PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

This is directly in response to a post (4765572) by Earl Doherty in the thread Born of Woman, Born Under the Law That thread deals primarily with the possible interpolation of these two phrases (born of woman, born under the law) in the Galatians' Epistle. While this post begins there, it suggests three other important interpolations, one in Tertullian's de carne (20), one in Matthew (1.16) and one in 1 Corinthians (11.8)

I found it interesting that Tertullian did not use the phrase "born of woman" in Against Marcion when going over that particular passage (Galatians 4.4) where it occurs, but does use it in discussing the flesh of Christ. Earl suggests that he was trying to impeach Marcion from Marcion's gospel alone and that is why he did not use it. However, I know that while Tertullian shouted to high heaven about Marcion deleting passages from Luke, when it comes down to giving evidence, he is able to give precious few examples. I have encountered other interpolations in Tertullian in the past, so I thought I should re-examine ad carne just to be certain that Tertullian was actually talking about this passage in Galatians.

Now, in reading through the work, I noticed there were mulitiple times in the work when he is discussing the birth of Christ and I expected him to bring up the Galatians' passage. He doesn't. He mentions the birth of Christ some 75 times before he mentions the Galatians' passage, often in contexts where one would expect him to bring it up.

For example in chapter 18, we read:
One would expect him to have quoted Paul here or before, but for some reason he remains quite silent. Tertullian argues for nineteen long chapters about Jesus really being made out of flesh, but does not mention Paul's statement, which should be regarded as important evidence in his favor. When the text does get around to mentioning Paul's statement, it is really oddly used only as a brief example in the midst of a dispute over grammar. It is amazing that Tertullian would not use the authority of Paul in this passage to support his main thesis in this work that Jesus was made of human flesh; but instead, only use it to win a grammatical side argument.

To understand this we have to look at the full passage:


The passage begins with Tertullian explaining that the heretics say that Jesus was born 'by the virgin' not 'of the virgin', and 'in the womb' not 'of the womb', He gives their quote that the angel said to Joseph that what was being born "in her" was "of the Holy Spirit". The key thing to understand is that Tetulllian does not deny this. He does not say that the heretics have changed this passage. He merely says that from the words "in her" we can infer that the angel meant "of her". In order to prove this we expect that Tertullian will give some examples where a text says "in" and really means "of".
Tertullian does give texts as examples. He gives:
1) a quote from Matthew,
2) a quote from Paul
3) a quote from David's Psalms (21) For thou art he that didst rend me out of my mother's womb:

The third quote is what we would expect. He says, "Thou didst rend me, he says, out of the womb. What is it that is rent out, except that which inheres, which is fastened in, is entwined with that from which its removal requires it to be rent out?" In other words, in order to come out of the womb, a baby has to be in a womb. If "in a womb," a baby is "of a womb". This supports Tertullian's point that "in X" means "of X".

However when we look at the first two examples, we find something strange. They do not support his point as they are written. Example each one.

1) Also it is in my favour that the same Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary, says Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Christ is born.

This phrase already contains "of whom", it does not support Tertullian's point that "in" means "of". The only way we can imagine that Tertullian would have used it is if originally, he had written I] Also it is in my favour that the same Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary, says Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary in whom Christ is born.[/I]. Then Tertullian would be correct in using this as an example of how "in" can mean "of". It appears that someone has interpolated the phrase "in Whom" and changed it to "of Whom". We may suppose that Tertullian (circa 210) originally read this in his copy of Matthew,"Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary in whom Christ is born."

Likewise, the same problem appears in the second example, the quote as we have it now does not prove that "in" means "of".

Here is the argument:

Notice first that the question that Tertullian raises here is "Does he say "by a woman" or "in a woman"? Since he has just quoted the passage, it makes sense if the words "by a woman" or "in a woman" were in the passage that he just quoted. The question is rhetorical. It either means that neither "by a woman" or "in a woman" appears in the statement, or that one of them obviously does. Let us assume that the quote was "made in a woman" Tertullian is saying that in this case "in" meant "of". There is a slight possibility that he meant neither one. Then we have to wonder why Tertullian has abandoned his primary argument that "in" means "of'. Perhaps he has suddenly switched to a new argument that Paul uses precise language and therefore "of" means "of" and "made" means "made" not "born"; but this makes little sense. It just contradicts and confuses. It is most probable that an interpolation has ruined the original meaning of the sentence.

We may note also the usual phrase "Paul too imposes silence on these teachers of grammar": This is possibly a reference to the historical event of the Emperor Julian in 351 forbidding Christians from teaching poetry, rhetoric and philosophy. The author may have been thinking of the silence that Julian imposed on the teachers of grammar. This suggests that the interpolation comes from after 350. This is a conjecture that needs more supporting evidence.

The argument that the word "made" is more appropriate than the word "born" seems an intrusion. Yet I suspect it was in the original text of Tertullian. My guess is that he was referring to the phrase in Paul 1 corinthians 11.8, "Man was not made from woman, but woman was made from man." The original sentence that Tertullian read was possibly:

Notice how in this case, Tertullian now is really giving an example how "in" means "of", i.e., "in a woman" means "of the virgin." We may take it that this "Man was not made in a woman, but woman was made in a man" was the original line that Tertullian read in Paul's Corinthians 11:8. This is very iffy. The text "from" a woman might work also in the sentence, but I suspect that Tertullian would have only chosen the sentence if "in a woman" was there, because it is the expression "in" that is relevant to his central argument that "in" means "of".

Thus we have found a trinity of interpolations.

A writer, probably after 350, has changed two references in Tertullian to match later scriptures. In so doing he ruined the argument of Tertullian that "in" means "of", which allows us to reconstruct the original text.

He changed Matthew 1:16 from "the husband of Mary, in whom Jesus was born" to "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born,"

Also, he changed 1 Corinthians 11:8 "Man was not made in woman, but woman was made in man," to "Man was not made from woman, but woman was made from man.

We may conclude that "born of woman, born under the law" was not in Tertullian's original copy of Paul's Epistles, but was inserted post 210 C.E.. That is why he doesn't mention it in Against Marcion when going over the passage, he doesn't mention it for 19 chapters while discussing the flesh of Christ, and it only appears in an interpolated 20th chapter, which originally referred to a different passage in Paul.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I have to correct the above posting in several points.

In Chapter 23 of de carne Tertullian makes a reference to the phrase "of a woman" by Paul.

Indeed she is rather to be called not-virgin than virgin, having
become a mother by a sort of leap, before she was a bride. Why
need we discuss this any further? In stating, on these considerations,
not that the Son of God was born of a virgin, but of a
woman, the apostle acknowledges the nuptial experience of the
opened womb.

This would indicate that he knows the phrase "born of a woman" form Galatians. It also suggests why he did not bring it up in Marcion text and the prior chapters of de carne. Tertullian was embarassed by the contradiction between the phrases "born of a virgin" and "born of a woman". The phrase "born of a woman" could be used by heretics to counter the phrase "born of a virgin". Born of a woman means born not of a virgin.He did not want to give them ammunition over this. It is only at this point when he suddenly distinguishes between being in the womb and coming out of the womb that he allows himself to mention Paul's statement "of a woman"

Therefore my point that the statement "of a woman" was not known by Tertullian appears to be wrong. It appears that he did know of it, but was embarassed to use it.

In looking over chapter 20, I still think that he referred to Paul's 1 Corinthian 11:8 "Man was not made from woman, but woman was made from man,"

I had thought that I had found an interpolation in the passage, the use of "in woman" rather than "from woman". However, in looking at it more carefully, I see that Tertullian's point could be "from woman" has to interpreted as "of woman" like "by" or "in" woman has to be interpreted as "of". So "from woman" does not contradict his main grammatical argument as I thought it did.

We therefore have no evidence that 1 Corinthians 11:8 was any different for Tertullian than it is now. We may disregard that as an interpolation.

However, I still think that Galatians 4.4 has been switched for 1 Corinthians 11:8 at this point. The "made from woman" phrases supports Tertullian's grammatical point ("by" or "in" can mean "of"), while "of a woman" does not.

I also am far less secure that the text in chapter 20 indicates an interpolation in Matthew.

Also it is in my favour that the same Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary, says Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Christ is born.

The statement does nothing to advance Tertullian's argument and therefore is out of place. It is, most likely a later addition to the text by someone who was not following the argument very well. Although, one cannot completely rule out that Tertullian himself made the change. I would guess that the same interpolater who changed 1 Corinthians 11:8 into Galatians 4.4 also added this passage.

However, under this scenario, there is no evidence that Tertullian originally wrote something from Matthew in the first place.

So here is my current reconstruction of the original passage with the Matthew passage taken out and the Paul passage corrected:


20 But what sort of twistiness is yours, that you try to remove
that syllable 'of', prefixed in the function of a preposition, and to
substitute another, which in this connexion is not found in the
holy Scriptures? You allege that he was born 'by the virgin' not
'of the virgin', and 'in the womb' not 'of the womb', on the
ground that when the angel in a dream said to Joseph, For that
which is born in her is of the holy Spirit,1 he did not say 'of her'.
Yet surely, though he had said 'of her' he would have meant 'in
her': for that was in her which was of her. Equally then, when
he says 'in her', the meaning 'of her' is included, because that
which was in her was of her. 2 Paul too imposes silence on these teachers of
grammar: he says, Man was not made from a woman 3 Does he
say 'by a woman' or 'in a woman'? His language is indeed the
more accurate in that he says 'made' in preference to 'born'. For
it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born: yet
by saying 'made' he has both set his seal on The Word was made
flesh,4 and has asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Virgin.
We, moreover, shall have in this connexion the support of the
Psalms, not indeed those of that apostate and heretic and Platonic
Valentinus, but of the most holy and canonical prophet David.
He, in our Church, sings of Christ, because by him Christ sang of
himself. Take psalm twenty-one, and hear the Lord conversing
with God the Father. For thou art he that didst rend me out of my
mother's womb:1 there is one. And my hope is from my mother's
breasts. I have been cast upon thee out of the womb:2 there is another.
Thou art my God even from my mother's womb:3 there it is in other
words. Now let us fight it out in view of the meanings themselves.
Thou didst rend me, he says, out of the womb. What is it that
is rent out, except that which inheres, which is fastened in, is
entwined with that from which its removal requires it to be rent
out? If he did not adhere to the womb, how was he rent out?
If he who was rent out did adhere, how could he have adhered,
except that while coming out of the womb he was knit by means
of that umbilical cord, as it were an offshoot of his caul, to the
womb where he originated? Even when something external is
cemented to something external, it is so united in flesh and entrails
with that to which it is cemented, that when it is rent away it
forcibly takes with it [something] out of the body from which it is
rent away, [as it were] a sort of corollary of broken unity and an
aftermath of mutual coition. Moreover, since he also mentions
his mother's breasts--undoubtedly implying that he sucked them
--let midwives, physicians, and biologists bear witness concerning
the nature of breasts, whether they are wont to flow except at the
genital experience of the womb, from which the veins pay over
into the teat that cess of the lower blood, and in the course of that
transfer distill it into the more congenial material of milk. That is
why, during lactation, the monthly periods cease. But if the
Word was made flesh out of himself, and not out of what the
womb contributed, how did a womb which had wrought nothing,
performed nothing, experienced nothing, decant its fountain
into those breasts in which it causes change only by the process
of giving birth? It cannot have possessed blood for the supply
of milk without also having reasons for the blood itself, namely
the tearing away of flesh which was its own. What novelty there
was in Christ, the novelty of his being born of a virgin, is plain:
namely, this and nothing else, that he was born of a virgin
according to the manner I have expounded, to the further intent
that our regeneration should be virginal in a spiritual sense,
sanctified from all defilements through Christ, himself virgin even
in the flesh, because it was of a virgin's flesh that he was born.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay