Romans 10.6-7, Jonah, and Moses.

[lsayre]

Roger Parvous once stated that in the proto-orthodox redactions of Paul as we have them today, every unacceptable Zig Receives a Corrective Zag.

All zigs from the Marcionites (or Simonians) are zagged by the additions of the proto-orthodox. The end result being incomprehensible as you state above.

https://vridar.org/other-authors/roger- ... istianity/

[Secret Alias]

Just for fun let's see how Philo - another near contemporary - approaches this passage:

God therefore here is propitiated by three different kinds of repentance, by the aforesaid beasts, or by the birds, or by the while flour, according, in short, to the ability of him who is being purified and who repents. For small offences do not require great purifications, nor are small purifications fit for great crimes; but they should be equal, and similar, and in due proportion. (236) It is worth while, therefore, to examine what is meant by this purification which may be accomplished in three ways. Now it may almost be said that both offences and good actions are perceived to exist in three things; in intention, or in words, or in actions. On which account Moses, teaching in his hortatory admonitions that the attainment of good is not impossible nor even very difficult, says, "It is not necessary to soar up to heaven, nor to go to the borders of the earth and sea, for the attainment of it, but it is near, yea, and very Near." And then in a subsequent passage he shows it all but to the naked eye as one may say, where he says, "Every action is in thy mouth, or in thy heart, or in thy Hands:" meaning under this symbolical expression, in thy words, or in they designs, or in thy actions. For he means that human happiness consists in wise design, and good language, and righteous actions, just as the unhappiness arises from the contrary course. For both well-doing and wrong-doing exist in the same regions, in the heart, or in the mouth, or in the hand; for some persons decide in the most righteous, and sagacious manner, some speak most excellently, some do only what ought to be done: again, of the three sources of error the most unimportant is to design to do what ought not to be done, the most grievous is to do what is iniquitous, the middle evil is to speak improperly. But it often happens that even what is least important is the most difficult to be removed; for it is very hard to bring an agitated state of the soul to tranquillity; and one may more easily check the impetuosity of a torrent than the perversion of the soul which is hurrying in a wrong direction, without restraint. For innumerable notions coming one upon the other like the waves of a stormy sea, bearing everything along with them, and throwing everything into confusion, overturn the whole soul with irresistible violence. Therefore the most excellent, and most perfect kind of purification is this, not to admit into one's mind any improper notions, but to regulate it in peace and obedience to law, the ruler of which principles is justice. The next kind is, not to offend in one's language either by speaking falsely, or by swearing falsely, or by deceiving, or by practicing sophistry, or by laying false informations; or, in short, by letting loose one's mouth and tongue to the injury of any one, as it is better to put a bridle and an insuperable chain on those members.

But why it is a more grievous offence to say what is wrong than only to think it, is very easy to see. For some times a person thinks without any deliberate previous intention of so thinking, but inconsiderately: for he is compelled to admit ideas in his mind which he does not wish to admit; and nothing which is involuntary is blameable: (242) but a man speaks intentionally, so that if he utters words which are not proper he is unhappy and is committing offence, since he does not even by chance choose to say anything that is proper, and it would be more for his advantage to adopt that safest expedient of silence: and, in the second place, anyone who is not silent can be silent if he pleases. (243) But what is even a still more grievous offence than speaking wrongly, is unjust action. For the word, as it is said, is the shadow of the deed; and how can an injurious deed help being more mischievous than a shadow of the same character? On this account Moses released the mind, even when it yielded to many involuntary perversions and errors, from accusations and from penalties, thinking that it was rather acted upon by notions which forced their way into it, than was itself acting. But whatever goes out through the mouth that he makes the utterer responsible for and brings him before the tribunal, since the act of speaking is one which is in our own power. (244) But the investigation to which words are subject is a much more moderate one, and that with which words are united is a more vigorous one. For he imposes severe punishments on those who commit gross offences, and who carry out in action, and utter with hasty tongues what they have been designed in their unjust minds.

Therefore he has called the purifying victims which are to be offered up for the three offenders, the mind, speech, and the action, a sheep, and a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, and the tenth part of a sacred measure of fine flour; thinking it fit that the mind should be purified by a sheep, the speech by winged creatures, and the action by fine flour: Why is this? (246) Because, as the mind is the most excellent thing in us, so also is the sheep the most excellent among irrational animals, inasmuch as it is most gentle, and also as it gives forth a yearly produce in its fleece, for the use and also for the ornament of mankind. For clothes keep off all injury from both cold and heat, and also they conceal the unmentionable parts of nature, and in this way they are an ornament to those who use them: (247) therefore the sheep, as being the most excellent of animals, is a symbol of the purification of the most excellent part of man, the mind. And birds are an emblem of the purification of speech: for speech is a light thing, and winged by nature, flying and penetrating in every direction more swiftly than an arrow. For what is once said can never be re-called; but being borne abroad, and running on with great swiftness, it strikes the ears and penetrates every sense of hearing, resounding loudly: but speech is of two kinds, one true and the other false; (248) on which account it appears to me to be here compared to a pair of turtle doves or young pigeons: and of these birds one he says is to be looked upon as a sin offering, since the speech which is true is wholly and in all respects sacred and perfect, but that which is false is very wrong and requires correction. (249) Again, as I have already said, fine flour is a symbol of the purification of activity, but it is sorted from the commoner sort by the hands of the bakers, who make the business their study. On which account the law says, "And the priest having taken an entire handful, shall place it on the altar as a memorial of them," by the word handful, indicating both the endeavor and the action. (250) And he speaks with exceeding accuracy with respect to the sheep, when he says, "And if his hand be not strong enough to supply a sheep;" but with respect to the birds he says, "And if he cannot find a bird." Why is this? Because it is a sign of very great strength and of excessive power, to get rid of the errors of the mind: but it does not require any great strength, to check the errors of words; (251) for, as I have said already, silence is a remedy for all the offences that can be committed by the voice, and every one may easily practise silence; but yet, by reason of their chattering habits and want of moderation in their language, many people cannot find out how to impose a limitation on their speech.

So let's break this down further. In the LXX:

ἔστιν σου ἐγγὺς τὸ ῥῆμα σφόδρα ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσίν σου αὐτὸ ποιεῖν

The word is very near thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart, and in thine hands to do it.

Philo and Clement take the threefold division - mouth, heart, hands - to relate to three types of sacrifice and three kinds of human actions. Paul doesn't include 'hands' in his citation of Deut 30.14 which is odd. There is no reference to hands in the Hebrew. But Marqe knows it.

[Secret Alias]

Yes mr sayre. Agreed.

[Secret Alias]

Interestingly the Diatessaron used by Ephrem for our Luke 17:21 read "the kingdom of god is within your heart."

The noun is unique in the Bible'; but Luke repeatedly uses the verb of the Pharisees or scribes “watchfully-observing” Jesus in a hostile spirit. It is also applied to the Judaizing Galatians, who “watchfully-observe” “days' and “months” and “seasons”.” Commenting on Lk. xvii. 21, Ephrem Syrus seems to have had in mind the Pauline “observing” of “times” and “seasons”; for he renders “within you” as “in your heart,” and paraphrases thus, “The Kingdom is not to be discerned by means of days, for they [i.e. the Pharisees] 'observed times and days'...3.” Later on, Ephrem says, “Behold, He is (1) within, in your heart, by means of His testimonies, and (2) does not hide Himself, so that those who seek Him should need watchful observations and various searchings.”

It would seem to me at least as if an ur-gospel saying - 'the kingdom of God is within your heart' bears some relation to Paul's citation of only the first part of Deuteronomy 30:14 LXX "ἔστιν σου ἐγγὺς τὸ ῥῆμα σφόδρα ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου."

Thus, it comes as no surprise that in Liddell-Scott, p. 577a, precisely
for Luke 17:21 the translation of e)nto\j u(mw=n that is offered
is: “in your hearts.” Thus, not “among you,” but “inside you.”

In his Homilies on Luke, 36, preserved in Latin, Origen specifically
deals with Luke 17:21 and interprets e)nto\j u(mw=n as “inside
you,” and precisely “in your heart:” Non omnibus Salvator dicit:
Regnum Dei intra vos est, siquidem in peccatoribus regnum peccati est et absque
ulla ambiguitate aut regnum Dei i n c o r d e n o s t r o imperat aut peccati
... videbimus utrum Dei imperium regnet i n n o b i s aut imperium delictorum.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

[Secret Alias]

I think we are approaching a first century environment where Jews are reported to have recited the ten utterances at the start of every gathering (as the Samaritans still do https://books.google.com/books?id=HMlJA ... on&f=false and attested in the Nash papyrus). The reason Jews outlawed the reciting of the ten commandments is explicitly attributed to the influence and arguments of the Christians. The Christian point of view seems to have been - the ten utterances are from God and necessary. The rest of the laws from Moses and unnecessary. The Jews went in the other direction blurring the distinction between what must always have been the center of Jewish worship (= the ten) and identifying the Torah now as the Pentateuch rather than what the Pentateuch makes clear in Hebrew - namely that the ten are the (heavenly) Torah.

Interestingly if Moses wrote the sex crimes laws, the dietary laws and the like very little stands in the way of Hellenism. Of course the reactionary position is to say 'the Jews were always different.' I am not so sure. When you read the Maccabean literature it would seem the Jews embraced Hellenism first and then the resentment among the lower classes started. Never trust the rabble.

[Secret Alias]

It is also worth noting then that - if we consider things from Marcionite perspective (not the modern faux Marcionite perspective but assuming a relationship between the Marcionites and the two powers as per Segal and others) - God only revealed the Ten, along comes Moses (= Ezra) and reveals the Pentateuch (cf. Epistle to Flora). The gospel then CAN'T be compatible with the Pentateuch as each claims to be the 'second part' to the heavenly Torah. Notice how the concept of 'Law' is now very slippery too.

[Charles Wilson]

SA --

Some of the best material you've written are in these last 2 pages.

CW

[Secret Alias]

Thank you. I think not posting for a while helped. I wish other things in life worked the same way. Like working out

[Secret Alias]

Worth noting too:

LXX Deuteronomy 30:12 30:12 It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, saying, Who will go over for us to the other side of the sea (εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης), and take it for us, and make it audible to us, and we will do it?

Maybe it's coincidence but it would appear Jesus and the disciples:

Mark 5:1 On the other side of the sea (εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης), they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes. As soon as Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an unclean spirit came from the tombs and met Him

[andrewcriddle]

This forum has discussed the following verses (especially 6-7) before:

Romans 10.5-10: 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven [εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν]?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'Who will descend into the abyss [εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον]?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

It is well known that Paul is here relying upon a passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 30.12-14: 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go into heaven [LXX εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν] for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go across the sea [LXX εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης] for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."

But, whereas Paul wonders about descending "into the abyss" (LXX εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), Deuteronomy speaks merely going "across the sea" (LXX εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης). Is Paul freewheeling here?

Perhaps, rather, he is tapping into a Jewish tradition which is now extant only in a Targum:

Targum Jerusalem, Deuteronomy 30.12-14: 12 The law is not in the heavens, that thou shouldst say, O that we had one like Mosheh the prophet to ascend into heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear its commands, that we may do them! 13 Neither is the law beyond the great sea, that thou shouldst say, O that we had one like Jonah the prophet, who could descend into the depths [לעמקוי] of the sea, and bring it to us, and make us hear its commands, that we may do them! 14 For the word is very nigh you, in your mouth, that you may meditate upon it, and in your hearts, that you may perform it. See, behold, I have set before you this day the way of life, which is the path of the good, and the way of death, which is the path of the evil.

Here, instead of being invited to imagine merely crossing the sea, the reader is invited to imagine descending into the depths like Jonah. Paul, if he knew of this interpretation involving Jonah, could have been led quite naturally to refer to the abyss by the following:

Jonah 2.5: 5 "Water encompassed me to the point of death. The abyss [LXX ἄβυσσος] engulfed me; weeds were wrapped around my head."

And it almost goes without saying that the Targumic interpretation of the ascent involving Moses fits well into Paul's context, which mentions Moses specifically and has to do with the law.

I can't help wondering if the targum here is providing an anti-Christian gloss. I.E. There is no need for a prophet like unto Moses to bring us a new version of the Torah and no need for a prophet like Jonah to descend into the abyss for our sake.

Andrew Criddle