Sometime ago in the theme
Mary in Scripture the video
en.gloria.tv/?media=27468 was recommended.
In this Mr Tim Staples claimed, more that once, that Paul said in Gal 4:4 that Jesus was “born of the woman”.
I have looked at about 30 translations of this verse and not one has this translation. GUNAIKOS (Gen Sing of GUNH).
Please look at the video and decide for yourself. Only two people participated in the discussion about
Mary in Scripture and the other person disagreed with me. However I do think that our views were expressed in a courteous and respectful way and that neither of us attacked the other personally.
I appreciate being here and am strengthened in the faith by the sound Catholic views expressed, thus I want to be positive and constructive.
I really would like this issue resolved, as it is very important to me to be convinced of the integrity, accuracy and truthfulness of CA.
Greetings NoelFitz,
While I’m no expert in Greek, here’s my two cents
I ask three questions.
- Did Paul say that Jesus was “born of the women” in Gal 4:4?
Maybe
Galatians 4:4
οτε δε ηλθεν
το πληρωμα
του χρονου εξαπεστειλεν
ο θεος
τον υιον αυτου γενομενον εκ γυναικος γενομενον υπο νομον
το, του, ο, and τον are usually translated as “the” and there is no article before γυναικος (of-woman) or νομον (law)
As for “γενομενον υπο νομον,” it’s proper to say “born under law” and not “a law” because there is only one law intended, that is of Moses.
However its OK to say “born under the law” because we know what law is intended.
This is
VERY important to understand because of John 1:1
John 1:1
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word
Notice that there are no articles before αρχη (beginning) and the last θεος (God)
Since there is only one God, it cannot be translated “a god” as some have argued
Its still proper to say “the God”
It’s also proper to say “the beginning” for αρχη since there is only one beginning.
And for γυναικος (of-woman), this could mean three things:
A. It could mean “woman,” showing that Jesus had a human nature. However, if this was all that was meant, it would be more likely for Paul to have written “born from man” or something similar.
B. It could mean “a woman” and that woman is Mary. Like possibility “A,” it shows Jesus’ human nature, but its possible that it also gives Mary herself some importance. She is given part in Christ’s prophecy. This is only a possibility and not for certain. Also, there are other women, so it’s proper to read “a woman”
C. It could mean “the woman” since its possible (as in John 1:1) that there is only
one woman that can be meant. Only one woman was immaculately conceived and able to give birth to Christ. Only one woman is considered “the Ark of the New Covenant.” Only one woman fulfilled the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 whose seed was Christ. This is “the” woman who is called Mary.
From a theological standpoint I believe this is true, however I don’t think this is what Paul meant to imply.
Also as
Cachonga noted…
Proverbs 30:6
μὴ προσθῇς τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἐλέγξῃ σε καὶ ψευδὴς γένῃ
As you can see in the end, there is no article. However γένῃ (liar) is being attributed to someone, it can grammatically only be “a liar” because of the nature of the word “liar”
There are also many liars.
Also, depending on the word used, there need not be an article at all
Proverbs 30:6 (Young’s Literal Translation)
“Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false.”
- Is it incorrect to say Jesus was “born of the women” based on Gal 4:4?
Yes, interpretively speaking.
- Does it make any difference whether the definite article is used or not?
Yes, theologically speaking.
However I was concerned that I was over-reacting. I found it difficult that I could not get anyone in CA to reply to me.
I don’t think you are overreacting. Its a rather large concern apologetically.
While I agree that Mary is important and do believe she was intended to be thought about in Gal 4:4, Mr. Staples is letting his theology get in the way. He is putting more focus on Mary than I think is really intended and this can potentially drive questioning Catholics and Protestants who notice further away from the Faith.
