In examining the Homily to Diognetus, delivered by Marcion of Sinope, we uncover a profound indifference toward Jewish practices that distinguishes it from contemporary Christian writings. This notable disregard highlights a crucial theological foundation within the Marcionite Church: the stark antithesis between the teachings of Christ and the religious practices of Judaism. Unlike early Christian apologists, who actively engaged in and debated Jewish practices, attempting to reconcile or refute their scriptural legitimacy, Marcion’s homily presents these practices not merely as superseded but as inherently irrelevant to the true message of Christ.
Where figures such as Barnabas asserted that Jewish misunderstanding of scripture (Barnabas 2:4) existed, and Justin rationalized Jewish rites as divinely sanctioned yet punitive measures for idolatry or hardness of heart (Dialogue 16, 18, 19), Marcion stands distinctly apart. He categorizes Jews alongside pagans, succinctly stating, “But those who think to perform sacrifices to Him with blood and fat and whole burnt offerings, and to honour Him with such honours, seem to me in no way different from those who show the same respect towards deaf images; For the one class think fit to make offerings to things unable to participate in the honour, the other class to One Who is in need of nothing.” (Diognetus 3:6-7). Here, Marcion starkly asserts that Jewish sacrifices and circumcision are, at their core, equally misguided as pagan idolatry, not merely outdated but fundamentally alien to the God revealed by Christ.
Indeed, Marcion’s homily diverges markedly from conventional second-century apologetics. He offers a direct, yet less polemically charged, critique of Judaism. Jewish sacrifices and rites, in his view, are irrational rather than blasphemous or dangerous. Marcion argues solely from reason, bypassing scriptural debates entirely (Diognetus 4:1–6). This approach reflects the Marcionite theological stance: the Hebrew Bible represents a flawed testament attributed to a false deity, altogether irrelevant to the Christian message.
An objection arises concerning Marcion’s occasional rhetorical mention of Jews in addressing a predominantly pagan audience. Why mention Judaism at all if it is dismissed outright as irrelevant? Such rhetorical inclusion, however, serves a clear Marcionite purpose. By occasionally referencing Judaism alongside paganism, Marcion underscores the equal distance between Christ’s revelation and all prior religious traditions. His brief prioritization of Jews in Diognetus 5:23 is likely rhetorical, emphasizing the universality of error—Jews persecuting Christians as foreigners, Greeks persecuting them as social dissidents. Ultimately, Judaism remains peripheral, an echo of a flawed past rather than a contemporary religious adversary.
The presence of Jewish references within a discourse primarily targeting pagans reflects the necessary context of Marcion’s audience and mission. Marcion, addressing pagans steeped in anti-Jewish sentiment prevalent among Greco-Roman authors like Tacitus and Cicero, naturally utilizes familiar cultural frames to distinguish Christianity. This rhetorical strategy affirms Christianity’s unique identity, entirely separate from Judaism and paganism alike.
Some may see Marcion’s silence on Hebrew Scripture as merely reflecting his pagan audience. However, Marcion’s approach is fundamentally different. His silence on Hebrew Scripture is intentional and theological, reflecting a profound conviction: the Hebrew Bible and its deity are alien to the God revealed by Christ. Thus, Judaism is not merely superseded; it is utterly alien.
Early Christian apologists generally focused on the Jewish scriptures to legitimize Christian identity. Barnabas, for instance, uses the Hebrew texts extensively, albeit giving them a different interpretation from the Jews. To its author, the Hebrew Bible does not belong to Jews, but to Christians (Barnabas 13; 14.1–4); thus, for him, ‘covenant people’ is a title exclusively reserved for the Christians.
The Preaching of Peter, likewise, exhibits a willingness to interact with Jews employing the Hebrew Bible to prove Jesus’s claims. For instance, it notes that Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection were all to be found in the prophets, and it emphasizes that Christians say nothing apart from the Hebraic scriptures (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.15, quoting from the Preaching of Peter). Prophetic fulfillment from the Hebrew Bible is a significant, if not central, aspect of this work. Furthermore, the Preaching of Peter cares enough about the Jews to call on them to repent, believe in Jesus, and be forgiven.
Justin, too, in his Dialogue with Trypho, quotes the Hebrew Bible extensively to prove that it spoke of Christ, that the true people of God are now the Christians, and that Jews do not want to understand their own scriptures. He, too, nonetheless, concludes with a call to Jews to believe in Jesus (Dialogue 142).
Marcion, on the other hand, is closer to Aristides in that both ignore the Hebrew Bible as far as actual citation is concerned, and neither uses the argument from prophecy. Aristides, however, does not completely disregard Jews. He admits that they are nearer to the truth than other groups, and that Jesus was Jewish. At this point, Marcion parts ways with Aristides, too. Despite speaking about Jesus and his mission at length, Marcion’s Homily to Diognetus fails to mention Jesus’s supposed Jewishness, or even that he came to the Jews first. Jesus is purely the revealed Son of God sent to us, the entire world. Christ appears to have descended from heaven unexpectedly, rather than as the fulfillment of prophecy. Such is Marcion’s lack of overt interaction with both Jewish Scriptures and Judaized Christian texts.
In view of its deliberate disengagement from Jewish scripture and ritual, another notable feature of the Homily to Diognetus emerges: its comparatively substantial interaction with pagan practices. This does not imply an accurate portrayal of pagan theology but rather indicates an intentional critique of the common perception of paganism—the worship of idols as sentient beings. Marcion explicitly asserts that idols are manmade, perishable, and devoid of actual existence. Consequently, the homily reasons that no rational person would engage in their worship. While certain pagan intellectuals might object to this simplistic depiction, the argument effectively targets popular pagan practices, thus revealing Marcion’s more direct and substantive critique of pagan worship compared to Judaism. Though this anti-pagan polemic might lack philosophical depth or comprehensive fairness, its presence and intensity are undeniable.
By contrast, the homily’s arguments against Jewish practices are notably subdued. Even when challenging Jewish pride in circumcision as a sign of election, Marcion offers no theological elaboration beyond a straightforward dismissal, characterizing circumcision merely as ‘the mutilation of the flesh’ (Diognetus 4.4). Such reasoning aligns readily with general pagan sensibilities, yet constitutes no substantive engagement with Jewish religious practices. Marcion’s stance grows even more dismissive when addressing other Jewish observances, such as the Sabbath, feasts, and sacrifices, unequivocally rejecting them without detailed argumentation.
In summary, Marcion’s pronounced avoidance of Hebrew scripture-based argumentation, its minimal engagement with Judaism, and its comparatively direct interaction with paganism collectively indicate an evolved distinction between Christians and Jews at the time of its composition. The homily’s cold indifference toward Judaism implies that, for Marcion, Jewish opposition had become largely irrelevant—a distant memory rather than a contemporary concern.
Moreover, contrary to claims suggesting Marcion appropriated pagan anti-Jewish rhetoric to curry favor among pagans, his critique remains distinctively Christian, albeit uniquely Marcionite. His criticisms lack the inflammatory pagan accusations common to his time—accusations of Jewish social deviance or greed. Instead, Marcion’s rhetoric is comparatively mild, though resolutely firm in emphasizing Judaism’s theological irrelevance.
In conclusion, Marcion’s distant engagement with Jewish practices in the Homily to Diognetus is neither accidental nor merely strategic. It represents a foundational Marcionite principle: Judaism and its practices are vestiges of a flawed understanding of religion. They belong to a realm entirely alien to the true revelation of Christ, thereby meriting neither detailed scriptural refutation nor extensive polemical engagement. Judaism is, for Marcion, not a contemporary threat, but a relic—an obsolete shadow eclipsed entirely by the light of Christ.
