"the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:50 pm
gryan wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:31 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 8:05 am from laparola
θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ - p46 B D* F G (itb) itd ite itg Victorinus-Rome Marius Mercator

Thank you for sharing this information. It appears that there may have been some confusion between Victorinus and another individual named 'Claudius Marius Victor' ('In epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, Saeculo IV, editio: Migne 1844).
...
The phrase used by Victorinus was '...in carne, in fide vivo dei et Christi...' which translates to 'in the flesh, I live in the faith of God and Christ.'
Good to know. Thanks

gryan wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:54 amἸάκωβος καὶ Πέτρος P46
...
Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος Marc D F G d b
It seems that P46 has quite a number of similarities with the Western text and is not all that Alexandrian. In Galatians 2:5, for example, P46 has "Peter" instead of "Cephas", albeit in reverse order.

gryan wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 3:54 pmWith Carlson's critical text, I argue that: 1) the original authorial text of Galatians 2:20 contained the phrase 'God and Christ,' and 2) since Galatians 2:20 is present in Marcion's text, it is likely that Marcion's text also included 'God and Christ.' 3) Supporting evidence can be found in Tertullian's writings, where he mentions Paul preaching 'God and Christ' in a comment on Galatians 2:6, which is in close proximity to Galatians 2:20. 4) It is worth noting that Tertullian's Latin phrase quotes the Latin text of Galatians 2:20 that uses 'God and Christ,' as employed by Victorinus.
The problem is that Adamantius (and the Latin translation of Rufinus) is the only witness to Galatians 2:20 in Marcion's text.

imho either you accept the attested reading or you have to treat Gal 2:20 as unattested

Regardless of this, the interesting question about the original text remains :)
Re: "imho either you accept the attested reading or you have to treat Gal 2:20 as unattested"

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 3:45 am Adamantius.jpg
Re: Adamantius.jpg in the photo here:
viewtopic.php?p=155133#p155133

I downloaded a free copy:
Der Dialog des Adamantius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_recta_in_Deum_fide
By Origen, Rufinus (of Aquileia), Willem Hendrik Sande Bakhuyzen · 1901
https://www.google.com/books/edition/De ... YAAJ?hl=en

ChatGpt provideded this translation of the section cited:

Ad. d.: Whoever does not receive the words of the Apostle that are spoken spiritually must necessarily deviate from the truth. For the Apostle designates as carnal and shameful acts those who engage in carnal desires, whom he also calls carnal because he refers to those who either act or understand spiritually as spiritual. And if it seems fitting, I read to you the Apostle himself clearly stating that those who do not conduct themselves faithfully but engage in carnal acts are called carnal. In fact, he says, "So that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who walk according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who walk according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit." For the wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God, but the wisdom of the Spirit is life and peace. But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit. Tell me, then, if those to whom these things were written were not in the flesh, that is, if they did not live in the body, to whom does he say, "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit"? And he says again about others, "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet ready; indeed, you are still of the flesh." For when there are contentions and divisions among you, are you not of the flesh? And again, "For while you were living according to the flesh, you were performing the deeds of the body, but now you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit." All these things clearly show that he calls the carnal nature and wicked conduct carnal, just as he does about those
And a human being. For who is ignorant that even if they called themselves Paul or Apollos, nevertheless they were no less human by nature? Or is it as it is written: "When you were in the flesh, and then, as long as you were in substance, you were not without flesh?" This is what he said, that the flesh was the fleshly and corruptible way of life, which rightly excludes from hope, as it cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But if they are given the flesh of the body, as they think, and are unable to attain to hope, what need is there for baptism and cleansing? For the Apostle says, "But you were washed, but you were sanctified." Let them answer what is the thing that is being washed and sanctified. But since the listeners of Megathius are also present, for this reason I am compelled to present the apostolic teaching from them, making my argument to both parties.

Παῦλος γοῦν Γαλάταις γράφων οὕτως ἔφη ·
ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με·
So, Paul, writing to the Galatians, said,
"But I live in the flesh,
I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me
and gave Himself for me."

καὶ πάλιν · τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων εἰκῆ κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέσθω.
ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω .
And again, "But let no one trouble me with the other things,
for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus."

φέρε τοίνυν , ἴδωμεν τί δηλοῦσιν αὗται αἱ φωναί·
ὃ ζῶ , φησίν, ἐν σαρκί , ἐν πίστει ζῶ.
Therefore, let us see what these words indicate.
"I live," he says, "in the flesh, I live by faith."

δῆλον οὖν ὅτι τῆς πίστεως ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῇ σαρκί ἐστιν ·
τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ ὧν ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἡ σωτηρία , τὸ σῶμα βαστάζει.
It is evident, therefore, that life in the flesh is by faith.
The marks of Christ, through which our salvation comes, bear them in the body.

So, how is it that the one who bears the marks of salvation and possesses the life of faith is not saved according to them? For is it of no benefit to possess the life of faith and the marks of Jesus, or if salvation exists through this, is the one being saved the flesh? And it is agreed that these things exist. Writing to the Corinthians, he said, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Certainly not! For if the bodies are members of Christ, shall I then destroy the members of Christ or save the flesh?"
Mar: He says "body," not "flesh."
Ad: It is shown by what is being brought forth. For do you not know, he says, that the one joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For they will be, he says...
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by gryan »

Stuart wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 9:30 pm ...Clabeaux rejected entirely a Marcionite origin for any of part 5, and I mostly concur. Clabeaux also pretty much demolished the notion of a Western text type, or any specific text type for that matter, being closely related to the Marcionite text.

My own investigation into DA led me to the conclusion that only part 1 and part 2 contained Marcionite readings, and only when spoken by the Marcionite Champions Megethius or Markus. Adamantius appears to always use the Catholic text.
Stuart, thanks for sharing your carefully considered point of view.

This was my first time hearing of JOHN J. CLABEAUX. Googling, I learned about his monograph: A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the
Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (CBQMS 21; Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gryan wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 3:54 pm With Carlson's critical text, I argue that: 1) the original authorial text of Galatians 2:20 contained the phrase 'God and Christ,' ...
I'm totally undecided. I find the assumption convincing that the variant “the God and Christ” is not a reading of the Western text, but at least a very old variant that existed before the text types were developed and was then quickly displaced by the Alexandrians and survived a little longer in parts of the Western text type.

Otherwise, I find almost equally good reasons for the pros and cons. Nothing that could ultimately convince me.

The text appears more coherent with the reading “the God and Christ”. But such a circumstance is always a double-edged sword.
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

On the other hand, it seems to me a little bit easier to imagine that the reading "the God and Christ" developed from the variant "Son of God" (and not the other way around).
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 12:17 pm
gryan wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 3:54 pm With Carlson's critical text, I argue that: 1) the original authorial text of Galatians 2:20 contained the phrase 'God and Christ,' ...
I'm totally undecided. I find the assumption convincing that the variant “the God and Christ” is not a reading of the Western text, but at least a very old variant that existed before the text types were developed and was then quickly displaced by the Alexandrians and survived a little longer in parts of the Western text type.

Otherwise, I find almost equally good reasons for the pros and cons. Nothing that could ultimately convince me.

The text appears more coherent with the reading “the God and Christ”. But such a circumstance is always a double-edged sword.
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

On the other hand, it seems to me a little bit easier to imagine that the reading "the God and Christ" developed from the variant "Son of God" (and not the other way around).
RE: "On the other hand, it seems to me a little bit easier to imagine that the reading "the God and Christ" developed from the variant "Son of God" (and not the other way around)."

"the God and Christ" is theologically complicated and unusual, but "Son of God" is unobjectionable to scribes; thus, as Carlson argues, transcriptional probabilities suggest "the God and Christ" as less likely to be produced by scribes.

How do you look at it?
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by Stuart »

gryan wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 6:21 am
Stuart wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 9:30 pm ...Clabeaux rejected entirely a Marcionite origin for any of part 5, and I mostly concur. Clabeaux also pretty much demolished the notion of a Western text type, or any specific text type for that matter, being closely related to the Marcionite text.

My own investigation into DA led me to the conclusion that onlyaux I am ref part 1 and part 2 contained Marcionite readings, and only when spoken by the Marcionite Champions Megethius or Markus. Adamantius appears to always use the Catholic text.
Stuart, thanks for sharing your carefully considered point of view.

This was my first time hearing of JOHN J. CLABEAUX. Googling, I learned about his monograph: A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the
Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (CBQMS 21; Washington, DC:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989).
Yes that is the book by Clabeaux I am referring to. But I cannot cite specific pages and passages from memory.

I would add one more thing about parts 1 & 2 of DA, which is that many of the passages from the Marcionite text are not from the NT directly, rather from the pamphlet called the antithesis, which are paraphrases of NT and OT pairs, rather than direct quotes of NT passages.

There is little reason to not follow mainstream textual analysis for most passages. Marcionite text is best thought of as one witness, not a separate reading in most cases.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gryan wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 2:54 pm "the God and Christ" is theologically complicated and unusual, but "Son of God" is unobjectionable to scribes; thus, as Carlson argues, transcriptional probabilities suggest "the God and Christ" as less likely to be produced by scribes.

How do you look at it?
Why do you think that? Do you understand the reading "the God and Christ" in such a way that the text speaks of one person in this case (Jesus = the God and Christ)? I would assume it means two ("I live by faith in God (father) and in (Jesus) Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me.")

I don't know what Carlson meant ("transcriptional probabilities"), but Metzger thought that way:
It is probable that in copying, the eye of the scribe passed immediately from the first to the second TOU, so that only "The God" was written (as in ms. 330); since what followed was now incongruous, copyists either added "the Son" or inserted "and Christ".

I don't find that particularly obvious, but at least not impossible.

Assuming that the reading "the God and Christ" was original, would mean that the variant "Son of God" was imho intentionally inserted. But I don't see any theological necessity for that, assuming that two persons are meant ("God the father and Jesus Christ"), which I would consider to be the "natural" understanding of the text.

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in God and (in) Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 11:00 pm
gryan wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 2:54 pm "the God and Christ" is theologically complicated and unusual, but "Son of God" is unobjectionable to scribes; thus, as Carlson argues, transcriptional probabilities suggest "the God and Christ" as less likely to be produced by scribes.

How do you look at it?
Why do you think that? Do you understand the reading "the God and Christ" in such a way that the text speaks of one person in this case (Jesus = the God and Christ)? I would assume it means two ("I live by faith in God (father) and in (Jesus) Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me.")

I don't know what Carlson meant ("transcriptional probabilities"), but Metzger thought that way:
It is probable that in copying, the eye of the scribe passed immediately from the first to the second TOU, so that only "The God" was written (as in ms. 330); since what followed was now incongruous, copyists either added "the Son" or inserted "and Christ".

I don't find that particularly obvious, but at least not impossible.

Assuming that the reading "the God and Christ" was original, would mean that the variant "Son of God" was imho intentionally inserted. But I don't see any theological necessity for that, assuming that two persons are meant ("God the father and Jesus Christ"), which I would consider to be the "natural" understanding of the text.

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in God and (in) Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

In response to the question, "Do you understand the reading 'the God and Christ' in such a way that the text speaks of one person in this case (Jesus = the God and Christ)?", my answer is yes.

Assuming that the reading "the God and Christ" was original, it would imply that the variant "Son of God" was intentionally inserted. I agree with this proposition.

I believe that the author of Hebrews was influenced by the authorial text of Galatians, which included the description of Jesus as "the God and Christ [lit. Anointed One]," along with the idea of receiving the apostle Paul "as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal 4:14). While grappling with the meaning of this Christology, the author of Hebrews describes God's Son using language from the Psalms that says, "God, your God has anointed you" (Heb 1:8-9). Additionally, Jesus is described as "a little lower than the angels." Thus, I consider the literary echo of Galatians in Hebrews to be ancient evidence of Paul's description of Jesus as "the God and Christ [lit. Anointed One]," which means "the Son of God."
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gryan wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 1:41 am I believe that the author of Hebrews was influenced by the authorial text of Galatians, which included the description of Jesus as "the God and Christ [lit. Anointed One]," along with the idea of receiving the apostle Paul "as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal 4:14). While grappling with the meaning of this Christology, the author of Hebrews describes God's Son using language from the Psalms that says, "God, your God has anointed you" (Heb 1:8-9). Additionally, Jesus is described as "a little lower than the angels." Thus, I consider the literary echo of Galatians in Hebrews to be ancient evidence of Paul's description of Jesus as "the God and Christ [lit. Anointed One]," which means "the Son of God."
Okay, that sheds a different light on the text variants.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "the God and Christ" instead of "the Son of God" in Marcion's text of Gal 2:20

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

btw Greg, do you know of a scholarly book that compares the text variants of Paul's "original" letters and draws conclusions as to whether the letters initially circulated separately or as a collection?

Have a nice weekend :cheers:
Post Reply