Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:10 am**

I think the original context of Romans 1:21 was altered by the orthodox. It is cited in Exhortation by Clement as:

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and changed the glory of God into the likeness of corruptible man, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator."

ὅτι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ' ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα [8.81.3, 4]

The orthodox text is:

διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ' ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened

φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν,

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου Θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Διὸ καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν, τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς·

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

I think this condemns the Jews for angel worship which is a familiar theme in the Preaching of Peter from the same period. The homosexuality nonsense was added later - probably because of the controversy surrounding Secret Mark.

I think Jesus is referencing himself as the angel 'Man' (= ish) and this explains why Man crucified becomes the new 'idol' of Christianity, a symbol of sublimation.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:27 am**

William O. Walker argues that Romans 1.18-2.29 as a whole is an interpolation into the epistle. It has also been argued that Romans 1.18-2.1, at any rate, formed no part of the Marcionite epistle.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:29 am**

But that's because IMHO they were looking at the orthodox text not at what was preserved in Clement. If you notice carefully there is a clear antitheses here with the para (against or instead of). This is the critical thing. What were the Marcionites opposed to. Was it 'good and evil' or divine being and better divine being (friend and best friend to use the playground analogy)? I favor the latter. Some of the Church Fathers were scumbags after the mold of political spin doctors always exaggerating always spinning.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:34 am**

This preservation from Clement can't be understood as anything other than a textual variant and in all the stupid debates about homosexuality in modern society no one cites it. People don't have the refinement to deal with the obvious - Exodus is corrupt (separate argument based on the DSS and SP), the Christian scriptures are corrupt. Instead it's like - 'here is the word of God.' How do people get to be so moronic? Notice though that the corruption of Exodus and the corruption of Romans are about the same thing - the Jews worshiped God as a man. Bob Marley - 'mighty god is a living man' - knows that from his knowledge of Ethiopian tradition.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:42 am**

Nothing from Romans 1.22 is represented in the excerpt you give above, but Clement refers to it in Miscellanies 1.27.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:56 am**

Secret Alias

As always, I learn so much from this forum..

Your idea/hunch/suggestion flows a lot better in the whole of Romans than Romans 1:21f in its current state.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:08 am**

It's only because the people studying this material were also believers that we don't accept MASSIVE REWRITES in scripture and Patristic material. Used toilet paper has less shit stuck to it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:12 am**

The question of course is why the fag beating/gay bashing was so important to add to a text about early Christians thinking Jews worshipped God in anthropomorphic form (save you the suspense - they did).

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:14 am**

Once you know the Pentateuch has an anthropomorphic god you immediately say to yourself - there must be another better god! So what did they do? The corrupted the text to obscure that Christians originally knew that Jews worshiped their god in anthropomorphic form. Same with the editing of Exodus in the Masoretic text.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:50 am**

Clement quotes the verses about sexual behaviour in the Instructor book 2

Impios “autem tradidit Deus,” ut air Apostolus, “in perturbationes ignominiæ: nam et feminæeorum mutaverunt naturalem usum in eum, qui est procter naturam: similiter autem et masculi eorum, relicto usu naturali, exarserunt in desiderio sui inter se invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in se recipientes.”

(The Victorian translators left this in Latin)

Andrew Criddle

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Original Romans 1:21f

The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f

Re: The Original Romans 1:21f