G
- Status
Gabriel
You wrote:
In the video the claim is made that Gal 4:4 has “the woman” rather than “a woman”. Then the bulk of the video is about seeing “the woman” as a title for Mary.
I have looked at about 30 translations of Gal 4:4 and most have “a woman”, some have “woman”, but not one has “the woman”. The Greek NT (UBS 4th Ed.) has γυναικός (GUNAIKOS, gen.sing of GUNH) without s definite articel. Thus it is wrong to say Paul said “born of the woman”.
There is no need for Catholics to misuse scripture.
You wrote:
I was disappointed with this video,as the question was not answered and scripture was incorrectly quoted.
In the video the claim is made that Gal 4:4 has “the woman” rather than “a woman”. Then the bulk of the video is about seeing “the woman” as a title for Mary.
I have looked at about 30 translations of Gal 4:4 and most have “a woman”, some have “woman”, but not one has “the woman”. The Greek NT (UBS 4th Ed.) has γυναικός (GUNAIKOS, gen.sing of GUNH) without s definite articel. Thus it is wrong to say Paul said “born of the woman”.
There is no need for Catholics to misuse scripture.
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
I actually found the video quite powerful, and the video itself does quote Galatians 4:4 as “a woman”. Though Staples says “the woman” I think he was simply making the point that Mary represents “The” woman spoken about in Genesis 3:15. After all, if the seed is Jesus, there’s only one woman who gave birth to Him. Furthermore, the only times that Jesus refers to His mother in all of Scripture he always calls her woman.
I found this so eye-opening! Mary is mentioned in the very first and last book of the Bible!
I found this so eye-opening! Mary is mentioned in the very first and last book of the Bible!
Gabriel,
Thank for your courteous reply to me.
You wrote:
I have submitted two e-mails to Gloria TV about this video, as I received no response to my first one.
My second e-mail was:
Thank for your courteous reply to me.
You wrote:
I agree with you that the screen showed correctly “born of a woman” for Gal 4:4, but more that once Mr Staples says that this verse is “born of the woman”. Mary does not represent “the woman”, but “a woman” in Gal 4:4. This is crucial to the whole point of the video.
I have submitted two e-mails to Gloria TV about this video, as I received no response to my first one.
My second e-mail was:
I am very concerned about this issue as it seems to me that Mr Staples has misinterpreted Scripture. Catholics have no need to do this. Our beliefs are not based on a false interpretation of the Bible.
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
Hmm. I believe Mr. Staples is quite correct in referring to Mary as “The” woman, since Mary is obviously the woman who gave birth to the promised redeemer in Genesis 3:15. Noel, are you saying that Mary is not the woman who gave birth to the seed (Christ)? If she is, then what is your concern? The video itself quoted the text of Scripture correctly; whereas Staples in answering the question spoke of Mary as “the” woman whom God chose for the Incarnation to take place. I think Staples did a most splendid job answering the question; Mary has a Major role in the New Testament. 
**Gabriel **
many thanks for your, as usual, courteous reply to me.
It is a pity more are not contributing here.
I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussions we have in CA, so I would not like to cause dissension.
However I think truth is vital.
I think of two quotes:
Oliver Cromwell wrote in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650.
Secondly Charles Kingsley wrote:
My key point is Paul did not say “born of the woman”, but “born of a woman”. To me this is clear. However is it important? Did Mr Staples not know what Paul said? Did he say that Paul said “born of a woman”?
You wrote:
I think this issue is of huge importance for the integrity of CA.
In summary there are three questions
1 Did Mr Tim Staples say that Paul referred to Jesus as “born of the woman”?
2 Did Paul write that Jesus was “born of the woman”?
3 Does it make any difference?
I have submitted my concerns to CA and Gloria but so far I have not received a reply.
I do hope my concerns are expressed in a charitable way and that I have not said anything critical about Mr Staples himself.
In a letter
many thanks for your, as usual, courteous reply to me.
It is a pity more are not contributing here.
I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussions we have in CA, so I would not like to cause dissension.
However I think truth is vital.
I think of two quotes:
Oliver Cromwell wrote in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650.
So I may be mistaken, not for the first time, as I am trying to study Scripture with an open mind, from a Catholic perspective.
Secondly Charles Kingsley wrote:
This libel is totally incorrect, but I would hope that no member of the Catholic Church would ever misquote Scripture to make a point. The one, true Church should debate using the truth.
My key point is Paul did not say “born of the woman”, but “born of a woman”. To me this is clear. However is it important? Did Mr Staples not know what Paul said? Did he say that Paul said “born of a woman”?
You wrote:
I am not saying that Mary is not the woman. I am saying Mr Tim Staples claimed Paul said “born of the woman”, when he did not.
I think this issue is of huge importance for the integrity of CA.
In summary there are three questions
1 Did Mr Tim Staples say that Paul referred to Jesus as “born of the woman”?
2 Did Paul write that Jesus was “born of the woman”?
3 Does it make any difference?
I have submitted my concerns to CA and Gloria but so far I have not received a reply.
I do hope my concerns are expressed in a charitable way and that I have not said anything critical about Mr Staples himself.
In a letter
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
I think you would have a valid point if the video actually showed misquoted text, but the video does quote the text precisely. But Staples is correct in pointing out that the woman spoken of in Galatians 4:4 is Mary. After all, who else could it be? She is obviously is the woman whom God spoke about in Genesis.
Staples in referring to Galatians 4:4 said “born of the woman”. Paul Said "born of woman or “a woman”. Does it make a difference? Only if the woman in Galatians 4:4 is not Mary. But we know for a fact that Mary is that woman, and the link Staples was making is that the promise made in Genesis 3:15 speaks of “The woman” as does Revelation 12.
Incidentally, I am curious to know what you think about the texts of Genesis 3:15 where some Bible translations state:
“He will crush your head” or “**It **will crush your head” or “They will crush your head” or “She will crush your head.”
In the past 60 years most Bibles have adopted the word “he”, but the actual translation could be any one of them. As you may know, Jerome, translated the passage as “she” will crush your head and you (the serpent) will lie in wait of her heel". In context, God says he would put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed.
Here is an excellent article worth reading through which explains the issue: unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm
Staples in referring to Galatians 4:4 said “born of the woman”. Paul Said "born of woman or “a woman”. Does it make a difference? Only if the woman in Galatians 4:4 is not Mary. But we know for a fact that Mary is that woman, and the link Staples was making is that the promise made in Genesis 3:15 speaks of “The woman” as does Revelation 12.
Incidentally, I am curious to know what you think about the texts of Genesis 3:15 where some Bible translations state:
“He will crush your head” or “**It **will crush your head” or “They will crush your head” or “She will crush your head.”
In the past 60 years most Bibles have adopted the word “he”, but the actual translation could be any one of them. As you may know, Jerome, translated the passage as “she” will crush your head and you (the serpent) will lie in wait of her heel". In context, God says he would put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed.
Here is an excellent article worth reading through which explains the issue: unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm
Thanks again, Gabriel.
We seem to be the only people here.
I may try to start another discussion and see if more will join in.
All I can do is repeat that Tim Staples claimed Paul wrote “born of the woman” when he did not. I think this is important.
As I am mainly interested in Paul I do not have an immediate opinion about Gen 3:15.
I am pleased that we could have this discussion with mutual respect and friendship.
We seem to be the only people here.
I may try to start another discussion and see if more will join in.
All I can do is repeat that Tim Staples claimed Paul wrote “born of the woman” when he did not. I think this is important.
As I am mainly interested in Paul I do not have an immediate opinion about Gen 3:15.
I am pleased that we could have this discussion with mutual respect and friendship.
Gabriel,
I have sent a number of posts to Gloria TV and so far have received no reply.
I enclose a typical one.
But Gloria TV and Catholic Answers are reputable Catholic sites, and it would be a pity if they allowed untrue statements to go unchallenged and uncorrected.
I would ask subscribers to read this discussion and reply.
It is vital that the Church does not allow falsehoods to be published as Catholic views, especially when it is clear that the truth is not being stated.
As previously I am sending this to the moderators, but so far I have not heard from them.
I will continue in my efforts to get a reply from Catholic Answers. I am disappointed that so far this has not been possible, but I will continue with my efforts as I consider truth important.
I have sent a number of posts to Gloria TV and so far have received no reply.
I enclose a typical one.
I admit Mr Tim Staples has a primary degree, but it is not in Scripture. He did, I believe, take some graduand classes, but apparently did not graduate. Thus perhaps it is unfair to expect him to have a serious grasp of scripture.
But Gloria TV and Catholic Answers are reputable Catholic sites, and it would be a pity if they allowed untrue statements to go unchallenged and uncorrected.
I would ask subscribers to read this discussion and reply.
It is vital that the Church does not allow falsehoods to be published as Catholic views, especially when it is clear that the truth is not being stated.
As previously I am sending this to the moderators, but so far I have not heard from them.
I will continue in my efforts to get a reply from Catholic Answers. I am disappointed that so far this has not been possible, but I will continue with my efforts as I consider truth important.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Greetings my fellow Catholics!
I think it is ok to translate the Greek of Galatians 4:4 with a definite article if you think that Paul was using woman as a title to designate Mary rather than as a common noun to designate either the class of woman or some non particular woman when he wrote that verse (by “non particular woman” I don’t mean to suggest that he didn’t think that Jesus was born of a specific woman and that this woman was Mary, but I mean to suggest that he was simply trying to make the point that Jesus really was born of a woman without drawing attention to who that woman was.).
For example, Romans 1:1 does not have an article before “gospel.” But we translate it into English with the definite article because we think that he had a particular Gospel in mind when Tertius wrote this letter for him, and especially because he denied there being any other Gospel in Galatians. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not have an article in front of “pillar and buttress of the truth,” but some translations place a definite article there in English.
So it’s possible to render Galatians 4:4, “born of the Woman.” But the person who does so would have to build their case against a linguistic improbability.
Considered purely as a matter of linguistic possibility and without regard to the correctness or incorrectness of the translation, it is obvious that in the translation of the New Testament, as of any other Greek document, into English there are the following six possibilities of rendering, viz., a Greek noun with the definite article may be rendered by: (1) an English noun with the definite article, (2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an anarthrous English noun. An anarthrous Greek noun may be rendered by: (1) an anarthrous English noun, (2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an English noun with the definite article. Examination shows that each of these renderings does actually occur, though naturally with varying frequency. For example, the rendering of a Greek noun with the definite article by an English noun with the indefinite article is very rare, while the rendering of an anarthrous Greek noun by an English noun with the definite article is also relatively infrequent. – Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version by Arthur Wakefield Slaten, pg 4.
I hope this helps!
With the love of Christ,
Pete
I think it is ok to translate the Greek of Galatians 4:4 with a definite article if you think that Paul was using woman as a title to designate Mary rather than as a common noun to designate either the class of woman or some non particular woman when he wrote that verse (by “non particular woman” I don’t mean to suggest that he didn’t think that Jesus was born of a specific woman and that this woman was Mary, but I mean to suggest that he was simply trying to make the point that Jesus really was born of a woman without drawing attention to who that woman was.).
For example, Romans 1:1 does not have an article before “gospel.” But we translate it into English with the definite article because we think that he had a particular Gospel in mind when Tertius wrote this letter for him, and especially because he denied there being any other Gospel in Galatians. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not have an article in front of “pillar and buttress of the truth,” but some translations place a definite article there in English.
So it’s possible to render Galatians 4:4, “born of the Woman.” But the person who does so would have to build their case against a linguistic improbability.
Considered purely as a matter of linguistic possibility and without regard to the correctness or incorrectness of the translation, it is obvious that in the translation of the New Testament, as of any other Greek document, into English there are the following six possibilities of rendering, viz., a Greek noun with the definite article may be rendered by: (1) an English noun with the definite article, (2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an anarthrous English noun. An anarthrous Greek noun may be rendered by: (1) an anarthrous English noun, (2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an English noun with the definite article. Examination shows that each of these renderings does actually occur, though naturally with varying frequency. For example, the rendering of a Greek noun with the definite article by an English noun with the indefinite article is very rare, while the rendering of an anarthrous Greek noun by an English noun with the definite article is also relatively infrequent. – Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version by Arthur Wakefield Slaten, pg 4.
I hope this helps!
With the love of Christ,
Pete
Pete
Thank you very much for going to such a lot of trouble to reply to me. I appreciate this, as I do your scholarship.
You wrote:
You also wrote:
I agree that it is important to look carefully at the Greek.
It might be of interest if I quoted from Frank Matera’s* Galatians* (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1992, p 150):
Thank you very much for going to such a lot of trouble to reply to me. I appreciate this, as I do your scholarship.
You wrote:
However if your translate KUNAIKOS as “of the woman” you bias the interpretation towards the conclusion that Paul used KUNAIKOS as a title.
You also wrote:
Your point is carefully made.
I agree that it is important to look carefully at the Greek.
It might be of interest if I quoted from Frank Matera’s* Galatians* (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1992, p 150):
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Pete,
Your posts show CA at its best, as they encourage one to think deeply about the word of God.
I interpret Gal 4:4 to show that Jesus is truly man, and that he had a mother. The argument is about docetism. Jesus did not just seem to be a man, he really was one and was born as all humans are with a mother.
I have had a very courteous email from Gloria.TV at last, for which I am very grateful. But no one connected with CA has replied to me.
Your posts show CA at its best, as they encourage one to think deeply about the word of God.
I interpret Gal 4:4 to show that Jesus is truly man, and that he had a mother. The argument is about docetism. Jesus did not just seem to be a man, he really was one and was born as all humans are with a mother.
I have had a very courteous email from Gloria.TV at last, for which I am very grateful. But no one connected with CA has replied to me.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
As per the Forum Admins, Tim Staples can be reached by writing him at TStaples@catholic.com
Michael
It is great to hear from you. It is important to know that we have a sound moderator, as discussions may veer off topic without some guidance at times.
I find it a privilege to be here and I am helped in my studies.
You might like to look at the topic in this forum of CA Gal 4:4, “born of the woman”. Is truth important? (Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture Gal 4:4, “born of the woman”. Is truth important?)
I will contact Mr Staples. However the problem is resolved. I enclose the full correspondence with Gloria.TV can now be sen at en.gloria.tv/?media=27468.
This evening I will try to participate in his radio program, brought to my attention by Gabriel.
May I take this opportunity to thank you and all in CA, whether on the staff or contributors, for great work for the Church?
I am pleased that a discussion was able to develop concerning Mr Staples’ interpretation of Gal 4:4, which I disagreed with.
The openness of Catholics to seeking the truth in a free and charitable manner was clearly shown by finally publishing my comments in Gloria.TV and having two topics here,
It is great to hear from you. It is important to know that we have a sound moderator, as discussions may veer off topic without some guidance at times.
I find it a privilege to be here and I am helped in my studies.
You might like to look at the topic in this forum of CA Gal 4:4, “born of the woman”. Is truth important? (Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture Gal 4:4, “born of the woman”. Is truth important?)
I will contact Mr Staples. However the problem is resolved. I enclose the full correspondence with Gloria.TV can now be sen at en.gloria.tv/?media=27468.
This evening I will try to participate in his radio program, brought to my attention by Gabriel.
May I take this opportunity to thank you and all in CA, whether on the staff or contributors, for great work for the Church?
I am pleased that a discussion was able to develop concerning Mr Staples’ interpretation of Gal 4:4, which I disagreed with.
The openness of Catholics to seeking the truth in a free and charitable manner was clearly shown by finally publishing my comments in Gloria.TV and having two topics here,
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
FYI…en.gloria.tv/?media=27468.
- Status