Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-25-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

.....All of these changes took place during a 60 year or so period when relatively few men (probably less than a dozen) had nearly complete control over the material due to copyright laws. We may well imagine that the letters of Paul and the gospels underwent similar or more diverse and sharp changes during the second century when no copyright laws existed and anybody who bought a copy of the text could change it at will.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

So essentially, based on your analogy, the Pauline writings as found today are FROM a totally different time period than was intended and are all NOT authentic.

The Pauline writings as found today are the products of MANIPULATORS and reflect a time period AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

stephan huller · 09-25-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Vorkosigan wrote: So you're saying that Gospel to the Egyptians was Clement's name for the Gospel that Paul wrote? This was the proto-Mark that Marcion brought with him?

If I could prove that I would think that I was a very lucky man. I think Clement thought that clearly. I think I would settle for proving that Clement's Epistle to the Romans was related to the Marcionite recension. That opens a whole lot of doors. Thanks so much.

stephan huller · 09-25-2011, 08:41 AM

The only serious obstacle to the connection between Clement and Marcion here is

Quote:

Tertullian refers to Rom. 14:10 as in clausula epistolae, "in the conclusion of the letter" (Adv. Marc. v.14). This need not mean that these were the very last words, but it is difficult to think that more than two chapters followed. Barrett, however, refuses to press this point on the ground that in later Latin claosula could be used for any division of a document (Barrett, p. 11; here, however, it is clausula epistolae, which does not look like a division). Tertullian repeats that Marcion has made serious omissions from Romans (Adv. Marc, v.13, 14).

Rufinus's Latin version of Origen's commentary on Romans tells us that "from that place where it is written all that is not of faith is sin' " (ie, Rom. 14:23) Marcion "cut it away up to the end (usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit)" (cited from Gamble, p. 22). There is a tiny doubt here, for dissecuit strictly means "cut in pieces". But most take it here in the sense desecuit, "cut off". This appears to be what Origen is saying. We have evidence of a text lacking chs. 15 and 16, but not of one with a mutilated version of these two chapters. T. Zahn, however, took the word strictly and found it unthinkable that Marcion should have discarded all of chs. 15 and 16 (Introduction pp 396f) [Leon Morris the Epistle to the Romans p. 21]

Clement clearly does cite from the material after 14:23 but he does so only in 'pieces.' His latest citation is from Rom 16:26,27:

Quote:

On this ground Pythagoras seems to me to have said that God alone is wise, since also the apostle writes in the Epistle to the Romans, “For the obedience of the faith among all nations, being made known to the only wise God through Jesus Christ"

My guess is that we should let the literal sense of the Latin dissecuit stand. As Zahn notes:

Quote:

An attempt has often been made to take dissecuit in the sense of desecuit (amputavit), this, too, in the writings of a cultured Latin like Rufinus; moreover, the St. Gall MS. gives as its reading the otherwise unsupported desecuit (Riggenbach, ii. 359) ; but such a meaning is incompatible with the structure of the sentence.

Zahn's arguments are very insightful http://books.google.com/books?id=RFU...59)%3B&f=false

stephan huller · 09-25-2011, 12:04 PM

Another compelling reason to see Marcion's text of Romans and Clement's text of Romans as related. It is worth noting that both Tertullian and Clement connect Romans 5.12 - 14, 7.6 and 7.12 with this material from Romans 3. Let's notice that in Clement we read:

Quote:

For if “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” [Rom. 3.20] as those allege who disparage the law, and “till the law sin was in the world;” [Rom. 5. 13] yet “without the law sin was dead,” [Rom. 7.6] we oppose them. (Strom 4.3)

and again:

Quote:

Wherefore also Paul says, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested” [Rom. 3. 21, 22] and again, that you may better conceive of God, “even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ upon all that believe; for there is no difference.” [Rom, 3. 26] And, witnessing further to the truth, he adds after a little, “through the forbearance of God, in order to show that He is just, and that Jesus is the justifier of him who is of faith.” And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, “So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good,” [Rom. 7. 12] using both names to denote the same power. (Strom 1.8)

while Tertullian seems to show the exact same scriptures clustered together in the Marcionite text:

Quote:

For if the peace needed is with him with whom there has been war, for him we shall be justified; and Christ by whose faith we shall be justified, [Rom 3.20]will belong to him to whose peace it is needful that his enemies should sometime be brought back. But the law, he says, entered in [Rom 5.13] besides, that the offence might abound.[Rom 5.20] Why? So that grace, he says, might much more abound.[Rom 6.1] Which god's grace, if not his whose is the law? Unless you think the Creator with this intent interposed the law, that he might provide business for the grace of that other god who was even his enemy—not to mention, unknown to him— so that as in his own days sin had reigned unto death, [Romans 5.12, 14] so also grace should reign in righteousness unto life through Jesus Christ [Rom 5.17, 20] his adversary.Had the Creator's law for this reason concluded all things under sin, and brought the whole world under accusation, and stopped every mouth, [Rom 3.19, 20] so that no man might glory because of it, but that grace might be reserved for the glory of Christ [Rom 3.24] , not the Creator's Christ but Marcion's? At this point again I can make preliminary observations regarding Christ's substance, with a view to the question soon to follow. We were dead, he says, to the law. [Rom 7.6] So then the body of Christ it can even be argued is a body, though not necessarily flesh. And yet, whatever that substance may be, seeing that he expressly says the body of him who, he goes on to say, has risen again from the dead, 'body' must of course be taken to mean a body consisting of flesh, the flesh against which the law of death has been pronounced. But see now, he gives evidence in favour of the law, and by reason of sin finds excuse for it. What shall we say then? That the law is sin? God forbid. [Rom 7.7] Shame on you, Marcion. God forbid: the apostle expresses abhorrence of complaint against the law. Yet I know not sin except by the law [Rom 7.7]. What noble commendation does this give to the law, that through it it was possible for sin to remain hidden. So then it was not the law that led them astray, but sin taking occasion by the commandment. How can you blame the God of the law for something the apostle does not presume to blame his law for? Yet he adds even more: The law is holy, and its commandment is just, and good [Rom 7.12]. (Against Marcion 5.13)

Indeed the assumption has always been that Tertullian is just 'alighting' upon a few passages from each chapter in Romans. Yet notice that the material is introduced by material from Romans chapter 5. Tertullian begins with a quote from chapter 5, then goes back to chapter 3 for a while and then follows the exact same citation of material from what appears in chapter 5 and 7 of our edition of Romans. I don't think this is coincidental.

Vorkosigan · 09-25-2011, 03:58 PM

What you need is a big TXT file laying out Romans as Clement used it.

stephan huller · 09-25-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Im Röm finden wir drei explizit genannte Auslassungen, in den Kapiteln 2, 9 und (10?) 11. Auch hier handelt es sich wieder um längere thematisch verbundene Abschnitte, die vermutlich relativ problemlos aus dem Textzusammenhang herausgelöst werden konnten. Abgesehen von der Auslassung in Kapitel 2, haben die Auslassungen in 9 und 11 wiederum mit dem Stichwort 'Verheißungen' zu tun. Diesmal ist Israel als Träger der Verheißungen (9,4-9) eliminiert, und damit natürlich auch als positiver Anknüpfungspunkt für die christliche Gemeinde (11, 1 6-24) und als Erwählter "wegen der Väter" (11,28). Belegt hingegen sind Röm 10, 1 - 4 und Röm 11, 33 - 35!

Die Auslassung in Kapitel 2,3-11 ist für mich etwas undurchsichtig. Harnack vermutet zwar, daß auch 1,19-2,1 fehlte, und daß diese Auslassungen allesamt zum Ziel hatten, den guten Gott nicht als zornigen Richter erscheinen zu lassen, allerdings sind die Stichworte ὁργὴ (Θεοῦ?) und κρίμα Θεοῦ , den marcionitischen Text belegt und man fragt sich dann, warum er 1,18 und 2,2. 1 6 nicht auch gestrichen hat. Möglicherweise war es der in 2,3-9 ausgeführte Gedanke vom endzeitlichen Gericht nach den Werken, der für Marcion nicht erträglich war. Daß die Marcioniten von einem endzeitlichen Gericht wußt ist belegt, vermutlich aber war ihnen die auch heute nicht leicht in die paulinische Theologie zu integrierende Vorstellung vom Gericht nach den Werken zu problematisch.

Wenn wir die Tertulliansche Nachricht von der Streichung der mentiones Abrahae im Gal konsequent auf alle Paulusbriefe übertragen, dann legt es sich nahe, auch die Auslassung von Rom 4 für den marcionitischen Text anzunehmen. Auch dort ist ja Abraham als positiver Anknüpfungspunkt der Prototyp des Glaubenden (4,3ff) und Träger der Verheißung (4,13f). [Ulrich Schmid Marcion und sein Apostolos p. 249 - 250]

In Romans we find three omissions explicitly mentioned in Chapters 2, 9 and (10?) 11 Again, there is again a long thematically linked sections, which could probably be removed fairly easily from the context. Apart from the omission in Chapter 2, the omissions in 9 and 11 have again to do with the word 'promise'. This time Israel is eliminated as a carrier of the promises (9.4 to 9), and of course as a positive starting point for the Christian community (11, 1 6-24) and the chosen one "because of the fathers" (11:28). However, are occupied Romans 10: 1-4 and Romans 11, 33 - 35!

The omission in Chapter 2.3 to 11 for me is a bit opaque. Harnack believed though that also was missing from 1.19 to 2.1, and that these omissions have been aimed at all not to let the good God as a wrathful judge appear, however, are the keywords ὁργὴ (Θεοῦ?) And κρίμα Θεοῦ, the Marcionite Text occupied and then you wonder why he 1.18 and 2.2. 1 6 has not even canceled. Maybe it was the idea of running at 2.3 to 9 eschatological judge in the works for the Marcion was not tolerable. That is the Marcionites knew of an eschatological court evidence, but presumably they were not easy today in Paul's theology to be integrated by the court after the idea works too problematic.

If we transmit the news of the cancellation of Tertullian's mentiones Abrahae in Galatians consistently in all Paul's letters, then it suggests itself to accept the omission of Rome 4 for the Marcionite text. Also, yes there is a positive point of Abraham, the prototype of the believer (4.3 ff) and bearer of the promise (4.13 f).

stephan huller · 09-26-2011, 10:35 AM

Some references to the use of Romans 6 among the early heretics:

Quote:

Rom 6:6 - For that must be living after the world, which, as the old man, he declares to be crucified with Christ, [Romans 6:6] not as a bodily structure, but as moral behaviour. Besides, if we do not understand it in this sense, it is not our bodily frame which has been transfixed (at all events), nor has our flesh endured the cross of Christ; but the sense is that which he has subjoined, that the body of sin might be made void [Rom 6.6], by an amendment of life, not by a destruction of the substance, as he goes on to say, that henceforth we should not serve sin [Rom 6:6]; and that we should believe ourselves to be dead with Christ, in such a manner as that we shall also live with Him. On the same principle he says: Likewise reckon also yourselves to be dead indeed. To what? To the flesh? No, but unto sin. (Tertullian On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47)

Rom 6.7 - Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, Romans 6:7 putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God. (Irenaeus 3.23.6)

Rom 6.9 - And again, Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more: Romans 6:9 for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teachers [with regard to the Lord's person], and being desirous of cutting away from them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also declares:] But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. Romans 8:11 This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the right hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; who, when He was buffeted, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not; 1 Peter 2:23 and when He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who had crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 6 I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance ... A swarm of such evils has burst in upon us. But ye have not "given place by subjection to them, no, not for one hour." For ye are the fellow-citizens as well as the disciples of Paul, who "fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum," and bare about "the marks of Christ" in his flesh. Mindful of him, do ye by all means know that Jesus the Lord was truly born of Mary, being made of a woman; and was as truly crucified. For, says he, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus." And He really suffered, and died, and rose again. For says [Paul], "If Christ should become passible, and should be the first to rise again from the dead." And again, "In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God." Otherwise, what advantage would there be in [becoming subject to] bonds, if Christ has not died what advantage in patience what advantage in [enduring] stripes (Ignatius to the Tarsians 2, 3)

Rom 6.12 - If, then, any one allege that in this respect the flesh of the Lord was different from ours, because it indeed did not commit sin, neither was deceit found in His soul, while we, on the other hand, are sinners, he says what is the fact. But if he pretends that the, Lord possessed another substance of flesh, the sayings respecting reconciliation will not agree with that man. For that thing is reconciled which had formerly been in enmity. Now, if the Lord had taken flesh from another substance, He would not, by so doing, have reconciled that one to God which had become inimical through transgression. But now, by means of communion with Himself, the Lord has reconciled man to God the Father, in reconciling us to Himself by the body of His own flesh, and redeeming us by His own blood ... If, therefore, flesh and blood are the things which procure for us life, it has not been declared of flesh and blood, in the literal meaning (proprie) of the terms, that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God; but [these words apply] to those carnal deeds already mentioned, which, perverting man to sin, deprive him of life. And for this reason he says, in the Epistle to the Romans: "Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, to be under its control: neither yield ye your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves to God, as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.14.3, 4)

Rom 6.19 - But, (the Jewish Christian heretics = the evionim, אביונים) being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; [Romans 6:23] and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.19.1)

stephan huller · 09-26-2011, 07:24 PM

Rom 7:1 -

stephan huller · 09-28-2011, 01:25 PM

For those who are interested, I am constructing a list of every possible reference related to the constitution of the heretical (Marcionite) edition of the Epistle to the Romans in the Patristic literature here - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...of-romans.html. I am up to chapter 10

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

09-25-2011, 03:58 PM	#25
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What you need is a big TXT file laying out Romans as Clement used it.

09-26-2011, 07:24 PM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Rom 7:1 -

09-28-2011, 01:25 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	For those who are interested, I am constructing a list of every possible reference related to the constitution of the heretical (Marcionite) edition of the Epistle to the Romans in the Patristic literature here - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...of-romans.html. I am up to chapter 10

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.