Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-24-2011, 10:02 AM

DCH

I think you raised the question of the Marcionite use or preference for Hebrew in this thread (I am stopped at a red light). Ephrem does make reference to this. I forget where it is offhand (probably the Commentary on the Diatessaron). But he rejects the Marcionite interpretation of the OT because it is based on the Hebrew recension rather than the LXX which at least shows they could read Hebrew

DCHindley · 10-24-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

DCH

I think you raised the question of the Marcionite use or preference for Hebrew in this thread (I am stopped at a red light). Ephrem does make reference to this. I forget where it is offhand (probably the Commentary on the Diatessaron). But he rejects the Marcionite interpretation of the OT because it is based on the Hebrew recension rather than the LXX which at least shows they could read Hebrew

Well, if the light turns green see if you can find it and post a reference and/or hyperlink to it. I've been Googling "Marcion" with "read hebrew" and variants, and all I get are web pages that tell me that Justin didn't, Tertullian didn't.

Sleep calls me ... must attend a meeting in Columbus tomorrow and its a 3 hr drive from here near the center of the world.

DCH

stephan huller · 10-24-2011, 10:27 PM

The Commentary on the Diatessaron isn't online. I will look it up later this week. I've been really slammed at work lately. I think I even posted it at my blog a year ago or so. I will look it up.

Adam · 11-12-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Marcion's gospel was a substratum of Luke. Canonical Luke is a redacted verion of Marcion's gospel. Whatever the actual percentages, a major portion of the Lukan Sondergut can be viewed as anti-Marcionite material. This includes the nativity and the anti-docetic resurrection appearances. The Sondergut also tends to make Jesus appear more Jewish. (John Knox). The best explanation to me is that most of the Sondergut was added last. In other words, the ecclesiastical redactor added anti-Marcionite material to Marcion's gospel. Hence, Marcion’s gospel was more original than the catholic/canonical version.

It is possible that Marcion's gospel was a source for both canonical Luke and canonical Matthew. Matthias Klinghardt has suggested this solution to the synoptic problem with Marcion's gospel at an early stage (and no Q!). “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic: A New Suggestion,” NovT 50 (2008): 1-27. This solves quite a few of the synoptic problems that plague both the Two Document Hypothesis and the Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre alternative.
I asked Dr. Mark Goodacre if he was familiar with Klinghardt's work, and he replied that he was, and "found it stimulating even if ... not yet persuaded by it. "

Probably no simplified solution to the synoptic problem can be more than an approximation. It may be that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke and canonical Matthew. This was Lachman’s observation so many years ago, and the so called “Lachmann Fallacy” is itself a misunderstanding by those (B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer, Matthew priortists et. al.) who thoroughly misinterpreted Lachmann’s work.

A recent trend is to return to the later dates for the New Testament texts already established by 19th century rationalism. Richard Pervo has demonstrated a strong case that Acts is a second century composition. Joseph Tyson has presented a plausible case that Luke/Acts were composed in response to Marcion, with canonical Luke being a redaction of Marcion's gospel. Indeed, no one had ever mentioned a gospel attributed to Luke before Irenaeus about 180 CE.

We may have a hint of this when Tertillian accused Marcion of omitting "M" material from his gospel! If Klinghardt is correct, the need for an unknown "Q" document (and all the hypothetical communities created to write it) disappear.

Best Regards,
Jake

Today I read on the computer at my local (UC Davis) library a most thorough refutation of recent misuse of 1850's Rationalist investigations of Marcion's use of Luke. Dieter T. Roth traced the problem back to John Knox's JBL article in 1939 and subsequent 1942 book. F. T. Baur and Ritschl stated in 1846 that gLuke incorporated Marcion's gospel. However, in 1850 Hilgenfeld and Volckmar showed that Marcion did not influence gLuke. Ritschl came around to the new view, but Baur did not. Presumably by 1852 a compromise view prevailed, but not including Baur. By not having cited (or never reading) the 1852 article by Volckmar, John Knox mistakenly took Baur's lone view as the resolution.
More recently Tyson and Klinghardt have taken more extreme positions rejecting the traditional view of gLuke. Roth had carefully read all the relevant (and some irrelevant) papers from the 1840's and 1850's and everything stimulated by John Knox. As a result he is scornful of both Tyson and Klinghardt. No one should base any conclusions based on Knox, Tyson, or Klinghardt without reading Roth's article.
•Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate,” The Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 513–27.

Toto · 11-13-2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

....
•Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate,” The Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 513–27.

That entire issue of the JBL is available at http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1273.pdf (> 6 MB )

That article is also available here on findarticles.

Roth's review of Tyson is here

andrewcriddle · 11-13-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

....
•Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate,” The Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 513–27.

That entire issue of the JBL is available at http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1273.pdf (> 6 MB )

That article is also available here on findarticles.

Roth's review of Tyson is here

Thanks Toto and Adam.

very interesting.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 11-13-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The more I study this, the more I realize that much of these reconstructed "original" versions of Marcion's version of Galatians is pure speculation based on what critics think Marcion would have said.

My delicate sensibilities would force me to put together a table in which the verses that are indisputably attested in Marcion's text are colored Green, those that are indisputably attested to be omitted marked in Red, and the rest of the received text marked Yellow. It is the yellow text that seems to be included by this critic or excluded by that critic (often on the basis that it seems awkward to the critic or an obvious gloss according to many other text critics).

I was distracted by Skip, who was whispering in my ear that from over my shoulder he could see I have unsightly neck hair, forcing me to get a haircut.

Well, my delicate sensibilities won out and I spent many an hour yesterday evening and early this morning conjuring up a short list of passages which we have any certainty were included, or excluded, from Marcion's version of Galatians, based on the complaints of the proto-orthodox.

Here they are, chapter by chapter, for your hungry eyes to behold. I will boldly assert that these are the ONLY things that we can pretend to know about his version of Galatians, as I have edited out any passages that are included in the Marcionite versions of Mahar or von Manen, that do not have direct support from an early writer.

Marcionite Galatians per Mahar	Source for

1:1 Paul an apostle,	Gal.1:1 (Tert.,AM V.1) : apostolum
1:1 not of men nor through man, T	Gal.1:1 (Tert.,AM V.1) : … non ab hominibus nec [ or, neque ] per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum.
1:1 but through Jesus Christ, T	Gal.1:1 (Tert.,AM V.1) : sed per Iesum Christum.
1:1 who awakened himself from the dead; 2 (Hier.)	Gal.1:1b >kai qeou patros< Origen (by Hieronymus , Commentary to Galatians): “...in Marcion’s Apostolikon “and by God the Father” (et per Deum patrem) is not written, in order to expound, that Christ was not by God the Father, but of his own self awakened ( semetipsum suscitatum )”.
1:6 I marvel that you are so quickly transferred T	Gal.1:6 (Tert, AM V.2): miror quod tam cito transferri ab eo,
1:6 from Him Who called you in His goodness T	Gal.1:6 (Tert, AM V.2): qui vos vocavit in gratiam,
1:6 unto a different gospel: T	Gal.1:6 (Tert, AM V.2): ad aliud evangelium.
1:7 Which is not entirely another T/A	Gal.1:7a (Tert, AM V.2): quod aliud omnio non est.; (Meg.)Dial.I.6.11-13: ¨ouk estin allo; Rufin: quod non est aliud . \| Manen: ¦ allws pantws § = o ouc estin.; SyP
1:7 according to my gospel ; A/O/Chrys.	Gal 1:7b (Meg.) Dial.I.6.11-13: ouk estin allo kata to euaggelion mou... ; Origen, ( Comm. in John, V.): “ ...[When] the Apostle says: "According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;" he does not speak of Gospels in the plural...”; ( Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Galatians, in his discussion of Gal.1:7 ):“[ the marcionites’] explanation of the words, "according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," is sufficiently ridiculous...”.
1:7 but there are some who trouble you A	Gal 1:7c (Meg.) Dial.I.6.11-13: ( ouk estin allo kata to euaggelion mou ) ei mh tineV eisin oi tarassonteV umaV
1:7 and would change (you) A Ephr.	Gal 1:7c (Meg.) Dial.I.6.11-13: kai qelontes metastreyai \|cf. Ephr(molitor) (Der Paulustext, p.72): qelontes metastreyai umas [who would change you.." , and n.12 : + umaz =SyP gg arm .
1:7 unto a different gospel of Christ. A	Gal 1:7c (Meg.) Dial.I.6.11-13: eis eteron euaggelion tou Kristou
1:8 But even if an angel out of heaven T	Gal.1:8 (Tert., AM V.2), twice: (a) licet angelus de caelo (variant repeated in Tert. against Apelles, ch. 7, On the Flesh of Christ ); (b) sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo
1:8 should announce another gospel [to you], T	Gal.1:8 (Tert., AM V.2), (a) aliter evangelizauerit,
1:8 let him be accursed! T	Gal.1:8 (Tert., AM V.2), (a) anathema sit.
1:9 As I said before, so I say now again,	Gal 1:9? (Meg.) Dial.I.6.7/8 (Rufin) ... secundum euangelium meum...Et iterum dicit ["and a second time (or, again?) he says" ] Rufin.'s testimony may indicate 1:9, if iterum actually meant "a second time" -but if "again", then 1:8 might have been intended
1:9 If any one announces another gospel to you A(Rufin.)	Gal 1:9? (Meg.) Dial.I.6.7/8 (Rufin) ... Si uobis quis aliter euangelizauerit,
1:9 let him be accursed. A(Rufin.)	Gal 1:9? (Meg.) Dial.I.6.7/8 (Rufin) ... anathema sit.
1:15 But when was well-pleased, A	Gal 1:15 (Ad.)Dial.IV.15.25/26: ote de eudokhsen
1:15 the (Supreme) God A.	Gal 1:15 (Ad.)Dial.IV.15.25/26: o qeos
1:15 having selected me A	Gal 1:15 (Ad.)Dial.IV.15.25/26: o aforisas me
1:15 from my mother's womb, A	Gal 1:15 (Ad.)Dial.IV.15.25/26: ec koilias mhtros mou.
1:16 immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood. Hier.	Gal.1:16 Harnack (Beilage III, p 69-70): “According to Hieronymus, Comm.in Gal., has “the most part” [plerique] and also Porphyrius, of the words, (ou prosaneqemhn) sarki kai aimati [ "(I conferred not) with flesh and blood”].

DCHindley · 11-13-2011, 10:37 AM

2:1 I went up to Jerusalem; T	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) But with regard to Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that : (2:1) ascendisse Hierosolyma
2:1 After fourteen years T	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) post annos quattuordecim
2:2 and I set before them T	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) (2:2) conferret cum illis
2:2 the canon of the gospel T	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) (2:2) de evangelii sui regula,
2:2 (fearing) that for nothing (T)	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) (2:2) ne in vacuum
2:2 I should go or had gone (T)	Gal.2:1-2 (Tert., AM V.3) (2:2) annis cucurrisset aut curret...”.
2:3 But not even Titus, T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (3a) sed nec Titus,
2:3 who was with me, T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (3b) qui mecum erat,
2:3 being a Greek, T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (3c) cum esset Graecus,
2:3 was compelled to be circumcised: T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (3d) coactus est circumcidi),
2:4 But because of those who crept in T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (4a) Ergo propter falsos, in superinducticios fratres,
2:4 to spy out this liberty of ours T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (4b) qui subintrauerant speculandam libertatem nostram,
2:4 which we enjoy in Christ, T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (4c) quam habemus in Christo.
2:4 so that they might enslave us - T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (4d) ut nos in subigerent seruituti,
2:5 To these not even for an hour T	Gal.2:3-5 (Tert., V.3): (5) nec ad horam cessimus subiectioni.
2:9d Gave to [me] the right hands of fellowship, T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):...quod et dexteras Paulo dederunt
2:9b Peter and James and John, T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):...Petrus et Iacobus et Iohannes Order & name Peter attested in Hieronymous/Ambrosiaster/Victorinus and some Greek texts (D,G)
2:9c who seemed to be pillars, T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):..et de officii distributione pepigerunt,
2:9e that [I] should go unto the Gentiles, T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):...ut Paulus in nationes
2:9f and they unto the circumcision: T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):...illi in circumcisionem,
2:10 Only that he should be mindful of the poor T	Gal.2:9b-10 (Tert. AM, V.3):...tantum ut meminissent egenorum.
2:11 I confronted Peter to the face, [for he was acting contrary to the good news] T	Gal.2:11-12,14 (Tert., AM V.3): (2:11) Sed reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem ad evangelii.
2:11 because he was to be blamed. (T)	Gal.2:11-12,14 (Tert., AM V.3): (2:11) Plain reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam uictus,
2:12 being afraid of those of the circumcision. T	Gal.2:11-12,14 (Tert., AM V.3): (2:12) quem pro personarum qualitate variabat, “timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione”…
2:14 When I saw they walked not honestly T	Gal.2:11-12,14 (Tert., AM V.3): (2:14) ...de qua et aliis in faciem restitus .
2:16 Not by the works of the law, is a man justified but by the faith. T	Gal.2:16 (Tert., AM V.3): negan ex operibus legis iustificari hominem sed ex fide.
2:18 Because if I build again those things T	Gal.2:18 (Tert., AM V.3): merito non reaedificabat
2:18 which I overthrew, T	Gal.2:18 (Tert., AM V.3): quae destruxit.
2:20 That life which I now live in the flesh A	Gal 2:20 (Ad.) Dial.V.22.13-15 : Rufinus: Quod autem nunc uiuo in carne ... Gk.: o de nun zw en sarki
2:20 I live by the faith of the Son of God, A	Gal 2:20 (Ad.) Dial.V.22.13-15 : Rufinus: in fide uiuo Filii Dei, Gk.: en pistei zw th tou uiou tou qeou
2:20 who ransomed himself for me. A	Gal 2:20 (Ad.) Dial.V.22.13-15 : Rufinus: qui redemit me. But the Gk.: tou agaphsantoV me . (...who loved me).

DCHindley · 11-13-2011, 10:39 AM

3:1 O senseless Galatians - (T)	Gal.3:1a (Tert.,Prescript.Haer.27 )- O insensati Galatae,
3:1 who bewitched you ? (T)	Gal.3:1a (Tert.,Prescript.Haer.27 )- quis vos fascinavit?
3:1 Jesus Christ was long portrayed as crucified (Hier.)	Gal.3:1b Hieronymus (Origien) VII, 4.18 (Zahn, Geschichte, p499): “to proegrafe which he covers on the prediction of the OT" : Interrogemus ergo hoc loco Marcionem, qui prophetas repudiat, quomodo interpretetur id quod sequitur ( "Thus we may question this place with Marcion, who repudiated the prophets, how he interpreted it as far as this") - namely, 3:1”. proegrafe =“openly-portayed”, or “set-forth” -- construed by both Zahn and Harnack as attesting to at least the presence of this passage in Marcion's text ( cf. Harnack, Marcion, p.*72).
(3:6 - 3:9) Omitted (Hier)	Gal.3:6-9 omitted! Hieronymus (Origen) "From this place (Gal.3:6) up till this, where it is written "they who are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham", Marcion has erased from his Apostle".
10+12 Learn that the righteous by faith shall live. E/T	Gal 3:10 (Epiphanius, Adv.Haer.42): Maqete dioti dikaios ek pistews zhsetai ... ; (Tert, AM V.3) : quia iustus ex fide vivit.?; Gal. 3:12 (Epip., Adv.Haer.42): o de poihsas auta zhsetai en autois.
3:10 All those under the Law are under a curse; E	Gal 3:10 (Epiphanius, Adv.Haer.42):... osoi gar upo nomon, upo kataran eisin ;
3:10 and the one doing those things lives in them. E	Gal 3:10 (Tert, AM V.3) : quia iustus ex fide vivit.?
3:13 The Christ ransomed us A/(Hier.)	Gal 3:13a (Meg.) Dial.I.27.12 : Kristos hmas exhgorase ; (Rufin.): Christus nos redemit.; Hieron. (Harnack, Beil.III, p73): “In this place Marcion concerning the power of the [cruel] creator...claimed we were ransomed by Christ (nos redemptos esse per Christum), who was the son of the other, good God.
3:13 Being made a curse for us; (T)	25 Gal.3:13b, Tert.(AM V.3): cur autem Christus factus sit pro nobis maledictio...
3:13 "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree". T/E	Gal.3:13c(Tert., AM V.3): maledictus omnis ligno suspensus. (Epip.,Adv.Haer. 42): Epikataratos pas o kremamenos epi xulou.
3:14 14b We receive therefore the blessing of the Spirit through faith, T	Gal.3:14b (Tert., AM V.3): accipiamus igitur benedictionem spiritalem per fidem.
3:26 For all, you are sons by the faith. T	Gal.3:26b (Ter., AM V.3): omnes enim filii estis fidei (“sons of faith”). But Harnack (Beil.III, p.51-52, 73) proposes that Tert.’s reading filii [fi]dei is a common Latin dittographie, which should read filii dei (“sons of God”).
3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Eznik?)	Gal. 3:28 (Eznik, De Deo s.413.288): But, it is by reason of a greatest love of God, that of the good creatures of God they [Marcionites] renounce; so that, to become equal to the Angels of God, where there is neither male nor female, they show, likewise on earth, this same perfection...

DCHindley · 11-13-2011, 10:41 AM

Gal 3:15 As a man I say, T	Gal.3:15 (Tert.,AM V.4): secundum hominem dico:
4:3 when we were barely-born, T	Gal.4:3 (Tert.,AM V.4): dum essemus parvuli,
4:3 we were enslaved T	Gal.4:3 (Tert.,AM V.4): sub elementis mundi eramus
4:3 under the elements of the cosmos. T	Gal.4:3 (Tert.,AM V.4): positi ad deseruiendum eis.
4:4 But when the fulness of the time came, T	Gal.4:4 (Tert, AM V.4): cum autem evenit impleri tempus,
4:4 God sent forth his Son, T/(Hier.)	Gal.4:4 (Tert, AM V.4): misit Deus Filium suum. Missing : “made of a woman”, according to Hieron., Gal 4:4 (p431, Zahn) : Diligenter adtendite, quod non dixit “factum per mulierem”, quod Marcion et ceterae haereses volunt, qui putativam Christi carnem simulant, sed “ex muliere” ut non per illam, sed ex illa natus esse credatur.
4:5 That he might purchase those under law, T	Gal.4:5a (Tert., AM V.4): ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret.
4:5 and that we may receive adoption. (A)	Gal.4:5b (Eph.1:5?) Dial.II.19.21 (Markus): oti eij uioqesian elhfqhmen, to adoption we were called.
4:6 God sent forth the Spirit of his Son T	Gal.4:6 (Tert., AM V.4): misit spiritum suum
4:6 into your hearts, crying, T	Gal.4:6 (Tert., AM V.4): in corda nostra clamantem:
4:6 "Abba, Father". T	Gal.4:6 (Tert., AM V.4): Abba Pater.
4:8 How is it then, when ye knew not God, (T)	Gal.4:8-10 (Tert. AM V.4): (8) si ergo his,
4:8 you served those which are nature- gods, T	Gal.4:8-10 (Tert. AM V.4): (8) qui in natura sunt dei, servitis…
4:9 to the weak and beggarly elements, T	Gal.4:8-10 (Tert. AM V.4): (9b) ad infirma et mendica elementa...
4:10 Ye observe days and months and times and years. T	Gal.4:8-10 (Tert. AM V.4): (10) dies observatis et menses et tempora et annos. ( An allusion to Genesis 1:14 ?). Gal.4:10b? (Tert., AM V.4):"...et sabbati ut opinor et coenas puras et ieiunia et dies magnos"; as proposed by van Manen ( "Marcions Brief van Paulus ann de Galatiers", Theologisch.tijdschrift , vol.21, p.531 ).
4:19 My children, (T)	Gal 4:19 (Tert. AM V.8): filii mei,
4:19 of whom I travail in birth again (T)	Gal 4:19 (Tert. AM V.8): quos parturio rursus .
4: 22 For Abraham had two sons, T	Gal:4:22-23 (Tert.V.4), “the last mention of Abraham's name he left untouched” : ( 22) si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit,
4:22 the one by a slave-maid, the other by a free-woman. T	Gal:4:22-23 (Tert.V.4), (22) unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera,
4:23 But he who was of the slave-woman was born after the flesh; T	Gal:4:22-23 (Tert.V.4), ( 23) sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est,
4:23 but he of the free-woman was by promise. T/E	Gal:4:22-23 (Tert.V.4), qui vero ex libera per repromissionem (Epiph.): o de ek ths epaggelias, dia ths eleuqerias.
4:24 This is allegorized: T/(Hier.)	Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): quae sunt allegorica ; Hieronymus, VII.473 (Zahn, p.502): “Here Marcion and Manichaeus, where the apostle said “which is allegorical” (quae sunt allegorica) and the rest which follows, hesitate not to remove from their codices, thinking the opposite we bequeath, that it is obviously the law which is understood, what is written”.
4:24 these are two covenants (revelations), T	Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): haec sunt enim duo testamenta (siue ‘duae ostensiones’. sicut inuenimus interpretatum).
4:24 indeed the one from Mount Sinai T	Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): unum a monte Sina
4:24 +is the synagogue of the Jews, T	Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): in synagogam Iudaeorum
4:24 giving birth, into slavery; T	Gal.4:24-25 (Tert., V.4): secundum generans in servitutem. Hieronymus, VII.473 (Zahn, p.502): “Here Marcion and Manichaeus, where the apostle said “which is allegorical” (quae sunt allegorica) and the rest which follows, hesitate not to remove from their codices, thinking the opposite we bequeath, that it is obviously the law which is understood, what is written”. i.e., they omitted a reference to the written Law of Moses
4:25 ?? (Ephr.)	4:25 Ephraem (Comm.in Epistolas d. Paul, p.135): Hoe vero fuerunt symbola duorum testamentorum. Una populi Judaeorum secundeum legem in servitute generans ad similitudinem ejusdem Agar. Agar enim ipsa mons Sinai in Arabia; est autem illa similitudo hujas Jerusalem, quia in subjectione est, et una cum filiis suis servit Romanis.
4:26 The other gives birth into freedom, (Ephr.)	Gal.4:26 Ephraem (Comm.in Epistolas d. Paul, p.135): Superior autem Jerusalem libera est, sicut Sara ;
[Eph. 1:21] Above every Principality, Power, Dominion, of every name that is named, not only in this destiny, but also in that which is to come T	Eph.1:21 (Tert.V.4): alium super omnem principatum generans uim dominationem et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aeuo sed et in futuro, The insertion of Eph.1:21 at this place is also also attested with Ephraem (Comm.in Epistolas d. Paul, p.135): ...Sara ; et eminet supra omnes potestates ac principatus. Ipsa est Mater nostra, Ecclesia sancta, quam confessi sumus.
4:26 -the holy assembly promised to us, which is our “mother”. T	Gal.4:26 (Tert.V.4): in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam, quae est mater nostra. Ephraem (Comm.in Epistolas d. Paul, p.135): Ipsa est Mater nostra, Ecclesia sancta, quam confessi sumus.
4:31 We are not children of the slave-woman, but of the free. T	Gal.4:31 (Tert.V.4): “by reason of which he adds in conclusion”: fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2011, 10:02 AM	#101
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	DCH I think you raised the question of the Marcionite use or preference for Hebrew in this thread (I am stopped at a red light). Ephrem does make reference to this. I forget where it is offhand (probably the Commentary on the Diatessaron). But he rejects the Marcionite interpretation of the OT because it is based on the Hebrew recension rather than the LXX which at least shows they could read Hebrew

10-24-2011, 10:27 PM	#103
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The Commentary on the Diatessaron isn't online. I will look it up later this week. I've been really slammed at work lately. I think I even posted it at my blog a year ago or so. I will look it up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.