Does Paul's language suggest that he thought Jesus pre-existed and that he consciously "became" flesh in the womb of a woman?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:33 am
One might consider this is a meaning or concept, either in it's entirety or in part, that Paul meant for "His Son having come/been made/γενομένου of the seed/σπέρματος of David according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3, perhaps also in light of Romans 1:4 and 1:6
The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Given what we can read elsewhere in Paul's letters, it seems obvious to me that he thought that his Messiah was pre-existent and that he became incarnate by taking the appearance of a man.gryan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:17 amDoes Paul's language suggest that he thought Jesus pre-existed and that he consciously "became" flesh in the womb of a woman?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:33 am
One might consider this is a meaning or concept, either in it's entirety or in part, that Paul meant for "His Son having come/been made/γενομένου of the seed/σπέρματος of David according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3, perhaps also in light of Romans 1:4 and 1:6
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
I'm not sure, off the top of my head, whether pre-existed applies, or, if it does, how one might contextualised it.
I think Romans 1:4 shows Paul is referring to a resurrected Jesus Christ:
Romans 1:1-5 is quite dense and has lots of concepts beyond v.3.
The concept of this line from Excerpts of Theodotus might apply:
..the invisible part was the Name, which is the only-begotten Son
" "became" flesh in the womb of a woman " would apply to Gal 4:4, at least.
I think Mary could be a personification of the [Valentinian(?)] concept of a/the bridal chamber:
. "Let the seed of light descend into thy bridal chamber; receive the bridegroom and give place to him, and open thine arms to embrace him. ..Behold, grace has descended upon thee"
That is from a well documented liturgy or sacrament (though I cannot yet find from which ancient tefxt).
The concept is espoused in Irenaeus' Adv. Haers. I.13,3,6 - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103113.htm
Irenaeus' Adv. Haers. I.7,1-2 starts off recounting a slightly different concept yet, at the start of §2, has
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 ...
... In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth/''lower' Sophia'. 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 ...
... 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 ...
from 'Discourse on the Holy Theophany'
6. ... For when Christ the Bridegroom was baptized, it was meet that the bridal-chamber of heaven should open its brilliant gates. And in like manner also, when the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and the Father's voice spread everywhere, it was meet that the gates of heaven should be lifted up ...
7. ... For this reason did the Father send down the Holy Spirit from heaven upon Him who was baptized ... the Spirit, descending in the form of a dove, bearing as it were the fruit of the olive, rested on Him to whom the witness was borne.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0523.htm
https://biblehub.com/library/hippolytus ... e_holy.htm
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
.
Tertullian considered Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4 and more on seed/s in De Carne Christi / On the Flesh of Christ
At one point he considers whether Christ was an angel:
14 ... So I shall find it easier to say, if I have to, that the Son himself was the angel (that is, the messenger) of the Father, than that there was an angel in the Son. But seeing that the Son himself is the subject of the pronouncement, Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [Psalm 8:5], how shall he be thought to have clothed himself with an angel when he is made lower than the angels by being made man (as being flesh and soul) and the Son of Man? For as the Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most High, he cannot be held to be lower than the angels, seeing he is God, and the Son of God. So then, even as he is made less than the angels while clothed with manhood, even so he is not less if clothed with an angel. This view of the matter could have suited Ebion, who determines that Jesus is a bare man, merely of the seed of David, and therefore not also the Son of God—though clearly he speaks of himself in somewhat higher terms than the prophets use concerning themselves—so as to state that an angel was in him in the same way as in Zechariah, for example: though we object that the words, And the angel that spake in me said unto me [Zech 1:14], were never used by Christ.
https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm
He rants at Valentinus in 15, stating "Valentinus, by heretical privilege, allowed himself to invent a spiritual flesh of Christ", and continues that rant in 16 while quoting passages from Romans:
16 Yet once more that Alexander person, through lust of arguing, has, according to the rules of heretical trickery, made himself noteworthy by his suggestion that we affirm that Christ's purpose in clothing himself with flesh of human origin was that in himself he might bring to nought the flesh of sin [cf. Rom 6:3-8] ... Our contention, however, is not that the flesh of sin, but that the sin of the flesh, was brought to nought in Christ, not the material but its quality, not the substance but its guilt, according to the apostle's authority when he says, He brought to nought sin in the flesh [Rom 8:3] ... he says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin: not that he took upon him the likeness of flesh [ibid], as it were a phantasm of a body and not its reality ...
By clothing himself with our flesh he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it non-sinful. Moreover—and let this be addressed to all those who suppose that because he was not of a man's seed, it was not our flesh that was in Christ—let them remember that Adam himself was made into this flesh, though not of a man's seed: as earth was changed into this flesh without a man's seed, so also the Word of God was able, without coagulation, to pass into the material of that same flesh.
17 ... it was proclaimed by Isaiah that the Lord would give a sign. What sign is that? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son [Isaiah 7:14]. And so a virgin did conceive, and bore Emmanuel, God with us. This is the new birth, that man is being born in God, since the day when God was born in man, taking to himself flesh of the ancient seed without the agency of the ancient seed, so that he might reshape it with new (that is, spiritual) seed when he had first by sacrifice expelled its ancient defilements. But that newness in its totality, as also in all its bearings, was prefigured of old, when by a reasonable ordinance by means of a virgin man was born to the Lord. The earth was still virgin, not yet deflowered by husbandry, not yet subdued to seedtime: of it we are told that man was made by God into a living soul. Therefore, seeing that of the first Adam it is so related, naturally the second or last Adam, as the apostle has called him, was likewise from earth (that is, flesh) not yet unsealed to generation brought forth by God to be a life-giving spirit ...
... Eve had believed the serpent: Mary believed Gabriel. The sin which the former committed by believing, the latter by believing blotted out. 'But Eve on that occasion conceived nothing in her womb by the devil's word.' Yes, she did. For the devil's word was to her a seed, so that thenceforth she should be abject and obedient, and should bring forth in sorrows [cf. Gen 3:16] : and in fact she did give birth, to the devil [Cain, Gen 4.1], the murderer of his brother [Gen 4.8]. Mary, on the other hand, brought forth him who should sometime bring to salvation his brother according to the flesh, Israel, by whom he himself was slain. So then, God brought down into the womb his own Word, the good brother, that he might erase the memory of the evil brother: for the salvation of man Christ must needs come forth from that organ into which man already under condemnation had entered.
18 Now let us put our case less figuratively. It was not feasible for the Son of God to be born of human seed, lest, if he were wholly the son of man, he should not also be the Son of God, and should be in no sense greater than Solomon or than Jonah, as in Ebion's view we should have to regard him. Therefore, being already the Son of God, of the seed of God the Father (that is, spirit), that he might also be the Son of Man all he needed was to take to him flesh out of human flesh without the action of a man's seed: for a man's seed was uncalled-for in one who had the seed of God. And so, as while not yet born of the Virgin it was possible for him to have God for his father, without a human mother, equally, when being born of the Virgin, it was possible for him to have a human mother without a human father. Thus, in short, is there man with God, when there is man's flesh with God's spirit—from man flesh without seed, from God spirit with seed. Therefore if there was an ordinance of reason regarding the need for the Son of God to be brought forth from a virgin, what room is there for doubt that he received from the Virgin that body which he did bring forth from the Virgin, seeing that what he received from God is something else? 'It is', say they, 'because the Word was made flesh' [John 1:14].
More commentary while quoting passages from the Gospel According to John ensues in 18 and 19.
In 20 he addresses Galatians 4:4
20 ... Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary says, Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Christ is born [Matt 1:16]. 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. ...
21 If then they claim that novelty required that the Word of God should not be made flesh from the Virgin's flesh, any more than from a man's seed, I ask why the whole novelty should not consist in this, that flesh not born of seed has proceeded forth from flesh <born of seed>. Let them meet my attack at an even closer range. Behold, he says, the virgin shall conceive in the womb [Isa. 7.14; Matt. 1.23]. Conceive what? Evidently not a man's seed, but [conceive] the Word of God [see the end of chapter 17 above] ...
He addresses Romans 1:3 in 22 (paragraphed here):
22 Thus even though they delete also the testimony of the devils who cry out to Jesus 'son of David', yet they will not be able to delete the testimony of the apostles, if the devils' testimony is beneath their notice. Matthew himself, to begin with, a most trustworthy compiler of the Gospel, as having been a companion of the Lord, for no other reason than of making us cognisant of Christ's origin according to the flesh begins thus: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham [Matt1:1]. The fact that, by a descent which flows from these sources of origin, the sequence is brought down step by step to the nativity of Christ, can only mean that the very flesh of Abraham and David is registered as making an offshoot of itself through each several ancestor right down to the Virgin, and as bringing in Christ—nay rather, Christ himself comes forth—from the Virgin.
Paul also, being a disciple and teacher and witness of the same Gospel, because he is an apostle of the self-same Christ, attests that Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh [Rom 1:3; cf. 2 Tim 2:8], evidently Christ's own flesh.
Consequently Christ's flesh is of the seed of David. But it is of the seed of David in consequence of the flesh of Mary, and therefore it is of Mary's flesh, seeing it is of the seed of David. In whatever direction you twist the expression, either his flesh is of Mary's flesh because it is of David's seed, or else it is of David's seed because it is of Mary's flesh. The same apostle resolves this whole controversy by defining Christ himself to be Abraham's seed: and since he is Abraham's, evidently much more is he David's, who is the more recent. For when tracing back the promise of the blessing of the nations in the seed of Abraham— And in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed [Gen 22.18]—he says, He said not seeds, as of many, but seed, of one, which is Christ [Gal 3:16].
... Christ is the seed of Abraham: nor other than Jesse's, in that Christ is the flower out of the root of Jesse [cf. Isa. 11.1] : nor other than David's, in that Christ is the fruit out of the loins of David [cf. Ps. 132.11] : nor other than Mary's, in that Christ is from Mary's womb: and, still higher up, no other than Adam's, in that Christ is the second Adam [1 Cor. 15.45].
It follows, therefore, that they must either claim that those others had flesh composed of spirit, so that the same quality of substance may be brought down into Christ, or else admit that Christ's flesh was not composed of spirit, since its descent is not recounted from a spiritual stock.
https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm
Tertullian considered Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4 and more on seed/s in De Carne Christi / On the Flesh of Christ
At one point he considers whether Christ was an angel:
14 ... So I shall find it easier to say, if I have to, that the Son himself was the angel (that is, the messenger) of the Father, than that there was an angel in the Son. But seeing that the Son himself is the subject of the pronouncement, Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [Psalm 8:5], how shall he be thought to have clothed himself with an angel when he is made lower than the angels by being made man (as being flesh and soul) and the Son of Man? For as the Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most High, he cannot be held to be lower than the angels, seeing he is God, and the Son of God. So then, even as he is made less than the angels while clothed with manhood, even so he is not less if clothed with an angel. This view of the matter could have suited Ebion, who determines that Jesus is a bare man, merely of the seed of David, and therefore not also the Son of God—though clearly he speaks of himself in somewhat higher terms than the prophets use concerning themselves—so as to state that an angel was in him in the same way as in Zechariah, for example: though we object that the words, And the angel that spake in me said unto me [Zech 1:14], were never used by Christ.
https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm
He rants at Valentinus in 15, stating "Valentinus, by heretical privilege, allowed himself to invent a spiritual flesh of Christ", and continues that rant in 16 while quoting passages from Romans:
16 Yet once more that Alexander person, through lust of arguing, has, according to the rules of heretical trickery, made himself noteworthy by his suggestion that we affirm that Christ's purpose in clothing himself with flesh of human origin was that in himself he might bring to nought the flesh of sin [cf. Rom 6:3-8] ... Our contention, however, is not that the flesh of sin, but that the sin of the flesh, was brought to nought in Christ, not the material but its quality, not the substance but its guilt, according to the apostle's authority when he says, He brought to nought sin in the flesh [Rom 8:3] ... he says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin: not that he took upon him the likeness of flesh [ibid], as it were a phantasm of a body and not its reality ...
By clothing himself with our flesh he made it his own, and by making it his own he made it non-sinful. Moreover—and let this be addressed to all those who suppose that because he was not of a man's seed, it was not our flesh that was in Christ—let them remember that Adam himself was made into this flesh, though not of a man's seed: as earth was changed into this flesh without a man's seed, so also the Word of God was able, without coagulation, to pass into the material of that same flesh.
17 ... it was proclaimed by Isaiah that the Lord would give a sign. What sign is that? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son [Isaiah 7:14]. And so a virgin did conceive, and bore Emmanuel, God with us. This is the new birth, that man is being born in God, since the day when God was born in man, taking to himself flesh of the ancient seed without the agency of the ancient seed, so that he might reshape it with new (that is, spiritual) seed when he had first by sacrifice expelled its ancient defilements. But that newness in its totality, as also in all its bearings, was prefigured of old, when by a reasonable ordinance by means of a virgin man was born to the Lord. The earth was still virgin, not yet deflowered by husbandry, not yet subdued to seedtime: of it we are told that man was made by God into a living soul. Therefore, seeing that of the first Adam it is so related, naturally the second or last Adam, as the apostle has called him, was likewise from earth (that is, flesh) not yet unsealed to generation brought forth by God to be a life-giving spirit ...
... Eve had believed the serpent: Mary believed Gabriel. The sin which the former committed by believing, the latter by believing blotted out. 'But Eve on that occasion conceived nothing in her womb by the devil's word.' Yes, she did. For the devil's word was to her a seed, so that thenceforth she should be abject and obedient, and should bring forth in sorrows [cf. Gen 3:16] : and in fact she did give birth, to the devil [Cain, Gen 4.1], the murderer of his brother [Gen 4.8]. Mary, on the other hand, brought forth him who should sometime bring to salvation his brother according to the flesh, Israel, by whom he himself was slain. So then, God brought down into the womb his own Word, the good brother, that he might erase the memory of the evil brother: for the salvation of man Christ must needs come forth from that organ into which man already under condemnation had entered.
18 Now let us put our case less figuratively. It was not feasible for the Son of God to be born of human seed, lest, if he were wholly the son of man, he should not also be the Son of God, and should be in no sense greater than Solomon or than Jonah, as in Ebion's view we should have to regard him. Therefore, being already the Son of God, of the seed of God the Father (that is, spirit), that he might also be the Son of Man all he needed was to take to him flesh out of human flesh without the action of a man's seed: for a man's seed was uncalled-for in one who had the seed of God. And so, as while not yet born of the Virgin it was possible for him to have God for his father, without a human mother, equally, when being born of the Virgin, it was possible for him to have a human mother without a human father. Thus, in short, is there man with God, when there is man's flesh with God's spirit—from man flesh without seed, from God spirit with seed. Therefore if there was an ordinance of reason regarding the need for the Son of God to be brought forth from a virgin, what room is there for doubt that he received from the Virgin that body which he did bring forth from the Virgin, seeing that what he received from God is something else? 'It is', say they, 'because the Word was made flesh' [John 1:14].
More commentary while quoting passages from the Gospel According to John ensues in 18 and 19.
In 20 he addresses Galatians 4:4
20 ... Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham down to Mary says, Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Christ is born [Matt 1:16]. 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. ...
21 If then they claim that novelty required that the Word of God should not be made flesh from the Virgin's flesh, any more than from a man's seed, I ask why the whole novelty should not consist in this, that flesh not born of seed has proceeded forth from flesh <born of seed>. Let them meet my attack at an even closer range. Behold, he says, the virgin shall conceive in the womb [Isa. 7.14; Matt. 1.23]. Conceive what? Evidently not a man's seed, but [conceive] the Word of God [see the end of chapter 17 above] ...
He addresses Romans 1:3 in 22 (paragraphed here):
22 Thus even though they delete also the testimony of the devils who cry out to Jesus 'son of David', yet they will not be able to delete the testimony of the apostles, if the devils' testimony is beneath their notice. Matthew himself, to begin with, a most trustworthy compiler of the Gospel, as having been a companion of the Lord, for no other reason than of making us cognisant of Christ's origin according to the flesh begins thus: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham [Matt1:1]. The fact that, by a descent which flows from these sources of origin, the sequence is brought down step by step to the nativity of Christ, can only mean that the very flesh of Abraham and David is registered as making an offshoot of itself through each several ancestor right down to the Virgin, and as bringing in Christ—nay rather, Christ himself comes forth—from the Virgin.
Paul also, being a disciple and teacher and witness of the same Gospel, because he is an apostle of the self-same Christ, attests that Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh [Rom 1:3; cf. 2 Tim 2:8], evidently Christ's own flesh.
Consequently Christ's flesh is of the seed of David. But it is of the seed of David in consequence of the flesh of Mary, and therefore it is of Mary's flesh, seeing it is of the seed of David. In whatever direction you twist the expression, either his flesh is of Mary's flesh because it is of David's seed, or else it is of David's seed because it is of Mary's flesh. The same apostle resolves this whole controversy by defining Christ himself to be Abraham's seed: and since he is Abraham's, evidently much more is he David's, who is the more recent. For when tracing back the promise of the blessing of the nations in the seed of Abraham— And in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed [Gen 22.18]—he says, He said not seeds, as of many, but seed, of one, which is Christ [Gal 3:16].
... Christ is the seed of Abraham: nor other than Jesse's, in that Christ is the flower out of the root of Jesse [cf. Isa. 11.1] : nor other than David's, in that Christ is the fruit out of the loins of David [cf. Ps. 132.11] : nor other than Mary's, in that Christ is from Mary's womb: and, still higher up, no other than Adam's, in that Christ is the second Adam [1 Cor. 15.45].
It follows, therefore, that they must either claim that those others had flesh composed of spirit, so that the same quality of substance may be brought down into Christ, or else admit that Christ's flesh was not composed of spirit, since its descent is not recounted from a spiritual stock.
https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... _04eng.htm
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Jul 03, 2023 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Can you clarify this, please? As far as I am aware (and I know nothing about ancient Greek so I might be wrong), the word "ginomai" by itself is never used for birth or born, but only takes on that meaning in context, e.g. "made from a woman".MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:33 amGalatians 4:4 uses γενόμενον/genomenon twice
γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον
....made. of. a woman ... made .under the law
Throughout the rest of the New Testament ginomai/γίνομαι is never used for birth or born: gennao is, 97 times apparently.
- (ginomai/γίνομαι has occasionally been used for birth or born is other places in Greek writings)
A similar example in English is the use of the word "had":
(1) Joan had a baby.
(2) Joan had a salad.
In context, we would assume that in (1) Joan gave birth to a baby, and in (2) she ate a salad. It might be that what is meant is that Joan ate a baby and gave birth to a salad, but unless the context supports such an idea it wouldn't be taken as such.
I just think the statement that "ginomai is never used for birth or born" 97 times in the New Testament needs a bit more explanation, if you are also pointing out that "ginomai" is "occasionally used for birth or born in other places in Greek writings". It seems to imply that "birth or born" is an unusual reading for the word, when (again AFAIK) in all usages of "ginomai of a woman" it means "born of a woman". It doesn't only occasionally mean "born of a woman".
It is like pointing out that the English word "had" is rarely used for birth or born: not particularly relevant when looking at possible meanings of "had a baby".
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:55 pm I just think the statement that "ginomai [or its forms] is never used for birth or born 97 [other] times in the New Testament [gennao is]" needs a bit more explanation
- It's a statement of fact, so I don't think it does need "a bit more explanation." Not by me, anyway.
Moreover, "Ginomai" [or its forms] is apparently used "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. But never for birth."
S.P. Laurie, https://jesusorigins.com/mary-the-seed-of-david/
None of this is to say that ginomai could not possibly mean physical birth. It is all matter of probability. Had Paul intended physical birth, there is something like a 99% probability that he would have used gennao. The fact that he chose ginomai is evidence that he intended some other meaning ...
Further evidence comes from the early copyists who changed ginomai to gennao. They did so because some contemporaries were using ginomai to prove that Jesus had come spiritually and not materially ...
With this understanding, we can go back to Paul’s statement in Romans and notice something else odd. Paul does not say the Jesus is the seed of David. He says that he “came of the seed of David”. Why use this indirect and convoluted expression?
https://jesusorigins.com/mary-the-seed-of-david/
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:55 pm ... if you are also pointing out that "ginomai" is "occasionally used for birth or born in other places in Greek writings". It seems to imply that "birth or born" is an unusual reading for the word, when (again AFAIK) in all usages of "ginomai of a woman" it means "born of a woman". It doesn't only occasionally mean "born of a woman".
- Laurie points out in relation to Galatians 4:3-5:
... 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”? (Imagine a conversation in everyday life – “Do you know Brian? He goes to the bar every Friday, works in Accounts, was born of a woman.”)
Everyone who has ever lived was “born of a woman” so it would be absurd to say this. But then Paul does not say it. His actual words mean that Jesus “came/appeared of a woman”. And that is very different. In the places he uses ginomai he is giving the justification for Jesus being the spiritual seed of (i) David and (ii) Abraham.
I think they have a point.
One other thing I'd add, prompted by Laurie's inclusion of Gal 4:5, "to redeem those under the law, that we might receive our adoption as sons," would be the references to (i) "to redeem those under the law" ie. an interesting qualification of Gal 4:4, and (ii) the reference to "adoption as sons" : while that is for the collective 'we' there might also be an implications that adoption was also [being] thought of or applied to Jesus.
As 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.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
But what is the point? Why does it matter that the word "ginomai" is used 97 times in the New Testament without being used for birth? In what way is it relevant to the meaning of "ginomai of a woman"?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 amGakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:55 pm I just think the statement that "ginomai [or its forms] is never used for birth or born 97 [other] times in the New Testament [gennao is]" needs a bit more explanation
- It's a statement of fact, so I don't think it does need "a bit more explanation." Not by me, anyway.
Granted, but how does that impact our translation of "ginomai of a woman"? What is the relevance of the word being used 671 times in the NT without it being used for birth? Let me ask: how many times has "ginomai of a woman" NOT meant birth?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 amMoreover, "Ginomai" [or its forms] is apparently used "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. But never for birth."
S.P. Laurie, https://jesusorigins.com/mary-the-seed-of-david/
That's the analysis that is missing.
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
Yes. Chris has done the analysis. As he writes in his paper:
"Given the wide usage of this term by both Jewish and Greco-Roman authors for birth, it stands to reason that Paul’s usage should not be considered necessarily unusual...
The translation of γίνοµαι as indicating birth is valid, as we have evidence it was used widely this way by Jewish and GrecoRoman writers.."
The translation of γίνοµαι as indicating birth is valid, as we have evidence it was used widely this way by Jewish and GrecoRoman writers.."
The author points out that it would be strange to write "born of a woman" in modern English usage, but what about back then? As James Dunn writes in "Theology of Paul the Apostle", p.183:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 am
- Laurie points out in relation to Galatians 4:3-5:
... 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”? (Imagine a conversation in everyday life – “Do you know Brian? He goes to the bar every Friday, works in Accounts, was born of a woman.”)
He [Paul] mentions that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Gal. 4.4), a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person. [4]
_____
[4] Job 14.1; 15.14; 25.4; IQS 11.20-21; IQH 13.14; 18.12-13. 16; Matt. II.lI.
_____
[4] Job 14.1; 15.14; 25.4; IQS 11.20-21; IQH 13.14; 18.12-13. 16; Matt. II.lI.
The topic has popped up here a number of times over the years. Chris Hansen's paper is consistent with the views expressed on the topic.
The issue isn't what is meant by "ginomai" just by itself. It is one of those basic words with a general application. "Ginomia" by itself doesn't mean "birth", anymore than the English word "had" by itself means "birth". It is what is meant by "ginomai of a woman" that is the issue.
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:04 am
As James Dunn writes in "Theology of Paul the Apostle", p.183:
He [Paul] mentions that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Gal. 4.4), a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person. [4]
_____
[4] Job 14.1; 15.14; 25.4; IQS 11.20-21; IQH 13.14; 18.12-13. 16; Matt. 11.11.
Job 14:1, 15:14 and 25.4 all use a form of gennao : γεννητὸς/gennētos.
As does Matt 11.11 which has γεννητοῖς/gennētois
Dunno about the Dead Sea Scrolls ...
Variable use by Philo and a handful of [as yet unclear] uses by Josephus hardly constitutes "wide usage" or being "used widely by Jewish and Greco-Roman writers" (Philo was Jewish and Josephus was essentially if not still fully Jewish)GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:04 am
Yes. Chris has done the analysis. As he writes in his paper:
"Given the wide usage of this term by both Jewish and Greco-Roman authors for birth, it stands to reason that Paul’s usage should not be considered necessarily unusual ...
The translation of γίνοµαι as indicating birth is valid, as we have evidence it was used widely this way by Jewish and GrecoRoman writers .."
The data says Paul's usage is unusual, as do some commentators ...
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:04 amWhat is the relevance of the word being used 671 times in the NT without it being used for birth?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 amMoreover, "Ginomai" [or its forms] is apparently used "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. But never for birth."
S.P. Laurie, https://jesusorigins.com/mary-the-seed-of-david/
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 amMoreover, "Ginomai" is...used "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. But never for birth."
S.P. Laurie, https://jesusorigins.com/mary-the-seed-of-david/
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Right. So when Laurie writes:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:57 amGakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:04 am
As James Dunn writes in "Theology of Paul the Apostle", p.183:
He [Paul] mentions that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Gal. 4.4), a typical Jewish circumlocution for a human person. [4]
_____
[4] Job 14.1; 15.14; 25.4; IQS 11.20-21; IQH 13.14; 18.12-13. 16; Matt. 11.11.
Job 14:1, 15:14 and 25.4 all use a form of gennao : γεννητὸς/gennētos.
As does Matt 11.11 which has γεννητοῖς/gennētois
"... 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.
Fair enough, and that's where the analysis begins. From what I understand (and again, I have no knowledge of ancient Greek beyond what others say), 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", much like the English word "has" can be used in combination with other words to be "bear [a baby]". You can find 10,000 usages of the English word "have" not related to birth, but that doesn't impact on how we take the meaning of "Joan had a baby".MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:57 amVariable use by Philo and a handful of [as yet unclear] uses by Josephus hardly constitutes "wide usage" or being "used widely by Jewish and Greco-Roman writers" (Philo was Jewish and Josephus was essentially if not still fully Jewish)GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:04 am
Yes. Chris has done the analysis. As he writes in his paper:
"Given the wide usage of this term by both Jewish and Greco-Roman authors for birth, it stands to reason that Paul’s usage should not be considered necessarily unusual ...
The translation of γίνοµαι as indicating birth is valid, as we have evidence it was used widely this way by Jewish and GrecoRoman writers .."
The data says Paul's usage is unusual, as do some commentators ...
So then, my original question: why is the fact that "ginomai" is never used for birth or born 97 times in the New Testament relevant? Why should that particular fact impact on how we read "ginomai of a woman"?
Re: The Seed in Romans 1:3 and Elsewhere
Moses 2.192–193:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:22 am
As 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
| XXXVI. (192) Τῆς δʼ ὑποσχέσεως ἀρκτέον ὧδε. τέτταρές εἰσι τόποι διὰ πεύσεως καὶ ἀποκρίσεως χρησμοῖς νομοθετηθέντες, μικτὴν ἔχοντες δύναμιν· τῇ μὲν γὰρ ὁ προφήτης ἐνθουσιᾷ πυνθανόμενος, τῇ δὲ ὁ πατὴρ θεσπίζει λόγου καὶ ἀποκρίσεως μεταδιδούς. ἔστι δὲ πρῶτος, ὃς οὐχ ὅτι Μωυσῆν ὁσιώτατον τῶν πώποτε γενομένων ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ βραχὺ γευσάμενον εὐσεβείας ὤργισεν. | XXXVI. [192] In fulfilment of my promise, I must begin with the following examples. There are four cases upon which the divine voice laid down the law in the form of question and answer and which therefore have a mixed character; for, on the one hand, the prophet asks a question under divine possession, and on the other hand the Father, in giving the word of revelation, answers him and talks with him as with a partner. The first case is one which would have enraged not only Moses, the holiest of men ever 'yet born', but even one who knew but a little of the flavour of godliness. |
| (193) ἐξ ἀνομοίων τις γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος νόθος, Αἰγυπτίου μὲν πατρός, μητρὸς δὲ Ἰουδαίας, τῶν μὲν ταύτης πατρίων ἐθῶν ἠλόγησε, πρὸς δὲ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακήν, ὡς λόγος, ἀπέκλινεν ἀσέβειαν τὴν τῶν ἀνδρῶν ζηλώσας ἀθεότητα. | [193] A certain 'base-born' man, the child of an unequal marriage, his father an Egyptian, his mother a Jewess, had set at naught the ancestral customs of his mother and turned aside, as we are told, to the impiety of Egypt and embraced the atheism of that people. |
Texts from Philo, The Loeb Classical Library (London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 545. The English from Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 6.
It'd be interesting to know why γενόμενος was/is translated as 'base-born' ...
(and perhaps why γενομένων is translated 'yet-born')
Philo positioned Moses as "the best of kings, of lawgivers and of high priests" and sought "to shew in conclusion that he was a prophet of the highest quality" (Moses II,187); "great in everything" (Moses II,211); and was "fully aware that all things written in the sacred books are oracles delivered through Moses" (Moses II,188).