jakejonesiv

Thanks, I missed that earlier. :jump:

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

I think you meant 5.4.8. Or else the versification systems differ.

But the (Latin) expression here is not what I might have expected as a translated version of the prepositional phrase κατα σαÏ?κα. Tertullian uses a simple adverb:

Sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem.

The most direct Latin rendition of κατα σαÏ?κα would be secundum carnem, though I admit that secundum carnem might well be synonymous with carnaliter (in the Vulgate it is synonymous with the adjective carnalis at Ephesians 6.5 and Colossians 3.2).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

It would be a lot to ask, I admit.

I tend to think so, but I am just so, so reluctant to use arguments from silence that I am willing to let this one get away.

I noticed. Startling, eh? The end must be near....

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

The phrase KATA SARKA occurs in the following places in the Pauline 10 (the same set of books in Marcion's canon (as ours but minus Hebrews and the Pastorals): Rom 1:3 4:1 8:5 12 13 9:3 5; 1 Cor. 10:18; 2 Cor. 1:17 5:16 10:2 3 11:18; Gal 4:23 29; Col 3:22.

Our sources do not comment on whether Marcion contained or lacked Rom 1:3. We also have no information for the instances in 1 Cor. 10:18; 2 Cor. 1:17 5:16 10:2 3 11:18; Gal 4:29; and Col 3:22.

Four instances of KATA SARKA in Romans 8:12 13 9:3 and 5 are within a long section (Rom 8:12-10:1) known to be lacking in Marcion's edition. (Rom 10:5-11:32 is also known to be lacking, as well as 14:23-16:37).

It is difficult to determine if Marcion had KATA SARKA in Rom 8:5 because Tertullian, Marc. 5.14.4, merely summarized Rom 8:5-9 as "quomodo nolit nos esse in carne, cum simus in carne" (he does not want us to be in the flesh while we are in the flesh").

This leaves Gal 4:23, which I quoted earlier.

(Note: Gal 4:4 does not have KATA SARKA.)

This would mean that either "according to the flesh" was added by the proto-orthodox or removed by Marcion. Either way, it seems to be evidence that folks in the second century understood this phrase in terms of being physically human, rather than a sub-lunar sphere.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Oops, you're right. :blush: I looked at the wrong footnote in Schmid's edition of Marcion's Apostolos.

You may remember in my discussion with Carrier that I had criticized him for not discussing the use of KATA with an abstract noun as a way of creating an adverb. He thought it was rare in his experience (perhaps it does not occur much on the business receipts on papyrus he has worked with), but more frequent in my experience and corroborated with searches on TLG. That Tertullian's rendering has an adverbial form, CARNALITER, is further support for the significance of my criticism.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Ah, I do recall that, and I see your point now. Thanks. Tertullian does indeed render the κατα σαÏ?κα in Galatians 4.23 as an adverb.

I just found the following notice from appendix 2 of E. Evans:

Marcion omits part of [Romans] 1:3 [was made of the seed of David etc.], and the whole section 1:19-2:1 [on God the Creator].

Do you happen to know the source for this hard datum?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

That is a very fair way of stating the issue. I agree.

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

Probably an inference from Origen, In Joh. 10.6:

Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary, and declared that as to His divine nature He was not born of Mary, and hence made bold to delete from the Gospel the passages which have this effect.

It is not clear to me what "the passages which have this effect" exactly are. Since Origen had just cited Rom 1:3, it conceivably could be included. Ulrich Schmid, however, does not think much of this as evidence for Marcion's text.

Stephen

Clivedurdle

That's easy - he met him in a vision!

Clivedurdle

Umm no mention of Jesus in this passage, and to be honest this reads soo liturgical - a line out of a service - that it is far more likely to have a magical meaning as part of the holy go(d) spell required to turn bread into flesh and wine into blood, to cleanse us all from sin by getting rid of the glass darkly so we all move into the platonic reality from this imperfect shadowland and give us all life everlasting.

And we take these magic alchemic spells seriously?