Romans 8:1 - Marcion according to Adamantius

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't know why SA and Stuart don't get along better, they pretty much say the same thing.

Stuart was very helpful on the Adamantius and Marcion questions of Romans 8:1. Afaik, we get along fine .

I think (and perseusomega9 can certainly correct me if I am wrong) that "SA" was supposed to mean Secret Alias.

[Ben C. Smith]

I acknowledge that Epiphanius had a large library of Christian material at his disposal. The Marcionite scriptures were not in that library nor were they available to him. This web page brings up the problem of whether or not Tertullian or Epiphanius ever actually had their hands on the Marcionite gospel - https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... at-of-luke Lieu on the question of whether either Tertullian or Epiphanius saw a Marcionite canon - https://books.google.com/books?id=PtXeB ... 22&f=false. Roth on the question of disagreements between Tertullian and Epiphanius on the composition of the Marcionite gospel - https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYuB ... 22&f=false. Harnack thought Origen had access to the Marcionite Bible https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixKA ... 22&f=false but this is less surprising as his patron Ambrose was a Marcionite. I think Epiphanius instead had access to books written about Marcion and more or less randomly compiled textual variants he saw in those works.

So do you think that the variants compiled by Epiphanius at least existed in some ancient text(s), whether Marcionite or not? In other words, even if you reject that Epiphanius actually had access to the Marcionite gospel itself to back up his claim, say, that the gospel had "among" (ἐν) instead of "with" (μετ') at Luke 6.17, do you think that he was at least describing some text that he had access to? (Such a piddly variant seems unlikely as a wholesale invention to me.)

[Secret Alias]

Yes he had access to the some of countless Against Marcion texts out there - viz. Justin, Theophilos, Rhodo, Irenaeus, Hippolytus etc - plus perhaps texts written by Marcionite authors - i.e. Apelles and the various authors mentioned by Eusebius. Not all but some and the variants go back to either 'things said by Marcionites' or 'things said by anti-Marcionites' i.e. Church Fathers. It is also possible that the collection was already compiled in the third or fourth centuries and lay buried in some shelf in the library and Epiphanius polished it up and passed it off as is own - much like Tal took over Ben Hayyim's work https://muse.jhu.edu/article/390147/pdf In fact this is how any dictionary gets started. I even had a professor recently send me a compendium of references to isometria/gematria in antiquity. He said he will never publish it. If I lived to 120 and completed the work I could similarly pass it off as my own. I think in Epiphanius's case someone did a half ass job of listing references and Epiphanius slapped his name on the work.

[perseusomega9]

I don't know why SA and Stuart don't get along better, they pretty much say the same thing.

Stuart was very helpful on the Adamantius and Marcion questions of Romans 8:1. Afaik, we get along fine .

I think (and perseusomega9 can certainly correct me if I am wrong) that "SA" was supposed to mean Secret Alias.

Dingdingding

[DCHindley]

Steven Avery,

I scanned a little bit of the ET of the dialogue:

His [Marinus'] statement that the life of Jesus is manifested in the flesh requires no explanation! Again Paul: “When what is mortal is absorbed by immortality” 236. What else can be understood here than that the mortal goes forward into life? then this: “I myself with my mind serve the law of God; d but with my flesh, the law of sin. There is now therefore no doom for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the Spirits life-giving law in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death” 237. If the mind serves the law of God, but the flesh (236) the law of sin, and the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has delivered us from the law of sin and death, it is obvious that it has delivered that which served the law of sin from sin. Yet it was not the mind that served the law of sin, but the flesh. Consequently, the flesh has been delivered from death. Now let Marinus please explain how that which was delivered from death by the law of the spirit of life in Christ is saved 238, e for I myself am increasingly ashamed to be arguing against the ignorance 239 of these opponents of mine!

236 See 1 Cor. 15:54, and 2 Cor. 5:4 (a loose quotation).
237 Rom. 7:25; 8:1-2. The “us” is supported by Rufinus, Mardon, Methodius, and a few other authorities; “me” by A D Latin, etc.; “thee” by X B G and the main recensions.

That would be (from the out of copyright 1901 edition of the Greek)

καὶ πάλιν· <ἄρα γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας.
οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου>

KJV Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
KJV Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Here is the Greek as found in BibleWorks (N/A 16?)

7:25b Ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας.
8:1 Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
2 ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.

You will note that the words found in the KJV, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα) is in Stephanus' edition based on the 5th edition of Erasmus' text and other sources, and is also, of course^(tm), in Scrivener's edition of the Textus receptus which was based on Stephanus' edition. It is also in the Latin Vulgate "qui non secundum carnem ambulant."

My guess is that the "missing" words are from later Byzantine mss where it was a variant. The Nestle/Aland editions, based in part on Westcott & Hort's 1881 edition but I'm sure with an expanded pool of early mss available to them and not to W & H, just concentrated on the mss believed to be the earliest available at our time.

DCH edit updated the Greek from the Dialogue, corrected a 2nd time ...

[Steven Avery]

Thanks, DC. Well done. So that shows that really Adamantius was working with an omission text, since there is the seque to 8:2. The generally accurate and perfectionist Ben had missed that one.

It is often true that a couple of early mss. are opposite the mass of 1,000+ Geek mss. The modern textual theory wants the piddle group. And how does true genealogical theory account for the huge majority?

At any rate, if you are simply trying to marshal arguments, all three variants would be in the mix.

===================

Anyone have the resources handy to look up another, like Victorinus of Rome or Ephraem?

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks, DC. Well done. So that shows that really Adamantius was working with an omission text, since there is the seque to 8:2. The generally accurate and perfectionist Ben had missed that one.

You are right. I mentally placed the missing phrase after verse 2 for some reason which is now quite unclear to me. That was a mistake on my part, and in the very post which actually included verse 2 from the Dialogue:

The Adamantius Dialogue quotes Romans 8.1-2 without the line about walking according to the spirit instead of the flesh (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα):

Romans 8.1-2: 1 οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ· 2 ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.

Adamantius Dialogue 5.27: 27 .... <οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου>. ....

The notation in the apparatus is based on this quotation.

But proving an absence is not easy, since that is where the quote (which actually started back at Romans 7.25b) ends. And, as Stuart was saying, it is always debatable whether this goes back to the Marcionite text itself. It could be another.

So the Dialogue definitely quotes Romans 8.1-2 without the phrase found in the KJV at 8.1b.

[Steven Avery]

Thanks, Ben.

btw, stuff like this is one of the reasons I like BCHF, even if many of the threads are not my bailiwick. There can be cooperation in scholarship and discussion over a wide spectrum of belief including evangelicals, gnostics, mythicists, etc., with, in many cases, minimum rancor. Plus often there are complimentary skills in play.

Thus, some of the best Sinaiticus authenticity discussions are parked here as well, and occasionally get jump-started.

Steven

[DCHindley]

Thanks, DC. Well done. So that shows that really Adamantius was working with an omission text, since there is the seque to 8:2. The generally accurate and perfectionist Ben had missed that one.

It is often true that a couple of early mss. are opposite the mass of 1,000+ Geek mss. The modern textual theory wants the piddle group. And how does true genealogical theory account for the huge majority?

At any rate, if you are simply trying to marshal arguments, all three variants would be in the mix.

===================

Anyone have the resources handy to look up another, like Victorinus of Rome or Ephraem?

Not sure what you mean by "omission text." Do you mean a ms with a variant that omits 8:1b?

By the three variants you must mean 1) Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 2) μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, and 3) ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

But doesn't that mean that even the text omitted by the Dialogue actually consists of two variants? It seems like a gloss (some statement of opinion by a scribe) that was itself glossed! Glossies are so 70s, Steven. This appearance of a double gloss was probably perceived by Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland as indications of their secondary nature, and consequently omitted it/them from their edition. They had rules that they, and all philologists, follow, and one of them isn't "Just accept the one that confirms the inspiration of the KJV as a god-breathed English translation."

DCH

[Steven Avery]

Thanks, DC.

Yes on the meaning of omission text and the three variants.

Actually Westcott and Hort specificaly included Adamantius, "Adam", which you can see here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HA ... =RA1-PA109

And I do not have the NA editions handy on the verse, but I think, from LaParola, that they may
have simply switched it to "Marcion according to Adamantius", which would be very dubious.

I'll look to see if I can follow what you are saying about a double gloss. Presumably the simple aspect of Adamantius commenting on the comment of Marinus. Seems rather natural and normal.

=========================

Before "His [Marinus'] statement that the life of Jesus is manifested in the flesh requires no explanation!"
Is there any allusion to 1 Timothy 3:16?

Steven