The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by andrewcriddle »

FWIW Marcion seems definitely to have had some version of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 in his text. See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1840 It is not a reading restricted to the orthodox text.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14499
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Secret Alias »

Meh. Not necessarily conclusive. It is better to say "it comes up in discussions of Marcion." That's about all.
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:10 am Meh. Not necessarily conclusive. It is better to say "it comes up in discussions of Marcion." That's about all.
What's your opinion on Rom. 1:3 and Gal. 4:4 then?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:10 am Meh. Not necessarily conclusive. It is better to say "it comes up in discussions of Marcion." That's about all.
Tertullian objects to Marcion's reading and their own prophets (as distinct from and the prophets) This doesn't make sense unless Tertullian was convinced there was a version of the passage in Marcion.

Andrew Criddle
Chris Hansen
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chris Hansen »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:17 am
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:10 am Meh. Not necessarily conclusive. It is better to say "it comes up in discussions of Marcion." That's about all.
Tertullian objects to Marcion's reading and their own prophets (as distinct from and the prophets) This doesn't make sense unless Tertullian was convinced there was a version of the passage in Marcion.

Andrew Criddle
It's only conclusive when it supports interpolation theories. That's what I'm getting from this anyways.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10905
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:17 am
Tertullian objects to Marcion's reading and their own prophets (as distinct from and the prophets) This doesn't make sense unless Tertullian was convinced there was a version of the passage in Marcion.
Very interesting! If the prophets are killers of Jesus just as "the Jews", then there is a lot of sense in John 10.8
All that ever came before me [=Moses and prophets] are thieves and robbers

...which is the reason for the introduction, as retaliation, of "Bar-Abbas" as the thief and robber marcionite Son of Father.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

Chris Hansen wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:53 am Paul does not use gennao for "birth" 97 times. Laurie appears to have just consulted a Strong's Concordance and mistaken the total number of occurrences in the entire New Testament for Paul. The entirety of the New Testament uses it 97 times, most of the time in the Gospels (https://biblehub.com/greek/1080.htm). Like if Laurie legit thinks Paul used gennao 97 times, then he is smoking something that I would love to get a puff of.
That was my mistake, not Laurie's. I was tired from travelling, and had forgotten what I wrote in the OP:
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:33 am Throughout the rest of the New Testament ginomai/γίνομαι is never used for birth or born: gennao is, 97 times apparently
Laurie also notes

... ginomai is a very common word, appearing 671 times in the New Testament, with a wide range of meanings relating to a change of state; to come into existence/to become/to happen/to appear. The word that Paul would have used had he meant normal physical birth is gennao.

Chris Hansen wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:53 am
Paul only uses gennao on a few occasions: Rom. 9:11 (birth of twins), 1 Cor. 4:15 (where it is used semantically as "I became your father" similar to uses of ginomai, again semantic overlap), three times in Galatians (4:23, 4:24, and 4:29), and once in Philemon (1:10).

Only on four occasions does this talk of actual birth. 1 Cor. 4:15 is semantic "I became [gennao] your father" while Philemon 1:10 is "I appeal to you my child, Onesimus, whose father I became [gennao] while I was in chains."

Further Philippians 2:7 can easily be read as "born in the likeness" as well, as I discussed in my paper.

Which means in total he only uses gennao for "born" four times, and uses ginomai probably for birth three times... indicating that they were interchangeable for birthing language. So your entire case is based on... four instances of gennao in total, contra three instances of ginomai, all of which are easily (and best) read as "born", which is how it was used in similar circumstances by other Jewish and Greco-Roman authors.

I don't have an " 'entire case' based on... [..] instances of gennao, contra three instances of ginomai". I so far have investigated of Paul's and others' use of versions/forms of ginomai, such as genomenos. I started this thread looking at Romans 1:3 in light of some Valentianian concepts of seed.

I think Tertullian's commentary in De Carne Christi / On the Flesh of Christ is significant, viz.


20 "... he says 'made' in preference to 'born' ...

...he has...asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Virgin ... flesh not born of seed has proceeded forth from flesh <born of seed>

... the virgin shall conceive in the womb. Conceive what? Evidently not a man's seed, but the Word of God ... "

De Carne Christi / On the Flesh of Christ : https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm


I think Lauire makes some interesting points.

I think there's a prospect that Paul was—perhaps in several places, including Gal 4:4—referring to Jesus as being reborn

I have yet to look at the passages you refer to where Paul uses gennao, but I note you refer to 'semantics' and 'semantic overlap' wrt gennao yet you seem to deny that for Paul's use of genomenos/ginomai in Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4, and Philippians 2:7; and simply asserted "all of which are easily (and best) read as "born"," contrary to such concepts of semantics and semantic overlap being equally-applicable to ginomai ...

From the OP:
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:33 am

Ginomai / γίνομαι
  1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
  2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
    1. of events
  3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    1. of men appearing in public
  4. to be made, finished
    1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
  5. to become, be made

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... nomai.html
  • ie. ginomai has a number of meanings: some of which are worth highlighting


    ...3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    ......a. of men appearing in public

    ...4. to be made, finished
    ......a. of miracles, to be performed, wrought


Chris Hansen wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:53 am That much later manuscripts (much later) changed this to gennao at best only reflects the climate of later centuries when Docetic concerns were around, and does not reflect back on Paul's letters, nor should we be interpreting them in light of alterations 100+ years down the line.
I'm not sure the issue was [just] a late one. As I noted:
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:06 am
Laurie and Bart Ehrman note early copyists were changing ginomai to gennao because some contemporaries were using ginomai to prove that Jesus had come spiritually and not materially ...

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:06 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:27 am What are the specific implications of Paul's use of "ginomai" as meaning 'born' if Tertullian is correct, in your view?
edited
Paul The NT uses gennao for born or birth 97 times according to S.P. Laurie. As Lauries says, "The fact that Paul chose [to use genomenos or a similar form of] ginomai [in Romans 1 and Galatians 4:4] is evidence that he intended some other meaning."

Laurie and Bart Ehrman note early copyists were changing ginomai to gennao because some contemporaries were using ginomai to prove that Jesus had come spiritually and not materially ...

So, to answer your question, it's very unlikely Paul used ginomai as meaning physically, humanly born.
No, my question was related to your comment that I "had to contend with Tertullian". But if Tertullian is correct, I don't have to contend with him. I can be very content with him! Tertullian said that Paul used "ginomai" to make a comparison with John 1:14:

And the Word was made [ginomai] flesh, and dwelt among us

For all I know, Tertullian was right. But whether Tertullian was right or wrong, he sees 'ginomai' as indicating birth. Given the other examples which you have been kindly providing in this thread, what I'd like to see is "ginomai of a woman" being used to NOT indicate birth, but something else.

Personally, I think it was a literary choice made by Paul. Given that gJohn was written long after Paul died, I don't think he was influenced by "Word made flesh". But Paul uses "ginomai" several times leading up to Gal 4:4 which may have influenced his choice:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made [ginomai] a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come [ginomai] on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
...
Gal 4:
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
...
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made [ginomai] of a woman, made [ginomai] under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law
, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.


I don't know anything about ancient Greek, but there is a consistency there. But that is of secondary importance. The main point is that "ginomai of a woman" seems to have had the meaning of "birth". You've provided some good examples for that already in this thread.
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:06 amLaurie and Bart Ehrman note early copyists were changing ginomai to gennao because some contemporaries were using ginomai to prove that Jesus had come spiritually and not materially ...
I'd love to see some examples of that. That's probably the next step. What did the contemporaries who were using "ginomai" to prove that Jesus had come spiritually actually say? Lots of the Gnostics apparently believed that Jesus was born but the Christ part came separately. Marcion apparently believed Jesus wasn't born at all. I'd like to understand what "made of a woman" meant to those contemporaries which didn't mean birth.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
schillingklaus
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by schillingklaus »

Paul never lived and never died except in the fantasy of apologists; and the same goes equally for John. It is all papercut figures and ideological fiction from second century onwards.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

Irenaeus Adv. Haers. 1.1


1 They [the Valentinians] maintain that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent Æon, whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus ... There existed along with him Ennœa, whom they also call Charis and Sige ... Bythus determined to send forth from himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythus and Sige, and then Nous/Monogenes and Aletheia. And Nous/Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma ...

3 ... they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the Saviour— for they do not please to call Him Lord— did no work in public during the space of thirty years [Luke 3:23], thus setting forth the mystery of these Æons ...

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103101.htm



Adv. Haers. 1.2

The Propator was known to Monogenes/Nous alone. Ambition, disturbance, and danger into which Sophia fell; her shapeless offspring: she is restored by Horos. The production of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, in order to the completion of the Æons. Manner of the production of Jesus.


2 ... there rushed forth in advance of the rest that Æon ... the youngest of the Duodecad which sprang from Anthropos and Ecclesia, namely Sophia, and suffered passion apart from the embrace of her consort Theletos. This passion, indeed, first arose among those who were connected with Nous and Aletheia, but passed as by contagion to this degenerate Æon, who acted under a pretence of love, but was in reality influenced by temerity, because she had not, like Nous, enjoyed communion with the perfect Father. This passion, they say, consisted in a desire to search into the nature of the Father; for she wished, according to them, to comprehend his greatness ... on account of the love she bore him, she was ever stretching herself forward, there was danger lest she should at last have been absorbed by his sweetness, and resolved into his absolute essence, unless she had met with that Power which supports all things, and preserves them outside of the unspeakable greatness. This power they term Horos; by whom, they say, she was restrained and supported ...

4 ... they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction ... her enthymesis (inborn idea)...was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an Æon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing ...

5 After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the Æons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Nous/Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit...for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma ...

6 ... out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on them, the whole Pleroma of the Æons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma and the perfect fruit, namely Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of Saviour, and Christ, and patronymically, Logos, and Everything,
because He was formed from the contributions of all
...

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103102.htm



Adv. Haers. 1.3


1 Such, then, is the account they give of what took place within the Pleroma; such the calamities that flowed from the passion which seized upon the Æon who has been named, and who was within a little of perishing by being absorbed in the universal substance, through her inquisitive searching after the Father; such the consolidation [of that Æon] from her condition of agony by Horos, and Stauros, and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. Such also is the account of the generation of the later Æons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance [of Sophia], and of the second Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the Æons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it ...

2 The production, again, of the Duodecad of the Æons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law [Luke 2:42], and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve [Luke 6:13] ... eighteen [other] Æons are made manifest in this way...strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [᾿Ιησοῦς], namely Iota and Eta. And, in like manner, they assert that the ten Æons are pointed out by the letter Iota, which begins His name; while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled [Matthew 5:18].

3 ... most clearly indicated by the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood...healed by the advent of the Saviour, when she had touched the border of His garment; and on this account the Saviour said, Who touched me? [Mark 5:31] — teaching his disciples the mystery which had occurred among the Æons ...

4 They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the Æons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: 'Every male that opens the womb' [Exodus 13:2; Luke 2:23*]. For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering Æon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma ...

5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties, — the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, 'Whosoever does not bear his Stauros, and follow after me, cannot be my disciple'; and again, 'Taking up the [Stauros], follow me' [Matthew 10:38] ...

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm

[ * Luke 2:23 in full: 'It is written in God’s law, that whatever male offspring opens the womb is to be reckoned sacred to the Lord' ]



Adv. Haers. 1.5 [1.4 not quoted]


1 ... three kinds of existence, then, having, according to them, been now formed — one from the passion, which was matter; a second from the conversion, which was animal; and the third, that which she (Achamoth) herself brought forth, which was spiritual, — she next addressed herself to the task of giving these form [a Platonic concept]. But she could not succeed in doing this as respected the spiritual existence, because it was of the same nature with herself.

She therefore applied herself to give form to the animal substance which had proceeded from her own conversion, and to bring forth to light the instructions of the Saviour. And they say she first formed out of animal substance him who is Father and King of all things, both of these which are of the same nature with himself, that is, animal substances, which they also call right-handed, and those which sprang from the passion, and from matter, which they call left-handed. For they affirm that he formed all the things which came into existence after him, being secretly impelled thereto by his mother. From this circumstance they style him Metropator, Apator, Demiurge, and Father, saying that he is Father of the substances on the right hand, that is, of the animal, but Demiurge of those on the left, that is, of the material, while he is at the same time the king of all. For they say that this Enthymesis, desirous of making all things to the honour of the Æons, formed images of them, or rather that the Saviour did so through her instrumentality.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103105.htm



Adv. Haers. 1.6


1. There being thus three kinds of substances, they declare of all that is material (which they also describe as being on the left hand) that it must of necessity perish, inasmuch as it is incapable of receiving any afflatus of incorruption. As to every animal existence (which they also denominate on the right hand), they hold that, inasmuch as it is a mean between the spiritual and the material, it passes to the side to which inclination draws it. Spiritual substance, again, they describe as having been sent forth for this end, that, being here united with that which is animal, it might assume shape, the two elements being simultaneously subjected to the same discipline. And this they declare to be the salt and the light of the world [Matthew 5:13-14]. For the animal substance had need of training by means of the outward senses; and on this account they affirm that the world was created, as well as that the Saviour came to the animal substance (which was possessed of free-will), that He might secure for it salvation. For they affirm that He received the first-fruits of those whom He was to save, from Achamoth that which was spiritual, while He was invested by the Demiurge with the animal Christ, but was begirt by a [special] dispensation with a body endowed with an animal nature, yet constructed with unspeakable skill so that it might be visible and tangible, and capable of enduring suffering. At the same time, they deny that He assumed anything material [into His nature], since indeed matter is incapable of salvation ...

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103106.htm



Adv. Haers. 1.7


1 When all the seed shall have come to perfection, they state that then their mother Achamoth shall pass from the intermediate place, and enter in within the Pleroma, and shall receive as her spouse the Saviour, who sprang from all the Æons, that thus a conjunction may be formed between the Saviour and Sophia, that is, Achamoth. These, then, are the bridegroom and bride, while the nuptial chamber is the full extent of the Pleroma. The spiritual seed, again, being divested of their animal souls, and becoming intelligent spirits, shall in an irresistible and invisible manner enter in within the Pleroma, and be bestowed as brides on those angels who wait upon the Saviour. The Demiurge himself will pass into the place of his mother Sophia; that is, the intermediate habitation. In this intermediate place, also, shall the souls of the righteous repose; but nothing of an animal nature shall find admittance to the Pleroma. When these things have taken place as described, then shall that fire which lies hidden in the world blaze forth and burn; and while destroying all matter, shall also be extinguished along with it, and have no further existence. They affirm that the Demiurge was acquainted with none of these things before the advent of the Saviour.

2. There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the form of a dove at the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its inhabitants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth.

They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances, — of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate.

They maintain, further, that not even the seed which He had received from the mother [Achamoth] was subject to suffering; for it, too, was impassible, as being spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge himself. It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above ...

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103107.htm


Post Reply