Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-10-2011, 06:08 AM | #71 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
|
Quote:
Hi DC Hindley , Thanks for bringing the greetings of Romans into the discussion. I notice with interest that your recreation of the original text in this particular section corresponds quite nicely with that indicated by recreating Marcion’s text from the Heresiologists. [You also indicate the mention of Rome in 1:7 is non-original. Agreed, but that is beyond the scope of this message] The text contained in the greetings section of Romans is an important passage because it contains a text often referenced in the debate of CM vs. HJ. Quote:
"He was descended from David," as the Apostle says, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," if we apply this to the bodily part of Him, but the self-same statement is untrue if we understand His being born of the seed of David, of His divine power, for He was declared to be the Son of God with power. And for this reason too, perhaps, the sacred prophecies speak of Him now as a servant, and now as a Son They Call Him a servant on account of the form of a servant which he wore, and because He was of the seed of David, but they call Him the Son of God according to His character as first-born. Thus it is true to call Him to call Him man and not one: one, because He was capable of death, not one, on account of His being diviner than man. 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. " http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...en-john10.html So we know that this text was not in Marcion’s version of Romans. But was Origen (writing well into the third century) correct that Marcion had deleted it? The alternative was that the proto-orthodox added it. It was not known to Marcion, and it was not known to Tertullian, who would have certainly used it to refute Marcion in sections such as AM 4.36 and 5.13. Further study reveals that Romans 1:2-6 stands together as a unit (Detering). So either 1:2-6 is all an interpolation, or it is all original. We can't appeal to the extant manuscripts to settle this question, they are all far too late. Here are our choices: Choice #1. Marcion’s version was original Quote:
Quote:
We immediately notice something strange about the catholic version. All of these theological arguments ill fit in the greetings of an occasional letter. It is as if the redactor was setting the stage for the "correct" understanding of Paul according to the redactor's own (i.e. proto-catholic) doctrines. This is beginning to have the look and feel of an interpolation. But if this is so, can we identify the group responsible for the interpolation? Romans 1:2-6 syncs up point by point with the preaching attributed to Peter in Acts chapter 2. Now, since it is quite likely that “Acts of the Apostles” is a second century proto-catholic document (it utilizes literary dependence on the works of Josephus); the sentiments portrayed there are those of the second century proto-catholic Roman church. Thus, Romans 1:2-6 can be perfectly understood as the thoughts of a second century churchman, and was interpolated by the same. There is no need for esoteric interpretation to change the plain meaning of the text. The Roman church was opposed to Marcion's docetic and antinomian doctrines, and the plain reading of this text is a refutation of Marcion. N/A Let’s see the detail. Acts chapter 2 quotes Palm 110 (paralleling the “according to the scriptures” of Romans 1:2) and declares that God had sworn an oath to David that one of his descendants would be seated on his throne, and that this meant the resurrection of Christ. Quote:
As would be expected, the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Holiness has been invoked in both passages, Acts 2:23 (pneumatos tou agiou) and Romans 1:4 (pneuma agiōsunēs). Both Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:4 reflect an adoptionist Christology where Jesus becomes the Son of God, both Lord and Christ, after the resurrection. "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts 2:36. “…who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 1:4. Jake Jones IV |
|||||
10-10-2011, 12:38 PM | #72 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
|
Quote:
I think Marcion's text is well recreated for the epislte to the Romans. Perhaps not perfectly, but close enough. When we read Marcion's text, we find that it is much smoother and cohesive that the catholic versions we are used to reading in our Bibles today. We have already discussed the suspicious looking extraneous text jammed into the greetings. Next we come to Romans 1:18-2:1 which is missing in Marcion's text. The textual basis for recreating Marcion's text is Tertullian AM 5.13.3 where the discussion immediately leads on from 1.18 to 2.2. The catholic layer (1:19 ff) introduces the "Revelatio generalis", a previous natural God revealed by the creation, Romans 1:19-2:1. This section is gladly cited to this day for the voucher of general revelation. This sermon glorifies the creator (who is blessed forever, 1:25) in contradiction with Marion's dualism. The catholic redaction also contains the polemic against the homosexual practices of the heathen world, 1:26 which are so often quoted by intolerant persons today to justify bigotry. How the original author of the letter stood on this question, we do not know. This is yet another instance that disconfirms the unity of authorship of the epistle to the Romans. It has nothing to do with the Pauline soteriology of faith by grace, but purely with salvation by works (2:6-7). This comes from observation of the Torah, and for those without the Torah, a moral equivalent is written in the heart. So to recapitulate what we have studied so far, Here is the first chapter of Romans (Marcionite Recension) Quote:
Jake |
||
10-11-2011, 04:13 PM | #73 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Jake,
Wasn't Tertullian keen, though, to answer Marcion with passages that are in Marcion's edition of the Paulines? To refute Marcion with a passage he does not accept is like arguing with Muslims using the NT and not the Koran. If Marcion doesn't have it in his version, all it proves is that he wouldn't have written it in the first place or that he didn't like it in a version he redacted, not that the proto-orthodox must have added it. Romans is anything but an "occasional" letter. DCH Quote:
|
||
10-11-2011, 04:46 PM | #74 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
DCH
I think we have to be careful not to speak of the author of the text in the singular. There were at least three versions of this text (Against Marcion 1.1) and Against the Jews most likely represents a fourth of at least Book Three. Here is what I get very suspicious of the material. In Tertullian's account of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 the original author goes through going toe to toe with Marcion/the Marcionites without mentioning all the material which says that Peter and Paul (or Apollos) shared the same God/Christ. Then suddenly in a later section of the study of 1 Corinthians the editor (if Tertullian was the author of Against Marcion, this person is 'an editor'/if the original text was written by a Syrian Christian and Tertullian was the final editor then 'Tertullian') goes back and brings forward material which certainly would not have been agreeable to Marcion/the Marcionite: Quote:
|
|
10-11-2011, 05:59 PM | #75 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Jake,
I used to think that Marcion had read the Pauline letters after high christology had been interpolated into them, fell in love with the Christ the redeemer, and following the anti-Jewish theme of the higher christology decided to eradicate the Jewish part from the received text. Because the high christology of the Pauline letters was not coherent, built with chicken wire and spit on the bedrock of the original Hellenic-Jewish part, which was definitely coherent, he was forced to incorporate at least the framework of the original. Unfortunately for me, the reconstructed text does not follow this scenario. However, maybe I am making some unwarranted assumptions above. If I understand correctly, the man (if it is lawful to call him a man) carefully studied the Jewish Scriptures, noting instances where the God of the Jews, who created the world, acts in a manner that he felt was incompatible with the loving God of Jesus Christ. He felt that the Jewish God was obsessed with covenants and justice, yet set up things to make it impossible for mankind to fulfill those covenants, then wrathfully punishes those who miss the mark (sin). So he proposes that the good loving God of Jesus Christ is different than the God of the Jews, and occupies a place above and unknown to the creator God, and that Jesus was really on a rescue mission commissioned by the loving God, to rescue those souls condemned to death in hades by the creator God (i.e., everybody). This is not the high christology of the Paulines, in which the messiah of the Jews was rejected by his own people, and God's favor then passed to Gentiles through a new covenant in which the messiah dies for the sins of all men, promising a kingdom that is not just for Jews. It is a morph of Jewish messianism into universal redemption to all who "get it." To be frank, Marcion's redeemer Christ resembles the divine redeemer of the christian-gnostic systems, but in a much much more simple form. Valentinianism is Pythagorean charged Platonism run amok, while Marcionitism simplifies Platonism ad absurdum. Everything is simplified to 2 or 3 first principles: 1) Creator God (God of Jews, who made the world from preexistent matter and who creates souls of men but then condemns them to eternal death in hades when the nature of matter causes them to fall short).I am inclined to think principal 3 as a kind of evil God was a development of Marcionite doctrine by later followers, so by just using principles 1 & 2, I think one can see why Marcion might remove the red passages from the received text. Romans 1:2-6 refers to Christ as a manifestation of the Jewish messiah predicted by the Creator God. He omits this. Romans 1:17b As it is written, "He who is righteous shall live through faith." (Habakuk 2:4). This is clearly a proof text doing the same as vss 2-6. Omits. The Good God cannot be wrathful, meaning the God mentioned here must be the Creator God, so he simply omits "of God" to prevent confusion with the the Good god in vs 16 (yeah, there are problems with this, I know). Now it is telling this story: 1:14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:The Marcionite gospel must certainly be quite different than what we might commonly think! I'll have to do this with Galatians, where the reconstructed text is more secure ... DCH Quote:
|
|
10-11-2011, 09:01 PM | #76 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Here is another example of Tertullian's NT agreeing with the Marcionite text even when Tertullian isn't addressing Marcion. In On Modesty:
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2011, 02:48 PM | #77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Marcion, authentic mutilator or transmittor?
For the sake of continued discussion, here is a table of the first 2 chapters of Galatians with the RSV and the versions of van Manen (19th century) and Mahar (20th century):
More to come ... DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-12-2011, 02:52 PM | #78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Marcion, authentic mutilator or transmittor?
Post 2 of 3
For the sake of continued discussion, here is a table of the 3rd & 4th chapters of Galatians with the RSV and the versions of van Manen (19th century) and Mahar (20th century):
More to come ... DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-12-2011, 02:58 PM | #79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Marcion, transmittor of authentic mutilations?
Post 3 of 3:
Finally, for the sake of discussion, here is a table with the 5th & 6th chapters of Galatians according to the RSV, van Manen (19th century) & Mahar (20th century):
Well there you go. DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-12-2011, 04:44 PM | #80 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I happened to notice - strangely - that there is just one references in Clement of Alexandria's writings to Galatians chapter 2. Odd. It is Galatians 2.19. What makes this so strange is that Clement usually averages five or six references a chapter of the Pauline writings. Clement consistently avoids those parts of the letters where Paul supposedly references 'friends' and 'fellow workers' as in the Catholic scriptures. I wonder ...
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|