On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:54:48 -0800 you wrote:
[...]
>Denis wrote:
DL>So Russ--the Bible has errors of fact in it. The Double Seed
>Theory of reproduction was the state of the art science in the first
>century. It is erroneous, BUT IT GOT INTO GOD'S WORD. And please,
>go check it out for yourself. ....
DL>But better yet, read Pieter Willem Van Der Horst's "Did Sarah Have
>A Seminal Emission?" Bible Review (Feb 1992): 35-39. He shows how
>the 1st century literature clearly supports they believed that women
>had seminal emissions--that was the science of the day. And when the
>writer of Hebrews wrote the letter, he/she employed his/her
>intellectual horizon--it was not suspended.
DP>First, I was taught that conception involved the emission of an egg
>by the woman as well as the contribution of sperm by the male.
>Exactly how does the `Double Seed Theory of reproduction' contradict
>that? K-A-T-A-B-O-L-A-N S-P-E-R-M-A-T-O-S means to lay down seed.
>We generally use the word `sperm' in the male context, but isn't a
>better translation `seed'? (e.g. SPERMOLOGOS is a `seed-picker,'
>used to refer to someone who is `trifling in their talk' ... an
>insult without any sexual connotation).
>So why is it that this term could not be applied to Sarah?
Agreed. I thought of this myself at work. Is it an "error" to apply
the word "seed" to a woman's ova? The OT (way before any 1st century
double seed theory) refers to a child as "the fruit of the womb" Gn
30:2; Dt 7:13; Ps 127:3; Isa 13:18; Hos 9:16; Lk 1:42. Is this an
error to apply an agricultural analogy? If one wanted to be really
picky one could say that it is an error to even speak of a male
seed!
DP>In Hebrew the word for seed is synonymous with lineage. It is used
>to refer to someone of Eve's lineage in Genesis 3:15, and Onan's
>seminal emission in Genesis 38:9.
Interestingly, the LXX does not use katabolan spermatos in Gn 38:9.
DP>Isn't the description used particularly suggestive that (or even
>literally translated as) she received the ability to ovulate?
Yes. What would be the problem with that? Our knowledge of NT Greek
is still sketchy. The phrase katabolan spermatos in the 1st century
may have had a popular meaning of a woman's ovulation that had no
scientific content at all.
DP>I believe that there are various miscellaneous errors in the
>Scripture ***, but this sure doesn't seem to be one of them.
Agreed, although I would be cautious asserting that any particular
case is definitely an error. It may be an error in an early copy. Or
it might be that we just do not understand the full story.
DP>Even if katabolan spermatos is used to refer exclusively to male
>ejaculation, why does that prevent it from also being used to mean
>ovluation by the author of Hebrews? Is there some term for ovulation
>in koine that should have been used instead? Would it have carried
>the same sense of bringing forth lineage that is implied here?
Interestingly, the Gk for "egg" is oon (Lk 11:12). Since we
scientifically refer to a male sperm as a spermatazoon, (lit.
seed-egg?) is modern science thereby wrong? The point is that the
same words can have popular meanings devoid of scientific content, and
vice versa. To assert that the writer of Heb 11:11 was espousing a
1st century scientific "double-seed" theory (and therefore he was in
error), is preacarious, to say the least.
DP>Denis asserts that he has not overstated the case, but as far as I
>can tell he has haven't yet presented a convincing argument. To show
>error, I think he would have to demonstrate two things about the
>description in Heb 11:11:
>1 - that it is somehow fundamentally inaccurate.
>2 - that given the limitations of language and knowledge in the era
>it was written, that this was a definitely inappropriate way to
>convey the author's point.
Especially since the primary meaning of katabole in the NT is
"foundation" , eg. "foundation of the world", ie. conception of the
world: Mt 13:35; 25:34; Lk 11:50; Jn 17:24; Eph 1:4; Heb 4:3; 9:26;
1Pet 1:20; 13:8; 17:8.
DP>The second point requires that the specific language used could not
>make sense metaphorically. It doesn't seem reasonable to judge
>speech literally that wasn't intended as literal. Little evocative
>prose from any era would stand up to that test.
>*** For example:
> In Mark 11 Jesus curses the fig tree on the way from Bethany to
> Jerusalem and it is observed as withered the next morning, at which
> point Jesus teaches them on faith.
>
> In Matthew 21 the fig tree withers at once, and Jesus immediately
> teaches them on faith.
>
>Perhaps Jesus was habitually cursing fig trees, or maybe Peter could be
>really dense in the morning sometimes (e.g. before he had his coffee),
>but my conclusion is that the record is fundamentally inaccurate, and
>there was no metaphorical value (i.e. poetic license) to munging the time
>sequence.
>
>Therefore I think this is an example of error. However the Scripture
>is undiminished by it.
I do not agree that this is necessarily an error (although it could
be). Archer's "Bible Difficulties" and Hendricksen's "Matthew" both
point out that Mark tends to record things chronologically, whereas
Matthew arranges them topically.
The point is that reality is often complex (even in simple things),
and summarising what happened in words, always leaves something out,
unless we wish to write a very tedious technical and chronological
account. The complex events of Resurrection Sunday have long been
thought to be erroneous. But Wenham "The Easter Enigma" has shown
how they could all agree. The point is that if: 1) we had been there
and 2) could ask the Bible writers what they meant; then we would
probably find that there was no error at all.
To say that a certain verse in an ancient, much copied document was
definitely an error in the original, is to assume omniscience.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------