Clivedurdle

Actually John 1 is further support for the mythicist case. An idea that is developing the concepts of thought, reason and logic is mythologised and spiritualised into a Christ figure.

Was this an attempt to bring the pagan rationalists into this new world order of catholic christendom?

Ben C Smith

Let me respond in particular to the three reasons Detering (following Van Manen) adduces for supposing an interpolation here. The middle reason I will only touch upon, since it would take a month to go through all the issues surrounding what Paul thought of the law.

1.

Since -so VAN MANEN- one can hardly assume Paul having fought heresies — e.g. docetism — which came up only much later, geno,menon evk gunaiko,j needs must have been inserted later, and at that by a 2nd century Catholic editor....

Elsewhere on this thread I ran through why I think Paul wrote this phrase, and it had nothing to do with fighting docetism.

2.

2) for reasons of content it is, according to VAN MANEN, equally hardly possible that after 3,10–14 the author still could have considered Christ as geno,menon u`po. no,mon, for: »There he had stated: to be under the Law is to be under the curse, v.10; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us which did not occur by his being born under the Law but by hanging from a tree, v.15 [sic! but here v.14 will have been intended] I.o.w., Christ, when dying on the cross, was not under the Law. Had he then still been under the Law, he –already under the curse or cursed himself before becoming a curse on the cross– wouldn’t have been able to redeem others from the curse of the Law«.

I regard this as a little sloppy. Galatians 3.10 does not say that those under the law (the phrase from 4.4) are under a curse; it says that as many as are from the works of the law are under a curse, a difficult line on any account. But Paul does not leave in doubt to whom that curse applies; he quotes Deuteronomy 27.26 to the effect that it applies to those who do not abide by the law, that is, lawbreakers, a company in which I doubt he would put Jesus.

(Strangely, Detering leaves in the incorrect reference to Galatians 3.15 from Van Manen, correcting it to 3.14; yet the real reference is 3.13. No big deal; just a curious correction.)

There is a lot more to be said about this; but it would lead us into the new perspective on Paul and points west.

3.

Finally, according to VAN MANEN, the editor gives himself away

3) by the form of his statement. Already Theodoretos remarked to 4,4: ouvk ei=pen\ avpe,steilen auvton ge,nesqai evk gunaiko,j( avlla\ geno,menon evk gunaiko,j avpe,steilen) Referring to the aorist of geno,menon, VAN MANEN asks to the point: »Was Christ then there, in heaven, ‘born of woman, born under the law’? That’s how it reads there,..«.. And that’s why for VAN MANEN, the form is explicable only if one assumes it to be a later insertion.

Among VAN MANEN’S observations, especially the last one mentioned is worth to be taken into account, since 1) — because of today’s general early dating of Gnosis —, and 2) — because of the problems with Pauline Christology and with his interpretation of the Law — will hardly be acknowledged generally. 3), on the other hand, clearly shows how the later interpolater gives himself away by a clumsy construction in respect of language: by the addition of geno,menon evk gunaiko,j geno,menon u`po. no,mon
(participle aor.; added for practical reasons with the intention of doctrinal clarification), he gives the impression (surely not intended) as if Christ had been born before he was sent on his mission by God. One can keep to this nonsense if, a priori excluding the possibility of an interpolation, one states against grammar rule, »that part. aor. does not here designate occurrences that precede the main action but concomitant ones, follows from the meaning of evxape,steilen, which forbids to understand it as a mission or task given only after the entrance into the world and the subordination under the Law «
(RIENECKER, 201).

(Keep in mind as you read the following that I am not a professional; I am an amateur. I have been formally trained in Greek and Latin, but hold only a B.A. in Classics, not an advanced degree. Indeed, I would welcome correction on what follows from anyone with an advanced degree in a relevant field.)

Let me see if I can explain the nature of the problem adduced here. In Greek literature one often finds the main verb of a sentence or clause and any subordinate participles standing in a particular relationship of time with one another. In general, if the action of the participle is supposed to have happened before the action of the main verb, then the participle will be in the aorist tense. Take Philippians 2.28 as an example:

Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that, having seen [aorist participle] him, you might rejoice....

The main verb of the clause is rejoice. The participle having seen is in the aorist tense because it precedes the main verb in time. The Philippians will see Epaphroditus, then they will rejoice; they will not rejoice and then see. English translations often render this with two finite verbs, so that you might see him and rejoice, or the like.

However, this coordination of relative times of action is not universal. The aorist participle is often used even when the action of the main verb consists precisely of the action of the participle, that is, even when there is no real priority in time. Take Philippians 4.14 as an example:

Nevertheless, you have done well sharing [aorist participle] in my tribulation.

Here the aorist participle is used, yet there is no strict sequence of actions. It is not as if the Philippians shared in tribulation and then did well. Rather, their doing well consists precisely of their sharing in tribulation. (Refer to 2 Corinthians 11.8 for a similar example. Paul did not take wages before robbing the other churches, as it were; rather, his robbing the other churches consisted of taking wages from them.)

I think it is easy to read Galatians 4.4 in this manner:

God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law.

There is nothing, IMHO, preventing us from reading the sending forth of the son as consisting of his birth. We are not forced, as Detering appears to suppose, to read this as implying that the birth preceded the sending in time.

Ben.

dog-on

Ben, thanks for the thoughtful reply. If you have some time, follow the link to the Detering work and read his criticism of the verses in Galatians 3. This may shed some light on where his view of 4:4 is coming from.

BTW, here is Mahr's reconstruction of the verses in Chapter 3 in question:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/itha...EGalatians.PDF


Of course, Marcion would probably not have had any Jewish OT references in his version.


Robert

Ben C Smith

No problem.

I have already followed it, and am reading it. Thanks.

Ben.

jgibson000

If I'm reading this correctly, it's not only, as Ben has shown, the first point in the argument that Gal. 4:4 is an interpolation (the point abot what the aorist participle signifies) that is wrong. So too is the second point about how GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS cannot be understood, as it supposedly is, as "part of a statement about a mission or a task given only after the entrance into the world and the subordination under the Law. This claim not only engages egregiously in petitio principii in claiming that the phrase GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS KTL. is part of a description of a mission or a task, but also wildly misreads and misconstrues the text of Gal. 4:4.

Within the context of the Pauline argument laid out in Gal. 4:1-7 (and set up in Gal. 3:23-29), GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS KTL. is not what it is claimed above to be, especially since it stands before and is not a part of the hINA clause beginning vs. 5 where this mission or task for which the son was "sent" is laid out. Rather, it provides the grounds for how and why it was that the mission was successful.

Sorry, but the scholarship evinced in this defense of the interpolation thesis is very very sloppy and reveals that the one making it is not engaged in a sober and objective reading of the evidence, but is letting an apriori guide and determine his investigation.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

As far as what LOGOS meant for certain of the Greek phiosophers goes, no. She's pretty good. But what LOGOS meant for the philosophers is not the issue, now, is it?

So why don't you tell us what Pagels goes on to say about LOGOS within Judaism and. in particular, in John.

And tell me Clive, is WIKI your main source for everything you "know" about the ancient world? And do you actually claim, as you seem to tacitly, that everything that is said there is correct?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Once again, there is no Greek word archontons/ARCONTONS. The nominative plural of ARCWN is ARCONTES.

Except that The Acension of Isaiah speaks specifically of Jesus' birth through Mary and his death at the hands of the heavenly powers as taking place on earth and at a specific time in history.


As I have noted on more than one occasion here, one of the prime reasons that I (and others) cannot take the Mythicists case seriously (and one of the reasons that it is ignored and/or disregarded as worth a response by "mainstream" scholarship) is that advocates of that view frequently make their case through the odious device of select quotation of the actual scholars they quote in support of their claims. And here we have another example of just this very thing.

What Ted does not tell us is that immediately after what he quotes above, Burton goes on to say:

So much for Burton supporting Ted's claims. And so much for the scholarship of a mythicist being worth much or worth paying attention to

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

But you beg the question when you assume that LOGOS is being used in Jn 1 with these senses, let alone that they are the only senses that the noun bore.

Christendom??:huh:let alone a Catholic one or indeed any christianity that had established a new world order in the 90's of the first century?

And pagans, let alone pagan rationalists?

All it vtake is a quick glance at the prologue to see that Jn 1 is in dialogue with Jews about where the God of Israel's purposes and will are most decisively to be found.

Jeffrey

JAK1

No evidence for reincarnation. It’s a myth which many people like. It makes them feel immortal, comfortable, and that death is fiction.

The fiction is “incarnation.”

JAK

jgibson000

Quote:

One can keep to this nonsense if, a priori excluding the possibility of an interpolation, one states against grammar rule, »that part. aor. does not here designate occurrences that precede the main action but concomitant ones, follows from the meaning of evxape,steilen, which forbids to understand it as a mission or task given only after the entrance into the world and the subordination under the Law

I've read this quote from Detering over several times now, and it seems to me that if I understand what he (and Van Manen) are saying, that what they say not only invalidates the grammatical agrument ythey make to prove that Gal 4:4 is an interpolation, but shows that Detering's Greek is very poor.

Here's the deal: the argument that Detering, based on Van Manen, makes about how in the present text of Gal. 4:4 there is a violation of a grammatical rule concerning aorist participles, is grounded in the view/claim that the GENOMENONs that now appear there are adverbial participles.

But quite contrary to what they hold/claim, these participles are actually adjectival participles, and being such, signal that the phrases of which they are a part are syntactically, gramatically, and , here, fucntionaly, equivalent to relative clauses. Thus they have nothing to do with the main verb in Gal. 4:4.

In the light of this, I think it safe to say (1) that the conclusions that Detering and Van Manen come to about interpolation in Gal. on the basis of grammar are pretty creaky and (more importantly, (2) that in not catching the fault in Van Manen's parsing of the participles, Detering both shows his Greek to be substandard and gives us reason to believe that anything he claims on the basis of an analysis of Greek should be taken with a grain of salt.

Jeffrey Gibson