Layman

I. Descended from David

In another thread I asked if anyone could provide any examples of mythical savior gods being described as being descended from a specific historical person (like Jesus is described as having been "descended from David"--Romans 1:3). None could.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=Doherty

II. Born of a Woman

Here, I want to see if there are any examples supporting Doherty's treatment of another phrase that seems on its face to refer to Jesus as a human being.

Gal. 4:1-5

A. Doherty's Proffered Explanation

Paul saying that Jesus was "born of a woman" would seem to preclude him from being only a spiritual being who has never been to earth. Doherty, however, argues that "born of a woman" was "something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos." As such, it could be used to refer to a spirit being who existed only in the spiritual realm. Who these other gods may be remains unstated, both in Doherty's book and on his website.

But at least Doherty gives us one example. But is it an appropriate one? The answer is no. I have yet to see any references to any traditions about Dionysos that used the phrase "born of a woman" to describe him.

B. The Failure of Doherty's Explanation

What Doherty seems to be trying to slip in here to support his theory is the idea that Dionysis was described as having a mother. This is hardly helpful for Doherty's theory. Dionysis was not some purely spiritual entity that acted only the spiritual realm. He was, like Hercules, believed to be born of Zeus and an earthly woman (Semele for Dionysis). He was born in Thebes and lived, ate, and drank (among other activities) on earth. He is not the platonic-spirit savior-that-never-came-to-earth that Doherty envisions for Jesus. This example, therefore, fails.

Nor am I the only one to reach this conclusion. In his otherwise generally favorable review of Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle," Carrier addresses this point head on:

Nor is Carrier the only skeptic who has rejected Doherty's approach to this passage. G.A. Wells is skeptical of Doherty's treatment and rebuts another of Doherty's arguments--that because a NT passage seems to have been influenced by an OT passage, the author could not have believed in a historical Jesus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../earliest.html

So, it is established that Doherty gives us no examples of "born of a woman" being used to describe a divine being who was not, in fact, born of a woman. Since Doherty has failed to offer any such examples, is anyone aware of any examples that actually support Doherty's theory?

Let's limit these pagan examples to gods that never resided on earth. I'm quite aware that Hercules and Dionysis had human mothers, but because they were actually believed to have been humans (if divine) who lived on earth, they are hardly examples supporting the idea that Jesus was a purely spiritual being who has never been to earth.

C. "Born of a Woman" is an Established Jewish Idiom For "Human Being"

Although I am open to reviewing any proffered examples, I am skeptical that there are any examples that explain away the "born of a woman" reference. The phrase "born of a woman" is "a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person." James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 183. See also Richard Longenecker, in an article in Christianity Today--http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/151/53.0.html ("Born of a woman is simply a Jewish idiom for being human."). In other words, "born of a woman" had come to have a specific meaning among Jewish writers. It was another way of saying someone was a human being.

I have attempted to track down all uses that approximate the phrase "born of a woman." All of them are used as an idiom for a human being. None are ever used for any mythical savior god that never came to earth. When you said someone was "born of a woman" you mean that person was a human being. In fact, you were stressing that very point. These examples range from the Old Testament, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and into the Gospels of the New Testament.

"Man, who is born of woman, Is short-lived and full of turmoil. Like a flower he comes forth and withers. He also flees like a shadow and does not remain."

Job 14:1-2

"What is man, that he should be pure, Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

Job 15:14

"How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman?"

Job 25:4

"Who can endure They glory, and what is the son of man in the midst of Thy wonderful deeds? What shall one born of woman be accounted before Thee? Kneaded from the dust, his abode is the nourishment of worms."

The Community Rule, 1QS, XI 20-21 (DSS-Vermes).

"It is they purpose to do mightily and to establish all things for Thy glory. [Thou hast created] the host of knowledge to declare (Thy) mighty deeds to flesh, and the right precepts to him that is born [of woman]."

Hymns and Poems, 21. 22-23 (DSS-Vermes)

"Thou didst open [his fountain] that he might rebuke the creature of clay for his way, and him who is born of woman for the guilt of his deeds."

Hymns and Poems, 23. 12-13 (DSS-Vermes)

"'Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Matth. 11:7-11

"Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet. "This is the one about whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you." I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.""

Luke 7:24-28

The evidence is clear. The meaning of the words used and the strong attestation of their usage both lead to the conclusion that when Paul describes Jesus being "born of a woman," he is saying that Jesus was a human being. However, if someone can track down other usages of this phrase I would be very interested in seeing them.

III. Conclusion

Against the meaning of the words and the attestation of usage, Doherty offers an inapposite example--that of Dionysis. But the idiom "born of a woman" has not been shown to have ever been used to refer to Dionysis. At most, Dionysis was described as having a mother. Which is true. Dionysis was believed to have a mother and was believed to have been born on earth in the city of Thebes. Nothing about this example supports Doherty's theory that Jesus was a spirit being who never came to earth and acted only in a spiritual realm.

Accordingly, when Paul says Jesus was "born of a woman," he is saying that Jesus was a human being.

Peter Kirby

Spong! "Paul's clear assumption was that the birth of Jesus was completely normal and completely human." (Born of a Woman, p. 26)

You can add Sirach 10:18 to your list, "Pride was not made for men, nor furious anger for them that are born of a woman."

One shouldn't neglect the subsequent phrase. "Here Paul develops the theme of God's sending of the prophets to Israel: Jesus as God's Son is sent to redeem those 'under the law', i.e. Jews, so that 'we', all who are 'in Christ Jesus' (cf. 3:26-9) might receive adoption. 'Born of a woman' does not refer to the virginal conception of Jesus, but to his birth as a human being. 'Born under the law' may mean no more than 'born as a Jew', but in view of all the preceding negative statements about the law, 'under the law' probably includes a negative connotation." (G. N. Stanton, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1160)

The phrase "under the law" (upo nomon) is used several times by Paul and has the meaning of being subject to the old covenant rules of conduct, i.e., as a Jew who hasn't received God's grace through Christ. Here are the occurrences.

Romans 6:14-17. For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted.

1 Corinthians 9:19-22. Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

Galatians 3:19-26. Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises (of God)? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe. Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 4:21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? [Thus follows the allegory of Abraham's two sons.]

Galatians 5:18. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

The Jewish law is binding on the descendants of Abraham. It does not apply to angels or demons or divine effluences. If Jesus was born under the law, then Jesus was born into a Jewish family.

Now, I would like your comment on this passage, right on the same page, that could be used against your overall interpretation of Paul.

Galatians 4
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman.
The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise.
Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.
For it is written: "Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband."
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now.
But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.
Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.

Doherty comments:

In Galatians 4:22-31, Paul makes his own interpretation of the story of Abraham and the two sons he had by his two women. The first woman is Abraham’s concubine, the slave Hagar; she gives birth to Ishmael, who stands for the Jewish race who still exist in slavery under the Law and the old covenant. That race and that covenant is represented by Mount Sinai. And what is the other half of the parallel? The second woman is Abraham’s legitimate wife, the free-born Sarah; she is the mother of Isaac, the true inheritor of God’s promise, Abraham’s spiritual heir. In a manner unspecified, Paul links his gentile readers with Isaac; they too are children of the promise, children of Sarah who is symbolized by the heavenly Jerusalem. This represents the source of the new convenant.

Paul strains for some of this allegory, but on the surface the whole thing might seem to hang together. Yet something seems to be missing here, something we would expect to find, especially as Christ "born of woman" is still fresh in Paul’s mind. He is talking about mothers and sons. Why is Mary not worked into this analogy, if only as a secondary part of the interpretation? She was after all the mother of Jesus himself who established the new convenant. She is surely a type to Sarah’s archetype (meaning a later representation of some archetypal figure in scripture; or to put it another way, the scriptural figure or element prefigures the later one). So is Jesus himself to Isaac, both symbols of sacrificed victims. (Even though Isaac was not actually killed, he assumed this significance in Jewish thinking.)

Paul has spent much of Galatians 3 linking the gentiles to Abraham through Christ as his "seed": why not double such a link through Mary and Sarah? Could not Mary be allegorized as the mother of Christians? Where, for that matter, is the thing which should have been obvious as the symbol of the new covenant, in parallel to Mount Sinai as the symbol of the old one: not the heavenly Jerusalem but the Mount of Calvary where Jesus was crucified, site of the blood sacrifice which had established that new convenant?

Paul once again shows himself to be totally immune in his thought and expression to all aspects of the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.

What say you?

best,
Peter Kirby

Amos

Except for the fact that Mary was without sin and therefore not human.

Layman

Thanks I will.

Wouldn't dream of it. But sometimes I have a hard enough time trying to get Doherty admirers to focus on a specific argument or verse. I was trying to keep the discussion focused.

I say once again Doherty is complaining that the early Christians were not as imaginative as he is. So Paul's "Maryology" is not as high as later Christians. That's hardly surprising as I think the view of Mary as a salvation figure in her own right was a much later occurrence. Do the gospels view Mary as the "mother of all Christians"? Not in the least. For Paul, salvation is through Christ.

Perhaps my Protestant roots are showing, but complaining that Paul's view of Jesus' mother was not as high as the Catholic Church's several hundred years later is hardly a persuasive point.

I can explore this more at a later time if you think his point deserves a more substantive response.

Layman

Really? Which gospels say that?

WinAce

Are you anti-abortion, by any chance?

CJD

Why, in a discussion about the Abrahamic covenant and its fulfillment in the gospel of Christ Jesus, would Saint Paul mention Mary? How would she symbolize the covenant of grace? What relevance hath theotokos at this point in the apostle's analogy? How, if the analogy centers around Abe and his wives, would Mary fit in?

Sure. See John 19:26–27; but not as a point dogma.

Given that many construed their ethnicity as proof of their salvation, what better way to challenge that notion than to say "No, it is not by virtue of your ethnic origin that you are under grace, it is by virtue of your spiritual origin (i.e., the spiritual seed)." The fact is, the apostle is not speaking about the ratification of covenants (cutting, or the shedding of blood) in the Galatians pericope; rather, he is talking about how ethnocentrism has no place in the gospel message.

Further, why must the author say anything about the earthly life of Jesus when his audience became a community of faith because of the earthly life of Jesus? Am I assuming too much? How is the opposite position not assuming too much? Where does the burden of proof lie?

If every time you try to speak, you try to say everything, you end up saying nothing at all.

Let's look more closely at Galatians 4:21–31.

In verse 21, the author challenges his audience: "Tell me, those of you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?"

The meaning of this passage hinges on our understanding of "under the law" here. It signifies here that one is coming under the yoke of the law, that is, on the condition that God will act toward that one according to the covenant of the law, and that one in turn binds himself or herself to that law. In every sense but this one, believers are also "under the law" (so Paul).

From this starting point, we see the meaning of the analogy more clearly. First, the choice he lays out is most obvious. Choose freedom. Slavery is no fun. Nonetheless, Paul argues, many are slaves. It is also safe to say that Paul is not allegorizing history because he thinks the prior events a-historical; rather, he allegorizes the history because it answers the subject he is dealing with most succintly. That is, Paul adduced the history as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abe, and of the two nations in his two sons.

But only one son had the promise of grace (v. 23). Both, however, were descendents of Abe. Thus, we clearly see the point the apostle is attacking once again—ethnicity counts for nothing, salvation belongs to our God. Now the allegory's meaning via comparison comes to the fore. Just as the house of Abe had two mothers, so, too, does the Church—some under grace, some under law (remember the implied audience of this letter—the Church). What does this have to do with the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth?

But what does Sinai have to do with the earthly Jerusalem (v. 25)? Quite simply, Saint Paul is saying that many of his kinsmen exhibit slavish doctrine and worship, a degeneration of what OT liturgy was supposed to be. This, he concludes, is much more like Sinai, though they be distant in miles they are altogether alike in the bondage they both generate (v. 24).

Does the reader see how the new or heavenly Jerusalem is the obvious parallel here, and that the cross of Christ on Mount Calvary has little to do with the analogy as it is?

The Jerusalem which is above (v.26) is not a restrictive spatial reference so much as it is non-restrictive spiritual reference, which includes the spatial (i.e, the Church is everywhere). It is from heaven simply because it originates from a heavenly grace, as Saint Paul everywhere affirms. This Jerusalem from above is the mother of all believers, from her (the Church) we obtain the milk and the food by which xians are nourished. How does the blood of the covenant fit in to this analogy again?

Let's skip the rest; I think the readers gets the point. In verse 31, the apostle finishes the analogy with an exhortation to prefer being a child of Sarah as opposed to Hagar. Based on what? Why, that by the grace of God they were made free, which makes Galatians 5:1 all the more understandable: "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

One simple question: How does the reader presume "Christ has made us free" if that Christ did not do something on earth to cause that effect? Again, why must Paul say anything about the earthly work if the folks to whom he was writing knew full well how they were made free by Christ (i.e., as one under the law, who, in his life on earth, obeyed it perfectly on behalf of those who put their trust in his work). Doesn't Paul say as much in Romans 5?

Regards,

CJD

What says Doherty?

Amos

I think Luke says that she was woman and from there you must prove that she was sinful as human.

Amos

I advice against it but would allow you to kill your own offspring if you want to.

Peter Kirby

Excellent post CJD.

It would be nice if Doherty were here to answer our criticisms. When reading some of the past comments on JesusMysteries, I noticed that Doherty is quite fond of the "Dionysus was a son of woman" response. But some more detail is found on this page.


The second Pauline passage most often appealed to in support of Paul’s knowledge of an historical Jesus is Galatians 4:4-5.

. . .God sent his own Son, born of woman, born under the Law (literally, becoming or arising out of woman / the law) to purchase freedom for the subjects of the law, in order that we might attain the status of sons.

This passage, too, with the verses that come after it, does not have to be read as it always has been. It needs a closer examination.

First, let’s detach and look at the principal phrase, “God sent his own Son.” There is no problem in taking this in the sense of the present-day revelation of the spiritual Christ by God to apostles like Paul. This is borne out by verse 6, which says that “God has sent (exactly the same verb) into our hearts the spirit of his Son. . . .” This is hardly the coming of the historical Jesus of Nazareth into the world, but the arrival of the spiritual Christ in the current phenomenon of divine revelation.

Verse 7 piles the evidence of Paul’s meaning even higher: “You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God’s own act an heir.” If Paul had had the acts of an historical Jesus in mind when he spoke of freedom and attaining the status of sons (verse 5), why does he now revert to calling such things the result of an act of God? If, however, he has in mind the revelation of the Son and his acts in the spiritual realm, the idea of the agency of God becomes fully intelligible. And Paul continues his characteristic focus on God in verses 8 and 9.

Further, in the Greek of verse 5, the subject of the verb “purchase freedom” (literally, redeem) remains God. In other words, Paul has introduced Jesus into the present period, but he has failed to follow through by expressly having him do the redeeming while he is here! Again, if Jesus is only being revealed in the present time, God’s role remains primary.

Finally, the two qualifying phrases, “born of woman, born under the Law,” are descriptive of this Son, but not necessarily tied to the present “sending.” The International Critical Commentary (Burton, Galatians, p.216f), points out that the way the verb and participle tenses are used in the Greek, the birth and subjection to the law are presented as simple facts, with no necessary temporal relation to the main verb “sent.” In other words, the conditions of being “born of woman” and being “made subject to the law” (Burton's preferred meaning) do not have to be seen as things that have occurred in the present. Paul has simply enumerated two of the characteristics of the spiritual Christ which are revelant to the issues under discussion. (There are those who maintain that these two qualifying phrases may be later redactions, which is always possible.)

Burton also notes that the word usually translated as “born” (genomenon) is not the most unambiguous verb to use for this concept; a form of gennao, to give birth, would have been more straightforward. Instead, Paul uses a form of ginomai, which has a broader meaning of “to become, to come into existence.” “Out of woman,” of course, implies birth, but the point is, the broader concept lends itself better to the atmosphere of myth, if that is what Paul has in mind. And his “born of woman” is not only something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos (and various other products of Zeus’ mythical dallyings), it is a detail he could well have based not on history, but on the source he uses for all he says about the Son: the Jewish scriptures. The famous passage in Isaiah 7:14,

A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. . .

was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah. Paul links this idea with Jesus being “subject to the law.” The latter was a paradigmatic feature which Christ had to possess, so that he could stand in parallel with those whom Paul is addressing, those who had themselves been “subject to the law”—until Christ abrogated it in this new age of revelation and faith.

Again, as in the Romans 1 passage, if Isaiah referred to the Messiah as “born of woman,” Paul would have concluded that in some way there must have been a spiritual world archetypal process to which this scriptural passage pointed. There would have been little difficulty in accepting this, given the overriding philosophy of the day which saw all things on earth as counterpart copies of primary manifestations in the higher spiritual realm. And as the mythical stories of all savior gods contained human-like features, including “births” from women, such a characteristic of the spiritual Christ would not have seemed out of place.

A glance back to the sentiments of Galatians 3 should confirm that, however Paul saw Christ as “born of woman, born under the law,” he didn’t see him as arriving in the present time through that “birth.” The key verses are 3:23 and 25:

Before this faith came, we were close prisoners in the custody of the law, pending the revelation of faith . . . Now that faith has come, the tutor’s charge is at an end.

Clearly, the present event of salvation history is not the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose life and death are once again missing from the picture. Rather, it is the arrival of faith in the response to the missionary movement represented by inspired apostles like Paul. Here Paul is consistent with the way he expresses himself in many other places.

As for the intermediate verse 24 (the lacuna in the quote above), the New English Bible translates it as “the law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come,” which illustrates the tendency to read Gospel preconceptions into the epistles. But an alternate translation is provided in a footnote: “a kind of tutor to conduct us to Christ.” This reflects the simple Greek words “eis Christon” (to Christ). Thus we can easily arrive at the meaning “leading us to faith in Christ” or to his revelation, or to the time of such things.

Earlier, in verse 19, Paul speaks of “the arrival of the ‘seed’ to whom the promise was made.” Since Paul has just defined this “seed” as Christ himself, some claim that this is a clear reference to the arrival of Jesus in the historical sense. But they overlook the fact that such a definition was made in order to link the gentiles to Abraham through Christ, so it is the present-day believing gentile who can be in mind here. Besides, it would be awkward to say that it is to Christ that “the promise was made.” In any event, the case has already been made that when early Christians speak of Christ “coming,” this can readily be taken in a spiritual sense.

So, a future edition of this article could tackle these items:

1. Isaiah 7:14 was widely accepted by Jews as a messianic oracle and demanded language (even by those who don't strictly believe it) of the Messiah being born of a woman.

2. Verse 6 “God has sent (exactly the same verb) into our hearts the spirit of his Son. . . .” shows the spiritual nature of the sending of God's son.

3. God is the agent of freedom for his sons. A HJ belief would lead to Jesus being the one who purchased freedom?

4. The two phrases are simply characteristics of Christ and not coincident with the sending of God's son.

5. Use of gennao for birth would be more appropriate.

6. Being subject the law is a paradigmatic feature which Christ had to possess in order to redeem those under the law.

7. "And why is Paul bothering to say at all that Jesus was born of (a) woman? Would this not be self-evident if he was an historical man?" cite

Perhaps refuge could be sought with inauthenticity:

The place to look for reconstructing Marcion here is Against Marcion 5.4.

Layman, I would be very happy to publish this article on DJE if you are willing.

best,
Peter Kirby