EarlDoherty

Ben, you have succinctly laid out the mythicist case. All that it needs is a clarification, that by the “coming” of the seed/Christ is meant the revelation of Christ and his spiritual arrival in the Christian community, a force now living within it, as Paul consistently portrays it through his “body” of Christ in which believers share. I have pointed to 1 John 5:20 which captures that meaning perfectly: “We know that the Son of God is come (in the present tense) and given us understanding.” Considering that nothing in 1 John or in any other epistle ever speaks of ‘apostolic tradition,’ the handing down of teaching or ‘understanding’ from a Jesus in the past, but present him as a revealed force in their own time, speaking through scripture (as in Hebrews), then we can gain a proper interpretation of everything that Paul says, such as what you have quoted above.

You have also given us a perfect example of the blind spot which you and others bring to the epistles. You quote Romans 10, which speaks of how “faith came”. It was through the preaching of apostles like Paul. You say “It would appear that the era of faith had to start with apostles.” You even ask what preceded apostles like Cephas and James, and suggest that no one preceded them. But how could faith not have started with the preaching of Jesus himself—something which Paul never makes the slightest allusion to? Did people not respond to Jesus with faith? You appeal to Romans 3:21-22, but there the only thing manifested in the recent time is “the justice of God,” through faith in the revealed Jesus Christ.

Since Paul gives us no hint that any preaching of Jesus began anything, or that it produced any faith, or that anyone is building on anything Jesus did or taught in his life, then the recent ending of the law when faith came (part of the “coming”/revelation of Christ/the seed) is tied entirely to the period and activity of Paul, not of Jesus. Again, you are right, “the coming of Christ must be the same time as the coming of faith.” The very fact that Paul never makes a distinction between his own time, in which faith in Christ was adopted, and Jesus’ time (in which apparently nothing happened), shows that the coming of faith and the coming of Christ are two sides to the same coin: revelation producing faith.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I gave you three examples in my long post of filling in that blank with a “still” or “yet” which could be understood as “nonetheless”, given the context of the verses (Romans 3:7, 9:19, and Gal. 5:11). I argued the same for Romans 5:6 and 8. You chose not to accept them. That’s not my problem. And from someone who could not be persuaded by half a dozen of us that “appear” does not include “reappear” in its semantic range, I am not too perturbed that you accuse me of all sorts of sins in regard to my understanding of language, my knowledge of Greek, my scholarship, my honesty, integrity and hairstyle.

If what you mean is that I can’t supply an existing translation that uses the word “nonetheless”—that’s not in contention. I translate several things in the epistles in ways that are not mirrored in orthodox translations. “Kata tas graphas” in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is a good example. Not a single translation, you can be sure, understands that phrase there as meaning “according to the scriptures” in the sense of ‘as we learn from the scriptures.’ What I have done is demonstrate how several passages using “eti” can be understood in the sense of “nonetheless.” What you have not done is demonstrate how my translation using that understanding is not feasible, by you analyzing the passages themselves and discrediting my specific arguments about them, rather than simply appealing to your own understanding of standard translations and definitions in lexicons. Once you accomplish that, then maybe you have some right to your complacency and self-righteousness.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Hmmm….

Three men go into a bar in Galatia….

DEMETRIOS: What did you think of the preaching of that fellow Paul about the Christ?
GAIUS: I’m hooked. I like what he said about being a part of a god and becoming one of the new Chosen People.
DEMETRIOS: Yes, and we get all our sins forgiven and a guarantee of salvation just by having faith. None of those heavy demands of the Law of Moses.
AGRIPPA (a Jew): Yes, but I heard one of those other apostles of the Christ speaking the other day, and if we’re going to become Christians, he says we still have to observe certain regulations of the Law. That means all gentiles must be circumcised.
DEMETRIOS: Exactly what does that entail?
AGRIPPA: Someone takes a knife and cuts off the excess skin you guys have got around the ends of your penises.
GAIUS: Did it hurt much when you had it done?
AGRIPPA: I was only eight days old, I don’t remember.
DEMETRIOS: Must be a lot of blood and pain if it’s done to a fully grown adult, though.
AGRIPPA: So I’ve heard. My friend Archippus converted to Judaism last year, and he was hobbling for weeks. His wife wasn’t too happy about it, let me tell you.
GAIUS: I guess it puts a crimp in your love life, for a while anyway.
AGRIPPA: I suppose it’s the price you have to pay for salvation.
DEMETRIOS: Except that Paul tells us it’s not necessary, and he was pretty convincing about it.
AGRIPPA: What does he know?

After a few more drinks…
DEMETRIOS: You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the circumcision idea. Sounds like fun.
GAIUS: Yeah, what’s a little blood and pain? My girlfriend will just have to find someone else for a while.
DEMETRIOS: Right you are. What’s the worth of heaven if you don’t have to go through hell to get there?
GAIUS: Next time I see that Paul, I’m going to tell him to take his gospel and shove it. What a charlatan!
DEMETRIOS and GAIUS (in unison): Agrippa, where can we find a circumciser around here?

A few weeks later…
PAUL (writing to Demetrios and Gaius in Galatia): I am astonished to find you turning so quickly away from him who called you by grace, and following a different gospel…..

Ben, really. (At least we know that you don’t think with that part of your anatomy!)

Earl Doherty

PhilosopherJay

Hi Earl et al.

This is an analysis of references to Galatians 4.4’s phrases “made of a woman” and “born under the law” from before the Fourth century. It concludes that the phrase “born of a woman” was probably an addition to the original text made slightly before 200 C.E., while “born under the law” was a separate addition made around 250 C.E.

In considering if these phrases were later interpolations based solely on analyzing text from the Church fathers, we should consider two opposing tendencies. First, we should consider that the Roman Catholic Church after the Fourth century did use their early writers extensively in their theological arguments and in some cases revered them. So we should expect that attempts were made to preserve their words exactly. On the other side, we should expect that theologians, copyists and translators would “correct” gospel and Pauline quotations which did not match their expectations. The exchange of letters by Rufinus and Jerome over Rufinus’ publication of a “Defense of Origen” suggests that the “corrections” were necessary because heretics had tampered with works. The same charges can be found in the works of Irenaneus and Tertullian and many others. It seems that suggesting that others had tampered with a work was a good excuse to "correct" text that varies from the true/current) way/doctrines.

In determining if a passage has been “corrected” or “inserted” we have to look carefully at the surrounding text for clues. At the same time, we must try to understand what the author was trying to accomplish with the use of the quote.

We will examine these quotes from Galatians from pre-Fourth century Church Fathers:

1) Irenaeus, Against heresies, 5.21,
2) Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:4
3) Tertullian, de Carne, 20
4) Tertullian, de Carne, 23
5) Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, 6
6) Clement of Alexandria, Pedadogus, 6
7) Cyprian: Three Books of testimonies Against the Jews circa 250
8) Novatian, On the Trinity

Here is the first quote from “Against Heresies”:

1. He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit179 ) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel."180 For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, "that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made."181 This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle, where he thus speaks: "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman."182 For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man's opponent.

Note first that this quote lacks the phrase “under the law.” This may be due to the phrase not being there when the writer wrote or the fact that it is irrelevant to what the writer is saying.

The writer is speaking allegorically here. He makes the point that the serpent had to “be vanquished” by a man born of a woman. This is only fair as the serpent conquered man through a woman. In other words, the serpent brought death to man (through Adam) because of a woman, Eve, and that therefore, to conquer death, he had to be born of a woman like Eve, to bring life or stop death from the serpent. The “woman” here is simply a descendent of Eve. The author either did not see “under the law” in his text or found it irrelevant to his argument.

Here is the quote from Tertullian’s Against Marcion:

But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times.1"It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only)to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. [3] But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law,"


Tertullian simply skips over both phrases “made of a woman” and “under the law.” The skipping of the phrase “made of a woman” could possibly be excused as being irrelevant to his argument, but the phrase “born under the law” would have been extremely helpful to him in refuting Marcion’s contention that the son was not from the creator. It is hard to imagine that he would not use that phrase against Marcion either here or somewhere in his attacks against Marcion. We can be relatively certain based on this evidence that the phrase did not appear in his text.


However, we might consider the possibility that the phrase “born of a woman under the law,” did appear in his text of Galatians. He might not have wanted to discuss the fact that Jesus was born of a woman, even a Jewish woman, if he felt it would not help his case against Marcion. There may be some evidence of this in the next quotations from Tertullian.


Here is the first quote from Tertullian’s On the Flesh of Christ (20):


20 But what sort of twistiness is yours, that you try to remove
that syllable 'of', prefixed in the function of a preposition, and to
substitute another, which in this connexion is not found in the
holy Scriptures? You allege that he was born 'by the virgin' not
'of the virgin', and 'in the womb' not 'of the womb', on the
ground that when the angel in a dream said to Joseph, For that
which is born in her is of the holy Spirit,1 he did not say 'of her'.
Yet surely, though he had said 'of her' he would have meant 'in
her': for that was in her which was of her. Equally then, when
he says 'in her', the meaning 'of her' is included, because that
which was in her was of her. Also it is in my favour that the same
Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham
down to Mary, says Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom
Christ is born.2 Paul too imposes silence on these teachers of
grammar: God, he says, sent his Son, made of a woman.3 Does he
say 'by a woman' or 'in a woman'? His language is indeed the
more accurate in that he says 'made' in preference to 'born'. For
it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born: yet
by saying 'made' he has both set his seal on The Word was made
flesh,4 and has asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Virgin.
We, moreover, shall have in this connexion the support of the
Psalms, not indeed those of that apostate and heretic and Platonic
Valentinus, but of the most holy and canonical prophet David.
He, in our Church, sings of Christ, because by him Christ sang of
himself. Take psalm twenty-one, and hear the Lord conversing
with God the Father. For thou art he that didst rend me out of my
mother's womb:1 there is one. And my hope is from my mother's
breasts. I have been cast upon thee out of the womb:2 there is another.
Thou art my God even from my mother's womb:3 there it is in other
words. Now let us fight it out in view of the meanings themselves.
Thou didst rend me, he says, out of the womb. What is it that
is rent out, except that which inheres, which is fastened in, is
entwined with that from which its removal requires it to be rent
out? If he did not adhere to the womb, how was he rent out?
If he who was rent out did adhere, how could he have adhered,
except that while coming out of the womb he was knit by means
of that umbilical cord, as it were an offshoot of his caul, to the
womb where he originated? Even when something external is
cemented to something external, it is so united in flesh and entrails
with that to which it is cemented, that when it is rent away it
forcibly takes with it [something] out of the body from which it is
rent away, [as it were] a sort of corollary of broken unity and an
aftermath of mutual coition. Moreover, since he also mentions
his mother's breasts--undoubtedly implying that he sucked them
--let midwives, physicians, and biologists bear witness concerning
the nature of breasts, whether they are wont to flow except at the
genital experience of the womb, from which the veins pay over
into the teat that cess of the lower blood, and in the course of that
transfer distill it into the more congenial material of milk. That is
why, during lactation, the monthly periods cease. But if the
Word was made flesh out of himself, and not out of what the
womb contributed, how did a womb which had wrought nothing,
performed nothing, experienced nothing, decant its fountain
into those breasts in which it causes change only by the process
of giving birth? It cannot have possessed blood for the supply
of milk without also having reasons for the blood itself, namely
the tearing away of flesh which was its own. What novelty there
was in Christ, the novelty of his being born of a virgin, is plain:


This quote comes in the middle of a dispute over the use of prepositions: was Christ born only “in the flesh” as the heretics maintain, or “of the flesh” as Tertullian maintains. It is strange that Tertullian has waited twenty chapters to bring this up and that when he does it is only in the middle of a grammatical argument. One would have imaged that on treatise on the “the Flesh of Christ” this passage would have been highlighted in one of the first few chapters.and emphasized repeatedly. It seems that there is something in the passage that makes Tertullian reluctant to use it. What this something is can be discerned from reading the next quote of the passage three chapters later in the same work.

Here is the second quote from Tertullian’s On the Flesh of Christ (23):

For she became a wife by that same law of the opened body, in which it made no difference whether the violence was of the male let in or let out:
the same sex performed that unsealing. This in fact is the womb by
virtue of which it is written also concerning other wombs:
Everything male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the
Lord.5 Who is truly holy, except that holy Son of God? Who in a
strict sense has opened a womb, except him who opened this that
was shut? For all other women marriage opens it. Consequently,
hers was the more truly opened in that it was the more shut.
Indeed she is rather to be called not-virgin than virgin, having
become a mother by a sort of leap, before she was a bride. Why
need we discuss this any further? In stating, on these considerations,
not that the Son of God was born of a virgin, but of a
woman, the apostle acknowledges the nuptial experience of the
opened womb.


Tertullian is saying that Paul declares that the son of God “was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman”. He declares that by virtue of the fact of the foetus coming through the womb, she became a wife. The reasoning is that a woman, in fact, becomes a wife when a man breaks her hymen (from the outside), but in this special case, she became a wife by the act of the foetus breaking her hymen (from the inside).

Tertullian has waited till the end of his treatise to make this argument. It is a terribly disturbing argument and it seems to be one that he has come up with in desperation. It seems that the phrase “made of a woman” or “born of a woman” was used by heretics to contradict the idea that the Christ was born of a virgin. This explains why Tertullian was reluctant to bring it up earlier and possibly why he does not mention it in “Against Marcion.” The phrase simply contradicts the idea of a virgin birth.


Here is the quote from On the Veiling of Virgins (chapter 6)

[1] Let us now see whether the apostle withal observes the norm of this name in accordance with Genesis, attributing it to the sex; calling the virgin Mary a woman, just as Genesis (does) Eve. For, writing to the Galatians, "God," he says, "sent His own Son, made of a woman,"who, of course, is admitted to have been a virgin, albeit Hebion resist (that doctrine). [2] I recognise, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to "a virgin." But when he is blessing her, it is "among women," not among virgins, that he ranks her: "Blessed (be) thou among women." The angel withal knew that even a virgin is called a woman.

[3] But to these two (arguments), again, there is one who appears to himself to have made an ingenious answer; (to the effect that) inasmuch as Mary was "betrothed," therefore it is that both by angel and apostle she is pronounced a woman; for a "betrothed" is in some sense a "bride." Still, between "in some sense" and "truth" there is difference enough, at all events in the present place: for elsewhere, we grant, we must thus hold. [4] Now, however, it is not as being already wedded that they have pronounced Mary a woman, but as being none the less a female even if she had not been espoused; as having been called by this (name) from the beginning: for that must necessarily have a prejudicating force from which the normal type has descended. [5] Else, as far as relates to the present passage, if Mary is here put on a level with a "betrothed," so that she is called a woman not on the Found of being a female, but on the ground of being assigned to a husband, it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a virgin, because (born) of one "betrothed," who by this fact will have ceased to be a virgin. Whereas, if He was born of a virgin----albeit withal "betrothed," yet intact----acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman. [6] Here, at all events, there can be no semblance of speaking prophetically, as if the apostle should have named a future woman, that is, bride, in saying "made of a woman." For he could not be naming a posterior woman, from whom Christ had not to be born----that is, one who had known a man; but she who was then present, who was a virgin, was withal called a woman in consequence of the propriety of this name,----vindicated, in accordance with the primordial norm, (as belonging) to a virgin, and thus to the universal class of women.

Here the author again tackles the contradiction between the idea of the Christ being “born of a virgin” and being “born of a woman” This time the author finds that it is not a matter of broken hymens and bridehood, but simply an unimportant categorical distinction. “A virgin” falls under the more general category of “woman”

But note passage 3, which I have put in bold, where he challenges someone who has brought up the idea that Paul in this use of the phrase was making a distinction between being a bride and not being a bride. In fact, it is Tertullian himself who has made this distinction in de carne. This means either 1) This work is by Tertullian and de carne is not or 2) de carne is by Tertullian and this work is not. In easy case we find two authors that mention the passage in question as containing the phrase “born of a woman” but do not mention “under the law”. While the first author might have the excuse of not wanting to bring up the passage at all, the second one has no reason to.

Here is the quote from Clement’s Pedagogus:

With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus: "Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be children, but in understanding be men." And the expression, "When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child," points out his mode of life according to the law, according to which, thinking childish things, he persecuted, and speaking childish things he blasphemed the Word, not as having yet attained to the simplicity of childhood, but as being in its folly; for the word nhpion has two meanings. "When I became a man," again Paul says, "I put away childish things." It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name "children" to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and "men" to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror. Of this the apostle himself shall testify, calling as he does the Jews heirs according to the first covenant, and us heirs according to promise: "Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fulness of the time was came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons " by Him. See how He has admitted those to be children who are under fear and sins; but has conferred manhood on those who are under faith, by calling them sons, in contradistinction from the children that are under the law: "For thou art no more a servant," he says, "but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." What, then, is lacking to the son after inheritance?

The quote contains both the phrases “made of a woman” and “made under the law.” However, note carefully that Clement discusses neither phrase. This is like the case with Tertullian’s “Against Marcion,” only there the words are missing and he doesn’t discuss them, yet here we see the words, but he doesn’t discuss them. We may take it that they are a later interpolation, put in to “correct” the work.

Here is Cyprian: Three Books of testimonies Against the Jews (circa 250)

That although from the beginning He had been the Son of God, yet He had to be begotten again according to the flesh.
In the second Psalm: "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and the bounds of the earth for Thy possession." Also in the Gospel according to Luke: "And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she cried out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Also Paul to the Galatians: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, horn of a woman." Also in the Epistle of John: "Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. But whosoever denies that He is come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the spirit of Antichrist."
Cyprian is quoting testimonies against the Jews. Certainly it is against the Jews that Jesus was “born under the law” and they rejected him. We may assume that the Galatians that he read did not have the phrase “under the law” in it.

Finally, here is Novatian,’s on the Trinity(circa 250)

For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the "Son of David,"7 so as God He is proclaimed David's Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man "under the law,"7 so as God He is declared to be "Lord of the Sabbath."

Novatian has changed the embarrassing phrase “made of a woman” into “made as man,” but he does give us the phrase “under the law,”
Of the eight pre-Fourth century quotes of Galatians 4.4, only two contain the phrase “under the law,” seven contain “born of a woman”, and one Tertullian’s “Against Marcion” contains neither. In this last case, we have to consider the possibility that Tertullian was reluctant to tackle the subject of the Pauline phrase “born of a woman” because it appeared to be in opposition to the idea that Christ was “born of a virgin”. Against this, we have to note that Clement of Alexandria, did not refer to either phrase and they both were probably interpolated later into his text.

On balance, the evidence appears to indicate that both phrases were not there in the beginning. Heretics shortly before the time of Tertullian (210),before anybody had a chance to think up a good counter to the argument that “born of a woman” contradicts “born of a virgin,” inserted the phrase ‘born of a woman.”

The original phrase "born of a woman" probably meant simply that Paul’s son of God was “human” as opposed to being a spirit. This in turn suggests that there was something in the line originally that would be interpretated as saying that Paul’s son of God was not human, but was spiritual. We can propose, based on this line of reasoning, that the original line read:


“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth the spirit of his Son to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

TedM

You seem to be saying the Galations wouldn't have even considered accepting the circumcision argument.

Isn't it obvious that the "different gospel" of circumcision must ALSO have been preaching salvation, but for some reason those preaching it were able to sound credible enough for at least some Galation men to consider having themselves circumcised?

tedm

DramaQ

Re: Dick you less.

EarlDoherty

My thanks to Jay for some very instructive observations on the pre-4th century quotes of Galatians 4:4. One in particular (on "born under the law") I had not thought of myself which is rather telling:

Jay added a proviso about the possibility that the phrase could have been there, yet shied away from by Tertullian because it might imply that Jesus was born of a "woman", namely, not born of a "virgin." Yet the advantages of such a Pauline passage against Marcion (especially in Marcion's own copy of Galatians, which is what Tertullian is addressing) should have far outweighed any hesitancy on Tertullian's part, since he could have countered any such implication in some other way (as Jay indicated he did, even if lamely, in On the Flesh of Christ 23). After all, if Jesus had been born Jewish, this would have shot down Marcion's essential contention that Jesus came down directly from heaven (docetically) and his persona and teaching had nothing to do with things Jewish, but were anti-Jewish. Added to other indicators that Marcion's text of Galatians did not contain "born of woman, born under the Law", it makes for an even stronger case for interpolation.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

This does beat all.

Galatians 5.2-4, 11-12; 6.12-13:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that, if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed [!] from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

That the Galatians were at least seriously considering undergoing adult circumcision is hardly debatable. And I somewhat favor the view that some of them had already done it. See the informative weblog series by Mark Goodacre about the Galatian epistle.

Ben.

Gamera

Well, I'm glad you admit no scholarship or translation supports your quirky unattested translation of the term "eti." That's progress.

But I would expect that if "eti" had a semantic range that included the sense of "nonetheless," that you would be able to find, in the vast literature of koine, an example where eti unambiguously means "nonetheless" and nothing else.

In the examples you gave, the temporal sense of "eti," which is well attested, fits the context just fine.

Therefore, again, I think you have failed to meet the burden.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Earl,

Good point. Tertullian really should have brought up the phrase "born/made under the law" to undercut Marcion's assertion that Jesus was not sent by the Hebrew God. Irenaeus (arguing against a variety of heretics) and Cyprian (attacking the Jews) too, really should have used it. One of them not using it could be dismissed as a personality quirk, but all three not using it, plus nobody referring to it before circa 250 C.E., strongly suggests it was a later interpolation.

As you've noted, the expression "born/made of a woman" adds nothing to the original passage. It does not seem to have a purpose, unless it was meant to counter docetic claims that the Christ was a spirit.

I thought it was good that you brought up Bart Ehrman's work in this connection. We should remember that this text, like most of the New Testament, was not considered holy scripture when first presented, and there was certainly no quality control in making copies. In the rough and tumble world of Christian polemics of the Second and Third century, multiple changes to the text should be expected.

It is always nicer to be able to explain a text without resorting to the concept of interpolation. As the uninterpolated text no longer exists, one can always be accused of subjectivism and not having evidence for the interpolation. However, as in the case of the TF, when it represents the most or only logical solution to explain the meaning of the text, it must be proposed.

Warmly,

Jay