The original version of Galatians 3:6-4:7 (compare it with what's in your Bible)

submitted by Vulptex from (self.whatever)

Compare this to the Galatians found in your Bible:

3:11(b) Learn that, “The just will live by faith.”
3:10 Because all who are under the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Everyone who doesn’t continue to do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.”
3:11(a) And with the law no one is justified with God,
3:12 because the law is not of faith, rather, “The one who does them will live by them.”
3:13 The Messiah bought us back from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—because it is written, “Everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed”
3:14(b) —so that we can receive the blessing of the spirit through faith.
3:26 Because you are all sons of faith;
3:27 all who have been baptized (immersed) into the Messiah have put on the Messiah.
3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female; you are all of the Messiah.
3:15(a) I speak according to man:
4:3 When we were little, we were enslaved under the elements of the world.
4:4(a) But when the time came, God sent his son,
4:5 so that he could buy back those under the law, so we could be adopted.
4:6 And because you are sons, he sent his spirit into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”.
4:7 As such you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir [through God].

Edit: in case anyone is wondering, the source for this is mostly Marcion's Bible.

all 38 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Surely the original would have been in Greek?

And certainly the original is lost. But the copies that we have that date from 400 CE or so aren't that different from each-other, so it's one of the Pauline letters that doesn't attract that much scepticism. It's in the writing style and vocabulary of the other undisputed Pauline letters: First Epistle to the Thessalonians, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Philippians, Epistle to Philemon, and Epistle to the Romans

The others probably weren't written by the same Paul. But Galations is on pretty solid ground.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Certain parts are not in the same writing style, such as Romans 9-11.

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Oh?

How does that differ?

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Numerous subtle ways. The language is more complex. There are way more old testament quotations. Old testament quotations are introduced with "the scripture says, Isaiah says, David says, etc." whereas Paul almost exclusively uses "as it is written". Chapter 4 is similar, which also just so happens to be "cut out" of Marcion's Bible (aka it hadn't been written yet).

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The language is more complex.

The sentence structure or the vocabulary?

There are way more old testament quotations.

Okay. Although to be fair, the relationship of the Church to Israel is kind of the point of this letter.

Old testament quotations are introduced with "the scripture says, Isaiah says, David says, etc." whereas Paul almost exclusively uses "as it is written".

What's the differences in the Greek?

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The sentence structure or the vocabulary?

Mainly the vocabulary.

the relationship of the Church to Israel is kind of the point of this letter.

No, it's a general epistle to all gentile Christians. It's Paul giving a summary of his teachings. Only chapters 4 and 9-11 deal with the relationship of the Church to Israel, and they're completely isolated from the rest of the epistle. Cutting them out not only results in no ill-consequence, but actually improves the structure of the text.

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mainly the vocabulary.

What words appear in Romans 9-11, that don't appear in the Pauline Epistles that are generally considered genuine?

No, it's a general epistle to all gentile Christians. It's Paul giving a summary of his teachings. Only chapters 4 and 9-11 deal with the relationship of the Church to Israel, and they're completely isolated from the rest of the epistle. Cutting them out not only results in no ill-consequence, but actually improves the structure of the text.

Interesting.

Is that a non-controversial analysis?

The consequence being that someone has tried to retrofit a closer relationship between the Christian Church in Rome and the Judaic origins that Paul originally implied?

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's sometimes difficult to go by word count alone. Paul mainly uses simple words general like δε, γαρ, οτι, δια, etc. Romans 9-11 is subtle, but it uses a higher number of complex words like μηπω. Also prevalent are the differences in word choice, such as not using καθως γεγραπται, and things like ὦ ἄνθρωπε, and combinations I haven't seen elsewhere like διὰ τί. The differences in thought patters are also clear, such as the much-increased usage of old testament citations. Another thing is it contradicts the authentic text in confusing ways, such as the transition from 10:7 to 10:8. Finally, it just feels "off". It feels more "preachy" than Paul, who usually employs simple and straightforward logic. All these sections always felt off to me, before I found out that Marcion didn't seem to have most of them. It's close, and it seems the author was mimicking Paul's style consciously or unconsciously. But there are some subtle clues.

Also remember, even if Paul did write it, that doesn't necessarily mean it was originally located here. The Marcionite structure is clearly the original format.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You want it in Greek?

3:11(b) Μάθετε ὅτι Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.
3:10 ὅσοι γὰρ ὑπὸ νόμου εἰσὶν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν, γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.
3:11(a) ἐν νόμῳ δὲ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, 3:12(a) ὅτι ὁ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ’ Ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.
3:13 Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου,
3:14(b) ἵνα τὴν εὐλογίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 3:26 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ ἐστε πίστεως·
3:27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.
3:28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε Χριστοῦ.
3:15(a) Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.
4:3 ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι·
4:4(a) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,
4:5 ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν.
4:6 Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον Ἀββᾶ ὁ Πατήρ.
4:7 ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος [διὰ Θεοῦ].

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You want it in Greek?

I'd certainly trust someone better who calls a version "Original", but doesn't get the language wrong.

3:10 ὅσοι γὰρ ὑπὸ νόμου εἰσὶν,...

Which manuscript is that from?

Modern versions seem to all have "Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσὶν ... "

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'd certainly trust someone better who calls a version "Original", but doesn't get the language wrong.

That's not what I meant by "original", stop playing semantic games.

Which manuscript is that from?

Panarion 42.11.8

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's not what I meant by "original"

What did you mean by "Original"?

stop playing semantic games.

I'm not playing games. Translating to another language loses possible meanings, and inherits possible misinterpretations. Even if the translation is the perfect for the presumed meaning by the translator.

Panarion 42.11.8

Thanks.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just meant original version, not the exact original. In that case I'd have to go back in time and take a photo of the actual autograph.

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Marcion's Bible is heresy and non-canonical.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well every other known collection of Paul is derived from his, so it can't be heretical. The canon version is literally just his with a bunch of extra stuff added to it. That doesn't mean the extra material is wrong per-say, but it does interfere with the structure and train of thought.

It was Marcion's theology that was heretical, not his Bible.

[–]freddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Excellent points.

I've managed to study Marcion's work today, finding it interesting that he focused on Paul's writing's, as well as the Gospel of Luke, which he supposedly updated as a 'Gospel of Marcion'. I know less about Paul's letters than I do of Luke, which in my view is the best account of Jesus, much more detailed, and contains the most important details, some of which are missing from the other gospels. I would also think Mercion is correct to focus on Paul because of 1st and 2nd Corinthians (and Paul's co-authors of them) because they form another foundation of Christianity. Luke covers the important lessons of and about Jesus, whereas letters to the Corinthians cover important moral and practical matters. I think Marcion was correct to focus on these foundations of Christianity, against the backdrop of the abusive consequences of the followers of Yaweh, Mani, and other groups. I would agree with you and others that Marcion developed a theology that had heretical elements - and that what's really important is his spread of teachings and literature that were founded on core principles proposed by Jesus and argued by Paul.

[–]Vulptex[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Except Marcion didn't "update" the Gospel of Luke; the Gospel of Marcion was updated to the Gospel of Luke.

[–]freddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks - an interesting point. Because both sets of resources were written around the same time (c 100 CE? with revisions to Luke in the 2nd C), I wonder if a comparison has been done with with Marcion and Luke (& Mark, Q & L texts) that would show the influence of Marcion's texts. I should perhaps look at Joseph Tyson's 2006, 'Marcion and Luke-acts: A Defining Struggle', as it addresses authorship. There are also recent studies, like Judith Lieu's 2017 'Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century' that might help. And it seems that in 2021 Marcion's work was published as 'The Very First Bible', edited by A.W. Mitchell. Some of the Apocrypha texts include testamonies by Irenaeus and Tertullian Against Marcion, as well as godo lists of Marcion's antitheses. The Norton critical edition by Hammond and Bush has a second volume with these antitheses, which are in my view informative of very strong arguments by Marcius. Of course the usual Lucan scholars, such as I H Marshall, N Geldenhuys, L Morris, and of course Aquinas avoid Marcius altogether. I am not sure Marcion was used for the Gospel of Luke, if I am to follow the existing literature, but it would make sense that Marcion's work was useful for updates to Luke. Joseph Tyson's text might help answer this question, but if you have better suggestions for this please let me know.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Luke is an expanded version of Marcion's gospel. Something like 90% of what's missing from Marcion's is found only in Luke and no other gospel. Also many inconsistencies are solved by reverting it to the Marcionite form, such as the reference to an event Capernaum in Luke 4:23 which hadn't happened yet. But in Marcion's gospel it happened before that.

There's been an agenda in recent times to make every early Christian an orthodox Jew for some reason, so believing inerrantists and skeptics alike have a motive to prefer the canonical version. The argument "well they were Jews!" completely ignores the fact that there are many different branches of Judaism other than orthodox, especially in ancient times. It also would mean we have to admit that we've all been wrong about something for centuries, and that much of what we thought we knew is wrong; most people aren't willing to do that.

[–]AmandaHuginkiss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Also: these are apparently the ‘antitheses’ by Marcion, Translated by Beate Blatz, from New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1992), 117–33. (Which I found in: “THE ENGLISH BIBLE KING JAMES VERSION: Volume Two The New Testament and the Apocrypha.” WW Norton 2012)

The Antitheses

  1. The Creator was known to Adam and to the following generations, but the Father of Christ is unknown, as Christ himself said of him in these words: “No one has known the Father except the Son” [Luke 10:22].

  2. The Creator did not even know where Adam was, so he cried, “Where are you?” [Gen. 3:9]. But Christ knew even the thoughts of men [cf. Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:47].

  3. Joshua conquered the land with violence and terror; but Christ forbade all violence and preached mercy and peace.

  4. The God of Creation did not restore the sight of the blinded Isaac, but our Lord, because he is good, opened the eyes of many blind men [Luke 7:21].

  5. Moses intervened unbidden in the brothers’ quarrel, chiding the offender, “Why do you strike your neighbor?” But he was rejected by him with the words, “Who made you master or judge over us?” [Exod. 2:13–14]. Christ, on the contrary, when someone asked him to settle a question of inheritance between him and his brother, refused his assistance even in so honest a cause—because he is the Christ of the Good, not of the Just God—and said, “Who made me a judge over you?” [Luke 12:13 f.].

  6. At the time of the Exodus from Egypt, the God of Creation commanded Moses, “Be ready, your loins girded, your feet shod, staffs in your hands, knapsacks on your shoulders, and carry off gold and silver and everything that belongs to the Egyptians” [cf. Exod. 3:22; 12:11; 11:2; 12:35]. But our Lord, the good, said to his disciples as he sent them into the world: “Have no sandals on your feet, nor knapsack, nor two tunics, nor coppers in your belts” [cf. Luke 9:3].”

  7. The prophet of the God of Creation, when the people was engaged in battle, climbed to the mountain peak and extended his hands to God, imploring that he kill as many as possible in the battle [cf. Exod. 17:8 ff.]. But our Lord, the good, extended his hands [on the cross] not to kill men, but to save them.

  8. In the Law it is said, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” [Exod. 21:24; Deut. 19:21]. But the Lord, being good, says in the Gospel: “If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other as well” [cf. Luke 6:29].”

  9. In the Law it is said, “A coat for a coat” [?]. But the good Lord says, “If anyone takes your coat, give him your tunic as well” [Luke 6:29].

  10. The prophet of the God of Creation, in order to kill as many as possible in battle, kept the sun from going down until he finished annihilating those who made war on the people [Josh. 10:12 ff.]. But the Lord, being good, says, “Let not the sun go down on your anger” [Eph. 4:26].”

  11. David, when he besieged Zion, was opposed by the blind who sought to prevent his entry, and he had them killed [2 Sam 5:6 ff.]. But Christ came freely to help the blind.

  12. The Creator, at the request of Elijah, sent the plague of fire [2 Kings 1:9–12]; Christ however forbids the disciples to beseech fire from heaven [Luke 9:51 ff.].

  13. The prophet of the God of Creation commanded bears to come from the thicket and devour the children who had opposed him [2 Kings 2:24]; the good Lord, however, says, “Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” [Luke 18:16].”

  14. Elisha, prophet of the Creator, healed only one of the many Israelite lepers, and that a Syrian, Naaman [2 Kings 5:1 ff.]. But Christ, though himself “the alien,” healed an Israelite, whose own Lord did not want him healed [Luke 7:1 ff.]. Elisha used material for the healing, namely water, and seven times; but Christ healed through a single, bare word. Elisha healed only one leper; Christ healed ten, and this contrary to the Law [Luke 17:11 ff.] …

  15. The prophet of the Creator says: “My bow is strung and my arrows are sharp against them” [Isa. 5:28]; the Apostle says, “Put on the armor of God, that you may quench the fiery arrows of the Evil One” [Eph. 6:11, 16].”

  16. The Creator says, “Hear and hear, but do not understand” [Isa. 6:9]; Christ on the contrary says, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” [Luke 8:8, etc.].

  17. The Creator says, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree” [Deut. 21:23], but Christ suffered the death of the cross [cf. Gal. 3:13 f.].”

  18. The Jewish Christ was designated by the Creator solely to restore the Jewish people from the Diaspora; but our Christ was commissioned by the good God to liberate all mankind.

  19. The Good is good toward all men; the Creator, however, promises salvation only to those who are obedient to him. The Good redeems those who believe in him, but he does not judge those who are disobedient to him; the Creator, however, redeems his faithful and judges and punishes the sinners.

  20. Cursing characterizes the Law; blessing, the faith.”

  21. The Creator commands to give to one’s brothers [e.g., Lev. 25:35 ff.] Christ, however, to all who ask [Luke 6:30].

  22. In the Law the Creator said, “I make rich and poor” [cf. Prov. 22:2]; Jesus calls the poor blessed [Luke 6:20].

  23. In the Law of the Just [God] fortune is given to the rich and misfortune to the poor; but Christ calls [only] the poor blessed.”

  24. In the Law God says, “Love him who loves you and hate your enemy” [cf. Lev. 19:18 and Matt. 5:43]; our Lord, the good, says: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [cf. Luke 6:27; Matt. 5:44].”

  25. The Creator established the Sabbath [Gen. 2:3; Exod. 20:8 ff.]; Christ abolishes it [cf. Luke 6:1 ff.].

  26. The Creator rejects the tax collectors as non-Jews and profane men; Christ accepts the tax collectors [Luke 5:27 ff.].

  27. The Law forbids touching a woman with a flow of blood [Lev. 15:19 ff.]; Christ not only touches her, but heals her [Luke 8:43 ff.].

  28. Moses permits divorce [Deut. 24:1], Christ forbids it [Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10 f.].

  29. The Christ [of the Old Testament] promises to the Jews the restoration of their former condition by return of their land and, after death, a refuge in Abraham’s bosom in the underworld. Our Christ will establish the Kingdom of God, an eternal and heavenly possession.

  30. Both the place of punishment and that of refuge of the Creator are placed in the underworld for those who obey the Law and the Prophets. But Christ and the God who belongs to him have a heavenly place of rest and a haven, of which the Creator never spoke.”

Many of these seem to be reasonable arguments.

[–]freddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very interesting. I've read more about this since yesterday and see that the preaching at Capernaum is a useful, along with notes on preaching at two other villages in Galilee. Matthew and Mark also refer to Capernaum. Seems Jesus was there at first in 27. I think Tertullian argues against this evidence about the specific event noted in Luke, but in any event I wonder if it would be helpful to compare the portions of Marcion's writings Irenaeus and Tertullian preserve with Luke and with Acts. It would be interesting if the Q resource for Luke was related to Marcion's work. The significance of Marcion as a useful resource of Christ's life is in the responses against him, as well as his expulsion from the Roman worshippers' group, and possibly in the account of Paul in Papyrus 46 at the Chester Beatty library.

I think it's very interesting to consider Marcion a potential source for Luke because of the specific differences between Christ's God and Yahweh claimed by Marcion. The Luke Gospel captures, in my view, more of the emotional and spiritual significance of Jesus's work, which could have been informed by different co-writers than those used by the other gospel writers, and specifically, Marcion. I have yet to finish reading about Marcionite Christians in Bart Ehrman's 'New Testament: a historical introduction...' but what I like about that chapter is his discussion of the stark differences between the Jewish Christians and the Marcionite Christians. It seems you are also concerned about this influence of the Jewish Christians. There were also the Gnostic Christians and the Proto-Orthodox Christians, according to Ehrman, and it seems a several other groups c. 30 - 313. Indeed the Manicheans (inc. Gnostic Christians) were more widely spread across Eurasia than the small number of Christian groups in Europe by 313.

If you recommend any specific sources for the comparison of the original Marcion texts and their use in Luke and Acts, please let me know.

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The consensus on this is that Marcion was the one who excised references to the Tanakh, not the others adding material to it. What makes you think people added to Paul's writings?

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The consensus is literally just, "the church fathers said this, so it must be so". But even a casual reading of both versions makes it beyond obvious that the one I posted is the original. It's long been noted that there are two contradictory allegories in this section. In 3:10-14 he's talking about the spirit, sonship, and ransoming. Then the subject abruptly switches to "what is the point of the old covenant?". And then in 4:3-7 he's back to talking about the spirit, sonship, and ransoming again. One sees the law as a hostile enslaver, the other sees it as a temporary "guardian". These two views cannot be reconciled. Is it any coincidence that Marcion happens to be missing the problematic section? And if Marcion removed anything he didn't like, why did his Bible have all of Romans chapter 7? And why are so many portrayals of God as a judge not missing? Yet he's missing things like Romans chapter 6, which have nothing against his beliefs, but do seem awkwardly inserted and interrupt everything. And a lot of the places where he's missing material have a clearly different writing style, for example most of Romans chapters 9-11, and he doesn't have the letters to Timothy or Titus which are now recognized forgeries. There are also lots of small variations that almost always point to Marcion's as older, for example where our Bible says "Jesus the Messiah" his will say "the Messiah", or when our Bible says "the grace of God" his has only "the grace". There's a great example in this section, 3:26, where our Bible says, "You are all sons of God through faith in the Messiah Jesus", but his has the less pious and much more confusing, "you are all sons of faith". It makes no sense whatsoever why Marcion would alter the first one to the second one, but it's not hard to see why someone would do the reverse. There are so many examples of this, I don't know how anyone could think the canonical redaction is more original unless they're extremely biased.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very good points and I agree.

[–]bucetao6969 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Canonical" is a funny word when talking about religion lol

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203%3A4-6&version=NIV

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The canonical version of this section is this: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203%3A6-4%3A7&version=NIV

[–]doginventer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

NIV lol

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, I've caught that one changing some things. Try this one: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203%3A6-4%3A7&version=ESV

[–]freddit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for this. I see more information about Marcion here, and will read more about his translation tomorrow. It seems that Papyrus 46 (Chester Beatty library) isn't part of Marcion's translation.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Marcion didn't translate anything as far as I know. That translation was done by others trying to reconstruct it (I'm not a huge fan of that one). No actual copies survive because the church had them all burned.

[–]superbug 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think you're the one who misses a lot of dick here, for defending a XY who's the same shit like all the others, in a RADFEM sub. Are you even aware of how stupid you sound? Even women who aren't feminists know deep down, in their instincts, that men are all the same. And then you dumb down yourself to coddle and protect your almighty dad. He's just as gross as every other man, DEAL WITH IT. He has a penis, an Y chromosome and testosterone and was born in the same patriarchal shit all men are born. DEAL. WITH.IT.

I understand this is a high cope, but stop with the handmaiden dumbassery, you look like a fucking clown.

[–]makesyoudownvote 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Da Galatia Peopo 3:6-4:7

Hawai‘i Pidgin

6 Jalike Abraham. He wen trus God. Az why God wen say Abraham get um right wit him.

7 So den, you guys gotta undastan dis: Da peopo dat trus God, dey jalike Abrahamʼs kids. 8 God wen show inside da Bible dat he goin make all da diffren peopos get um right wit him, cuz dey trus God. So God wen tell Abraham da Good Stuff From God way befo time. He say: “Cuz a you, I goin do plenny good stuffs fo all da diffren peopos all ova da world.” 9 So den, God goin do plenny good stuffs fo da peopo who trus him, jalike he wen do fo Abraham, da guy who wen trus him.

10 Whoeva try do everyting da Rules say fo get um right wit God, dey get one kahuna on top dem. Cuz da Bible say, “Everybody who no stay do everyting dat Godʼs Rules say we gotta do, dey get one kahuna on top dem.” 11 Stay clear dat no mo nobody dat do everyting da Rules say. Dass why nobody get um right wit God da way God see um. Cuz God wen say inside da Bible, “Da guy dat get um right wit me cuz he trus me, he da one dat goin live fo real kine.” 12 You know, if you jus do wat da Rules say, dat no mean you trussing God. God wen say inside da Bible, “Whoeva do everyting da Rules say, dey goin live cuz dey stay do um.” But us guys, we no mo da power fo do everyting da Rules say.

13 Christ, he wen pay da price fo cut us guys loose, so we no gotta do everyting da Rules say fo get um right wit God. Dass why now, we no goin get kahuna on top us. Christ wen get our kahuna on top him, cuz da Bible wen say, “Everybody dat dey kill an hang on top one post, dey get kahuna on top dem.” 14 Christ wen mahke fo pay da price fo us guys, so dat all da diffren peopos all ova da world can get da good stuff God wen promise Abraham, an so us guys who stay tight wit Jesus can get Godʼs Spirit, jalike God wen promise.

Da Rules an Wat God Wen Promise

15 Eh, bruddas, I goin talk bout someting dat everybody can undastan. If one guy make one will an sign um in front odda peopo, den nobody can change um o make um no good. 16 So, God wen promise da good stuffs to Abraham an his boy. He neva say, “an fo yoa boys,” cuz dass plenny peopo. He ony say, “an fo yoa boy,” cuz dass ony one guy, Christ. 17 Dis wat I mean. God wen make da deal wit Abraham long time befo, bout Christ. Den, four hundred an thirty years afta dat, God wen give Moses da Rules. But da Rules no mo power fo make Godʼs promise no good. 18 If Godʼs kids can get dea share cuz dey work fo um wen dey do wat Godʼs Rules say, den no need God fo promise um dea share jalike one gif. Cuz nobody work fo one gif. But God wen give um to Abraham jalike one gif, jalike he wen promise.

19 How come get da Rules, den? God wen give um cuz everybody do bad kine stuff. Wen Godʼs Boy wen come, da One da promise talk bout, den fo get um right wit God, no need da Rules no moa. Angel messenja guys wen give Moses da Rules, an den Moses wen give um to da peopo. So Moses wen stay in da middle, fo talk to both God an da peopo. 20 Need one guy in da middle fo talk to both guys, but no need um if get ony one guy. God stay ony one God, an he wen fix up everyting by himself.

Da Rules Teach Us Bout da Bad Kine Stuff

21 You tink Godʼs Rules stay working agains Godʼs promises? No way! If had rules dat get da power fo make peopo live foeva, den God wen make peopo get um right wit him wit dem rules. But neva had dat kine rules. 22 Da Bible wen say dat everybody stay do da bad kine stuff, an dey no can pau do um. An dass how come da Bible wen say dat, fo show dat peopo gotta go trus Jesus Christ, fo get da kine life God wen promise.

23 But befo da time fo trus Christ wen come, we gotta do wat da Rules say, no matta we no mo power fo do um. Dass how wen stay till da time wen come fo God show us how fo trus him. 24 Da Rules jalike one babysitter fo bring us to Christ, so dat we can trus him an get um right wit God. 25 But now we can trus Christ, so no need one babysitter.

26 All you guys Godʼs kids, cuz you wen trus Jesus, Godʼs Spesho Guy. 27 All you guys who wen get baptize fo stay tight wit Christ an be his guys, now you goin come like him. 28 Now, no matta Jew o not Jew, slave o not slave, guy o wahine, you guys all da same cuz you stay tight wit Christ. 29 You guys Christʼs guys, so den you guys Abrahamʼs kids. An you guys goin get yoa share, jalike God wen promise all his kids.

4 Dis wat I mean. Da fadda like give his boy everyting da fadda get wen he mahke, but da boy no can get um right den an dea if he still yet one small kid. Jalike da slave guy no own his bossʼs stuffs, da kid still yet no own his faddaʼs stuffs, no matta he goin get um lata on. 2 Da boy get peopo his fadda wen pick fo take care him an his stuffs. He gotta do wat dey tell um till da time come dat his fadda wen pick. 3 Same ting wit us guys. Befo Jesus Christ wen come we jalike small kids. We gotta do wat da main spirits dat stay in charge a da world wen tell us. 4 But wen da right time wen come, God wen send his Boy. One wahine wen born him, an he gotta do wat da Rules say. 5 Befo time we gotta do everyting da Rules say fo get um right wit God. But God wen send his Boy Christ so he can mahke fo pay da price fo let us go, so we no gotta stick wit da Rules, an so he can make us jalike his hanai kids.

6 So den, cuz you guys his kids, God wen put his own Boyʼs Spirit inside our hearts, so now we can tell God, “Papa, you my Fadda!” 7 Dass why you guys not jalike slaves no moa dat gotta do wat da Rules say. Now you guys Godʼs kids! An God goin give you guys everyting he goin give his kids.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TIL Hawai'i had a Pidgin.

They're crazy languages.

Reading the newspaper in Vanuatu is like a crossword. You can usually get the sense if you pronounce the words.

[–]TiberSeptim 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds like Paul did a blunt

[–]makesyoudownvote 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Da kine bud.

[–]Be_incorrigible 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Soooooo.....fan fiction?

[–]Maggotus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is like watching geeks argue over Star wars canon or trekkies....