spamandham

In this thread, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=35, some time back, there was discussion along the line of "if Paul viewed Jesus as historical, when did he think Jesus lived and died".

Ben S. does an excellent job of bounding when that might have been under the assumption that Paul's Jesus is not allegorical/spiritual.

The strongest point I see involves Galatians 4.
3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba,[a] Father."

I think most will agree that to Paul, the redemptive act was Jesus' crucifixion, not his resurrection. I think most will also agree that Paul views himself as living in the end of the age (implied possibly by 'when the time had fully come'). So, do these points combine to show that Paul views the redemptive act of crucifixion to have happened in Paul's recent past?

Chris Weimer

Where do you get this from?

Julian

Although Paul doesn't say so explicitly it is not entirely unreasonable to point to the crucifiction as the redemptive act within the context of Galatians. I am not certain I would use the word redemptive, though, since Paul indicates that it is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. But I digress. The cross appears symbolically in 5:24, 6:12, and 6:14. The cross and crucifiction seems a meaningful device to Paul whereas he does not use the resurrection, for example, to the same effect in this epistle.

Julian

Clivedurdle

Is not the time element completely open?

Why is there any relationship between this act and Paul's belief that it had been revealed to him?

Paul speaks of things being revealed to him - the revelation to Paul is Paul's impetus that this is the end time.

The choices about the coming of the Christ are

in the time of Pilate
outside time in the sublunar sphere
any time after noah and to Paul's present.
If related to Melchizadeck, before Noah.

Julian

Paul is specific about some times. A promise was given to Abraham, then 430 years passed, then they get the law, which keeps them honest until the promise is fulfilled. These were real events to Paul, I don't think that we have a dispute there. Then God sent the spirit of his son into 'our' hearts. Paul says this right after the 'born of woman, born under the law' bit. Since they (Paul et al.) are in the real world that represents a change in the real world which would mean that this event can be fixed in earthly time, i.e. it occurred at a particular time. This still doesn't answer the question of where it happened (make it sublunar if you must although I doubt that Paul knew or cared) but it does put real limits on the timeframe.

I still have a problem with Paul imagining the son of God as wandering around like everybody else. I think the event was fixed in the recent past to him but that it wasn't facilitated by some person suffering the ailments of your basic human.

Julian

Doug Shaver

Only if we assume that it did in fact happen in his recent past. Nothing in the passage you quoted implies it.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spamandham,

Here is the surrounding text from the New Revised Version:

29] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
[1]I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;

[2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
[3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
[7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.
***
Paul is talking about the different between slaves and sons. He is explaining that the Galatians are no longer slaves but sons.

There is an odd concept introduced in the passage; namely, that a son makes sons. How exactly does a son make somebody else a son? If my son goes to you and meets you, that does not make you my son. The introduction of bizarre supernatural concepts into a simple explanatory passage suggests that the passage has been tampered with. It suggests that there has been a mistranslation or change in a word for a specific reason, but the change has accidentally introduced nonsensical elements into the passage.

In the Woody Allen movie, Take the Money and Run, Allen is trying to rob a bank and writes a note saying, "I have a gun." The bank teller misreads the note as "I have a gub" and cannot understand the meaning. The comedy comes from the fact that the bank teller insists on his reading the note as correct instead of looking at the situational context which would tell him that "gun" not "gub" was correct.

In this case it is easy to look at the context and realize what has happened. The original text read this way (The words in parentheses are the substitutions in the later text; the words in italics are the original ones.):

29] And if you are [Christ's] anointed, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
[1]I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;

[2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
[3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his [son] word, born of woman, born under the law,
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his [son]word into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
[7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.

The substitution of "son" for "word" is possibly simply a copying error. The copier lost his place and read "son" for "word" It seemed to make sense, so later copiers simply went along with it.

On the other hand, because the substitution can be found in a number of places in the letters of Paul, it is more probable that it was deliberate. the editor of the passage had in mind the concept that the "Word of God" is the "Son of God". and he substituted "Son" for "Word" because it made the sentence seem to refer to the historical personage Jesus Christ.

In either case, we find that the passage originally made no reference to an historical personage. The phrase "born of woman" simply means born of human beings as opposed to animals or supernatural creatures: the word/s of God (or thoughts of God) are expressed by human beings in human words. The phrase "under the law" means under Abraham's law or "by Hebrews".

Thus the passage, before it was changed, said that by undergoing baptism (anointing) and hearing the words of God, you are changed into sons/heirs of God. It is the baptism ceremony that changes you into an adopted/legal son of God. The bizarre, supernatural concept of a son of God changing a person into a son of God is not in the original text.

The word "son" is as likely to have been intended originally to be talking about an historical character as Woody Allen intended to tell the bank clerk that he had a "gub".

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ynquirer

Sorry, PhilosopherJay, that doesn’t add up.

God’s word might be born neither of a woman, nor under the law. In the first place, because no-one can understand such a proposition as a word being born of a woman. Secondly and more substantive, because it is nonsense for God's word to be under the law: God’s word gave the law. (Remember Exodus ch.3, where the law was dictated during a conversation between God - actually, God’s word - and Moses?) Because of this, it is more appropriate to say:
Yes, you need the word to become flesh, as it is the flesh that is under the law.

(Btw, what is Abraham's law?)

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ynquirer,

Thank you, you are quite correct; nobody can understand that the word of God can be "born of woman". I have made an error. Thank you for pointing this out.

There is a nice listing of uses of the term "born of woman" at http://danielle-movie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1071

We should add to this list the important reference by the Chorus in the Bacchae by Euripides:

"Oh my Bacchae, who has come?
From whom was this man born?
He's not born of woman's blood—
he must be some lioness' whelp
or spawned from Libyan gorgons."

We are dealing with a society who believed that men could be born from animals, and that extraterrestrial beings (angels, demons and gods) could also produce beings in the shape of men. Therefore the phrase "born of woman" every time it is used has the sense of 'a real and normal human being.'

It is quite evident, as you point out, that the writer would never have described the "word of God" as "born of woman." It is also quite evident that "born of women" would have been part of an indirect object in the sentence. By turning it into an indirect object, we make it match the indirect object "under the law," This is an added bonus that proves the correctness of the approach. Here is the corrected original text.

29] And if you are [Christ's] anointed, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
[1]I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;

[2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
[3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his [son] word to those born of woman, born under the law,
[5] to redeem those who were not under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his [son]word into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
[7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.

Also please note the absurdity that now exists with the substitution of the word "son" for "word". In lines four and six, God sends his son in four and then sends the spirit of his son in six. Why not just send the spirit of the son in the first place? The different between the "word" of God and "spirit" (or image) of God is explained in Philo's "Who is the Heir of Divine Things," which should be read in conjunction with this text:

IX. (45) But there are three kinds of life. The first life, to God; the second, with respect to the creature; the third, is on the borders of both, being compounded of the two others. Now, the life to God has not descended to us, and has not come to the necessities of the body. Again, life with respect to the creature has not wholly ascended up to heaven, nor has it sought to ascend, but it lurks in unapproachable recesses, and rejoices in a life which is no life.

XII. (57) So that the race of mankind also is twofold, the one being the race of those who live by the divine Spirit and reason; the other of those who exist according to blood and the pleasure of the flesh. This species is formed of the earth, but that other is an accurate copy of the divine image; (58) and that description of us which is but fashioned clay, and which is kneaded up with blood, has need, in no slight degree, of assistance from God;

Thanks again for pointing this out.

Note that the word "not" has to be added to line 5 to have the passage addressed to non-Hebrew Galatians make sense.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

I have a pretty long list up on my site; it even includes that reference from the Bacchae !

Ben.