neilgodfrey

Hey, I used reason too, and I even backed my argument up with "actual evidence" just like Ben did. Do I also get brownie points too? A koala stamp? Please?? :Cheeky:

Ben C Smith

Surely that is a typo for 120 years after Paul and before Irenaeus.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.1:

Et apostolus autem Paulus in epistola quae est ad Galatas, manifeste ait: Misit deus filium suum, factum de muliere.

The apostle Paul, moreover, in the epistle to the Galatians manifestly says: God sent his son, made of a woman.

For whatever it may be worth, my page on the phrase born of a woman has this and other relevant texts (though I hardly pretend to have them all!). I also have a page on the phrase according to the flesh.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I agree completely. But he did not need an expunged passage in Romans to make his case in this case, since he had a vestigial passage in the gospel that did much the same thing.

This is a very good point, and I believe there are a couple of other slips of this nature, where Tertullian seems to think that Marcion deleted Matthean passages from his copy of Luke.

I am not certain that this is so much Tertullian not having our canonical texts yet as working from memory, and his memory is sometimes faulty. I agree, however, that it may reflect the text as Tertullian has it; my mind is not made up.

Ben.

thedistillers

Am I alone to be mystified by this post. :huh:

EarlDoherty

Dear Ben,

Yes, of course. My point simply was that Fathom appealing to Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ containing "born of woman" as being "evidence" that Paul, a century and a half earlier had actually written those words, was hardly proof of anything.

Let's see now. "Evidence" that 140 years is time enough for someone to interpolate the phrase in question into Paul? Gee, I guess I'd have to appeal to common sense. But then, that's something that Fathom never accepts, or perhaps comprehends. Possibly because, as in this case, he consistently misunderstands what other people are saying or the nature of their arguments. (Hopefully by bolding and italicizing the words above, he'll get it this time.)

And maybe "the distillers" will get what I meant.

I will still not be participating in this thread in regard to what Fathom puts forward in 'answer' to my arguments. But the temptation to respond to such egregious (and outrageously confused) statements on his part (such as the claim that I am maintaining that Romans 1:2-6 is an interpolation and then arguing from that) may be something that I simply cannot resist, unless I just stop reading Fathom's posts.

But the whole thing, as they say, is like watching a traffic accident. No matter how queasy it makes us feel, we just can't look away.

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

Is there any particular reason why anyone should accept your suggestion of interpolation when there's no evidence whatsoever to support it? Even a possibility needs some kind of evidence for support to have any credulity, Earl.

Actually my argument is specified on the second post here, and I never said your argument involved the totality of Romans 1:2 - 6, but Romans 1: 3 -4.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...63&postcount=5

Your argument has been thrown into serious doubt, at least according to the evidence.

Don't be so offended as to demean me. A critique is a good thing, Earl. It's another set of eyes to look at your work, except in my case, several sets of eyes.

Regards.

Team FFI

FathomFFI

Just continue to make it better. I have always found that the real strength of an argument is accomplished through hard-core research, and examining the possible arguments made against your arguments, and preparing for those in advance.

Have a look at Ben's research:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...7&postcount=42

Click his links to his page. It's awesome, and I can say this comfortably with him being a Christian, and me swinging hard towards atheism.

spamandham

...why do you say that?

It seems to me, the speculative position would be to disallow for later editing.

EarlDoherty

"Born Of Woman"? A Re-examination of Galatians 4:4

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

Simply because it is speculation. In addition, he's forced to reinterpret the meaning of words and accept a far less likely translation than that which has been determined by scholars throughout the ages.

If he wants to make a strong credible argument, then this fault of reinterpreting words to a less likely, or even unlikely interpretation must be corrected.

He needs to learn to present his argument within what is acceptable to scholars, and not venture so far off the grid as to be scoffed. It is easy to pick apart speculative arguments when interpretations of words are far less likely, unlikely, or almost impossible to agree with.