Toto

You have an amazing ability to miss the point that I try to make. I'm not sure that we disagree about anything here.


And it's quite clear that the usual metaphorical meaning of ektroma is wretched. If Paul used the term metaphorically, that is the most likely meaning.

OK..

.

Why are you so sure of this? From everything I have read, "untimely birth" is just a euphemism for miscarriage, which is typically a fetus that is expelled too soon, before it is fully formed. But you have latched on to "untimely" as the primary meaning.

No, I'm not. The more usual interpretation of ektroma is born dead, as a reflection of Paul's shame at having persecuted Christians. It makes a certain amount of sense and it good enough for any use I would make of this passage.

Why do you think I haven't studied textual criticism or the work done on Paul's letters??

As far as I can tell, you have not in fact found any Greek usage from any time which is remotely similar to your preferred metaphorical use, and you have admitted the metaphor suggested by Mead did exist among the Valentinians, or at least Irenaeus.


So those births are not "untimely." If those stillbirths or babies born dead shortly after the due date are included in the concept of ektroma, this is one more reason to reject the idea that ektroma means "untimely birth" with the emphasis on untimely.

So we will have to just disagree...

I repeat: this interpretation is just jerry-rigged, as one of your sources admitted, to fit the preconceived idea of what the text should mean. You and the various Christian apologists who prefer this interpretation take a word that refers to an abnormal birth, typically a birth that is too early, and try to stretch it to refer to a normal birth that was too late in time for some other purpose. It just doesn't make any sense, and it ignores the emotional overtones to the word, of wretched.


A child being born late makes very little sense. In modern times we calculate due dates; but in reality a fetus develops until it is ready to be born, and if things are normal, is born at that time. If it is expelled before it is ready, it is premature, typically a miscarriage. How could it be born too late?

You've worked yourself into a snit for some reason. You don't agree with me, so you have to ascribe some weird motives to me and claim that I'm biased. It's not clear to me why this is so difficult. I think your view makes no sense, but I'm not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty.

Christian evangelicals are committed to Acts being historically valid. I've read pretty widely (although not recently) and most scholars without an evangelical bent do not treat Acts as a primarily historical work.

Er, Richard Pervo has devoted his scholarly life to Acts, starting with his PhD thesis at Harvard. Westar has published his latest books, but not everything he has written. Most of what he has written is dry and academic, and I have never heard anyone accuse him of sensationalism. I have not rejected the Journal for Biblical Studies. I have not decided on history. I respect scholarly consensus. But I am sensitive to the misuse of scholarly consensus by evangelicals.

Just accept that you have not presented a persuasive case so far. You could persuade me - I'm willing to listen to new evidence - but you have spent most of your time talking past me or trying to pull rank, or missing my points, and ended up insulting me for imaginary sins.

Cheers.

LegionOnomaMoi

That isn't Mead's reading, which you said was the most likely.



We are dealing with a single greek word which can mean a number of things. Literally, "a birth that violates the normal period of gestation (whether induced as abortion, or natural premature birth, or birth beyond term." That definition is taken out of the BDAG. The basic idea, however, is that the term is (used literally) an all encompassing term for fetuses/babies not surviving. In other words, the notion of 'untimely" is just a part of the concept as a whole. It isn't a euphemism. It's one way of thinking about a sense of the word. I can think about running in terms of exercise, in terms of motion, in terms of trying to get somewhere, in terms of its opposition to walking, and so on, or a combination of these things.

Likewise, I can think of the notion of "a birth that violates the normal period of gestation" as an induced abortion, a stillborn child, a child born to early, a child born late and dead, etc. All these are literal senses of the word. Paul didn't use any of them. He used a metaphor. The question then become, given the context, what sense of the literal term was Paul referring to when he metaphorically mapped it into his construction? The idea that he used it to refer to some obscure cosmological view is ridiculous. That's why Irenaeus is mocking it. The idea that he extended the sense of "wrong time" to mean "late to the game" is far more likely. More likely still is that he is extending the sense of "wrongess" of such a birth and insulting himself as an aside, apart from the temporal context of the overall structure.


I'm rejecting the notion that the word HAS a primary meaning, and in fact that words in general do. That's why I'm making reference to cognitive linguistics. Consider Langacker's discussion of the word "ring." What is the "primary meaning"? A round thing? A physical round thing? Something worn on the finger. Meaning is encyclopedic, and thus we can wear a ring on the finger and speak of a ring of smugglers because we conceptualize their network as circular.

But you didn't call that the most likely. You went to Mead. You scoffed at Durrant, and when I mentioned that the most important and comprehensive lexicons for Greek in general and NT greek in particular in English list "untimely" as one interpretation of Paul here, and that it is one theory current among specialists in greek lexicography and NT studies, you scoffed again Your basis for being so dismissive? How do you know this? Did you search through publications of greek epigraphy, papyri, and manuscripts? Or did you rely on someone telling you there are no ancient examples? More importantly, why do you "favor Mead's explanation" when he doesn't even state that this greek word was used to in the way he meant, but that the concept itself was? He doesn't point to a single text, or a single example, or even deal with the greek word outside of Paul at all. He simply says something about the concept of abortion in gnostic circles. So I presented you with the most current lexicons, which incorporate a massive amount of scholarship on word meanings and uses, but you reject a meaning they list because "there are no ancient example." At the same time, you "favor" the interpretation of a book written in 1903 which lists no examples of this word used in this way either.

Even better, when I asked you for a use of the Greek word to support Mead's interpretation, you referred me to a latin author. I had to do your work for you and find which greek texts using this word Mead might have relied on. You couldn't give me a greek text which supported Mead's usage. But you "favored" it anyway.

If I'm wrong, my apologies. As for my reaons, you stated you are "heavily influenced by Walker." Yet Walker wrote a paper in 2007 arguing that 1 Cor. 15:29-34 was an interpolation, stating:

"Verses 1-28 proclaim the fact of Christ’s resurrection “as the common ground of all Christian preaching and faith” (vv. 1-11), insist that a denial of resurrection negates Christ’s resurrection and thus invalidates Christian faith itself (vv. 12-19), and assert that Christ’s resurrection guarantees the future resurrection of believers and the final destruction of death (vv. 20-28). Verses 35-58 address a possible objection regarding the nature of the resurrection body (vv. 35-53), concluding with a ringing affirmation of victory and an exhortation to faithful endurance (vv. 54-58). The flow of the argument in vv. 1-28, 35-58 is logical, clear, and complete. This flow is abruptly interrupted, however, by vv. 29-34..."


In other words, the guy you are heavily influenced by completely disagrees with you and Price. In fact, he's so sure that the verses you think are an interpolation are NOT that he uses them to argue the verses which follow ARE.
Also, most of the work on textual criticism is written in German and French, which I why I had to learn to read these languages. And finally, rejecting the work of the author you are "heavily incluenced by" you turn to Price, who isn't a textual critic, and as far as I can see stands alone here.

The point is that I, not you, found the usage of this greek word which Mead may have used. You just accepted uncritically that even though Mead doesn't say anything about the use of this greek word in particular to mean anything (but rather the concept), his is a valid example.



Do you have any idea how lexicography works? I gave you several other authors who use the word metaphorically, and none in a completely similar way. Each represents a single instance of metaphorical use particular to that author which must be derived from context. It is the context of the structure of 1 Cor. 15:1-8 which support this interpretation. Paul describes a sequence which unfolds through time. He then uses a word which has a means "violation of the normal time period of gestation" in a metaphorical way. The word in question, however, is almost never used in any texts metaphorically. And when it is, it is used in different ways. It is not at all "jerry-rigging" to use the context surrounding the use to interpret the meaning of a word. In fact, it's done ALL THE TIME by classicists and others who work with greek texts. That's how lexicons are built. A particular use of a word in one text by one author doesn't seem to fit the use of the word elsewhere, several papers are written on it, and then these arguments are incorporated into lexicons.

Take a look at several editions of greek texts with commentary (Plato, Antiphon, Herodotus, Demosthenes, etc). You will find places where the commentator says "the word means X, but here is used with the sense Y because of the context which shows A, B, C, etc."



That's irrelevant. The point is that the word has a sense of "wrong time" and "violation of the natural temporal order." It could be the sense that Paul is using, only here meaning late. It's more likely he is using another sense, but much less likely that Mead's view is correct.

"Historically valid" is pretty meaningless here. The question is does Acts fit into the genre of ancient historiography? The answer is almost always "yes." As Loveday (the classicist) points out, historical validity doesn't go hand in hand with literary genre. Facts from history are gleaned from letters, plays, etc. And ancient historiography is filled with myth, rumor, magic, etc.


Primary is one thing. But if the question is, "did the author of acts intend to relate a narrative of events consistent with what that author believed was fact" then the answer of modern historians is almost always "yes."



I know. I was referring to Mead, not Pervo. And the classicist Loveday has likewise Luke/Acts here primary area of study. Studies of NT genre have caused the whole field to shift in recent years after a series of studies and rebuttals, mostly on the gospels. And the majority view is that they fit in with ancient historiography. What this means in terms of their reliability is something else altogether. A work can be intended to related what the author believes to be history, and be no more historical than pure myth.


I could accept that, were it not that you first said you favored Mead, who begins his analysis by misunderstanding greek grammar, then stating (based on Price) that it is probably an interpolation, despite the fact that the only textual critic you've mentioned (and you've claimed you are heavily influenced by) completely rejects Price's view, and comes to the exact opposite conclusion. Your argument that a standard practice in approaching ancient greek word uses is no more than a "jerry-rigged" argument is indicative of someone who hasn't spent much time reading commentaries or articles on word usage or the work that goes into lexicography. I could only persuade someone with an open mind. Someone who will reject Robert Funk's translation of the line in his work on greek grammar (a founder of the Westar Institute), not to mention the most important lexicons, in favor of a 100+ year old gnostic interpretaion which predates the Nag Hammadi find doesn't seem to me to be someone who is open minded.

Sheshbazzar

The gospel of Paul, what an abortion.

aa5874

His Gospel was NEVER "DELIVERED".

Toto

I find it the most likely, if it is, as Mead explains, a technical term used in the sense that the Valentinians used it. If it is a metaphor that Paul came up with off the cuff, its most likely meaning is wretched.

I do not have access to BDAG here, but when I put part of that quote into google, I find different variations on what you have quoted, in particular the "birth beyond term."

In particular: Paul the Missionary

The phrase “one untimely born” (Gk ektro4ma) designates in Greek literature “untimely birth,” “miscarriage,” “abortion” (sometimes induced). The terms refers “to untimely birth, whether the child lives or not. The decisive feature is the abnormal time of birth and the unfinished form of the one thus born.”²² The meaning is not “late birth” (Paul being the last of the apostles to be called) but “unexpected birth.”

***

22 J. Schneider, TDNT 2:465. BDAG, p. 311, gives “miscarriage” as the basic meaning (with reference to Num 12:12; Job 3:16; Eccles 6:3; Philo Leg. All. 1, 76), providing the following definition: “a birth that violates the normal period of gestation (whether induced as abortion, or natural premature birth or miscarriage, untimely birth.”

Nothing there about a birth beyond term, or any indication that it is a possibility,

So I have to ask you: what does BDAG actually say? Where did this "birth beyond term" come from? Could it be that some author's desire to force the untimely birth to be a late birth has overridden the actual evidence?

You assert that it is ridiculous. This is just an argument from personal incredulity.

I assert that an abnormal birth beyond term is more than ridiculous. I doubt would even be in the vocabulary of pre-modern medicine.


See above.

<snip repetitive arugments.>

Let me repeat that I don't want to use Mead as an authority. I got the idea of what this verse meant when I first read him, and it checked out. He wrote some interesting stuff, but he was a Theosophist.

So he agrees that there is evidence of two different authors here. I didn't claim to be his devoted follower.

Is it too much to ask that you provide a reference to this 2007 paper? At least a title if not a url?

-

But - it appears that the word has been fit into a context that these interpreters want to see there, not the context that is actually there. That's why I call it jerry-rigged.


I mostly agree with this, except that if you make the category of ancient historiography so broad, the statement about genre is not very meaningful.

Incidentally, are you on first name terms with Ms. Loveday Alexander? I assume you are referring to Acts In Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Loveday Alexander. It gets a nice review from Pervo.

Not always

This is a long complicated subject. There are threads here on the question of genre. It is not a simple as you make it out to be.

== I've to to go now, I might get back to your last paragraph. But you might want to revise it.

And please check that BDAG reference.

LegionOnomaMoi

Mead doesn't explain that. He just says "gnostic" and makes some vague reference you never bothered to check up on. When it comes to "born to late" you demand ancient references. But for Mead? Alll he needs to do is say the concept referred to some technical gnostic term and you are satisfied it is the most likely.



Ok, I'll give you the entire entry (with transliterated greek). All italics except for the transliterated greek are in the original, as are bolded sections:
ektroma, atoa, to (Aristot., De Gen. An. 4, 5 4, [773b, 18]; PTembt III, 800, 30 [142 BC], on this s. New Docs 2, 82, prob. 'miscarriage'; Num 12:12; Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Philo, Leg. All. 1, 76; Phryn. p. 208f Lob., w. preference for ambloma ('abortion') a birth that violates the normal period of gestation (whether induced as abortion, or natural premature birth or miscarriage [cp. Hesych. ek= paidion nekron aoron, also the verb ektitroskein PCairGoodsp 15, 15f of a mother who miscarried because of violence done to her], or a birth beyond term) untimely birth. So Paul calls himself, perh. taking up an insult (e. as a term of contempt in Tzetzes [XII AD], Hist. Var 5, 515 Kiessl.; Straub 48f) hurled at him by opponents 1 Cor 15:8 (in any case the point relates to some deficiency in the infant [cp. Hos 13:13, MSchaefer, ZNW 85, '94, 207-17, not an insult]: Paul confesses himself to be unworthy of being called a full-fledged apostle); imitated IRo 9:2. ESchwartz, NGG 1907, 276 refers to Eus., HE 5,1 45. Cp. AvHarnack, SBBerlAk 1922, p. 72, 3; AFridrichsen, Paulus abortivus: Symb. Philol. f. ODanielsson '32, 78-75; JMunck, NT Essays: memorial vol. for TManson, '59, 180-93; PvonderOsten-Sacken, ZNW 64, '73, 245-62 esp. 250-57 ('miscarriage' among the apostles)--Acc. to GBjorck, ConNeot 3, '39, 3-8 'monster', 'horrible thing'. --M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.


Unless I'm quoting, clearly my arguments are 'personal' or I would be quoting. It doesn't make it any less accurate. You refer to a source (Mead) whose understanding of Greek is so poor he begins with a grammatical error on the significance of Paul's use of the article (which, however, is lacking in his source). It's a view from a period of time which WE KNOW was filled with misconceptions about "gnosticism." The nag hammadi finds didn't just present us with a wealth of new evidence, but sparked a flood of interest in the topic. So where are the papers or research concluding that Mead was on to something?

In a culture in which a child actually BORN living wasn't even a child until the pater familias or the equivalent had judged it to be so, you find this ridiculous?


HOW did it check out? You scoffed at the idea of Paul's usage because of a lack of ancient equivalents. Did you "check out" Mead's usage?

Nice spin. You asked why I didn't think you had studied textual criticism. I gave you an answer: the one textual critic you've referenced thinks your conclusion that the verses are interpolated is not just wrong, but so utterly unconvincing he uses their inclusion as an argument for another interpolation. He doesn't just agree "that there is evidence of two different authors here." What he states is that the verse YOU claim to be an interpolation is SO unlikely to be so, given how coherent it is and its logical nature compared to the whole of the chapter, that he uses it to claim other verses are interpolated. Price cites him too, of course, but only for his methods in general. Not for Price's conclusion. But apparently Walker's methods, used by Walker himself, lead to a complete and utter rejection of Price's conclusions, along with yours.

Walker, W. O. Jr. (2007). 1 Corinthians 15:29-34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation. CQB 69(1): pp. 84-103.


How would it make any difference to these interpreters if Paul meant "as one who is unworthy" or "as one who was too late"?


It is meaningful. It's historiography: narratives which deliberately attempt to report what happened (whether they do so or not).

Good for her then, but I'm not sure how that matters. She points out the problems with equating historiographical genre with history. She points out the many fantastical elements which would have alerted non-christians that the text was not filled with facts, but also points out that it doesn't fit as "fiction" either. She compares it with Josephus.

The problem with ancient historiography is that from Herodotus to Livy historians wove myth and story-telling into what they called "history." Some were better historians than others. But what makes an ancient work a historiographical work isn't whether or not it reports facts (as Loveday notes, letters did this, but they clearly are not historiography), but whether the a primary purpose behind the work is to report what happened (according to the author's view).

No, not always. I didn't say "always."


How am I makling it "simple"? I'm deliberately stating that genre was composed of nebulous, mutable, and "fuzzy" (in the fuzzy set theory sence) categories.

I did. You have it. Please check your sources (like Mead) using the same standards you use for Durant.

Toto

I'm sorry I ever mentioned Mead. He has become a major distraction from the real issue.

Let me explain how this dispute started. The predecessor to this board attracted groups of Christian apologists. One of their issues involved trying to show that yes, Virginia, there really was a historical Jesus. Part of their "proof" was that even non believers like Will Durant accepted the existence of a historical Jesus, and they quoted Durant as quoting Paul as regretting that he had been born too late to know Jesus. I had recently read Mead, so I know that the term used did not mean born too late. It meant a miscarriage, which does not mean born too late, but too early. There ensued long discussions on this board with people who were much more expert than myself, and there was generally agreement: an untimely birth is a miscarriage, it never refers to being born normally but too late. Paul's real meaning is unclear, but the best guess is that the meaning is some sort of self-deprecation.

Mean might or might not be right about this element of gnosticism, but he was clearly correct that the term refers to a miscarriage. This is what checked out.

If this passage actually refers to the Valentinian concept of "the abortion" as described in Irenaeus, that raises a lot of interesting possibilities that are yet to be explored.

Thank you. I see no explanation for the term "birth beyond term" except for the desire to force fit this term to refer to something that is too late.

It is your personal feeling that ektroma might be a metaphor for someone born normally but too late in relation to another event. I don't share this feeling. It's a conversation stopper. If I say that "born too late" doesn't have the emotional connotations of ektroma so I don't see how anyone could use it as a metaphor, you go off on a tangent. I ask for any other Greek speaking person who uses that as a metaphor, and you start obsessing about Mead.

Yes I do. The infant might not be considered fully human until it has passed its first birthday, as was common in many parts of the world, but that doesn't give a clue about why "beyond term" would make any sense here.

Yes I did, and Mead's source was the classical heresiologists. His ideas on gnosticism may or may not be correct, but he knew the meaning of the word, and that the Valentinians used it. You have not denied this.


Thanks for the reference. It appears to be here. I'll read it.

But that's the main point. Apologists use this passage to try to show that Paul thought he was born to late to see the historical Jesus. If the term only means unworthy, that argument falls flat.


We got into this digression on historiography because I said that the dating of Paul's letters was uncertain, and was based on assuming that Acts contained a valid historical timeline. If you agree that Acts is not valid history, we're in agreement. But then there is no basis for the standard consensus dating of Paul's letters.

aa5874

1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV---King James Version
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

1 Corinthians 15:8 NIV--New International Version
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1 Corinthians 15:8 ASV---American Standard version
American Standard Version
and last of all, as to the [child] untimely born, he appeared to me also.

1 Corinthians 15:8 BBE---Bible in Basic English
And last of all, as by one whose birth was out of the right time, he was seen by me.

1 Corinthians 15:8 CJB----Complete Jewish Bible
and last of all he was seen by me, even though I was born at the wrong time.

1 Corinthians 15:8 RHE---Douay-Rheims
And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due tine.

It is quite illogical, BASED on the context, that 1 Cor.15.8 refers to an EARLY birth.

The very FACT that Pauline writer claimed he was LAST of ALL MUST or MOST likely signifies that he was claiming to be BORN LATE which is UNTIMELY, OUT of DUE TIME, or ABNORMAL.

The very words LAST of ALL destroys any argument that Paul is claiming to be early or first in 1 Cor.15.8

It is most remarkable how people here can completely IGNORE the Context of 1 Cor.15 and make arguments that are extremely weak and WITHOUT any logics at all.

How in the world can a claim by Paul that he was LAST of ALL mean Paul was "born" Early or FIRST when ALL Apologetic sources that substantially mentioned the Pauline writer placed him LAST and the Pauline writer himself ALSO stated he was LAST of All??

Only on BC&H!!!

I find it extremely disturbing when completely illogical arguments are made that are easily DEBUNKED by merely reading a single verse in context.

Iskander

Paul is clearly saying that he had wished to be one of the twelve, but regrettably he was born late into the new faith.

He would have written more plainly had he known the importance of everything he said and of everything he did not say!!!

aa5874

It is SO SIMPLE. So remarkably easy to understand.

Galatians 1 PAUL was regrettably Late. Paul Persecuted the Church.

Paul was BORN LATE into the Christian FAITH.