How strangely generic the phrase "born of a woman" is when applied to a specific person.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14514
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How strangely generic the phrase "born of a woman" is when applied to a specific person.

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is how I see it.

I can't find any KNOWN HISTORICAL GROUP for whom we have independent information that understood Jesus to have been an ordinary human being.

Justin's position (as it appears in his surviving writings) is that he was a god - the SECOND god Man, aka 'the divine Logos' of the Jewish/Samaritan understanding - who went into Mary's womb (and came out). Not even sure that Justin originally understood Man to be named Jesus but that's another story (and another debate).

But we should be careful when we see this 'born of woman' emphasis. For Justin (and Irenaeus) 'born of woman' in Jesus's case meant 'the God Man, aka the divine Logos who literally was born from a virgin's womb (to fulfill the prophesy of Isaiah [according to the understanding that the gospel was a fulfilment of the 'dominical logia' as per Papias]).' In other words, 'born of woman' was understood to mean 'God born of woman according to Isaiah's prophecy' according to the earliest historical exegetes we know anything about.

Worth noting also that when Irenaeus puts forward the Isaiah 'born of a virgin' translation it was one NOT accepted by the Ebionites. This is very clear and like not Papias either. This Isaiah virgin birth 'dominical logia' is only as old as the translation made in the late second century (that is after Justin) so an argument that Irenaeus likely made up himself ALLEGEDLY ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PAPIAS and inserted into the writings of Justin.
Post Reply