spamandham

I don't see how Paul using references back to the OT negates the MJ position really. If Paul's Jesus was mystical in the mind of Paul, then such references would have to be understood according to a mystical interpretation. The real question is not whether or not Paul made a couple of comments that seem to indicate a HJ, but rather, whether his perspective is HJ or mystical.

Here is the passage from Galations in context:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman {"born" is not a good translation according to my lexicon}, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. At a time when you did not know God, you became slaves to things that by nature are not gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again?

You are observing days, months, seasons, and years. I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain. I implore you, brothers, be as I am, because I have also become as you are. You did me no wrong;
you know that it was because of a physical illness that I originally preached the gospel to you, and you did not show disdain or contempt because of the trial caused you by my physical condition, but rather you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

Within a very brief area, we have Paul possibly alluding to a human Jesus (assuming Jesus is the Son referred to in 4:4), and also clearly alluding to Jesus Christ by name as a spiritual being (an angel of God). Both passages make sense if Paul's Jesus was mystical, but it seems to require some contortions to make the bolded passage fit if Paul's Jesus was historical in his mind.

Vorkosigan

Depicting Israel as a woman was an OT metaphor -- in Isa 62, for example, the Lord marries the Virgin Israel. "Born of woman" -- with the more general verb used than the specific one for birth -- probably signifies something like that. This metaphorical usage is reinforced throughout this passage -- where believers are adopted, are Paul's children for whom he has "labored" (is the pun the same in Greek?), where woman is used metaphorically and allegorically:

• But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman (source).

and Jerusalem their "mother" is in slavery but the Jerusalem above is in freedom.

It doesn't make sense that a passage where "mother" is used metaphorically and allegorically throughout really intends to use it narrowly and prosaically at the beginning. The apologetic "born of woman" argument generally neglects that larger context of Galatians 4 where birth and mothers mean so many things.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

It goes to evidence. For example, we have quite a few passages where the context of "born of a woman" clearly means a human being. I'm not aware of any passages that support Doherty. You could say that they should be understood using a "mystical interpretation", but without textual support, such a response comes across as adhoc. I can't disprove it, but I can say that the evidence we do have is against it.

Vorkosigan

See my post above this one. The evidence we have -- the rest of Gal 4 -- may well support Doherty's view.

GakuseiDon

I don't understand what you are saying Gal 4 means then, I'm afraid. Earlier Gal 3 talks of Jesus as descendent of Abraham:

3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. 10 It does not say, "And to descendants," as referring to many, but as referring to one, "And to your descendant," who is Christ
...
3:19 Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made
...
4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman born under the law

Also keep in mind "seed of David". Given the use of "born of woman" elsewhere, it seems pretty strongly to indicate a human being.

Actually, Doherty recently stated that "born of woman" could be an interpolation, inserted for the specific purpose to show that Jesus was a human being. From here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169780

“Born of woman” would be a natural insertion in Galatians (let’s say around the middle of the 2nd century to counter docetics like Marcion and others) to make the point that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.

Ben C Smith

Good to see you back on the boards, Michael.

Ben.

spamandham

This seems a weak but valid point to me. However, "born of a woman" is not a good translation of Gal 4:4. I'm curious what other passages you are referring to though. My own search for this phrase, within the Bible, turned up only Gal 4:4.

Mysticism uses language symbolically rather than literally. I suppose it's up to Doherty (or whoever is arguing the mystic Paul position) to build a solid case that Paul was a mystic. Once achieved though, everything Paul wrote must then be viewed from that perspective.

Time and again Paul makes comments that he (Paul) is revealing some long hidden mystery. He explicitly tells us he got his knowledge through a combination of a vision and the Logos process. He talks about Christ as being an angel whos sacrifice was made before the beginning of time. He clearly sees himself as someone to whom a unique revelation has been given and that the revelation itself is what makes him the authority.

The case that Pauls Jesus was mystical is not irrefutable, but it seems to me Paul's perspective of Jesus must have been one of the following:

1. Christ is a mystical concept and Jesus is symbolic/spiritual, or
2. Jesus was a real person who lived in the distant past (from Paul's perspective) and was mostly forgotten until Paul came along.

Neither of these are flattering to the HJ position. The HJ position would be strengthened if it were shown Paul's writings were from the 2nd century rather than the mid 1st (as was previously suggested in this thread), since Paul's writings are the strongest evidence of a purely mythical Jesus, in my mind.

spamandham

This sounds like an apologetic argument to me. Sure, it might have been added later by someone trying to change Paul's slant, and it seems almost certain that Paul's writings were interpolated to some degree.

But it seems to me the burdon of proof is on the person claiming it's an interpolation to demonstrate why it doesn't fit. It isn't enough to simply say "well, that might be an interpolation".

However, rather than arguing it's an interpolation, it seems a solid case can be made that the following train of thought MUST contain symbolic language:

[b] when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son,

Clearly, Paul is not referring to actual childhood in the "when we were children" phrase. This is obvious usage of symbolic language to refer to "spiritual" childhood. The "but" of Gal 4:4 continues that train of thought. It makes more sense to me to view the entire train of thought as symbolic of spiritual awakening, rather than to pick sporadic parts here and there to claim they are meant literally while interspersed within a symbolic dialog.

If Doherty has tried to apologize this passage away rather than analyzing what it really means, he has done himself a great disservice. A proper analysis may well strengthen rather than weaken the "Paul was a mystic" position.

Doug Shaver

True . . . if you assume that religious people never engage in creative reinterpretation of their sacred writings in order to accommodate their personal predilections.

I don't deny that that was its point. I deny that it succeeded in actually preserving monotheism.

Doug Shaver

Oh, those. OK, my bad. I should have written "never seen any convincing evidence."

It's the universe that that Platonists thought existed alongside, or above (or maybe both in some sense), the one we perceive with our senses. It's the place where Plato himself thought his Forms existed.