Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V, chapter 4.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evan ... 1book5.htm
Si enim Abraham duos liberos
habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla
carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae
sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo
testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum,
unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem
generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans,
vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tan-
tum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam
repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod,
fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et
Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato alle-
goriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem
in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem
apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evan ... k5_eng.htm
For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the
other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after
the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which
things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else :
for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have
translated it—
the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue
of the Jews,
which according to the law
gendereth to bondage: the
other gendering above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named not only in this world but also
in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in
whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds,
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity
of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of
Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of
Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently,
that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we
have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations.
Here as elsewhere Tertullian offers his own interpretive glosses. The only translation difference attributed to Marcion here is one word.
Common Text of Gal 4:24-26:
These things may be treated as an allegory, for these women represent two
covenants (testamenta - διαθῆκαι). One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Marcionite Text of Gal 4:24-26 (only one known difference):
These things may be treated as an allegory, for these women represent two
revelations (ostensiones - ἀποκάλυψεις). One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
That aside, let's revisit this Galatians 4 passage again. ESV.
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: 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 cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Here we can see a few things.
The contrast between the "Jerusalem above" and the "present Jerusalem," the Jerusalem below. The same kind of contrast is made in Revelation, a text that clearly knows about and is responding to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And it's completely understandable in its historical context that, when the Jewish people had seen the destruction of the Jerusalem on earth, they would pin their hopes on a new one in heaven. This is what the author of Revelation has done, and it is similarly what the author of Galatians has told his readers, that there is a "Jerusalem above" waiting for them, which is also (by Galatians) called free and the mother of his sect.
This contrasts the sectarians with the general Jewish population, who are "children of the slave," Hagar. Hagar is associated with Mount Sinai, which itself is associated with the slavery of Israel in Egypt. This Hagar "corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children." Thus the Jewish people at large, unlike the sectarians, are seen to be in slavery again. This state of slavery corresponds to the present state of Jerusalem, which is also "in slavery with her children." This passage must be understood as being post-70 and reflects the speculation that arose about alternatives to what the Jerusalem below (which was destroyed with its temple) meant for Israel.
Your prooftext is not adequate. It's so bad, in fact, it's good evidence for the opposite fact.
I have to retract my olive branch of a "standstill" earlier.
The passage is written from a perspective that arises after the destruction of Jerusalem.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown