Rules of Historical Reasoning

[John2]

hakeem wrote:

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ 18
Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas, Matthew 12:41-42 — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him. In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

1. It was not fit that Jesus should be born of a human father's seed.

2. The seed of man was unnecessary for his birth.

3.Jesus was able to have a woman for his mother without a human father.

4. Jesus had flesh without seed from man.

5. Jesus was the seed of God.

On The Flesh of Christ, like other Christian writings, confirm there was never any documented history that Jesus had a human father.

It is for that very reason that Marcion could preach without fear of contradiction that the Son of God was without birth and only appeared to have flesh.

There was never any documented history at any time of a known human father of Jesus.

Jesus was always a product of belief--never a product of history.

Justin's First Apology XLVI --We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word....

But this dismisses the view of Ebion (and Jewish Christians), i.e., that Jesus was "nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him."

As Eusebius says in EH 3.27.2, "For they [Ebionites] considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary."

[John2]

And Irenaeus says in AH 3.21.1:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.

And in AH 5.1.3:

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise.

[John2]

And Origen says in Against Celsus 5.61:

Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law—and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings.

And Epiphanius says regarding Ebionites in Pan. 30.3.1:

...Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph.

And in Pan. 30.14.2 he says there were Gentile spin off groups that likewise believed Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary:

For by supposedly using their [the Ebionites] same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary.

[Ben C. Smith]

The overlapping semantic range is the point at the heart of the debate, is it not? Both Ehrman (Orthodox Corruption) and Doherty (JNGNM) address the overlapping ranges and the question this raises about why they preferred to use a term that lent itself to ambiguity while avoiding the more common and unambiguous expression for "born".

This is my point. The assumption (namely, that one verb is more ambiguous than the other in this kind of context or in this idiom) is incorrect. Sure, for example, γεννάω is frequently used to translate the Hebrew ילד (yalad) in the LXX, but does this mean that when γίγνομαι is used in, say, Job 15.7 it somehow implies that Job is either more or less than human? Does it mean that the LXX compilers thought there was something fishy about his sons' and daughters' humanity in Job 1.2? What about "the sons of the third generation" in Deuteronomy 23.8? What about the cases in Genesis 4.18, 26; 6.1; 10.1, 21, 25; 17.17; 21.3, 5; 35.26; 36.5; 46.20, 27; 48.5; Leviticus 25.45; 2 Samuel 5.13; and Psalm 86.4, 5, 6?

In such contexts there is literally zero difference between γεννάω and γίγνομαι. They are interchangeable. The context of the verb in Galatians 4.4 is an idiomatic expression which always means "mortal" or human. (In some instances, as in the case of Dionysus, it has a "not" in front of it, so it means "not mortal" or not human.) I think Wells is spot on here.

Now, this does not prevent theologians (such as those involved in the Christology wars of the second century) from using any little thing they can get their hands on to make distinctions where originally they did not exist. Ehrman is not at all wrong to suspect that the reading natum postdates the reading factum in the Latin textual tradition. If one is making such fine distinctions already, then of course the wider semantic range of factus can be a factor. But this does not change what the idiom "born/made/produced of a woman/mother" normally means.

Incidentally, while the Latin obviously involves an active scribal process (factum versus natum), the Greek does not have to be. (The Latin semantic ranges between those two words differ from the Greek ranges.) Those (very few) manuscripts in the Greek tradition which bear γεννάω instead of γίγνομαι at Galatians 4.4 may simply be scribal slips (γενόμενον versus γεννώμενον). The words are similar enough to each other that this happened a lot; I know it happened in the LXX, for example, with some manuscripts translating yalad with γίγνομαι in a given verse and others as γεννάω in the same verse, where no great theological concept is at stake.

[hakeem]

But this dismisses the view of Ebion (and Jewish Christians), i.e., that Jesus was "nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him."

As Eusebius says in EH 3.27.2, "For they [Ebionites] considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary."

In which year did people called Ebionites believe Jesus was a plain and common man?

Which historical writings corroborate anything about Ebionites with respect to Jesus?

The belief that Jesus was a common man by those who never saw him is not evidence that Jesus was a figure of history.

The writings attributed to the same Eusebius admit Jesus was God of God--the Only begotten Son of the father.

"The Letter of Eusebius------3. "We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made"

The Letter of Eusebius-----And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Eusebius had no documented historical evidence that Jesus had a human father called Joseph.

Eusebius' Jesus always existed [always the Only begotten of God].

Eusebius' Jesus was always a figure of belief--never a figure of history.

[hakeem]

And Irenaeus says in AH 3.21.1:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.

And in AH 5.1.3:

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise.

Irenaeus' Jesus appears to be some other non-historical character who was born of a virgin and crucified when he was an old man at about 50 years of age. See AH 2.22

In Against Heresies the Ebionites are regarded as Heretics.

The supposed Irenaeus implies the Ebionites were liars, evil interpreters who falsified the word of God .

Irenaeus says.

The Preface of AH 1---- Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.

Irenaeus' Jesus was a product of interpretation of the oracles of God ---never of history.

"Against Heresies" is evidence that there was never any documented history of Jesus since there were multiple versions of belief about Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

Essentially, the Jesus character is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

[iskander]

Job 14:1-4
A man born of a woman has a short life span, and is sated with anxiety
2 He emerges like a blossom, and is then cut down; ...


note 14 :1-4 Resuming an earlier theme, Job in essence asks, " Why do you judge so severely the sins of such a lowly creature as man?" ( Rashi)
The Artscroll English Tanach. Stone Edition


Born of a woman ( yelud ishah) : it signifies the mortality of human beings .Gal 4:4 is an authentic verse .



Job 14




14‘A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble,
2 comes up like a flower and withers,
flees like a shadow and does not last.
3 Do you fix your eyes on such a one?
Do you bring me into judgement with you?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
No one can.

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+14

Romans : born of a woman and a man, according to the flesh ( natural descent)
Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer ,
maestro and Santa.
From these people by sexual intercourse [ kata sarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.

YELUD ISHAH
YELUD ISHA DANCE

Sh'ma Elohai
ki davar li eleicha
uveterem yom dini eshalecha
Ei ha'olam umlo'o hu mif'aleicha
ve'eich tasim bemishpat be'ureicha

Umah kochi mah hu
ki tenaseni
yetzir kapeicha mereshit hineni
yelud ishah


BORN OF A WOMAN
HUMAN

Hear (me) my God
for I have a thing to you
and before the day of my judgment I shall ask you
are the world and what fills it your works
and how will you place in judgment your lights

And what is my strength and what is it
that you try me
behold I am made of your hands from the start
born of a woman


http://www.hebrewsongs.com/?song=yeludishah

cherche la femme.PNG (49.86 KiB) Viewed 11576 times

[iskander]

But this dismisses the view of Ebion (and Jewish Christians), i.e., that Jesus was "nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him."

As Eusebius says in EH 3.27.2, "For they [Ebionites] considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary."

John
That Jesus was a mere man seems to have been the obvious reality to followers of the messiah Jesus.
Later when the alien concept of " salvation " was introduced into the teaching of Jesus , by the lovers of pomp and circumstance , this early understanding of Jesus was erased from memory and forgotten. The new Roman temple needed power and money ...


In the book, The search for the Christian doctrine of God, by R.P,C, Hanson we can find traces of the thinking of the contemporaries of Jesus in the discussions leading to the council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD.

mere man.PNG (68.35 KiB) Viewed 11567 times

[neilgodfrey]

In such contexts there is literally zero difference between γεννάω and γίγνομαι. They are interchangeable.

I thought that this is what 'overlapping' means. That in certain contexts the words can have exactly the same meaning.

[hakeem]

Again the historian who wishes to explore persons in Galilee in the 20s is greatly disadvantaged since not only do we have no primary sources at all, but even the secondary sources all derive from a common ideological bucket. The first gospel written was in dialogue, it seems, with Paul, and the other three gospels were in dialogue with that first gospel. We do not have a "wide range of evidence". It is all very incestuous.

Without any primary or credible historical sources it cannot be shown at all that the first gospel was in dialogue with Paul.

The story that Jesus resurrected must have been invented and the very so-called Pauline letters admit the resurrection story was known before him.

The so-called Pauline writers must have known stories of Jesus since they mentioned characters and events found only in the Gospels.

No Canonised Gospel writer mentioned Paul.

No Canonised Gospel writer used a sentence from the so-called Pauline Epistles to embellish their Gospel.

The author of Acts implied he was a close companion of Saul/Paul yet mentioned nothing of a single Pauline Epistle.

No Christian writer of antiquity has placed the so-called Pauline writings before the Gospels.

None of the hundreds of Codices placed the so-called Pauline Epistles before the Gospels.

Non-Christian writings show no knowledge of Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles up to the last quarter of the 2nd century.

Christian writings show no influence by the so-called Pauline Epistles up to the 3rd century.

Manuscripts of the so-called Pauline letters have been dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

The existing evidence support the argument that the so-called Pauline letters are extremely late writings which were preceded by stories of Jesus called Gospels or Memoirs.