Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:06:22 -0400


Fabrizio Palestini says:

>>I don't know if I understand the point...<<

Alas, join the club!

I agree with you when you say of the possibilities "(Marcion author,
Marcion first redactor and then a second catholic redaction, Marcion
redactor of catholic original), practically only the last had been
investigated." My suggestion was that IF Marcion authored the 10
"Pauline" epistles he published, then there should be some sort of
consistent text, clearly conforming to Marcionite theology, embedded
within them. I only observed that the reconstruction of Galatians does
not seem to offer that nice neat foundation, but a hodge-podge text
not much different than the canonical one.

>>In Hermann Detering's site there is a (Greek-German) reconstruction
of it and in his "Paulusbriefe ohne Paul" and "Der Gefalschte Paulis"
a detailed explanation of the marcionite character of the unredacted
Epistle, with linguistic and stilistic hint on the interpolation.<<

Unfortunately, I do not read German. I have to rely on _A
RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S TEXT TO THE GALATIANS_ by D. J. Mahar at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html

But what do I mean by "hodge-podge?" I have always been bothered by
the seemingly contradictory story of Abraham's sons in Gal 4. The
story of the promise in 22-23 directly relates to the point being made
in 2:15-16a and in many places in Chapter 3.

"2:15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners,
16a yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but
through faith..."
"3:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and
one by a free woman. (Gen 16:15)23 But the son of the slave was born
according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through [faith in a]
promise." (RSV)

I am convinced that what follows, 24-31, turns this simple example on
its head and tortures it to make almost the exact opposite point, that
the child of the free woman is actually a child of bondage:

"24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is
from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now
Hagar is Mount Sinai 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 54:1) 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 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." (Gn 21:10)31 So,
brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."
(RSV)

In other words, the original (and rather simple and direct) moral
derived from 3:22-23, that the promise is actualized by means of faith
rather than by physical birth (so that Gentiles can participate in it
along with Abraham's physical children), is then expanded to say that
even the physical children born of Sarah according to the promise are
in fact *also* children of slavery just like Hagar's child. I doubt
that this could be anything other than an interpolation deriving from
a period *after* the Jewish war of 66-73 CE when Jerusalem was indeed
captured and the citizens sold into slavery. This is pure commentary
after the fact.

But this is included in Marcion's version of the epistle (probably
because he heartily agreed, if he did not add it to an existing
epistle):

22 For Abraham had two sons, the one by a slave-maid, the other by a
free-woman. 23 But he who was of the slave-woman was born after the
flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. 24 This is
allegorized: these are two revelations, indeed the one from Mount
Sinai is the synagogue of the Jews, giving birth, according to the
Law, into slavery; 26 The other gives birth into freedom, Above every
Principality, Power, Dominion, of every name that is named, not only
in this destiny,
but also in that which is to come- the holy assembly promised to us,
which is our “mother”. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of
the slave-woman, but of the free. (Mahar)

But if this was Marcion's commentary added to an existing text, why
does it get included in the orthodox version of the epistle? If
Marcion created the whole thing, that is even more amazing, IMO. If it
is assumed that Marcion's edition was published shortly after the
publication of an "orthodox" version, which included the kind of
interpretive expansions as is represented by 4:24-31, but was then
re-edited to exclude certain pro-Judaic statements, it makes it easier
to explain why both Marcion's and the "orthodox" version share so much
material.

Whatever that all means <g>

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page