Llyricist

The mythicist case does not rest on those phrases, the historicist case, however, does.

Doherty may not provide proof positive of a paradigm that explains without a doubt every single piece of evidence, but the historicists can't even come up with a convincing candidate for the actual historical figure, much less a convincing case that one necessarily existed.

jgibson000

Nor does it take someone not versed in the language to know that some claims that a particular phrase could have, let alone actually has, a particular figurative meaning X are nonsense.

While it would be stupid to deny that "you are pulling my leg" has a non literal as well as a literal meaning, it would not be stupid to go on to say, if someone-- especially someone who did not speak English fairly well and who had no real grounding in the ins and outs of English grammar, syntax. usage, and idiom -- claimed not only that it could but actually did mean, say, "I love you" or "you owe me money" or anything else that English speakers know through usage that it does not "mean" literally or figuratively, that that person was (or could be) correct.

The issue isn't whether language can be or is used figuratively. It can and it is. Rather it's whether it is being done so in Gal. 4:4, and if so, whether the particular figurative meaning that a given phrase within it is claimed to have is correct.

Now please tell me how you would decide this -- and be certain that your conclusion was, if not correct, at least feasable -- without a knowledge of Greek styntax, grammar, vocabulary, and usage.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

Hi, Earl.

I like the script; which episode was it?

I do not think the analogy you presented holds. In your episode the defendant is suspected both of paying a mob hitman and of being at the scene of the murder. But those two actions are not mutually exclusive. He could have paid the hitman and been at the scene, for any one of a number of reasons. Maybe the hitman backed out a day later. Maybe the payment was for a different hit.

To put it a different way, paying off a hitman is evidence of desiring to have someone killed; being spotted at the scene of the murder is evidence of actually killing someone. But both may well be simultaneously true.

Your proposed bifurcation, on the other hand, argues to precisely opposite ends. While a defendant may both try to have someone killed and also end up killing that person himself, it is not equally true that a phrase can both be interpolated and be original, nor is it equally true that this phrase can be both a normal way of referring to something and a very strange way of referring to it.

To make the analogy stick, you would have to have McCoy actually argue something like this: A. It was the defendant who pulled the trigger. B. It was a hitman hired by the defendant who pulled the trigger while the defendant was sleeping in his own bed.

If those truly mutually exclusive options were presented in court on Law and Order, the attorney for the defense would really have something to complain about. (But we all know that Adam Schiff would have already demanded a cogent theory of the crime long before Jack McCoy ever stepped into court.)

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Mr. Doherty, do you think you can somehow incorporate Richard Carrier's discussion of:

""Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?

Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says autê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, autê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner."


into your Radical argument that Belief in an Impossible Jesus started with an Impossible Jesus so I can get Dr. Gibson to comment on Richard Carrier's related Greek? Thanks.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

krosero

No one on either side will ever come up with that. The study of history can't deliver it (as TedH says in his posts above), and Earl is not expected to deliver it. What is expected is already out on the table, so we'll see how that goes.

jgibson000

In this instance, the question of whether the historicist can come up with a convincing character or a case for his existence is absolutely irrelevant, since the issue is solely a lingusitic one -- whether or not the Greek expression GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS had or ever could have the meaning that mythicists assign to it. The truth or falsity of this claim is in no way dependent upon whether there was or was not an historical Jesus or how good the case for him is. We are dealing with a question of what exactly it was that Paul was expressing in Gal. 4:4, not the question of whether or not what it was that Paul said was true, and that can only be decided on the basis of an analysis of the grammar, wording, and syntax of that verse in the light of Greek grammar, syntax, wording, and usage.


So .. would you care to make a contribution along those lines?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

Macbeth, act IV, scene 1, apparition speaking:

Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.

Macbeth, act V, scene 7, Macbeth speaking:

Thou wast born of woman.
But swords I smile at, weapons laugh to scorn,
Brandish'd by man that's of a woman born.

This post is my public service for the week. I have here assembled a collection of references to the phrase born of a woman in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin sources. This list does not at all pretend to be exhaustive, but it ought to help guide any inquiry into the meaning of the phrase made [or born] of a woman in Galatians 4.4.

First some lexical information. Liddell and Scott define γενναω in part as follows:

γενναω, f. ησω, (γεννα) Causal of γιγνομαι (cf. γεινομαι II), of the father, to beget, engender, Aesch., Soph.; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aesch.

And γιγνομαι they define in part as follows (I have underlined two important parts):

γι-γνομαι, Ion. and in late Gr. γι-νομαι.... Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born, νεον γεγαως new born, Od.; γεγονεναι εκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely απο τινος Id.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ετεα τρια και δεκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc. 2. of things, to be produced, Plat., Xen., etc.

The basic synonymity of γινομαι and γενναω comes out in the fact that both of these words are used to translate the Hebrew word ילד (yalad) in the Septuagint.

The following are instances in which the Hebrew ילד (which means to give birth or to bear) is translated by the Greek γινομαι (to become, to come into being, or to be born) in the Septuagint: Genesis 4.18, 26; 6.1; 10.1, 21, 25; 17.17; 21.3, 5; 35.26; 36.5; 46.20, 27; 48.5; Leviticus 25.45; Deuteronomy 23.8; 2 Samuel 5.13; Psalm 86.4, 5, 6; Job 1.2; 15.7.

Genesis 4.18 is an instructive case, because it has four instances of the Hebrew ילד, one of which is translated by the Greek γινομαι, the other three of which are translated by the Greek γενναω, all in the same sentence. There are other instances (Genesis 17.17; 21.3; 36.5) in which the sentence has two instances of the Hebrew ילד, one of which is rendered by γινομαι, the other of which is rendered by τικτω (to give birth).

The actual phrase born of a woman appears thrice in the book of Job. First, Job 14.1 (Masoretic and LXX):

אדם ילוד אשה קצר ימים ושבע־רגז׃

Βροτος γαρ γεννητος γυναικος ολιγοβιος και πληρης οργης.

For a mortal born of woman is short-lived, and full of wrath.

Second, Job 15.14 (Masoretic and LXX):

מה־א�*וש כי־יזכה וכי־יצדק ילוד אשה׃

Τις γαρ ων βροτος οτι εσται αμεμπτος, η ως εσομενος δικαιος γεννητος γυναικος;

What is a mortal that he should be blameless, or one born of woman that he would be just?

Third, Job 25.4 (Masoretic and LXX):

ומה־יצדק א�*וש עם־אל ומה־יזכה ילוד אשה׃

�*ως γαρ εσται δικαιος βροτος εναντι κυριου, η τις αν αποκαθαρισαι εαυτον γεννητος γυναικος;

How then is a mortal just before God? Or who born of woman can cleanse himself?

These verses use the Greek adjective γεννητος, to bear or to give birth, based on the same root as both the regular and the causative form of the verb γινομαι.

Euripides offers a classical parallel to this kind of phrase in the Bacchae, lines 987-990:

Τις αρα νιν ετεκεν; ου γαρ εξ αιματος γυναικων εφυ, λεαινας δε τινος οδ η γοργονων Λιβυσσαν γενος.

Who then bore him? For he was not produced from the blood of women, but is the offspring of some lioness or of Libyan gorgons.

Then there is Sirach 10.18:

Ουκ εκτισται ανθρωποις υπερηφανια, ουδε οργη θυμου γεννημασιν γυναικων.

Arrogance was not created for men, nor wrathful rage for the brood of women.

This verse uses the Greek noun γεννημα, brood, based on the same root as the verb γενναω.

From the Dead Sea scrolls we have at least two instances of the phrase, both using the Hebrew word ילד. First, 1QS 11.21a:

וילוד אשה מה יחשב לפ�*יכה׃

As what shall one born of woman be considered in your presence?

Second, 1QHa 5.20b:

ומה ילוד אשה בכול מעשיך ה�*וראים׃

What is one born of woman among all your fearful works?

There may be other instances of this phrase in the Dead Sea scrolls; I have not searched at all exhaustively.

The phrase appears twice (in parallel) in the gospels. First, Matthew 11.11:

Αμην, λεγω υμιν, ουκ εγηγερται εν γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του βαπτιστου, ο δε μικροτερος εν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν.

Amen, I say to you, there is not greater than John the baptist among those born of women, but the lesser in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than him.

Second, Luke 7.28:

Λεγω υμιν, μειζων εν γεννητοις γυναικων Ιωαννου ουδεις εστιν, ο δε μικροτερος εν τη βασιλεια του θεου μειζων αυτου εστιν.

I say to you, no one is greater than John among those born of women, but the lesser in the kingdom of God is greater than him.

These two verses use the Greek adjective γεννητος, born.

Tertullian quotes Matthew 11.11 in On Baptism 12.5:

Unde et suggeritur, cum adversantes domino tingui noluerint, eos qui dominum sequebantur tinctos fuisse, nec cum aemulis sapuisse, maxime quando dominus cui adhaerebant testimonio Ioannem extulisset: Nemo, dicens, maior inter natos feminarum Ioanne baptizatore.

Whence is also suggested that, since the adversaries of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and did not think like their rivals, especially when, if there were anyone to whom they adhered, the Lord had extolled John above him by his testimony, saying: No one among those born of females is greater than John the baptist.

Clement of Alexandria quotes Matthew 11.11 in The Rich Man 31:

Κατα τα αυτα και του μεγιστου εν γεννητοις γυναικων Ιωαννου τον ελαχιστον εν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων, τουτεστι τον εαυτου μαθητην, ειναι μειζω λεγει.

In the same way he also says that the least in the kingdom of the heavens, that is, his own disciple, is greater than John, the greatest among those born of women.

Refer also to Origen, On Matthew 10.22; 13.15.

Tertullian quotes (the Marcionite version of) Luke 7.28 in Against Marcion 4.18.8:

Maior quidem omnibus natis mulierum. sed non ideo subiecto ei qui minor fuerit in regno dei.

That forerunner was indeed greater than all of women born; but even so he who was least in the kingdom of God was not subject to him.

Refer also to Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.5.

The gospel of Thomas has the following in saying 15:

Jesus said: When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves onto your faces and worship him; that one is your father.

In Galatians 4.4-5 the apostle Paul says:

Οτε δε ηλθεν το πληρωμα του χρονου, εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου, γενομενον εκ γυναικος, γενομενον υπο νομον, ινα τους υπο νομον εξαγοραση, ινα την υιοθεσιαν απολαβωμεν.

But, when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his son, made [or born] from a woman, made under the law, in order to redeem those under the law, in order that we might receive the adoption.

Irenaeus quotes this Pauline passage in Against Heresies 3.22.1:

Et apostolus autem Paulus in epistola quae est ad Galatas, manifeste ait: Misit deus filium suum, factum de muliere. et rursus in ea quae est ad Romanos: De filio autem, inquit, eius, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem, qui praedestinatus est filius dei in virtute, secundum spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christi domini nostri.

The apostle Paul, moreover, in the epistle to the Galatians manifestly says: God sent his son, made of a woman. And again in that to the Romans he says: Concerning his son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

He quotes it again in Against Heresies 5.21.1:

Ex eo enim qui ex muliere virgine habebat nasci, secundem similitudinem Adam, praeconabatur observans caput serpentis, id est semen, de quo ait apostolus in epistola quae est ad Galatas: Legem factorum positam donec veniret semen qui promissum est. manifestius autem adhuc in eadem ostendit epistola, sic dicens: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum, factum de muliere. neque enim iuste victus fuisset inimicus nisi ex muliere homo esset qui vicit eum.

For from that time he who should be born of a virgin woman, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle in the epistle to the Galatians says: The law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made. This fact, moreover, is exhibited more manifestly in the same epistle, speaking thus: But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his son, made from a woman. For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished unless it had been a man from a woman who conquered him.

(Irenaeus also quotes Galatians 4.4 in Against Heresies 3.16.7, but stops short of our key phrase, factum ex muliere, in that instance.)

Tertullian also quotes Galatians 4.4 in On the Flesh of Christ 20.2b-3a:

Sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: Misit, inquit, deus filium suum, factum ex muliere. numquid per mulierem aut in muliere? hoc quidem impressius quod factum potius dicit quam natum. simplicius enim enuntiasset natum; factum autem dicendo, et verbum caro factum est consignavit et carnis veritatem ex virgine factae adseveravit.

But Paul also imposes silence these grammarians: God, he says, sent his son, made of a woman. Does he mean through a woman or in a woman? This is indeed the more emphatic in that he says [the word] made in preference to [the word] born. For it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born; yet, by saying [the word] made, he has both set his seal on [the sentence that says that] the word was made flesh and asserted the verity of the flesh made of the virgin.

He also quotes it in On the Veiling of Virgins 6:

Scribens enim ad Galatas: Misit, inquit, deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Hebion resistat.

For while writing to the Galatians he says: God sent his son, made of a woman, who of course it is established was a virgin, though Hebion resists it.

Finally, Tertullian notices two missing phrases in the Marcionite text of the epistle to the Galatians. He writes in Against Marcion 5.4.2b-4:

Erubescat spongia Marcionis; nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit deus filium suum, utique is qui etiam ipsorum temporum deus est quibus saeculum constat, qui signa quoque temporum ordinavit, soles et lunas et sidera et stellas, qui filii denique sui revelationem in extremitatem temporum et disposuit et praedicavit: In novissimis diebus erit manifestus mons domini, et, In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem, secundum Ioelem. ipsius erat sustinuisse tempus impleri cuius erat etiam finis temporis, sicut initium. ceterum deus ille otiosus, nec operationis nec praedicationis ullius, atque ita nec temporis alicuius, quid omnino egit quod efficeret tempus impleri et iam implendum sustineri? si nihil, satis vanum est ut creatoris tempora sustinuerit serviens creatori. cui autem rei misit filium suum? ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, hoc est ut efficeret tortuosa in viam rectam et aspera in vias lenes, secundum Esaiam, ut vetera transirent et nova orirentur, lex nova ex Sion et sermo domini ex Hierusalem, et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus, utique nationes, quae filii non eramus. et ipse enim lux erit nationum, et in nomine eius nationes sperabunt. itaque ut certum esset nos filios dei esse, misit spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem: Abba, pater. in novissimis enim, inquit, diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem. cuius gratia, nisi cuius et promissio gratiae?

Let the sponge of Marcion be ashamed of itself; except that it is superfluous for me to discuss the passages he has left out, since my case is stronger if he is shown wrong by those he has retained. But, when it came about that the time was fulfilled, God sent his son, evidently that God who is the God even of those times of which the ages consist, who also has ordained the signs of the times, suns and moons and constellations and stars, and in short has both foreordained and foretold the revelation of his own son at the far end of the times: In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be made manifest, and: In the last days I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh, as Joel has it. To have waited for the time to be fulfilled was characteristic of him to whom belonged the end of time, as also its beginning. But that leisured god of yours, who has never either done anything or prophesied anything and so knows nothing of any time, what has he ever done to cause time to be fulfilled, and to justify waiting for its fulfilment? If he has done nothing, it was foolish enough that he waited for the times of the creator, and thus did service to the creator. But to what purpose did he send his son? To redeem those that were under the law, that is, to make crooked places into a straight way and rough places into smooth ways, as Isaiah says, so that old things might pass away and new things might arise, a new law out of Zion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and that we might receive the adoption of sons, we the gentiles, who once were not sons; and he himself will be a light of the gentiles, and in his name shall the gentiles hope. And so as to make it certain that we are sons of God, he has sent his own spirit into our hearts, crying: Abba, father. For he says: In the last days I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh. By whose grace, if not his whose was the promise of grace?

Thus we see that the text of Marcion as Tertullian had it must have jumped from misit deus filium suum (God sent his son) to ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret (to redeem those who were under the law), skipping the phrases about the son being made of a woman or made under the law (factum ex muliere, factum sub lege).

Ben.

jgibson000

Many thanks for saying this! I'm very pleased to see especially in in the light of our sometimes piqued tone with one another, that we actually agree on something and that you are both willing and gracious enought to let me know it.

But may I now ask not only what it was that caused the change of mind, but what your agreement with me means in terms of what you think of Earl's reading of Burton and his [Earl's] interpretation of what GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS means?

Jeffrey

jakejonesiv

Thanks Earl! Law & Order is a favorite show!

If A is true OR B is true, then C.

When are these guys going to realize that it is "A or B" not "A and B?" Logic doesn't get any simplier than that.

The squirming to disprove "A" using "B" on this board is irrelevant and hilarious.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Yes that is exactly correct as has been demonstrated previously by HDetering, THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS – EXPLANATIONS , pages 65 ff.

See also The Epistle to the Galatians, English version of the translation by Hermann Detering provided by Frans-Joris Fabri (based on RSV)

Jake Jones IV