“Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

[StephenGoranson]

To me, "born of a woman" reads as human.

[maryhelena]

I agree on Galatians 4.4. I think when Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman” in all probability he means Jesus existed as a human being on earth as human beings tend to.

I have a little niggle with the expression 'born of a woman' - somehow it just seems demeaning to woman. Who would go around saying that the child Johnny was born of a woman....The language, surely, suggests it's not a physical birth that is being referenced.

Many biblical texts are demeaning to women. But I think the language "born of a woman" is definitely meant to suggest a physical birth like that experienced by other human beings. It means Jesus was not just an angel appearing in human form, like Raphael in Tobit, nor created from dust like Adam in Genesis. The language "born of a woman" is also found in Job:

Reading the mind of Paul there

Whether Paul is referencing a physical flesh and blood woman or a heavenly woman giving birth is a question that can't be answered by attempts to read his mind. Yes, flesh and blood women give birth - but so do heavenly women (Rev. 12. 1-6). Seeing that Paul is also referencing the Jerusalem above as a woman and as a mother - confining Paul's use of women giving birth to a flesh and blood woman is illogical. Paul, without theology, without philosophy, is an aberration. Desperation on the part of the Jesus historicists......

Paul also writes of the incarnation in Philippians 2:

Phil. 2.5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Surely, nobody in this day age takes incarnation seriously, literally. ?
Incarnation theology was the first doctrine that made me reach for the delete button - one click and it was gone...

The Myth of God Incarnate, edited by John Hick, 1977

[StephenGoranson]

I am “born of a woman.” Not “demeaning” to me.
The author of Apocalypse of John had a very different world-view than Paul. Also, imo, later.
If one wishes to belittle putative “reading the mind of Paul” is it then also
“reading the mind” to assert that an interpretation shows ”Desperation on the part of the Jesus historicists......”?
Double standard?

[maryhelena]

I have a little niggle with the expression 'born of a woman' - somehow it just seems demeaning to woman.

I guess I am not hearing it. What is the demeaning part? It is little different than a vegetarian saying that he or she refuses to eat "anything that has a mother." Is that demeaning to mothers? It comes off to me as an idiomatic, colorful way to say "anything animal," as opposed to vegetable or mineral. Similarly, "born of a woman" in antiquity is just an idiomatic, colorful way of saying "an ordinary, mortal human being," as opposed to a god or an angel or some entity like that. Then again, I am neither a woman nor a mother (though I am a father, and would hardly be offended by a vegetarian refusing to eat "anything that has a father").

The demeaning part? Woman are more than the bare facts of their biology. They have individual identity. It is identity that gives woman, and of course humans in general, their sense of self. Deny identity and ones demeans biology, one demeans human nature. Take away a man's name - or a woman's name - replace it with a number and de-personalizing, demoralizing and belittling is present.

So, Paul, in not naming the woman who gave birth has de-personalized her. Why? Great secret? He did not know the woman's name. Her name was not important. She was just a biological fact. And this is the man who wrote the script for Christianity. A man who wrote that the name Jesus is above all names - yet denies a name to the woman who gave birth to this son of god figure. Paul the ultimate male chauvinist - or is he simply being misunderstood.....

[maryhelena]

I am “born of a woman.” Not “demeaning” to me.
The author of Apocalypse of John had a very different world-view than Paul. Also, imo, later.
If one wishes to belittle putative “reading the mind of Paul” is it then also
“reading the mind” to assert that an interpretation shows ”Desperation on the part of the Jesus historicists......”?
Double standard?

Reading the mind of Paul and reading the mind of the Jesus historicists - no double standards. I've no problem with attempting to read the mind of Paul.....all I ask is that one acknowledges that that is what one is doing - reading the mind of the author. Just as I attempt to read the mind of the Jesus historicists re their reading of the mind of Paul.....haha....going around in circles reading minds....

[Ben C. Smith]

The demeaning part? Woman are more than the bare facts of their biology. They have individual identity. It is identity that gives woman, and of course humans in general, their sense of self. Deny identity and ones demeans biology, one demeans human nature. Take away a man's name - or a woman's name - replace it with a number and de-personalizing, demoralizing and belittling is present.

I think you are just missing the point of the idiom. It is not an idiom in English (except insofar as English has picked up on it at times through the older versions of the Bible, and through Shakespeare: Macbeth, famously). But it was in Hebrew and in languages and cultures influenced by it in antiquity.

[maryhelena]

The demeaning part? Woman are more than the bare facts of their biology. They have individual identity. It is identity that gives woman, and of course humans in general, their sense of self. Deny identity and ones demeans biology, one demeans human nature. Take away a man's name - or a woman's name - replace it with a number and de-personalizing, demoralizing and belittling is present.

I think you are just missing the point of the idiom. It is not an idiom in English (except insofar as English has picked up on it at times through the older versions of the Bible, and through Shakespeare: Macbeth, famously). But it was in Hebrew and in languages and cultures influenced by it in antiquity.

Are you saying that it was general practice in OT and NT times to deny a flesh and blood woman giving birth the dignity of a name?

[Ben C. Smith]

The demeaning part? Woman are more than the bare facts of their biology. They have individual identity. It is identity that gives woman, and of course humans in general, their sense of self. Deny identity and ones demeans biology, one demeans human nature. Take away a man's name - or a woman's name - replace it with a number and de-personalizing, demoralizing and belittling is present.

I think you are just missing the point of the idiom. It is not an idiom in English (except insofar as English has picked up on it at times through the older versions of the Bible, and through Shakespeare: Macbeth, famously). But it was in Hebrew and in languages and cultures influenced by it in antiquity.

Are you saying that it was general practice in OT and NT times to deny a flesh and blood woman giving birth the dignity of a name?

No, not at all. I am saying that "born of a woman" was an idiom for them, much like "not eating anything with a mother" is an idiom for modern vegetarians. It simply meant "really human," and not divine or angelic or whatnot.

[Giuseppe]

Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

[maryhelena]

The demeaning part? Woman are more than the bare facts of their biology. They have individual identity. It is identity that gives woman, and of course humans in general, their sense of self. Deny identity and ones demeans biology, one demeans human nature. Take away a man's name - or a woman's name - replace it with a number and de-personalizing, demoralizing and belittling is present.

I think you are just missing the point of the idiom. It is not an idiom in English (except insofar as English has picked up on it at times through the older versions of the Bible, and through Shakespeare: Macbeth, famously). But it was in Hebrew and in languages and cultures influenced by it in antiquity.

Are you saying that it was general practice in OT and NT times to deny a flesh and blood woman giving birth the dignity of a name?

No, not at all. I am saying that "born of a woman" was an idiom for them, much like "not eating anything with a mother" is an idiom for modern vegetarians. It simply meant "really human," and not divine or angelic or whatnot.

And you can say that 'born of a woman' means 'really human' in spite of what Paul goes on to say regarding the Jerusalem above as a woman. A heavenly woman that Revelation goes on to say gives birth to a son.

Surely, the very least one can say is that Paul's wording is ambiguous, that alternative interpretations cannot be ruled out of hand. Particularly so when it is the notion of a historical Jesus that is being read into the text.