Is David Bentley Hart a Marcionite?

In this video I address some of the comments made by David Bentley Hart in response to Peter Leithart. This is based on comments Leithart made regarding his book: That All Shall be Saved. In Hart's response, statements were made regarding the Old Testament which have lead to charges of Marcionism. I address that here.

[taylorbarrett]

To be fair, he doesn't say there actually was an evil lower diety who created the world and who was known as Yahweh. He says the idea of Yahweh developed over time, and human conceptions of Him often made Him out to be evil. There is a very important difference between those two positions.

[koffeeblack]

I think much of Hart's view on the OT can be reconciled with his explicit statement that the God of OT is not other than the God of the NT. Hart never made what I'm about to say explicit, but I suspect he has the something like the following in mind: the prophetic tradition of the OT gradually developed until it was consummated by the Incarnation. This is not to suggest that YHWY underwent any sort of development or change. Our human understanding of God (our ability to receive revelation itself) within the prophetic tradition converged on a Truth that guided it along all the while. Providentially, the consummation of the prophetic tradition occurred at the juncture of Hellenic philosophy and Jewish Revelation. I don't think this can be plausibly construed as Marcionism, and the substance of what I propose is not antithetical to Hart's more tame statements on the subject.

[erichgroat]

An observation that might be helpful here: I believe it was in a recent interview with Jonathan Martin about DBH's recent book that DBH brought up Marcion with regard to the OT. (It is strangely difficult to locate the interview on Martin's site! I'll post if I find it.)


In a discussion of modern evangelical fundamentalism, DBH took Marcion as an early example of an almost successful attempt to read scripture "literally" in the modern fundamentalist sense. Hart claims Marcion is basically right that the OT, _thus read, _ presents a God who must be rejected as un-Christian. Marcion rejects _the God of that reading;_ DBH's (traditional, orthodox) allegorical reading rejects _that reading of God._


There is no comparison between these positions, really; they are qualitatively different. And the difference has little or nothing to do with the details of the development of Hebraic monotheism before Christ. You say here that DBH is making some claim to the effect "Oh, but the author [of some OT passage] is really intending something allegorical in [that OT passage], " but he has forcefully rejected this idea many times, and – again referring to the Fathers – made it clear that authors' "intentions" have traditionally been considered of little interest for the reading of scripture (or much else). Hart is as far from Marcionism as can be.

[hexahexametermeter]

One odd thing is, for someone who quotes Origen so much (Hart), Origen was the first prominently making a case that the Old and New Testaments were of the same God.

[ByzantineCalvinist]

Sounds like you're talking about a "Martian night." ;-)
Several years ago I picked up a copy of Hart's beautifully illustrated The Story of Christianity. While the visuals are lovely indeed, I found the text so irritating that I gave it away shortly thereafter.

[mikebaker]

Maybe I am being pedantic, but Hart's position is not that of Marcion of Sinope. Hart is wrong and his dismissal of the Old Testamemt is a grave error. Marcion also made that mistake... but don't the similarities end there? Aren't we letting Marcion's manifold errors of the hook by equating him and Hart?

We don't do historical context or precise language any favors by using very particular historical terms with very particular meanings to criticize modern positions that have only passing resemblance to the facts of the rhetorical accusation.

Where is Marcion's Docetic Christology in Hart?
Where is the divine demiurge and the monad?
Has Hart denied the Pastoral Epistles?
Has he redacted the Gospel of Luke?
Does Hart argue the Marcion position that the OT god is just?
Does Hart posit that the OT god created the material world and the NT god did not?
Where is the denial of the final resurrection of the body?

All of the above and more are Marcion's heresies.

I'm not defending Hart. I'm saying he can be critiqued and his opinions defeated without twisting historical terms to the point that they barely mean the same thing. Such a weak argument is only compelling to people who are already predisposed to agree with you... and adding inprecise labeling to a stronger argument does not improve its credibility.

One last time: Hart may not be a Marcionite, but he is dangerously wrong about the OT and his tone in itself requires repentance.

[MrHwaynefair]

Hart's riposte is more subtle than you give him credit for (due to your own "literalist" disposition?). In his "reply" He disavows Marcion *because* of his literalism:

"The only ancient Christian figure whom we can reliably say to have read the Bible in the manner of modern fundamentalists was Marcion of Sinope. He exhibited far greater insight than modern fundamentalists, however, in that he recognized that the god described in the Hebrew Bible—if taken in the mythic terms provided there—is something of a monster and hence obviously not the Christian God. Happily, his literalism was an aberration."

C.S. Lewis takes a somewhat similar approach (though far milder and more congenial) in "Reflections On The Psalms" - when it comes to the dashing of babies heads...

Do not let hand-waving, "categorize then dismiss" responses distract you from the very real issues that Hart is forcing us to face - be it ever so aggressively...

[bayreuth]

No; he is not a Marcionite. He accepts the OT as part of the canon of Christian scripture. But as an Eastern Orthodox theologian he reads the OT allegorically.

[markbrown]

Would you agree that Hart quotes Gregory of Nyssa more than Origen?

[toomanymarys]

There are lots and lots of historical things that would be wildly inappropriate for the second temple period that make perfect contextual, historical sense for when the texts were actually written, too. There are glosses (mostly geographical) that date from the 1200s to the 500s or so that have been incorporated into the text, but the underlying text is impossibly historical for being written in the second temple period. Even something like the first appearance of chariots being called out as IRON chariots--if this was written in the second temple period, that would be like saying "a horseless carriage" in 2020, but it's perfectly correct for the time. The people of the second temple would not have known that, because historiography just wasn't very good then!!!!

[kyledefranco]

Douglas Rushkoff is a Jewish author who has described the Hebrew bible in the same way... as showing the evolution of God from polytheism to monotheism.

[pamarks]

You really seem to misunderstand Hart here. You should seriously look at the recent "Tradition and Apocalypse." Hart has a very different view of how the text is inspired and how it functions. It is more organic and hard to describe. He believes the Spirit was working through the writing of these texts, and then their later organization, redaction, and anthologizing. At 20:40 you say he denies this. But this isn't the case.

You keep insisting that Hart is saying "The Old Testament says x." But Hart's entire point is that the "Old Testament" as a collected anthology is NOT the same as the individual works of the Old Testament. The individual works often DO portray incomplete and even immoral views of God. But when taken together, and read in the new light of the whole, and especially of Christ, they say something that the individual parts (and their original authors) do not.

I understand that this is complex. It's hard on my brain, too. He clarifies a lot in the book I mentioned. But Hart constantly comes off aggressive and pretentious because people online, and within our Churches, are comfortable calling him a heretic or Marcionite without REALLY putting in the work to understand him. You even say he is not a Christian thinker. What? Come on. Frankly, he is right to be condescending to others who interpret him like this. I am a philosopher, not a theologian, not a biblical historian, and even I could decipher Hart with only one read through. Why? Because I have put in the time to read broadly, carefully, and not primarily read post-reformation works. With my tiny bit of Greek I can do this. There is no excuse other than engaging with him flippantly.

And, yes, scripture is not the prime authority for Hart... just like its not the prime authority for the Eastern Orthodox. It is the Spirit of Christ that is the prime authority, and the Apostles and Scriptures are authoritative parasitically. There you go. Easy. This is in St Philaret's and Peter Mogila's catechisms.

[meowmeowsaymeowmeow]

An Episcopal priest recommended That All May Be Saved to me, and I didn't like it... Absolutely YIKES that this guy would say this.

[bayreuth]

Of course he dislikes Calvinism: it is an early modern deformation of the Christian faith which has probably been partially responsible for the secularisation of those countries that once embraced it (to varying extents).

[danielskillman]

That moment when an infernalist refers to someone who has theologically emptied hell as "inflammatory"....

[gillfleming]

I have a lot of respect for DBH and also for Peter Leithart. Both are original thinkers and of course great theologians. It’s very odd that DBH should have verbally attacked PL in this way as they seemed to get along well at First Things. I can’t help but wonder whether DBH has been affected by the Lyme disease with which he’s been living for a few years now which unfortunately can cause aggression. Very sad if true - but of course there’s no way of knowing unless DBH himself brings up the subject. Very sad if true.

[Kuudere-Kun]

My annoyance is how particularly these Greek Orthodox Universalists only help reinforce a stereotype that you have to reject Literlaist to teach Unviersal Salvation. In the Early Church the Antiochian School why Hyper Literlalists more so then any modern Fundamentalist, and Theodore of Mopsuesta taught Universal Salvation unambiguously.

Man, ---- who ARE you, and where you been all my life! on!

[SibleySteve]

My church denomination educational materials and programs all sound like DB Hart, a very low view of the Hebrew, and THE LORD, and as a fan of the Bible and continuity of biblical theology and coherence of its design, it drives me absolutely crazy. I am praying for permission to find a church that respects the Bible, but I don’t want to surrender to my instincts to run away without testing. Advice welcome. If I thought that the orthodox fathers were proto-critical as if they all studied vonHarnack then I could see a point, but we know the fathers had a high view because Jerome went so far as to learn Hebrew and collect scrolls as if the LXX wasn’t enough to go on. Harts low view of Augustine and Hebrew is typical of so many. I first heard this anti-YWHW stuff in my TEC confirmation class 2 years ago. I am a trained exegete so I dismissed it as silly modernism. But I think I joined the wrong group in my zeal for liturgy.

[toomanymarys]

Hart gets away with lying about the Patristics because most people are too lazy to read them and are happy to follow him to hell as long as he makes them feel smug and warm and fuzzy. He will take a few quotes out of context and then mix into it his liberal "mythology" reading of the OT and then hammers everything in a shape that suits his own vanity.

If you are an educated person who reads the Patristic writings just as they are, you would never, in a thousand years, come to his conclusions.

I am reminded of any number of NT verses, warning against myths devised by men and scripture twisted to the destruction of the listeners.

For those who are not educated, let me explain something simple. The Fathers believed that the OT was history and the God of the OT was their God. They ALSO believed that Hebrews is correct to use a type and shadow hermeneutic. So they spoke of real things that happened that prefigured later things (and so on). The "four readings" tradition was an extension of this. None of that tradition denied a literal reading or denied that the God of Abraham was the triune God they worshipped.

When modern emergent churches get horrible hermeneutics, it's almost all because they inappropriately allegorize, say, David and Goliath into an absurd sermon about Slaying Your Giants Today!!!! Allegorical interpretations must be done only with care, because they can be abused the most easily. (The supposed allegory of the perpetual virginity of Mary is an example of the misuse of this method by the RCC.)

I don't disagree that it's possible to over-literalize things that aren't literal, such as turning "my sheep hear my voice" into "if you are not getting prophecy from God you're not a Christian", but that's not that common, and it's never, in my experience, a so-called fundamentalist church that distorts DOCTRINE in that way.