LegionOnomaMoi

Desire of whom? This is the third edition of the BDAG, which itself is a revision of an earlier work by Danker, based on Bauer's original. It incorporates the work on lexical meaning and lexicography (which has grown both in breadth and technique over the past several centuries) by classicists, linguists, NT scholars, etc. There's no "one person" or even "one group" behind the line "a birth beyond term" in the BDAG. The same is true for the LSJ, which is designed mainly for classicists or scholars of ancient Greek (rather than NT specialists) and includes (even in the latest edition) "untimely birth" followed by a reference to (among others) Paul 1 Cor. 15:8.

I've read some literature on lexicography in general (and classical lexigraphy in particular) as well as the work behind particular lexical entries, including (thanks to this discussion) this one. The term probably just means "abnormal" or is otherwise pointing to Paul's defects as a disciple, but there is a good possibility that it means "born to late." What you refer to as "jerry-rigging" is again a standard practice in commentaries and lexicography. We have only a handful of uses of many terms, and for others we have a massive amount, and a handful that are used in a peculiar way here or there. A central idea behind the term is "violation of a normal period of gestation" and thus it is as easy to imagine someone metaphorically mapping "wrong/bad timing" or "violation of a normal time period" onto "born to late." It's no more of a stretch than metaphorically mapping "imperfectly "born" dead fetus" to mean "a person who was born, but is flawed in some fundamental way."

Whenever a word is used, particularly in an ancient languages (which makes it impossible to consult native speakers and also usually means a deficit in attestations), in a way which violates "normal" use (here, something about a dead fetus/child) any translator, commentator, or lexicographer has to decide whether there is another usage which fits well, or if, given context, this is word is being used in a new sense. I gave you the real-life example of beer being used to refer to increments of time ("she left two beers ago") and this is all to common in speech.

There is another metaphorical usage which probably fits better here, but if Paul is using this sense ("I am one who is unworthy or flawed as a disciple") then it is outside the temporality inherent in the sentence structure: W happened to A, then X B, then Y to C, and last, Z (insert self-denigrating aside) to D. The whole structure involves a sequence of events and ends with this happening to Paul, who describes it happening to him being ektroma (it's actually in the dative but that's unimportant here). It fits the overall structure better if his description here also refers to temporality, and the original meaning does. So "born to late" is a possibility because of context, which better fits the overall narrative than the more likely alternative. The alternative is more likely in my view because we have an attested metaphorical reading which can fit here, even if it is more awkward.

There is, however, a reason why both the BDAG and the LSJ list "untimely" and the BDAG in particular states "or birth beyond term" as one of the "senses" and it has nothing to do with christian apologetics.

This makes even less sense. Apart from Price (and I'll have to wait for Carrier's book) I don't know of any ancient historian, NT scholar, scholar of Judaism, or near-eastern specialist who thinks it is likely or probable that Jesus didn't exist. It's something I only come across in works like The Jesus Puzzle or The Jesus Mysteries which twist facts, distort secondary scholarship and primary sources, and rely on an audience largely incapable of determining the validity of the claims presented. For example, Paul's "conspiracy of silence" as presented in The Jesus Puzzle only makes sense if you ignore the fact that Paul mentions Jesus brother, identified as such in Mark, and Josephus, that he was writing letters to specific "christian" communities and had little need to mention facts about Jesus' life, and that he had little need nor cared much for the historical Jesus. Akenson, the historian with no ties to NT scholarship, wrote an entire book Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key for Unlocking the Historical Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2000) and his usefulness for understanding the historical Jesus. He criticizes what may be the majority view of NT scholars (and the general methods they use when it comes to history), namely that Paul didn't know anything about the historical Jesus, in favor of the view that (widely shared even by those who think Paul knew nothing of the historical Jesus) Paul wasn't concerned with the historical Jesus who was nothing compared to the risen Christ.

I also loved the part where Doherty talks about places where it is commonly believed that Paul did refer to Jesus' teaching, and explains these as revelations by conveniently ignoring the phrasing Paul uses. For example, Paul addresses issues concerning marriage and divorce in 1 Cor. 7. In 1 Cor. 7:10 Paul states tois de gegamekosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios, gunaika apo andros me choristhenai which he then later constrasts with tois de loipois lego ego ouk ho kurios, ei tis adelphos gunaika echei apiston kai hauti suneudokei oikein met' autou, me aphieto. The first line reads "to those who are married I command, actually not me but the Lord, no wife is to leave her husband" while the second line (1. Cor 7:12) reads "to the rest I say (and me, not the Lord), if a brother has a wife who doesn't believe and yet she wants to live with him, he is not to divorce her." In the first instance, Paul uses the verb "command" (paragello) in the first person but does not use a first person pronoun (which isn't needed in Greek, any more than it is in Latin or Italian, but it is exists and is used for emphasis). After saying "I-command" he breaks from his statement, and makes sure to point out that this isn't a command he came up with. Now he deliberately uses the first person pronoun and not just the negation particle ouk but ouk...alla to emphasive strongly that this command comes from Jesus (we find this command in Mark and Q). Just two lines down, however, Paul starts addressing the issue of a woman who isn't a follower of Christ but wishes to remain with her husband who is anyway. Here, however, he has no words from Jesus because as far as he knows none exist (and we have no evidence anywhere else they do). So he changes his wording. This time, instead of saying paragello (I-command) he says lego (I-say). Also, he again breaks off in the midst of his statement to make it clear this is coming from him, not Jesus. He again uses the first person pronoun ego, and the negation particle ouk to say "I, not the Lord," before continuing.

Doherty skips over the contrast between these two ways of passing on commands/advice, and some how concludes that in 1 Cor. 7:25 "The first-person phrasing indicates a general category of things Paul is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as a part of a wider community of knowledge or inheritance from tradition." The first problem is that Paul uses "first-person phrasing" when he is supposedly passing on a teaching of Jesus. The second is that Doherty's strategy concerning the "conspiracy of silence" when it comes to Paul is to assume his position is correct (Paul didn't know anything about an earthly Jesus nor did he even think one existed, at least not recently), and then explain away counter-evidence by using his assumption. His discussion of James (including when it comes to Josephus) in particular consists of assumptions based on assumptions. He should have just followed Price's method in his main essay included in The Historical Jesus: Five Views to simply "leap-frog" over the whole issue.

Perhaps it's different on an internet forum, but christian apologetic scholars don't have to rely on Paul's use of "untimely" when it comes to asserting that Jesus was a historical person. Even those like Bultmann, who assumed that the oral tradition concerning Jesus was freely added to and that the early "christians" had no interest in the historical person of Jesus, and thus we can know virtually nothing about him, still thought there were things we could say about him as a historical person with as much certainty as is possible when it comes to ancient history. What "apologists" (at least academic ones) are arguing are things like "eyewitnesses are behind the gospel accounts" (e.g., Bauckham's book), because they don't need to argue against a view virtually no specialist holds (whether NT scholar or ancient historian, christian or jewish): it's probable/likely jesus didn't exist.



What "emotional connotations"? From which ancient source?




Are you sure that's his source? That's simply all I could find when it comes to Greek. For all I know he never came across the term in greek but was using the concept itself from his understanding of gnostiicism in general.



I don't know what you mean by "valid history." Ancient historians, even the better ones, tendend to "historicize" myths, report rumors or legends, and the worse ones even reported magic and miracles as real. I don't ignore Caesar as a historical source simply because he was clearly biased in his purposes or because he mentions unicorns. Philostratus wrote a "biography" of Apollonius of Tyana, which includes his miracles and which was written over a century after Apollonius was dead. Acts is clearly biased, and clearly reports things which did not happen. But to conclude that it is therefore worthless as a historical document is something else. I think that it the author does report things that happened, but sorting out what is historical is something else altogether.

Toto

Desire of a few scholars to argue that Paul here refers to the historical Jesus. The BDAG lists their interpretation because they are part of the academy.

<snip the same old arguments that do not engage with my points.>

Which is?

True BUT - quite a few will admit that Paul says almost nothing about a historical Jesus in his letters.

This is libelous. Earl Doherty is a registered user here. Watch your rhetoric.
If you had actually read the Jesus Puzzle, you would know that Doherty does not ignore these issues, and has a well thought out response to them.

I read that book. You will find some discussion in the archives (e.g. here. It made some good points but was monumentally unpersuasive on that question, although I don't remember the details.

<snip criticism of Doherty>

If you want to pursue this issue, please start a new thread. This one has gone off in too many directions. Doherty might want to discuss the issue with you.



See above. The references to the historical Jesus in Paul's letters are so problematic that some scholars do grasp as straws like this.

You don't see the emotional connotations of calling someone a bloody mess, or born dead? I can't help you.

I don't know his exact source. Does it matter? He's not discussing the niceties of the Greek word. He knows it means abortion or miscarriage, and he relates it to a use of the same word or concept among the gnostics.

Akensen made the point IIRC that Acts and the epistles differ on some key issues; and this should be enough to impeach the general validity of Acts.

If you can't sort out what is historical in Acts, you are unable to date Paul's letters.

aa5874

It is NOT at all logical that differences between Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings will impeach ONLY the validity of Acts of the Apostles.

It is most logically basic that once there are key differences in two sources then ONE or BOTH may lack validity.

It cannot be PRESUMED that the Pauline Epistles are Valid when the author is contradicted by a Canonised Apologetic source.

Both Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are QUESTIONABLE once there are fundamental contradictions.

It is just mind boggling how such basic logics escape even so-called Scholars.

LegionOnomaMoi

You ask this after "snipping" the reasons.



Yes. But if one wants to point to Paul as evidence for the mere existence of the historical Jesus, Paul's mention of James is all one needs.



It's not rhetoric and it's only "libel" if it isn't true. Earl Doherty's book is far better than The Jesus Mysteries which presents itself as an unbiased work of research, but the only way one could have come up with the bibliography they use is through extremely selective searching. And yes, they misrepresent both primary and secondary sources. As for Doherty, well I suppose I'll take your advice and start a new thread. Addressing the problems in the book would certainly be largely off topic.

I own the book.


This wasn't just criticism of Doherty you simply "snipped." This thread is about the "historization" of the Jesus story and involves claims about what Paul said and did. The fact that he is reporting a teaching of Jesus found in Mark and Q is entirely relevant here.



If you think that's "grasping at straws" you would be suprised at the kind of "straws" other historians use when it comes to ancient history.

Your emtional connotations depend on your interpretation of Paul's metaphorical use. The "abortion" metaphor in gnostic texts (or in Ireneaus) usually does not have this "emotional connotation. It more often simply refers to a fundamental imperfection, as in one that resulted from an imperfect or "flawed" birth. And given that Paul is using it to describe himself (and if this reading is the correct one, then he's using it as a casual aside), then your "emotional connotations" certainly don't fit. The reading isn't "to one born dead/as a bloody mess" but "one who is flawed/imperfect/unworthy in some fundamental or basic way." And the literal term can be as unemotional as similar terms can today. Again, this is a culture where a father would leave his children after birth out to die. That ektroma requires some "emotional connonation" isn't reflected in its usage. We see such connotations in the a letter in the papyri to the verbal form of the word, but that's not only in reference to an actual dead child, but one miscarriede due to the violent actions of another and is personal to the author.




It absolutely matters. Because one can't simply take a word in greek, pick a sense in which it is used, and then apply this to any language which might use a word with this sense.


The first part is true, but let's see what he actually says (italics in original, bolded emphasis added):
"The strongest arguments for always taking the words of Saul's letters over those of Acts are made by John Knox, in his classic (1950) book and, most forcefully, recently by Gerd Luedemann (1984). This seems to me convincing, but we should understand why we adopt this method. Emphatically, it is not because Saul was incapable of either consciously lying or of unconsciously misrepresenting what had occurred. He was, after all, very human indeed. Nor is it because the author-editor of Acts, having a strong set of ideological motives, invariably mesrepresented the facts:some portions of Acts concerning Saul certainly are accurate. Some of the factual statements in Acts fit with Saul's letters closely. And, if the author-editor of Acts got these matters right, even though he did not have access to Saul's letters, then whatever sources he used were not entirely without merit, nor was his ideological bent so strong that he destrotyed all facticity.


"General validity" is again a problematic concept. Take Caesar: a lot of what he says is much more trustworthy than anything in Acts, yet his "general validity" is impeached simply because he is obviously and thoroughly biased. These have to be sorted out. Acts is also problematic. Which is why Akenson uses Acts but prefers (as every historian does) to point to both Acts and the Epistles.

The fact that there are definitely plenty of unhistorical or ahistorical portions of Acts does not mean that it is impossible to sort out historical parts. The same is true of ALL ancient historiography to some degree or another. Acts isn't even the worst. Diogenes Laertius wrote "biographies," some of which included the miraculous and/or reported on individuals who lived centuries earlier based on reports from who knows when.

mountainman

There is a huge difference. The Englishmen who translated the text did not see themselves as heretics, however on all counts the Valentinians did. We might therefore suspect that the former might downplay any "emotional connotations" while the former might highlight them. Is Paul described as an abortion anywhere else? The Nag Hammadi authors did not appear to place the "Great Apostle" in any glowing colors.

tanya

a. If Koine Greek distinguishes the two, can you provide the two words?

b. "the word itself", to which of the two meanings in English, are you referring?

c. it is not obvious that "Paul" was a real person, or that he was a single author. Certainly WHEN he lived, if he had been a genuine human, is not at all obvious. (I like MaryHelena's comment, was it in post 147? very good!)

d. "the only question is how." nonsense. He was born, if at all, the conventional, vaginal route, else, by means of Caesarean section, but, the latter ought not have been confounded, one would imagine, with "abortion", even two thousand years ago....

In neither case, however, would the concept of "too late" (not "to late", as you are fond of writing!!) appear consistent with a very well educated Koine Greek author. You yourself pointed out that Koine Greek distinguishes miscarriage from abortion. That means you appreciate the fact that abortion always implies "too early", not "too late".

Doug Shaver

So do I.

And I've read my copy.

aa5874

Your statement makes absolute ZERO sense. You DON'T understand 1 Cor 15.

1 Cor.15.8 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with an abortion, a mis-carriage or the way the PAULINE writer was actually born.

We are dealing with a FIGURE of SPEECH called 'SIMILE'

I don't know what language you understand but it may not be English.

ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of 1 COR.15 MENTION ZERO about an abortion or mis-carriage.

You DON'T seem to understand SIMILES.

You have NOW confirmed that you really don't understand English and SIMILES.

LegionOnomaMoi

The entire point is that that the speakers, not the language, distinguish between the two senses. I would have thought that was obvious. Words in any language are polysemous. English (as I said) absorbs and creates new words more than perhaps any other language. Greek much less so. Surely you wouldn't argue that logos means quite different things in John 1:1, Acts 18:14, and Acts 20:24? Yet the same word is used.



True, if one adopts an approach to historiography in which all texts are fictional constructions, from Thucydides to Mead to modern historical accounts (i.e., historiography as a method of explaining what happened is impossible). However, if one believes that it is possible to determine given certain evidence what most likely happened in the past, then to reject the idea that Paul was a "real" person is bizarre.

The problem with this interpretation is that is seperates "late birth" and "abortion." We're talking about one word, however, with an implied participial form of eimi to mean "to me being X." The question is "what is the best English word or phrase, given the range of senses of ektroma used in greek texts, best captures the sense of "X" in this construction? MaryHelena's comment first assumes that "X" (the construction which uses ekrtoma) means "late birth" and then further adds the idea that there is something about a wish concerning this late birth. How? And where?


I said "clearly he was using the term metaphorically." He was actually born, in that he was there and alive to write that letter. Clearly, then, the typical sense of the word, which in some way refers to a baby/fetus who dies through miscarriage, stillbirth, induced abortion, etc., does not apply. So we turn to metaphorical uses.

maryhelena

Really? And you have historical evidence to support a historical NT Paul? All you have is an interpretation of the NT storyline. You have no historical evidence that the NT figure of Paul was a historical figure. You can believe all you want re possibilities - but without evidence your possibilities are blowing in the wind...

I noticed you quoted from my post #147 and not from my later post #176. Either way it's no big deal. This whole debate over one little Greek word is what is bizarre. When a word can be translated in a number of ways - take your pick and move on. Whatever choice of translation one decides on - has little to do with the bigger issue of the context in which 'Paul' has used it. Whatever that Greek word is endeavoring to add to the context is just that - an additional point not the main focus of the context. So, if someone likes a cherry on their ice-cream and someone else likes chocolate sprinklers - great, fine, enjoy! 'Paul' is giving one room for those extras - while his main point can stand alone.

'Paul' says Christ appeared to others before appearing to him. That's the story. And it's a story that has nothing to do with whether or not the gospel JC is a historical figure. Indeed, it might cause some mythicists to take stock - but the ahistoricist/mythicist position is as wide a 'church' as is the historicists position and cannot be refuted by so feeble an attempt at negation.