TedM

Absolutely. However, there is another scenario that makes these questions much easier to answer. What if Jesus actually didn't tell the world who he is and why he is here? What if he didn't teach much other than to help the poor and that the meek shall inherit the earth, and to not be hypocritical like the pharisees such as Paul was? What if he had a reputation for doing some miracles, but it was also reported that he failed at them sometimes? What if he had a following that thought perhaps he was the Messiah, but maybe only had a few disciples at any given time? What if that more accurately describes the man who was crucified on passover, and about whom a rumor started that he had actually been the sacrificial lamb?

Under this scenario Paul's silences about the man are a lot easier to swallow, wouldn't you agree? The historical Jesus need not have been the actual Savior Jesus.

Another answer is that Jesus did give his conceptions of certain things but they simply weren't understood, as Mark seems to often portray.

Paul seems to suggest that the rulers of his age would not have crucified Jesus had they understood the mysteries, so perhaps that would be an answer he would have provided to some of your reasonable questions.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, in all his glory, did not minister to Gentiles. Sure, this raises questions, and perhaps that is one reason some of the early Jewish Christians were against converting Gentiles. And if Jesus said nothing about the Gentiles, how does it help Paul's case to admit that? Rather than him view it as embarrassing it would make sense for him to believe that the revelation to him was all part of God's plan--ie don't question why Jesus didn't do all of these things..

I could see Paul having this viewpoint:
Jesus' earthly death was necessary and all important for salvation. His life was not. Jews, being favored by God, got the first chance to believe in him. That's how it always has been. Only after rejecting his salvation (after his death) would the Gentiles get the chance to believe in him. God knew that is how it would work out, but it still needed to play out that way. At the "right" time Paul had the revelation or insight about God's all-encompassing plan in order to get the word out to the Gentiles. This seems very consistent with what we can gleen from Paul about the subject.

Some combination of the above may serve to answer most of your questions.

ted

Toto

Nope - that is precisely the scenario where you expect Paul to know something about the historical Jesus and mention him.

EarlDoherty

This follows on my OP. This will give me a chance to talk about one of my favorite NT scholars…

One of the most thorough and professional analyses of Galatians was made by Edward D. Burton in 1924, in the International Critical Commentary series. He, of course, was not a mythicist, but some of the observations he makes on various elements of these verses help to cast the mythicist viewpoint, and what I said earlier, in a favorable light.

First of all, he points out that the two qualifying phrases, “born of woman, born under the Law” (genomenon ek gunaikos, genomenon hupo nomon), are descriptive of the Son, but not necessarily tied to the present ‘sending.’ Burton says [Galatians, p.218-19]:

“The employment of the aorist [past tense] presents the birth and the subjection to law as in each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to exapesteilen [“sent”] to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to….But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterize the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.”

Burton is not rejecting any temporal relationship for those phrases to the verb “sent,” but he is saying that it is not grammatically necessary. But if they can be seen as not qualifying the sending, then this further frees the ‘sent’ thought in verse 4 from being a reference to the arrival in the world of the incarnated Christ in a human body. Burton also calls into question the meaning of “born under the Law”:

“The words genomenon hupo nomon should probably be taken in the sense ‘made subject to law’ rather than ‘born under law,’ for, though genomenon ek gunaikos evidently refers to birth, that reference is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle, but lies wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity carried over into the second phrase.”

Note his qualifier of “evidently” as the meaning of birth for “genomenon ek gunaikos.” He is admitting that the chosen word in the Greek is not the plainest word for being born in the literal sense. He accepts that the phrase does indeed mean birth, but not because of the nature of the participle, but because the “of woman” gives it that meaning (presumably). But because genomenon in itself does not necessarily spell birth, one cannot simply by extension take the second appearance of it as meaning “born.” So the second phrase should be, says Burton, reduced to the safer interpretation that Jesus was “subject to the Law.” This, of course, eliminates any need to understand that he was born a Jew and automatically under it. The fact of Burton’s other observation, that the two participles do not have a necessary temporal relation to the verb “sent,” means that one could possibly understand that Christ came in “subjection to Law” at some later point than birth. Burton does not offer any suggestion as to when or how this could take place, whereas I might suggest that it is possible that Paul, if he in fact included these phrases, might have envisioned Christ as taking on such features when he entered “the realm of flesh.”

The myths of some savior gods, such as Dionysos, had them ‘born of woman’ (Semele, in his case), and while such mythology was originally cast in an earthly setting implying an earthly woman, its attraction into the Platonic cast of turn of the era philosophy might have transformed her into a mythical counterpart to the earthly Semele. It’s a tricky question, but it does lead us to the possibility that Paul’s “woman” was similarly mythical.

“A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son…”

This is a passage (Isaiah 7:14) which, despite its context which clearly links the woman and her child with the time of the prophet, was widely regarded as prophetic of the Messiah. If Paul felt compelled to interpret this as a reference to his spiritual Christ, he would not have refrained from stating it even if he didn’t understand how this could be. Or, he simply assigned it to the world of myth and God’s “mysteries”—which were unfathomable anyway, and had to be accepted on the basis of scriptural revelation; just as he accepted that the spiritual Christ could somehow be of David’s seed because scripture said so. Why he would choose to introduce that mythical element here could only be a matter of speculation. In the context of Galatians 4, there seems no practical use for either phrase, which becomes one of the arguments for interpolation.

But back to Burton for a moment. He suggests that “the motive for the insertion of the [second] phrase is doubtless to emphasize the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work” [p.218]. But the desire for such an emphasis is not to be detected anywhere else in Paul’s writings. If the “cost” (inferring a negative connotation) of the Son’s redemptive work included the fact that he had to be born in human flesh and be subject to the Law, and Paul wanted to emphasize this, he would surely have chosen (or been forced) to talk about that life under the Law, with its drawbacks and demands, more than he does—which is to say, not at all. The suffering and death of Christ cannot simply be included in such a category, for they are never identified as human. Moreover, this would be to unjustifiably rule out the idea that gods could suffer and die, something which is patently not the case given the mystery cult myths. (And it would be begging the question.)

In regard to the question of distinguishing between the two ‘sendings’ in verses 4 and 6, Burton has some very interesting observations to make. He is of the same mind as myself that there is a sequence entailed in verse 6 between the occurrence of becoming sons of God and the taking in of the Spirit of Christ, which is a consequence of and authenticates the sonship. But Burton sees the first ‘sending of the Son’ in verse 4 as the mechanism of the process of becoming sons, referring to the acts of Jesus of Nazareth, whereas I have analyzed it as referring to God’s revelation about the Son and the benefits accruing from his mythical acts. Through the latter, God himself is able to free the believer from the Law and adopt him as a son. (One assumes that female believers are also adopted as sons.) Thus, for me, the sent Son of verse 4 is the “Spirit” of the Son, being sent into the world by means of revelation. Whereas the sending of verse 6, which actually uses the words “the Spirit of the Son,” is specifically the installation of the spiritual Son into those who are now “in Christ.”

In the orthodox interpretation, which Burton follows, verse 4 is speaking of the actual entry into the earthly world of the human Christ and what he did there, which itself brings about, or enables, the sonship of those who come to believe in him; whereas verse 6 speaks of his “Spirit” in a supernatural sense. That this is right only on the second score is inadvertently supported by an intriguing observation by Burton. He starts by saying [p.222] that “Historically speaking, the sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit [i.e., the Holy Spirit, he is not referring to verse 6] are distinguished in early Christian thought,” though here he appeals to a Gospel as an example, where the Son would clearly be thought of as a human figure. But then he notes [p.222]:

“But in the experience of the early Christians the Christ who by his resurrection had become a spirit active in their lives, and the Spirit of God similarly active, could not be distinguished.”

Burton fails to perceive the reason for this, a reason which makes the phenomenon he describes completely natural and not at all perplexing or unusual. First of all, we must remove from his statement the assumption that Christ became a spirit active in Christian lives through the route of having been a human on earth. This is being read into the writings of those “early Christians,” by which Burton means in the epistles, which represent the life of the early Church. This assumption is not in evidence in those epistles, which never speak in any identifiable way of an earthly life of Christ or an earthly body. Thus, what we really have in regard to “the early Christians” of the epistles is solely “the spirit of Christ” present in their lives, a force coming to them—and “into” them—through a revelation by God and their adoption of faith in that force. Without a human figure and traditions about him present in the background, there was little to clearly differentiate the Spirit of Christ from the Spirit of God; both would be sensed in the same way.

Thus it is no wonder that Burton observes (which he does by recognizing the actual impression the epistles convey) that the early Christians made little distinction between the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God. They were both ‘spirits’ in the same way: known to them through beliefs and revelations which had nothing to do with either one of them having been recent humans on earth. And since the spiritual Christ was essentially a part of God, his ‘first-born’ emanation in Philo’s terminology, there was precious little to actually distinguish the two, except in some of the roles they played—the latter not proceeding from historical memory but from the interpretation of scripture. Christ was the part of God which had descended to be crucified in the lower heavens as a sacrifice for sin. But with no human life involved, that descent and sacrifice were hidden, unattached to any historical time and place. Thus there was little or no basis on which to treat the Spirit of Christ present in their faith world to the Spirit of God that was also present in that world. The two Spirits were essentially two parts of the same divine organism. This is not to say that they confused the two; Paul knows when he is speaking about Christ in his life and about God’s Spirit active in the movement. As Burton also says,

“Apparently the apostle Paul, while clearly distinguishing Christ from God the Father…and less sharply distinguishing the Spirit from God…is not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, yet never explicitly identifies them.”

It is understandable that Christ (as spirit, which is the only way Paul has contact with him) would suffer from lack of distinction from the Spirit of God, since they are both essentially the same thing, God’s emanation, with Christ having a certain extra individuality as a divine entity in himself. The “extra” he does not have is any identification with a previous historical man which would have provided the powerful additional dimension that would have ensured Paul’s distinctive treatment of the Spirit in his life who had once been Jesus of Nazareth. Burton is trying to find something in Paul’s thought that cannot be there, and thus the absence of it is perplexing to him. All the indicators of the true situation are facing Burton squarely on, but he cannot put the pieces together because the established paradigm of an historical Christ is too ingrained and too essential.

Incidentally, we should note the similar situation remarked on by scholars, that the early church supposedly made no distinction between “words of the Lord” as spoken by Christian preachers like Paul out of inspiration from Christ in heaven, and words spoken by Christ on earth. There is no distinction because there are none identified as the latter in the epistles; scholars simply assume them to be if they resemble those in the Gospels. Without such identification, they all become “words of the Lord” from heaven, or else they are simply moral pronouncements coming from a general pool of such things, unattributed to any Jesus.

Ehrman, Marcion and Tertullian in a couple of days.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

IIUC you are suggesting that Paul simultaneously held two rather different forms of the mythical redeemer descending from heaven.

Version 1 the redeemer descends from high heaven into the sphere of flesh (the sub lunar realm) is killed there by the rulers of this fallen material world and by his death and resurrection overthrows their power establishing a new basis for humans to be reconciled to God before returning to high heaven.

Version 2 After the death of the redeemer somewhere in the heavenly realm outside of our space and time the redeemer descends in spirit to our world and on the basis of his prior death and resurrection establishes a new basis for humans to be reconciled to God.

Whether it is or is not textually possible to read Paul this way it is not IMO immediately plausible. I find it easier to accept someone holding version 1 or holding version 2 than holding both at the same time.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

You'll have to explain to me why you find the two incompatible. They are two sides to the same coin. One side has Jesus performing his redeeming act, the other has it revealed to the likes of Paul. This dichotomy is found throughout the epistles. Jesus' death and rising takes place at an undefined time, certainly never placed in history. Now it's all revealed to Paul and others in the present time (Jesus "revealed/manifested") after being hidden by God for long ages. The act of Jesus takes place pro chronwn aiwniwn (1 Timothy 1:9), the "Spirit of the Son" is sent in the present.

The reason for the two sides? Because Paul in the present is finding this info from scripture, and scripture doesn't tell him when it happened. He wouldn't place it in history, since no one has any knowledge of it. Besides, he's influenced by current Platonic philosophy and places all of it in the heavenly world where this sort of divine activity takes place, scripture being a window onto it.

Seems pretty straightfoward to me.

Earl Doherty

TedM

Why, if what he knows is not very helpful for bolstering his gospel of universal salvation via faith?

gstafleu

I think that, sort of like Chris, I was thinking of a "directional accusative," "ambulo in hortum" as opposed to "ambulo in horto," if I recall my high school days correctly. If so, what is missing is a pronoun, and (koine) Greek usually seems have too many rather than too few of those. But still, is it possible that the pronoun here is implicit? And if the dative were needed, wouldn't that make a pronoun less necessary, as the dative would indicate the phrase didn't modify Christ? That would mean a rather simple reading-into by a (literate) scribe, wouldn't it?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Let's assume for a moment that 2 Tim 1:9-10 does indeed say (as the NKJV certainly has it do) that Christ's sacrifice took place at the beginning of time. We then immediately note that at that time there was no David yet. Could it then be that "born of the seed of David" here means something like "of the same stock as David"? In that case it may mean that Christ and David share a lineage, that the Israelites, the chosen people, descend from a mythical line of which Christ was also a part. IOW, the important lineage of the chosen people was set up in advance by the foreknowing god, and Christ was part of it from the beginning. Reverse the arrow of descent, so to speak.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Would you clarify for me what the relationship is, in your view, between the sending in verse 4 and the sending in verse 6? It sometimes appears that you are envisioning two different (though of course related) things (and that, I think, is how Andrew Criddle took it), but here you seem to be saying that they are the same sending, even to the point that, if the second sending is spiritual, the first must also be. (Such a conclusion seems possible only if they are the same sending; if there are two different sendings, there is nothing to prevent one from having one quality and the other from having a different quality.)

Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

If you know of any place where this verb takes a bare accusative of direction (so to speak), by all means show me. I have certainly not exhausted all instances of this verb, but I have found rather many instances where the place (it usually seems to be a place) to which the person is sent out is set as the object of a preposition such as προς or εις. When it is a person to whom he is sent (as in Acts 13.26), there is no preposition, but then the dative is used. These are the usage examples I have found. Do you have an example of what you are talking about?

Ben.