Notsri

The phrase born of woman is in fact a fairly common Hebraism which always indicates earthly -- which is to say, human -- origins; its use in Galatians 4:4 would be unlike any other if another meaning were intended. Moreover, it is the second of two such Hebraisms used in that particular epistle, the other being the phrase flesh and blood in 1:16. Since the latter is unequivocally employed according to normal usage, there seems little reason to assume differently for the former. (Certain contextual considerations from within Galatians 4 itself would tend to point to the same conclusion, in my opinion.)

spamandham

Although there is nothing in the text to indicate this, let's assume it's true and the text is specifically referring to *only* a post resurrection appearance.

It still doesn't make sense if James is a blood brother, because James comes after the anonymous and certainly legendary '500'. I can't see any reasonable way to rescue James as a blood brother in light of him following what can not possibly be historical - except to resort to what I have concluded independent of this point, which is that 1 Cor 15 is wholly inauthentic.

If James were the blood brother of Jesus, as you claim, then ordinary cult dynamics demand he would play a major role in the gospels. Don't you agree?

I know you reject the idea out of hand, but my position is that the gospels are origin stories written by those who are so late to the game that they need to write origin stories, because they don't know the real origin of their beliefs and practices. I date the gospels to the Bar Kochba revolt *at the earliest* based on both internal and external evidence. If you examine the arguments used for an earlier date, I think you will be bewildered at their lack of rationality.

It isn't. What's ambiguous in that instance is *when* this Jesus lived.

Of course, I view the writings of Paul as most scholars do, that they are composite works - the result of multiple authors over time. We have to try to sort through the layers just like an archaeologist would. You can't just assume that everything you find is from the earliest layer.

angelo

R. G. Price's book Jesus, A Very Jewish Myth has as far as I know not been criticized as strongly as say, Doherty and a few others. Is it because it's hard to refute his argument?

ApostateAbe

It is largely a function of what is popular and what isn't. I can't even find Jesus, A Very Jewish Myth in the interlibrary loan catalog. But, I would certainly favor the authorship of Price over Doherty, given the choice.

ApostateAbe

To Kapyong and spamandham:

Kapyong, it is kind of a strange situation. If we were talking about the issue of whether or not Jesus was really a human being, then there would be more uncertainty. But, since we are talking about whether or not Paul thought of Jesus as historical, then the evidence is powerful. The evidence is very very direct. born of a woman. human nature was a descendant of David. Those are not spiritual descriptions. They are very very human.

Well, haha, let me qualify that. Absolutely anything can be considered a merely spiritual description if you really want it to be. Absolutely anything. The issue is which theory matches the evidence with greater plausibility.

spamandham, I think you have the seed of a good idea in there--your theory on siblings in cult dynamics needs evidence, that's all. All I have is my own intuition and the clues in the gospels and epistles.

DCHindley

Spamandham,

Your responce to Apostate Abe made several interesting statements, and if you don't mind I'd like to comment.

Not necessarily. While I personally also doubt that James is a blood relative of Jesus (I suspect he was originally messiah Jesus' companion High Priestly messiah, DSS style), cult dynamics do sometimes marginalize blood relatives of cult founders.

For example, after the death of the prophet Muhammad, the majority of Muslims elected his close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, to become the first Caliph of the Islamic nation (the Sunni), while a minority adhered to Muhammad's cousin/son-in-law, Ali (the Shia).
http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Another example, upon the death of Joseph Smith, most of the followers attached themselves to Brigham Young (the LDS church), while a minority remained attached to blood relatives such as his widow Emma Smith and later eldest son Joseph Smith III (as the RLDS).
http://www.mrm.org/rlds

Here I agree with you 100%.

Most scholars do not consider the individual books to be composite works by different authors, although acknowledging occasional scribal interpolations (glosses). They do think that the pastorals and perhaps some of the letters to churches are written by others besides Paul (usually assumed to be immediate followers of Paul after his death, or members of a Pauline "school" of thought).

I do agree that the letters (I say all of them, pastorals included) show evidence of being composite. In my humble opinion, in each case an original layer has been redacted by an editor not related to the original author, who introduced commentary, digressions, and re-directions.

DCH

aa5874

But, Jesus the God/man was born of a WOMAN and the HOLY GHOSTin the Canon.

That is the UNIQUE characteristic of the GOD/MAN--fully God and fully man.

The Canon does not support Docetism, it supports a unique GOD/MAN who was equal to God the Creator and later became a man.

You are simply wasting time if you cannot show where Paul claimed that the father of Jesus was a man.

Paul clearly stated that Jesus was the Son of God born of a woman which is exactly consistent with the Canon.

We already have Galatians 1 where Paul stated he was not the apostle of a man but of Jesus who was raised from the dead and that his gospel was not from man.

Why have you refused to look at all the information supplied by the Pauline writers and the Church writers about Jesus the God/man?

You probably don't realise that Jesus of the NT was a God/Man born of the HOLY GHOST and a WOMAN.

DCHindley

Except that in Job the scene is placed before the Lord and involves "sons of God" (angels, including even the accuser, Satan), whereas in Zech it is before the "angel/messenger of the Lord." Except for Moses, "no man shall see my face, and live." (Exodus 33:20)

Sure, except that the name IHSOUS ("IEsous") is undeclinable, meaning that everywhere it is used, whether subject or object of a sentence, etc, it is always spelled Iesous. Not Iesoun.

You mean in the Lxx Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures? Sure.

No, I mean that in Hebrews the old Jewish high priesthood, who were chosen periodically from humans belonging to priestly orders descending from Aaron and officiating from the temple in Jerusalem, has been replaced by Jesus Christ, who exists as an eternal high priest in heaven, of an "order" like that of Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed Abraham in Gen 14:18, who was termed "the priest of the most high God." Melchizedek is not there described as a high priest, since these did not yet exist. The issue that drove the author of Hebrews to make this claim is that the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed and with it the Aaronic high priests ceased to officiate.

It was the author of Lxx Psalm 109:4 (110:4 in English bibles) who put into the Lord's mouth that "Thou [i.e., king David] art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." There are several points in the historical books of Jewish scripture where David seems to assume some sort of priestly privileges, without divine disapproval.

The author of Hebrews runs with this to make Jesus, who he believed to be a descendant of king David, also a "priest after the order of Melchizedek" like David, and thus qualified to assume the role of a heavenly high priest. This is not really correct, as it is the Law of Moses that created the high priestly role and it specifies that the holder of this office must be chosen from the descendants of Aaron. Jesus Christ is nowhere equated with an Aaronic descent (in the NT at least), so the best the author of Hebrews can do is make Jesus Christ a part of a non-Aaronic priestly order that is just as good (in his opinion).

The forms of the name, in Greek, are the same, but what people are trying to make clear is that these two passages refer to two entirely different persons. Zechariah speaks of the Persian appointed high priest Jesus son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah (who himself had been HP before the exile), and also of the Persian appointed Zerubbabel, "son of Shealtiel, of the house of David." It doesn't matter that this is recognized by all those evil Christian scholars (even though this is also acknowledged by Jewish and secular scholars). In Hebrews IHSOUS is Jesus Christ and no one else.

No.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi Nostri,

I agree that born of a woman means Earthly, or basically a human, and under the law means a Hebrew.
Still I cannot say that the reference to "Son of God" means Jesus of Nazareth. It refers to Christ but who or what is Christ according for Paul:
Note Paul 3:24

Christ has come. The "way of faith" has come. What is Christ, Christ is the "Way of Faith". The Way of Faith is the Christ which is the Son of God.

We can now understand Galatians 4:4

When the time came God sent his son, i.e. the "Way of Faith". The "Way of Faith" was "born of a woman" (human) and subject to the law (Jewish). In other words "The Way of Faith" is the son of the human Jewish Law. It was born out of the Jewish law. By following "The Way of Faith" (Christ) one becomes a child of God. Following the Law just makes one like a slave to God. Following "the Way of Faith" makes one a child of God.

The passage is clearer if we see the term "Christ" as meaning "King". A society has a King and the King makes laws. People obey the law until the King comes. Obeying the law is like being a slave. Obeying the King is being a son. The Way of Faith is the son of God because obeying the Way of faith makes you the son of God.

It is not the terms "born of a woman" and "subject to the law" that are confusing us here. It is seeing those terms as a reference to the gospel character Jesus of Nazareth, instead of seeing those terms as referring to the "Way of Faith" (The Christ, the son of God that makes you into a son of God). By following the "Way of Faith" you get the Holy Spirit and become a son of God. The "Way of Faith" is the "Son of God" and the way to be a "Son of Son" and have the spirit of the Jewish God named "Jesus."


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

DCHindley

Loomis,

I'm not sure why you would think that. The author of Hebrews is clearly talking about the same Jesus as the rest of the NT.

Are you suggesting that Hebrews marks the beginning of the Christ cult, built from this and that passage in the Lxx and Jewish tradition, and the rest of the NT was created to historicize it?

DCH