Ben C Smith

Josephus, Antiquities 16.11.5 §382:

Δυο νεανισκους εκ βασιλιδος γυναικος γενομενους εις πασαν αρετην ακρους αναιρησεις σεαυτον εν γηρα καταλιπων εφ ενι παιδι κακως οικονομησαντι την εις αυτον ελπιδα και συγγενεσιν, ων αυτος τοσαυτακις ηδη κατεγνωκας θανατον;

Will you slay these two young men, born of a queenly woman, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave yourself destitute in your old age, but exposed to one son who has very ill managed the hopes you have given him, and to relations whose death you have so often resolved on yourself?

Here Josephus uses both the same participle and the same prepositional phrase as in Galatians 4.4, and he clearly means real human beings.

Josephus also writes in Antiquities 12.4.6 §186 that Joseph, son of Tobias, had become a father of seven children from one woman (πατηρ μεν γενομενος εκ μιας γυναικος παιδων επτα).

In Antiquities 1.12.2 §214 we find the same expression as in Galatians 4.4, but with concubine instead of woman:

Ισμαηλος γαρ ο κτιστης αυτων του εθνους Αβραμω γενομενος εκ της παλλακης εν τουτω περιτεμνεται τω χρονω.

For Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Ben,

While I question the interpretation preferred by mythicists, none of those examples seem to me to be sufficiently similar to the assertion Paul offers since none appear to be similarly concerned about establishing that the mother was human and none can be similarly argued to be metaphors.

It seems to me that Paul's assertion is likely unique but I don't think it offers mythicists a "smoking gun" since I've come to see such a statement as entirely reasonable given a belief in the incarnation of a divine entity. I would expect such a belief to produce very odd references to both the birth and physical nature of the entity that would probably be indistinguishable from a "mythical Jesus" belief.

jakejonesiv

Gal. 4:4 is not in the Marcionite version. So there is textual evidence, if you will have it.

But the argument as whole seems strange to me.

If we didn't have the Pauline epistles, what would we know about the supposed life of Jesus that we do not know now? That he was born??? :rolling: The answer is nothing. Paul does not give one scrap or detail that is not discernable from the gospels.

And yet it is proposed that Jesus' personality was so powerful, that he was such a charasmatic figure, that after death his followers elevated him to the status of a GOD in just a few scant years, creating a brand new religion in his name!

That is preposterous. What personality? What charisma? "Paul" doesn't know a bit of it, or else he disdained it to the extent that it receives no mention.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Hi, Doug. Been a while.

I agree that none of the Josephan examples seems concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed. I would add, however, that neither does Paul seem concerned to establish that the mother was human; it is assumed.

What is at stake is the meaning of the phrase born [or made] of a woman. How likely is it that an author (like Paul) decided to use such a phrase for a person he knew to be mythical, metaphysical, metaphorical, or nonhuman?

That is the point of the comparison. If I offer instances in which it is unclear what is being said, my sparring partner(s) can always assert that those instances themselves are examples of a metaphysical usage.

I have examples of born [or made] of a woman clearly being used to refer to real human beings (as the very wording of the saying would lead us to believe a priori). If my sparring partner(s) can produce examples of that phrase clearly being used metaphysically, then the debate is on; which is Galatians 4.4, physical or metaphysical? But, if not, then perhaps reading a metaphysical birth into Galatians 4.4 is just wishful thinking.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben!

Have you noticed the allusion to Job 15:14 LXX, which puts a different spin on what you think the passage is saying?

... or who being a mortal will still be blameless? Who is born of a woman will be just?

Who indeed? The answer of course in no one. These are attributes of God alone.

The point is, even with the redaction, Gal. 4:4 can be seen to making a theological point rather than a historical point.

The preceding phrase of Gal 4:4 declared that God sent forth his Son. In other words, Jesus was a pre-existent divine agent. Now, Jeffrey will deny that Jesus was conceived to be pre-existent, but not you Ben. Surely, not you.

Jake Jones IV

spamandham

Thanks for the info!

I completely agree. The idea that Paul viewed Jesus as a recent historical figure makes no sense to me at all. Based on what I know presently (not much), I surmise that at best, Jesus was a distant historical figure in Paul's mind.

I have heard people try to argue that Paul intentionally avoided saying anything concrete about Jesus because:
a) he was embarrased to admit it in front of Jews
b) he was embarrased to admit it in front of Romans
c) he wanted to concentrate on the message and not the messenger (huh!?)
d) Paul was attempting a coup of sort and wanted the attention pointed at himself rather than Jesus

None of these seem even remotely reasonable to me. Those who wish to use Paul as evidence of a historical Jesus can not simply hand wave away Paul's abject failure to mention anything concrete about the life of Jesus. Paul tells us more about Philemon's slave than he tells us about Jesus.

Ben C Smith

In Job 15.14 the phrase in question certainly means human. The question is: What human (that is, what person born of woman) is just? The answer, as you say, is no human. This does not imply that the phrase in question means something other than human or mortal; to the contrary, it demands such a meaning as a contrast to the immortal God.

Can be seen, certainly. Mythicists apparently see it that way all the time.

But I am not very interested in what can be the case. I am interested in what is probably the case.



Ben.

spamandham

It doesn't seem valid to me to take examples of that phrase from Josephus, who was clearly attempting to write historical accounts, and declare that therefor anyone who used it around the first century was also writing a historical account. This seems to be begging the question, IMHO.

jgibson000

I'm curious to know why you say so. Why isn't it "born of a woman" a good translation of GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? What do you think is a better one, and why?

Jeffrey Gibson

spamandham

I have no special insight into 1st century Greek, and am armed only with a tools readily available to anyone. Based on the Blue Letter Bible, the better translation would be "brought about by a woman" or "made of a woman".

It seems significant to me regarding this point that Paul did not choose a variant of gennao rather than ginomai, if he was trying to emphasize the historical nature of the Son (presumed to be a reference to Jesus). But perhaps one of our local experts can correct my presumption.