Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 01:05 AM

I was sitting by the fireplace reading my edition of Rashi's Commentary on Exodus with this reference to the earliest followers of Paul on my mind:

Quote:

They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the Æons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: Every male that opens the womb. [Exodus 13:2; Luke 2:23] For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering Æon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, And He Himself is all things; [Colossians 3:11] and again, All things are to Him, and of Him are all things; [Romans 11:36] and further, In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead; Colossians 2:9 and yet again, All things are gathered together by God in Christ. [Ephesians 1:10] Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture. (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.3.4)

I start off by asking myself - why did these gnostics take such an interest in the 'firstborn concept'? The natural answer is - it has something to do with Christ being 'the firstborn' and all that. Yet as I was reading the passage in Exodus in Rashi's commentary I couldn't help also think about 1 Corinthians 15:8:

Quote:

and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί.

Let me first tell you about Exodus 131:12. It comes in the middle of a declaration from God about what the Israelites have to do once they enter the Promised Land. Here is how the NIV translates it:

Quote:

“After the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your ancestors, you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD. Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

“In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.” [Exodus 13:12 - 16]

Of course many of you must be asking yourselves 'where't the bit about abortion'? Here is the original Hebrew and English side by side:

Quote:

And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, as He swore unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee, that thou shalt set apart (וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ) unto the LORD all that openeth the womb; every firstling that is a male, which thou hast coming of a beast (שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה), shall be the LORD'S.

Rashi gives the following commentary on the latter part of the material:

Quote:

שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה - (this refers to) an abortion which its mother expelled and sent forth before its time. And Scripture teaches you that it is sanctified as a firstborn in respect of exempting what comes after it

Rashi does acknowledge the passage can be read in another way yet it is clear that he thinks the abortion reference is the right meaning. Indeed in Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu (Berman p 403) it is presented that what is meant here is that this utterance emphasizes that the abortion allows that which follows to also be a firstborn:

Quote:

All that openeth the womb indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn

I don't know where this leads but is the apostle somehow identifying himself as this abortion?

PhilosopherJay · 10-01-2011, 06:58 AM

Hi stephan Huller,

Did you mean "the abortion allows that which follows to also not be a firstborn," when you wrote, "this utterance emphasizes that the abortion allows that which follows to also be a firstborn."? That seems to be the indication of the following passage you quoted.

Vincent's Word Study is interesting here:

Quote:

Vincent's Word Studies

One born out of due time (τῷ ἐκτρώματι)

Only here in the New Testament. It occurs, Numbers 12:12; Job 3:16; Ecclesiastes 6:3. The Hebrew nephel, which it is used to translate, occurs in the same sense in Psalm 58:8, where the Septuagint follows another reading of the Hebrew text. In every case the word means an abortion, a still-born embryo. In the same sense it is found frequently in Greek medical writers, as Galen and Hippocrates, and in the writings of Aristotle on physical science. This is the rendering of the Rheims Version: an abortive. Wyc., a dead-born child. The rendering of the A.V. and Rev. is unsatisfactory, since it introduces the notion of time which is not in the original word, and fails to express the abortive character of the product; leaving it to be inferred that it is merely premature, but living and not dead. The word does not mean an untimely living birth, but a dead abortion, and suggests no notion of lateness of birth, but rather of being born before the time. The words as unto the abortion are not to be connected with last of all - last of all as to the abortion - because there is no congruity nor analogy between the figure of an abortion and the fact that Christ appeared to him last. Connect rather with He appeared: last of all He appeared unto me as unto the abortion. Paul means that when Christ appeared to him and called him, he was - as compared with the disciples who had known and followed Him from the first, and whom he had been persecuting - no better than an unperfected foetus among living men. The comparison emphasizes his condition at the time of his call. The attempt to explain by a reference to Paul's insignificant appearance, from which he was nicknamed "The Abortion" by his enemies, requires no refutation.

It appears to me that Paul is just saying that he was born dead, someone without any understanding - dead matter - when Jesus appeared to him.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I was sitting by the fireplace reading my edition of Rashi's Commentary on Exodus with this reference to the earliest followers of Paul on my mind:
{Snip}

Rashi does acknowledge the passage can be read in another way yet it is clear that he thinks the abortion reference is the right meaning. Indeed in Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu (Berman p 403) it is presented that what is meant here is that this utterance emphasizes that the abortion allows that which follows to also be a firstborn:

Quote:

All that openeth the womb indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn

I don't know where this leads but is the apostle somehow identifying himself as this abortion?

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 10:17 AM

Yes, that's what I meant. It was very late and I was (and am) very tired. That is an interesting reference you bring up. What I find interesting is that no one has ever figured out what Paul means by any of this. The only clue I can see is that there heretics took an interest in these words but even here we can't figure out why they took an interest in this stuff. It is intriguing to me at least that the heretics also took an interest defined the concept of Christ being a 'firstborn' through an interpretation of Exodus chapter 13. This goes to the core of what I mean when I say that there is a 'Jewishness' to Marcion and the heretics. The Church Fathers (except for the Alexandrian tradition) don't approach the scriptures in a 'Jewish manner.' The heretics do.

I was just looking to see if Marqe makes reference to this concept of the abortion and discovered that he does not, nor does he (in the surviving material which only covers about 1/50th of what must have been originally there) make explicit citation of Exodus 13.12,13. Yet he does make reference to Exodus 13,14 and we can already here begin to see how there is a 'gnostic ring' to his language:

Quote:

The great prophet Moses said, "Remember thy servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Deut. ix. 27), the perfect ones. When your son asks you (Ex. xiii. 1 4 : Deut. vi. 20; Targ.) about what God said, Ask your father and he will show you (Deut. xxxii. 7 ; Targ.) what Moses said. Let us give thanks to our God with great faith and exalt His greatness
and hear the statement of Moses and be illumined by it, perchance we may receive mercy. Your elders, and they will tell you (ibid: Targ.), for God taught them through the great prophet Moses, so that they were perfect. [MM 4.2]

And again in what follows:

Quote:

Exalted is the great prophet Moses, the faithful one who was in the light of the True One! He began to reprove all Israel, saying first of all, "Ask your father, and he will show161 you" (Deut. xxxii. 7; Targ.) what He has done for your sake, for the True One said, "Israel is my firstborn son" (Ex. iv. 22). He perfected them with might and made
them strong in all that is good. Praise the great King who called Israel My firstborn son, that He might give them all glory, as did Abraham. So God appointed and Abraham gave all that was his to Isaac his son (Gen. xxv. 5) of the fullness of his father's position. He was worthy to receive his inheritance. Likewise it was done for his descendants. He called their name Firstborn son and assembled them to Him. This is a merciful God and
there is no other beside Him. He honoured Israel with all exceeding good. Ask your father and he will show you (Deut. xxxii. 7 ; Targ.) and your heart will rejoice at what God has done for you.

How He has perfected you with glory! How He has supplied you from His good!
How He has fed you bread from heaven! How He has given you rest on the Sabbath!
How He has given you joy in the Festivals! How He has given you His own handwriting!
How He slew your foes before you! How He protected you with the cloud!
How He divided the sea and made you go through it! How He sweetened for you the water of Marah!
How He gave you water from the rock to drink! How He turned the curse into blessing for you!
More than that, He made you to hear His voice from heaven and you heard His words from the midst of the fire. Declare this glory and change your heart and give thanks to God for all these gifts and know that no people out of all the peoples in the world have been honoured like you. If you ask your fathers, you will be a good son. You will be in faith, you and your sons. [ibid]

And again at the end of the collection:

Quote:

As often as we are called, we do not answer. How often the True One testifies of us, calling us 'firstborn sons', a holy, special people', 'priests', and also 'kings', 'heritage' and 'chosen ones', and has given us His Scripture and honoured us with knowledge of Him, crowned us with holiness, magnified us with commandments, borne us on eagles' wings,
made us pass through the sea, sweetened for us the water of Marah, given us Manna to eat, made us to hear His voice, honoured us with His Scripture! Who among all nations has been honoured like us or been magnified as we have been ? How could we let ourselves be removed from such knowledge, when the great prophet Moses is our teacher? How could our souls be in need of anyone else, when all are in need of us ? [MM 6.3]

There is also the clear sense that 'the firstborn' is an angelic associate of God in Marqe too:

Quote:

Moses repeated what was said to Pharaoh the king, bearing witness to it, so that he might be free of him. "Thus said the Lord, the God of the world, 'Let the sons of my firstborn (Ex. iv. 22 ; Targ.) go, that they may serve me. If you do not let them go, He will kill your firstborn son and all the firstborn in your land. [MM 1.9]

After that my regent will descend and kill the firstborn of the Egyptians—man and beast—while you set forth with triumph, led by the pillar of cloud and of fire, provisioned with all good and favour, with the wealth of the Egyptians—silver and gold and raiment. You
will be enriched with them and with multiple bounties, while all the Egyptians will be deprived of wealth, of silver and gold and apparel." [ibid]

Toto · 10-01-2011, 10:33 AM

GRS Mead seems clear on what it means.

Quote:

Now "the abortion" is a technical and oft-repeated term of one of the great systems of the Gnosis, a term which enters into the main fabric of the Sophia-mythus.

In the mystic cosmogony of these Gnostic circles, "the abortion" was the crude matter cast out of the Pleroma or world of perfection. This crude and chaotic matter was in the. cosmogonical process shaped into a perfect "aeon'' by the World-Christ; that is to say, was made into a world-system by the ordering or cosmic power of the Logos. "The abortion" was the unshaped and unordered chaotic matter which had to be separated out, ordered and perfected, in the macrocosmic task of the "enformation according to substance," while this again was to be completed on the soteriological side by the microcosmic process of the "enformation according to gnosis" or spiritual consciousness. As the world-soul was perfected by the World-Christ, so was the individual soul to be perfected and redeemed by the individual Christ.

Paul thus becomes comprehensible; he here speaks the language of the Gnosis, and in this instance at least it is possible to draw the deduction that the Gnosis in this connection could not, in his opinion, have been "falsely so called." Paul is speaking to communities who are familiar with such language "He appeared to me just as it were to that well-known imperfect plasm which we call ' the abortion,'" he says; "I use a figure familiar to all of you."

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 10:46 AM

Grant does the same thing but even he doesn't seem convinced by the explanation. I think I found the reference in Philo but Kirby's site is down (so I can't cut and paste right now). Philo seems to say that there are two kinds of 'firstborns' - the virtuous male firstborn which belongs to the Lord and the bad passionate type which I tentatively take to be what Paul is referencing here. In other words, he was 'sinful' as an abortion but through cleaving to the true firstborn is redeemed. I am rushing out the door but I think Paul is tapping into the central myth of the firstborn but plugging in the Gentiles/proselytes as being redeemed through dying (as an abortion perhaps also) and resurrecting with Christ. I have always thought that baptism derives from the death of the sinful Egyptians in the water (not Israel passing through the water and not getting wet).

RParvus · 10-01-2011, 03:24 PM

The word “ektroma’ can also be used for a prematurely born child who survives, not just a stillborn birth or abortion (See J. Munck’s “Paulus tanquam abortivus,” in A.J.B. Higgins [ed.] “N.T. Essays: Studies in memory of T.W. Manson, pp. 180-95”). So it may be that the choice of ‘ektroma’ in the so-called Ignatian letter to the Romans (IgnRom. 9:2) was made with size in view. The author of the Ignatians (Peregrinus, I submit) wanted to engage in self-depreciation to a degree that would put him even lower than Paul. Paul’s name means ‘child, little one;” so Peregrinus, as a ‘preemie,” was deferentially assuming a status smaller and less significant than Paul.

In this scenario the proto-orthodox interpolator of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11 would have borrowed the ‘ektroma’ idea from the letters of Peregrinus. As part of his subordination of Paul, the interpolator made him profess to be the smallest and least significant of all: a mere preemie.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2011, 10:46 AM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Grant does the same thing but even he doesn't seem convinced by the explanation. I think I found the reference in Philo but Kirby's site is down (so I can't cut and paste right now). Philo seems to say that there are two kinds of 'firstborns' - the virtuous male firstborn which belongs to the Lord and the bad passionate type which I tentatively take to be what Paul is referencing here. In other words, he was 'sinful' as an abortion but through cleaving to the true firstborn is redeemed. I am rushing out the door but I think Paul is tapping into the central myth of the firstborn but plugging in the Gentiles/proselytes as being redeemed through dying (as an abortion perhaps also) and resurrecting with Christ. I have always thought that baptism derives from the death of the sinful Egyptians in the water (not Israel passing through the water and not getting wet).

10-01-2011, 03:24 PM	#6
RParvus Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New England Posts: 53	The word “ektroma’ can also be used for a prematurely born child who survives, not just a stillborn birth or abortion (See J. Munck’s “Paulus tanquam abortivus,” in A.J.B. Higgins [ed.] “N.T. Essays: Studies in memory of T.W. Manson, pp. 180-95”). So it may be that the choice of ‘ektroma’ in the so-called Ignatian letter to the Romans (IgnRom. 9:2) was made with size in view. The author of the Ignatians (Peregrinus, I submit) wanted to engage in self-depreciation to a degree that would put him even lower than Paul. Paul’s name means ‘child, little one;” so Peregrinus, as a ‘preemie,” was deferentially assuming a status smaller and less significant than Paul. In this scenario the proto-orthodox interpolator of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11 would have borrowed the ‘ektroma’ idea from the letters of Peregrinus. As part of his subordination of Paul, the interpolator made him profess to be the smallest and least significant of all: a mere preemie.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.