Romans 10.6-7, Jonah, and Moses.

[Secret Alias]

Was the Targumist influenced both by Paul and by the Christian Jonah motif, were the changes coincidental, or are you saying that the Targumic Jonah motif is early but the Moses motif is late?

How late do you think the Targums are?

[Ben C. Smith]

Was the Targumist influenced both by Paul and by the Christian Jonah motif, were the changes coincidental, or are you saying that the Targumic Jonah motif is early but the Moses motif is late?

How late do you think the Targums are?

Not sure. What do you think?

[Secret Alias]

Don't know.

[Ben C. Smith]

Were you maybe just saying that the Targumic motif of Moses ascending to heaven may be early enough but that the heavens bending down for him is late (later, at least, than the beginning of the Two Powers controversy)?

[Nathan]

There are several Targumic readings that appear in the NT, so the one proposed in the OP does not seem at all beyond the realm of possibilities (even though the Jerusalem Targum itself is believed to have been written long after the NT).

[Secret Alias]

To be honest Ben I have a suspicion that two separate passages have been fused together based on the way Clement uses the material.

"With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Wherefore the Scripture saith, "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed; that is, the word of faith which we preach: for if thou confess the word with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Καρδίᾳ μὲν πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν. λέγει γοῦν ἡ γραφή· "7πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ' αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται)" There is clearly described the perfect righteousness, fulfilled both in practice and contemplation.

Do you notice the way the material is 'flipped'? Our Romans reads:

Ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν, ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου· τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν. 9 ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς (τὸ ῥῆμα) ἐν τῷ στόματί σου (ὅτι) Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ· 10 καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν. 11 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

Clement's text:

Καρδίᾳ μὲν πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν. λέγει γοῦν ἡ γραφή· "7πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ' αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. τοῦτ' ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν, ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς τὸ ῥῆμα τῷ στόματί σου ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν ἐκ 4.16.99.2 νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ. ἄντικρυς τελείαν δικαιοσύνην ὑπογράφει ἔργῳ τε καὶ θεωρίᾳ πεπληρωμένην

I've argued over and over again that the orthodox 'flipped' the order - centonized the original Pauline material - to change the meaning and the context of the original statements made in the Marcionite canon.

[Secret Alias]

To that end I suspect the Targumic parallels are un-Pauline/extra-Marcionite. The original passage had to do with the superiority of Christian confession/belief over the law. So the Clementine/Marcionite ur-text read something like:

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says:

“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”(that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say?

“The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim
With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Wherefore the Scripture saith, "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed; that is, the word of faith which we preach: for if thou confess the word with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The boxed passage is a deliberate distraction from the antinomian (or better yet two powers rooted) ur-text. That ur-text likely read something like:

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim
With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Wherefore the Scripture saith, "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed; that is, the word of faith which we preach: for if thou confess the word with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

In other words, we have to go back to the original context. Torah here does not mean 'the Pentateuch' but the ten commandments. Paul has I think isolated 10:14 proving in effect that Moses (remember the two powers doctrine) commanded the obedience of 613 laws mostly to do with sacrifice but that God (= Jesus who knew Moses) said something else.

[Secret Alias]

But the material was corrupted with the attention of distracting from the two powers message and its original association with Christianity. Who did this? A monarchian editor of the canon in the late second century. Clement knew the original text. That's important to recognize. The corruption happened after Clement. The second inference is that the editor used a Targum or was influenced by the Targum(s). He was Jewish or spoke Syriac/Aramaic or used an Aramaic translation of the scriptures.

[Secret Alias]

I think it is important to contextualize what Paul is saying in relation to a near contemporary writer living in a parallel community. Let's start with the statement as it appears in our Romans text:

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”

As I already noted I think that the main tactic used by the proto-orthodox editor of the Marcionite canon was to remove obvious 'antitheses' (we know from Tertullian this characteristic existed. Note the original (or what I claim or think to be the original) antithesis buried in the second 'but what does it say?' (again the added information from Deuteronomy distract us or water down the original antithesis):

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”

Note that what Moses says is - as Heschel notes - a formula understood at the time of the two powers/heavenly torah controversy which means 'not the heavenly torah but Moses's torah' (a position noted in Letter to Flora) has to do with sexual relations. The passage comes from Leviticus 18:

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

How interesting indeed that 1 Corinthians makes it seem as if Paul is concerned with father's sleeping with daughters and homosexuality and the like.

Modern American evangelical idiots treat not only the New and Old Testaments as one testament based on this 'link' in Paul in order to condemn homosexuality. Where they go off the rails of course is that they completely ignore the implications of the two powers controversies and its relation to the heavenly torah and early Christianity. In other words, let us ask what Paul is actually saying here. Clearly in my mind he is saying that Moses made up a bunch of nonsense about 'sexual crimes' when in fact Moses himself only received from God the ten commandments. In other words, there are no specific rules against 'sex crimes' that come from God - only Moses made this stuff up.

Why does this matter? Well suddenly we understand the context for the gospel which - as the Marcionites originally noted - was written by this same 'Paul' (and this has implications for the stupid objection to Secret Mark by homosexual prudes who will remain nameless). It was always difficult for people to reconcile Jesus as the god who gave the Torah to Moses and the Marcionite 'antinomian' characteristic. Now at last we see the fault line - sexuality - plainly in Paul.

If you understand Romans 10 to actually be saying - ignore Moses's sex crimes bullshit because the only divine laws that he received came from Sinai (i.e. the ten commandments) you suddenly understand all the curious discussions of the ten commandments in the gospel. Jesus came to re-educate the Jewish people who had been misled by the Pharisees to believe all 613 laws were divine (cf Heschel). Paul's point in writing the gospel was dramatic - i.e. to bring the lawgiver who gave the law to Moses to effectively say 'woah dude, all this shit you're learning from the Pharisees is a lie. It is a deceit started by Moses expanding the rules that I gave to that dude on Sinai.'

To this end I think we can see at once the underlying 'prompting' for the gospel - i.e. a message that was compatible with Hellenism. In other words, if all you have to do is follow the 10 commandments you can embrace Hellenism more easily. Secondly and this is key, Marcionism as 'antinomianism' isn't anti-Judaism. It's only anti 603 laws as binding most of which have to do with sacrifice anyway so that - as the gospel was written AFTER the destruction, the gospel becomes a way of dealing with the destruction in a rather positive way - i.e. a 'positive spin' on disaster. So the fucking house of God burned down and we lost everything, 'the good news' is that this is all part of God's plan because we can get back to the kind of religion originally decreed by God on Sinai.

That's why having Jesus - the second God who appeared on Sinai with Moses - come to Judea before the destruction is so important. It's a way of assuring people that - in spite of all appearance that things are a complete fucking disaster in 70 + CE - God is really guiding events to a good conclusion. As a parallel to the application of Deuteronomy 30:14 as part of the two powers message look at the Samaritan Marqe and the obvious anthropomorphism in his text as a precursor for a kind of 'second visit' of this second god in the gospel:

I treated them well; they behaved shamefully. In view of this how can I have pity for them ? How can I show mercy to them ? With this in mind how can I pity them ? How can I be concerned for them ? My mercies have been withdrawn from them. My blessings have been withheld from them. When they forgot me, I forsook them ; when they spurned me286 I parted from them. I recompense every doer according to what he has done ! These statements do not apply to other men, only to us. Woe to us if we do not learn them, for we will receive recompense according to what we have heard. We are the children of good men. The oath of the True One applies266 to us. Let us not shun the True One or act in a shameful manner or deviate from the way of God, or forget what God has taught us or forget what God has taught us, or forsake the instruction He has given us, perchance favour may appear in the world, and tranquillity and peace come back to His own, and that we may lie down with none to terrify (Lev. xxvi. 6) and be safe in our dwellings. Will not the great prophet Moses bring forgiveness, for the law is to him a perpetual memorial giving increase of life ? Will not Aaron give blessing, since the commandments are before us ? We shall have no plea when the True One questions us, but the law is in our hands — as He said, "(It is) in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it" (Deut. xxx. 14; Targ.). He wrote it with His (own) hand, He gave it with His (own) hand. Let us praise our Lord with faith and submit before His greatness with much reverence, testifying and saying, "There is only one God."

The modern Samaritans go so far as to 'correct' the Torah of any anthropomorphisms. Your name 'Benjamin' is made to read 'Benjamim' in part because God doesn't have hands. But the second Moses of the Samaritan tradition emphasizes throughout the account of the Sinai theophany that God literally has hands, literally wrote with fire from his fingers inscribing the words of the law on the stones. What gives? Who is this Mark-guy who is so sure that almighty God is a living man?

In any event the important thing to see is:

1. the ur-texts of Christianity (= Marcionite) are being reworked (edited) so as to defuse the two powers/heavenly versus manmade Torah argument
2. the overt expression of Jesus as the lawgiver who descended from heaven was also being obscured

why?

Because the original understanding of the gospel gave explicit confirmation of the two powers understanding - i.e. Jesus is the second power in heaven. No misunderstanding possible.

Yet what people haven't notice before is that the editor is dismantling this original understanding for the purpose of emphasizing the divine legitimacy of sex crimes. The laws against homosexuality, incest and pagan orgiastic practices (all outlined in Leviticus 18 as noted in Romans 10) are reconfirmed as not just being 'according to Moses' i.e. a man but God. Why? It should be obvious. Christians were clearly libertines as the Secret Mark, Carpocratian situation demonstrates or perceived to be libertine. Pagans were saying Christians engaged in orgies. Christianity was being compared to the Antinous religion. Many eunuchs in the religion and eunuchs were the ancient equivalents of transexuals (i.e. sex workers, prostitutes). This is the beginnings (i.e. late second century) of Christianity the moral religion, the religion against sex. Not so before. The original argument of Paul was only the ten commandments are binding. The ten commandments only do not lust. No specific commandment against passive sexual activity, no rules about same sex 'agape' etc. It was all now about appearances. You hear this over and over again in the new Pauline texts - 'think about what the Gentiles will say about us if you do X or they report you are engaged in X ...'

[Secret Alias]

I would add again that we should be suspicious whenever we read Paul and his point doesn't jump out and hit us over the head. Bang! This is how we should imagine a revolutionary doctrine like Christianity resonated. Like Marx, like Hitler, like Nietzsche. Bang! I remember reading the Pauline letters for the first time in my twenties as someone who had never before heard about Christianity and I was like ... WTF? What is he saying? What is the point here? In other words I felt that 'the gospel' - Paul's gospel - should be shouted from rooftops, it should have been a CLEAR MESSAGE. It didn't need a priestly class. It was a revolutionary doctrine - revolutionary in the sense that classic Marxism doesn't need academics. It is clear doctrine that only needs ACTION. It was a call that would lead soldiers into battle. Instead - with all the rewrites - we get something meandering and pastoral. Why? Because - I believe - long after the message WAS SHOUTED FROM ROOFTOPS or at least clearly resounded in the hearts of the first Christians later forces reshaped the religion. I have absolutely no doubt about this. The situation with Marcion (from the Marcionite perspective at least) confirms this - viz. not Marcion 'cutting' but the orthodox, the 'Socratites' (cf Dialogue Adaman) ADDING to the text. Why did the add, what did they add? What was their purpose? To make it read with this meandering, pastoral characteristic. We needn't look far. We already have the answer the first time we pick up the Pauline letters viz. to make it incomprehensible, to make diminish the 'bang!' effect of its powerful message, to obscure it's original 'antitheses' That was the purpose of the rewrites. To make Paul's 'bang!' power obscure and needing an interpreter, a hermeneutic, a priestly class ...

The defanging of the revolution as editorial purpose.