Richard Carrier commented that in Plutarch's Isis and Osiris (written around 90-100), "it is there, in the "outermost areas" (the "outermost part of matter"), that evil has particular dominion, and where Osiris is continually dismembered and reassembled (375a-b)."
Let's check about these outermost areas and where Osiris was dismembered:
- "[s.38] The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. ... Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions ..."
....
It looks to me the outermost areas are regions around Egypt, called Nephthys, and the remains of Osiris are dispersed in Egypt.

Muller needs to actually read the whole book. Plutarch, first, gives several different schemes (historical, metaphysical, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes them as different, not the same thing—he even says the metaphysical is the correct one. Second, Plutarch clearly discusses the use of terms like Nephthys as allegorical. If Muller had actually read the text, he would know that Nephthys is not foremost a place—she is a goddess. She represents Finality and Victory (355f). Thus she can be attached allegorically to all sorts of things. The attachment of her name to the Outlands is one allegory—hence also the earth is called Isis and the air Horus and aspects of the Nile Osiris...Thus, Plutarch is not talking here about the heavenly Osiris, where he says he and Isis are intermediary gods between heaven and earth. Again, Plutarch relates several *different* interpretations of the myth. Muller seems to think they are all the same one. Only someone who did not read the whole book would make that mistake....

a) Plutarch never used the expression "sublunar heaven", nor did he mention any world/heaven below the moon and above the earth:
"[s.63] that part of the world which undergoes reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb of the moon, and all things in it are subjected to motion and to change through the four elements: fire, earth, water, and air."
This part of the world is just like earth and the air above it!
....
The ancients (as Aristotle and Ptolemy) thought the moon was the most outward (in the earth direction) celestial body. The sun was understood in an orbit beyond the one of the moon, among the planets moving between the moon and the firmament. And the "fixed" stars were on the firmament in front (or part) of "the prime mover sphere". In any case, the firmament was considered behind the moon and therefore not sublunar.

Muller is really confused here. The sublunar heaven is the firmament, which is indeed a part of everything below the moon...At any rate, his criticism is completely irrelevant to my actual point: that Osiris dies and rises in the aer. That it happens "often" means it cannot be a historical person Plutarch is talking about....

d) For Plutarch, the final resting place of Osiris is below the polluted earth, and not into the heavens:
"[s.78] ... this god Osiris is the ruler and king of the dead, nor is he any other than the god that among the Greeks is called Hades and Pluto. But since it is not understood in with manner this is true, it greatly disturbs the majority of people who suspect that the holy and sacred Osiris truly dwells in the earth and beneath the earth, where are hidden away the bodies of those that are believed to have reached their end. But he himself is far removed from the earth [downward!], uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death ..."

Oh dear no! Plutarch is chastising the "majority of people" for believing the wrong thing! Go back and read the context. Thus, he is not saying that Osiris is really far below—but far above! He is saying that the people are *wrongly* disturbed by the idea he is below. Indeed, he could not say in one place that everything below the moon is subject to decay, and then say that below the earth everything is "uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death"! That would be a direct self-contradiction. *Only* the heavens ever qualify for the latter description (without exception in ancient literature). Further, the verb "far removed" means set apart from—so it cannot mean *in* the earth (and Plutarch certainly believed earth was a sphere, so anything below earth is literally *inside* earth).

The following discussion of bodies and souls also exactly matches that of the Axiochus and of Philo, and thus clearly repeats the Middle-Platonic view of two levels of the cosmos (which I will note again: ALL SCHOLARS OF ANCIENT COSMOLOGY AGREE IS A FACT)....

e) Plutarch is however very much confusing when handling different concepts & traditions, some of them mythical, and lacks consistency through his rather incoherent narration.

2.9. Conclusion:
I do admire Earl's rhetorical skills but I rely on the evidence first. And from ancient pagan writings before Julian's times (331-363), there is no testimony presented in 'the Jesus Puzzle' about the concept of an upper world between heaven & earth, where the fleshy meets demonic powers, a place where Jesus would have been crucified. After years of research, Doherty was unable to flesh out the evidence for it....Furthermore, all the texts cited by Doherty (and Carrier) were not written before Paul's times.Why would the early Christians imagine an upper world as more real & pungent than their earthly one?

This is explained by Middle Platonic (and Jewish) writers: this world was subject to change, decay, chaos, and seemed to cause all manner of evil: God is good and created everything; therefore there must be a superior, perfect world not subject to change, decay, chaos, and evil; and that must be the heavens (the only thing left, and the only thing that seems not subject to change, decay, chaos or evil—besides, elevation is a universal human notion of superiority: no culture has ever imagined a "better" world below the earth, all have imagined it *above*).

One can see how unsubstantiated axioms so misled the ancient intellect. Change, decay (which is really a step in the ongoing course of evolution and 'rebirth') was axiomatically judged as inferior and undesirable. If an all-high God existed (and few could conceive otherwise) he must be impervious to such things and transcendent from them. Then the universe had to be structured to give him a place to live, intermediaries between himself and the world had to be established, explanations for the world's evil and its separation from the imagined perfection of the spiritual realm invented, until a vast and unwieldy superstructure was erected which few philosophers could free themselves from, none of which bore any relation to reality. Out of that milieu grew Christianity, and it is only with a knowledge of that cosmology that Christianity can be understood (as well as evaluated). Muller asks:

If his audience already knew, why would he say? After all, he only ever writes to people who had already been orally evangelized. Thus, most of the fundamentals of doctrine were already in place.

Since no one ever seems to have doubted the death of Jesus (even the Corinthian faction did not deny that *Jesus* had been resurrected, only that we would be), there was never an occasion for Paul to elaborate on where Jesus died (as we can suppose Paul would have if he had to prove Jesus had died—as it is, he simply says it is proven by scripture, as if his audience already agrees).

And because of the flimsy substantiation of "Doherty's world" in all of the ancient literature (four centuries of it!), wouldn't that raise a major (controversial!) issue after being learned from Paul (or others) as where Jesus suffered the cross & died (and out of sight from humans!)? Of course it would! Then why don't we observe the apostle dealing with it in his epistles, where he just did that with many others?

For me, Doherty's theory crashes to the ground right there, because of lack of external testimonies about the mythical lower heaven and the silences of Paul (& 'Hebrews') about it. Actually, and looking only at Paul's (seven) authentic epistles (both Earl & myself agree on those) and 'Hebrews', the evidence is much stronger towards earth and Zion (Jerusalem) than for the firmament or that mysterious "world".

Competent historians read documents in context: that means, understanding what Paul and his readers would have taken for granted. The fact that demons resided in the aer is one of those facts—as again: ALL SCHOLARS WHO STUDY THIS SUBJECT AGREE.

Now, it is correct that this does not prove Doherty's case. Even though Paul surely believed in a firmament and aer that resides between earth and the moon (the border of the 1st heaven), and surely believed demons lived there, it does not follow that this is where he imagined the passion as taking place...

...That is only *consistent* with what Paul says—which Doherty is right to note is a bit curious: you would think Paul would have said something more concrete about the life and times of Jesus. Surely, his congregations would be asking him things about the real Jesus all the time, so there is indeed a problem for historicists to explain why none of his letters ever answer any such questions or even hint at their existence. Now, one might come up with theories to explain this. But those theories will all be at least as ad hoc as anything in Doherty's thesis. Two ad hoc theories? I see no way to decide between them.

And Doherty is right that his theory is less ad hoc here. Unlike the "heavenly scheme" Doherty theorizes, which would be a *foundational* doctrine and thus *certainly* already explained to Paul's congregations from day one [much earlier than that if it was a part of their religious and philosophical culture] and thus have no cause to appear in his letters, debates and natural human curiosity about a *historical* Jesus would not be foundational at all, but would constantly arise out of the blue and have to be dealt with....What Doherty finds curious is that if Jesus died on earth, this would entail that all sorts of biographical and verbal facts about him would *certainly* come up in debates over Church doctrine *and* in natural human curiosity about the greatest man that ever lived. So it is indeed bizarre that neither ever came up, in a way that it is not bizarre that the location of Jesus' death never came up, if it took place in heaven—since that would already be a settled matter of foundational doctrine.

Is there nothing else about a human Jesus in 'Romans'? Of course not, but all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book:
A) Ro15:12 Darby "And again, Esaias says, There shall be the root of Jesse [David's father], and one [Christ, according to Paul] that arises, to rule over [the] nations: in him shall [the] nations hopes."
Here Jesus' alleged descendance from David is reiterated.
B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..."
Don't we have a clear expression for incarnation? See here for an explanation on "likeness".
C) Ro9:4-5a YLT "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..."
Here Jesus is from Israelites, "according to the flesh". Who else are Israelites? Paul, according to Ro11:1, quoted later, and also many of his contemporaries, by flesh:
Ro9:3b-4a NASB "... my brethren, my kinsmen [Paul's] according to the flesh, who are Israelites ..." Did Paul think himself and his brethren/kinsmen lived "in the sphere of the flesh", some upper world above earth? NO!

Bernard's arguments here contain only misunderstandings and misinterpretations. First, he claims "....all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book." Bernard clearly does not understand Doherty's point. If the first reference to Jesus being of David's stock (in Romans 1) can be shown to be symbolic, then all subsequent references to it are similarly symbolic. Thus, simply piling on more quotes, as Bernard does here, will not make Doherty's arguments disappear. Bernard must come up with compelling reasons to reject them, either on linguistic or content grounds. In any case, Doherty spends several pages in several places discussing the problem of Jesus' alleged Davidic ancestry (82-85, for example). Finally, there is a telling Doherty-style silence here. If Jesus had really been born of David, Paul, after all, knew his brother, James. All Paul had to do was cite his personal knowledge of the family of Jesus and firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere. But no, Paul's ideas come from divine revelation. Doherty has a very strong argument here, and Bernard's rhetoric cannot dismantle it.

Bernard then goes on to say: "B) Ro8:3 Darby '... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ...' Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?" Merely asking this question does not refute Doherty's point. Bernard would have to demonstrate that the word likeness here means something other than what it very plainly says. All Bernard does here is use an emotional appeal to invite the reader to fall back on the biases built in by 2000 years of historicist exegesis. He does not make an argument based on logic, content, linguistics, or history anywhere in these remarks.

Doherty postulates "from the seed of David" is part of "God's gospel" (drawn from the scriptures by Paul, as Earl contends). This seems to be largely due to his (inaccurate) translation:
"the gospel concerning his Son who arose from the seed of David ..." (Ro1:3)
That's partly from the RSV, but the Greek does NOT have "the gospel" and "who "(&"arose" is Earl's own translation)!

The Greek most definitely *does* have those words. The subject of the clause in 1:3 is the "Gospel" of 1:1. Anyone who reads Greek would know that. Likewise, the Greek says "tou huious autou tou genomenou," literally, "the son, his, the one (i.e. son) who came to be." It is perfectly legitimate to translate "his son, the one who" as "his son, who"—this is called the definite article in the attributive position, and the meaning is identical.

As for "arose," that is a valid translation of genomenos, which is a very ambiguous word with wide scope in its possible meanings. It literally means "become" but connotes any of the following with equal frequency: "be / is" or "happen / take place" or "arise / come about" or "be born / be created / come into being" or "show up / be present." Doherty's choice is not contentious.

However [quoting Muller]: "The digression starting by 'come of David's seed...' is linked to 'his Son' and not likely to 'God's glad tidings'." That is certainly correct. But I am not aware of Doherty saying such a thing. Doherty is saying that the whole unit "his son come from David's seed" is part of the content of the Gospel. That is certainly correct on the Greek. So I don't fathom Muller's point here.

To conclude, it is highly improbable Paul meant he just found "come of David's seed" from the scriptures (and had to divulge it!), as Doherty contends.

I couldn't disagree more. The Greek is unmistakable: the Gospel (1:1) is what was presaged in the OT (1:2) and the content of that Gospel is described in the whole of 1:3-4 (and probably also as the basis for 1:5-6). That's what the Greek says. Period. This also has strong support elsewhere (cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3; one sees a hint in 2 Cor. 3:12-18 to 4:4; etc.)...It is in fact *probable* that Paul meant he found the content of the Gospel in the OT. Of course, historicists don't dispute that—they all agree that the entire content of the Gospel was presaged in the OT.

I've reproduced the Muller-Carrier exchange here at some length because it should help clarify things for many who make claims similar to Muller's, that Paul simply doesn't mean what he clearly seems to say, and which Carrier agrees he does say. But Carrier is nevertheless fuzzy on a couple of points. First of all, his statement about "historicists" is hardly accurate, and contains a contradiction. I'm certainly not aware of all historicists (which presumably includes New Testament scholars) agreeing that Paul found the content of his gospel in the Old Testament. In fact, they are usually at pains to claim that he "received" it from previous apostles, those who had known the historical Jesus. They hardly agree that the kata tas graphas of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 conforms to my own suggested meaning, that scripture was the source of Paul's doctrines about the Christ rather than a prophecy of them. Carrier reverts to the universal interpretation of things when he says that they agree the content of Paul's gospel was "presaged" in scripture, but this is not the same thing as deriving the gospel from it. Now, if all Carrier means by 'found the content in the OT' is that it was presaged there, this is hardly contentious and doesn't serve to support me against Muller. Carrier also misses the huge anomaly I have pointed out in regard to this passage, that if information about Paul's gospel of the Son were 'pre-announced' in scripture, this would be a pre-announcement of Jesus himself, his life and saving acts. But Paul makes no such connection. Scripture forecast the gospel, nothing else. He imposes no human man between the content or prophecy of scripture and his own derivation of the gospel from that scripture, leading to the conclusion that he knew of no historical Jesus. Of course, he does this sort of thing all through his letters, and so do the writers who came after him, forging epistles in his name. (The best example is in Titus 1:3.)

Carrier says that he agrees, but both are getting a little carried away. In all discussions of the possible translation of kata sarka, I present Barrett's suggestion as simply making possible my interpretation, as an "explanatory fit" with my theory. But that's all I need. I am hardly claiming to prove my case by thinking to show that this is the only possible translation. People like Muller lose sight of the fact that so much of the argument commonly made against me (and of course he does this himself) is based on assorted claims that this-or-that cannot possibly mean such-and-such, or allow such-and-such an interpretation. (It's like the creationist claiming that life could not possibly have evolved in the primeval soup without divine direction.) All I have to do is demonstrate that it could (which in the matter of evolution, scientists have), that such-and-such a meaning is possible, either by demonstrating it technically (as Carrier has frequently done for me) or by appealing to a respected scholar who himself allows for such a meaning, even if he doesn't draw my conclusions from that meaning.

I'm sure he could find someone—and I wish he would....For myself, Doherty's translation is plausible on the Greek and is implied by Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 15, which uses abstract nouns to refer to the realm of the spiritual body as the realm of indecay, glory, immortality, etc., and he distinguishes flesh vs. spirit as between earth and heaven. So Paul would certainly have *understood* the idea of being in the realm of spirit vs. the realm of flesh.

Before commenting, I'll reproduce what Muller says following shortly on his previous remark:

But what did Barrett mean by "sphere" in that context? Here it is:
"The preposition here rendered 'in the sphere of' could also be rendered 'according to,' and 'according to the flesh' is a common Pauline phrase; in this verse, however, Paul does not mean that on a fleshly (human) judgment Jesus was a descendant of David, but that in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity) he was truly a descendant of David." C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, page 78.
Barrett never meant a fleshy heaven, in any context. Not even close!

Of course Barrett didn't mean by his translation that Christ was a descendant of David in a fleshly heaven. I never claimed he did. I was simply making use of Barrett's translation in my own context, and there's nothing illegitimate in that. But it's curious that Muller makes a very selective quotation of Barrett's text from his Romans commentary. Barrett provides his translation of both passages in question immediately preceding Muller's quote:

"in the sphere of the flesh, born of the family of David;
in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, appointed Son of God."

I wonder that Muller overlooked this preceding sentence (set apart and in bold print from the rest of the text) when he claimed that I have used "in the sphere of the spirit" with "NO suggestion from anyone else". (Incidentally, the passage from Barrett's text is found on page 20, not page 78 as Muller has it.)

But let's not stop there. Naturally, Barrett regards 1:3 as referring to Jesus' descent-from-David status as a man, not as a heavenly being. And what does he envision for verse 4? He says (p.20),

" 'In the sphere of the Holy Spirit he was appointed Son of God.' This translation is not universally accepted. For 'in the sphere of' see above [referring to the earlier part of his text discussed above]. 'The Holy Spirit' is literally 'spirit of holiness', and this has been taken to refer not to the Holy Spirit, but to Jesus' own (human) spirit, marked as it was by the attribute of holiness."

Clearly, Barrett does not accept this common understanding, since it would not be compatible with his 'in the sphere of' translation, and he goes on to discuss the point without an abundance of clarity (p.20-21). In fact, what exactly is Barrett's specific understanding of his "in the sphere of the Holy Spirit" is not all that clear either. He has failed to see that the meaning, the location, entailed in his phrase "in the sphere of the spirit" should be determined by the actions attached to it: namely, Jesus being declared Son of God in power (by/as a result of the resurrection of the dead—presumably his resurrection, although the actual words cryptically say "by a resurrection of dead persons"). More importantly, that meaning should also be determined by the overall implication in the passage (1-4), that these actions by Christ are to be found in (derived from) scripture, as Paul tells us. Thus the assumption ought not to be that the ambiguous "spirit" reference can somehow apply to an earthly Jesus or an earthly context, but rather should be seen as located in heaven, in the realm/sphere of the spirit. And scripture ought to be surveyed to find exactly what passage may have produced this idea. As far as I know, no one before myself (and certainly not Barrett, who gets bogged down in the question of whether this couplet of verse 3-4 is pre-Pauline and whether it had an anti-adoptionist agenda) has suggested that the whole of verse 4 has simply been derived from Psalm 2:7-8:

"I will tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession...' "

Here, surely, is Romans 1:4's designation of Jesus as Son of God, plus the "in power," which is extended to having the Son receive lordship over all in earth and heaven following his death and resurrection, a common idea in the epistles (e.g., Phil. 2:10-11). With this convenient and rather obvious scriptural source for verse 4, taken in conjunction with the statement in verse 2 that Paul's gospel was to be found in scripture itself, there is no impediment, and a lot of persuasive reason, to interpret verse 4 as a heavenly event, which would make the "in the spirit" a reference to a location, a "sphere," namely heaven, and not some attribute of Christ.

All of which makes it very likely that verse 3 conforms to the same scriptural context as everything else, namely that the Son's relationship to David is also something derived from scripture, and has no more historical import than verse 4.

I think enough has been said in this area. Since Muller's text is so disorganized, any further attempt at a response may well bring a case of fatigue upon both writer and reader, so I will pass over the remainder of Muller's and Carrier's discussion in regard to Romans, and move on to Galatians 4, with its "born of woman."

Born of Woman

Muller's argument in this section is particularly disjointed, shifting forward and back through chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians. I will try to rearrange it into some semblance of order.

3.2.3. By examining the whole of Galatians3:15-4:7, can we figure out what kind of woman Paul was thinking for Gal4:4?
Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."(3:16 Darby)
That seems to refer to Genesis17-22 but it is never specified here according to Paul's words. Anyway, the promise is about inheritance (3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:28-29,3:8,14) but the former is supplanted by the Law "until the seed [Christ] came ['erchomai', clear expression of the first coming!] to whom the promise was made" (3:16,19). Then everyone would be liberated from the Law by Christ (3:22-24,3:13) and "the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and honorary seeds of Abraham (3:29,4:7,3:7).

Paul's reasoning, his exegesis of scripture, in chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians probably reflects the most convoluted thinking and argumentation in all of his letters. But his purpose should be clear. He needs a way to assign God's "promise" to Abraham to his gentile readers, his converts in Galatia. After all, centuries of Jewish mythology clearly assigned that promise to the Jews themselves, as descendants of Abraham. Paul's Galatian converts were not Jews. How, then, to make them (and gentile Christians in general) the genuine recipients of that promise? He does this by reinterpreting the idea of Abraham's "seed" (sperma). Because the word in scripture (passim, in Genesis) was singular, Paul claims it refers to a singular individual (3:16). He identifies that individual as Christ. Now, this is more than a bit absurd, in that the content of God's promises to Abraham would hardly be applicable to Jesus Christ as one human individual, let alone as the divine Son of God. And while the "seed" in Genesis is certainly in the singular, it is a collective singular; indeed, "seeds" could never be used in the plural in such a context, as it would make no sense. A person's descendants are collectively referred to in the singular when using the "seed" terminology. So Paul is blatantly reaching here, and no amount of 'spinning' by New Testament commentators can make it seem sensible or acceptable.

The object of Paul's sleight of hand becomes clear by the end of chapter 3. Through faith, his readers, and all who have been baptized into Christ, have become "sons of God" and have "put on Christ" (3:27). They are all "one in Christ Jesus" (3:28). To drive the conclusion home, he says: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Christ interpreted as Abraham's (singular) "seed" has served the purpose of providing a link between Abraham and those who Paul claims are the true heirs of the promise to Abraham, namely Christians. This, of course, is in keeping with the central claim of the Christian sect, continuing to this day, that God rejected the Jews and transferred his favor onto believers in Christ.

Thus Paul's sight is fixed upon Christians. It is they who are the "seed" and they who have "come" and inherited the promise made to Abraham. The "seed" as Christ is simply a stepping-stone. Thus Muller's claim that we can tease out an historical Jesus in Paul's mind from all of this is falling into the trap that Paul's very self-serving exegesis has left behind. Let's see how we can avoid the pieces of that trap. First of all, what is it that has "come" in the present time, as Paul presents it? Follow this succession of verses (using The Translator's New Testament):

19. Why then was the Law necessary at all? It was introduced to show what transgressions are, but it was to last only until the 'seed' should come to whom the promise had been directly made....
23. Before faith came we were held imprisoned under law until the faith which was to come should be revealed. 24. And so the Law has been like a guardian escorting us to Christ, that we might be made right with God through faith; 25. but now that faith has come we are no longer under a guardian.

In verses 23 and 25, what has "come" in the present time is faith, faith in Christ Jesus. It is not Jesus who has come. No historical figure is inserted between the centuries-old Law and the coming of faith. Verse 24 makes that sequence clear: the Law as a precursor leads not to Christ himself as an historical man, but to faith in Christ; Law is followed by—supplanted by—revelation, and faith in that revelation. This is the pattern constantly repeated throughout Paul's epistles, from Romans 1 on. If Paul still has "Christ" in mind in verse 19 as his definition of the "seed," it is only as a symbol, a link to those inheritors of the promise, the true seed he is so at pains to create, namely those who have been baptized into Christ (v.27). Paul has made it clear elsewhere that he regards the baptized believer as part of the body of Christ, and this mystical concept serves to join Christ and the body of believers into the collective "seed" he speaks of throughout this chapter. There is thus no way for us to separate those two wedded elements in Paul's mind and declare exactly what he has in mind as "coming" in verse 19. In any case, we can take any thought of Christ "coming" in the same way that it is presented throughout the New Testament epistles, namely as a spiritual figure that has been "revealed" in the present time, through scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Verse 22 says this: "But scripture has established that everything is imprisoned by sin so that the promise, based on faith in Jesus Christ, might be given only to those who have faith." Here, Paul can no longer sustain the charade that the object, the recipient, of the promise—as he manipulated it in 3:16—is Christ himself. Rather, the promise falls on the Christian, through faith in Christ. The link to Christ is symbolic and mystical. There is nothing to suggest that it has anything to do with a recent human man who was himself the supposed "seed" of Abraham and recipient of the promise. Throughout this entire passage, Paul spends not a word in describing or enlarging upon the recent earthly activities of Christ as "seed" of Abraham, the one who had supposedly played such a role in salvation history, thus making Muller's declaration here simply a reading of the Gospel background into the thought of the epistle:

What remains is for the Son/Christ to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul, as previously discussed), in order to enable the promise.

In fact, Paul's silence is an almost outright exclusion. If a Jesus on earth had been the principal agent of transition between the Law and the new system of salvation, Paul could hardly have failed to provide some hint of such an idea in his elaborate exegesis in this chapter, some reflection of the earthly career of Abraham's "seed." And note Paul's somewhat cryptic contrast in verses 19 to 20:

"19. ...[the Law] was transmitted by angels and by the hand of an intermediary. 20. Now where only one party is acting there is no need for an intermediary. And God is one."

The elements of this passage have most commentators scratching their heads, and interpretations have been legion. But even though the reference in verse 20 seems to relate most directly to the event of God making his promise to Abraham, it comes in the larger context of the transition from the old to the new, from the Law to salvation in Christ as fulfillment of that promise. How can Paul leave this anomalous idea hanging in the air? Where is the intermediary Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, preaching in his own person the new salvation, preaching himself as the channel to that salvation? If Paul highlights the giving of the Law as something done by God through intermediaries, through angels and (apparently) Moses, if he implies a contrast of quality between the Law and the promise based on one using intermediaries and the other not, how can he do this without taking into account the idea of Jesus on earth being God's own intermediary in the giving of the Law's replacement and the fulfilling of the promise? Paul's contrast here would certainly be compromised. Yet clearly, there is no problem for Paul. It is faith in Christ that has supplanted the Law, and this faith has come not through any historical intermediary but by revelation, directly from God; all of it is fully in keeping with the contrast Paul has expressed between the Law and the promise.

In regard to Muller's comments on Christ as the "seed" of Abraham, and the "coming" of that seed (3:16-19), Michael Turton on IIDB had this to say:

Bernard takes this passage to say the verb 'come' here implies a first coming on earth. Nowhere is that present in this passage. The whole discussion is an abstract discussion of the Law and Christ. "Came" here simply represents the appearance of Jesus in our reality, not necessarily on earth. If Paul had meant come on earth, he would have said it. Bernard is simply back-reading the story of the Gospels into Paul, invoking his and the reader's unconscious assumptions -- the ones Doherty wants you to give up -- in interpreting these passages. Pulling a whole history on earth out of a single verb is the ultimate in historicist desperation....

Now, this is actually a very interesting take on 3:16. While I'm not quite ready to commit to it, such an interpretation would get Paul out of an awkward exegetical jam. Grammatically, it could work, and since the close association in Paul's mind and argument between Christ and believers linked to him makes them both equally the personification of the "seed" of Abraham, we could so interpret Paul's thought behind the words. Paul has stressed the "coming of faith" and the appearance, if you will, of those who believe in Christ, an entity revealed only now by apostles like himself. In that sense, then, Christ has clearly "come" in the present time. We need see no thought of a coming by Christ in the flesh in recent history.