eds. C. W. Hedrick and R.
Hodgson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986.
Konstan, David. The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical
Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
Kuhn, Heinz-​Wolfgang. “The Impact of Selected Qumran Texts on the Understanding
of Pauline Theology.” Pages 153–​86 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls Volume
Three: The Scrolls and Christian Origins, ed. James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor
University Press, 2006.
Kummel, W. G. “Das Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis Johannes’—​Lukas 16,16 im
Zusammenhang der heilgeschichtlichen Theologie der Lukasschriften.” Pages 89–​102
in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Otto Böcher
and Klaus Haacker. Wuppertal: Rolf Brockhaus, 1972.
Laato, A., and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Lahe, Jaan. Gnosis und Judentum: Alttestamentliche und jüdische Motive in der gnostischen
Literatur und das Ursprungsproblem der Gnosis. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lambrecht, Jan. “Gesetzverständnis bei Paulus.” Pages 88–​127 in Das Gesetz im Neuen
Testament, ed. Karl Kertelge. Freiberg: Herder, 1986.
Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,
trans. Michael Steinhauser, ed. Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Lanfranchi, Pierluigi. L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et
commentaire. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lanfranchi, Pierluigi, and Joseph Verheyden, eds., Jews and Christians in Antiquity: A
Regional Perspective. Leuven: Peeters, 2018.
Lang, Bernhard. The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2002.
Lange, Armin, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld, eds. Die Dämonen: Die
Dämonologie der israelitisch-​jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer
Umwelt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
 Bibliography 185

Lanzillotta, Lautaro Roig. “The Envy of God in the Paradise Story According to the Greek
Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 537–​50 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, eds. Anthony Hilhorst,
Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Layton, Bentley, ed. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Ledegang, Fred. “The Ophites and the Ophite Diagram in Celsus and Origen.” Pages
51–​84 in Heretics and Heresies in the Ancient Church and in Eastern Christianity:
Studies in Honour of Adelbert Davids, eds. Joseph Verheyden and Herman Teule.
Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
Leonhardt-​Balzer, Jutta. “Yaldabaoth und seine Bande. Die Gegner im Johannesapokryphon.”
Pages 351–​66 in Dualismus, Dämonologie, ed. Frey and Edzard.
Levene, Dan. Jewish-​Aramaic Curse Texts from Late Antique Mesopotamia. Leiden:
Brill, 2004.
Levene, David. “Defining the Divine in Rome,” Transactions of the American Philological
Association 142 (2012): 41–​81.
Levine, Amy-​ Jill. “Discharging Responsibility: Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and
Hemorrhaging Woman.” Pages 379–​97 in Treasures New and Old: Contributions to
Matthean Studies, ed. David Bauer and Mark Allan Powell. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Levieils, Xavier. Contra Christianos: La critique sociale et religieuse du Christianisme des
Concile de Nicée. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.
Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan. “Jewish Monotheism and Christian Origins.” Pages 227–​46
in Empsychoi Logoi—​Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter
Willem van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman et al. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Lieu, Judith M. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second
Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Lieu, Judith M. Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second
Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Lieu, Judith M. “Self-​Definition vis-​à-​vis the Jewish Matrix.” Pages 214–​29 in Cambridge
History of Christianity, Vol. 1, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelaus). Turnhout:
Brepols, 2001.
Lim, Richard. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995.
Lindars, Barnabas. “All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus and the Law.” Pages 61–​71 in Law
and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. Lindars.
Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988.
Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus, Paul and the Law. London: SPCK, 1990.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old
Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press, 1973.
Lindemann, Andreas. Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostles und die
Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979.
Litwa, M. David. “The Curse of the Creator: Galatians 3.13 and Negative Demiurgy.” Pages
13–​30 in Telling the Christian Story Differently: Counternarratives from Nag Hammadi
and Beyond, eds. Francis Watson and Sarah Parkhouse. London: Bloomsbury
Academic Press, 2020.
186 Bibliography

Litwa, M. David. Desiring Divinity: Self-​Deification in Ancient Jewish and Christian

Mythmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Litwa, M. David. “Did Marcion Call the Creator ‘God’?” Journal of Theological Studies,
forthcoming Autumn 2021.
Litwa, M. David. “The Father of the Devil (John 8:44): A Christian Exegetical Inspiration
for the Evil Creator,” VC 74:5 (2020):540–​65.
Litwa, M. David. Hermetica II: The Excerpts of Stobaeus, Papyrus Fragments, and
Ancient Testimonies in a English Translation with Notes and Introductions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Litwa, M. David. Refutation of All Heresies. Atlanta: SBL, 2016.
Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2012.
Llewelyn, Stephen Robert, Alexandra Robinson, and Blake Edward Wassell. “Does John
8:44 Imply that the Devil Has a Father? Contesting the Pro-​Gnostic Reading,” Novum
Testamentum 60 (2018): 14–​23.
Loader, William R. G. Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Logan, Alistair H. B. “The Jealousy of God: Exod 20,5 in Gnostic and Rabbinic Theology,”
Studia Biblica 1 (1978): 197–​203.
Logan, Alastair H. B. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of
Gnosticism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Löhr, Winrich Alfried. Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie-​und
Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Löhr, Winrich. “Christliche ‘Gnostiker’ in Alexandria im zweiten Jahrhundert.” Pages
413–​33 in Alexandria, ed. Tobias Georges, Felix Albrecht, and Reinhard Feldmeier.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Löhr, Winrich. “Did Markion Distinguish Between a Just God and a Good God?” Pages
131–​46 in Markion, ed. May and Greschat.
Löhr, Winrich. “Die Auslegung des Gesetzes bei Markion, den Gnostikern and den
Manichäern.” Pages 77–​95 in Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und
Christentum: Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann, eds. Georg Schöllgen and Clemens
Scholten. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996.
Löhr, Winrich. “Gnostic and Manichean Interpretation.” Pages 584–​604 in The New
Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 1. Ed. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Lona, Horacio E. Die “Wahre Lehre” des Kelsos. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.
Lucarelli, Rita. “The Donkey in the Graeco-​Egyptian Papyri.” Pages 89–​103 in Languages,
Objects, and the Transmission of Rituals: An Interdisciplinary Analysis on Ritual
Practices in the Graeco-​Egyptian Papyri (PGM), ed. Sabina Crippa and Emanuele M.
Ciampini. Venice: Cafoscarina, 2017.
Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 41. Columbia:
Word, 1990.
Luijendijk, Annemarie. Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Theological Studies, 2008.
Lukas, Volker. Rhetorik und literarischer “Kampf ”: Tertullians Streitschrift gegen Marcion
als Paradigma der Selbstvergewisserung der Orthodoxie gegenüber der Häresie. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang, 2008.
Lundhaug, Hugo, and Lance Jenott. The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
 Bibliography 187

Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “The Demonic Demiurge in Gnostic Mythology.” Pages

148–​60 in The Fall of Angels, eds. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions.
Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “Sethianer?,” ZAC 13:1 (2009): 76–​86.
MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism.” Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012.
MacRae, George. “Anti-​Dualist Polemic in 2 Cor 4,6?” Pages 420–​31 in Studia Evangelica
IV, ed. F. L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie, 1968.
MacRae, George W. Studies in New Testament and Gnosticism, ed. Daniel J. Harrington
and Stanley B. Marrow. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987.
Majercik, Ruth, ed. The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation and Commentary. Leiden:
Brill, 1989.
Mansfeld, Jaap. “Bad World and Demiurge: A ‘Gnostic’ Motif from Parmenides and
Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo.” Pages 261–​314 in Studies in Gnosticism and
Hellenistic Religions, Festschrift Gilles Quispel, ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren.
Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Marjanen, Antti, and Petri Luomanen. A Companion to Second-​ Century Christian
“Heretics.” Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Markschies, Christoph. “Die Geburt Mariens.” Pages 416–​19 in Antike christlichen
Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Jens Schröter and Markschies. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Markschies, Christoph. Gnosis: An Introduction. London: T&T
Clark, 2003.
Markschies, Christoph. Gnosis und Christentum. Berlin: Berlin University Press, 2009.
Markschies, Christoph. “Heis Theos-​ Ein Gott? Der monotheimus und das antike
Christentum.” Pages 209–​34 in Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des
Vorderen Orients, ed. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot. Münster: Ugarit, 2002.
Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
Martín Hernández, Raquel. “More than a Logos: The ΙΩΕΡΒΗΘ Logos in Context.” Pages
187–​210 in Litterae Magicae: Studies in Honour of Roger S. O. Tomlin, ed. Celia Sánchez
Natalías. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico, 2019.
Martínez, Florentino García. “Galatians 3:10–​14 in the Light of Qumran.” Pages 51–​67
in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-​Sébastian Rey. Leiden:
Brill, 2014.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology of the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster/​
John Knox, 2003.
Matera, Frank J. II Corinthians: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox,
2003.
Matlock, R. Barry. “Helping Paul’s Argument Work? The Curse of Galatians 3.10–​14.”
Pages 154–​79 in The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-​
Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, ed. Michael Tait and Peter Oakes. London: T&T
Clark, 2009.
Matlock, R. Barry. Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of
Criticism. London: Bloomsbury, 1996.
May, Gerhard. “Marcion in Contemporary Views.” Pages 13–​34 in Markion: Gesammelte
Aufsätze, eds. Katharina Greschat and Martin Meiser. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
2005.
188 Bibliography

May, Gerhard. “Marcion und der Gnostiker Kerdon.” Pages 233–​48 in Evangelischer
Glaube und Geschichte, Grete Mecenseffy zum 85. Geburtstag, ed. A. Raddatz and K.
Lüthi. Vienna: Oberkirchenrat, 1984.
May, Gerhard. “Marcions Genesisauslegung und die ‘Antithesen.’” Pages 189–​98 in Die
Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche. Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert, ed. Dietmar
Wyrwa. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.
May, Gerhard, and Katharina Greschat. Markion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
McGowan, Andrew. “Marcion’s Love of Creation,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9:3
(2001): 295–​311.
McKnight, Scot, and Joseph B. Modica, eds. Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An
Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Meeks, Wayne. “The Divine Agent and His Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel.”
Pages 43–​67 in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 4. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2009.
Meijering, E. P. Tertullian contra Marcion: Gotteslehre in der Polemic. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Merkelbach, Reinhold. Abrasax: ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts.
Band III: Zwei griechisch-​ägyptsiche Weihezeremonien (Die Leidener Weltschöpfung-​
Die Pschai-​Aion-​Liturgie). Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1992.
Messner, Richard G. “Elisha and the Bears,” Grace Journal 3 (1962): 12–​24.
Michailides, G. “Papyrus contenant un dessin du dieu Seth à tête d’âne,” Aegyptus 32:1
(1952): 45–​53.
Miggelbrink, R. Der zornige Gott. Die Bedeutung einer anstössigen biblischen Tradition. Da
rmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 2002.
Miles, Jack. God: A Biography. London: Simon & Schuster.
Miller, Gene. “ΑΡΧΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΩΝΟΣ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ—​A New Look at 1 Corinthians
2:6–​8,” JBL 91:4 (1972): 522–​28.
Mills, Michael J. “ΦΘΟΝΟΣ and Its Related ΠΑΘΗ in Plato and Aristotle,” Phronesis 30:1
(1985): 1–​12.
Milobenski, Ernst. Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1964.
Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze. The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor Trajan, trans.
Robert Cornman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Moll, Sebastian. The Arch-​Heretic Marcion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Moll, Sebastian. “Justin and the Pontic Wolf.” Pages 145–​51 in Justin Martyr and His
Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Moreschini, Claudio. Apuleius and the Metamorphosis of Platonism. Turnout: Brepols,
2014.
Moreschini, Claudio. “Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem and Middle Platonism,” ZAC
21:1 (2017): 140–​63.
Moreschini, Claudio, and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A
Literary History, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005.
Moses, Robert Ewusie. Practices of Power: Revisiting Principalities and Powers in the
Pauline Letters. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.
 Bibliography 189

Muehlenberg, Ekkehard. “Marcion’s Jealous God.” Pages 93–​114 in Disciplina Nostra:

Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, ed. Donald F. Winslow. Philadelphia: Patristic
Foundation, 1979.
Murphy-​O’Connor, Jerome. The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Naumann, Victor. “Das Problem des Bösen in Tertullians zweitem Buch gegen Marcion,”
Zeitschrift Katholische Theologie 58 (1934): 311–​63.
Nicholson, Suzanne. Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul’s One-​God
Language. Cambridge: James Clark, 2010.
Noll, Mark A. “The Bible Then and Now.” Pages 331–​44 in The Bible in American Life,
ed. Philip Goff, Arthur Farnsley, and Peter Thuesen. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017.
Norelli, Enrico. “Marcion: ein christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die
Philosophie?” in Markion, ed. May and Greschat, 113–​30.
Norelli, Enrico. Marie des apocryphes: Enquête de la mère de Jésus dans le christianisme an-
tique. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2009.
O’Brien, Carl Séan. Demiurge in Ancient Thought: Secondary Gods and Divine Mediators.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
O’Brien, Kelli S. “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and
Deuteronomy 21.22–​23,” JSNT 29 (2006): 55–​76.
Opsomer, Jan. “Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism.” Pages 51–​99 in Gott und die
Götter bei Plutarch: Götterbilder-​Gottesbilder-​Weltbilder, ed. Rainer Hirsch-​Luipold.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005.
Opsomer, Jan, and Carlos Steel. “Evil Without a Cause: Proclus’s Doctrine on the Origin of
Evil and Its Antecedents in Hellenistic Philosophy.” Pages 229–​60 in Zur Rezeption des
hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike: Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-​und-​Gertrud-​
Abel-​Stiftung vom 22.–​25. September 1997 in Trier, ed. Therese Fuhrer, Michael Erler,
and Karin Schlapbach. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999.
Orlov, Andrei A. “Adoil Outside the Cosmos.” Pages 30–​57 in Histories of the Hidden
God: Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions,
ed. April D. DeConick and Grant Adamson. London: Acumen, 2016.
Orlov, Andrei A. Enoch-​Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Oropeza, B. J. Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship and Rivalry.
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.
Pachoumi, Eleni. The Concepts of the Divine in the Greek Magical Papyri. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2017.
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Random House, 1988.
Pagels, Elaine. “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” JBL 118
(1999): 477–​96.
Pagels, Elaine. Origins of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics.
New York: Vintage, 2011.
Paine, Thomas. The Age of Reason. Newburyport: Open Road Media: 2017.
Parris, David Paul. Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics. Eugene: Pickwick, 2008.
Parrott, Douglas M. “Gnosticism and Egyptian Religion,” Novum Testamentum (NovT)
29:1 (1987): 73–​93.
Pate, C. Marvin. Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000.
Pearson, Birger. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
190 Bibliography

Pearson, Birger. “Egyptian Seth and Gnostic Seth.” Pages 25–​43 in Society of Biblical
Literature 1977 Seminar Papers, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier. Missoula: SBL, 1977.
Pearson, Birger. “Eusebius and Gnosticism.” Pages 291–​310 in Eusebius, Christianity, and
Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Pearson, Birger A. “Gnosticism as a Religion.” Pages 81–​101 in Was There a Gnostic
Religion?, ed. Antti Marjanen. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2005.
Pearson, Birger A. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis,
Fortress, 1990.
Pearson, Birger A. “Ophites.” Pages 895–​98 in DGWE.
Peels, Rik. “Can God Be Jealous?” Heythrop Journal 59:1 (2018): 1–​15.
Penchansky, David. What Rough Beast? Images of God in the Hebrew Bible. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Penchansky, David, and Paul L. Reddit. Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do Right? Studies
on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1999.
Perkins, Pheme. “The Letter to the Ephesians.” Page 399 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12
vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000, Vol. 11.
Peterson, Erik, and Christoph Markschies. Heis Theos: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche
und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: Nachdruck der Ausgabe von Erik Peterson
mit Ergänzungen un Kommentaren Würzburg: Echter, 2012.
Pétrement, Simone. A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, trans. Carol
Harrison. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.
Pleše, Zlatko. “Evil and Its Sources in Gnostic Traditions.” Pages 101–​32 in Die Wurzel
allen Übels: Vorstellungen über die Herkunft des Bösen und Schlechten in der Philosophie
und Religion des. 1.–​4. Jahrhunderts, ed. Fabienne Jourdan and Rainer Hirsch-​Luipold.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Plotz, David. The Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring
Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible. New York: Harper
Perenniel, 2010.
Plummer, Alfred. Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915.
Poirier, Paul-​Hubert. “Exégèse manichéenne et antimanichéenne de II Corinthiens
4,4 chez Titus de Bostra (Contre les Manichéens IV, 108).” Pages 273–​86 in Gnose et
Manichéisme. Entre les oasis d’Egypte et la Route de la Soie: Hommage à Jean-​Daniel
Dubois, ed. A. van den Kerchove and L. G. Soares Santoprete. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017.
Pourkier, Aline. L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine. Paris: Beauchesne, 1992.
Préaux, Jean-​G. “Deus christianorum Onocoetes.” Pages 639–​54 in Hommages à Léon
Hermann. Brussels: Latomus, 1960.
Pretty, Robert A. Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Procopé-​Walter, A. “Iao und Set (Zu den figurae magicae in den Zauberpapyri),” Archiv
für Religionswissenschaft 30 (1933): 34–​69.
Puech, H.-​Ch. “Archontiker.” Pages 634–​43 in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum,
Vol. 1, ed. Theodor Klauser et al. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1950.
Rainbow, Paul A. “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4–​6” (D.Phil. thesis,
Oxford University, 1987).
Räisänen, Heikki. The Idea of Divine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the Notion
of Divine Hardening, Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Quran.
Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1976.
 Bibliography 191

Räisänen, Heikki. “Marcion.” Pages 301–​15 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed.
Stephen Westerholm. Malden: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Räisänen, Heikki. Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives on the
Encounter of Cultures and Faiths. London: SCM, 1997.
Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983.
Rakoczy, Thomas. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter: Eine Untersuchung
zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1996.
Rasimus, Tuomas, ed. The Legacy of John: Second-​Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel.
Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Rasimus, Tuomas. “Ptolemaus and the Valentinian Exegesis of John’s Prologue.” Pages
145–​71 in Rasimus, ed., The Legacy of John.
Rasimus, Tuomas. Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism
in Light of the Ophite Evidence. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Reinhartz, Adele. Cast Out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-​Judaism in the Gospel of John.
Lanham: Lexington-​Fortress Academic, 2018.
Reinhartz, Adele. “How ‘the Jews’ Became Part of the Plot.” Page 99–​116 in Jesus, Judaism,
and Christian Anti-​Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, ed. Paula
Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz. Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 2002.
Reuter, E. “qn’.” Pages 51–​62 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Vol. 7, ed.
G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993.
Reydams-​Schils, Gretchen. “‘Becoming Like God’ in Platonism and Stoicism.” Pages
142–​58 in From Stoicism, ed. Engberg-​Pedersen.
Reydams-​Schils, Gretchen J. Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist Readings of
Plato’s Timaeus. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.
Ricoux, Odile. “Des Chrétiens accusés d’onolâtrie à Carthage,” Lalies 16 (1996): 53–​73.
Riess, Werner. Performing Interpersonal Violence: Court, Curse, and Comedy in Fourth-​
Century BCE Athens. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012.
Robertson, R. G. “Ezekiel the Tragedian.” Volume 2, Pages 803-​20 in James Charlesworth,
ed., OTP.
Robinson, Bernard P. “II Kings 2:23–​25: Elisha and the She-​Bears,” Scripture Bulletin 14:1
(1983): 2–​3.
Roetzel, C. J. “Jewish Christian-​Gentile Christian Relations: A Discussion of Ephesians
2.15a,” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 81–​89.
Römer, Thomas. “The Origin and the Status of Evil according to the Hebrew Bible.” Pages
53–​66 in Die Wurzel allen Übels: Über die Herkunft des Bösen und Schlechten in der
Philosophie und Religion des 1.–​4. Jahrhunderts, ed. Fabienne Jourdan and Rainer
Hirsch-​Luipold. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Roth, Dieter. “Evil in Marcion’s Conception of the Old Testament God.” Pages 340–​55 in
Evil in Second Temple, ed. Keith and Stuckenbruck.
Roth, Dieter. “The Link Between Luke and Marcion’s Gospel: Prolegomena and Initial
Considerations.” Pages 59–​80 in Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He
Really Know?, ed. Joseph Verheyden and John S. Kloppenborg. Leuven: Peeters, 2017.
Roth, Dieter. “Matthean Texts and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,”
Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 580–​97.
Roth, Dieter. The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Roubekas, Nickolas P. An Ancient Theory of Religion: Euhemerism from Antiquity to the
Present. London: Routledge, 2017.
192 Bibliography

Rowland, Christopher. “The Parting of the Ways: The Evidence of Jewish and Christian
Apocalyptic and Mystical Material.” Pages 213–​38 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of
the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Runia, David. Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005.
Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Sagi, Avi. “The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral
Problem,” Harvard Theological Review 87:3 (1994): 323–​46.
Salo, K. Luke’s Treatment of the Law. A Redaction-​ Critical Investigation. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1991.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985.
Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Schäfer, Peter, ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second
Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Graeco-​Roman World. London: Routledge, 2003.
Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Schaller, Berndt. Jesus und der Sabbat: Franz-​Delitzsch-​Vorlesung 1992. Münster: Delitzsch
Judaic Institute, 1994.
Schenke, Hans Martin. “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism.” Pages
588–​616 in Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol. 2, ed. Bentley Layton. Leiden: Brill.
Scherbenske, Eric W. “Marcionite Paratexts, Pretexts, and Edition of the Corpus
Paulinum.” Pages 71–​115 in Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus
Paulinum, ed. Scherbenske. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Scherbenske, Eric W. “Marcion’s Antitheses and the Isagogic Genre,” VC 64:3
(2010): 255–​79.
Schmid, Hebert. Christen und Sethianer: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den religionsge-
schichtlichen und den kirchengeschichtlichen Begriff der Gnosis. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Schmid, Ulrich. Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung
der Marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.
Segal, Alan. “Ruler of This World: Attitudes Toward Mediator Figures and the Importance
of Sociology for Self-​Definition.” Pages 245–​68 in Jewish and Christian Self-​Definition
Vol. 2, ed. E. P. Sanders. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline
Theme. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Seifrid, Mark A. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Selvidge, Marla. “Mark 5:25–​34 and Leviticus 15:19–​20: A Reaction to Restrictive Purity
Regulations,” JBL 103 (1984): 619–​23.
Sibinga, Joost Smit. The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Skarsaune, Oskar. “Is Christianity Monotheistic? Patristic Perspectives on a Jewish/​
Christian Debate,” Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 340–​63.
Skhul, Minna. Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text.
London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Smelik, K. A. D., and E. A. Hemelrijk. “‘Who Knows Not What Monsters Demented Egypt
Worships?’ Opinions on Egyptian Animal Worship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient
 Bibliography 193

Conception of Egypt.” Pages 1920–​81 in ANRW Vol. II.17.4, ed. Wolfgang Haase.
Berlin: de Gruyter,1984.
Smidt, Corwin E. “The Continuing Distinctive Role of the Bible in American Lives.”
Pages 331–​44 in The Bible in American Life, ed. Philip Goff, Arthur Farnsley, and Peter
Thuesen.
Smith, Carl B. No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
Smith, Daniel A. “Marcion’s Gospel and the Synoptics.” Pages 129–​73 in Gospels and
Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Experiments in Reception, eds. Jens Schröter,
Tobias Nicklas, and Josef Verheyden. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019.
Smith, Mark S. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-​Cultural Discourse in the Biblical
World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Smith, Morton. “The Jewish Elements in the Magical Papyri.” Pages 242–​56 in Studies in
the Cult of Yahweh, Vol. 2, ed. Shaye Cohen, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Spieckermann, Hermann. “The ‘Father’ of the Old Testament and Its History.” Pages 73–​
84 in The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in
Antiquity, ed. Felix Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Spittler, Janet E. Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: The Wild Kingdom of Early
Christian Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–​14,” NTS 36
(1990): 481–​511.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1996.
Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Science and Humanities, 1974.
Still, Todd. D. “Shadow and Light: Marcion’s (Mis)Construal of the Apostle Paul.” Pages
91–​107 in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson.
London: T&T Clark, 2011.
Stoyanov, Yuri. The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy. New
Haven: Nota Bene, 2000.
Strawbridge, Jennifer R. The Pauline Effect: The Use of the Pauline Epistles by Early
Christian Writers. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.
Stroumsa, Guy. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
Stylianopoulos, Theodore. Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1975.
Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Tardieu, Michel. “Épiphane contre les Gnostiques,” Tel Quel 88 (1981): 64–​91.
Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Thomas, Matthew J. Paul’s ‘Works of the Law’ in the Perspective of Second Century
Reception. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Thomassen, Einar. “Orthodoxy and Heresy at Second-​ Century Rome,” Harvard
Theological Review 97:3 (2004): 241–​56.
Thomassen, Einar. “The Platonic and Gnostic ‘Demiurge.’” Pages 227–​44 in Apocryphon
Severini Presented to Søren Giversen, ed. Per Bilde, Helge Kjaer Nielsen, and Jorgen
Podemann Sorensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New
Testament. Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox, 2000.
Thrall, Margaret. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. London: T&T Clark, 1994.
194 Bibliography

Tobias, Nicklas. “‘Du bist nur ein Mensch und machst dich selbst zu Gott’ (Johannes
10,33): Das Motiv der Gotteslästerung bei Johannes vor dem Hintergrund der
Synoptiker.” Pages 239–​56 in Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift
Gilbert van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
Tcherikover, Victor A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1961.
Thiessen, Matthew. Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity
Within First-​Century Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Tripaldi, Daniele. “From Philo to Areimanios: Jewish Traditions and Intellectual Profiles
in First–​Third Century Alexandria in the Light of the Apocryphon of John.” Pages
101–​20 in Jews and Christians in Antiquity, eds. Lanfranchi and Verheyden.
Tsouna, Voula. “Aristo on Blends of Arrogance.” Pages 279–​92 in Aristo of Ceos: Text,
Translation and Discussion, ed. William Fortenbaugh. London: Routledge, 2017.
Tsouna, Voula. The Ethics of Philodemus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Tsutsui, Kenji. Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Markioniten im Adamantios-​Dialog: Ein
Kommentar zu den Büchern I–​II. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Turner, John D. “The Johannine Legacy: The Gospel and Apocryphon of John.” Pages 105–​44
in Legacy of John, ed. Rasimus.
Tyson, Joseph B. “Anti-​Judaism in Marcion and His Opponents,” Studies in Christian-​
Jewish Relations 1 (2005): 196–​208.
Tyson, Joseph B. Marcion and Luke-​Acts: A Defining Struggle. Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 2006.
Urbanová, Daniela, and Natalia Gachallová. Latin Curse Tablets of the Roman Empire.
Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, 2018.
van den Berg, Jacob Albert. Biblical Argument in Manichean Missionary Practice: The Case
of Adimantus and Augustine. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
van den Broek, Roelof, “Archontics.” Pages in 89–​91 in DGWE, ed. Wouter Hanegraaff.
Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Van den Broek, Roelof. “Borborites.” Page 196 in DGWE.
van der Horst, Pieter Willem. Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. Leiden:
Brill, 1983.
van der Horst, Pieter W. “‘The God Who Drowned the King of Egypt’: A Short Note on an
Exorcistic Formula.” Pages 135–​39 in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and
Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerhard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. Anthony Hilhorst and George
H. van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
van der Horst, Pieter Willem. “The Great Magical Papyrus of Paris (PGM IV) and the
Bible.” Pages 269–​79 in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-​Roman Context: Selected
Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity, ed. van der Horst,
Pieter Willem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
van der Horst, Pieter W. “A Short Note on an Exorcistic Formula.” Pages 280–​84 in Jews
and Christians, ed. van der Horst, Pieter Willem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
van der Toorn, K. “Seth.” Pages 748–​49 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD),
ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
van Henten, Jan Willem “Typhon.” Pages 879–​81 in DDD, ed. van der Toorn et al.
van Henten, Jan Willem, and Ra’anan Abusch. “The Depiction of the Jews as
Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem.” Pages
 Bibliography 195

271–​309 in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context with a
Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. Louis H. Feldman and John R.
Levison. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Van Kooten, George H. Paul’s Anthropology in Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
van Oort, Johannes. “The Paraclete Mani as the Apostle of Jesus Christ and the Origins
of a New Church.” Pages 140–​57 in The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought, ed. Anthony
Hilhorst. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Cornelis van Unnik, Willem. “Der Fluch der Gekreuzigten: Deuteronomium 21,23 in der
Deutung Justinus des Märtyrers.” Pages 483–​99 in Theologia Crucis, Signum Crucis:
Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70, ed. C. Andresen and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1979.
van Unnik, Willem Cornelis. “Der Neid in der Paradiesgeschichte nach einigen gnost-
ischen Texten.” Pages 120–​32 in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of
Alexander Böhlig, ed. M. Krause. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
van Voorst, Robert E. The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-​Christian
Community. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Veilleux, Armand. La seconde apocalypse de Jacques (NH V,4). Quebec: University of
Laval, 1986.
Viciano, Albert. “The Life and Works of Mani and the Expansion of Manichaeism
(216–​276).” Pages 647–​49 in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser
Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Vinzent, Markus, ed. Marcion of Sinope as Religious Entrepreneur. Leuven: Peeters,
2018.
Vinzent, M. “Marcion the Jew,” Judaïsme Ancien -​Ancient Judaism 1 (2013): 159–​200.
Vinzent, Markus. Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.
Vischer, Lukas. “Le prétendu ‘culte de âne’ dans la Église primitive,” Revue de l’histoire des
religions 139:1 (1951): 14–​35.
von Lieven, Alexandra. “Translating Gods, Interpreting Gods.” Pages 61–​83 in Greco-​
Egyptian Interactions: Literature, Translation, and Culture 500BC–​AD 300, ed. Ian
Rutherford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
von Nordheim-​Diehl, Miriam. “Der Neid Gottes, des Teufels und der Menschen—​eine
motivgeschichtliche Skizze.” Pages 431–​50 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed.
Renate Egger-​Wenzel and Jeremey Corley. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012.
Waldstein, Michael. “The Primal Triad in the Apocryphon of John.” Pages 154–​87 in
The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years, ed. John D. Turner and Anne McGuire.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Wassen, Cecilia. “Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5:25–​34: Insights
from Purity Laws from Qumran.” Pages 641–​60 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on
Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi
Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Wasserman, Emma. Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of
Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
Watson, Francis. “Jesus Versus the Lawgiver: Narratives of Apostasy and Conversion.”
Pages 45–​62 in Telling the Christian Story, ed. Watson and Parkhouse.
Welburn, A. J. “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon Johannis,’” VC 32
(1978): 241–​54.
Welburn, A. J. “Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram,” NovT 23:3 (1981): 261–​87.
Wells, Steve. Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. Moscow, ID: SAB, 2010.
196 Bibliography

Wells, Steve. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: The King James Version from a Skeptic’s Point of
View. Moscow, ID: SAB, 2013.
Werline, Rodney. “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue
with Trypho,” Harvard Theological Review 92:1 (1999): 79–​93.
White, Benjamin L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests Over the Image of
the Apostle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Whitmarsh, Tim. Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
Whitmarsh, Tim. “Politics and Identity in Ezekiel’s Exagoge.” Pages 211–​27 in Beyond the
Second Sophistic.
Wilhite, David E. “Was Marcion a Docetist? The Body of Evidence vs. Tertullian’s
Argument,” VC 71 (2017): 1–​36.
Williams, Francis E. Mental Perception: A Commentary on NHC VI,4. The Concept of Our
Great Power. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Williams, Michael A. “The Demonizing of the Demiurge: The Innovation of Gnostic
Myth.” Pages 73–​107 in Innovations in Religious Traditions, ed. Michael A. Williams, C.
Cox, and Martin S. Jaffe. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.
Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Williams, Michael A. “Sethianism.” Pages 32–​63 in A Companion to Second-​Century
Christian “Heretics,” ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Willing, Meike. “Die neue Frage des Marcionschülers Apelles—​zur Rezeption marcion-
itischen Gedankenguts.” Pages 221–​31 in May and Greschat, Markion.
Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Wilson, Stephen G. “Marcion and Boundaries.” Pages 200–​220 in Crossing Boundaries
in Early Judaism and Christianity: Ambiguities, Complexities, and Half-​ Forgotten
Adversaries, ed. Kimberley Stratton and Andrea Lieber. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70–​170 CE. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995.
Winger, Michael. By What Law: The Meaning of Νόμος in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992.
Winiarczyk, Marek. The “Sacred History” of Euhemerus of Messene. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2013.
Witte, Bernd. Die Ophitendiagramm nach Origenes’ Contra Celsum VI,22–​38. Altenberge:
Oros, 1993.
Wünsch, Richard. Sethianische Verfluchungtafeln aus Rom. Leipzig: Teubner, 1898.
Yang, Yong-​Eui. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1997.
Young, Frances M., and David Ford. Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians. London:
SPCK, 1987.
 Index of Ancient Sources

Greco-​Roman Sources Theaetetus, 4n4

Aeschylus, Timaeus, 3n2, 61n24, 74n32
Prometheus Bound 20n21, 157n4 Plutarch
Seven Against Thebes, 20n21 Decline of Oracles, 61n25, 77n51
Alcinous, Handbook on Platonism, 3n3, Epicurus Makes a Pleasant Life
61, 75nn39–​40 Impossible, 61n25
Apuleius On Isis and Osiris, 5n12, 18n13, 18n15,
Metamorphoses, 18n15, 28n49, 101n50 20n23, 23n36, 23nn33–​34, 26–​27,
On Plato and His Doctrine, 61 30n70, 67n2
Aristotle, 74 Stoic Self-​Contradictions, 57n1,
Metaphysics, 74n33 61n27
Rhetoric, 74n34 Table Talk, 25n48
Cicero Pompeius Trogus, Philippic
Nature of the Gods, 73n29, 77n50 History, 26n48, 79n63
Tusculan Disputations, 74n35, 77n50 Porphyry
Corpus Hermeticum, 74n32 Abstinence, 77n56
Damocritus, On the Jews, 25 Life of Plotinus, 4n8
Dio Cassius, Roman History, 8n24 Ps.-​ Apollodorus, Library, 20n22
Diodorus of Sicily, Library of Ps.-​ Plutarch, Banquet of Seven
History, 20n23, 23n34, 23n37, Sages, 18n15
25n46, 25n52, 26n50 Sextus Empiricus
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Philosophers, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 73n27
61n25 Against the Physicists, 77n50
Euripides, Fragments 57n1, 61n27 Tacitus, Histories, 25–​26, 27
Greek Magical Papyri (PGM), 18n15,
23n36, 29n65, 29nn67–​68, Biblical Sources
30nn70–​73, 30nn76–​77, 92n10 Hebrew Bible/​Septuagint
Hesiod, Theogony, 20, 36n92 Genesis
Historia Augusta (SHA), 28n50 1 143
Julian, Against the Galileans, 76n48 1–​3 44
Juvenal, Satires, 28n49 1–​6 44
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 74n36 1:3 98
Musonius Rufus, Discourses, 74n32 1:26 50n43
Numenius, Fragments 5n12, 61, 69n10 2 10
Petronius, Poems, 35n38 2:2 135n75
Philodemus, On Vices, 69 2:3 133
Pindar, Pythian Odes, 20n20 2:17 67, 71, 72
Plato 2:21–​22 93
Laws, 5n11, 61n24 3 10, 44, 150
Phaedrus, 74n32 3:14 146n39
Republic, 61nn23–​24, 75n38, 95, 146 3:14–​19 143
198 Index of Ancient Sources

Hebrew Bible/​Septuagint (cont.) 23:14–​17 123

3:16–​20 150 31:13–​15 133
3:16–​23 167 34:14 69, 75
4 48 34:21 134n64
4:11 149 Leviticus
4:11–​12 143 11:14–​15 124
6–​8 10 13–​14 129
7:20–​23 167 13:45 128
9:25 149 15:19 129
19:11 107 20:25 124
25:9 130 21:1 130n43
36:12 84 24:20 80
Exodus 26:14–​46 149n51
1–​4 21 26:22 83
3:22 78 Numbers
4:20 24n38 6:6–​7 130n43
4:21 92 15:32–​34 135
4:22 43 16:15 24n38
4:24 68n8 21:4–​9 45
7:3–​4 92 22:6 142n12
8:32 106 22:22–​35 9–​10, 23n38
9:2, 35 92 Deuteronomy
9:15–​35 23n33 4:11–​12, 33 41n5
10:21–​23 23n33 5:9 75
11:2 78, 79 6:15 76
11:4–​5 23n33 7:1–​2 167
11:12 21 13:1–​16 124n10
12:7, 13, 22–​23 23n35 13:13 42n9
12:29–​30 167 14:1 43n12
12:35–​36 21 14:13–​14 124
12:36 78 16:16 123
12:37 22n28 19:21 80
13:21–​22 30 20:17 149
14:27 30 21:22–​23 143n16
17:8–​9 84 21:23 65, 140–​43, 144n18, 145–​47,
17:8–​15 84–​86 149, 152, 154
17:13 85n80 25:19 85
17:14 85n81 27:26 141
17:16 86 28:15–​20 149
19:16–​18 23n36 28:15–​68 149
19:16–​25 41n5 28:26 130n41
20:3 69, 76 28:28 92
20:5 75 29:3 94
20:8–​11 133 32:8–​9 169
20:12 131 32:20–​21 76n46
20:15 79 32:23 84, 87
21:24 80 32:23, 42 87
 Index of Ancient Sources 199

32:24 83 11:15 24n39

32:39 70 12.24, 27 24n39
Joshua 13:9 91n6
10 84 13:14 24n39
10:1–​15 86 14:6 91n6
10:28, 30, 2, 35, 37, 39 149 15:18–​19 24n39
11:11, 14 149 16:16 21
1 Samuel Sirach 14:10 75n37
1:16 42n9 Isaiah
2:12 42n9 5:8–​23 87
10:27 42n9 5:25–​28 87
18:10 68 5:28 84, 87
21:1–​6 134 6:9–​10 93n11
25:17 42n9 6:10 93–​94, 97, 105, 106n73
2 Samuel 6:11 93
16:7 42n9 9:1 (LXX) 98
17:14 92 14:12–​14 70
1 Kings 29:10 92, 93
21:13 42n9 29:14 92
22:20–​24 92 42:20 93n12
2 Kings 43:8 93n12
1:9–​13 83 43:10 70n15
1:23–​24 167 44:6 70n15
2:23–​24 81–​83 45:5 102
1 Kingdoms 45:5, 22 69
15:3 LXX 85 45:5–​7, 18, 21–​22 70n15
15:15 LXX 68n8 45:7 65, 67–​68
4 Kings 9:34 142n12 45:22 70
2 Chronicles 24:20–​22 16n5 45:22–​23 70
Tobit 47:10 70
4:3 130n41 47:11 70
4:7, 16 75n37 63:17 92
6:14 130n41 Jeremiah
14:7 91 5:21–​23 93n12
14:11–​12 130n41 7:33 130n41
1 Maccabees 8:16 75n37, 76n47 8:1–​2 130n41
Job 18:11 68
3:5 142n12 Ezekiel
37:15 LXX 98 6:5 130n41
Psalms 12:2–​3 93n12
82:1 76 18:20 119
96:5 6, 63 20:5 41n6
Wisdom of Solomon 28:1–​10 70
2:23 77n51 29:5 130n41
6:23 75n37 Daniel 5:4 (LXX) 91–​92
7:13 75n37 Hosea 11:1 43
10:17 78n60 Amos 3:6 68
200 Index of Ancient Sources

Hebrew Bible/​Septuagint (cont.) 3:2–​20 127n29

Micah 3:21–​4:13 127n29
1:1 41n6 4:5–​6 96
1:12 68 4:16–​30 128
Nahum 2:1 42n9 5:36–​37 58
Malachi 2:10 43n12 6:2, 4 135
6:43 58
Old Testament Deuterocanonical Texts 7:21 106
1 Enoch 1:4 92 8:8 94
2 Enoch 11 99 8:10 93
4 Ezra 16:13 87 9:60 130n46
3 Maccabees 11:51 15
1:3 113n25 14:1–​6 133
6:7 75n37 16:16 117, 132
4 Maccabees 10:2 113n25 16:17 132
18:15–​17 83
New Testament 18:19 61
Mark 21:33 132
2:23–​28 133 22:15 123
4:12 93, 106n73 22:70–​71 124n10
7:1–​2 136 23:2 124, 124n13, 126
7:15 124 John
10:2–​3 136 1:9 99
10:14 81n69 3:14 45
14:62–​63 124n10 5:17 135n75
Matthew 5:37 41
2:1–​18 16 6:2 41
5:17 116, 126–​27, 136 6:70 47n31
5:21–​22 116 7:1 41
5:21–​28 116 7:2 41
5:27–​28 116 7:8 123
5:38 116 8:12 41
5:38–​39 80n65 8:17 122
5:38–​40 115 8:19, 55 41
8:22 130n44 8:33 41
11:13 131n52 8:37 41
12:9–​14 133 8:39 41
13:19 104n63 8:40 41
15:11 124 8:41 42, 43, 53, 96
16:24 152 8:42 42
19:14 81n69 8:44 12, 13, 40–​53
19:21 152 8:44a40n2, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49,
23:15 124 50n43, 51, 52
23:35 15, 16 8:44c45, 46, 47
25:34, 41 155 8:44f42n10, 47, 50, 51
25:41 107, 142n12 8:47 42
Luke 8:54 42, 52
1:1–​2:52 127n29 9:41 41
1:5–​25 15 10:30 168
 Index of Ancient Sources 201

10:34 122 2:6–​8 6, 102–​3

10:36–​37 41 2:8 65, 102, 103, 104, 105, 160
10:39 41 3:18 91n4, 104
11:55 41 3:19 91n4
12:31 51, 52, 96 5:5 107
12:40 93, 106n73 5:7 160
14:9 168 5:10 91n4
14:11 51 7:31 91n4
14:16, 26 51n48 8:6 100–​101
14:30 51n48, 52, 96 9:9, 21 143n13
15:25 122 10:20 6
16:11 96 15:26 112
16:30 51 15:28 101
17:15 104n63 15:56 118
18:31 51, 122 2 Corinthians
19:6, 15 51 2:8 104, 108
19:7 124n10 3–​4 94
Acts 3:1–​6 90
6:11 137 3:6–​7 110
6:13 125 3:14 9n29, 94, 97, 105
6:14 125 3:14–​4:3 94
Romans 4:3 94n19
1:23–​28 24n39 4:4 51n48, 65, 90–​108, 155, 160
1:28 92 4:4–​6 99, 100, 102
3:20 110 4:6 98, 99, 107
4:15 110, 118 5:17 97
5:13 111 11:14 97
5:18 167 12:2 98n35
5:20 110 12:7–​8 155
6:6 152 Galatians
7:1 109 1:4 104, 114n28
7:6 110, 112 3:6–​9, 14a, 15–​18, 19 140n2
7:7 110 3:10 110
7:8 111 3:10, 13 120
7:12 65 3:10–​13 140–​42
7:22 143n13 3:11 110
7:25 110 3:13 65–​66, 121
8:2 110 3:21 143n13
8:7 143n13, 155 3:22–​23 110
8:38 103n54 4:1–​7 110
8:38–​39 6 4:2–​3 110
10:4 110, 117 4:5 120
11:7–​8 94 4:8 63
12:2 104 5:1 110
12:22 91n4 Ephesians
1 Corinthians 1:4 9
1:20 91n4 1:21 99
2:6 104, 112 2:2 97, 115n37
2:6, 8 91n4 2:13–​16 111
202 Index of Ancient Sources

Hebrew Bible/​Septuagint (cont.) Philo

2:14 112 Allegorical Interpretation, 75n37, 113n25
2:15 65, 109–​21, 122 (see also Cherubim, 75n37
destroyer of the Law, Christ as) Contemplative Life, 24n39
2:16 112, 122 Decalogue, 24n39, 61n25, 95n21
4:26 84, 86 Every Good Person Is Free, 75n37
6:2–​3 113 Giants, 113n25
6:11 115n37 God is Unchanging, 98n38
6:11, 16 84 Life of Moses, 78n60, 84n79,
6:12 87, 105n65 85n81, 134n64
6:16 87, 104n63 On the Creation, 75n37
Philippians On Dreams, 144n18
3:6 110 Posterity of Cain, 144n18
3:8–​9 110 Questions on Genesis, 75n37, 150
3:19 96 Rewards and Punishments, 144n18
Colossians Special Laws, 75n37, 144n18
1:13 105n65 Sibylline Oracles, 85n83
1:16 99
2:14 110, 113, 119–​21 Christian Apocrypha
2:14–​15 120 Acts of Andrew, 152n64
2:15 103n54, 121 Acts of Philip, 126
2:16 110n7, 116 Acts of Pilate, 125n17, 142n10
2 Thessalonians Acts of Thomas, 23n38, 51n49
2:8 112 Ascension of Isaiah, 41n6, 52n51,
2:11 92 96n25, 103
1 Tim 1:8 109n4 Birth of Mary, 16–​17, 35, 39
Hebrews Gospel of the Ebionites, 125
1:2 91n6 Gospel of Nicodemus, 125
2:14 112n17 Life of Adam and Eve, 71n19
11:3 91n6 Martyrdom of Peter, 152n64
1 John 3:8 47n31 Protoevangelium of James, 15–​16, 17,
Jude 19:22 42n9 47n31

Jewish Sources Patristic Sources

11QTemple 64.10–11, 143n16 Acts of Archelaus, 50–​51, 79n61, 80n65,
Aristobulus frag. 5, 133n63 85n83, 107n76, 132n56, 135n73
Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 9b, 24n38 Adamantius, 64, 99, 106–​7, 108, 109n4,
Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge, 20–​22, 27n53 113n26, 117n48, 118n52, 127,
Genesis Rabbah, 135n75 128n31, 138n87, 150
Josephus Alexander of Lycopolis, Against the
Antiquities, 78n60, 85n81, 113n25 Manicheans, 74n32
Against Apion, 22–​23nn30–​31, 24n39, Ambrose, Paradise, 71n19, 72nn22–​23,
24nn41–​42, 25, 27n53, 113n25 73n28
Jewish War, 6–​7nn17–​18, 22n29 Ambrosiaster, Commentary on
Jubilees, Book of, 43n12, 78n60, Galatians, 148
130n41, 135n75 Aristides
Letter of Aristeas, 24n39, 112n19 Apology, 63n37
Mishnah, 130n41, 136n76 Orations, 101n50
 Index of Ancient Sources 203

Augustine of Hippo John Chrysostom

Against Adimantus, 67n3, 68n7, 75n42, Homilies on Ephesians, 114, 116n43
80n65, 124n9, 131n49, 135n73, Homilies on Second Corinthians, 97n33
149n50, 152–​53 Filastrius, 58n9, 151n59
Against Faustus, 63n38, 97n33, Hilary of Poitiers, Tractates on the
106–​7n74, 123–​24nn7–​8, 123n3, Psalms, 119n55
127n24, 133n62, 153–​55 Justin Martyr
Against Felix, 153nn68–​69, 155n76 1 Apology, 62n29
Answer to Faustus, 123–​24nn7–​8, Dialogue with Trypho, 9n29, 80n66,
123n3, 124n9, 133, 153–​55 85n83, 101n49, 117n45, 141, 145–​47
Answer to Felix, 153 Lactantius, Wrath of God, 73n27
Confessions, 153n70 Life of Abercius, 73n29
Enemy of the Law, 67n3, 71n18, Origen
73nn28–​29, 97n33, 116n43, Against Celsus, 12n42, 30n75, 37n97,
130n47, 131n48, 150n56, 151n59 37nn99–​102, 68n8, 74n32, 80n65,
Ennarations on Psalms, 142n12 108n80, 114n32, 149n51, 150n56,
Retractions, 130n47, 153n67 151, 158n10, 158n12
Arnobius, Against the Nations, 158n8 Commentary on John, 151n59
Athanasius, Against the Nations, 28n64 Commentary on Matthew, 16n3, 95n22
Athenagoras, Embassy, 24n39, 46n26 Commentary on Romans, 111, 117n49, 118
1 Clement, 76n47 Homilies on Numbers, 142n12,
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 45n19, 145n25, 150n55
58n6, 60n17, 75n37, 111, 130n42 On First Principles, 68n5, 68n9, 88n86,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical 109n4, 117, 151n59
Lectures, 59, 97n33 On Prayer, 158n7
Didascalia, 142 Minucius Felix, Octavius, 28–​29, 32
Epistle to Diognetus, 117n45 Ps.-​ Clement
Epiphanius of Salamis Homilies, 89, 92n21, 117n45, 125n16
Ancoratus, 78n59 Recognitions, 70n16, 72, 89, 125
On Faith, 28n64 Ps.-​ Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 43n14,
Panarion, 43n14, 47n28, 48–​49nn33–​34, 57n5, 58n9, 151n59
49nn37–​39, 51n46, 51n48, 58n5, Refutation of All Heresies, 45, 46n27,
58n9, 59n12, 109n4, 110n7, 57n5, 62n29, 70n16, 151n59
113n26, 114n32, 117n45, 118, Tertullian,
120n57, 124n11, 125n15, 126, Against Marcion 60n20, 62nn31–​34,
127n29, 128n34, 131n48, 134, 148 63n39, 67n3, 68n9, 70n13, 71n20,
Epistle of Barnabas, 8n28, 85n83, 117n45 73n26, 75nn40–​41, 76n46,
Eusebius of Caesarea 76nn48–​49, 77n52, 78n57, 78n59,
Ecclesiastical History, 49, 58n7, 60n17 79n61, 79n64, 80n65, 81n68, 81n70,
History of the Martyrs of Palestine, 60n17 83n75, 88n86, 90n2, 91n7, 94n17,
Preparation for the Gospel, 26n52 95n22, 97n33, 97nn27–​28, 98n34,
Eznik of Kolb, On God, 70n13, 108n80, 99n43, 100n45, 103nn57–​59,
120n57, 134, 138nn85–​86 104n60, 105n65, 108n80, 109nn3–​4,
Jerome 110n7, 111n10, 111n15, 113n22, 114,
Commentary on Galatians, 141n5, 115n37, 116–​18, 120n58, 122n1,
145n24, 148–​49 126n21, 127n25, 128n32, 128n34,
Commentary on Isaiah, 28n64 129n35, 129n37, 130, 131n51, 132,
Commentary on Micah, 68n6, 88–​89n86 134–​38, 139n88, 145n23, 145n26
204 Index of Ancient Sources

Tertullian (cont.) Evangelion, 59, 63, 65, 68, 79, 80n65, 81,
Against Hermogenes, 73, 74n31 83, 117, 120, 122–​39
Against the Jews, 80n67, 147n42
Against the Nations, 27n58, 28n61 Nag Hammadi and Related Literature
Against Praxeas, 101n49, 147n43, 147n45 Apocalypse of Adam, 103n56, 106n70
Apologeticum, 27nn57–​58 Concept of Our Great Power, 114
On Fasting, 132n56 Secret Book of John, 5n9, 11–​12, 35–​36, 39
On Idolatry, 111n14 Gospel of Peter, 142n10
On Modesty, 132n56 Gospel of Philip, 40, 47n31
On Patience, 47n31, 115n39, 147 Gospel of Thomas, 94n16, 99
On the Shows, 144n20 Holy Book of the Great Invisible
Prescription against Heretics, 57n3, 63n38 Spirit, 76n48, 117n45
Spectacles, 134n68 Melchizedek, 122
To His Wife, 116n42 Origin of the World, 4n5, 5n9, 36n94,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentaries on 70n16, 105n68, 151n58
the Minor Epistles of Paul, 119n55 Pistis Sophia, 38n104
Theodoret of Cyrrhus Ptolemy, Letter to Flora, 62, 114–​16
Commentary on Ephesians, 114n29 Reality of the Rulers, 5n9, 36n94, 53,
Letters 81, 113, 59n13 70n16, 76n48, 105n68, 151
Theophilus of Antioch, Autolycus, 71n19, Revelation of Adam, 94n16, 106
22n28 Revelation of Peter, 94n16
Second Revelation of James, 94n16,
Marcionite Sources 105n65, 108n80
Antitheses, 59, 77–​88, 94, 105–​6, 131, 133, Second Treatise of Great Seth, 4n6, 70n13
144, 152, 155, 166 Testimony of Truth, 4n7, 71, 93–​94,
Apostolikon, 59, 63, 90n2, 98n36, 102, 105n65, 143
109, 110n7 Three Forms of First Thought, 105n68
 Subject Index

Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations. Titles of authored works are listed after the
name of the author.

Adam. See tree of knowledge Bird, Michael F., 110n5

Adimantus, Disputations, 63n38, 75n42, Blake, Jonathan, 163n22
97n33, 130–​31, 149n50, 152, 155 Blanchet, Adrien, 31
Aland, Barbara, 58n6 Blanke, Helmut, 112n20
Alexamenos graffito, 31–​33, 33 bleeding woman, healing of, 128
Amalekites, violence of evil creator in war blinding and mental incapacitation,
against, 84–​86 divine, 65, 89, 90, 92–​95,
American Humanists Association, 166–​67 97–​100, 104–​8
“Angel of Yahweh” in Jewish scripture, blindness, spiritual, 41, 104–​5, 106, 108
9–​10, 23n38 blindness of “god of this world,” 105, 108
anger and jealousy of Yahweh, 4, 10, Bockmuehl, Markus, 130n44
60n20, 65, 74–​77 Book of Jeu, 38n104
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 25 Brakke, David, 11n39
Apelles, 49, 59, 63n38, 71, 72, 73n28 Brown, Raymond E., 133
Aphrodite, 19 burial of the dead, 130–​31
Apion, 25, 26, 27n53, 38
Apollo, 19, 63n37 Caesarius of Arles, 82n71
Apollonius Molon, 25 Cahana-​Blum, Jonathan, 4n7
Archontics, 12, 48, 48–​49, 51 Cain, 47n31, 48, 144n18, 149
Ares, 63n37 Cainite Christians, 46, 113n26
arrogance and vanity of evil creator in Calvin, John, 100n45
Jewish scriptures, 69–​70 Carneades, 77n50
Carpocratians, 159
Baal, 18 Carrier, Richard, 164
Bakhuyzen, W. H. van de Sande, 64n44 Celsus, 12, 30, 74n32, 108n80, 151, 158
Balaam’s Ass, 23n38 Cerdo, 57–​58, 114n32
Barker, Dan, God: The Most Unpleasant Chaeremon, 22, 38
Character in All Fiction, 167–​68 child murder, evil creator committing,
Bar-​Kochva, Bezalel, 23n31, 24n42, 25n43, 81–​83, 163, 167
25n45, 26n52 Christ. See crucifixion of Christ; Jesus
Barth, Markus, 112n20 Christ; specific entries at destroyer of
Basilicus, 59 the Law, Christ as
Basilides, 158–​59, 160 Chrysippus, 74n35
BeDuhn, Jason D., 124n13, 131n48 Cioran, M., 157
Beker, J. Christian, 109n1, 140 circumcision, 123–​24
Beliar, 6, 52n51, 96n25, 103 codex Montepessulanus, 54, 117n46
Betz, Hans Dieter, 126n23 Codex Sinaiticus, 91n8
biblical demiurgy, 162 Commodus (emperor), 28
206 Index

crucifixion of Christ crucifixion and, 119–​21, 122,

cursing of victims of crucifixion, 140–​42, 137–​39
152 (see also curse of the creator) Jews accusing Jesus of destroying the
destruction of Law by Christ law, 124–​27
and, 119–​21, 122, 137–​39 lepers, treatment of, 128–​29
Jews and Judaism blamed for, 104n60 repudiation of Law and repudiation of
role of Jewish deity/​evil creator in, 51, creator, 136–​37
52, 53, 104, 108, 138–​39, 155, 160–​61 the devil. See Satan
Crum, W. E., 23n37 Didymus of Alexandria, 100
curse, Law as, 110, 120 Doering, Lutz, 135n72
curse of the creator (in Gal 3:13), 65–​66, dogmata (decrees/​teachings), 113–​14
140–​56 donkey deity, 12, 15–​39
Ambrosiaster on, 148 Alexamenos graffito, 31–​33, 33
Augustine on, 142n12, 149n50, 150n56, Egyptian Seth associated with ass/​
151n59, 152–​55 donkey, 18, 19
compared to divine curses in Jewish gems, Seth-​Yahweh depicted
scripture, 150–​61 on, 31, 32
concept of cursing in early Christianity, Greek word for Yahweh resembling
142–​43 native Egyptian word for ass/​
early Christian treatment of divine donkey, 23
cursing, 143–​44 Ophite diagram, 11–​12, 37–​38, 39
Epiphanius on, 148 Phibionite adoption of Seth-​Yahweh as
evil nature of creator, Marcionite evil creator, 33, 34, 34–​35, 38, 39
intuition of, 140, 144–​45, 151, 155–​56 Seth (Egyptian deity), 18–​20, 19
Jerome on, 141n5, 145n24, 148–​49 Seth-​Yahweh (Jewish deity
Justin Martyr on, 141, 145–​47, 148, 152–​53 interpreted as form of Egyptian
literary context, 140–​42, 148 god Seth), 17–​18, 20, 23–​27,
Manichean reception of, 38–​39, 159
151n59, 152–​55 spells, Seth-​Yahweh in, 29–​30
Tertullian on, 144, 145n23, 145n26, 147 talking donkeys in scripture and early
Christian literature, 23–​24n38
Dawkins, Richard, 167–​68 traditions that Jews worshiped Yahweh
dead, burial of, 130–​31 as golden donkey head, 24–​26
debt record of humanity, Christ’s transfer of donkey worship tradition
obliteration of, 119–​21 to Christians, 27–​29, 31–​33,
DeConick, April D., 40n2, 47, 158n7 33, 38–​39
Denzey (Lewis), Nicola, 38n103 Draco (constellation), 45
despoliation of Egypt, creator’s command dualism, 61–​63, 98–​102, 158–​61
of, 65, 78–​80, 163, 167 Dunderberg, Ismo, 115n38
destroyer of the Law, Christ as (in Eph Dunn, Geoffrey D., 80n67
2:15), 65, 109–​21 Dunn, James D. G., 112n20
enemy/​annuller of the Law, Christ
regarded as, 116–​17 Eden. See tree of knowledge
Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora on, 114–​16 Egypt, creator’s command of despoliation
destroyer of the Law, Christ as, in of, 65, 78–​80, 163, 167
Marcionite Evangelion, 65, 122–​39 Elisha, 81–​83, 163
bleeding woman, healing of, 128 Eloaios, 36, 38n105
conflicts of Christ with the Law, 122–​24 Empedocles, 5n12
 Index 207

Ephrem the Syrian, 82n71, 114, Gray, John, 82n73

120n57, 149n51 Green, Ruth Hurmence, The Born Again
Eratosthenes, 24n42 Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, 163
Evans, Ca. A., 93n12 Greene, Graham, 3
Eve. See tree of knowledge Griffiths, Gwynn, 23n37
evil creator, 3–​14, 157–​70. See also donkey
deity; Johannine “father of the devil”; Hakola, R., 136
Marcion and Marcionites Harnack, Adolf von, 60, 63n40, 78n58,
character analysis, 157–​58 81n68, 106n69, 129, 131
contemporary views of, 162–​70 Hathor, 19
crucifixion of Christ, role in, 51, 52, 53, healing, as work violating Sabbath
104, 108, 138–​39, 155, 160–​61 laws, 135
reception history and, 12–​14 Hermes, 19
scripture and, 9–​10 (see also scriptures) Herod, 16, 142n10
“evil,” Hebrew and Greek terms Holladay, Carl, 21n26
for, 67–​68, 104 Holmén, Tom, 130n41, 136n79
EvilBible.com, 165 Hornung, Erik, 24n39
Horus, 19
“father of the devil” in John 8:44. See Humanists and Humanism, 166–​67
Johannine “father of the devil”
Felix the Manichean, 153, 155 Ignatius of Antioch, 96n25
fiscus Iudaicus, 7 interchange theology, 143, 148
foreknowledge, scriptural evidence of evil interpretatio Graeca, 19–​20
creator’s lack of, 4, 10, 72–​73, 93 Irenaeus
Fossum, Jarl E., 9–​10n33 on Christ as destroyer of the Law,
free will, 73 114n30, 116n43, 118, 134, 136n74
Furnish, Victor Paul, 91n4 on Christians accusing creator of
arrogance, 70n16
Gabriel (archangel), 15, 16, 31, 37 on despoliation of Egypt, 78n59
gems, Seth-​Yahweh depicted on, 31, 32 on divine cursing, 150
Gilhus, Ingvild Saelid, 24n39 donkey deity and, 11n40, 34n85
“god of this world” ( 2 Cor 4:4), Marcionite on dualism, 158n7
interpretation of, 65, 90–​108 on evil creator, 89
character of gods/​rulers of “this world,” on “god of this world,” 99, 100, 104, 106n72
102–​5 on jealousy of god, 75n37, 76n48
divine blinding and mental incapacitation, Johannine “father of the devil” and,
65, 89, 90, 92–​95, 97–​100, 104–​8 43–​44, 44, 51
dualistic or monotheistic reading of, on the Law until John, 132
98–​102 on Marcion and Marcionites, 57n5,
moral implications, 105–​7 60n19, 62n30, 94n17, 104n64, 118
patristic interpreters of, 97n33, 100 on Ophites, 108n80
as Satan, 95–​97 on outstretched arms of Moses as
“this world,” meaning of, 91–​92 foreshadowing of Christ, 85
god(s) on Ptolemy, 115
Christian criticism of, 63 on tree of knowledge forbidden to
classical conceptions of, 96, 101–​2 Adam and Eve, 71n19
philosophical belief in goodness of, 3–​4, ius talionis (law of retaliation), 80–​81,
61, 95, 143 115, 116
208 Index

Jacobson, Howard, 21n26 Johannine “father of the devil”

Jacoby, Adolf, 23n37 (John 8:44), 12, 40–​53
jealousy and anger of Yahweh, 4, 10, Archontics on, 12, 48, 48–​49, 51
60n20, 65, 74–​77 Jewish deity, identified with, 40, 43, 46,
Jenott, Lance, 4n7 47, 51, 52
Jesus Christ. See also crucifixion of Christ; Mani and Manichean Christians,
specific entries at destroyer of the Law, 12, 50–​51
Christ as Peratai and, 12, 45–​46, 46, 51
in contemporary negative Severian Christians and, 12, 49, 51
demiurgy, 168 John the Baptist, 15, 16, 127, 131–​32
Marcion contrasting god of Jewish Judas, the devil identified with, 47n31
scripture with, 65, 80, 81, 83, 84, Justin Martyr
85–​86, 94, 105–​6 anti-​Marcionite polemic of, 146n28
snake/​serpent, symbolized by, 45 on curse of the creator, 141, 145–​47,
Jewish Law. See Law 148, 152–​53
Jewish scripture, Marcionite readings of,
63, 64–​65, 67–​89 Klinghardt, Matthias, 126n23, 127n29
child murder, evil creator committing, kosher laws, 122, 124
81–​83 Kugel, James L., 143n16
despoliation of Egypt, creator’s
command of, 78–​80 Law. See also specific entries at destroyer of
foreknowledge, evil creator’s lack of, the Law, Christ as
72–​73 as curse, 110, 120
in Marcion’s Antitheses, 77–​88 Pauline conception of, 109–​11, 120
tree of knowledge, 71–​74 lepers and leprosy, 22, 26, 65, 82, 128–​29
vanity and arrogance of evil creator, Lieu, Judith M., 60n20, 103n54, 118n52
69–​70 light, theology of, 98–​99
violence in war, 83–​88 Lindemann, Andreas, 90n3
Jews and Judaism Llewelyn, Stephen Robert, 40n2
crucifixion of Christ, blamed for, Longenecker, Richard N., 143n14
104n60 Lucanus, 59
early Christian critiques of/​ Lunberg, Hugo, 4n7
commitment to, 8–​9, 14, Lysimachus, 23n31
158–​61
Egyptian god Seth, Jewish deity MacRae, George, 99n41
interpreted as (Seth-​Yahweh), 17–​18, Manetho, 22
20, 23–​27, 38–​39 Mani and Manichean Christians, 12,
Egyptian religion critiqued by Jews as 50–​51, 78n59, 107n76, 130, 132n56,
worship of dumb beasts, 24 138n87, 151n59, 152–​55
Exodus story, Hellenization of, 20–​23 Manichean Confession, 90
goodness of creator in, 6 Marcion and Marcionites, 57–​156
Marcionite Evangelion, Jews accusing contemporary negative demiurgy and,
Jesus of destroying the Law in, 165–​68
124–​27 disciples of Marcion, 49, 59
Romans, Jewish wars with, 6–​8, dualists, viewed as, 61–​63, 98–​102
158–​59 on evil creator, 57–​58, 60, 62, 168–​69
traditions that Jews worshiped Yahweh life history and career of Marcion of
as golden donkey head, 24–​26 Pontus, 57–​58, 69, 160
 Index 209

philosophy and, 60–​61 Pate, C. Marvin, 110n5

redemption, concept of, 119–​21 Paul and Pauline writings. See also specific
scriptural canon of, 58–​59, 63, 166 Pauline epistles, in separate Index of
scriptural interpretation by, 63–​64 (see Ancient Sources
also curse of the creator; “god of cosmology of, 91
this world” (2 Cor 4:4), Marcionite demons and Satan-​figure in, 6
interpretation of; Jewish scripture, as dualist/​monotheist, 98–​102
Marcionite readings of; specific entries the Law and, 109–​11, 120
at destroyer of the Law, Christ as) Marcion/​Marcionites and, 58–​59,
spread of movement, 59–​60 90, 109–​11
teachings of, 58, 60 Pearson, Birger, 29–​30
Markschies, Christoph, 11n38 Peratai, 12, 45–​46, 46, 51, 52
Masada, 6–​7 Pétrement, Simone, 160–​61
Meeks, Wayne, 41n4 Phibionites, 11, 17, 33, 34, 34–​35, 38, 39,
mental incapacitation and blinding, divine, 159, 169
65, 89, 90, 92–​95, 97–​100, 104–​8 Philo
Michael (archangel), 31, 37 on divine cursing, 144, 150
Middle Platonism, 61 early Christian familiarity
Miles, Jack, God: A Biography, 157 with, 38
Milton, John, Paradise Lost, 158 on goodness of god, 61
Mnaseas, 24–​25 philosophy. See also specific philosophers
Moll, Sebastian, 63n40, 64n41, and philosophical schools
104n64, 119n56 goodness of creator and divine
monotheism, 9, 35n89, 69–​70, 100–​102 providence in, 3–​4, 61, 95, 143
Moreschini, Claudio, 101n48 on jealousy and anger, 74–​75
Mosaic Law. See Law Marcionite teachings and, 60–​61
Moses origins of evil creator idea and, 3–​4,
donkeys and, 24n38, 25n46, 5–​6
25n48, 26n52 pig, Egyptian deity Seth associated
outstretched arms of, as foreshadowing with, 18, 25
of Christ, 85–​86 Platonism
Moses, Robert Ewusie, 102n54 Celsus on, 158
good creator and divine providence in,
Nazirites, 130 3–​4, 61, 95, 146
Nephotes, 29 Marcion and, 61
Norelli, Enrico, 61n22 on unchangeability of god, 75
Plotinus, 4n8
Onocoetes, 27–​29, 32 Plotz, David, The Good Book, 165–​66
Onoel (Thaphabaoth/​Thartharaoth), Posidonius, 25
37, 38n104 Potitus, 59
Ophite Christians, 12, 31, 38, 43, Prepon, 59
108n80, 151 protest exegesis, 13
Ophite diagram, 11–​12, 37–​38, 39 Pyrrhonic (Skeptic) philosophy, 73, 77
organization of early Christians, 58
Osiris, 20 Räisänen, Heikki, 112n18
Raphael (archangel), 37n102
Paine, Thomas, The Age of Reason, 67 Rasimus, Tuomas, 12n41, 35n89,
Panaetius, 77n50 36n96
210 Index

reception history, 12–​14 Sermon on the Mount, 116n43,

redemption, Marcionite conception of, 126n23, 144
119–​21 serpent. See snake/​serpent
Reinhartz, Adele, 123n5 Seth (Egyptian deity), 18–​20, 19
retaliation, law of (ius talionis), 80–​81, Sethian Christians, 11, 12, 35n89, 38,
115, 116 58n6, 103n56, 162, 169
Robertson, R. G., 21n25 Seth-​Yahweh. See donkey deity
Robinson, Alexandra, 40n2 Severian Christians, 12, 49, 51
Robinson, Bernard P., 82n72 Severian of Gabala, 109, 119n55,
Romans, Jewish wars with, 6–​8, 123n3
158–​59 Shakespeare, William, A Midsummer
Roth, Dieter, 60n19, 126n21, 127n25, Night’s Dream, 15
127n29, 131n51 Shema, 101n48
Rufinus, 64n44 Simon of Samaria, 117n45
Skeptic (Pyrrhonic) philosophy, 73, 77
Sabaoth, 34–​35, 37, 49 Smith, Morton, 30n74
Sabbath, keeping/​violating, 65, 112, snake/​serpent
122–​23, 125–​26, 133–​36 Jesus symbolized by, 45
Sanders, E. P., 136 son of creator as, 45, 49
Satan tree of knowledge, serpent/​devil convincing
as “god of this world”, 95–​97 Adam and Eve to eat fruit of, 43–​44
Johannine “father of the devil” and, 43, Socrates, 95
47n31, 51 Sommer, Joseph C., 166–​67
in Pauline writings, 6 spells, Seth-​Yahweh in, 29–​30
as “power of god,” 153 “split” theory of deity. See dualism
Severians on women as work of, 49 Stephen, 125
Tertullian on devil as creator, 115n37 Stoics and Stoicism, 74n36
Schenke, Hans Martin, 11n40 Stylianopoulos, Theodore, 117n45
Schlatter, A., 130n46 sun, stopping of, 86
Schmid, Ulrich, 113n23, 140n2 Suriel (archangel), 31, 37
scriptures. See also Septuagint; separate Syneros, 59
Index of Ancient Sources
“Angel of Yahweh” in, 9–​10, 23n38 Tait, Michael, 116n43
Marcionite canon, 58–​59, 63, 166 Talbert, Charles H., 112–​13n21
Marcionite interpretation of, 63–​64 Tatian, 49
(see also “god of this world” (2 Cor Ten Commandments, 75, 79–​80, 113
4:4), Marcionite interpretation Tertullian
of; Jewish scripture, Marcionite on bleeding woman, 129
readings of) on curse of the creator, 144, 145n23,
Segal, Alan, 35n89, 96n26 145n26, 147
Seifrid, Mark A., 143n14 on evil creator, 108
self-​deification by evil creator in Jewish on ius talionis (law of retaliation), 80
scripture, 70 on Marcion and Marcionites, 62, 64,
Septuagint 88, 94n17, 99, 103, 111, 113n24,
Gentile Christian familiarity with, 126n21, 127
28, 160 on Marcion’s Antitheses, 77n52, 78n57
jealousy as negative attribute in, 75n37 on Satan, 96–​97
Manetho not dependent on, 22n28 on the world/​the ages, 91n7
 Index 211

on curse of the creator, 144, tree of knowledge

145n23, 145n26 creator forbidding Adam and Eve to eat
destroyer of the Law, Christ as, 109nn3–​4, fruit of, 4, 10, 71–​74, 93, 119, 150–​51
110n7, 111n10, 111n15, 113n22, 114, serpent/​devil convincing Adam and Eve
116–​18, 120n58, 122n1, 126n21, 127, to eat fruit of, 43–​44
128n32, 128n34, 129n35, 129n37, Tsutsui, Kenji, 64n44
130, 131n51, 132, 134–​38, 139n88 Typhon and Seth-​Typhon association, 20,
on devil as creator, 115n37 29–​31, 35, 36, 38n104, 67n2, 159
on dualism, 62nn31–​34, 63n39
“god of this world” in 2 Cor 4:4 Uriel (archangel), 31
and, 90n2, 91n7, 94n17, 95n22,
97n33, 97nn27–​28, 98n34, 99n43, Valentinians, 6n16, 159
100n45, 103nn57–​59, 104n60, Van den Broek, Roelof, 11n40
105n65, 108n80 vanity and arrogance of evil creator in
Jewish scripture, Marcionite Jewish scriptures, 69–​70
interpretation of, 64, 67n3, 68n9, Vermes, Mark, 50n43
70n13, 71n20, 73n26, 75nn40–​41,
76n46, 76nn48–​49, 77n52, 78n57, war, violence of evil creator in, 83–​88
78n59, 79n61, 79n64, 80n65, 81n68, Wassell, Blake Edward, 40n2
81n70, 83n75, 88n86 Welburn, A. J., 37n102
on Matthew, 127n25 Wells, Steve, The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, 166
on teachings of Marcion, 60n20 Williams, Michael A., 4n8, 162
Thaphabaoth/​Thartharaoth (Onoel), Wilson, S. G., 134
37, 38n104
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 119n55 Yaldabaoth, 34, 35n89, 36, 37, 38n104,
Theodoret of Cyrrhus 43–​44, 49, 52, 94, 108n80, 151n57
Commentary on Ephesians, 114n29
Letters, 59n13 zealousness and jealousy, 74, 76
Theophilus, Autolycus, 22n28 Zechariah (prophet), 16n5
theriomorphism, 35n89 Zechariah (father of John the Baptist),
Thiefe, Chris, 165 murder of, 15–​18
Thoth, 19 Zeus, 7, 20, 27, 157