The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by Irish1975 »

For the purpose of close comparison and study, I have overlaid canonical Galatians 4:21-31, the so-called allegory of Sarah and Hagar, onto Marcion's version of it, as represented in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem 5.4.8. Other witnesses to Marcion's text are not considered, for now.

I think this is a clarifying way to study these texts. I hope it makes sense and provokes thought. Please note any errors, thanks.

KEY
plain text: material common to both Marcionite and canonical Galatians
italics: voice of Tertullian
underline: text that could be either Tertullian or the Marcionite scripture
highlight yellow: text of Marcionite version that is absent from canonical NT
highlight orange: text of canonical Ephesians 1: 21
strikeout: text of canonical Galatians that is not attested for Marcion's edition


. . . . .
Abraham duos liberos habuit,
unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera;
sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est,
qui vero ex libera per repromissionem:
quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia:
haec sunt enim duo testamenta—
sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum
unum a monte Sina
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem;
aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem,
et omne nomen quod nominatur,
non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro,

quae est mater nostra,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam;
ideoque adicit,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae...
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear/read the law?
For it is written that
Abraham had two sons,
one by a slave girl and the other by a free woman;
but he that was by the slave girl was begotten in the manner of flesh,
while he that was by the free woman was by promise:
which things are allegorical, which means, portending something else:
for these are two testaments
or two revelations, as I see they have translated it

the one giving birth unto slavery from Mount Sinai,
she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;
she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is free


in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,
giving birth unto slavery;

the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also
;
who is our mother,
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.”

towards whom, returning [?], we have promised [?] the holy church### (see footnote);
and then he adds:
Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.
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 of the free woman.”

So then, brethren, we are not sons of the slave girl, but of the free woman.

NA28 and Latin Vulgate of Ephesians 1:21
ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι·
supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo sed et in futuro


Canonical Galatians 4:21-31 (NA28, RSV modified)

21 Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;

22 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

23 ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι’ ἐπαγγελίας.

24 ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ.

25 τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς.

26 ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν·

27 γέγραπται γάρ·

εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα,
ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα·
ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου
μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα.

28 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ.

29 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.

30 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή;
ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

31 διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave girl and one by a free woman.

23 But the son of the slave was born according to flesh; the son of the free woman through promise.

24 Which things are allegorical: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

26 But the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother.

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.”

28 Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

29 But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.

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 of the free woman.”

31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.


AM 9.4.8 w/ full context

Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nulla magis auferenda, etsi ex parte convertit. Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum, unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem.
Evans translation (1972)

Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else : for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations.
Holmes translation (1870)

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); "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we have found the word interpreted, "the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"----"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free." In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by whom, as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand.

### Footnote
I cannot make any sense of the clause in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam, which is probably garbled beyond repair. The translations of Evans and Holmes are not acceptable.

The verb repromitto appears in the first person plural, perfect active indicative, which means something like "we have promised __, or have guaranteed__." The blank line denotes the direct object of the verb, which in this case can only be "the holy church." But how can the writer himself, or the community of believers, be the ones promising a holy church? As for "in quam," this could be the single word "inquam," which means "I say" (with a throat-clearing sense). But this too doesn't provide a meaningful statement. If "in quam" is correct, then the accusative rather than ablative case of quam (thus, not "in qua") carries the sense of movement towards. Thus, there would be an idea of yearning in the direction of the mother above. But it is hard to make out repromitto as a verb of tending towards.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

Brilliant. repromissio: counter-promise, guarantee. yes. "qui vero ex libera per repromissione" - dunno how anything was guaranteed for the free version there.
Liberi is awkward, as it means free persons - I don't see how that can be translated with children.
It's good to have both translations, both have pros and cons

repromisimus = perf ind act 1st pl, "we have guaranteed" indeed. Holy gathering, assembly. I think he harkens back at Sarah, "our mother, now and forever, in which we had promised holy union". I'm being wild now, I know

repromissi sumus versus repromisimus; can't mix 'm up really. Sorry, can't help

the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also;
who is our mother,

I can't imagine that such a great thrust was not in Marcion - what the hell is it supposed to do in Galatians?
This drips Chrestianity all over the place, it is brilliant and vile at the same time, much like Thomas' circumcision snark
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by Irish1975 »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:58 am
the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also;
who is our mother,

I can't imagine that such a great thrust was not in Marcion - what the hell is it supposed to do in Galatians?
This drips Chrestianity all over the place, it is brilliant and vile at the same time, much like Thomas' circumcision snark
Yes, it is a great thrust. In the context of Ephesians, it is about Christ’s exaltation in glory. In Galatians, it has a completely different meaning. It is about the birthing of the elect by the spiritual, celestial mother.

Taken as a whole, the two versions are strikingly different in multiple ways, and yield different meanings.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by nightshadetwine »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:12 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:58 am
the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also;
who is our mother,

I can't imagine that such a great thrust was not in Marcion - what the hell is it supposed to do in Galatians?
This drips Chrestianity all over the place, it is brilliant and vile at the same time, much like Thomas' circumcision snark
Yes, it is a great thrust. In the context of Ephesians, it is about Christ’s exaltation in glory. In Galatians, it has a completely different meaning. It is about the birthing of the elect by the spiritual, celestial mother.

Taken as a whole, the two versions are strikingly different in multiple ways, and yield different meanings.
This reminds me of the rebirth of the king or resurrected deceased through the sky goddess in Egyptian religion. Everyone had an earthly mother when they were born and then when they were reborn/resurrected as a divine being it was through the "heavenly" mother or sky goddess "Nut".

"Death and Initiation in the Funerary Religion of Ancient Egypt", Jan Assmann in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, Yale Egyptological Studies 3, (1989):
In accordance with the principle of "transfiguration," as the correlation of this world's symbolic objects and actions with yonder world of values and realities, the coffin becomes the body of the sky - and mother-goddess, thus enabling the "placing of the body in the coffin" to be transfigured into the ascent of the deceased to the heavens and the return to the mother-goddess. The sky-goddess is the Egyptian manifestation of the Great Mother. A central aspect of this belief is the fact that the Egyptians imagined the deceased as being the children of this Mother-of-all-Beings...The texts underline the indissolubility of this bond, or more precisely of the embrace into which the deceased, when laid in his coffin, enters with the sky - the mother goddess, the goddess of the dead. The concept of rebirth, however, still plays an important role. "I shall bear thee anew, rejuvenated," exclaims the sky-goddess to the deceased in one of many such texts inscribed on or in nearly every coffin and tomb. "I have spread myself over thee, I have born thee again as a god." Through this rebirth, the deceased becomes a star-god, a member of the AKH-sphere, a new entity. This rebirth, however, does not imply a de-livery, a separation, but takes place inside the mother's womb, inside the coffin and sky... The deceased, now reborn through the sky-goddess as a god himself, is subsequently breast-fed by divine nurses and elevated to the heavens...
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by lsayre »

Jerk out the foundational cornerstone of the gentiles being of Sarah and the Jews being of Hagar and you have collapsed Paul's entire intellectual ground breaking structural framework, leaving him with nothing to stand upon. Paul's unique revelation that he contends came from God and not from man, potentially as conceived while having ascended into the third heaven, is rendered void. As is thereby Paul.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:25 am Jerk out the foundational cornerstone of the gentiles being of Sarah and the Jews being of Hagar and you have collapsed Paul's entire intellectual ground breaking structural framework, leaving him with nothing to stand upon. Paul's unique revelation that he contends came from God and not from man, potentially as conceived while having ascended into the third heaven, is rendered void. As is thereby Paul.
Nah, he's got more cards up his sleeve, and I'll name a few of them. Courtesy of Abel Mordecai Bibliowicz, who'll have a panel at SBL on this. Yeah, seriously - Crossan is on it as well.

Don't get me wrong: Christianity is anti-semitic in nature, and that must be eradicated (and naturally that all resides in its true origins, namely Thomas and *Ev). But I am (not so) curious to see in which corner of the cancel culture this will end up

So, this is the whole paragraph:

Modern believers in Jesus have attempted to shielded themselves from full introspection by categorizing antisemitism as marginal behavior. In fact, from the fifth to the twentieth century, antisemitism was nurtured, facilitated, enabled and sanctioned throughout Christendom by religious lore and by religious, cultural and political elites.
This progression had a wide array of consequences. It impacted the lives, the hearts, and the minds of hundreds of millions of people, Jews and Christians. It was nurtured, facilitated and enabled by an array of theological, cultural and emotional narratives, themes, concepts, attitudes and negative stereotypes that were engendered during the period we have surveyed. They include:

1- The Jews are responsible for Jesus’ death.
2- The tribulations of the Jewish people are God's punishment for Jesus’ death and for their forfeiture of God’s favor.
3- By their sinfulness and by rejecting Jesus, the Jews forfeited the covenant.
4- By virtue of a new covenant, Christians replaced the Jews as God's people.
5- The Jewish Bible (‘Old’ Testament) showcases the opaqueness and the stubbornness of the Jewish people and their faithlessness to God.
6- The Jews are blind to the meaning of their own scriptures.
7- By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8- The essence of Judaism is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9- The New Testament religion — Christianity — emphasizes love; the Jewish Bible emphasizes legalism, justice, and a God of wrath.

Ignore number 7 - but this is hardcore Paul, of course. The order is not right for a good rhetoric but Paul has the right order nonetheless. The circumcision bullshit bingo as well as that of the food laws are expositions of this, but in essence this is Paul, and naturally none of it is anti-semitic in nature, and naturally all of it has become anti-semitic "out on the streets".
The irony of it all is that, in order to undo the fierce anti-Judaism of Chrestianity, the Romans decided to reverse it into pro-Judaism, and even root all of it in Judaism. But that led to the supersessionism after it turned out to be a successful move, whereas they should have just used the friction to suffocate the movement instead.
The power hunger and greed moved the Romans to letting prevail their new religion over Judaism, which from the point of view of command & control was perfectly understandable

Still, Paul is at the heart of it all, as he is the evangelist of the NT, of course. Excommunicate Paul and you may have dealt a fierce blow to anti-Semitism, but indeed, at the same time, Christianity gets uprooted into nothingness, a baseless religion that's nothing more than a fancy mix of Hellenism, Zoroastrianism and then some other isms
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by davidmartin »

Don't get me wrong: Christianity is anti-semitic in nature, and that must be eradicated (and naturally that all resides in its true origins, namely Thomas and *Ev). But I am (not so) curious to see in which corner of the cancel culture this will end up
Yes but the apostle started it. Before him it was just a Jewish sect that had some problems with the religious authorities (as sects do)
Thomas, and by extension Jesus, naturally doesn't provide a theological reason for anything anti-semitic, unlike the apostle. He is the source of it all with his half baked theology and personality cult centred around himself. In my head I imagine Jewish Christians quite happily practising their Torah-light and making a few token offerings at the temple (like most of the population) then along comes the apostle and his band of gentiles royally interfering and by force taking what is not theirs and changing it. Seems unfair to continue doing to them what the apostle did to them is all i'm saying. Give them a break. Narrow your target down to someone that deserves it.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:55 pm
Don't get me wrong: Christianity is anti-semitic in nature, and that must be eradicated (and naturally that all resides in its true origins, namely Thomas and *Ev). But I am (not so) curious to see in which corner of the cancel culture this will end up
Yes but the apostle started it. Before him it was just a Jewish sect that had some problems with the religious authorities (as sects do)
Thomas, and by extension Jesus, naturally doesn't provide a theological reason for anything anti-semitic, unlike the apostle. He is the source of it all with his half baked theology and personality cult centred around himself. In my head I imagine Jewish Christians quite happily practising their Torah-light and making a few token offerings at the temple (like most of the population) then along comes the apostle and his band of gentiles royally interfering and by force taking what is not theirs and changing it. Seems unfair to continue doing to them what the apostle did to them is all i'm saying. Give them a break. Narrow your target down to someone that deserves it.
Well, Marcion started it of course, with his deliberate schism between the new gospel and the old Law.
But that is not hard evidence, as Christianity has eradicated all of it, and all its adherents - so it's Paul now who indeed is the first on record to theologically attack Judaism, naturally to the benefit of his own flyers

I'm not about to give Abel any crap really, it's just that I see this as a show of good faith by the SBL panel, after which it will likely all end in a wet fart. There will be a lot of talk, and not a single deed or action. Trust me: of all the people that need deliverance from Christianity, Jews are the very first of course
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:45 am For the purpose of close comparison and study, I have overlaid canonical Galatians 4:21-31, the so-called allegory of Sarah and Hagar, onto Marcion's version of it, as represented in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem 5.4.8. Other witnesses to Marcion's text are not considered, for now.

I think this is a clarifying way to study these texts. I hope it makes sense and provokes thought. Please note any errors, thanks.

KEY
plain text: material common to both Marcionite and canonical Galatians
italics: voice of Tertullian
underline: text that could be either Tertullian or the Marcionite scripture
highlight yellow: text of Marcionite version that is absent from canonical NT
highlight orange: text of canonical Ephesians 1: 21
strikeout: text of canonical Galatians that is not attested for Marcion's edition


. . . . .
Abraham duos liberos habuit,
unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera;
sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est,
qui vero ex libera per repromissionem:
quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia:
haec sunt enim duo testamenta—
sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum
unum a monte Sina
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem;
aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem,
et omne nomen quod nominatur,
non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro,

quae est mater nostra,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam;
ideoque adicit,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae...
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear/read the law?
For it is written that
Abraham had two sons,
one by a slave girl and the other by a free woman;
but he that was by the slave girl was begotten in the manner of flesh,
while he that was by the free woman was by promise:
which things are allegorical, which means, portending something else:
for these are two testaments
or two revelations, as I see they have translated it

the one giving birth unto slavery from Mount Sinai,
she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;
she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is free


in the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,
giving birth unto slavery;

the other giving birth above all principality, power, and domination,
and every name that is named,
not only in this aeon, but in the next also
;
who is our mother,
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.”

towards whom, returning [?], we have promised [?] the holy church### (see footnote);
and then he adds:
Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.
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 of the free woman.”

So then, brethren, we are not sons of the slave girl, but of the free woman.

NA28 and Latin Vulgate of Ephesians 1:21
ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι·
supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo sed et in futuro


Canonical Galatians 4:21-31 (NA28, RSV modified)

21 Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;

22 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

23 ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι’ ἐπαγγελίας.

24 ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ.

25 τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς.

26 ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν·

27 γέγραπται γάρ·

εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα,
ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα·
ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου
μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα.

28 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ.

29 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.

30 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή;
ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

31 διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave girl and one by a free woman.

23 But the son of the slave was born according to flesh; the son of the free woman through promise.

24 Which things are allegorical: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

26 But the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother.

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.”

28 Now you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

29 But as at that time he who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit, so it is now.

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 of the free woman.”

31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.


AM 9.4.8 w/ full context

Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nulla magis auferenda, etsi ex parte convertit. Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum, unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem.
Evans translation (1972)

Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham—though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else : for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come: for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations.
Holmes translation (1870)

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); "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we have found the word interpreted, "the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"----"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free." In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by whom, as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand.

### Footnote
I cannot make any sense of the clause in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam, which is probably garbled beyond repair. The translations of Evans and Holmes are not acceptable.

The verb repromitto appears in the first person plural, perfect active indicative, which means something like "we have promised __, or have guaranteed__." The blank line denotes the direct object of the verb, which in this case can only be "the holy church." But how can the writer himself, or the community of believers, be the ones promising a holy church? As for "in quam," this could be the single word "inquam," which means "I say" (with a throat-clearing sense). But this too doesn't provide a meaningful statement. If "in quam" is correct, then the accusative rather than ablative case of quam (thus, not "in qua") carries the sense of movement towards. Thus, there would be an idea of yearning in the direction of the mother above. But it is hard to make out repromitto as a verb of tending towards.
I felt in need of a close-up
Highlighted is verbatim, bold is different, italic is different-ish ;-) - we're being stingy on the comparison

Galatians 5, Vulgate:

22 scriptum est enim quoniam Abraham duos filios habuit unum de ancilla et unum de libera
23 sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem
24 quae sunt per allegoriam dicta haec enim sunt duo testamenta unum quidem a monte Sina in servitutem generans quae est Agar
25 Sina enim mons est in Arabia qui coniunctus est ei quae nunc est Hierusalem et servit cum filiis eius
26 illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem libera est quae est mater nostra
27 scriptum est enim laetare sterilis quae non paris erumpe et exclama quae non parturis quia multi filii desertae magis quam eius quae habet virum
28 nos autem fratres secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus
29 sed quomodo tunc qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum qui secundum spiritum ita et nunc
30 sed quid dicit scriptura eice ancillam et filium eius non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio liberae
31 itaque fratres non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae qua libertate nos Christus liberavit

Turtle:

Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum, unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem

I can't help but find verbatim agreement all along the way: whatever is in your Marcion, is in our Galatians

Just one question Irish: from which specific volume was Da Turtle quoting here? Just some remarkably verbatim Vetus Latina?

:whistling:
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by Irish1975 »

nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:13 pm This reminds me of the rebirth of the king or resurrected deceased through the sky goddess in Egyptian religion. Everyone had an earthly mother when they were born and then when they were reborn/resurrected as a divine being it was through the "heavenly" mother or sky goddess "Nut".

"Death and Initiation in the Funerary Religion of Ancient Egypt", Jan Assmann in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, Yale Egyptological Studies 3, (1989):
In accordance with the principle of "transfiguration," as the correlation of this world's symbolic objects and actions with yonder world of values and realities, the coffin becomes the body of the sky - and mother-goddess, thus enabling the "placing of the body in the coffin" to be transfigured into the ascent of the deceased to the heavens and the return to the mother-goddess. The sky-goddess is the Egyptian manifestation of the Great Mother. A central aspect of this belief is the fact that the Egyptians imagined the deceased as being the children of this Mother-of-all-Beings...The texts underline the indissolubility of this bond, or more precisely of the embrace into which the deceased, when laid in his coffin, enters with the sky - the mother goddess, the goddess of the dead. The concept of rebirth, however, still plays an important role. "I shall bear thee anew, rejuvenated," exclaims the sky-goddess to the deceased in one of many such texts inscribed on or in nearly every coffin and tomb. "I have spread myself over thee, I have born thee again as a god." Through this rebirth, the deceased becomes a star-god, a member of the AKH-sphere, a new entity. This rebirth, however, does not imply a de-livery, a separation, but takes place inside the mother's womb, inside the coffin and sky... The deceased, now reborn through the sky-goddess as a god himself, is subsequently breast-fed by divine nurses and elevated to the heavens...
That is an interesting comparison, and I am a great fan of Jan Assmann’s work. I think the mother image in this text is far more potent in the Marcionite version than in standard Galatians. The Valentinian commentaries went to town on this section, mainly invoking the Sophia/Achamoth aeon. The Gospel of Philip also has some important mother/father language that is worthy of comparison. Sorry to be vague about it for now, but I’m a little distracted. Cheers.
Post Reply