The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

[MrMacSon]

It all is a perfect remake of the original that has been talked about so much, that which stands in contrast with

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

You say Paul struggles with Gal 4:4, though I note Gal 4:4 is the only one of those three verses which is specific to an individual ie. God's Son.

Moreover, a Jew's mother had to be Jewish for him to be considered Jewish ie. *born of a woman* to be born under the Law

Well, it doesn't say anywhere that the woman is Jewish, or does it? Could have been Greek, Roman or even Australian (or Dutch for that matter).

Holy crap: while there's nothing explicit in Gal 4 that Jesus (or Mary) was Jewish, I had always assumed Paul portrayed Jesus as Jewish b/c he, like most if not all other NT authors, used Jewish scriptures to pad out their stories, but I'm not sure there is any explicit statement in the Pauline epistles that Jesus was Jewish.

There's 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 -

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

But I can't find anything else ... (and Paul does negate The Law in Galatians 2-3)

[gryan]

Holy crap: while there's nothing explicit in Gal 4 that Jesus (or Mary) was Jewish, I had always assumed Paul portrayed Jesus as Jewish b/c he, like most if not all other NT authors, used Jewish scriptures to pad out their stories, but I'm not sure there is any explicit statement in the Pauline epistles that Jesus was Jewish.

There's 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 -

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

But I can't find anything else ... (and Paul does negate The Law in Galatians 2-3)

What about Rom 1:3-4?

Concerning His Son--born from David's seed according to flesh, marked out by resurrection of the dead as God's son in power according to a spirit of holiness--Jesus, the Anointed, our Lord... (Tr. DB Hart)

Bart Ehrman considers this a pre-Pauline formula which was adopted by Paul.

[rgprice]

Holy crap: while there's nothing explicit in Gal 4 that Jesus (or Mary) was Jewish, I had always assumed Paul portrayed Jesus as Jewish b/c he, like most if not all other NT authors, used Jewish scriptures to pad out their stories, but I'm not sure there is any explicit statement in the Pauline epistles that Jesus was Jewish.

There's 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 -

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

But I can't find anything else ... (and Paul does negate The Law in Galatians 2-3)

What about Rom 1:3-4?

Concerning His Son--born from David's seed according to flesh, marked out by resurrection of the dead as God's son in power according to a spirit of holiness--Jesus, the Anointed, our Lord... (Tr. DB Hart)

Bart Ehrman considers this a pre-Pauline formula which was adopted by Paul.

I consider that a definite late interpolation.

Consider:
1) Nowhere else in any authentic letter of Paul is Jesus associated with David in any way
2) The opening is un-Pauline in length and sentence structure
3) This looks a lot like the opening of 2 Timothy, a known forgery

From the book I'm working on:

As we can see, the opening statement for Romans reads much more fluidly with the parenthetical statement removed, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God, which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In fact, J.C. O’Neill goes so far as to remove, “which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings,” as well, making the opening even more economical.

Yet more economical still, however, is the opening of the Marcionite letter to the Romans. The reconstructed greeting of Marcion’s Romans reads simply, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle among all the nations on behalf of his name to those who are in Rome.” That’s it. But what’s more, none of the critics of Marcion, who analyzed and commented on virtually every line of Marcion’s scriptures, made any comment about the lack of a reference to David in the greeting of Romans. This has long puzzled scholars, because it would seem that if a mention of David were present in Marcion’s version of the letter then they surely would have remarked on it because it was well known that Marcion denied that Jesus was a descendant of David. Thus, if even Marcion's copy of Paul’s letter stated that Jesus was a descendant of David they surely would have called him out on the point. Yet it’s also curious that they wouldn’t mention it if it were missing, assuming that the mention of David was present in their copies of the letter. This implies that the passage about Jesus being the son of David wasn’t even present in the version of Romans that third century critics of Marcion were using. However, most scholars are unwilling to take such a position, so the matter is generally considered simply unresolved.

I haven't been able to really find any conclusion on how to interpret the evidence regarding this passage. The fact that no one comments on it is baffling and no one really known what to make of it.

[rgprice]

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

Wow, thanks for calling this out.

This is really interesting. This appears to be a line that we can defiantly trace to Marcion's Evangelion.

From BeDuhn:

7.28 Epiphanius, Scholion 8; Tertullian, Marc. 4.18.8; Ephrem, Marc. II
(Mitchell) 107–8. Tertullian says variously, “Greater indeed is he than
all that are born of women, but . . . he is less than the least in the
kingdom of God” and “John . . . is greater than men born of women.”
Epiphanius paraphrases, “whom he had ranked as the greatest of
those born of women” and quotes, “The one that is less in the kingdom
is greater than he.” So although the first clause is missing from
Gk ms D, it was clearly present in the Evangelion, despite its high
praise of a prophet representing the Jewish covenant. By saying “than
all born of women” rather than “than all prophets born of women,” all
three of our witnesses suggest that the Evangelion has a widely shared
reading, including by P75 and many other Greek manuscripts, Origen,
and OL. Cf. Thomas 46.

This line would imply that Jesus is not born of a woman of course. No one born of a woman is greater than John, but of course Jesus is greater than John. Thus, Jesus must not be born of a woman.

This appears to be a place where Matthew and proto-Luke copied from Marcion. It seem inconceivable that anyone writing an orthodox Gospel would write this on their own. They made Gospels that intentionally gave Jesus a human mother, and then to say something that contradicts that would make no sense, unless they were just copying from Marcion's Gospel or proto-Marcion and missed the meaning of what they were copying.

But where does this leave Gal 4:4? It is a later orthodox interpolation? It is again one of those distinct statements in the Pauline letters. Nothing like this is found in Romans. But at the same time, Gal 3-Gal4 reads fairly cohesively, it's not like 1 Cor 15:5-11, which is an obvious insertion.

[mlinssen]

I consider that a definite late interpolation.

Consider:
1) Nowhere else in any authentic letter of Paul is Jesus associated with David in any way
2) The opening is un-Pauline in length and sentence structure
3) This looks a lot like the opening of 2 Timothy, a known forgery

From the book I'm working on:

As we can see, the opening statement for Romans reads much more fluidly with the parenthetical statement removed, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God, which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In fact, J.C. O’Neill goes so far as to remove, “which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings,” as well, making the opening even more economical.

Yet more economical still, however, is the opening of the Marcionite letter to the Romans. The reconstructed greeting of Marcion’s Romans reads simply, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle among all the nations on behalf of his name to those who are in Rome.” That’s it. But what’s more, none of the critics of Marcion, who analyzed and commented on virtually every line of Marcion’s scriptures, made any comment about the lack of a reference to David in the greeting of Romans. This has long puzzled scholars, because it would seem that if a mention of David were present in Marcion’s version of the letter then they surely would have remarked on it because it was well known that Marcion denied that Jesus was a descendant of David. Thus, if even Marcion's copy of Paul’s letter stated that Jesus was a descendant of David they surely would have called him out on the point. Yet it’s also curious that they wouldn’t mention it if it were missing, assuming that the mention of David was present in their copies of the letter. This implies that the passage about Jesus being the son of David wasn’t even present in the version of Romans that third century critics of Marcion were using. However, most scholars are unwilling to take such a position, so the matter is generally considered simply unresolved.

I haven't been able to really find any conclusion on how to interpret the evidence regarding this passage. The fact that no one comments on it is baffling and no one really known what to make of it.

You have my vote, even though I'm wholly unfamiliar with it all. You are right that with regards to some matters, a position must have been chosen either way, unless "the matter" wasn't there. Jesus ain't no small change, David neither: if this hasn't lead to an aye or a naye among "the critics of Marcion", then it simply wasn't there

[gryan]

From the book I'm working on...

rgprice: How do you balance book writing and forum participation?

[perseusomega9]

->copy
->paste

[Ben C. Smith]

From the book I'm working on:

As we can see, the opening statement for Romans reads much more fluidly with the parenthetical statement removed, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God, which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In fact, J.C. O’Neill goes so far as to remove, “which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings,” as well, making the opening even more economical.

Yet more economical still, however, is the opening of the Marcionite letter to the Romans. The reconstructed greeting of Marcion’s Romans reads simply, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle among all the nations on behalf of his name to those who are in Rome.” That’s it. But what’s more, none of the critics of Marcion, who analyzed and commented on virtually every line of Marcion’s scriptures, made any comment about the lack of a reference to David in the greeting of Romans. This has long puzzled scholars, because it would seem that if a mention of David were present in Marcion’s version of the letter then they surely would have remarked on it because it was well known that Marcion denied that Jesus was a descendant of David. Thus, if even Marcion's copy of Paul’s letter stated that Jesus was a descendant of David they surely would have called him out on the point. Yet it’s also curious that they wouldn’t mention it if it were missing, assuming that the mention of David was present in their copies of the letter. This implies that the passage about Jesus being the son of David wasn’t even present in the version of Romans that third century critics of Marcion were using. However, most scholars are unwilling to take such a position, so the matter is generally considered simply unresolved.

I haven't been able to really find any conclusion on how to interpret the evidence regarding this passage. The fact that no one comments on it is baffling and no one really known what to make of it.

Not that I have this whole matter all figured out or anything, but I have argued before on this forum that Romans 1.1b-5a is an interpolation. This argument is based partly on codex Boernerianus, which lacks those verses. It is true that this codex leaves space for them, and also that it lacks other verses which it also leaves space for, but it is interesting that Romans 1.1b-5a is the only such bounded passage in the codex which, if left out, leaves a smooth syntax in its wake (Philemon [1.]21-25 is unbounded, coming at the very end of that epistle).

[mlinssen]

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

Wow, thanks for calling this out.

This is really interesting. This appears to be a line that we can defiantly trace to Marcion's Evangelion.

From BeDuhn:

7.28 Epiphanius, Scholion 8; Tertullian, Marc. 4.18.8; Ephrem, Marc. II
(Mitchell) 107–8. Tertullian says variously, “Greater indeed is he than
all that are born of women, but . . . he is less than the least in the
kingdom of God” and “John . . . is greater than men born of women.”
Epiphanius paraphrases, “whom he had ranked as the greatest of
those born of women” and quotes, “The one that is less in the kingdom
is greater than he.” So although the first clause is missing from
Gk ms D, it was clearly present in the Evangelion, despite its high
praise of a prophet representing the Jewish covenant. By saying “than
all born of women” rather than “than all prophets born of women,” all
three of our witnesses suggest that the Evangelion has a widely shared
reading, including by P75 and many other Greek manuscripts, Origen,
and OL. Cf. Thomas 46.

This line would imply that Jesus is not born of a woman of course. No one born of a woman is greater than John, but of course Jesus is greater than John. Thus, Jesus must not be born of a woman.

This appears to be a place where Matthew and proto-Luke copied from Marcion. It seem inconceivable that anyone writing an orthodox Gospel would write this on their own. They made Gospels that intentionally gave Jesus a human mother, and then to say something that contradicts that would make no sense, unless they were just copying from Marcion's Gospel or proto-Marcion and missed the meaning of what they were copying.

But where does this leave Gal 4:4? It is a later orthodox interpolation? It is again one of those distinct statements in the Pauline letters. Nothing like this is found in Romans. But at the same time, Gal 3-Gal4 reads fairly cohesively, it's not like 1 Cor 15:5-11, which is an obvious insertion.

Well, the whole story is as follows. Naturally, it all starts with Thomas, and this is the infamous logion 46, about the wordplay on Zedekiah & sons, aka "Johannes the Immerser", who immersed the prophet Jeremiah in mud:

(Lambdin) (46) Jesus said, "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John."

Naturally, that translation is bogus although it covers most of it, yet it leaves out the peculiar details

said IS : starting-from Adam toward Johannes the Immerser in the(PL) beget of the(PL) woman there-is-not he-who exalted to Johannes the Immerser So-that : Shan't! break viz. his(PL) eye did I say it However : he-who will come-to-be in you(r)(PL) he been-made of little he will know the(F) reign-of(F) king and he will be-high to Johannes

I don't know yet why Thomas explicitly refers to "real people" here, even though your own "I" is the best there is, of course. But this is the whole context, and this is where it all started.
And regardless of my interpretation of Thomas, it all depends how much context came along with the application of it in a canonical context, and that is exactly the issue here:
Ben has overlooked an "interpolation" in his Marcion reconstruction, it would seem: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39310

Luke 7.18-35, the inquiry of John the baptist.

18 Καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν Ἰωάνει οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ περὶ πάντων τούτων. καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος δύο τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰωάνης 19 ἔπεμψεν πρὸς τὸν Κύριον λέγων Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἄλλον προσδοκῶμεν; 20 παραγενόμενοι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες εἶπαν Ἰωάνης ὁ Βαπτιστὴς ἀπέστειλεν ἡμᾶς πρὸς σὲ λέγων Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἄλλον προσδοκῶμεν; 21 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς ἀπὸ νόσων καὶ μαστίγων καὶ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν, καὶ τυφλοῖς πολλοῖς ἐχαρίσατο βλέπειν. 22 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Πορευθέντες ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰωάνει ἃ εἴδετε καὶ ἠκούσατε· τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται, καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται, πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται· 23 καὶ μακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν [Marcion: οὐ] μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί. 24 Ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων Ἰωάνου ἤρξατο λέγειν πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους περὶ Ἰωάνου Τί ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; 25 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν. 26 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; προφήτην; ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, καὶ περισσότερον προφήτου. 27 οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπται Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. 28 λέγω ὑμῖν, μείζων ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν Ἰωάνου οὐδείς ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 29 καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας καὶ οἱ τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν Θεόν, βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάνου· 30 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς, μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. 31 Τίνι οὖν ὁμοιώσω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι; 32 ὅμοιοί εἰσιν παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις καὶ προσφωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις ἃ λέγει Ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε· ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκλαύσατε. 33 ἐλήλυθεν γὰρ Ἰωάνης ὁ Βαπτιστὴς μὴ ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον, καὶ λέγετε Δαιμόνιον ἔχει. 34 ἐλήλυθεν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγετε Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, φίλος τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. 35 καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς.

18 The disciples of John told him about all these things. John, in prison, calling to himself two of his disciples, 19 sent them to Jesus, saying, “Go and ask him, ‘Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?’” 20 When the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptizer has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you he who comes, or should we look for another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits; and to many who were blind he gave sight. 22 Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard: that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 23 Blessed is he who finds no occasion for stumbling in me.” 24 When John’s messengers had departed, he began to tell the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously dressed, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and much more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 28 “For I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in God’s Kingdom is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they declared God to be just, having been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God, not being baptized by him themselves. 31 “To what then should I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children who sit in the marketplace, and call to one another, saying, ‘We piped to you, and you didn’t dance. We mourned, and you didn’t weep.’ 33 For John the Baptizer came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man, and a drunkard; a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Wisdom is justified by all her children.”

Prophet isn't in Marcion, it gets added by the WEB interpretation of "Luke", and basically Luke just says what it says "for real":

28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (BLB)

And that, my friends, is a perfectly neutral sentence that could be about anyone or anything.
There is also the issue that John was born before Jesus was, so if you take the entire Thomasine original and interpret it into a Christian context, including the Lukan birth narrative, then it would automatically exclude Jesus

[rgprice]

@mlinssen

Well, I see JtB as a Markan invention, and Thomas as a 3rd century collection gleaned from a variety of sources.

20 [When they came up to him, the men said, “John the
Washer dispatched us to you saying, ‘Are you the Coming
One, or are we to expect another?’”]
21Now in the same hour he cured many . . . and he
made blind people see. 22 And responding, he said to
them, “Go tell John . . . that the blind are seeing again,
the lame are walking, and the deaf are hearing, the dead
are being awoken, 23 and whoever is not scandalized by
me is fortunate.”
24. . . He began to speak to the crowds about John:
“What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A
reed being swayed by the wind? 26. . . A prophet? Yes, I
am telling you, and far more than a prophet. 27 This is the
one about whom it has been written, ‘Look! I am sending
my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your road.’
28 I am telling you, no one is greater among those born of
women than John; but the one who is less in the realm of
God is greater than he.”

In the context of Marcion's Gospel this seems to be Jesus saying that JtB is the greatest of human beings, but he [Jesus], like all beings from the realm of God, is greater than he.