Kittel, TDNT
In 1933, Gerhard Kittel began a massive multi-volume encyclopedia of word studies called Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. TWNT soon became an authoritative standard, and the English translation was done by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. The first volume of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament was published by Eerdmans in 1964. The German set was completed in 1973; the English set in 1974.
TDNT does not transliterate Greek and Hebrew, and often does not translate it, so I have done both. I have also taken the liberty of deleting the footnotes, most of which are references to German works (all of them were written before 1933, when this word study was published). Part A of this article is by Friedrich Büchsel, part B by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and the remainder by Büchsel. The six-page article begins on page 665:
genna
ō"Like
tiktō, this term is used of the `begetting' of the father and the `bearing' of the mother, not only in Greek generally, but also in the LXX and NT. Figuratively it is used of producing without birth, as at 2 Tm. 2:23 and also Josephus: gennatai en autē phoinix ho kallistos [in this city are grown the finest palm-trees] (Antiquities, 9, 7, cf. Wars, 4, 469); in the religious sense of the old covenant (Gal. 4:24), of Paul in the self-protestations at 1 Cor. 4:15; Phlm. 10."gennan [active voice] with God as subject, Prv. 8:25; Ps. 2:7 (quoted in Lk. 3:22 (western reading); Ac. 13:33; Hb. 1:5; 5:5). gennasthai (passive) in Jn. 1:13; 3:3, 5, 6, 8; 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18.
A. "Begetting" as an Image of the Relationship
of Master and Disciple
"The use of the terms father and son with reference to the master and disciple may be seen already in 2 Kings 2:12. At the time of Jesus it was customary for the rabbi to call his pupil and the ordinary member of the community `my son,' cf. the style of address used by Jesus and Mt. 23:8-10. There was here no thought of begetting, as shown by the application to favoured members of the community. It was simply designed to emphasise the superiority and warmth of the `father' on the one side and the reverence of the `son' on the other. The more significant the achievement of the master and his relation to the disciple, the more he is compared to a father. bSan. [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin], 19b: `When a man teaches the son of another the Torah, the Scripture treats him as if he had begotten him'; cf. also bSan., 99b. Paul goes further than this when he not only calls himself father but speaks of his gennan [i.e., his begetting in an active sense] (cf. Gal. 4:19). This is usually derived from the Mysteries. But the mode of expression does not really imply more than that of the Rabbis. Again, though the mystagogue [leader] is called the father of the initiates, the word gennan is not actually used. Moreover, Paul begets through the Gospel (1 C. 4:15), through public preaching, not through a mystery. Furthermore, he begets whole communities and not just individual believers. In 1 C. 4:15 and Phlm. 10 we simply have a rhetorical development of the usual Jewish expression. It is wholly in line with the emotional strength, forcefulness and metaphorical power of the language of Paul. Perhaps some of his contemporaries used similar phrases.
B. The Idea of New Birth by Conversion
to the True Religion in Later Judaism
"The idea of `new birth' or `becoming new' by conversion to Judaism is common in the Rabbis. Instead of giving several examples, we shall prove the point by adducing two which are particularly clear. In Midrash on Song of Solomon 1 on 1:3 we read: `When someone brings a creature (i.e., a man) under the wing of the Shekinah (i.e., wins him to Judaism according to Midrash on Song of Solomon 1 on 1:1), then it is counted to him (i.e., by God) as though he had created and fashioned and formed him.' Similarly, we read in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, 22a etc.: `A proselyte just converted is like a child just born.' The two statements give us a glimpse into the world of thought from which they sprang and which was given its linguistic stamp by expressions connected with generation.
"The first statement compares the one who wins a non-Jew to Judaism directly with God. This is shown by the expressions used to extol his work. They are the words used in the OT to describe God as the Creator ex nihilo (bârâ' [created], Gn. 1:1, 27), as the One who gives man his form (yâtsar [formed], Gn. 2:7; Ps. 139:16) and as the One who holds His creative hand over him from his mother's womb (cf. râqam [woven], Ps. 139:15). The winning of a proselyte is an achievement of unsurpassable greatness, since it can be compared with the creative work of God. Yet this is not the essential point in the present context. More important is the fact that the Jew who wins another to his faith satisfies in an ideal manner the command to be fruitful and multiply, which, according to the Rabbinic understanding, is laid on all male Jews as a supreme command. It should not be forgotten, of course, that the whole idea remains in the realm of comparison. This fact prevents us from finding in the statement, for which there are many parallels, echoes of the terminology of the Mysteries. In it we find ourselves within the sphere of rational considerations. This is not altered in the very least by the final saying with its reference to the creation of life in the narrowest sense, i.e., in the embryo.
"The totally unmystical character is fully seen, however, only in the concluding observation that the proselyte does not become a true man until his conversion to Judaism. Previously he has been a mere creature. This is the point at which the second sentence links up with and augments the first. The proselyte is reckoned a child because he has only just entered into the presuppositions of true humanity. These are found in Judaism alone because here alone, through the Law, is there the possibility of doing the will of God and thus leading a life commensurate with the being of man as God's image. This is the link between the two statements. This is what links them to all similar statements. This is what brings them into the great nexus of statements which separate the Jewish people from second-class nations on the ground of the presence and use of the Law. The whole circle of thought illustrated here thus stands in close connection with the central concern of Judaism in sanctification. In fact the conversion to Judaism which is here compared with becoming new or becoming a genuine man is characterised in another connection as the entry into a state of holiness, or more accurately of being sanctified. We may thus say that `new' and `holy' are related to the extent that `new' marks off the new state of the proselyte as compared with his previous profane life and `holy' marks him off from his previous hopeless religious situation. `Holy' is thus the religious and moral counterpart of the more forensic `new.' At any rate, the two terms are not schematically disparate, as might appear from what has been said. Only in the closest relationship do they describe the situation of the proselyte as it appears in the light of the Law, which is now the predominant factor in his life.
"The forensic and rational character of the regeneration of the proselyte is revealed by the implications of his conversion to Judaism. These may be briefly summarised in the statement that the past has now ceased to exist for him. This is true of his previous relations. Since Judaism denies the existence of a solid sexual morality outside the sphere of the Law, it recognises no degree of relationship prior to the coming of the Law. The proselyte is literally a new born child in his new environment. He has no previous father, mother or brethren. It is literally true of him that the old has passed away and all things are made new, as Paul says in a rather different sense in 2 C. 5:17.
"This is the point of transition to the corresponding terms and thought forms of the NT. To be sure, the Rabbinic material adduced does not exclude the possibility of some Hellenistic influence as well, especially on Paul. Yet this material has also to be taken into account in relation to Paul's statements concerning the genneth
ēnai [being begotten in a passive sense] of Christians. This is suggested by the existence of an unmistakeable line of development from the Rabbinic qâdôwsh [saint] to the NT hagios [saint]; the two complexes of thought are obviously inseparable. We thus do well to take into serious account the later Jewish ideas attested in our attempt to understand Gl. 4:19; 1 C. 4:15; Phlm. 10 and in the last resort even 1 Th. 2:11. At any rate, these are a safeguard against too strong an emphasis on the influence of the Mysteries. We are the less exposed to this danger the more we see how strongly in Paul the forensic element, which controls the thinking of the Rabbis, yields before the purely religious claiming of man by God, which is at once posited for Paul by the fact that in his thinking Christ takes the place or the Law, so that all human strivings and achievements are surpassed and set aside by Christ's sanctification of His people. This is the real reason why existence `through the Gospel' (1 C. 4:15) is for the NT a new being which is not a burdensome duty but a grateful response to the divine action in Jesus.C. Generation by the Deity.
1. Generation from God in the OT and Judaism.
"gennan is used very rarely of God in the OT, but it occurs in significant passages. Thus the king addressed in Ps. 2 is begotten of God, as also the king in Ps. 109: ek gastros pro eōsphorou exegennēsa se [I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning; Brenton's LXX translation]. Finally, wisdom is begotten of God in Prv. 8:25. In Ps. 2:7 the generation is no more than institution to the position of son and heir; `I have begotten thee' is probably no more than a stereotyped formula. To be sure, Psalms of Solomon 17:23 ff. takes it rather differently, but it does not infer the begetting of the Messiah by God. The Targum paraphrases: `Thou art as dear to me as a son to his father, and innocent as though I had this day created thee.' In the Midrash on Ps. 2 § 9 (14b) Rabbi Huna elucidates the thought of generation by that of a new creation out of previous troubles. In Ps. 109:3 the exegennēsa se was probably in the original, but owing to corruption of the Hebrew text, not perhaps unintentional, these words had no influence in Judaism. Prv. 8:22 is clearly adopted and expounded in Sirach 24. It is noteworthy that the genna me [he begets me] of Prv. 8:25 is translated ektisen me [he created me] in Sirach 24:6 (10) [9]. But the thought of the generation of wisdom from God did not disappear in Judaism. What Prv. 8:22 says of wisdom is referred to the Law in Sirach 24:23. Josephus Antiquities, 4, 319 also says of the Law: nomoi hous autos gennēsas hēmin edōke [laws which He, the begetter of them, gave you himself], though it is to be noted that Josephus does not use gennan elsewhere of God. Thus, even though the Jews do not say that any man is begotten of God, the thought of a generation from God has not completely perished.
"Philo makes extensive and varied use of gennan in relation to God. He can call all God's creating (poiein [to do, to make]) a `begetting' (gennan) in Allegories of the Law III, 219. Everything is begotten of God, the logos [word] (On the Confusion of Languages, 63), but also animals and plants (On the Change of Names, 63). The divine sonship of the Israelites, however, does not rest on a gennan [begettal] of God. In the allegorising of Philo the idea of a marriage of God with wisdom or knowledge plays an important role. He also speaks of a speirein [scattering seed] of God in man in On the Migration of Abraham, 35 etc. Behind all this stands the wisdom of the Mysteries. But for him the righteous are not gennēthentes [begotten ones] of God.
2. Generation or Adoption in the Mysteries.
"In the Mysteries ideas and processes from sex life play an important part, e.g., the hieros gamos [holy marriage], phallic celebrations etc. A renasci [Latin for reborn], anagennasthai, metagennasthai [Greek for begotten again, born again] mediating a relationship to deities, constitutes the true meaning of the rites. On the other hand, there seems to be no reference to the birth of the initiate through a goddess or to his begetting by a god. In pre-Christian times, at least, the real thought is that of adoption. Now it may be that in the rites the distinction between adoption and birth through a goddess was dimmed. But in the B.C. period there is certainly no reference in the Mysteries to a genn
ētheis ek tou theou [being begotten or born from the god].kistē [chest], and with which the initiate undertook a mysterious action (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, II, 21 [18], 2: synthēma Eleusiniōn mystēriōn: enēsteusa, epion ton kukeōna, elabon ek kistēs, ergasamenos epethemēn eis kalathon kai ek kalathou eis kistēn [The formula of the Eleusinian mysteries is as follows: `I fasted; I drank the draught; I took from the chest; having done my task, I placed from the basket into the chest']), did not represent a phallos but the womb of the goddess. But this does not mean that birth rather than adoption is the meaning of the rite. For the Greeks had a form of adoption which imitated birth, yet was not designed to mediate physical sonship, but only the corresponding legal position, cf. Diodorus of Sicily, IV, 39: Hera adopted Heracles (huiopoiēsasthai [to make a son]) by getting on a bed, taking Heracles to her body and letting him down to the earth through her garments mimoumenēn tēn alēthinēn genesin. Thus, although Heracles seems to proceed from her body, he is the adopted, not the physical, son of Hera. In the same way the touching of the womb of the earth mother need not signify more than adoption in the Eleusinian Mysteries. Adoption is by a process which imitates birth. The well-known despoinas hypo kolpon edyn chthonias basileias [go under the bosom of the chthonic queen] of the Orphic tablets proves that adoption was practised in the Mysteries in the way attested by Diodorus. E. Rohde came near to the correct reading. But instead he substituted a feeble modernisation (`I seek protection in her motherly bosom [or lap]'). He overlooked the fact that in Diodorus Heracles was adopted by the divine mother after his death in order to be assured of her favour; he also failed to note that adoption can be the goal of the initiate in the hereafter even though he does not possess it in virtue of the rite. The hypo kolpon edyn [I go down under the bosom] can only be a mysterious formulation in the first person of that which Diodorus recounts as Hera's action in respect of Heracles. That a formula like hypo tou kolpou exēlthon [I went out from the bosom] is not chosen seems to make it quite evident to me that the thought was that of adoption and not of physical birth. The Eleusinian rite is analogous. Körte seems to have been extremely rash in his exposition of hieron eteke potnia kouron Brimō Brimon. Even if the kouros were the initiate, this would not prevent the action from being adoption, since this was an imitation of birth and had an equivalent result. The passages adduced by O. Kern add nothing of material significance. [Quoted from Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 19 (1916-19) 433-435.]"A. Korte has claimed that in the Eleusinian Mysteries the initiate became a physical child of the earth mother. But he has not proved this from the sources. It may be granted that the pudendum which was contained in the
3. Ps. 2:7 in the NT.
"Ps. 2:7 is much used in the NT. At Ac. 13:33 the `to-day' of the generation of the Son of God is the resurrection. At Lk. 3:22 (western reading) it is the baptism as an impartation of the Spirit. At Hb. 1:5; 5:5 it may be doubted whether any specific point of time is in view. If we think of His coming into the world (cf. 1:6: palin eisagag
ē [again, he brings in]), or of the beginning of His high-priesthood in the days of His flesh, it is again doubtful whether the reference is to His birth or to His baptism. The birth stories in Mt. and Lk. do not quote Ps. 2:7. There is only a distant contact between this verse and Lk. 1:35: to gennōmenon hagion klēthēsetai huios theou [the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God]. In any case, however, we can see from Ac. 13:33 that quite early, and independently of the idea of the Virgin Birth, Ps. 2:7 was used in interpretation of the divine sonship of Jesus. Jesus is accepted as the Begotten of God because the Word of God speaks thus of Him. This begetting is more than adoption. For the resurrection, in which it was consummated, is the beginning of a new and pneumatic, i.e., divine, mode of being; the impartation of the Spirit is the earnest of the gifts of this mode of being. On the basis of the resurrection and the endowment of the Spirit, Jesus was for the community much more than a mere man in whom the religious life of humanity reached a new level, He was the man in whom the new aiōn [age] began. Generation from God in a very real sense was here perceived by the community. The idea that this generation must be thought of either in the sense of adoption or in that of the Virgin Birth rests on a misconception of the early Christian belief in Christ and understanding of Scripture, and especially of the basic significance of the resurrection of Jesus and the resultant beginning of the new aiōn, in short, of the eschatological impulse in early Christian thinking. Only where this element is correctly evaluated can we correctly understand the divine sonship and generation of Jesus and therefore the significance of Ps. 2:7 in the NT. But then we can also understand how believers who were sure of the resurrection, and had the pledge of it in themselves in the Spirit, could also believe themselves to be begotten of God.4. gennēthēnai in John.
"In John
gennēthēnai [to be begotten or born] is always used with a reference to the point of origin, mostly ek tou theou [of God] or ex autou [of him] (1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18; Jn. 1:13; ek pneumatos [of Spirit] (Jn 3:5, 6, 8): ex hydatos [of water] (3:5), ek tēs sarkos [of the flesh] (3:6); ek thelēmatos [of the will] (1:13); anōthen [from above] (3:3, 7). The seed mentioned in 1 Jn. 3:9 is the Spirit of Jn. 3:5 rather than the Word of 1 Jn. 2:14. This birth is thus everything which it is in virtue of its origin. As a birth from God, it is a reality but also a mystery (3:8). Even as a birth of water and the Spirit it is a mystery, because these are what they are through God. For John the authenticity of his statements concerning birth from God cannot rest on experiences and the like, for what he says about birth from God contradicts all experience (1 Jn. 3:9; cf. 1 Jn. 1:8-10). His statements are statements of faith. They are true in virtue of the fellowship with God enjoyed by the believer (1 Jn. 1:3, 6 ff.). John emphasises particularly the ethical or religious and ethical consequences of the birth. These emerge in the doing of righteousness (1 Jn. 2:29), in not sinning (3:7 ff.), in love (4:7), in the overcoming of the world (5:4), in faith in Jesus as the Christ (5:1). They cannot be understood as investiture with a power or position appropriated by man. Divine sonship is all that it is as the fellowship with God which depends on the will of God. There is a parallel in the devilish sonship of the Jews referred to in Jn. 8:38-47. This, too, is essentially ethical; it finds expression in lying and murder. It, too, is a personal relationship of fellowship or dependence."We can only guess at the origin of the Johannine view. John attributes this divine generation both to Jesus (1 Jn. 5:18; Jn. 1:13) and to believers. The former is obviously primary. The description of Jesus as genn
ētheis ek tou theou [one begotten or born of God] corresponds to belief in His divine sonship on the one side and to Messianic prophecy, which always includes Ps. 2:7, on the other. It is not difficult to transfer the thought from Jesus to believers. For believers are members of the aiōn mellōn [future age] in which the promises of Scripture are fulfilled. They participate in the divine Spirit. They share in the eternal divine life. They have passed from death to life (1 Jn. 3:14; Jn. 5:24). Through the Spirit they are in some sense essentially united to Jesus. That the gennan [the begetting], applied to God's relationship to Jesus and believers, has originally an eschatological sense may be seen in John only to the degree that the kingdom of God, the seeing of which depends on the birth (3:3; cf. 3:5), is an eschatological magnitude. The terms anastasis [resurrection] and zōē aiōnios [eternal life], which John uses in the present tense, have also an original eschatological meaning."It is unlikely that the idea of the divine gennan in John derives from the Mysteries. There can be no doubt that the application of the idea to Jesus in Ac. 13:33 is completely independent of the Mysteries. And the Johannine
gennēthēnai ek tou theou [being born of God] has little in common with what is called anagennēthēnai, renasci, metagennēthēnai [being born again], in the Mysteries. There is a completely different view of both the attitude and possession of piety. Even the link with baptism in Jn. 3:5-8 is no argument on the Mysteries."Summary of TDNT
Much of the discussion here involves tangents that do not affect us, since we did not claim that the NT use of genna
ō had anything to do with pagan mystery religions. But somebody in the history-of-religions school of the 19th century once had that idea, and this article had to deal with it. The discussion of Psalm 2:7 dealt with the begettal of Jesus Christ, which was important in a historical controversy.The Jewish background is much more relevant, since it includes the concept of proselytes becoming reborn and disciples being considered as figuratively begotten by their teachers. Those thoughts are similar, and possibly meaningful to John 3. It was interesting that all the Johannine uses of genna
ō specify a source. This further reinforces the conclusion that anōthen is a source, "from above," not a sequence, merely "again."Since this is a theological dictionary, the discussion focused on theological implications and therefore on passages in which
gennaō is used in a figurative way. It didn't clearly address the question of whether conception is ever included in the literal meaning of the word.The one-volume abridgment of TDNT, sometimes called the "little Kittel," is easier to read. Everything is transliterated, redundant phrases are removed, and the lengthy comments on the mystery religions are gone. The article about
gennaō is only 1.2 pages long, and it still doesn't address the particular question we have.
