dog-on

And the reconstructed Apostolicon would have it simply as:

“God sent his Son,
to redeem those under law.”

No need for Paul to refer to any ambiguity, especially in any created contradiction to 1 Corinthians 15:45,47

45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven

EarlDoherty

To Rick Sumner,

First of all, I assumed that everyone here would realize that the "berserker approach" was not a reference to you, but to someone else currently on this thread to whom the descriptive aptly applies.

Second, there seems to be some confusion in your reference to Galatians 4:4, which you have more than once referred to as though you have in mind Galatians 1:19 (you talk about a "title").

Third, I disagree entirely with your basic premiss. Looking at alternative explanations and weighing relative merits is perfectly legitimate and does not bespeak some defect of character or integrity, much less of proper exegetical process. Keeping one's mind open to different possibilities is part of the scientific method. If fresh evidence leads you to consider an alternative or a revision of one's previous theories, you allow yourself to go with it and give it consideration. I only wish others on this board adopted the same philosophy. Nor is it forbidden to offer different alternatives to one's audience for evaluation. In regard to Galatians 1:19, I have long argued on my website and in my book that "brother of the Lord" can be interpreted in a certain way, while at the same time suggesting that it could conceivably be a marginal gloss. Naturally, the two are not compatible in the sense that they can apply simultaneously. I don't have to declare certainty or proof for one; they are simply two alternate ways of explaining the reference. The reader can choose one or the other, or rather, simply realize that there are other ways to deal with something which the 'other side' is claiming can only be understood in a single way. This should not be difficult to understand.

I have not decided that my previous view of "born of woman" was wrong. I may never declare that one or the other is the "right" one. I don't have to. But Ehrman has given us 'evidence' that there is another possibility we should consider. If Christian scribes changed one verb into another to deal with heretical positions, this means that they considered the second verb as more amenable to Christ having been human, that it is better to directly say "born" than "come of, or made from". This raises the reasonable possibility that at some earlier phase they may have inserted the first verb. One can argue the feasibility of that whatever way one likes. I have just offered the general observation that we need to consider, based on Ehrman's evidence, that insertion and amendment was pervasive even in the early period when we have no manuscript evidence. Maybe it didn't happen specifically to Galatians 4:4. Maybe Paul really said genomenon, and later scribes simply didn't like it, didn't think it was "born" enough. The latter was Ehrman's point. We may never be able to be sure one way or the other. But multiple possibilities can strengthen a case, even if one can't securely decide between them. If you can't see the reasoning in that, I'm sorry.

I might remark that Ben's analysis of why Christ became "like" us, in order to effect salvation, is exactly right. Only, my position was that this was accomplished by him descending to the sphere of corruption and taking on the "likeness" of humans, but not actual human flesh on earth. That is the spiritual-material homologic counterpart principle that I believe was at the basis of the thinking of the period, at least as applied to the mystery cults, of which Christianity initially was a Jewish-oriented version.

Anyway, I'm going to stop wasting my time here, and get back to my refutation of the refuters. I'll let you know when it's posted.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

[QUOTE=EarlDoherty]To Rick Sumner,

In regards to your first point, I can only note that you had addressed the post to me, and accused me of being "unfair" in what is a perfectly legitimate questioning of it. It does look suspiciously ad hoc. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is, as I already noted, time will tell on that point, if you go ahead with the argument. But that is the type of criticism you should absolutely be braced for, and accusations that I'm being unfair, or unreasonable, in raising them is nonsense.

Apologies, you're quite correct. I'm typing faster than I'm thinking. You note that you already consider Gal.1.19 as a possible interpolation.

Nobody has addressed it as a "defect of character or integrity." Ad hoc defenses are established routinely by people with exceptional integrity and character. It's frequently a case of not realizing what one is doing. A lack of thorough consideration, not a lack of integrity.

I agree. What evidence has led you to consider an alteration of Gal.1.19, and suggest that it is interpolated, rather than a title? What do you see as damaging to the former, such that it might be read as an actual brother, but interpolated by a later scribe, rather than your original interpretation?

These type of thinly guised ad hominems (and yes, I realize it probably isn't directed at me, but that's beside the point) don't do much to help you. You're in the rather precarious position of being the "fringe." It doesn't sound nice, it's still not incorrect.

Part of that is sometimes having to swallow it rather than fight back. The mainstream won't be dismissed because of such rhetorical ploys. As I know you've experienced before, you will.

Just some tangental advice.

This is simply hedging your bets. One can list possibilities all day, what one needs to argue with are probabilities.

I won't, at least not entirely. Jesus was "born of a woman" for Jews. "Son of God" for Gentiles. He was sent as one born under the Law to (eventually--when the "fulness," Paul so often speaks of was reached) save those born under the Law. He was the son of God so that he could reach the nations--those outside of the Law. "Born of a woman" is a necessary qualifier to make that point.

I look forward to it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I should have noted above, though it didn't occur to me until just now, that your suggestion that you might "never" pick a right side on this matter is apparently false. You just did.

This reading of "born of a woman" necessitates a Pauline authorship--it is, in this interpretation, a necessary qualifier, one that damages Paul's analogue if it is removed. If Ben's reading is "exactly right," (which I don't think it is, but it's right enough for the current point to hold), then to suggest that it is interpolated is grasping.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Hi, Rick.

How do you back up that distinction? I am comfortable with many Pauline distinctions between Jews and gentiles, right down to the possibility that different prepositions carry different connotations for each (my introduction to the new persepective on Paul was S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk), and he discusses the prepositions εκ and δια in that connection). But whence do you derive the notion that Jesus was, for Paul, born of a woman (that is, human) for Jews and son of God for gentiles?

Thanks.

Ben.

jgibson000

But in this case, it is not a revision of a previous theory but an admittance that there are no grounds for it.

You have rested your case that Paul specifically speaks of an MJ -- and note that this is not the same thing as Paul never speaking of an HJ -- on the fact that Paul proclaimed that Jesus was GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS.

But if you admit that Gal 4:3 is an interpolation, then you are claiming that Paul never proclaimed any such thing. And if you are right that Paul didn't say any such thing, then you are admtting not only that you were wrong to appeal to Gal. 4:3 to make your case about what Paul believed vis a vis Jesus being only a heavenly figure, but that there isn't any evidence at all in or from Paul that supports it.

This is hardly a revision of your claim about what Paul believed. It is an admission that that claim doesn't have a leg to stand on.


Can we please stop saying that scribes changed one verb into another. What they -- and there actually aren't all that many of them -- changed was one participle for another. These, despite your persistent insistence to the contrary, are not the same things.

And, more importantly, even if GENOMENON and GENNWMENON were verbs, it is absolute nonsense -- and a revelation of a weak understanding of Greek -- to claim that one of them means "born" and the other "come of" "made from".

Both -- and always when they are used as they are in Gal. 4:3 of a person and with a phrase like EK GUNAIKOS -- mean "born". If there is any difference at all between them it's that GENNWMENON emphasizes the parent's role in the birth. To say othewise is to engage in both the etymological fallacy and the fallacy of totality transference.

Again, it's a participle, not a verb.

Does Erman actually give evidence, let alone claim, that it emmendation was pervasive even in the early period? If not, you cannot appeal to him to support your claim that it was.

That scribes didn't think that GENOMENON "was 'born' enough", especially to combat some notion that Jesus was not human or did not exist on earth, is most certainly not Ehrman's point. As his actual words show, the change (which, BTW, is attested to only in 075 226 323 517 910 1242 1982 2147 281 -- all of which are 10th century and later!), was to deal with another problem entirely.

And if you don't see that in this you've not only misrepresented what the multiple possibilities are, but ignored that fact that they cancel each other out, then I'm sorry.

Can you actually demonstrate through citations of primary texts from (or that describe the beliefs of) 1st century mystery cults both that such a principle existed and that it stood at the base of mystery cult beliefs?

Jeffrey Gibson

Rick Sumner

Ben C. Smith

Because he uses "born of a woman" or "of the seed of David" when he intends to emphasize conventional Messiahship, and follows it up in this instance by emphasizing that he was "born under the Law." It's by the resurrection that he breaks the necessity of the Law for admission, not by his simple existence. His simple existence, however, will save the Israelites, who are not broken from the Law (Gal.5.3).

Paul implies as much in the verses that follow. He came born under the law, to redeem those born under the Law. Paul makes clear throughout his epistles that those under the Law will not be redeemed until the "fullness" of Gentiles is realized. That fullness is possible because of the resurrection, and it is the resurrection that, to Paul, made Jesus divine.

I don't think a divide between them can be made that strongly--right down to prepositions. I think he had in mind one ultimate path to salvation (though whether he identified that with Gentiles becoming like Israel, or Israel becoming more like Gentiles, I haven't decided yet). But I do think the salvation history leading up to that is different, and that difference is being indicated here.

Put most succinctly: Jesus came to redeem Israel. He can't do that until the "fulness" is reached. That fulness is reached by virtue of Jesus' divinity.

Of course, I must confess to playing with a few different interpretations of Paul as of late. I'll probably change my mind next week, so please don't put too much stock in any position I might take. I don't even put much stock in any position I might take.

A tricky character, that Paul.

"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood..."2Pet.3.16

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Neither in this statement nor in anything that follows do I find a defense of the distinction between son of God and born of a woman. I agree that seed of David is messianic; I agree that made of a woman is at least compatible with that messianism. However, I do not (yet) see son of God as especially pertinent to gentiles over and against Jews.

It looks to me like the Jew is supposed to be saved by the faith of Christ, not merely by the existence of Christ (Galatians 2.15-16), though I may well be misunderstanding your point.

It sounds like you are saying that Jesus, according to Paul, did not have to rise from the dead in order to save the Jews, that the resurrection was necessary only for gentile salvation.

Stowers does not present it as a strong divide; in fact, he thinks (IIRC; I do not have the book in hand) that the choice of prepositions in Galatians 2.16 was virtually subconscious.

Now I think I am almost certainly misunderstanding you when I read you as saying that the resurrection was necessary only for gentiles. Romans 10.12 would back up the notion of one ultimate path to salvation.

Where does Paul discuss this fulness except in Romans 9-11?

On that, my friend, you and I and pseudo-Peter are quite agreed.

Ben.

jgibson000

I wrote:

etc.

Before someone takes me to task for this, I was using memory for what the verse # in question was. Of course I meant in any and all of my references to "4:3" Gal. 4:4.:banghead:

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

I know it ain't primary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

except the tale of the termites and the house might be aposite!

Is this all not a classic magical cause and effect story? Christ comes in the likeness of humans to effect our salvation?