Rules of Historical Reasoning

[Ben C. Smith]

In such contexts there is literally zero difference between γεννάω and γίγνομαι. They are interchangeable.

I thought that this is what 'overlapping' means. That in certain contexts the words can have exactly the same meaning.

Yes, I agree.

[John2]

hakeem wrote:

In which year did people called Ebionites believe Jesus was a plain and common man?

Which historical writings corroborate anything about Ebionites with respect to Jesus?

The belief that Jesus was a common man by those who never saw him is not evidence that Jesus was a figure of history.

The writings attributed to the same Eusebius admit Jesus was God of God--the Only begotten Son of the father.

In which year did people believe he was not a plain and ordinary man? What historical writings corroborate anything about them with respect to Jesus? In my view, both views are in the same boat and we have to reckon with the sources that we have.

Epiphanius was familiar with Jewish Christian writings he calls the Ascents of James, the Travels of Peter and other Acts of the Apostles, and what he says about them resembles what is thought to be an earlier source called the Grundschrift that was incorporated into the Clementine writings. As this review of Jones says, "Explaining the similarities between the two works (Homilies and Recognitions), scholars have come to the view that both made independent use of an earlier source, which they called the Grundschrift."

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/j ... y-jones-2/

These sources are mentioned in Pan. 30.15.1 and Pan. 30.16.6-7:

But they use certain other books as well—supposedly the so-called Travels of Peter written by Clement, though they corrupt their contents while leaving a few genuine passages.

They speak of other Acts of Apostles in which there is much thoroughly impious material, and from them arm themselves against the truth in deadly earnest.

They lay down certain ascents and instructions in the supposed 'Ascents of James,' as though he were giving orders against the temple and sacrifices, and the fire on the altar—and much else that is full of nonsense

And Epiphanius claims to have also known Jewish Christians in his time, as he says in Pan. 30.3.8-4.1:

But some may already have replied that the Gospel of John too, translated from Greek to Hebrew, is in the Jewish treasuries, I mean the treasuries at Tiberias, and is stored there secretly, as certain Jewish converts have described to me in detail.

And not only that, but it is said that the book of the Acts of the Apostles, also translated from Greek to Hebrew, is there in the treasuries, so that the Jews who have read it, the ones who told me about it, have been converted to Christ from this.

One of them was Josephus—not the ancient Josephus, the author and chronicler, but Josephus of Tiberias, born during the old age of the Emperor Constantine of blessed memory.

And Epiphanius associates Ebion with the Jewish Christian sect of the Nazoraeans, who he says knew Jesus in Pan. 29.7.7-8:

This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe —Khokhabe in Hebrew.

For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.

Pan 30.1.1:

Following these and holding views like theirs, Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra. He was of the Nazoraeans' school, but preached and taught other things than they.

Unfortunately for us though, regarding the Nazoraeans, he says in Pan. 29.7.6:

As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are misled by the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard him as a mere man—or whether, as the truth is, they affirm that he was born of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

And yes, the writings of non-Jewish Christians say other things about Jesus.

[John2]

hakeem wrote;

Irenaeus' Jesus appears to be some other non-historical character who was born of a virgin and crucified when he was an old man at about 50 years of age. See AH 2.22

In Against Heresies the Ebionites are regarded as Heretics.

The supposed Irenaeus implies the Ebionites were liars, evil interpreters who falsified the word of God .

Irenaeus says.

The Preface of AH 1---- Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.

Irenaeus' Jesus was a product of interpretation of the oracles of God ---never of history.

"Against Heresies" is evidence that there was never any documented history of Jesus since there were multiple versions of belief about Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

Essentially, the Jesus character is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Yes, orthodox Christians, starting with Irenaeus in the late second century CE, viewed Jewish Christians as heretics. In the mid-second century CE though, Hegesippus (who used the Jewish Christian Gospel of the Hebrews and revered Jesus' brother James and does not mention Paul) said:

And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus ... In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

[neilgodfrey]

Ben, you earlier copied some sections from the LSJ lexicon, yes? Can you point me to the exact reference in the LSJ that you copied that section from?

Thanks

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, you earlier copied some sections from the LSJ lexicon, yes? Can you point me to the exact reference in the LSJ that you copied that section from?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... i%2Fgnomai.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dgenna%2Fw.

[neilgodfrey]

Ben, you earlier copied some sections from the LSJ lexicon, yes? Can you point me to the exact reference in the LSJ that you copied that section from?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... i%2Fgnomai.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dgenna%2Fw.

I am not familiar with Perseus's lexicon, sorry, and I only see snippets of the following on the pages reached by the links above. Is there related information somewhere? Is the following a combination of copy and paste and editorial?

γεννάω, f. ήσω, (γέννα) Causal of γίγνομαι (cf. γείνομαι II), of the father, to beget, engender, Aesch., Soph.; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aesch.

γί-γνομαι, Ion. and in late Gr. γί-νομαι.... Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.; γεγονέναι ἔκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely ἀπό τινος Id.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc. 2. of things, to be produced, Plat., Xen., etc.

In addition to navigating the Perseus lexicon interface I am primarily interested in identifying evidence for "born of a woman" as an idiomatic expression . . . . (I looking for more than "not the blood of a woman" or "of a queenly woman", etc)

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, you earlier copied some sections from the LSJ lexicon, yes? Can you point me to the exact reference in the LSJ that you copied that section from?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... i%2Fgnomai.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dgenna%2Fw.

I am not familiar with Perseus's lexicon, sorry, and I only see snippets of the following on the pages reached by the links above. Is there related information somewhere? Is the following a combination of copy and paste and editorial?

γεννάω, f. ήσω, (γέννα) Causal of γίγνομαι (cf. γείνομαι II), of the father, to beget, engender, Aesch., Soph.; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aesch.

γί-γνομαι, Ion. and in late Gr. γί-νομαι.... Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.; γεγονέναι ἔκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely ἀπό τινος Id.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc. 2. of things, to be produced, Plat., Xen., etc.

All of it is copy and paste. I omitted irrelevant text with an ellipsis at one point, clearly visible above, but nothing was added.

In addition to navigating the Perseus lexicon interface I am primarily interested in identifying evidence for "born of a woman" as an idiomatic expression . . . .

The LSJ lexicon does not go into idioms all that much, particularly ones which are principally of Hebrew origin.

[John2]

hakeem,

Hippolytus also mentions Ebionites in RH 7.22:

The Ebionaeans ... assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

I think that this is the human Jesus that Paul (and orthodox Christians after him) was not interested in. As he says in 2 Cor. 5:16, "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer."

Hegesippus uses this same expression, "according to the flesh," to describe the relatives of Jesus in EH 3.11:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Notice the reference to Joseph. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, then Clopas could not have been Jesus' cousin in any meaningful sense.

Hegesippus also uses the expression "according to the flesh" in EH 3.16 to describe Jesus' brother Judas:

Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Judas, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.

Hegesippus also calls James Jesus' brother in EH 2.23:

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.

And bearing in mind the Grundschrift theory, the Homilies of Clement 11.35 also calls James the brother of Jesus:

Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or prophet who does not first accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem ...

So, unlike orthodox writers who bend over backwards to defend the doctrine of the virgin birth, Jewish Christians used the term "brother" (with respect to the relatives of Jesus) without any qualification or embarrassment (as do the gospels).

I think this human Jesus is in keeping with the "other" Jesus and "different gospel" that Paul mentions in the context of discussing Jewish Christians in 2 Cor. 11:

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. I do not think I am in the least inferior to those super-apostles ... For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ ... Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more.

And a human Jesus makes sense of the genealogy in Matthew (which is the gospel that Jewish Christians are said to have used), because it ends with Joseph:

... and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Epiphanius mentions the genealogy and the Jewish Christian apostles that Paul mentions in his chapter on the Cerinthians (an early Gentile spin off group of Jewish Christians) in Pan. 28.4.6-5.1:

And these are the ones the apostle Paul calls 'false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.'

For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy ...

And he mentions the genealogy again in Pan. 30.14.2 in his chapter on the Ebionites:

For by supposedly using their [the Ebionites] same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary.

And the idea of the virgin birth only works in the Greek translation of Is. 7:14, which uses the word parthenos, whereas in Hebrew it is almah, as Wikipedia notes:

Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almāh, plural: ‘ălāmōṯ עֲלָמוֹת‎) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulah is used. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders both Hebrew words almah and betulah as the same Greek word parthenos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

And Epiphanius says that Jewish Christians used Hebrew:

Pan. 29.7.4:

They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language, for the entire Law, the prophets, and the so-called Writings—I mean the poetic books, Kings, Chronicles, Esther and all the rest—are read in Hebrew among them, as of course they are among the Jews.

Pan. 29.9.4:

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet.

Pan. 30.3.7:

They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New Testament.

He also says that they were aware of the gospel of John and Acts but had to have them translated into Hebrew in Pan. 30.3.8-9:

But some may already have replied that the Gospel of John too, translated from Greek to Hebrew, is in the Jewish treasuries, I mean the treasuries at Tiberias, and is stored there secretly, as certain Jewish converts have described to me in detail.

And not only that, but it is said that the book of the Acts of the Apostles, also translated from Greek to Hebrew, is there in the treasuries, so that the Jews who have read it, the ones who told me about it, have been converted to Christ from this.

For these reasons I lean towards the idea that Jesus was a normal human being with normal parents, "a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family)," as Hippolytus puts it. And he says that Jewish Christians believed Jesus was Christ because of his observance of the Torah, and that this Christ state of being was similarly attainable to other humans:

And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

[neilgodfrey]

.......

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... i%2Fgnomai.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dgenna%2Fw.


.......

γεννάω, f. ήσω, (γέννα) Causal of γίγνομαι (cf. γείνομαι II), of the father, to beget, engender, Aesch., Soph.; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aesch.

γί-γνομαι, Ion. and in late Gr. γί-νομαι.... Radical sense, to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born, νέον γεγαώς new born, Od.; γεγονέναι ἔκ τινος Hdt.; more rarely ἀπό τινος Id.; τινος Eur.:—with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς, Lat. natus annos tredecim, Hdt., etc. 2. of things, to be produced, Plat., Xen., etc.

All of it is copy and paste. I omitted irrelevant text with an ellipsis at one point, clearly visible above, but nothing was added.

Pardon my oversight, then -- I know I often miss what I am looking for -- but, for example, I do not see the words "Radical sense ..." in the Perseus pages linked. Or maybe there is a formatting issue that prevents them from appearing in a page search?

The LSJ lexicon does not go into idioms all that much, particularly ones which are principally of Hebrew origin.

I'm not looking for Hebrew origin idioms in a Greek-English lexicon.

I like to think I have read a wide range of many Greek and Latin texts (though mostly in translation) and have very often noticed echoes of biblical tropes, images, etc --- all of which have various explanations. But I do not recall "born of a woman" or its equivalent being among those. I may well be wrong and have overlooked or forgotten whole texts, of course. I understood your reference to the LSJ was an attempt to nudge me to what I may indeed have overlooked and I am trying to follow that up.

[Ben C. Smith]

Pardon my oversight, then -- I know I often miss what I am looking for -- but, for example, I do not see the words "Radical sense ..." in the Perseus pages linked. Or maybe there is a formatting issue that prevents them from appearing in a page search?

Actually, I do not find the phrase "radical sense" on that page, either. I just checked my physical copy of LSJ, and there it is. What I was assuming was a copy and paste is from my notes from nearly a decade ago, so either I typed the entry by hand from my physical copy (something I am very unlikely to have done with Perseus being so readily available) or the Perseus entry itself has changed since then. Sorry for any confusion.

I like to think I have read a wide range of many Greek and Latin texts (though mostly in translation) and have very often noticed echoes of biblical tropes, images, etc --- all of which have various explanations. But I do not recall "born of a woman" or its equivalent being among those.

And yet I have already seen your response on the other thread, where I listed examples of the idiom from the LXX, Sirach, Qumran, Josephus, Origen, and the pseudo-Clementines:

I don't see how the biblical tradition contradicts or adds to what I have already suggested about that usage, sorry.

I confess I no longer know what is under discussion here. I thought you were asking for literary examples of the phrase to demonstrate that it was an idiom; even your comment above about having read a wide range of texts seems to imply as much. If that is not what you were asking for, then what?