DCHindley

A Blog post by Joshua McManaway here brings up an issue that has puzzled me. What he notes is that Gal 4:29 alludes to Genesis 21:9 when it says "But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted [ἐδίωκεν] him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." However, the Lxx Greek translation of Genesis 21:9 instead uses a different word "παίζοντα".

He says:

The participle underlined is pretty interesting. παίζω, the verb from which παίζοντα comes, can mean “to play”, but also can mean to pursue, chase, or even hunt (LSJ A.6)." [bolding is mine]

and

"διώκω has a variety of meanings ranging from “pursue” to “persecute.” διώκω is obviously not παίζω, but it seems that Paul can only come up with this reading of Ishmael and Isaac’s story if he’s reading the παίζοντα as “hunting”.

BibleWorks 7 says that the Hebrew word used at 21:9 is “tsachaq” צחק
which has a couple of possible meanings in HALOT, depending of how the verb root is accented and/or modified. In the basic Qal form, it means laugh Gn 17:17 18:12f,15; but in the Piel form it can mean:
1. abs. joke Gn 9:14, play 21:9, amuse onesf. Ex 32:6;
2. fondle (a woman) Gn 26:8; play around with 39:14,17; amuse oneself. before Ju 16:25.

The consonants involved are identical in these two forms of the verb, the only differences being vowel pointing. Since the Hebrew of NT times lacked vowel pointing, it can go either way.

The translator of the Lxx version chose παίζοντα (play, pursue, even hunt), suggesting that in Sarah's eyes, Ishmael was amusing himself at Isaac's expense, which angered her terribly.

The author of Galatians 4:29, in saying "as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted [ἐδίωκεν] him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now" takes a hard view of the matter, considering such play as much more than simple fun play at someones expense to full on persecution. But notice that vs 4:29 does not jive with vs 23, where it is said that "the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise." That simple change of the pairing flesh with promise, to flesh with spirit, suggests to me that the author of vs 4:23 is not the same person as the author of 4:29.

So, in the following table is an extract from by "oh-God-not-again" analysis of this passage (my suspected interpolations are in boldface), vs 4:29 is by the interpolator, and vs 23 is by "Paul":

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].
[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)]
*28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*
[29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted [ἐδίωκεν] him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.	Genesis 21:9 And Sarrha having seen the son of Agar the Egyptian who was born to Abraam, sporting [Lxx παίζοντα, Hebrew צחק “tsachaq”] with Isaac her son, 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.
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)	30 Genesis 21:10 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.
31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.]

In the original story by "Paul," God's promise to Abram that he would produce a son by Sarah was believed by Abram even though it seemed impossible on account of their age and Sarah's apparent infertility. The fulfillment of that promise was the birth of Isaac, whose descendants go on to produce a great nation. However, before this fulfillment occurs, Abraham begins to doubt, and giving in to the flesh, he decides they can have a son by proxy through a slave woman surrogate. Hagar, and begets Ishmael. So, flesh = Ismael, promise = Isaac & by extension the Hebrew people.

The interpolator, on the other hand, completely turns it around so that Ishmael = Abraham's physical descendants, "persecutes" those born "according to the spirit" (the group the interpolator identifies himself with).

What, pray-tell, could have got the interpolator so angry at the Jews that he accuses them of persecuting people like him? Who were his "people"?

DCH

Iskander

Genesis 21.9 says
mocking. מְצַחֵֽק׃ me•tza•chek.

Paul sys that the son of Sara was born from a promise and Paul speaks of Isaac as the Church, the spiritual humanity


The son of Hagai he says was born only from the material world of the flesh and speaks of Ishmael as the materialistic humanity.


In the original story, Ishmael was mocking Isaac and Paul uses this mocking to complain that the materialistic humanity persecutes –mocks—the spiritual humanity. Here, Paul is using Isaac and Ishmael as an allegory to underline the spiritual man in conflict with a mocking materialistic opponent.

stephan huller

I'm at the airport but take a careful look at Tertullian Book 5 for the citation. It's interesting and different. A paraphrase perhaps. But the whole thing can't be an interpolation. Its too important for Christian theology

PhilosopherJay

This is just a speculative note. There are a couple of ideological reversals going on here.

Structurally, it is Sarah who mocks. She mocks (laughs at God). The story only makes sense if she is the one who mocks Hagar's son and then persecutes them. The editor of the Hebrew Scriptures apparently didn't want Sarah to be considered a mocking -- laughing person. So the text was changed to make Hagar's son the mocker. This doesn't make any sense at all because we are not told why he mocks. The text only makes sense if Sarah is the mocker because the text has just established that she mocked God. The story makes sense if Sarah mocks and then persecutes Hagar and her son.

Note also that the conversation between Sarah and God involves laughter, while the conversation between Hagar and God involves crying.

In the original story text, Sarah is the bad guy, mocking and persecuting the poor servant and her son. This gets reversed in the Judeo-Christian interpretation and the people who are mocked and persecuted (Hagar and Son) get accused of mockery and persecution) and their persecution is presented as Holy justice. This is how ideology works, the victim ends up being accused of the crime and deserving of his persecution. Paul's Jewish ideology blinds him to Sarah's crime.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley

Ah, yes, the inevitable "oh-God-not-again" invocation of Marcion!

That pericope (Gal 4:22-24, 26, 31), can be analyzed as follows:

Galatians Per Marcion	Tertullian’s color commentary
[4:22]"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"	(that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history);
[24b]"for these are the two covenants,"	or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we have found the word interpreted,
[24c] "the one from the Mount Sinai,"	in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,"
[24d] "which gendereth to bondage
--[26 paraphrased] "the other gendereth"	(to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come,
[26 paraphrased] "(that) which is the mother of us all,"	in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion:
[31] "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."

If Marcion has really preserved that which is in the left hand column, he has not discerned the two separate arguments (flesh vs promise, as opposed to flesh vs spirit), then his version makes even less sense than the received text, as these two arguments get confused. He must have encountered the Pauline text of Galatians already interpolated, and Tertullian is right that he altered it by eliminating that which he disagreed or could not understand.

Tertullians commentary (and I think the passage "(to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come" is Tertullian's commentary, not Marcion's addition to or fuller text of 24:26) is just as kooky, although this may actually be how the orthodox Christians came to terms with the original text, two threads and all.

DCH

stephan huller

But surely Marcionite text (or perhaps, the text known to Tertullian) is an important addition to the discussion. The point here is that corruption rather than large scale interpolation might be the reality here. I have noticed the pattern with Clement of Alexandria. His citations of Romans reminds me of the patterns which show up in Tertullian and Epiphanius. With that said there clearly are whole scale interpolations. I just can't believe that Galatians 4:21 - 31 is one of them.

It is worth noting that the idea that Mount Sinai engenders slavery fits well with the Marcionite notion of Christ coming as a redeemer and his new covenant realizes the promised redemption associated (and predicted) with the coming of the messianic Jubilee. Hence the name of the document too i.e. 'the gospel' (= the announcement of the Jubilee). When you start looking at these ideas swirling around in the sands it all starts to make sense. Christianity was an 'antinomian' Jewish messianic tradition. Exactly what you'd expect, if only New Testament scholars understood Judaism (especially in its pure form = Samaritanism).

Notice also the explicit reference to Jerusalem also disappears.

DCHindley

Maybe this is a good place to see how this supposed Marcionite version of Galatians 4:21-31 fits with what we think we know about Marcionite theology, then see whether the marcionite version is the original and the proto-orthodox (received) text a redacted version, or vice versa.

Galatians 4:21-31 of Marcion per Tertullian	Galatians as received (asterisks indicate textual variants)
[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; [23] but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:	[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].
[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,
[26a] "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.

If in fact Marcion's version does not have a passage corresponding to vs 21, then Marcion's version was not about the problem of the Jewish Law. The fact that vs 25, 27-30 may not be represented in Marcion's version means he was not interested in the Genesis story other than serving as an allegory contrasting a mother who is a bondservant vs a mother who is a freedwoman.

From what I understand, Marcion's theology is something like this:

The fundamental point of difference between Marcion and the church was concerning the unity of the first principle [i.e., One God]. Marcion plainly asserted the existence of two Gods, a good one and a just one. ...

Marcion's theory was that the visible creation was the work of the just God;

the good God, whose abode he places in the third or highest heaven and whom apparently he acknowledged as the creator of a high immaterial universe, neither concerned Himself with mankind nor was known by them, until, taking compassion on the misery to which they had been brought by disobedience to their Creator who was casting them into his hell, He interfered for their redemption. ...

Marcion is said by Esnig [a 5th century Armenian archpriest] to have taught that there were three heavens:
• in the highest dwelt the good God,
• in the second the God of the Law,
• in the lowest His angels;
• beneath lay Hyle, or matter, having an independent existence of its own.

By the help of Hyle [formless matter], which played the part of a female principle, the God of the Law made this world, after which he retired to his heaven; and each ruled in his own domain, he [i.e., the God of the Law] in [his own] heaven and Hyle on earth.

Afterwards the God of the Law, beholding how goodly this earth was, desired to make man to inhabit it, and for this purpose requested the co-operation of Hyle. She supplied the dust from which man's body was made, and he breathed in his spirit, and made him live. He named him Adam, gave him a wife, and placed him in Paradise. There they lived, honouring and obeying their Maker, in joy and childlike innocence, for as yet they had no children.

Then the Lord of Creation [i.e., the God of the Law], seeing that Adam was worthy to serve Him, devised how he might withdraw him from Hyle and unite him to himself. He took him aside, and said, "Adam, I am God, and beside me there is no other; if thou worshippest any other God thou shalt die the death." When Adam heard of death he was afraid, and gradually withdrew himself from Hyle. When Hyle came after her wont to serve him, Adam did not listen to her, but withdrew himself.

Then Hyle, recognizing that the Lord of Creation had supplanted her, said, "Seeing that he hates me and keeps not his compact with me, I will make a number of [lesser] gods and fill the world with them, so that they who seek the true God shall not be able to find him." Thus she filled the world with idolatry; men ceased to adore the Lord of Creation, for Hyle had drawn them all to herself.

Then was the Creator full of wrath; and as men died he cast them into hell, both Adam, on account of the tree, and the rest.

[From Henry Wace, Christian Biography & Literature (1874), italics and bolding are mine]

Epiphanius, in his Panarion (Medicine Chest) says:

42.3.1a. He [Marcion] was influenced by the aforementioned Cerdo, a magician and deceiver. He too proclaimed two principles,

42.3.1b. but he [Marcion] added further to him, to Cerdo that is, and taught something different than he. He [Marcion] said that there are three principles:

42.3.1c. one the unnameable and invisible one, which he wants to call as well the good God and which has created nothing in the world,

42.3.2a. another the visible God who is creator and demiurge,

42.3.2b. and the third the devil [Hyle?], who is as it were between the two others, [in that he partakes of both] the visible and the invisible.

42.3.2c. The creator and demiurge and visible God [of 42.3.2a] is of the Jews, and is judge.

[Translation is that of Philip Amadon, The Panarion of St Epiphanius, the Greek is as found in Migne's Patrology]

In my opinion, Stephan, this account works out as follows:

[24a] which things are allegorized [24b] for these are the two covenants:	I.e., Represent two principals
[24c] the one from the Mount Sinai, [24d] which gendereth to bondage --	The God of the Law, that is, is revealed in the 5 books of the Law, who created man, but who condemns all to death and bondage in hell for not living up to his commandments given on Sinai, particularly the one that says "You shall have no other gods besides me"
[26a] the other [26b] who is the mother of us all [26a2] gendereth [us, i.e., free children]	The Good God, who acts as a nurturing Mother, frees us from the God of the Law, through Christ

Time to mow the lawn ...

DCH

stephan huller

Sorry DCH the Marcionites had THREE principles - the good god, the just god and the devil. The important thing to keep our eyes on is the concept of redemption from slavery which is common not only to the Marcionites but other heretical groups. The idea that the Marcionites were dualists results from a confusion over early (imaginary) sources. Cerdo for instance is always identified as 'pre-Marcionite.' I don't know who or what Cerdo is but I think it is Irenaeus who helps explain where some of the confusion arises. He says in one of the books (I think book three near the end) that the Marcionites distinguish between God's goodness and his justness (i.e. that these are separate powers). It sounds very rabbinic and even Philonic. I think that in some reports this sort of logic was carelessly adapted by people like Tertulian into the claim they were dualists. They weren't.

DCHindley

I thought I mentioned this when I cited Epiphanius:

42.3.1b. but he [Marcion] added further to him, to Cerdo that is, and taught something different than he. He [Marcion] said that there are three principles

I would put his principal that Epiphanius calls "the Devil" as corresponding to Esnig/Esnik's Hyle (unformed matter), that in his version of the drama created many gods to confound the Visible God who had told Adam thet He is the only God, thus cutting Hyle out of the picture even though she had partnered with the Visible God to create the world, and that Adam would die if he worshipped any other (that is, Hyle).

Like, duh ...

DCH

stephan huller

Right but the Marcionite interpretation of a given passage isn't strictly going to be dominated by the number of gods they have any more than the Catholics, Jews etc. IMO the real core of the interpretation of this passage is the realization of the promised messianic redemption. I just happened to be reading Morton Smith's the Secret Gospel by the pool and it is amazing how a guy with all his knowledge just can't thread the needle (at least here) about how and what 'redemption from the law' is.

Maybe I am arguing with you when I really want to have a debate with Smith but the Marcionite religion IMO is based around an appeal to the proselytes to Judaism. This has to be confessed at the door before any meaningful discussion can be had. Of course, as with all antinomian appeals, it becomes construed as 'libertine' but the core idea in Marcionitism - the thing you see over and over again in all Catholic writers - is the idea of the individual being purchased as a slave from the God of the Law to the Good God. This doesn't make sense unless those to whom the message was being appealed were themselves 'Jews' or Jewish proselytes. The original message can't be directed at 'Gentiles' No one seems to get that - i.e. the Catholic message starts with something utterly artificial viz. Paul directing his message only at the Gentiles. This can't be the original appeal and Gal 4:21 - 31 is one of the clearest signs of that.