DCHindley

Jay,

There are a lot of elements in play in the Genesis story:

Lxx (ET by Brenton)

Genesis 15: 12 And about sunset a trance fell upon Abram, and lo! a great gloomy terror falls upon him.
13 And it was said to Abram, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own, and they shall enslave them, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years.
14 And the nation whomsoever they shall serve I will judge; and after this, they shall come forth hither with much property. [This is a “prophecy” about the sojourn in Egypt]

Genesis 18:9 And he said to him, Where is Sarrha thy wife? And he answered and said, Behold! in the tent.
10 And he [the Lord] said, I will return and come to thee according to this period seasonably, and Sarrha thy wife shall have a son; and Sarrha heard at the door of the tent, being behind him.
11 And Abraam and Sarrha were old, advanced in days, and the custom of women ceased with Sarrha.
12 And Sarrha laughed [ἐγέλασεν/ צְחַ֥ק] in herself, saying, The thing [childbirth] has not as yet happened to me, even until now, and my lord is old.
13 And the Lord said to Abraam, Why is it that Sarrha has laughed [ἐγέλασεν/ צָחֲקָ֙ה] in herself, saying, Shall I then indeed bear? but I am grown old.
14 Shall anything be impossible with the Lord? At this time I will return to thee seasonably, and Sarrha shall have a son.
15 But Sarrha denied, saying, I did not laugh [ἐγέλασα/ צָחַ֖קְתִּי], for she was afraid. And he said to her, Nay, but thou didst laugh [ἐγέλασας/ צָחָֽקְתְּ].

Genesis 21:1 And the Lord visited Sarrha, as he said, and the Lord did to Sarrha, as he spoke.
2 And she conceived and bore to Abraam a son in old age, at the set time according as the Lord spoke to him.
3 And Abraam called the name of his son that was born to him, whom Sarrha bore to him, Isaac.
4 And Abraam circumcised Isaac on the eighth day, as God commanded him.
5 And Abraam was a hundred years old when Isaac his son was born to him.
6 And Sarrha said, The Lord has made laughter [γέλωτά/ צחֹ֕ק] for me, for whoever shall hear shall rejoice with [συγχαρεῖταί/ יצְחַק־לִֽי] me. [Note, the Hebrew can be taken as the RSV renders it: "God has made laughter for me; every one who hears will laugh over me" while the Greek word means rejoice with/feel joy with]
7 And she said, Who shall say to Abraam that Sarrha suckles a child? for I have born a child in my old age.
8 And the child grew and was weaned, and Abraam made a great feast the day that his son Isaac was weaned.
9 And Sarrha having seen the son of Agar the Egyptian who was born to Abraam, sporting [παίζοντα/ מְצַחֵֽק] with Isaac her son, [Note: the Hebrew can mean either laugh/amuse/sport, while the Greek means play/amuse oneself/dance]
10 then she said to Abraam, Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not inherit with my son Isaac.

The story as found in chapters 18 & 21 seem to play off the various meanings the Hebrew word can take, so the same basic word is used in different senses in different places. However, I think the LXX translator understood the Hebrew differently than the way the original author intended.

The Hebrew of ch 21 seems to present a Sarah who was almost embarassed to be seen nursing a newborn child, and possibly be seen as the nursemaid and not the princess she was (pun intended), and the birth of Isaac was thus not celebrated until Isaac was weaned (age 2-4?).

The Lxx translation of ch 21, on the other hand, has Sarah relishing in the laughter of her son, and anticipating how everyone seeing her nurse her child will rejoice along with her.

But that is irrelevant to the point of the OP, that the author of Gal 4:29, whoever he/she was, took Gen 21:9 to mean Ishmael was pursuing Isaac.

DCH

stephan huller

Tertullian and Epiphanius repeatedly make reference to the idea that the Marcionites “retained” positive references to Abraham in their NT. Abraham has a prominent place in the Acts of Archelaus too. Presumably the Marcionites held that Sarah was a tupos rather a literal ancestor of the Jewish people alone. Suggests to me an Alexandrian (= allegorist) tendency

maryhelena

Here is an idea that might throw some light on the Galatians problem.

The Hagar and Sarah story where Sarah wants the bond woman sent away, 'persecuted', is indicating a context of a negative dualism. ie the children of the promise, children of the free woman, are antagonistic towards the children of the bond woman. A context of negativity.

'Paul' finds this situation unacceptable, ie man to man, human to human, a context of negative dualism is devoid of any rationality, devoid of morality. So, 'Paul' proposes a new context in which a negative dualism would have value. He opts for a spiritual context, the Jerusalem above. In other words; within a purely intellectual context, a negative dualism has value. Ideas can be 'persecuted', destroyed. New context requires a reversal of the Hagar and Sarah storyline. What works in one context, the new intellectual context, does not work or have value in another context, the former flesh and blood context. A context in which a positive dualism should function - a win/win situation not a win/loser situation.

The whole Galatians allegory is just that - an allegory that requires interpretation not application to some specific historical situation.

As for Marcoin - looks like he missed the boat with this one - not prepared to make the switch, the reversal from an 'earthly' context to a 'spiritual' context, he was left with the original version, Sarah 'persecuting' the child of Hagar - and in his mind that would mean that the creator God of Mount Sinai became his evil god - which set the stage for heresy. However much the christians were giving short-shift to the Law - Marcoin and his evil creator god would be one massive step too far....

Just some ideas......

(eventually, the Marcoin system cleaned up it's act a bit by upgrading the Creator god to being a just god - and evil being 'downgraded' to evil matter.)

stephan huller

No, the obvious answer is that the Marcionites used Sarah as a type for the revelation of the true covenant. Sarah has her child after Hagar. Hagar is associated with Arabia, the place the Israelites received their (imperfect) covenant (because of the sin of the golden calf). The Israelite religion was ultimately established later after Moses death and the crossing of the Jordan at another mountain where the Abrahamic covenant was established (with Sarah). That's the formula. It is very old, rooted either in Sadducee or Samaritan interest in the locale around Gerizim. This probably accounts for the Catholic editor adding the reference to Jerusalem (ie to obscure the mountain vs mountain juxtaposition)

maryhelena

Stephan, 'Paul' changed the context, the application of the Hagar and Sarah allegory. He changed it from an earthly context to an intellectual context; from earthly Jerusalem to heavenly Jerusalem.

Marcion, from the quotations in the DCH chart - did not do this. He did not change the context. ie the interpretation or application of the allegory. A change of context that allowed 'Paul' to confine a negative dualism, between Hagar and Sarah, to a purely intellectual context. Marcion did not do this - resulting in his retaining a negative dualism in his good god/evil god theology - and leading to his rejection of JC as being predicted by the (Jewish) prophets. ie. the creator god of the OT was his evil god. That evil OT god was not a god of the free woman who was to produce the promised son.

Yes, Marcion was correct in his argument. There was indeed a problem - but his solution to the problem was in serious error. 'Paul' had the correct solution - not Marcion.

stephan huller

I don't see how can know this based on the information provided. I don't think Paul changed anything. It was the Catholic tradition which altered the epistles. I don't think Marcion was that heretical. Rather I think he was made into a boogeyman in order to scare people away from the logic of what he was saying. The orthodox and the Marcionites weren't that far apart.

Iskander

Galatians is the Magna Carta of Religion.
-

stephan huller

It is impossible to distinguish between Paul and Marcion in early Marcionitism. I would even go so far as to say the Catholics invented Paul to allow them to 'correct' Marcionitism (i.e. assume that there is 'wiggle room' between the New Testament and Marcion).

stephan huller

A demonstration that other heretics (not just Marcionites) took Galatians 4:21 - 31 as a symbol of apolutrosis (redemption):

DCHindley

Galatians 4:21-31 of Marcion per Tertullian	Galatians as received
[21] No parallel	[21] Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman;	[22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).
[23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:	[23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].
[24a] which things are allegorized"	[24a] Now this is an allegory:
[24b]"for these are the two covenants,"	[24b] these women are two covenants.
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"	[24c] One is from Mount Sinai,
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --	[24d] bearing children for slavery
[25] No parallel	[25] *But Hagar* is *Sinai*, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"	[26a] But the Jerusalem above is free,
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"	26 and she is *our* mother.
[27] No parallel	[27] For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)
[28] No parallel	[28] *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*
[29] No parallel	[29] But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
[30] No parallel	[30] But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."	[31] So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

So Marcion's version is something like:

[22]"For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; [23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:
[24a] "which things are allegorized"
[24b] "for these are the two covenants,"
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage" --
[26a] "the other gendereth [free children?]"
[26b] "which [who?] is the mother of us all,"
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."

The best we can say is that Marcion sought to explain his beliefs by choosing a story from the OT. Marcion was supposed to have commissioned several serious studies of the OT, and his Antithesis drew on it as well. However, he does not appear to be using OT passages as proof texts.

But just what the heck is that "covenant from Sinai that genders to bondage" and another "(covenant) that genders what is the mother of us all" supposed to mean? No syrupy sweet "excuse" explanations, or gobbltygook about Paul's rhetorical genius, please. One can read virtually anything into this short text!

I think, though, that it does fit with the known descriptions of Marcion's theology well enough: The Demiurge creates the visible world, and demands that the men he created in it worship him alone on punishment of death, typified by the commandment, handed down on Sinai, that "thou shalt not have any gods before me." The solution to this untenable situation is the rescue mission by the Good God's christ. Sinai is your τύπος goodly sir.

The (proto-)orthodox version is much more complicated. It has a reversal of meaning from (flesh = slavery/promise = freedom) to (present day Jerusalem = slavery/the Jerusalem above, our mother = freedom), in other words hijacking the meaning itself. If we take Paul to have flourished in the mid 1st century CE, it is clear that the "present Jerusalem ... is in slavery with her children" likely refers to the fate of the inhabitants of Jerusalem captured by Titus in 70 CE. It relates to a later addition, and this is why I feel confident to segregate the text into two strata, two strata that are at odds with one another.

Strata One:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).

23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh [Ishmael born of Hagar], the son of the free woman through promise [Isaac born of Sarah].

28 *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*

Strata Two:

[24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 *But Hagar* is *Sinai*, the mountain in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is *our* mother.

27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 51:1)

29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. 30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gen 21:10)

31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.]

Marcion's version spans both these strata (vs 22-23 strata one, and vss 24,26,31 strata two). Either Marcion selected passages from the orthodox version without reference to this plurality of independent messages (i.e., cut down the orthodox version) or the orthodox created from Marcion's sparse text a narrative that contains the plural message at odds with one another (i.e., built up Marcion's version).

DCH