MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:41 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:04 pm
You also quoted my comment from James Dunn that "born of a woman" was "a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person", with the cites that Dunn gives to support that.
These are for
gennao, not
ginomai (eta: I don't know why you're fixated on
gennao, though wonder if you're doing it to gaslight me)
Actually, I'd wondered if you were gaslighting
me, since you yourself provided the link to Chris Hansen's paper which had the references you were wanting.
But seeing your posting history I knew that wouldn't be the case. I just think we are talking at cross-purposes over several arguments, which can often happen. I'll break it down to what I see are the various arguments. First, the minor one:
(1) I was addressing Laurie's comment that "born of a woman" was absurd. My response on the last page was:
GDon wrote:Right. So when Laurie writes:
"... there is something else which is very strange, something that never seems to occur to traditional commentators. Why would anyone say of a real person that they were “born of a woman”? ... Everyone who has ever lived was “born of a woman” so it would be absurd to say this"
... it does appear to be that they did use "born [gennao] of a woman" in those times, and that it wasn't absurd to say this back then.
The question then becomes whether "ginomai" could be used as well as "gennao", and that is what Chris Hansen suggested in that link you provided above.
So that was addressing the claim "born of a woman" being an absurd expression. It wasn't.
(2) As I wrote above, the question then becomes whether "ginomai" could be used as well as "gennao", and that is what Chris Hansen suggested in that link you provided earlier: there are examples of "ginomai" --
in combination with other words (i.e. thus not by itself) -- taking on the meaning of "birth". Chris Hansen provides examples.
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:41 pmThe issue is the scant use of
ginomai for 'born'...
Right, but do you mean scant use of
ginomai for 'born' when used by itself, or 'scant' when used in combination with words like "woman"? If it NEARLY ALWAYS carries the meaning of 'birth' when used in the latter case, then Paul's reading is not unusual.
On the question of it being 'scant', the example I gave earlier was "Joan had a baby". Pointing out that the English word "have" is used 10,000 times without meaning "giving birth" is irrelevant. That is, the English word 'have' doesn't very often have the meaning 'birth' by count, but when used like "Joan had a baby" it NEARLY ALWAYS means 'gave birth'. Thus you'll need to clarify what you mean by 'scant': do you mean when ginomai is used by itself? Or when used 'of a woman'?
If there are half-a-dozen examples of "gimonai" being used in context to mean "birth", and NO examples of "gimonai" being used in context to NOT mean "birth", then the evidence is certainly leaning one way.
(3) On Tertullian:
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:41 pm, and, as I have pointed out
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:29 pm
You have to contend with Tertullian
Tertullian considered
Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:
4 and more on seed/s in De Carne Christi /
On the Flesh of Christ
20 ... Paul too imposes silence on these teachers of grammar: God, he says, sent his Son, made of a woman [Gal 4:4]. Does he say 'by a woman' or 'in a woman'? His language is indeed the more accurate in that he says 'made' in preference to 'born'. For it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born: yet by saying 'made' he has both set his seal on 'The Word was made flesh' [John 1:14], and has asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Virgin. ...
https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm
Easy. How about: Tertullian was right?