corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Fabrizio Palestini" <fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it>
- To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: The Priority of Marcion 2
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:37:49 +0200
...
B) Gal 1:4,5: the section is not mentioned in
the lectures on the marcionite Apostolikon.
The question of the original
text
The section doesn't
appear, on formal, linguistic-stylistic as well as theological grounds, to
belong to the original text:
1) Context
The enhancement of greeting to
the blessing-formula caris umin ktl. is singular: cf. Rom 1,7;
1Cor 1,3; 2Cor 1,2; Eph 1,2; Phil 1,2; Col 1,2; 1Thess 1,1; 2Thess 1,2; Philm
1,3; cf. in addition BENGEL
z.St.:
»Gratiae
et apprecationi nusquam alibi Paulus talem periphrasin
addit«.
A
direct reference
partly
on the concrete contents of Gal (e.g.. in the senses of a theme or a particular
situation of the community), that could explain the deviation, leaves itself not
to recognize but only to artificially establish (against SCHLIER,
31; OSTEN-SACKEN,
121), to that see below.
2) Linguistic and formal
special features
a) About the
_expression_ exelhtai (Conj.
Aor. Med. of exairew),
it appears to be an hapaxlegomenon of the whole Corpus Paulinum. The
_expression_ is present 4 times in Acts (7,10. 34; 12,11; 23,27; 26,17) and 3
times in 1Clem (39,9; 52,3; 56,8 = Citations from the LXX) that
assign its parentage to the Septuanginta. As a matter of fact exairew as translation of hebr.
lcn
(in the sense of
»keep, tear out«), is there an exceedingly frequent concept (altogether 155
times, of which 16 times in the psalms).
b) 1,5 contains a
Doxology
–
the sole Doxology in Galatians and the sole Doxology within the Corpus Paulinum
that ends an incipit. SCHLIER,
35: »
Such praise to God, that ends the incipit, is not present in the other letters
of the apostle «; SCHLIER
explains that with the absence
of the thanksgiving in Galatians, which is to be compensated through the
Doxology, but this remains a conjecture.
Within the
Corpus
Paulinum
we find Doxologies
only in Rom 1,25; 9,5; 11,36; 2Cor 11,32; Eph 3,21; Phil 4,20; 1Tim 1,17; II Tim
4,18 (Hebr 13,21).
All Doxologies come
from the feather of catholicizing arranger (naturally with the exception of the
three last mentioned places).
With Gal 1,5 he
acts as well as with Rom 16,27,
w h doxa eis tous aiwnas amhn,
through a »fully jewish piece«
(SCHMITHALS,
Römerbrief,
416f). In this he betrays –
how already in the word exairew– the jewish-synagogale origin
of the section; cf. LXX: 4 Macc 18,24 (literally: w h doxa eis tous aiwnas
twn aiwnwn amhn).
3) Theological
tensions
According to
BULTMANN,
Theology, 297, in Gal 1,4
it seems that Paul is appropriating of the description of Salvator Christ –
close to others, e.g. the Jewish expiative-thought or the motive of vicariously
sacrifice – for the ransom-motive
in
the _expression_. [My note: this passage offers me many
problems!]
His explanation —
»the enestws aiwn is the Aeon standing under the
law, that as such also stands under the force of the sin and of the death « —
goes certainly beyond the actual wording of Gal 1,4, as exairew in mediale signification means
»to tear out, from etv. to liberate«, not »to redeem« (see above), wherefore in
the Pauline letters is always used agorazw or exagorazw
(Gal
2,20 MRec; 3,13; 4,5; ICor 6,20; 7,23; [Eph 5,16; Col 4,5]). SCHOEPS,
Paul,
249, stands the setting
against it rightly in the expiative-context and detects that giving
himself » the death for our sins « is » very like the expiative Abraham
«.
The
Redemptive-theology, that appears in 1,4, stands in contrast to christological
and soteriological flux of thoughts. Two different christological and
soteriological thoughts, that are not compatible without further addition, run
side by side here:
Gal
1,4
1. Christ
gave himself for our sins – tou dontos eauton uper twn amartiwn
hmwn
2. In order
to "tear out" us from the present evil age – opws exelhtai hmas ek tou aiwnos tou
Gal
3,13 - 4,5.6
1. Christ
redeemed us from the law – Cristos hmas exhgorasen ek ths kataras tou nomou genomenos uper hmwn
katara
2. So that we
might receive adoption as sons – ina tous upo nomon exagorash ina thn uiothesian apolabwmen
enestwtos ponhrou kata to thelhma tou theou kai patros
hmwn
3. With the
gift of the Spirit – exapesteilen o theos to pneuma tou uiou autou eivs tas kardias
hmwn
One should not
automatically try to harmonize this different concepts, that we find so
often in Pauline Epistles interlacing with each other or in different layers one
upon the other, but first of all try to disentangle
them.
Cf.
VAN
MANEN,
506: »Indeed he [the author] speaks in 2,20 that Christ paradontos eauton
uper emou,
but not of him as ou dontos eauton uper twn
amartiwn hmon.
The goal of his Christ was not to 'tear out us from the present evil age', but
'to redeem us from the curse of Law', 3,13 (cf. 4,4), after which we become able to receive primary 'the blessing of
the Spirit through the belief', 3,14, but equally the fruit of its death on the
Cross, so that we, no longer alive under the law, as children of Freedom, can be
from now on as sons, ... 3,26; 4,5; 6,21-31; 5,1«.
Result: the redactor
brings in the text, in this place, the keystones of jewish-christian-catholic
soteriology
and eschatology
against Marcion: the
futuristic
eschatology as
messianic-apocalyptic expectation of the deliverance from the present aeon is
opposed to the marcionite-gnostic present eschatology associated with it;
equally the jewish-christian expiative-thought
(Christ's death as remission
for the sins) with the
marcionite-gnostic redemption-thought (Christ's death as ransom from the
dominion of the law); cf. BULTMANN,
Theology,
295ff.
The antimarcionite
tendency discloses itself still once in the formulation kata to thelhma tou
theou kai patros hmwn: the theos pathr
of 1,3
has now become the theos kai pathr; with it should be clear that
the O.T.'s God and the »father« of christians are really not distincts, but the
same one
(VAN
MANEN, 506). The kata to thelhma tou theou without the specificative
(from antimarcionite polemic standpoint) kai patros
hmwn meets again in I Petr 4,19 and 1
Esr 8,16.
Cont...
|
- The Priority of Marcion 2, Fabrizio Palestini, 08/26/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.