spin

Umm, the one that takes up five sixths of the entry you cited and sidestepped.

Fitzmyer is correct about what Luke does and doesn't say, but is irrelevant to the kinship issue.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Jeffrey

***

Quote:

συγγεν-ής , ές, A. congenital, inborn, “ἦθος” Pi.O.13.13; “εὐδοξία” Id.N.3.40; ς. εἶδος,= φύσις, character, Hp.Hum.1; “νόσημα ς. ἐστί τινι” Id.Prorrh.2.2; “φόβος” A.Eu.691; παύροις . . ἐστι συγγενὲς τόδε natural to them, Id.Ag.832; “ἡ τύχη προσγίγνεθ᾽ ἡμῖν ς. τῷ σώματι” Philem.10; πότμος ς. Pi.N.5.40; προϊδεῖν ς. οἷς ἕπεται who have the natural gift to foresee, ib.1.28; συγγενεῖς μῆνες my connate months, the months of my natural life, S.OT1082; ς. τρίχες the hair born with one, i.e. the hair of the head as opp. to the beard, Arist.HA518a18, 584a24; σημεῖα ς. birth-marks, ib.585b31; δυνάμεις αἱ ς., opp. αἱ ἔθει and αἱ μαθήσει, Id.Metaph.1047b31; αὔξει τὸ ς. increases its natural force, Id.EN1119b9. Adv., -νῶς δύστηνος miserable from his birth, E.HF1293; v. σύμφυτος. II. of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to, τινι Hdt.1.109, 3.2, E.Heracl.229: abs., akin, cognate, “θεός” A.Pr.14; “γυνή” E.Andr.887; “χείρ” S.OC1387; συγγενέστατον φύσει πάντων most nearly akin, Is.11.17; “ς. γάμος ἀνεψιῶν” A.Pr.855; of animals, Arist.HA539a23, GA747a31, al.: hence, b. Subst., kinsman, relative, “οὖσα ς. ἐκείνου” Ar.Pax618 (troch.); τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς ξυγγενεῖ (dual) Id.Av.368 (troch.); “πρὸς ς. τε καὶ οἰκείους αὐτῶν” Pl.R.378c; “ἔργον εὑρεῖν συγγενῆ πένητός ἐστιν” Men.4; “γάμει τὴν συγγενῆ” Id.929: freq. in pl., οἱ ς. kinsfolk, kinsmen, Pi.P.4.133, Hdt.2.91, etc.; not properly applied to children (ἔκγονοι) in relation to their parents, and so opp. ἔκγονοι in Is.8.30, v. συγγένεια 1 (but cf. And.1.17); “τοῖς συγγενέσι τὰ τοῦ συγγενοῦς ψηφίζεσθαι” Is.4.23. c. τὸ ς.,= συγγένεια, kindred, relationship, A.Pr.291 (anap.), S.El.1469, Th.3.82, etc.; also, the spirit of one's race, Pi.P.10.12, N.6.8; εἰ τούτῳ προσήκει Λαΐῳ τι ς. if he had any connexion with him, S.OT814; of tribes, κατὰ τὸ ξ. Th.1.95. 2. metaph., akin, cognate, of like kind, “τοὺς τρόπους οὐ συγγενής” Ar.Eq.1280 (troch.), cf. Th.574; ξυγγενὴς ὁ κύσθος αὐτῆς θητέρᾳ (for τῷ τῆς ἑτέρας) Id.Ach.789; freq. in Pl., [“ἡ ψυχὴ] ς. οὖσα τῷ θείῳ” R.611e; “τῇ πολεμικῇ ς. ἡ πάλη” Lg.814d; “τοῖς . . λόγοις τὴν αἰτίαν συγγενῆ δεῖ νομίζειν” Arist.GA788b9, cf. Rh.1398a21 (Comp.): rarely c. gen., νοῦς αἰτίας ς. Pl.Phlb.31a, cf. Phd.79d, R.403a, 487a: abs., ς. τιμωρίαι fitting, proper punishments, Lycurg.122 (but prob. f.l. for εὐγ-）; συγγενῆ things of the same kind, homogeneous, Arist. APo.76a1; “τὰ ς. καὶ τὰ ὁμοειδῆ” Id.Rh.1405a35; “ς. τέχναι” Stoic.2.30; ἐν γαίῃ μὲν σῶμα τὸ ς. its congener, IG9(1).882.7 (Corc<*>ra). Adv., “συγγενῶς ἔρχεσθαι” Pl.Lg.897c; “ς. τρέχων Πλάτωνι” Alex.1 (codd. D.L.); τὰ ς. εἰρημένα to similar effect, Phld.Mus. p.92K. III. συγγενής represented a title bestowed at the Persian court by the king as a mark of honour, 'cousin', X.Cyr.1.4.27, 2.2.31, D.S.16.50; also at the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts, OGI104.2 (Delos, ii B.C.), al., BGU1741.12 (i B.C.), LXX 1 Ma.10.89; οἱ ς. τῶν κατοίκων ἱππέων prob. a category of nobles among the κάτοικοι, PTeb.61（b). 79 (ii B.C.); “συγγενεῖς κάτοικοι” UPZ14.8 (ii B.C.).

spin

I missed out on where I said anything about "close kin". Could you show me where I did so?

I seem to remember citing a definition from the same L&S dictionary entry in post 113 of this thread, the one that immediately follows the II. It says "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to".

When you posted this entry, you did notice that second section with its subparagraphs b and c, didn't you? You know it's followed by the paragraph 2 with its metaphorical usage. There is nothing in Lk 1:36 to suggest a metaphorical usage, so which usage is left that is applicable other than the main part of II.?

So now you've tried two dictionaries about which you don't give the impression of having looked closely at. You've tried to foist meanings onto me that I haven't expressed. This is not a good showing there, Jeffrey. Is this because you don't want to answer the question, as to what in Lk 1:36 would make you think that συγγενης is used to indicate anything other than "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to"?

Can we assume that you have no real objection to the notion that Mary, being a kinswoman of Elisabeth, is of the tribe of Levi?


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Did you not use the word "cousin"? Is "close kin" not an inference from your claim that because Mary was "cousin or kinswoman" to Elizabeth, who was an Aaronid, that Mary was not only also Aaronid, but could not possibly be from David's line?

Yes, and I presume you noted that what LSJ lists as the "fundamental meaning", is something other than what you claimed it was.

Is "akin to" identical in meaning with "of the same descent"?

In any case, as LSJ indicates with their use of "akin" (which in their time did not necessarily denote "blood" relationship) as one of the senses of συγγενής, and as Danker notes and instances, someone can be "akin to" someone else without being of the exact same tribe.

Other than that the term in question does not demand that we accept this notion or exclude any other possibility for Mary's lineage, no.


Jeffrey

spin

Before I looked at the Greek and started discussing the issue with you. In our discussion I did not, so your going there isn't going to get you brownie points.

You're only looking for a fight.

You can presume what you like. It seems to me that you are having unjust apoplexy for a handy-dandy term such as "fundamental meaning" (and if it's really and truly a sticking point, will "most common meaning" help as another rough expression of the basic concept?). When you use a term, such as "run" in a sentence such as "I was running at 8am." can you see any justification of looking beyond the notion of a specific human motion? When I talk of the word "hand" such as "He has a large hand", can you see any justification of looking beyond the notion of a human appendage from the end of the arm? You mightn't like the name I gave but you cannot seriously ignore the idea.

That's what the word meant when it entered the English language. Do you see from the other parts of the definition a reason to think otherwise?

Danker is not an exhaustive source by any means, but joins "akin" with "related". Can you cite any of Danker's examples in the non-metaphorical section that would make you think συγγενης isn't about family/kin/descent?

Whoa. You are doing that ol' soft shoe sidestep again. In the statement of the idea containing συγγενης what makes you think that we are not dealing with the common notion "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to"? This is not a matter that you can decide the word doesn't mean what it commonly means without textual indications.

OK. Could you produce a few examples from the testimony of Ignatius, Justin, and/or Origen of where you think a minimally contextualized συγγενης dealing with people's relations will mean something other than L&S's "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to" and explain specifically why you think that?


spin

avi

Thank you Jeffrey, for your several comments, and questions, all much appreciated...

I think the modern interpretation is quite different, from the tradition a couple of millenia ago:

I repeat my former allegation, it doesn't matter a whit what Mary's genealogy is. You and spin can argue til the cows come home, the fact is, that Jesus' presumed connection to David must be demonstrated via male descent, as the biblical genealogies demonstrate.

I believe that we need a fresh look at the Greek, in light of the numerous contributions to this thread....Are we certain, i.e. you and spin, that Romans 1:3 does not refer to the conception process, i.e. David's sperm? Have we produced definitive evidence, then, to reveal that neither sperma (Greek) nor semen, (Latin) was ever used in Koine Greek, or Latin, to indicate the male contribution to the conception process, i.e. that both words may refer only to "descendants" in a broad, and vague sense, or what KJV calls "seed", and not to the haploid gametes themselves?

I don't know whether anyone else is troubled by this passage, I am, because I suppose, in ignorance, that "Paul", or the authors who created "Paul", inserted this text, from Romans 1:3, because of numerous episodes of confrontation while traveling and lecturing on Christianity.

These authors required some sort of explanation, to address the frequent questions they must have encountered, with regard to Jesus' presumed patrilineal descent. Luke explicitly states that David was the father...How can that be, unless I am correct, that in the first century, sperma indicated male genetic material, required for conception?

avi

Cege

I apologise in advance. I read the first 4 pages in this thread, then zipped forward to here. I'm late to this party, but want to express my own misgivings, as a Christian, about the entire Jesus descendant of David therefore conceived of a virgin Mary idea.

Two of the gospels give genealogies for Jesus, and both seem to list JOSEPH's heritage even though there are dramatic differences. But Joseph plays no role, according to the NT, in Jesus' conception.

How then does the NT relate Jesus to the House of David since Joseph plays no role providing semen and mother Mary isn't provided any connection to long-dead King David?

spin

Obviously, it was the intention of the writers who provided the genealogies to provide a lineage from David to Jesus, but developing traditions provided the problem that Jesus had a miraculous birth, so we get the hasty invalidation of the genealogies. In Matthew we get the line down to Joseph "the husband of Mary of whom (feminine, ie "of Mary") Jesus was born" (1:16), simple detachment, saying only that Jesus was born of Mary and no link to the lengthy genealogy at all. In Luke, even simpler, "he was the son (it was thought) of Joseph" (3:23) -- zoing, another genealogy shot down.

This is a clear sign of a development in the tradition, which required adjustment of the book, leaving the genealogy, but tacitly rendering them useless.

A number of tacks get tried:

1. Joseph adopts Jesus and thus Jesus becomes a fully accredited Davidid by adoption.
2. Mary is actually a closet Davidid.
3. Being a son of David is only symbolic.
4. God can say who is a son of David.
5. Problem? What problem?

Take your pick.


spin

avi

I like it!
:notworthy:

I would hope to add a sixth element to your list:

6. The father is David.

Is it any more miraculous to bring Lazarus back from the dead, than it is to restore David, in the flesh, (kata sarka), for the purpose of inseminating Mary?

avi

avi

Yes, but, symbolic of what?

I think it is symbolic of the (false) notion that God serves man, instead of man being a servant of God.

Why should Jesus, a God, or the God himself (itself), be related in any fashion to a mere human, be he king or peasant?

What right do ordinary mortals (Luke, and Paul, for example) possess, which entitles them to suggest assignment of a mere human lineage to a god?

avi