Marcion the Butcher of Pontus, Paul, and Galatians chapter 1

[robert j]

When attempting to understand Paul and the text of his letters, just how much relative emphasis should be placed on proposed Marcionite reconstructions versus other textual evidence?

This is from a recent comment in another Thread focused on the “James, the brother of the Lord”, with this about chapter 1 of Galatians ---

In fact it could have been in Marcion's version and not warranted a mention. However I like BeDuhn's reconstruction too:

15 But when God, who had separated me from my mother’s womb and called (me) through his favor, thought (it) good 16 to reveal his child in me, so that I might proclaim him among the nations, I did not present myself immediately to flesh and blood, 17 neither did I go
up into Jerusalem to] those who were emissaries before me, [but . . .2 1. . .] after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem . . .2. . . [And I laid before them the proclamation that I am declaring among the nations . . .], in order that I not somehow run or have run pointlessly.

I think this proposed reconstruction of Marcion’s text of Galatians demonstrates the inadequacies of relying on the polemics of the 2nd and 3rd century heretic hunters, aka the Church Fathers, to go beyond possible Marcionite readings and to use for assuming what the letters written by Paul may have contained. Irenaeus and Tertullian and their ilk were not attempting to present the text of Paul’s letters, or Marcionite versions, in-toto; but rather were writing to make Marcion a fool, and his system wrong. Marcion butchered Paul’s letters, they claimed, just like the butchers of Marcion’s people in Pontus in this way-over-the-top accusation ---

The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.1)

I’m not suggesting that proposed Marcionite reconstructions should not be considered at all for considering the original text of Paul’s letters. But rather that such better serve as secondary evidence, when applicable, in support of other evidence that is independent of the apologetics and polemics of the Church Fathers.

Getting back to BeDuhn's Marcionite reconstruction of the passage from chapter 1 of Galatians, the phrase in verse 17, “… I went away into Arabia and returned again …” is missing. Is there significant evidence to demonstrate that specific phrase was an integral part of Paul’s text? I would answer that with a resounding “yes”.

I’m going to attempt to target two birds with one stone here. The first target is the almost universal misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Portions of verses 3 and 4 are attested in Tertullian in a section where those verses are pertinent to his argument. The passage is often dismissed as an interpolation for reasons typically associated with misinterpretations. Here is what the passage is really about ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674

And secondly, getting back to the missing phrase in BeDuhn's reconstruction, further examples of Paul's very flexible and generative use of the scriptures and twisting them to satisfy his own needs are demonstrated. Paul used the scriptures to develop his stories of how his Jesus Christ had suffered a salvific and redemptive death within the realm of the time of the scriptures, and how the scriptures predicted the coming of God’s blessing upon the Gentiles in his own time. But Paul also used the scriptures to craft his own autobiographical back-stories.

The following table demonstrates how Paul used the scriptures to craft portions of chapter 1 of Galatians, how 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 fits together with portions of chapter 1 of Galatians like lost puzzle pieces, and how Paul used the scriptures to create his personal back-story. The missing phrase in BeDuhn's Marcionite reconstruction about Paul’s sojourn in Arabia is found in the last row of the table. Paul believed that Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Galatians 4:25). After receiving grace from God, Paul’s sojourn in the land of Moses completed his process of cleansing made necessary because he persecuted the assembly of God. And his sojourn in the land of Moses completed Paul’s use of the passage in Numbers. I think the sojourn in Arabia clearly belongs in Paul’s text of Galatians.

Paul Galatians chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians chapter 15	Numbers Chapter 12 (LXX) and a bit of Jeremiah and Isaiah
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism … (Gal 1:13) For I delivered to you first of all … (1 Cor 15:3)
... I was persecuting the assembly of God … (Gal 1:13) … I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:9)	And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses … (Numbers 12:1) "And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moses?” And the anger of the Lord’s wrath was against them ... (Numbers 12:8-9)
And last of all, as the ektroma, he was seen by me also … because I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:8-9) [Paul was like the ektroma because, like Miriam, he was ignorant and he sinned]	… Mariam was leprous like snow … And Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. Do not let her be like unto death, like an ektroma coming out of a mother’s womb… " (Numbers 12:9-12)
But when God, the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles. (Gal 1:15-16)	And a word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I had consecrated you; a prophet to nations I had made you.”(Jeremiah 1:4-5). [And like Jeremiah, Paul's calling, his appointment, came later. Jeremiah was a youth (1:6) when the Lord said to him --- ] "Behold, today I have appointed you over nations ... " (Jeremiah 1:10) [Paul also used Isaiah 49:5-6 here]
… the gospel having been preached by me, is not according to man … but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12) But when God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me ... (Gal 1:15-16)	… And the Lord … said to them, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him." (Numbers 12:5-6)
But when God … having called me by His grace … (Gal 1:15) … I went away into Arabia and returned again … (Gal 1:17) [Like Miriam, after receiving God's grace, Paul separated himself in the land of Moses, and returned cleansed. Paul believed Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Galatians 4:25)]	And Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, I beg you, heal her!” And the Lord said to Moses … Let her be separated for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she shall enter.” And Mariam was kept apart outside the camp … until Mariam was cleansed (ἐκαθαρίσθη). (Numbers 12:13-15)

I still chuckle when I think about this silly line from Tertullian ---

In the first place, how arrogantly do the Marcionites build up their stupid system, bringing forward a new god, as if we were ashamed of the old one. (Tertullian, Adv Marc 1.8)

robert j

[cora]

Very good,
but Arabia is not Saudi-Arabia, but the neighbouring country, which we would call the west of Jordan and the west of Syria. Damascus is in it.

It is not Paul busy with scriptures, it is his forger. Paul's knowledge of the OT does not go further than Moses and Abraham, because Paul is not a jew. That is all forgery to make him fit for the catholic church. The proof is in Galatians in the row with the people he comes from. Also Paul never returns, this is also forgery. Paul is a gnostic. His Jesus is a god. He uses chrestos which means saviour. He preaches (spiritual) life after death which is gnostic.
God the father, the son who was there from the beginning, and the holy Spirit are GNOSTIC. Taken in by the church.
If you think there is more forgery in the letters than the real Paul, you are right.

[robert j]

Very good,
but Arabia is not Saudi-Arabia, but the neighbouring country, which we would call the west of Jordan and the west of Syria. Damascus is in it.

Paul believed that Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Galatians 4:25). I edited the OP to add that information.

As for the rest of what you have written above, we agree on little if any of it. C'est la vie.

[DCHindley]

Very good, but Arabia is not Saudi-Arabia, but the neighbouring country, which we would call the west of Jordan and the west of Syria. Damascus is in it.

Paul believed that Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Galatians 4:25). I edited the OP to add that information.

I think the most developed critical opinion on what was being referred to when someone used the word "arabia" is Robert Eisenman, in his James the Brother of Jesus. The term seems to have been used rather loosely in Greek and Latin sources, and can refer to Sinai but yes, also Damascus and points westward. Generally, those of this region are known for being wandering types, living off of flocks of tended animals like sheep and goats. There is disagreement whether they were a branch of the Aramean peoples or whether they were a distinct tribe of another origin. They traded wool and goat milk cheese and maybe artifacts with the settled townspeople, IIUC. The term "Arabian" was also applied to Nabateans, although most don't currently think they are of the same ethnic derivation as "Arabs" or "Arameans."

Good luck on Eisenman, as he can be a difficult read as he allows you to form your own opinions from an endless array of factoids, which you have to keep juggling in your heads.

As for the person who claimed Sinai was in "Arabia," my has-to-be-wrong interpretation is that it was a Christian interpolator of a letter of a Jewish author who actually knew nothing of Jesus or Christ. This interpolator had come across the Jewish author's description of the story of Abram who believed God's promise that his wife Sarah would bear children and was consequently justified before God. This is all a very plain retelling of the story in the book of Genesis.

The interpolator then posited his counter commentary, which turns the story on its head. It was *he* who believed that Sinai was in "Arabia."

Here's how I analyzed it:

"Paul's" narrative = Gentiles can become children of God via faith and do not have to convert to Judaism to receive God's promises to Abraham. Isaac is the child of promise. Hagar was the child of human weakness. Relish in the promise.	Counter Narrative of a redactor = Judaism is basically slavery as taught by the history of its people. Judeans think they are children of promise through Sarah, but prove themselves to be children of ther slave woman Hagar, as their destiny included slavery (in the Judean rebellion). The seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made was really Christ, and so the faith in the promise was really faith in Christ.
3:6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)
3:7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the good news beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (Gen 12:3)
3:9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith.
3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Deu 27:26)
3:11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; (Hab 2:4)
3:12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." (Lev 18:5)
	3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- (Deu 21:23)
3:14a that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles,
	3:14b in *Christ Jesus*
3:14c that the *promise*
	3:14d of the Spirit
3:14e we might receive through faith.
3:15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.
3:16a Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.
	3:16b It does not say, "And to offsprings (pl)," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring (sg)," (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7) which is Christ.
3:17a This is what I mean: Given a covenant previously ratified by *God,*
3:17b then that which came four hundred and thirty years (Exo 12:40) afterward, the Law, does not annul it so as to make the promise void.
3:18 For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions,
	3:19b till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made;
3:19c and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.
3:20 Now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one.
3:21 Is the law then against the promises *of God*?
3:21b Certainly not; for if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
3:22a But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that the promise
	3:22b out of faith in Jesus Christ
3:22c might be given to those who believe.
	3:23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.
	3:24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
	3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
	3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
	3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
	3:28 There is neither Judean nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
	3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;
4:2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
4:3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
4:4a But when the time had fully come, God sent forth
	4:4b his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
	4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
	4:6a And because you are sons,
4:6b God sent forth [dittograph from vs 4a?]
4:6c the Spirit
	4:6d of his Son
4:6e into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
4:7a So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir
	4:7b *through God*.
	4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; (2 Chr 37:19; Isa 13:9; Jer 2:11)
	4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?
	4:10 You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years!
	4:11 I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.
	4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong;
	4:13 you know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the good news to you at first;
	4:14 and *you were tested*, by (or despite) my fleshly condition, you did not ignore or reject me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
	4:15 What has become of the satisfaction you felt? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.
	4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?
	4:17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.
	4:18 For a good purpose it is always good to be made much of, and not only when I am present with you.
	4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!
4:20 I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
4:22a For it is written that Abraham had two sons,
4:22b one by a slave (Gen 16:15)
4:22c and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).
4:23a But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh,
4:23b the son of the free woman through promise.
	4:24a Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.
	4:24b One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;
	4:24c she is Hagar.
	4:25a the
	4:25b *but Hagar (represents) Sinai*
	4:25c mountain in Arabia;
	4:25d she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
	4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
	4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married" (Isa 54:1).
4:28 *Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.*
	4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
	4:30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son (Gen 21:10) of the free woman."
	4:31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
	5:1 *For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore,* and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

When looked at this way, the two positions about the nature of Abraham's offspring who will one day inherit a fruitful land couldn't be more opposed to one another.

The first one is happy to open his arms towards gentiles and let them also inherit this land one day along with Abraham's physical children. To him, the Law is a special blessing bestowed on Abraham's children through Moses centuries after the promise was made and Abraham was justified before God. The Law cannot be practiced without error, though, but the true heir is justified by his faith in the promise actually coming one day. Gentiles had no obligation to observe it.

The second one is bitter about the Law of Moses and exhibits a fetish of hatred against it. His solution is to incorporate the myth of a symbolic vicarious death of a semi-divine Jesus/Christ, to completely remove the Law of Moses from any relevance to God's true intents for the fate of mankind.

And no, I do not compose posts like this on the fly. I always steal my own post content from posts here and on IIDB made years ago.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

And no, I do not compose posts like this on the fly. I always steal my own post content from posts here and on IIDB made years ago.

Some of your stuff is available on my old site, as well you know.

[DCHindley]

And no, I do not compose posts like this on the fly. I always steal my own post content from posts here and on IIDB made years ago.

Some of your stuff is available on my old site, as well you know.

Well, the idea was that I composed it myself, but I do tend to copy and paste from older posts. Yes, you do host several of my files on your website, and for that I give thanks whenever I refer someone to it. Thanks again.

Oh, I was able to speak to my daemon during lunch break yesterday and he says that the icon caught him in a moment of melancholy thinking of the many times I have waved my spindly finger and preached my gospel.

Actually, the spindly finger guy is a Pharisee in the original mural, who is lecturing Paul. However, his eyes being crossed in fury and wagging his spindly finger ever so defiantly, I could not resist turning him into a stand-in for me posing my deranged lunacy about thinking outside the box.

Hmmm. I find it offensive that my own icon is a parody of me instructing other people, as if I know anything.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Oh, I was able to speak to my daemon during lunch break yesterday and he says that the icon caught him in a moment of melancholy thinking of the many times I have waved my spindly finger and preached my gospel.

Actually, the spindly finger guy is a Pharisee in the original mural, who is lecturing Paul. However, his eyes being crossed in fury and wagging his spindly finger ever so defiantly, I could not resist turning him into a stand-in for me posing my deranged lunacy about thinking outside the box.

Hmmm, I find it interesting that my own icon is a parody of me instructing other people, as if I know anything.

My icon is boring by comparison.

[DCHindley]

My icon is boring by comparison.

Es muy bonito

[Ben C. Smith]

My icon is boring by comparison.

Es muy bonito

Well, yes, I agree with that. A splendid codex.

[DCHindley]

My icon is boring by comparison.

Es muy bonito

Well, yes, I agree with that. A splendid codex.

I was wondering what exactly it was.

The icons are so small you can't really make out details, but I was thinking of a mosaic from an ancient synagogue. The Spanish thing was just because I once used that phrase (in correct gender) with a Hispanic girl I had a class with in Jr College, and it made her blush. Unfortunately, I did not get a date with her. I swear, though, that I was not trying to make you blush (that would just be weird).

So, Leningrad Codex!

In that case, Это очень красиво! (I have no idea how to pronounce that)

DCH