The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

Edited my text. The quote you used I didn't proofread properly. Should be:

IMO, if we can trust the Church Fathers enough to reconstruct Marcion's text, but then turn around and say we cannot trust their other claims about Marcion, it seems like a "have my cake and eat it too" situation, based largely in an anti-Christian bias."
--------------

I don't think either side is honest. Hence, I don't think that Marcion can be relied upon, nor do I think claims or reconstructions of his texts can be. Thus, I find him to mostly be an interesting project, and not very helpful with regards to the Pauline epistles.

1. I don't think this is pertinent. Eduard Verhoef, who has been intimately familiar with the Dutch Radicals, laid out some good methods I think for parsing through this.

2. We have no reliable way of reconstructing Marcion's claims or texts. So anything he "said" or "collected" is doubtful to say the least.

3. Their claims could very well be correct is the point I was making. There is this strange habit of treating Marcion as though he has no agency except to be a repository of more "accurate" Pauline letters. Yet, I see no reason to think his letters are even remotely reliable transmissions.

4. Of course, even this they've been challenged and finding some pretty consistent problems with. For instance, at one time 1 Thess. 2:14-16 was widely considered an interpolation, but my recent review shows a huge number of text critics (virtually every single English language commentary for instance) regards it as authentic now. Patrick Hart has noted a large number of "interpolations" are based in this logic that Paul could not be inconsistent or derogatory toward his fellow people, and further assume that the Pauline Epistles had to be consistent/uniform, and not inconsistent messes, like what people quite regularly write. Essentially, their "Paulusbild" is assembled by removing Paul's humanity. IMO, "inconsistency" of theme, narrative, or perceived purpose is no justification for interpolation. Humans are inconsistent, derogatory (even to their own in-group), and capable of beautiful incongruency.

I'll be honest in that I find even most mainstream "interpolations" to probably be authentic. I have exceptions, and mostly all in the Gospels, because there are some which are just blatantly obvious and also with manuscript evidence supporting them. But particularly in the cases that have been brought up in this thread, no.
ABuddhist
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by ABuddhist »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:06 pm We have no reliable way of reconstructing Marcion's claims or texts. So anything he "said" or "collected" is doubtful to say the least.

For instance, at one time 1 Thess. 2:14-16 was widely considered an interpolation, but my recent review shows a huge number of text critics (virtually every single English language commentary for instance) regards it as authentic now.
1. Then why trust that Marcion had collected genuine Pauline literature rather than, for example, an assemblage of fragments from many authors falsely attributed to one person?

2. Could this shift in reasoning about Thess. 2:14-16 be motivated in part by a growing conservatism within Anglophone scholarship about the Christians' scriptures, motivated by a desire to defend Christianity? I ask because I found the arguments for why it was an interpolated text, advanced by mythicists and non-mythicists alike, to be very persuasive.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

1. Because the few quotes we have point to the texts that we know. The reason the reconstructions are unreliable is because we only have fragmentary and partial quotations, and we do not know if those quotations survived corruption or stylistic concerns of the Church Fathers.

2. I doubt it since I don't see Anglophone scholarship as becoming more conservative. The opposite, the latest generations of scholars I've been privy to have been heavily challenging it, and most of the critics that I've reviewed are anything but conservative in the academic sense. I found those arguments to be persuasive until I looked further into it, and nothing Paul says in 1 Thess 2:14-16 is particularly alarming to me anymore. At best, the one and only thing that may be an interpolation is "wrath has come upon them at last" but even that I tend to think is authentic.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4820
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by neilgodfrey »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:37 pmWhere I'm at is that interpolations are a subjective issue at best, and too often based in defective evidence, i.e., like Marcion or Church Father preservation of other sects.
We can probably get into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes an objective as opposed to subjective claims: certainly every claim at its base is based on values and a world-view of some kind. I suggest it is possible to present a respectable argument for some interpolations on the basis of what we know of the interests of certain church fathers and what resources they had at hand -- all the while understanding that all argument is provisional.

You mentioned Marcion's antisemitism. I think that's another area that can be questioned, too -- though that's a trite statement since everything can be questioned, of course, as Ken Olson recently noted. I mean I think there are good reasons for doubting that he was antisemitic. But we are discussing the questions at a theoretical level for now.

I expect to be getting back into exploring Marcionism again in a few months and will keep my powder dry on other questions till then. Suffice to say I will be approaching the sources from what I think is the standard approach of classicists and ancient historians that I think has very little in common with standard historical Jesus/Christian origins scholarship.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by mlinssen »

Marcion is the topic of this decade and the next.
Of course we can not trust any of the Falsifying Fathers but we can catch them "in between the lines"

Bezae looks like the earliest copy that we have - and who knows, we may get lucky. But so far, Klinghardt is a masterpiece - even though we need to be far more critical

Did Marcion have a resurrection, for instance? Absolutely not
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10905
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Giuseppe »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:37 pm nothing Paul says in 1 Thess 2:14-16 is particularly alarming to me anymore. At best, the one and only thing that may be an interpolation is "wrath has come upon them at last" but even that I tend to think is authentic.
Mythicist Harold Leidner thinks that the passage of 1 Thess 2:14-16 is genuine, and he uses it as evidence of an earliest Passion story without Pilate.

The existence of a Passion story without Pilate is sufficient to deny the historical Jesus, since for Loisy the only sure fact about Jesus is his connection with Pilate.


Note that I believe that Justin knew a Passion story with Pilate only because he names explicitly Pilate. But what should we think in presence of Christian writers who accuse again and again the Jews for the death of Jesus, without mention at all of Pilate?
schillingklaus
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by schillingklaus »

No, it is nowhere near genuine but depends on the accusation of deicide against Jews, which did not appear before the Kitas wars. Likewise, the Jewish contribution to the passion story is equally late and interpolated intothe gospel story, as seen from reprises and the absurdity of the date of the cena.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:18 pm
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:37 pmWhere I'm at is that interpolations are a subjective issue at best, and too often based in defective evidence, i.e., like Marcion or Church Father preservation of other sects.
We can probably get into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes an objective as opposed to subjective claims: certainly every claim at its base is based on values and a world-view of some kind. I suggest it is possible to present a respectable argument for some interpolations on the basis of what we know of the interests of certain church fathers and what resources they had at hand -- all the while understanding that all argument is provisional.

You mentioned Marcion's antisemitism. I think that's another area that can be questioned, too -- though that's a trite statement since everything can be questioned, of course, as Ken Olson recently noted. I mean I think there are good reasons for doubting that he was antisemitic. But we are discussing the questions at a theoretical level for now.

I expect to be getting back into exploring Marcionism again in a few months and will keep my powder dry on other questions till then. Suffice to say I will be approaching the sources from what I think is the standard approach of classicists and ancient historians that I think has very little in common with standard historical Jesus/Christian origins scholarship.
I think there is justification to question just about everything to do with Marcion, his text, and the remaining "quotes" that we have of it. It is at this point that I just do not think we have justification to say much with regard to him. My point was merely that if we trust the Church Father's enough to use them to reconstruct his texts, their claims about them should likewise be trusted, unless we have excellent reason to doubt them. And I would contend any reason we have to doubt their claims about him is also reason to doubt the veracity of the text quotations they give us as well. Because the source of information is all the same, for me, the text and Marcion's beliefs all fall on the same sword.

And I think that we can certainly make a respectable argument for any number of interpolations. And I agree that every claim is based on values and worldview of some kind. The issue I have is that interpolations of the kind we are suggesting seem to intimate and hinge a lot on rather unaccessible and primarily conjecctural psychologies. When we speak of "Church Fathers interests" for instance, we are somehow talking of them as a generalistic group with similar interests, when we know the Church Fathers were often radically different (compare Origen's theology and Irenaeus, insurmountable disagreements). So, for me, it does not even make sense to talk of any "Church Fathers' interests" in any general sense. Same as it does not make sense to talk of any single "Christian theology" (which is the usual justification for why Mark's Baptism of Jesus must be authentic history, because it "violates" Christian theology by having Jesus baptized for the remission of sins; but it assumes that Mark's theology is a part of this uniform generalistic whole).

For me, we have no direct access to Marcion, and parsing through to see what is "most likely" or "historical" or "reliable" is not much different from trying to parse the Gospels for history. It is an endeavor doomed from the start, in my opinion.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:23 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:37 pm nothing Paul says in 1 Thess 2:14-16 is particularly alarming to me anymore. At best, the one and only thing that may be an interpolation is "wrath has come upon them at last" but even that I tend to think is authentic.
Mythicist Harold Leidner thinks that the passage of 1 Thess 2:14-16 is genuine, and he uses it as evidence of an earliest Passion story without Pilate.

The existence of a Passion story without Pilate is sufficient to deny the historical Jesus, since for Loisy the only sure fact about Jesus is his connection with Pilate.


Note that I believe that Justin knew a Passion story with Pilate only because he names explicitly Pilate. But what should we think in presence of Christian writers who accuse again and again the Jews for the death of Jesus, without mention at all of Pilate?
I mean I'm fine with that. I've long said I don't really consider much (if anything) in the Gospels historical. The problem for mythicists is that 1 Thess. 2:14-16 says the "same" men who killed Jesus were persecuting proto-Christians, which implies Paul is talking of historical events.

I do not think denying Pilate's presence is enough to deny the historicity of Jesus. I would have to disagree with Loisy (as I do quite frequently).

And, imo, the most we have to think of those Christian authors is that they bought the whole "Washing hands" episode, and so turned antisemitic.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Antiquities 1.150

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 am
As for "ginomai" being "occasionally used for birth or born in other places in Greek writings, Chris Hansen has a paper on Romans 1:3 in which he points out:


[1] [in] "Josephus’s Ant. 1.150...γίνοµαι and γεννάω...are interchangeable";

[2] "Philo’s use of γίνοµαι to refer to the birth of Moses twice (Moses 2.192–193 in the forms γενοµένων and γενόµενος)"; [and]

[3] "Josephus...uses γίνοµαι for birth on numerous occasions (Ant. 1.150; 1.303–304; 7.154; 15.11; and 20.20–21)"

https://mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/ ... Hansen.pdf


Josephus is hard to navigate without the Whiston numbering. Both numbering systems seem to be given in the Perseus version

Antiquities. 1.150 :

.
[148] Ποιήσομαι δὲ περὶ Ἑβραίων τὸν λόγον: Φαλέγου γὰρ τοῦ Ἑβέρου γίνεται παῖς Ῥεούς: τούτου δὲ Σεροῦγος, ᾧ Ναχώρης υἱὸς τίκτεται: τούτου δὲ Θέρρος: πατὴρ δὲ οὗτος Ἁβράμου γίνεται, ὃς δέκατος μέν ἐστιν ἀπὸ Νώχου, δευτέρῳ δ᾽ ἔτει καὶ ἐνενηκοστῷ πρὸς ἐνακοσίοις μετὰ τὴν ἐπομβρίαν ἐγένετο.

[149] Θέρρος μὲν γὰρ ἑβδομηκοστῷ ποιεῖται τὸν Ἅβραμον: Ναχώρης δὲ Θέρρον εἰκοστὸν αὐτὸς ἔτος καὶ ἑκατοστὸν ἤδη γεγονὼς ἐγέννησε: Σερούγῳ δὲ Ναχώρης τίκτεται περὶ ἔτος δεύτερον καὶ τριακοστὸν καὶ ἑκατοστόν: Ῥοῦμος δὲ Σεροῦγον ἔτη τριάκοντα γεγονὼς πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατόν: ἐν δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἔτεσι καὶ Ῥοῦμον Φάλεγος ἔσχεν:

[150] Ἕβερος δὲ τετάρτῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατὸν γεννᾷ Φάλεγον γεννηθεὶς αὐτὸς ὑπὸ Σέλου τριακοστὸν ἔτος ἔχοντος καὶ ἑκατοστόν, ὃν Ἀρφάξαδος ἐτέκνωσε κατὰ πέμπτον καὶ τριακοστὸν ἔτος πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατόν: Σημᾷ δὲ υἱὸς Ἀρφαξάδης ἦν μετὰ ἔτη δώδεκα τῆς ἐπομβρίας γενόμενος.

[151] Ἅβραμος δὲ εἶχεν ἀδελφοὺς Ναχώρην καὶ Ἀράνην: τούτων Ἀράνης μὲν υἱὸν καταλιπὼν Λῶτον καὶ Σάρραν καὶ Μελχὰν θυγατέρας ἐν Χαλδαίοις ἀπέθανεν ἐν πόλει Οὐρῆ λεγομένῃ τῶν Χαλδαίων, καὶ τάφος αὐτοῦ μέχρι νῦν δείκνυται. γαμοῦσι δὲ τὰς ἀδελφιδὰς Μελχὰν μὲν Ναχώρης Σάρραν δὲ Ἅβραμος.

[152] Θέρρου δὲ μισήσαντος τὴν Χαλδαίαν διὰ τὸ Ἀράνου πένθος μετοικίζονται πάντες εἰς Χαρρὰν τῆς Μεσοποταμίας, ὅπου καὶ Θέρρον τελευτήσαντα θάπτουσιν ἔτη βιώσαντα πέντε καὶ διακόσια: συνετέμνετο γὰρ ἤδη τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸ ζῆν καὶ βραχύτερον ἐγίνετο μέχρι τῆς Μωυσέος γενέσεως, μεθ᾽ ὃν ὅρος ἦν τοῦ ζῆν ἑκατὸν ἔτη πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι τοσαῦθ᾽ ὁρίσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅσα καὶ Μωυσεῖ συνέβη βιῶναι.

[153] Ναχώρῃ μὲν οὖν ἐκ τῆς Μελχᾶς ὀκτὼ παῖδες ἐγένοντο, Οὖξος Βαοῦξος Μαουῆλος Ζάχαμος Ἀζαοῦος Ἰαδελφᾶς Ἰαδαφᾶς Βαθουῆλος: οὗτοι μὲν Ναχώρου παῖδες γνήσιοι: Ταβαῖος γὰρ καὶ Γάδαμος καὶ Τααῦος καὶ Μαχᾶς ἐκ Ῥούμας παλλακῆς αὐτῷ γεγόνασι(?). Βαθουήλῳ δὲ τῶν Ναχώρου γνησίων παίδων γίνεται Ῥεβέκκα θυγάτηρ καὶ Λάβανος υἱός.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0145
.
.
[148] I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the 10th from Noah, & was born in the two hundred & ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year.

[149] Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau;


[150] Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge.

[151] Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai.

[152] Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, & became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred & twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live.

[153] Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D5

(not sure how accurate this is)

γίνεται/ginetai = Ionic and Koine form of γίγνεται (gígnetai): third-person singular present mediopassive indicative of γίγνομαι (gígnomai)··3rd person singular present form of γίνομαι (gínomai). 3rd person singular imperfective future form of γίνομαι (gínomai).

γεννᾷ/genna : begat : https://biblicaltext.com/dictionary/%CE ... E%AC%CF%89

γεννηθεὶς (gennētheis) : https://biblehub.com/greek/genne_theis_1080.htm

γενέσεως = genitive singular of γένεσiς (génesis) / γένεση (génesi) : https://biblehub.com/greek/geneseo_s_1078.htm

ἐγένοντο/egeneto = https://biblehub.com/greek/egeneto_1096.htm

(also ἐγίνετο (egineto) : come into a new state of being : https://biblehub.com/greek/egineto_1096.htm)
Post Reply