Notes on the flesh phrases of Tertullian's critique of Marcion, GThomas and the Jameses of Galatians

[gryan]

Notes on the flesh phrases of Tertullian's critique of Marcion, GThomas and the Jameses of Galatians

Gal 2:20
"That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [Marcion: redeemed] me..."

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. 23 However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. 24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children [Marcion: into the synagogue of the Jews in accordance with the Law,] into bondage, the other one giving birth which is Hagar, [Marcion locates Ephesians 1.21 at approximately this point] Ephesians 1.21 far above all rule, authority, power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. [Marcion now returns to Galatians 4]...

Gal 4:26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which [Marcion: for she] is the mother of us all [Jason BeDuhn adds here, but does not defend: "that sacred assembly to which we have promised ourselves"]...

31 So then, brothers, we are not children of a servant, but of the free woman.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.1-6: [1] "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For there is no figure here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." [2] For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. [3] But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons. [4] For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and "in His name shall the Gentiles trust." That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." For "in the last days," saith He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.8: [8] But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text. "For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized" (that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history)...

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.6-7: [6] "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel; " and "Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth." Now was absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit."

Jerome
From Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 4.4-5: / "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Diligently attend to what he did not say, "made through a woman," which Marcion and the other heresies who pretend that the flesh of Christ was imaginary wish it to be, but rather "from a woman," so that it might be believed that he was born, not through her, but rather from her.

Gal 5:19
Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.


------------------

Gospel of Thomas
BLATZ

(12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

BLATZ

(28) Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I found none of them thirsting, and my soul was afflicted for the sons of men; for they are blind in their heart, and they do not see that they came empty into the world, (and) empty they seek to leave the world again. But now they are drunk. When they have thrown off their wine, they will repent.


----------------------------

Thomas writers know and reflect the flash points in Tertullian (and Jerome's) criticism of Marcion.

----------------------------
imho

"James the Just" of GThomas is the James who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship according to Galatians and Acts, the same James to whom the Lord appeared according to 1 Cor 15. Mary the mother of this James in Mk and Lk at the empty tomb is also called "the other Mary" by GMatt. This James is "the other disciple"/"the beloved disciple" of GJohn.

"James the Just" of Hegesippas, is called "the Lord's brother" and refers to Gal 1:19. This is a different James than James the pillar who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. This is the "James" of "some from James" who pressured Peter to withdraw from table fellowship in Antioch.

This is the hidden divide between the authentic reading of the NT and GThomas vs the mistaken reading of the NT that assumes as Hegesippas does, that James the Lord's flesh and blood brother called "the different one" in Gal 1:19 was the pillar James.

The key is to reread the flesh phrases of Galtians and to realize that Paul's adversary was the Lord's flesh and blood brother, his ally was James the pillar, the servant of all, and his Gospel emphasized the manifestation of the life of Jesus "in my mortal flesh"

2 Cor 4:11
For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus [Marcion: Christ] may be revealed in our mortal flesh.

[mlinssen]

Notes on the flesh phrases of Tertullian's critique of Marcion, GThomas and the Jameses of Galatians

Gal 2:20
"That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [Marcion: redeemed] me..."

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. 23 However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. 24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children [Marcion: into the synagogue of the Jews in accordance with the Law,] into bondage, the other one giving birth which is Hagar, [Marcion locates Ephesians 1.21 at approximately this point] Ephesians 1.21 far above all rule, authority, power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. [Marcion now returns to Galatians 4]...

Gal 4:26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which [Marcion: for she] is the mother of us all [Jason BeDuhn adds here, but does not defend: "that sacred assembly to which we have promised ourselves"]...

31 So then, brothers, we are not children of a servant, but of the free woman.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.1-6: [1] "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For there is no figure here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." [2] For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. [3] But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons. [4] For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and "in His name shall the Gentiles trust." That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." For "in the last days," saith He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.8: [8] But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text. "For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized" (that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history)...

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.6-7: [6] "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel; " and "Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth." Now was absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit."

Jerome
From Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 4.4-5: / "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Diligently attend to what he did not say, "made through a woman," which Marcion and the other heresies who pretend that the flesh of Christ was imaginary wish it to be, but rather "from a woman," so that it might be believed that he was born, not through her, but rather from her.

Gal 5:19
Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.


------------------

Gospel of Thomas
BLATZ

(12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

BLATZ

(28) Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I found none of them thirsting, and my soul was afflicted for the sons of men; for they are blind in their heart, and they do not see that they came empty into the world, (and) empty they seek to leave the world again. But now they are drunk. When they have thrown off their wine, they will repent.


----------------------------

Thomas writers know and reflect the flash points in Tertullian (and Jerome's) criticism of Marcion.

----------------------------
imho

"James the Just" of GThomas is the James who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship according to Galatians and Acts, the same James to whom the Lord appeared according to 1 Cor 15. Mary the mother of this James in Mk and Lk at the empty tomb is also called "the other Mary" by GMatt. This James is "the other disciple"/"the beloved disciple" of GJohn.

"James the Just" of Hegesippas, is called "the Lord's brother" and refers to Gal 1:19. This is a different James than James the pillar who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. This is the "James" of "some from James" who pressured Peter to withdraw from table fellowship in Antioch.

This is the hidden divide between the authentic reading of the NT and GThomas vs the mistaken reading of the NT that assumes as Hegesippas does, that James the Lord's flesh and blood brother called "the different one" in Gal 1:19 was the pillar James.

The key is to reread the flesh phrases of Galtians and to realize that Paul's adversary was the Lord's flesh and blood brother, his ally was James the pillar, the servant of all, and his Gospel emphasized the manifestation of the life of Jesus "in my mortal flesh"

2 Cor 4:11
For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus [Marcion: Christ] may be revealed in our mortal flesh.

The Coptic states

IS said: I stood to my feet in the middle of the World and I revealed outward to them in Flesh

which the Greek explicitly has quite differently:

Says IS I-stood in the-middle of-the world and in flesh I-was-seen to/by-them

In Coptic the object is in flesh, and in Greek that has been explicitly changed to the subject.
And yes, ever since that has been a hotly debated topic.
To which Philip adds a boatload of refutations against the Christian story

[gryan]

GThomas in Greek fragments:
J[esu]s says, Ί s[t]ood
in the midst of the world
and I appeared to them in flesh..."

λετγει Ί(ησού)ς' ε[σ]την
εν μέσω
https://biblehub.com/greek/meso__3319.htm
τού κόσμου
https://biblehub.com/greek/kosmou_2889.htm
καΐ
εν σαρκει
https://biblehub.com/greek/sarki_4561.htm
ώφθην αύτοϊς

Acts 26:16, "Damascus Road"
But rise and stand upon your feet, for I [Jesus] have appeared was seen (ὤφθην) to by you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will to you,

1 Cor 15:8
Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared was seen (ὤφθη) to by me.

-----------

GThomas takes language used by Paul and Acts. Imho, it fits a pattern found in Hebrews where Paul's manifestation of the life of Jesus in his flesh is projected back to the Life of Jesus before the crucifixion.

The Coptic states

IS said: I stood to my feet in the middle of the World and I revealed outward to them in Flesh

which the Greek explicitly has quite differently:

Says IS I-stood in the-middle of-the world and in flesh I-was-seen to/by-them

In Coptic the object is in flesh, and in Greek that has been explicitly changed to the subject.
And yes, ever since that has been a hotly debated topic.
To which Philip adds a boatload of refutations against the Christian story

mlinssen: Yes, I see what you mean about the Greek. I'll take your word for what happens differently in the Coptic. That said, to me, the Coptic (of course) seems like a mis-translation of the Greek since Paul didn't talk of a literal "appearance" of the resurrected Jesus "in the flesh"; rather, he spoke of the "manifestation of the life of Jesus in our flesh."

I'm pondering the use of "flesh" in G Philip. Sounds pretty Pauline to me. For example:

"When Abraham [...] that he was to see what he was to see,
he circumcised the flesh of the foreskin,
teaching us that it is proper to destroy the flesh."

Similarly, Paul went from the idea of circumcision of the flesh of the foreskin to the idea of crucifixion "of the flesh with its passions and desires."

[mlinssen]

GThomas in Greek fragments:
J[esu]s says, Ί s[t]ood
in the midst of the world
and I appeared to them in flesh..."

λετγει Ί(ησού)ς' ε[σ]την
εν μέσω
https://biblehub.com/greek/meso__3319.htm
τού κόσμου
https://biblehub.com/greek/kosmou_2889.htm
καΐ
εν σαρκει
https://biblehub.com/greek/sarki_4561.htm
ώφθην αύτοϊς

Acts 26:16, "Damascus Road"
But rise and stand upon your feet, for I [Jesus] have appeared was seen (ὤφθην) to by you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will to you,

1 Cor 15:8
Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared was seen (ὤφθη) to by me.

-----------

GThomas takes language used by Paul and Acts. Imho, it fits a pattern found in Hebrews where Paul's manifestation of the life of Jesus in his flesh is projected back to the Life of Jesus before the crucifixion.

The Coptic states

IS said: I stood to my feet in the middle of the World and I revealed outward to them in Flesh

which the Greek explicitly has quite differently:

Says IS I-stood in the-middle of-the world and in flesh I-was-seen to/by-them

In Coptic the object is in flesh, and in Greek that has been explicitly changed to the subject.
And yes, ever since that has been a hotly debated topic.
To which Philip adds a boatload of refutations against the Christian story

mlinssen: Yes, I see what you mean about the Greek. I'll take your word for what happens differently in the Coptic. That said, to me, the Coptic (of course) seems like a mis-translation of the Greek since Paul didn't talk of a literal "appearance" of the resurrected Jesus "in the flesh"; rather, he spoke of the "manifestation of the life of Jesus in our flesh."

I'm pondering the use of "flesh" in G Philip. Sounds pretty Pauline to me. For example:

"When Abraham [...] that he was to see what he was to see,
he circumcised the flesh of the foreskin,
teaching us that it is proper to destroy the flesh."

Similarly, Paul went from the idea of circumcision of the flesh of the foreskin to the idea of crucifixion "of the flesh with its passions and desires."

Funny how you say that you'll take my word for the Coptic whereas I have gone through more than considerable effort in order to provide every living soul on this earth with a one-click revelation of each and every single word in Coptic Thomas

As long as they can read English, and have internet - I think you qualify there, wouldn't you?

https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... _of_Thomas