Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by Bernard Muller »

Galatians 4:24-26
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
It does look here that earthly Jerusalem has not been destroyed yet. Actually, if it was, Paul would have used the argument that a Jerusalem being destroyed is symbolic of the Law being destroyed.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:Galatians 4:24-26
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
It does look here that earthly Jerusalem has not been destroyed yet.
Bondage for Jerusalem and the Jews, in contrast to the heavenly Jerusalem which is free and mother of all, has the opposite effect. The heavenly Jerusalem is a substitute for the substantial loss on earth, which is expressed in the slavery that the people of Jerusalem now endure (you yourself have found the quotes to prove that the people who were in Jerusalem when Vespasian sieged the city had been sold into bondage).
Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, if it was, Paul would have used the argument that a Jerusalem being destroyed is symbolic of the Law being destroyed.
Can you point out such an exact analogy in any other literature of the period 70-170 AD?

In any case, Romans 11, with its imagery of branches being pruned so that new ones could be grafted onto the tree, can easily be read with the fate of the Temple and the failure of the Jewish revolt in mind, while 1 Thessalonians clearly has this is in sight. Add to these witnesses your own quotation from Galatians above.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by Bernard Muller »

Bondage for Jerusalem and the Jews, in contrast to the heavenly Jerusalem which is free and mother of all, has the opposite effect. The heavenly Jerusalem is a substitute for the substantial loss on earth, which is expressed in the slavery that the people of Jerusalem now endure (you yourself have found the quotes to prove that the people who were in Jerusalem when Vespasian sieged the city had been sold into bondage).
The quote from Galatians says "Jerusalem which now is" and not "Jerusalem which now is not"
The heavenly Jerusalem is not a substitute for the earthly Jerusalem, as far as Christians are concerned. Heavenly Jerusalem is the city of the Christians. As in Hebrews 12:22, 2 Corinthians 5:1 "... we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven ..."
Philippians 3:20a "But our citizenship is in heaven ..." and Galatians 4:26 "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
I do not see the point about the people found in Jerusalem by the Romans after the siege and then made slave and sent away from the destroyed Jerusalem. The slavery in Galatians is about being under the law. Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, represents the law: 4:24b-25 "... the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—
for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children"
Can you point out such an exact analogy in any other literature of the period 70-170 AD?
Can you point anything from archaeology or texts (except what (not trustworthy) Eusebius implied with his dubious list of early bishops of Jerusalem, despite claiming that the church of Jerusalem moved to Pella before the Roman siege) to say that Jerusalem was an inhabited town from 71 to 135?
I have textual evidence on how Jerusalem looked after its destruction and around 130 (from "some old men and a few women" to "a few houses").
Of course I do not have exact analogy but "Mark" (in Mk 12:9 ) and "Matthew" (in Mt 21:41) and "Luke" (in Lk 20:15b-16) took advantage of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by Bernard Muller »

Peter, You decided for a standstill. I did not. But I wish you good luck on your paradigm.
Do you know any scholars who did entertain your views that Paul wrote some of his letters after 70, and visited or planned to visit Jerusalem then?
And I thought you abandoned that idea and kept two options: a fabricated Paul (after 70) or a true Paul active in the 40's and 50's.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Bernard,
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”
I would like to question the word νῦν and its translation as the English word "Present" here.
According to NAS exhaustive concordance the word νῦν is found in the Bible to mean
actually (1), just now (1), now (130), present (11), present case (1), since (1), this time (1).

For it to mean "the present" is relatively rare, only 11 out of 146 times. That means about 95% of the time it is used not to mean "the present," It is far more likely to mean simply "now"

Strong's Concordance says that it means:
Definition: adv. (a) of time: just now, even now; just at hand, immediately, (b) of logical connection: now then, (c) in commands and appeals: at this instant.

Logically, the writer is much more likely to be referring to Jerusalem "now" meaning the Jerusalem after the Mount Sinai covenant. In other words the referent is not to an existing city of Jerusalem, but to the Earthly Jerusalem after the Sinai convenant as opposed to the original Heavenly Jerusalem.

In the "Symposium" from Plato, we have a very similar analogy about the lower and higher Aphrodite. The lower Aphrodite causes love between men and women which brings about pregnancy and the Higher Aphrodite brings about love between men which is a barren, but more beautiful kind of love. Paul is simply showing his gayness here by advocating a love based on barreness and is not referring to any present day city of Jerusalem, but to Jerusalem generally. This is Pausanias speech in the Symposium:

And am I not right in asserting that there are two goddesses? The elder one, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite-she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione-her we call common; and the Love who is her fellow-worker is rightly named common, as the other love is called heavenly. All the gods ought to have praise given to them, but not without distinction of their natures; and therefore I must try to distinguish the characters of the two Loves. Now actions vary according to the manner of their performance. Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise. The Love who is the offspring of the common Aphrodite is essentially common, and has no discrimination, being such as the meaner sort of men feel, and is apt to be of women as well as of youths, and is of the body rather than of the soul-the most foolish beings are the objects of this love which desires only to gain an end, but never thinks of accomplishing the end nobly, and therefore does good and evil quite indiscriminately. The goddess who is his mother is far younger than the other, and she was born of the union of the male and female, and partakes of both.

But the offspring of the heavenly Aphrodite is derived from a mother in whose birth the female has no part,-she is from the male only; this is that love which is of youths, and the goddess being older, there is nothing of wantonness in her. Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male, and delight in him who is the more valiant and intelligent nature; any one may recognise the pure enthusiasts in the very character of their attachments.
Paul is simply showing himself to be a Jewish Platonist in the mode of Philo with his double Jerusalem analogy copying Plato's/Pausanias' double Aphrodite analogy. He is not referring to any "present day" Jerusalem, but to the concept of Jerusalem as a city filled with Jews under the law of Mount Sinai. In the same way, one might say, "The October Revolution took place, now communism is finally triumphant in Russia." Such a reading would not entail the belief that in 2013, the writer believed that "at present communism is finally triumphant in Russia."
This is the most natural reading of the word "νῦν," instead of the absurd and unnatural reading that he is breaking out of the higher/lower Jerusalem analogy to suddenly comment on present day social conditions in the city of Jerusalem.

Just as an added note, I would point out that this may suggest that the city of Jerusalem which Paul went up to after getting his revelation from Jesus was the Heavenly Jerusalem and that is where he met James or rather Jacob, to use the Hebrew name of James. Jacob was always called the brother of Esau. Scribal error or ignorance probably led to the phrase as being read "brother of iesus" and that was mistranslated as "the brother of the Lord."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Bernard Muller wrote:Galatians 4:24-26
"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
It does look here that earthly Jerusalem has not been destroyed yet. Actually, if it was, Paul would have used the argument that a Jerusalem being destroyed is symbolic of the Law being destroyed.
Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Split from Bernard Muller's megathread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by Bernard Muller »

According to this reconstruction of Marcion's Galatians (http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/EGalatians.PDF), and Tertullian's against Marcion (book V, chapter IV), Marcion, for Gal 4:25, replaced
"for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is
By
"This is allegorized: these are two revelations, indeed the one from Mount Sinai is the synagogue of the Jews,"
Essentially, the now Jerusalem (destroyed in times of Marcion) has become the synagogue of the Jews.
Marcion kept up with the times! But that also shows the "catholic" version was much earlier than Marcion's version. It also demonstrates that if Gal 4:25 was written initially after 70, then the now Jerusalem would not be mentioned.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by Peter Kirby »

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
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Peter,
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.
This is not the text I got from the website I posted (and testified by Tertullian: "the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews,")
The same shows here also:
http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm
I wonder if you were quoting from Harnack version.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Galatians 4 imply a pre-70 AD perspective?

Post by stephan happy huller »

Here as elsewhere Tertullian offers his own interpretive glosses. The only translation difference attributed to Marcion here is one word
.

I don't think so my friend. I used to have the same opinion until I saw Harris's citation of a passage from Ephrem. I think this points to something very significant about Against Marcion. But the reference in Tertullian is to a specific reading of Galatians 4.
Everyone loves the happy times
Post Reply