Ben C Smith

Not at all.

Here are some IIDB thread searches by keyword in the BC&H forum from the last six months:

Price, 98 threads.
Doherty, 73 threads.
Crossan, 55 threads.
Wells, 30 threads.
Meier, 30 threads.
Freke, 29 threads.
Mack, 26 threads.
Sanders, 26 threads.
Wright, 25 threads.
Gandy, 25 threads.
Detering, 18 threads.
Ellegard, 16 threads.
Vermes, 13 threads.
Theissen, 10 threads.
Borg, 7 threads.
Achyra, 1 thread.
Jeremias, 1 thread.

Perhaps Robert Price is king, and Doherty is crown prince. But I think I got a few nonhits on Price (since that name is also a word in its own right, and people occasionally discuss the prices of books on this forum).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That is clearer. It appears verse 18 was a typo for verse 17 at one point in that post.

Now all you have to do is make an argument for your position, and that seems strange to me or that looks suspicious is an expression of personal incredulity, not an argument.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Okay, to begin.

This is an argument based on the linguistic evidence. It does not answer to presuppositions of what any given author could or could not have written. It is designed only to determine what the phrase born of a woman means when applied to someone. If it turns out that a given author could not have written the phrase in question, then that phrase is spurious. Or, if it turns out that the author has supplied a mitigating context in which the phrase should be understood (for example, if he is using it ironically or sarcastically), then we should interpret accordingly. But any argument to be made along those lines has to be independent of the linguistic data, which must always come first. (We must speak the language before we can understand what someone is saying.)

What does the phrase born of a woman normally mean?

My survey begins with Job, in which thrice one born of woman is placed in poetic parallel with mortal. In the Bacchae the phrase born of the blood of women is placed in opposition with the notion that the subject was born of a lioness or born of a mythical gorgon. In Sirach the brood of women are synonymous with men, or humans. In the Dead Sea scrolls one born of woman stands in contrast with God. In the gospels those born of women form a class of whom John the baptist is the greatest. In the gospel of Thomas one not born of a woman is the father. Finally, Irenaeus and Tertullian use our phrase in Galatians 4.4, made from a woman, as a prooftext against those who thought that Jesus took nothing from his mother.

The most simple, coherent meaning of that phrase that explains all of these instances is that it means what it says; it points to someone who was literally born from a literal woman (and therefore human, mortal, not from a lioness or mythical creature, not God, not the father, someone like John the baptist).

It will be objected, perhaps, that Paul uses the word γινομαι instead of γενναω. The linguistic data indicate that this difference is irrelevant to the basic meaning. The phrase γεγονεναι εκ τινος normally means, according to Liddell and Scott, having been born from someone; Paul simply has woman instead of the lexical someone. Both γινομαι and γενναω are regularly employed to translate the Hebrew ילד. The difference between the two phrases in Greek is about as great as the difference in English between born of a woman and birthed of a woman. Any attempt to drive a wedge between the two must be based on alternate linguistic data. The words γινομαι and γενναω are just too synonymous and interrelated in Greek to merit an assumption that they mean two very different things. Furthermore, there is no magic phrasing; our authors use the verb, the corresponding adjective, and the corresponding noun as they see fit. Finally, the later fathers still saw in the Pauline phrase a prooftext for an ordinary birthing process; they knew what it meant, and so did Marcion, who omitted the phrase. (This post is not meant to combat the notion that Marcion equals the original Paul; that is another issue to be argued on different terms.)

Now, you gave me three limiting conditions:

Let me address these more directly here in light of the linguistic data.

1. I have scads of data indicating that born of a woman means a human being who underwent a physical birth from a physical woman. If you think that middle Platonism would cast that phrase in a different light, it is up to you to produce evidence to that effect; find that phrase used by a middle Platonist to refer to someone who did not undergo a physical birth and so forth. If you cannot, or if middle Platonism did not customarily use that phrase at all, then it stands to reason that Paul was not thinking of middle Platonism when he wrote that phrase. There is no remedy for you if you decide to argue for a solecism here.

2. First, it is up for debate whether Paul regarded Jesus as a god. There are those who think that Paul was some sort of adoptionist; in fact, I may be one of them (though I am really undecided as yet). Second, calling someone lord, son of God, and sent does not mean that someone was not a human being. Augustus was called all those things.

3. As I mentioned before, I do not understand this one. The Marcionites apparently did not like the implications of born of a woman; their version of Paul lacked the phrase. The Ebionites, I am sure, were quite happy with it, and the adoptionists probably did not mind it at all. Gnostics probably disagreed with it. And we know what the proto-orthodox thought of it. So what exactly is the issue here in this third point?

What you need is evidence that this phrase sometimes meant something other than a human mortal who was really born of a woman, something other than what that kind of phrase appears to mean every other time it is used.

Ben.

dog-on

And the fact that the writings and possible redactions/interpolations are prior to Constantine is also irrelevant. You seem to be assuming that the orthodox/catholics were the all powerful church prior to the decree by Constantine. I think the history actually shows several sects/cults, vying for power and converts, prior to the Emperor's decree.

Does the Orthodoxy predate the Gnostics or Marcionites only because the Catholics claim it did?

Correct me if I am wrong, but these are some of what seem to be required by HJ:

1. Pre-supposition of the existance of a Jesus
2. Pre-supposition of the existance of a Paul
3. Pre-supposition of the existance of Peter and James
4. Pre-supposition of Orthodox Priority

dog-on

Ben, take a look at Gal 2:2

To whom, in particular, is the underlined pronoun, (AUTOIS), referring?

Clivedurdle

Even this may be post Constantine, only really getting formalised with Ambrose in the 380's!

Clivedurdle

But that is irrelevant if it is a theological term!

381 version - I have ommitted all the begotten stuff!

Ben C Smith

To the churches in Judea in 1.22-24. Paul submitted his gospel to the Judean churches by first submitting it privately to their leaders. Why do you ask? Do you have something staked on that pronoun?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Demonstrate that it is a theological term. I want to see the primary texts.

?

Ben.

dog-on

1:22 And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea.
1:23 They only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Paul showed his Gospel to all the churches in Judea and then is worried about how his Gospel will be received 14 years after has had already shared it with them?????????

2:2 I went up according to a revelation. And I laid before
them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles (and privately before those of repute), lest somehow I should be running in vain, or had run.

Were these people of "repute" the same James and Peter he supposedly already meet with 14 years earlier? Paul didn't discuss his Gospel with Peter in his first supposed meeting?

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the brother of the Lord.
1:20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

Without the interpolation of 1:18-24, them would refer to 1:17, which seems to a more logical reference.

1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

This is basically what is argued by Deterring regarding the priority of Marcion for this passage.

One other thing, notice 1:20. The only other places where this appears in Paul happen to be in two other likely interpolation candidates (Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 11:31)...