Critical Analysis
The preceding prolegomena, then, invite the question of whether epigenesis applies to a birth concept in the Gospel of John. Two types of generation are possible in the Fourth Gospel: biological and divine.
If medical texts and specifically epigenesis constitute the background for birth in the Gospel of John, then we must decide whether the allusion pertains to biological birth, divine birth or both, and whether the allusion is literal or figurative.[376] On the one hand, if the interpretation is literal, as Reinhartz concludes,[377] then the theory should either, in the case of biological birth, emphasize that Jesus was not preformed, but as an embryo developed (Prolegomenon #3). Alternatively, in the case of divine birth, a literal allusion to epigenesis might underscore some type of ethical or spiritual development of Jesus during earthly ministry, perhaps as related to messianic consciousness.[378] On the other hand, if epigenesis provides metaphorical background, then in the case of biological birth it must emphasize evolution in what preceded Jesus’s incarnation or, in the case of divine birth, that Jesus progresses to a point at which he receives πνεύμα, not as sentience but conscience, as in, for example, an ability to recognize the “truth” (e.g., John 4:23). As a metaphor, for either biological or divine birth epigenesis might selectively (as metaphors often do) deemphasize that Jesus received elements necessary for “life” from a maternal side, even including the material necessary for the formation of his physical body, but logically it could not rule out all female contributions.[379] Whatever the case, it must feature epigenesis’s core attribute: development.Whereas Reinhartz does not specify which kind of birth (i.e., biological or divine) epigenesis backs, Seim argues that epigenesis provides the metaphorical background for Jesus’s divine birth.[380] This option is certainly the most plausible of the four possibilities.
Jesus’s biological birth is hardly a matter of debate in the Fourth Gospel insofar as the author mentions both of his parents (“mother”: John 2:1-5 [wedding at Cana], 12; 6:42; 19:25;[381] Joseph: John 1:45; 6:42). The presence, even prominence, of mother (albeit never “Mary”) in the text[382] rules out both literal and figurative biological birth options in the absence of a female gamete.[383] It is thus impossible to say which generation theory lies behind Jesus’s biological birth in the Gospel of John. The author is not interested in the question. If the author subscribed to the same biological theory of generation as Philo, he may have accepted pangenesis. Three Philonic parallels Reinhartz brings forward as evidence of epigenesis’s popularity during the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods more likely feature pangenesis.[384]Even for divine birth, however, whether literally, metaphorically or some more complex combination of the two,[385] epigenesis as the background must not stake a claim on generation in the absence of the female factor and, conversely, must emphasize that Jesus’s born-from-above self was not in all aspects pre-formed, but developed - a difficult if not impossible postulate.[386]
The passages treating divine birth in the Gospel may now be analyzed. Divine birth arises in at least the following places in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:12-13; 1:14 (cf. also 1:18; 3:16, 18) and 3:3-10, 31 (cf. 8:23). Beginning with the extended passage on divine birth ([a] 3:3-10), the analysis then treats brief passages touching on this theme: (b) 8:41-42; (c) 1:1213 (possible manuscript variant); (d) 1:14 (and 1 John 5:18); (e) 16:21; and (f) 2:1-12.
I. John 3:3-10
John 3:3-10 offers the seminal account of Jesus’s teaching on divine generation.
1Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (εάν μη τι? γεννηθή άνωθεν, ού δύναται ίδείν την βασιλείαν τοΐι θεοΰ).’ 4Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.” 8The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’ 9Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can these things be?’ 10Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?” (NRSV)[387]Seim opts for the medical theory of epigenesis to explain generation in this passage (v. 3), interpreting γεννηθη άνωθεν as born in the absence of the female gamete.[388] However, in advocating epigenesis, Seim does not make a positive case against other generation theories (discussed below).[389] Pre- formationism, for example, may offer a closer match than epigenesis as metaphorical background for divine birth in this passage.[390]
Preformationism is the theory that all organisms were created at the same time, and that succeeding generations grow from homunculi, animalcules, or other fully-formed but miniature versions of themselves that have existed since the beginning of creation.[391]
It is commonly assumed that John trumps Matthean and Lukan genealogies by tracing Jesus back farther than Abraham (Matt 1:2, 17) and Adam (Luke 3:38) to the foundation of the world (e.g., John 1:1-2).[392] If preformationism were behind Jesus’s generation in the Gospel of John, then this Gospel would outdo the other accounts not just generally, by tracing Jesus to the world’s creation, but specifically, by arguing that Jesus began as the Father’s homunculus - a miniature version (imago Dei) of the Father existing since the creation of the world.[393] Preformationism also, more easily than epigenesis, jettisons maternal participation for the generation of male children, possibly promoting Johannine unity of father and son, a well- known feature of the Fourth Gospel.[394]
If, however, η κοιλία τη$ μητρό$ αύτοΰ in John 3:4 represents συνεκδοχή[395] for all theories of physical generation involving a womb, divine birth is misunderstood if connected in any way with womb theories - epigenesis, pangenesis, or preformationism.[396] Furthermore, if the expression έξ αίματων έγεννηθησαν (“born of blood”) is best explained as a reference to the Aristotelian katamenia (epigenesis) theory, as Pieter van der Horst argues, then the Gospel of John may explicitly reject epigenesis in 1:13.[397] This being the case, we should seek elsewhere for a medical theory underlying divine generation in the Fourth Gospel.
A theory of generation more common in plants (no womb) than animals poses an obvious choice. One such theory (not considered by Reinhartz or Seim) is parthenogenesis.[398] According to parthenogenesis, a female gamete is activated spontaneously on its own without fusion with a male reproductive element or sperm.[399] Aristotle’s discussion is found in Gen. an. 715a-b and 759a. Animal examples include bees and fish.[400] Plants that reproduce in this manner accomplish pollination using wind (as in: “wind-pollinated”), water (e.g., tide or fish), or animals (e.g., insects and birds). For some, the wind is thought not only to distribute but to fertilize eggs considered infertile (i.e., “wind-eggs”). In most cases, the wind distributes seeds able to generate new plants “on their own” in contact with soil, water, and sun.In John 3:8 birth “from above” is described on a model resembling parthenogenesis:
το πνεύμα οπού θέλει πνεΐ, και την φωνήν αυτού ακούει?, άλλ’ ούκ οιδα? πόθεν έρχεται και που υπάγει'ουτω? εστιν πά? ο γεγεννημενο? εκ του πνεύματα?.
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everything born of the wind (3:8).[401]
Throughout this passage πνεύμα refers to both wind and spirit. Bultmann argues that the passage exploits the two meanings of πνεύμα as “spirit” and “wind” to suggest that the former possesses a key feature of the latter, namely, invisibility:
The miraculous operation of the spirit is bound by no discoverable law; its presence is revealed by its effect.
Admittedly it is the ambiguity of the term πνεύμα that makes it possible for us to entertain this idea, as a hidden meaning lying behind the initial sense of the word. For in the first place the sentence is a comparison whose application is expressively given in the clause οίτω? κτλ. Just as the wind is incomprehensible, and no one knows whence it comes and whither it goes, its origin and its destination, yet none can deny its reality - την φωνήν αύτοΐι ακούει? - so it is within him who is born of the Spirit.[402]If πνεύμα is interpreted as “wind” consistently in this passage - which anarthrous noun[403] suggests - then vv. 5 and 6 may be translated:
5Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and wind. 6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the wind is wind.
This translation suggests that behind the passage lies the most elementary Aristotelian separation of animal and plant life. Animal generation requires water for its admixture of male and female constituents.[404] Plants, for which male and female are not separate, may require merely wind for generation. Aristotle explains:
In all animals which can move about, male and female are separate; one animal is male and another female, though they are identical in species, just as men and women are both human beings, and stallion and mare are both horses. In plants, however, these faculties are mingled together; the female is not separate from the male; and that is why they generate out themselves, and produce not semen but a fetation - what we call their “seeds.”[405]
If divine birth in the Gospel of John is interpreted according to this biological model, then to be born from above (cf.
δε) ύμα$ γεννηθηναι άνωθεν) is to allow the mixed male and female components of the “soul” (or human aspect susceptible to truth) to be carried like a seed on the wind to a natural landing place in which it can be generate and grow. An individual is born of water to become animal, but born of wind to become (as plant) disciple (vv. 5-6). One can understand why a theory of self-generation would be preferred to a theory involving offspring as an analogy for divine birth.[406]To be sure, variations on parthenogenesis are applied to Jesus’s biological birth in Matthew and Luke.[407] [408] In Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18 Mary is impregnated not by (as in contributing the male gamete), but from the holy spirit (Matthew) or when (Luke) the holy spirit comes over her. Matt 1:18 Τοΐι δε ’Ιησού Χρίστου ή γε’νεσις ούτως- ήν. μνηστευθείσης της μητρος αύτου Μαρίας τώ ’Ιωσήφ, πριν ή συνελθεΐν αυτούς εύρε’θη εν γαστρι V > / C / 61 εχουσα εκ πνεύματος άγιου. Luke 1:35 και άποκριθεις ο άγγελος είπεν αυτή, Πνεύμα άγιον έπελεύσεται επί σε’, καί δύναμις ύψίστου επισκιάσει σοι' διο καί το γεννωμενον άγιον κληθήσεται, υίος θεού. In Matthew, Mary’s impregnation fulfills the prediction in Isa 7:14 (LXX).[409] In Luke, her impregnation offers an etiological explanation for how Jesus becomes ο υίο$ του θεού (“God’s son” or “Son of God”).[410] The origin of the tradition of Jesus’s virgin birth in these texts is unknown. It may be a curious permutation (perhaps necessitated by παρθένος in Isa 7:14 LXX) of the ancient Jewish literary convention that barren wives bear important sons.[411] It is also possible that Paul knew the tradition, although his reference to Jesus as γενόμενον εκ γυναίκας in Gal 4:4 seems to imply the opposite.[412] As noted above, in a version of parthenogenesis, the wind - probably as life-instilling “air” or “breath” - was thought to both distribute and fertilize sterile eggs. However, neither the preposition εκ in Matthew and the expression έπελευσεται επί σε in Luke, nor their interpretations in these texts (Luke: Jesus becomes God’s son; Matthew: Jesus fulfills virgin/“Emmanuel” prediction) suggest that God sexually inseminates Mary. The interest in seed (το σπέρμα) over egg (το ώόν) also suggests this interpretation.[413] [414] As Francois Bovon writes about Luke: Luke uses Επέρχομαι επί (“to come upon”) for the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8 (cf. Isa 32:15). The expression does not indicate the future essence of Jesus, but rather God’s action with Mary.’ Επισκιάζω means to “throw his shadow” or “overshadow.” Neither verb possesses an inherent sexual nuance, but here they explain how divine power will replace masculine begetting.66 Bovon’s interpretation corresponds to the function of πνεύμα in Bult- mann’s interpretation of birth from above in John 3. In both cases, the spirit - like the wind in parthenogenesis - does not fertilize but provides the invisible, activating impetus necessary for generation in lieu of copulation. John 1:13 describes the phenomenon succinctly: εξουσίαν τέκνα θεού γενέσθαι (“power to become children of God”). II. John 8:41-42 A final point concerns the discussion of Jesus’s legitimacy versus that of his opponents in John 8. Vv. 41-42 state: [Jesus claims:] 41“You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here (εγώ Embryology, Plant Biology, and Divine Generation in the Fourth Gospel 141 γάρ εκ του θεοΰ εξηλθον δαι ηκω). I did not come on my own, but he sent me (ουδέ γάρ άπ’ εμαυτοΰ ελήλυθα, άλλ’ εκείνο? με άπεστειλεν) (NRSV).” In this passage the phrase με άπεστειλεν reiterates and qualifies the earlier phrase εγω γαρ έκ του θεοΰ εξηλθον, such that, to come from God is to have been sent by God. The problem of the passage is patronymity - the question of how, prior to modern genetics, fatherhood could be verified.[415] The verb άποστελλειν commonly expresses God’s relationship to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 1:6; 3:17, 34; 5:36; 6:29, 57; 7:29, 32; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).[416] John 8:42, however, creates a special correspondence between this verb and the Son’s generation: “to be sent by” is “to come from” God. Interestingly, as a reference to divine birth, άποστελλειν illustrates parthenogenesis well. Rather than a method of generation involving the mixing of male and female gametes in watery spume, this verb summons the image of a self-sufficient seed sent by the wind to its destiny. Divine responsibility for the four winds is an almost universal history-of-religions concept. Within the Jewish tradition, the opening verses of the book of Jonah offer an example.[417] The Lord sends a wind (the noun is likewise anarthrous) that threatens the ship with Jonah on board: και κυρίους εξηγειρεν πνεύμα εΐ$ την θάλασσαν.[418] Finally, John 12:24 offers a saying involving parthenogenesis: “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Although seeds seem to die when they become buried in soil, they do not die, but simply implant underground temporarily so that the new plant can sprout. Eventually, the seeds of the new plant, with the help of the wind, will likewise individually regenerate.[419] This comparison demonstrates not just the author’s familiarity with parthenogenesis but its direct application within the Gospel to his concept of Christian discipleship. Summarizing John 3:3-10, the Fourth Gospel nowhere affirms Jesus’s virgin biological birth. However, it may be that the theory is not summarily denied but merely shifted to explain divine birth.[420] This option dovetails nicely with Synoptic parables and other traditions borrowing from agriculture to explain discipleship (esp. seeds; e.g., Mark 4:1-20; 26-29; 30-32). In John’s Gospel the tradition explains discipleship’s moment of inception according to ancient understandings of plant life cycles. The metaphor is also extended to explain the moment of discipleship’s earthly (at least) end or climax (i.e., mortal death [John 12:24]). That parthenogenesis is characteristic of lower biological forms suggests an analogy from nature - an important biblical theme.[421] Finally, divine birth by parthenogenesis does not conflict with Jesus’s preexistence in John since parthenogenesis’s chain of causation is infinitely regressive. III. John 1:12-13 As Seim notes, a manuscript variant links John 1:12-13 to Jesus’s divine birth.[422] Rather than: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man [i.e., husband], but of God, the construction (os έγεννηθη, verb is singular) implies that the final phrase applies not to the τέκνα θεού but to the subject of the sentence, the divine logos or Jesus:[423] [424] He, born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man but of God, gave (εδωκεν) power to become children of God, to all who received him, who believed in his 77 name. Tertullian uses the variant attested in many Latin editions (qui natus est) to support virgin birth. Of course, Tertullian may have known the variant as the only and/or official reading in his North African context.[425] Bultmann summarily rejects any originality of the option as wishful thinking.[426] Whether or not this passage was originally intended to apply to Jesus or not, the principle is indirectly linked to him in the summary statement by which he and all future disciples are said to receive divine birth: “born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.” Here again the preposition εκ (“of^’> indicates God’s power rather than his sexual contribution to generation. IV. John 1:14: μονογενής Μονογενής is a qualifier applied to both Jesus and God in the Fourth Gospel.[427] Whether the adjective has any relationship to divine birth in the Fourth Gospel is in question. Epigenetic and “monogenetic” are not like terms. Whereas epigenesis connotes an entire theory of generation, the adjective μονογενής might imply this theory.[428] It is Seim’s conviction that it does, referring to birth (or more properly: begetting) by a male (God) in the absence of a female gamete.[429] As noted above, a problem for this theory is criticality of the female element to epigenesis. Also of concern is the blurring of distinctions between Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., esp. 1:1; 10:30, 38; and 14:10). In some manuscript traditions of John 1:18, μονογενής is applied to the Father: μονογενής θεο$ ο εί$ τον κόλπον του πατρο$ εκείνος έξηγησατο.[430] Most interpretations of μονογενής in John 1:14 understand the word as a reference to Jesus as God’s only son. According to F. Buchsel, μονογενής refers to “the only child of one’s parents, primarily in relation to them.”[431] In John 1:14 (“And the Word became flesh and dwelled among us, and we have beheld his glory, glory as of a father’s only son [δόξαν μονογενούς παρα πατρος], full of grace and truth”), it refers to Jesus as an only child, that is, Jesus has no siblings by his father, God.[432] However, following John 1:13 (ο'ι ούκ εξ αίματων ουδέ έκ θελήματος σαρκος ουδέ έκ θελήματος ανδρος άλλ’ έκ θεού έγεννηθησαν) and 1 John 5:18 (ο γεννηθείς έκ του θεού), the word may also govern God’s begetting. Begetting (verb denoting paternal generation) is used of the relationship of God to a messiah in Pss 2:7: σήμερον γεγεννηκα σε and 109:3: έκ γαστρος προ έωσπόρου έξεγεννησα σε (cf. also Prov 8:25: γέννα με).[433] If μονογενής in the Gospel of John suggests begetting, which I think is possible,[434] then it remains to discover whether and which theory of generation lies behind the concept. In the past scholars have compared mythical occurrences of μονογενής to understand the word’s meaning in the Gospel of John. In a long footnote on the topic, Bultmann catalogues claims about its conceptual background. Hymni Orphici 32.1,[435] for example, characterizes Athena as μονογενής clearly implying that she is “begotten by one (father) alone (without the assistance of the mother).”[436] Rendel Harris once argued that this and other such mythical accounts inform the Gospel of John. Bultmann, however, dismisses Harris’s argument because in each example that Harris summons, μονογενής is an attribute of a female divinity. Bultmann also suggests the improbability of the argument (so Bocklen) that μονογενής means “begotten by a single person (i.e., without a mother)” in Gnostic traditions because the strongest evidence is reference to the Arabian God Dusares as ‘son of Kore’ and the Syrian Adonis as ‘only (son).’[437] Bult- mann’s rejection of the mythic parallels as background for the Fourth Gospel supports a strategy of seeking resonance in medical texts even if, as noted above, medical texts do not automatically function as background, their ontological priority requiring proof.[438] Although Bultmann does not mention it, of note is the ancient notion of phoenix regeneration which occurs by means of the worm that emerges from the dead bird’s rotting carcass. This mode of generation is both mythical and parthenogenetic. Among early Christian witnesses, 1 Clem. 25 describes the process, referring to the phoenix as μονογενές (“unique”). The analogy in 1 Clement argues for the biological plausibility of Christian resurrection. In sum, if parthenogenesis lies behind the expression μονογενής in the Gospel of John then, in diametrical contrast to the theories of Reinhartz and Seim, Jesus’s divine birth this Gospel is described as “of only one parent”: the female without copulation and/or admixture with a male gamete, variously referred to as “blood,” “flesh” or “man.” Moreover, if parthenogenesis is behind μονογενής in the Gospel of John, then divine generation of Jesus and all subsequent followers takes place not in the absence of the female but of the male cause. Deliberate blurring of paternity and sonship in the Gospel supports this theory (esp. John 14:6-7; cf. 1:18; 6:46; 7:28— 29; 8:19; 12:44—45; 15:21; 16:3). V. John 16:21 A few brief observations close the discussion. First, it may also be relevant to consider the brief parable in John 16:21 in light of the present argument. When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. Judith Lieu points out the importance of the woman’s role in this brief parable.[439] The parable is an allusion to Jesus’s death. In it, however, death is described on analogy with birth (γεννηθηναι). Jesus’s death will, like his “birth,” give him life. On this analogy, the disciples are like women in labor. They endure the pain of childbirth (or: on Lieu’s argument, the anguish of death)[440] with the hopeful conviction that once they lay eyes on the resurrected Jesus (a “newborn”) the joy of having brought a human being (ανθρωπο$) “into the world” will diminish the memory of their anguish to nothing. Technically speaking, plants that regenerate through parthenogenesis are female, a point at least partially recognized by Aristotle who viewed self-regeneration as the distinctive feature of females.[441] Characterization of disciples as female in this parable, thus, also corresponds to divine birth by parthenogenesis.[442] VI. John 2:1-12 It is also possible that the miracle at Cana (John 2:1-12) anticipates our interpretation of John 3. Water, according to ancient thought, is the plant equivalent (i.e., sap) to blood.[443] Wine frequently represents blood.[444] The transformation of water into wine may thus operate as an analogue for the metamorphosis of plant (water, i.e., sap) into animal (wine, i.e., blood).[445] Therefore, transforming water into wine, a uniquely Johannine miracle, may not only prefigure purification by Jesus’s blood (i.e., “six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification,” John 2:6; cf. 3:16), but may (1) suggest the well-known conceptual proximity between human beings (blood) and plants (water), enabling effortless metamorphoses from nondisciple to disciple; and (2) imply Jesus’s transformation (cf. “My hour is not yet come” 2:4) from plant-like disciple (coursing water) into God’s son (coursing and ultimately spilling blood). Subsequently, John 3 explains step one: how to become a plant-like son of God like Jesus. E.