Layman

It's a word game because even Doherty acknowledges that it "of course, implies birth." For some reason that is still obscure to me, Doherty argues that despite the fact that Paul clearly means "born of a woman," his use of this term somehow "lends itself to the atmosphere of myth."

Why the use of "genomenon" lends itself to an "atmosphere of myth" is completely left to the reader's imagination. Doherty simply offers this as a conclusory statement with no supporting references or even rationale. Nor is there any reason to suspect that is the case. In fact, the term "genomenon" was often used by Jewish writers to refer to being born or descended from--never to imply anything mythical.

1. 1 Esdras 4:14-16

"Then the third, that is Zerubbabel, who had spoken of women and truth, began to speak: Gentlemen, is not the king great, and are not men many, and is not wine strong? Who then is their master, or who is their lord? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to every people that rules over sea and land. From women they came; and women brought up the very men who plant the vineyards from which comes wine."

2. Tobit 8:6

"Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung. Thou didst say, `It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.'"

3. Wisdom of Solomon 7:1-3

"I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant of the first-formed child of earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of ten months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage. And when I was born, I began to breathe the common air, and fell upon the kindred earth, and my first sound was a cry, like that of all."

4. Sirach 44:1-9

"Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning.... There are some of them who have left a name, so that men declare their praise. And there are some who have no memorial, who have perished as though they had not lived; they have become as though they had not been born, and so have their children after them."

5. John 8:58

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

And Doherty's argument that the use of this term means that he cannot be thinking of the idiom for normal birth here is unconvincing. Idioms often find variations in their expression, though remaining identifiable by their similarities, other terms, and context. Indeed, Josephus seems aware of the idiom though he modifies it to meet his own ends:

Antiq. 16.382

"Wilt thou slay these two young men, born of thy queen, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave thyself destitute in thy old age, but exposed to one son, who hath very ill managed the hopes thou hast given him,' and to relations, whose death thou hast so often resolved on thyself?"

Antiq. 7.21

About this time David was become the father of six sons, born of as many mothers. The eldest was by Ahinoam, and he was called Arenon; the second was Daniel, by his wife Abigail; the name of the third was Absalom, by Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; the fourth he named Adonijah, by his wife Haggith; the fifth was Shephatiah, by Abital; the sixth he called Ithream, by Eglah.

Doherty's demand that all persons use idioms exactly the same way is unreasonable. We all agree Paul is saying the same thing. Paul would have been familiar with the phrase, and that he uses another term for "born"--as do other Jewish authors--is irrelevant. The same sentiment is being expressed in very similar terms.

What is perhaps most unconvncing about Doherty's discussion of this passage is his argument that it is derived from Isah. 7:14. There is little basis for this argument.

First, Paul makes no mention of a "young woman." Nor does he describe Jesus as a "child." Nor does Paul ever use the term "Immanuel" to refer to Jesus. None of these silences seem reasonable if Paul was trying to explain Jesus in terms of Isah. 7:14. There simply is no reason to believe there is any connection between the verses.

Second, even if there was some similarity it would in no way support Doherty's theory. Jews and early Christians, including Paul, often couched actual historical events in Old Testament language and themes. To draw any inference of ahistoricity therefrom is baseless.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

Third, Fourth, the examples of mythic figures is entirely unsupported. I have yet to see any references to any traditions about Dionysos that used the phrase "born of a woman" to describe him. 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 on a spiritual realm. He was, like Hercules, believed to be born of Zeus and an earthly woman, Semele. 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 fails.

And I have to admit that I am not the first to notice this failure. 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

Doherty's entire approach to this passage is unconvincing. He found that Paul used a word that was less commonly used for "birth" than another word and tried to draw too many tenuous inferences from it.

GakuseiDon

Reading through Galatians, I think your earlier point is closer to the mark: The "false gospel" was held by Jewish Christians who thought that circumcision was a requirement. I can't see any need to suggest it was about the nature of Christ, except so far as Christ was the inheritor of God's promises to Abraham, and the Gentiles inherited those promises through faith in Christ.

Amaleq13

How could it not be about the nature of Christ? Paul is making assertions against this "false gospel" and one is that Jesus was Jewish and the other is that he was human. He makes these assertions in order to reach the conclusion that circumcision is not required of Gentiles.

The real question is, why would Paul ever feel to compelled to have to assert "Jesus was human" or "Jesus was Jewish" if the Pillars were disciples of the living, human, Jewish, Jesus?

GakuseiDon

Yes he does - and THAT is the main focus of that part of Galatians. Could you show me the references that indicate "Paul is making assertions against this "false gospel" and one is that Jesus was Jewish and the other is that he was human"?
Paul isn't writing to Jewish Christians, but to Gentile ones. And he wasn't trying to assert that Jesus was human or Jewish, but that Gentile inheritance was through Jesus, who received the inheritance of Abraham.

My guess is that the "false gospel" said that all Christians were subject to Jewish customs, and that's what Paul was addressing. I think you're reading too much into this. Do you really see it as Paul saying, "But Jesus WAS human!!! Oh, and by the way, you don't need to be circumcised"?

Amaleq13

In Gal 1:6, Paul establishes the reason for the letter to be an attempt to convince certain Galatians that they are in error to be fooled by "another gospel".

Where is the passage that indicates Paul has changed this focus when he later asserts that Jesus was "born of a woman"? Only five verses later (4:9) he again repeats his complaint that they have been drawn away.

If he wasn't trying to assert Jesus was human, why does he declare that he was "born of a woman"? If Paul wasn't trying to assert that Jesus was Jewish, why does he declare that he was "born under the Law"? Neither of these comments makes sense except as assertions in his general attempt to establish the authority and legitimacy of his gospel.

Not exactly. I see Paul arguing against opposing gospels by arguing the authority of his own. In the process of accomplishing that goal he asserts "Jesus WAS human", "Jesus WAS Jewish", and argues that "You are not subject to the Law".

rlogan

sure did. Thanks for pointing it out.

forgive me, but I'm math oriented and language deficient. Even English. Can't we tell which use is meant by the key provided?

( pres ind med-pass )

I profess ignorance on what those things mean.

Toto asked for a Greek proficient answer and we're still waiting on that...

GakuseiDon

To me, it's like saying that Paul's assertion that Jesus was crucified means that the false gospel says that Jesus wasn't crucified. I just don't see it - the question of Jesus's humanity doesn't seem to be his primary concern in Gal. I think Paul use of "born of a woman" and "born under the law" is being used to make a different point. If there were some dispute about the humanity of Christ, wouldn't you expect Paul to offer more proof than just "born of a woman"?

mike_decock

That assumes Paul had any proof. He doesn't seem to know any details of the sayings or actions of the living Jesus.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

That would be consistent with Paul calling the concept of a crucified Christ a "stumbling block" for Jews. In fact, I would suggest that this was one of the primary Jewish arguments against Paul's Christ.

It isn't. The primary concern of Paul's letter appears to be re-emphasizing the authority of his gospel in opposition to the one that has drawn away certain Galatians. It is in the process of accomplishing that goal that Paul feels compelled to assert that Jesus was "born of a woman" and "born under the Law".

What other point is served by asserting Jesus was human and Jesus was Jewish? Given a known historical Jesus and given the "pillars" as original Disciples, why would it ever be necessary to make such assertions?

More than direct revelation from the Risen Christ? No. That seems to be Paul's point in bringing up his source.

GakuseiDon

I just don't see Paul as asserting it, at least in the sense as something that needs to be restated to dispel doubts currently held by his readers. But perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. Interesting points though. Thanks, Amaleq13!