The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:19 pm
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

  • Provide examples
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:19 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:57 am The data says Paul's usage is unusual, as do some commentators ...
Fair enough, and that's where the analysis begins. From what I understand...Paul's usage isn't unusual, in that we have those examples as above. That is, we have examples of "gimonai" used in combination with other words to give the meaning of "birth"...
  • The only example I'm aware of is the one I gave in the opening post, viz.

    Galatians 4:4 uses γενόμενον/genomenon twice

    γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον
    ....made. of. a woman ... made .under the law


    You have to contend with Tertullian
    MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:48 pm
    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


User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:06 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:19 pmSo 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
  • Provide examples
You yourself gave examples on the last page here: viewtopic.php?p=138625#p138625

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.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:29 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:19 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:57 am The data says Paul's usage is unusual, as do some commentators ...
Fair enough, and that's where the analysis begins. From what I understand...Paul's usage isn't unusual, in that we have those examples as above. That is, we have examples of "gimonai" used in combination with other words to give the meaning of "birth"...
  • The only example I'm aware of is the one I gave in the opening post, viz.

    Galatians 4:4 uses γενόμενον/genomenon twice

    γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον
    ....made. of. a woman ... made .under the law

You yourself gave examples on this on the last page, here: viewtopic.php?p=138616#p138616

You wrote in that post:
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 amAs for "ginomai" being "occasionally used for birth or born in other places in Greek writings, Chris Hansen has a paper on Romans 1:3 in which he points out:
[1] [in] "Josephus’s Ant. 1.150...γίνοµαι and γεννάω...are interchangeable";

[2] "Philo’s use of γίνοµαι to refer to the birth of Moses twice (Moses 2.192–193 in the forms γενοµένων and γενόµενος)"; [and]

[3] "Josephus...uses γίνοµαι for birth on numerous [other] occasions (Ant. 1.150; 1.303–304; 7.154; 15.11; and 20.20–21)"

https://mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/ ... Hansen.pdf

I have yet to investigate those circumstances or see any discussion of them.
Have a reread of the link you provided to Chris Hansen's paper.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 am
... Chris Hansen has a paper on Romans 1:3 in which he points out:


[1] [in] "Josephus’s Ant. 1.150...γίνοµαι and γεννάω...are interchangeable";

[2] "Philo’s use of γίνοµαι to refer to the birth of Moses twice (Moses 2.192–193 in the forms γενοµένων and γενόµενος)"; [and]

[3] "Josephus...uses γίνοµαι for birth on numerous [other] occasions (Ant. 1.150; 1.303–304; 7.154; 15.11; and 20.20–21)"

https://mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/ ... Hansen.pdf


I missed this


We can look at analogs within the LXX and find that there are a few examples where similar language [to Rom 1:3(?)] is used for physical birth (Gen 21:3, 46:27, 48:5). We can also appeal to other Jewish texts which use the terminology to refer to birth.21

21 Josephus, Ant. 1.150; 1.303–304; 7.154; 15.11; 20.20–21; Philo, Moses 2.192–193; Philo, Virtues 37.202.
We can also point to Greco-Roman testimony: Strabo, Geogr. 10.15; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 4.62; 4.67; 4.72; 4.75; Plato, Resp. 8.553; Plato, Alc. 1.121; Isocrates, Hel. enc. 27; Herodotus, Hist. 2.146; Marcellinus, Thuc. 54; Hippocrates of Cos, Nat puer. Introduction 8.481–482; Plutarch, Mor.; Plutarch, Vit. X orat. 4.836; Plutarch, Thes. 8; Plutarch, Mar. 3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.40.2; 1.53.4; PGM 4.719–724 (see Radcliffe, “There and Back Again”,* 194).

https://mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/ ... Hansen.pdf

* Radcliffe, Edmonds “There and Back Again: Temporary Immortality in the Mithras Liturgy.” In Conversion and Initiation in Antiquity: Shifting Identities—Creating Change, edited by Birgette Bøgh, 185–202. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity. Bern: Lang, 2014.


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

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)

The issue is the scant use of ginomai for 'born', and, as I have pointed out
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:29 pm
You have to contend with Tertullian
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:48 pm
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


User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by GakuseiDon »

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?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ginomai definition & use in the NT

Post by MrMacSon »

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


Verb

γίνομαι • (gínomai) deponent (past έγινα/γίνηκα, ppp γινωμένος)
  1. (most senses) become
    1. become, turn into
      • Η κοπέλα ντράπηκε και έγινε κόκκινη.
        I kopéla drápike kai égine kókkini.
        The young girl was embarrassed and turned red.
      • Πότε έγινε ξενοδοχείο αυτό το σπίτι;
        Póte égine xenodocheío aftó to spíti?
        When did this house become a hotel?
    2. become, be created, come into being, come into existence
      • Η Ελλάδα έγινε ανεξάρτητη το 1832.
        I Elláda égine anexártiti to 1832.
        Greece became independent in 1832.
      • Πότε ακριβώς έγινε ο κόσμος;
        Póte akrivós égine o kósmos?
        When exactly was the world created?
  2. (most senses) happen
    1. (only in third person singular form) happen, occur, take place, go on
      • Είδες τι γινόταν εκεί;
        Eídes ti ginótan ekeí?
        Did you see what was happening there?
      • Τι έγινε, γιατί γυρίσατε περπατώντας;
        Ti égine, giatí gyrísate perpatóntas?
        What happened, why did you come back walking?
    2. (only in third person singular form) become of, happen with, get to
      • Τι έγινε με τον αδερφό σου, ζει ακόμα στην Αγγλία;
        Ti égine me ton aderfó sou, zei akóma stin Anglía?
        What became of your brother, is he still living in England?
  • [continues]
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%C ... ient_Greek


Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:34 pm (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 provide[d] examples.
  • No he doesn't/didn't. He merely provided references to references/citation (to possible examples).

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:34 pm ... addressing the claim "born of a woman" being an absurd expression. It wasn't.
  • It is largely if not always absurd ...

    It's only an issue because of a significant theological/supernatural context ...

    So, you're special pleading

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:34 pm
(3) On Tertullian:
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?
  • So why are you posting so much obscure crap?
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jul 03, 2023 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Not really going to weigh in much here, but as a note, I use she/her pronouns (I know it is confusing with my legal name not changed yet).
Post Reply