Clivedurdle

The Nicean creeds? Not primary I suppose, definitely not theological of course.

dog-on

These are the Marcionite prologues not the Anti-Marcionite prologues.

dog-on

Here, quoting Harnack from wiki:

dog-on

Not interpolations by Christians, per se, but co-opting as in using rivals writings to support their own position. How would you describe the Gospel writers use of, for instance Isaiah, in order to extract the Jesus bio? This should show that the proto-orthodox were not above using whatever they could to further their purposes. The Jews were probably less than pleased, by the way.

EarlDoherty

As far as Krosero’s final paragraph is concerned, I regard this as the only insightful (negative) response made to my initial posting on this thread, and of course it occurred to me as well. If the first hypothetical interpolation (let’s say, mid 2nd century) into Galatians 4:4 were of the verb (oops, sorry, participle) genomenon, wasn’t this less than satisfactory, if it didn’t say “born” as directly as gennwmenon would have?

Before I speculate on that (and that’s all we can do), let’s not lose sight of one primary consideration. Later scribes, as Ehrman has clearly shown, did not find it as direct. If it meant “born” as clearly and directly as gennaw, some of them wouldn’t have changed it. (Someone claimed that this is not what Ehrman meant, but did not enlighten us as to what he allegedly did mean.) This, then, compromises the argument that both verbs would have served equally well, that both verbs were understood (in certain contexts) as meaning exactly the same thing. It’s really immaterial whether the Septuagint, let alone earlier classical Greek, could use them interchangeably within that sense. Perhaps meanings progressed or changed nuance over the centuries.

Is it conceivable that an interpolator in the mid 2nd century could decide to introduce a reference to “born of woman” into Galatians 4:4 and use ginomai? I don’t think we could ever definitively say one way or another. We’d have to have a lot more surviving manuscripts from Christians than we do in order to judge. There has been a debate here recently on Marcion which allowed that Marcion’s version of Galatians did not have “born of woman, born under the law” with either participle. The question is, was it there and he excised it, or was it a Catholic addition sometime later? That, too, cannot be definitively decided, and so now we have another possible support for the entire phrase being an interpolation, even with ginomai. Perhaps some scribes had a little different feeling about the relative meaning of each verb than other scribes, and the one who made the interpolation wasn’t troubled by his choice of verb whereas others, especially later, would have been—and were. Who knows? (I’ll have more to say on this in my next posting in response to Ben.)

The point is, in a situation so fraught with uncertainty, where indicators exist on both sides, one can hardly claim to know what had to be and what couldn’t have been. I certainly haven’t offered inflexible opinions. I have raised possibilities (here, based on Ehrman), and possibilities, in an atmosphere of scientific inquiry (which this surely is!) always ought to be looked at and not simply stomped on and firebombed right out of the starting gate. That never creates a good impression.

Because of all this uncertainty, I can indeed keep my two ‘pieces of evidence’ as alternative possibilities. Not, of course, to be applied simultaneously.

But Krosero is confused in his first two paragraphs (taking his second as illuminating the unclear meaning of the first). If the phrase was original to Paul, then yes, he would have been using it to signify an incarnation of sorts, or some kind of symbolism, in the spiritual dimension—no doubt based on scripture. But docetics did not necessarily take it to mean one thing or another. It’s quite possible Marcion (and any other Gnostics who may have used Paul) did not have the phrase at all in their texts. Or if they did, they may not always have used it as a ‘proof-text’ to demonstrate docetism or anything else. If it was in the text, and Marcion did indeed excise it, that would mean they didn’t like it at all, regardless of the nuance of either verb. So you can’t say that docetists took any particular meaning from it. And Ehrman makes the point that we cannot assume that orthodox scribes made changes in order to eliminate the meaning that was actually being drawn by heretics from the original text. In some cases, from writings like those of Irenaeus or Tertullian, we know that they did so. But in many cases, he suggests, scribes, simply being familiar with the doctrines of the heretics, took it on themselves to make changes in passages which sounded to them as though they would open the door to supporting those heretical doctrines; it was a kind of preemptive strike. So Krosero is wrong to suggest that two different groups could appeal to the same text for opposite or incompatible meanings. What I am “keeping both ways” is a feasible explanation for either of two alternatives: either “born of woman, born under the law” (with ginomai) was there in the original, or it was not, and both possibilities enjoy their own explanations. Naturally, they are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t change the situation. We just don’t know which one is factually true.

As I said, the purpose of my initial posting was to call attention to a general principle, which Ehrman has kindly highlighted for us: that Christian scribes were all over the sacred texts, changing them this way and that, inserting these words and those, with absolutely no qualm. Forgery and amendment was the name of the game, and ought to be looked on as the default position. That Matthew and Luke made wholesale changes to their sources (Mark and Q) is staring us right in the face, and to think that it wasn’t done to the epistles and other writings through the century and a half when we entirely lack manuscript attestation is stark naivete and the worst of special pleading. (And it is also naive to argue as though from a position of certainty on the basis of the exact wording of any passage in the epistles.) Even if one could decide that the odds were somewhat against interpolation of an original genomenon into Galatians 4:4, this wouldn’t change the general principle Ehrman has supported.

I am going to make a separate posting following this one to address in detail Ben’s discussion of the two verbs and the phrase “born of woman” in various parts of the literature.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Back up. You were the one who suggested that, if Paul and Cephas met, they would have discussed their gospel preaching. My response was that, yes, that is quite possible; indeed, if they had discussed their respective gospels it would have facilitated what Paul did 14 years later.

What I am calling unofficial is visiting [ιστορησαι] with Cephas. What I am calling official is submitting [ανεθεμην] the Pauline gospel to the pillars. If you do not like that terminology, throw it out. I am just trying to convey the idea.

Would be? I do not think we have to guess. Paul tells us he went to visit Cephas.

Right. Paul claims that he did not need any living man to give him the gospel.

So our interpolator wants to conform to the account in Acts (I presume you mean chapter 9). In Acts, Paul meets the apostles and Barnabas, and Peter (or Cephas) and James go unnamed; in Galatians, Paul meets Cephas and James, and none of the other apostles, and Barnabas goes unmentioned. In Acts, no timeframe is specified; in Galatians, it is three years after his conversion, and he visits for fifteen days. In Acts, there is a famine visit and then the conference on circumcision and Jewish law; in Galatians the next visit is the conference on circumcision and Jewish law. What a poor job of conforming the account to that in Acts. I find it astonishingly easy to reject your hypothesis here.

He says only that he saw James, and that he visited with Cephas. Since his whole point is how little contact he has had with these pillars, we are free to doubt him to some extent on this. But it cannot be doubted that he is trying to minimize that contact. That is the whole point of counting the days and relegating James to an exception clause.

That is correct. I think he got more from the pillars than he is admitting here. Since the pillars apparently took a line different than his after their official (again, call it what you will) meeting, he has to underplay the degree to which his gospel was derived from theirs. His gospel has to be able to stand on its own if he is to keep the Galatians in his camp.

Not in the extant text, unless Paul is skipping several antecedents. In the text, as it stands, the pronoun them refers to the churches of Judea in 1.22-24. You have to find severe problems with the text as it stands if you are to convince anyone of an interpolation.

I already went over this part. The phrase those of reputation begs the question, those of whom? If I say that I spoke to a group of young entrepreneurs yesterday, and that I offered special advice to those who had college degrees, it is to be assumed that those who had college degrees are a subset of the entire group. Likewise, Paul says that he submitted his gospel to them, but in private to those of reputation. I take that to mean that those of reputation are a subset of them.

If both the pronoun them and those of reputation in 2.2 mean the pillars, the verse looks like this:

I submitted my gospel to the pillars, but in private to the pillars.

I fail to make much sense of that. Rather, the pronoun them is the superset, those of reputation the subset:

I submitted my gospel to the churches of Judea, but in private to the pillars.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Ah, quite right. I was thinking only of the gospel prologues I have spent so much quality time with. My mistake.

It occurs to me, however, that you are not understanding what I am requesting. That may be my fault, as well; let me be more specific.

Your claim is that the proto-orthodox took the texts of Paul, who was basically a Marcionite proto-heretic of some kind, and redeemed them with numerous interpolations for proto-orthodox use. What I am asking, then, is for an analogy to that situation, another example of the proto-orthodox hijacking what they would consider a heretical text with numerous interpolations.

They did not consider the OT or John the baptist heretical, and they did not interpolate, to the best of my knowledge, the Pauline prologues of Marcion. They simply used them.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

I thank Ben for his very detailed listing of the appearances of the two verbs in the LXX. I am going to make a more detailed comparison with the New Testament. But first I am going to have to take exception to some of his LXX identifications. He actually got about half of them wrong. To begin with, I am going to have to dispute the approach he took in the first place, because it strikes me as invalid.

His opening remarks seem to be trying to blur the entire distinction between ginomai and gennaw. He quotes Liddell and Scott as saying that gennaw is the “causal” of gignomai which in later Greek dropped the ‘g’ and became ginomai. Linguistically speaking, this may be so. (It’s too esoteric for me, or for any of the NT Lexicons I possess, and my L&S resides at the Library.) But just because they have a related ancestry, this hardly eradicates any distinction in meaning and practice between the two verbs, especially in Koine. Words can have a common origin and still take on differences. And just because both words are used to translate the same Hebrew word doesn’t make the meaning the same in all cases.

In Genesis 4:18, Ben is wrong to say that both verbs are used, once and three times respectively. They are all gennaw. The first is distinctive only in voice. Egevvnthn (in cases like this, and only this, to avoid confusion I’m using ‘v’ for a ‘nu’ so I can use ‘n’ for an ‘eta’) is the aorist passive; the other three are egevvnse, the aorist active. Both belong to the same verb, gennaw. Perhaps Ben confused the first one with egevnthn (one ‘nu’, not two), which is the aorist passive of ginomai. That double ‘nu’ always identifies it as gennaw. The same mistake was made in regard to Gen. 6:1, 10:1, 10:21 and 10:25. He got 4:26 right: “Seth begat (egeveto) a son.”

Now, even if both words can be used to signify an underlying meaning of born or beget, I have found that in many cases, there is still a distinction being made in using the two different verbs. The difference amounts to an alternate way of saying the same thing. Just as in English, we could say “Mary gave birth to a son,” and “John had (or begat) a son.” Sometimes a choice of thought seems to dictate a choice of ginomai. The best example is Ben’s next case: Genesis 17:17. “Abraham said, shall there be (gevnsetai from ginomai) a child to one who is a hundred years old?” Whereas that is followed by “and shall Sarah, 90 years old, bear (texetai from tiktw)?” “Bear” is simply saying it more directly, using “to give birth,” whereas the previous sentence expresses a less specific thought, using ginomai. So I’ll call Ben right on this one, with a qualification.

Ben has a string of verbs correct, Gen. 21:3, 21:5, 35:26, 36:5, 46:20, 46:27. They’re all ginomai. But essentially this is one extended story of the sons of Abraham and all the references are to the same specific detail. This is reflected in the English translation, such as: “sons born to Abraham/Jacob/Joseph.” In this way of putting it (perhaps by the same author?), ginomai was the verb of choice. So I hesitate to give Ben six separate examples in the plus column.

In the rest, he’s about half and half. Lev. 25:45, 2 Sam. 5:13, Job 1:2 are correct, ginomai. Deut. 23:8 (gevvnthwsin), 2 Sam. 5:14 (gevvnthevtwv), Job 15:7 (egevvnthns: all two ‘nu’s) are gennaw. Psalm 86:4 is wrong (egevvnthnsan) while 86:5 and 6 are correct. However, the latter two have a somewhat figurative meaning. 86:4 speaks of people born in a specific geographic place; in the latter two, they are born in “Zion, my mother.”

When Ben offers examples of the phrase “born of woman” found in the LXX, he returns to the blurring he was guilty of at the beginning, but this time directly identifying gevvntos, the adjective “born, or produced of,” with ginomai. He says that it is “based on the same root as both the regular and the causative form of the verb ginomai.” Now, that seems devious to me. He opened by identifying (as per L&S) gennaw as the “causal” of ginomai, a relationship perhaps linguistically correct, but irrelevant here. If the “causative form” of ginomai equals gennaw, then, please!—in the only important sense this means that gevvntos is derived from gennaw. Thus his quoting of Job 14:1, 15:14 and 25:4, all of which use gevvntos, belong in the gennaw column, not as he implies under ginomai. (On the other hand, perhaps he has made some kind of typo, since he then lists Sirach 10:18’s gevvnmasin as “based on the same root as the verb gennaw.”)

What does all of this mean (so far)? Yes, the sense of “born” or “begat” could be conveyed by both verbs, but the balance is not at all equal between them, certainly not to the extent Ben seems to want to imply. I would say that when the LXX wants to phrase the idea of being “born” directly, it much prefers gennaw. Besides, perhaps I should not be the only one to receive accusations about alleged deficiencies in Greek. In fact, I find it curious that Mr. G. did not point out Ben’s mistakes. Perhaps he didn’t realize them himself. (Heaven forbid!) Or perhaps he chose to remain silent, unlike his habit with certain other people.

Now, this is all centuries earlier than the New Testament. What do we find when we reach the first couple of centuries CE and Koine? After all, the dispute really centers on the use of these verbs in Paul, not in the Old Testament. Here, in fact, the situation is quite different. Let’s itemize (in most cases I will refer to the main verb itself, rather than the specific form in which it appears):

One: Paul (as we have him in the canonical texts) uses ginomai in any alleged sense of “born” only in regard to Christ: Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4. The Philippians hymn uses the same verb in 2:7, “made in the likeness of men.” All three relate to the issue under discussion: does this use of ginomai signify something other than ordinary human birth? Is it used to convey something more ‘mythological’? If the two verbs are supposedly synonymous to convey the meaning of “born” why does Paul choose this verb only here? (See Three.)

Two: Let’s look at certain other epistolary usages of ginomai: 1 Cor. 15:45: “Adam became (egeneto) a living soul.” Here it cannot be the meaning of “born” since Adam was created by God, not born of anyone. In 1 Cor. 1:30, Paul speaks of Christ Jesus “who is made (ginomai) for us wisdom.” Hebrews 1:4 speaks of Christ “becoming (ginomai) so much superior to the angels.” (We might note that 2:8 has him “made a little lower than the angels” using the verb elattow, to make inferior.) Of himself, ‘Paul’ says in Eph. 3:7 “I became (egevnthnv) a minister of the gospel.” There is a certain consistency here. The usage of ginomai in this area is directed at “becoming,” not being “born.” In relation to Christ, Paul gravitates to ginomai. One has to wonder why.

Three: When Paul does want to directly and unmistakably express “born” what does he use? Outside of his two references to Christ, always gennaw: Romans 9:11 (children not yet born), Galatians 4:23 and 4:29 (the son/one…born…). The latter are part of that allegory of the two sons, only a few verses after he has spoken of Christ as “born of woman.” Why did he switch verbs here, if they both mean the same thing? We might also note that in the later cases, these sons are spoken of as being born “kata sarka” and “kata pneuma”!! This deserves two exclamation marks because here, despite all the common claims about what kata sarka can only mean, this clearly does not conform to those claims. There is a symbolism involved here. But let’s not get sidetracked on that….

Four: Neither in any other epistles is the verb ginomai used for “born.” Not in Hebrews 11:23, not in 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1 or 5:18.

Five: In all cases (about 2 dozen) where the Gospels express the idea of being “born” they use either gennaw, the adjective gevvntos, or the verb tiktw. In no case do they use ginomai. When they refer specifically to the birth of Jesus (4x in Mt., 2x in Lk.), they use gennaw, or tiktw once in Lk. John uses ginomai twice in the Prologue: “all things were made (egeneto) through him” (where it hardly means “born”), and “the Word was made (egeneto) flesh” (where it has the same meaning of “made” rather than “born”).

Unlike the point Ben has attempted to make in regard to the LXX, there is no “synonymity” in the NT in usages of the two verbs to mean “born.” Leaving aside the two exceptions in Paul, which is what this debate is all about, none at all. If, as Ben and so many others try to claim, the two verbs can be equally understood as “born” in that type of context, if the implication is that a writer could have used one or the other since he would have been sensible of no distinction, why does the ‘law of averages’ not apply in the NT? Why is there a universal use of gennaw to apply to all births other than that of Jesus, as well as to Jesus’ birth in the Gospels? Why does a distinction only exist between the Gospels’ consistent use of gennaw to refer to Jesus’ birth, and the epistles’ consistent use of ginomai to refer to Jesus’ (alleged) birth? Was it not the same birth? Surely the Gospels existed in and derived from the same conceptual world as the epistles……Or maybe not.

All these observations must mean something, and cannot be just coincidence. Thus when Ben confidently states that: “The words γινομαι and γενναω are just too synonymous and interrelated in Greek to merit an assumption that they mean two very different things,” he is not taking these statistics into account. I would say, in fact, that they disprove his entire argument. The strong implication is that, if the key phrases in Paul are his own voice, and not an interpolation, Paul had to have had in mind something different in regard to Christ than simply being “born” in the normal sense. If all he meant was the latter, then in view of all the standard claims, he would have had no reason to choose ginomai in those isolated cases.

Further, one of Ben’s focuses was on the phrase “born of woman,” but this, too, works against him. In the LXX he points it out three times in Job and once in Sirach, plus twice in the Gospels. Some of the usages in the later apologists are to do with quoting Matthew and Luke. Every one of these cases uses gennaw (or the Latin equivalent). The only exceptions are those which quote the Latin equivalent of Paul’s Galatians phrase using ginomai. (Tertullian also apparently witnesses to the absence of the phrase entirely in Marcion’s version of Galatians.) It is often claimed that Paul used the phrase because it was so common. If it was so common, why did he not use it in the common form? The very fact that it is common should lead you to use it in the same way, particularly if you mean the same thing. The fact that Paul changed the key element, the verb, should lead us to conclude that he was avoiding using it in its normal form because he meant something different from the common understanding.

(And the more astute here will realize that, given these arguments, the pendulum swings toward regarding the phrase as original, and not an interpolation. To be sure of that, as I said earlier, we would need to have more Christian writings of the 2nd century and later, using that phrase (not as a quote of someone else), and see if there were any occurrences of “born of woman” using ginomai, which might then make more possible an interpolation into Paul using that verb.)

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Matthew and Luke did not put out new editions of Mark qua Mark. They used him as a source. That is different than making the changes and then passing the text off as the same, original text.

Your overall point may be correct to an extent, but these two separate processes need to be kept separate.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I do not have The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture in front of me. Can you confirm for me what Dr. Gibson has said, to wit, that the manuscripts that make that change date to century X or later?

Thanks.

Ben.