Michael Pope

Mike_Pope@byu.edu

In a strictly qualitive sense, we can fairly say that Luke, more than any other New Testament author or text, is concerned with women’s fertility and the functions of their sexual organs. In quick succession we encounter Elizabeth’s lifelong struggle with infertility (Luke 1:6–7), Elizabeth’s post-menopausal stage in life (1:7), Gabriel’s assertion that Elizabeth will give birth to a son (1:13), Gabriel’s direct reference to the womb of Elizabeth (1:15), another reminder that Elizabeth is too old to menstruate (1:18), Elizabeth conceiving (1:24), Elizabeth’s gestational status (1.24), another notice of Elizabeth’s previous infertility (1:25), another mention of Elizabeth’s gestational progress (1:26), doubled reference to Mary’s non-sexually active status (1:27), Gabriel informing Mary that she will conceive in her womb and give birth (1:31), Mary’s counter claim that she has not had sex with a man (1:34), Gabriel’s reference to a begotten son that Mary is to bear (1:35), another omnibus reminder of Elizabeth’s sudden pregnancy, old age, gestational stage, and previous infertility (1:36), foetal movement within Elizabeth’s womb (1:41), Elizabeth’s benediction upon the fruit of Mary’s womb (1:42), and a second reference to foetal movement within Elizabeth’s womb (1:44). And we could continue to add to this list. Indeed, the single-minded frequency of this theme threatens to overwhelm the narrative. What appears lacking in all this attention to the fertility and reproductive organs of Elizabeth and Mary, however, are the male counterparts requisite for embryogenesis. Although Luke does not mention male genitalia, I wish to show that he is not shy about employing established discourses of insemination, at least the female side of that process.[1] The key passage to discern these discursive markers is Gabriel’s declaration to Mary that “you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son” (1:31).[2] The verb sullēmpsē (“you will conceive”) lacks a proximate direct object and we are forced to construe the verb intransitively (“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son”), take huion (“son”) as the shared object of texē (“you will bear”) and sullēmpsē (“You will conceive a son in your womb and bear a son”), or understand that the object of sullēmpsē is not huion but another one elided altogether (“You will conceive [object] in your womb and bear a son”). Under the influence of 1:36 where Elizabeth is apparently depicted as having “conceived a son” (suneilēphen huion), it would be easy to take the sullēmpsē of 1:31 in the same way.

Indeed, modern translations and commentary have favoured the first two interpretations and current English usage in contexts of fertilisation and pregnancy make them familiar to the ear (e.g., “She conceived after fertility treatments.” “She conceived a daughter and gave birth to her after a full-term pregnancy.”).[3] Employed in this way, “conceive,” ultimately from concipere, has mostly lost a basic, concrete sense inherent to the Latin term.[4] In regular use, however, concipere, like the Greek sullambanein, denoted intensive tactile engagement, i.e., “to catch hold of something” or “to grasp something.”[5] My argument in this note is that ancient gynaecology prompts us to give full weight to this literal meaning of sullambanein and to ask what grammatical and material object, other than a son, Mary might have grasped in her uterus.[6]

At least as far back as the Hippocratic treatises, what a woman apprehends before impregnation is male reproductive fluid: “if a woman grasps onto the semen and becomes pregnant.”[7] Along with encountering “semen” (gonē) as the direct object of “to grasp” (sullambanein), we learn that when a woman seizes this fluid it is described as a separate and distinct action prior to onset of “gestation” (kuein). Strictly speaking then, conception for this Hippocratic author is a woman’s capture of semen and not necessarily embryogenesis. Elsewhere in the corpus we find the process expanded by an additional step: “if a woman grasps onto semen, then becomes pregnant, and then gives birth.”[8] In other passages, the Hippocratic writers are more anatomically precise and make the womb, rather than the woman, the subject grasping the man’s semen (e.g., “the womb seizes upon the semen”[9]). Either way, when referring to the apprehension of semen, sometimes these same authors omit semen in a shorthand locution: “grasp in the womb.”[10] We do not require the grammatical presence of semen to understand that when a Hippocratic writer speaks of women “grasping in their womb” and “becoming pregnant,” semen is the captured object leading to embryogenesis.[11]

Aristotle uses analogous language when referring to intrauterine semen apprehension. When discussing successful fertilisation, Aristotle asserts that “when the uterus grasps the semen, it immediately closes.”[12] Similar to our observation about Hippocratic usage, Balme notes that Aristotle’s language in this statement “is the full and correct expression: sullambanein means to grasp, and when it refers to the womb conceiving, its object (not necessarily expressed) is the male seed, not as in English ‘a child.’”[13] This is a crucial point that cannot be overstated. But it needs to be noted that Aristotle also uses abbreviated locutions like “the female grasps,” and, as with the Hippocratic literature, we do not need immediate mention of semen or a womb to understand the spermatic capture, especially given the proximate mention of semen (sperma) and an unambiguous sexual context (“often the female grasps even when she has no pleasure in sexual congress.”[14] Similarly clear is Aristotle’s compressed observation that “without the male’s ejaculation during sex, it is impossible to apprehend.”[15] There is no need to supply a female subject for sullabein nor semen as the verb’s object nor a womb as the place where the seizure of the fluid occurs. In a passive iteration of the process, Aristotle can depict semen as being detained in the uterus.[16] In full or elided, the language of pre-embryogenetic seminal grasping is unmistakable in Aristotle.

When Soranus, Luke’s near contemporary, discusses health concerns during puberty, he contrasts males who emit semen (“the male counterpart is the semen casting agent”) and females who receive and grasp semen (“the female counterpart is the semen receiving and seizing agent”).[17] A few lines later Soranus notes that there is a danger for young females if “the ejaculated semen is seized while the uterus is still small.”[18] Similarly, we find “semen apprehended in the uterus”[19] and, during difficult pregnancies, an injunction to employ remedies “to support uterine grasping, if the semen has not been immediately rejected from the womb.”[20] It is no surprise also that Soranus, in shorthand form, employs sullambanein several times on its own to refer to spermatic capture and then again in conjunction with sperma to indicate that “semen has successfully adhered” in utero (sperma prospephuken; Soranus, Gynecology 1.28.1-6).

Soranus is also careful to delineate what he means by “to seize” and “catchment” (sullambanein/sullēpsis). “Catchment,” Soranus asserts, “has received its designation from the retention of semen.”[21] That is the primary definition for the physician. But he does acknowledge that “catchment” can also refer to “the lasting uterine hold on both semen and embryo” alike, though he disambiguates the two by noting that the latter is no longer the grasping “of semen, but of an embryo.”[22] Soranus also distinguishes between the receipt of semen and its retention: “Reception is the transport of semen to the upper part of the uterus, while capture is the retention and adhesion after spermatic conveyance.”[23] “Reception,” he then adds, “occurs of the seed only; capture occurs both for semen and embryo.”[24] Of course, the latter is contingent upon the lasting and fruitful grasp of the former and it is illogical to speak of foetal holding without prior spermatic capture. At any rate, Soranus’s usage is, by this time, routine and expected for literature on female reproductive health or, in the case of Dioscorides writing in the same period, reproductive pharmacology (e.g., Euporista 2.96.1-2, 2.100.1-2).

To round off our survey let us consider a few selections from Galen. As we have seen in others, Galen contrasts male emission and female reception: “Nature has combined exceeding desire and pleasure together with ejaculation and apprehension of semen.”[25] Elsewhere we find Galen depicting the state of “the womb after it has seized upon the semen.”[26] The nature of wombs, Galen asserts, includes the two stage process of pregnancy: wombs “receive and grasp semen” and then “nourish and complete the gestated embryo.”[27] Sometimes Galen uses slight variation when engaging with earlier medical writers, as he does when employing the more Hippocratic sounding gonē for semen, but the result is the same: “the womb grabs the semen.”[28] For the most part though, conception—the moment of effective spermatic catchment—Galen expresses in terms now familiar: “grasp the semen” (sullambanein to sperma 4.514). We could continue multiplying exempla from Galen and others, though we would grow weary from narrow repetition. The term sullambanein, in contexts of sex and pregnancy, is stable across time and presupposes semen as its object, whether expressed or not.

While it is true that this language is mostly confined to the writings of philosophers and physicians, we find some compelling analogues in Philo. In an extended metaphor comparing mental cognition with conception and pregnancy, Philo depicts souls experiencing novel thoughts as those which are “grasping the semen and reproductive fluids flowing into them from outside.”[29] We recognize sperma and gonē immediately, while the language of liquid influx (exōthen ardomenas), if more poetic sounding (e.g., Homeric Hymn to Diana 3), is obvious enough. Legible too is katalambanousai, a slight variation from sullambanein, and a fitting play on words within a passage that uses the biological processes of spermatic seizure to portray intellectual grasping, a common meaning of katalambanein.[30] Philo also uses the less technically precise lambanein (“to take”) to refer to the capture of semen. So, for example, Leah is depicted “taking semen and fertility,”[31] while “Excellence” (aretēn) is personified as a “mother … taking semen from no mortal person.”[32] Philo’s preferred verbs for intrauterine semen capture, however, are paradechesthai (“to take possession of from another”) and hupodechesthai (“to take up”), both not far distant from sullambanein in generic connotation. For instance, Philo, like the writers cited above, contrasts male “ejaculation” (proesthai) with female “apprehension of semen” (hupodexasthai sporan, On Dreams 1.184). Elsewhere, Philo depicts “knowledge” (epistēmē) as “a mother” (mētēr) who “has taken into possession the semen of God,”[33] experienced “labour pains” (telesphorois ōdisi) and “given birth to a son” (huion apekuēse).[34] Speaking more literally about human fertility, Philo asserts that in human reproductive processes “a woman takes up the semen.”[35]

Luke’s use of sullēmpsē en gastri (“you will conceive/grasp in the womb”) in 1:31, especially in conjunction with texē huion (“you will give birth to a son”), replicates thoroughly biblical formulae for impregnation and parturition (e.g., “having conceived/grasped, she birthed a son” sullabousa eteken huion Genesis 4:25; “having conceived/grasped she birthed…a son” sullabousa eteken … huion Genesis 21:2; “having conceived/grasped, she birthed a son” sullabousa eteken huion Genesis 38:4).[36] Note that in each instance, there are two distinct steps: a grasping in the uterus first and birthing a son second.

So common is the phrasing in the Septuagint that a few variations deserve extra consideration.[37] In what might seem like an impediment to our argument, we find in the Codex Vaticanus version of Judges 13:3 an angel telling Manoah’s wife that though previously infertile, she will give birth to a son. The locution in the text is sullēmpsē huion and one is tempted to render it “you will conceive a son,” i.e., in your womb. This could be the meaning though context suggests otherwise. Just before telling her about the pregnancy, the angel says “Look, you are infertile and you have not given birth” (idou su steira kai ou tetokas). The tetokas lacks a direct object while the sullēmpsē appears to have one, a locution which, read straightforwardly, would controvert the normal biblical expression. Given that this would be the only septuagintal instance of what appears to be sullambanein + huion, it seems to me that we have a case of elided speech. In avoidance of repetition, the expected texē (“you will bear”) following sullēmpsē (“you will conceive”) has been omitted since the occurrence of ou tetokas (“you have not birthed”) is so proximate. An uncompressed reading runs thus: “Look, you are infertile and have not given birth to a son; but you will conceive/grasp and you will birth a son.” This reading is borne out in the ensuing narrative. The angel goes on to say to Manoah’s wife that “you will hold in your womb and give birth to a son”[38] (Judges 13:5; repeated by Manoah’s wife at 13:7). In this less condensed statement, we see the disambiguated stages of “holding in utero” and “birthing a son.” Likewise, instead of sullēmpsē huion at Judges 13:3, Codex Alexandrinus reads en gastri hexeis kai texē huion (“you will hold in your womb and bear a son”). And what might she hold in her womb before giving birth? If we follow the same gynaecological sources cited above, it is, at least initially, semen. So, for example, in a Hippocratic text a writer depicts “a womb that grasps semen,”[39] Soranus discusses “deposited semen being held securely when the menses are subsiding,”[40] Galen asserts that “the nature of wombs … is to accept and hold semen and nourish and carry to term the embryo,”[41] and Dioscorides refers to “a woman’s womb” (gynaikos mētra) “grasping semen” (katechē to sperma) and the resulting “parturition” (tekein).[42]

In another deviation from the biblical formula, in Psalm 7 we find an instance of sullambanein taking a direct object in a birth topos. The Psalmist is imagining an enemy who “felt the labour pains of unlawfulness” (ōdinēsen adikian) and who “clasped hold of pain and gave birth to license” (Psalm 7:17).[43] It is notable that the objects of sunelaben (“clasped hold of”) and eteken (“gave birth to”) differ. Unless we are dealing with some sort of literal prodigy rather than metaphor, the phrasing does not make much sense if we understand that the thing gestated is not the thing birthed. It seems to me, rather, that this a Hellenistic biblical instance of the fuller medical discourse we observed above, with the grasped ponos (“pain”) having semen as its referent while the anomia (“license”) is the thing birthed. Indeed, ponos here is likely a play on words with gonē (“semen”) from the purification statutes on male ejaculation (“one who emits semen” rheōn gonon) in Leviticus 15:3.

Let us return briefly to Luke 1:36 and Gabriel’s statement about Elizabeth’s pregnancy. When she is said to “have grasped/conceived a son” (suneilēphen huion), instead of reading the expression literally, we should likely understand that this, as with Manoah’s wife above, is a case of elliptical speech and probably an adaptation of that singular instance of the locution. A dozen verses earlier we encounter Elizabeth grasping/conceiving (sunelaben Elisabet, 1:24) and then several verses later Elizabeth’s “time of giving birth” (ho chronos tou tekein autēn) when she “bore a son” (egennēsen huion, 1:57). Luke has divided (and slightly varied) the biblical formula of sullambanein kai tiktein huion (“grasp/conceive and birth a son”) and interjected between the two components the abbreviated and asynchronous suneilēphen huion (“grasp/conceive a son”), a phrase which looks both backward to sunelaben in verse 24 and forward to ho chronos tou tekein autēn, kai egennēsen huion (“time of Elizabeth giving birth, and she bore a son”) in verse 57. This strange wording about Elizabeth’s prenatal condition, has, I think, contaminated interpretation of Gabriel’s statement to Mary just a few verses earlier.

To conclude this short study, let us review the salient points: 1) the phrase in 1:31 “you will grasp/conceive (sullēmpsē) in your womb and you will birth a son (huion)” is grammatically ambiguous in regard to whether sullēmpsē is intransitive or, if it is transitive, whether huion or something unstated is its object; 2) in gynaecological material from the Hippocratic literature, Aristotle, Soranus, Dioscorides, and Galen, sullambanein (“grasp/seize”) takes “semen” (sperma/gonē) as its stated or elided object in the context of insemination and intrauterine spermatic reception; 3) lambanein sperma (“take semen”) and near terminological equivalents are found outside medical literature as well, including Philo; 4) Septuagintal usage of sullambanein regularly elides the procreative verb’s object but does not provide good evidence that we should supply huion rather than a suppressed sperma/gonē; and 5) Luke’s use of the phrase suneilēphen huion (“grasped/conceived a son”) to depict Elizabeth’s pregnancy is more likely an asynchronous elision for the standard biblical formula sullambanein kai tiktein huion (“grasp/conceive and birth a son”). What is curious about Luke’s suggestive use of ancient semen reception language in conjunction with his pronounced focus on female genitalia is his lack of attention to male participation. Mary’s embryogenesis aside, Zechariah’s procreative agency appears as muted as his voice: the only penetrative action he takes before Elizabeth’s conception in 1:24 is when “he went back into his house” (apēlthen eis ton oikon autou 1:23). Not exactly a strong indication of the kind of biblical carnal knowledge Mary denies a few verses later (“I do not know a man” andra ou ginōskō 1:34). At multiple points, Luke takes us into his first two female characters’ reproductive anatomy, details their fertility status, refers directly to impregnation, and employs technical language to confirm their uterine apprehension of semen, all without mentioning a penis.[44] Just the opposite, a male organ does not intervene in the double pregnancy narratives until we encounter the new-born John’s circumcision day (1:59), a tacit allusion only and lacking any reproductive suggestion. In Luke’s infancy accounts, female genitalia are conventionally depicted receiving and grasping male reproductive fluids necessary for fertilisation. The delivery of that semen, however, remains something of a mystery.

Bibliography

Bovon, François. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002-12.

Carroll, Maureen. Infancy and Earliest Childhood in the Roman World: “A Fragment of Time.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Dean-Jones, Lesley. “The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek         Science.” Pages 183–201 in Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome. Edited by Mark Golden and Peter Toohey. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

Dean-Jones, Lesley. “Medicine: The “Proof” of Anatomy.” Pages 183–205 in Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. Edited by Elaine Fantham et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28-28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85.

Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 6th ed. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971.

Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.

Pope, Michael. “Luke’s Seminal Annunciation: An Embryological Reading of Mary’s      Conception.” Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019): 791-807.

Schaberg, Jane. The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the     Infancy Narratives. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.

Zuretti. Carlo O., ed. Codices Hispanienses. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum          11.2. Brussels: Lamertin, 1934.

[1] In a previous study, I asked a similar question, but from the male side of insemination; see Michael Pope, “Luke’s Seminal Annunciation: An Embryological Reading of Mary’s Conception,” JBL 138 (2019): 791–807. See Pope, “Luke’s Seminal Annunciation,” 791–95 for review of scholarship on Luke’s account of Mary’s pregnancy.

[2] συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν.

[3] E.g., “Du wirst ein Kind empfangen, einen Sohn wirst du gebären,” (Einheitsübersetzung); “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (NRSV); “Tu concevras dans ton sein et enfanteras un fils,” (La Bible de Jerusalem); “You are going to conceive in your womb and bear a son,” Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vols.; AB 28-28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981-1985), 1:346; “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son,” Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 82; “You will become pregnant and bear a son,” François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (trans. Christine M. Thomas; 3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002-2012), 1:43; “Du wirst schwanger werden und einen Sohn gebären,” Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 6th ed., Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971), 54.

[4] Oxford Latin Dictionary2 s.v. concipio 1a.

[5] Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)s.v. συλλαμβάνω IIa.

[6] For introductions into ancient Greek and Roman gynaecology, see Maureen Carroll, Infancy and Earliest Childhood in the Roman World: “A Fragment of Time” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 51-81; Lesley Dean-Jones, “The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science,” in Mark Golden and Peter Toohey, eds., Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), 183-201; Lesley Dean-Jones, “Medicine: The “Proof” of Anatomy,” in Elaine Fantham et al., eds., Women in the Classical World: Image and Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 183-205.

[7] ἢν γὰρ ξυλλάβῃ τὴν γονὴν καὶ κυήσῃ (Hippocrates, Female Diseases 60; cf. Female Diseases 220, 233; Superfetation 26).

[8] ἢν γὰρ ξυλλάβῃ τὴν γονὴν καὶ κυήσῃ καὶ τέκῃ (Hippocrates, Nature of Women 35).

[9] συλλαμβάνουσιν αἱ μῆτραι τὴν γονήν (Hippocrates, Female Diseases 213).

[10] συλλαμβάνειν ἐν γαστρί (Hippocrates, Female Diseases 213; cf. Female Diseases 75).

[11] ὁκόσαι παρὰ φύσιν παχεῖαι ἐοῦσαι μὴ συλλαμβάνουσιν ἐν γαστρί, ταύτῃσι τὸ ἐπίπλοον τὸ στόμα τῶν ὑστερέων ἀποπιέζει, καὶ πρὶν ἢ λεπτυνθῆναι οὐ κύουσιν. (Hippocrates, Aphorisms 5.46); though, to be clear, this passage happens to concern women not grasping semen and not becoming pregnant.

[12] δὲ συλλάβῃ ἡ ὑστέρα τὸ σπέρμα, εὐθὺς συμμύει (Aristotle, History of Animals 583b 30–31).

[13] Aristotle, History of Animals. 583b 30-31(Balme, LCL).

[14] πολλάκις τὸ θῆλυ συλλαμβάνει οὐ γενομένης αὐτῇ τῆς ἐν τῇ ὁμιλίᾳ ἡδονῆς (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 727 b 6-9).

[15] ἄνευ μὲν οὖν τῆς τοῦ ἄρρενος προέσεως ἐν τῇ συνουσίᾳ ἀδύνατον συλλαβεῖν (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 739a26-27; cf. 739a29-30).

[16] “the semen grasped in the uterus”; τὸ συλληφθὲν ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ σπέρμα (Aristotle, Fragmenta 7.39.285.54).

[17]  τὸ μὲν ἄρρεν…προετικὸν σπέρματος vs. τὸ δὲ θῆλυ καὶ δεκτικόν ἐστιν σπερμάτων καὶ συλληπτικόν (Soranus, Gynecology 1.33.1).

[18] τὸ καταβληθὲν σπέρμα συλληφθῆναι μικρομεγέθους ἔτι τῆς μήτρας ὑπαρχούσης (Soranus, Gynecology 1.33.5).

[19] τῆς ὑστέρας συλληφθέντος τοῦ σπέρματος (Soranus, Gynecology 1.45.1; cf. 1.41.2).

[20] μὴ ἀποπτυσθέντος εὐθέως τοῦ σπέρματος τῇ συλλήψει συνεργεῖν (Soranus, Gynecology 3.48.2).

[21] ἡ σύλληψις ὠνόμασται μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ συγκράτησις εἶναι τοῦ σπέρματος (Soranus, Gynecology 1.43.1)

[22] σύλληψίς ἐστιν κράτησις ἐπίμονος σπέρματος ἢ ἐμβρύου, but οὐ σπέρματος ἀλλ’ ἐμβρύου (Soranus, Gynecology 1.43.1-3).

[23] ἀνάληψις μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ φορὰ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐπὶ τὸν πυθμένα τῆς ὑστέρας, σύλληψις δὲ ἡ μετὰ τὴν φορὰν κράτησίς τε καὶ συγκόλλησις (Soranus, Gyncology 1.43.7).

[24] ἀνάληψις μὲν μόνου ἐστὶ σπέρματος, σύλληψις δὲ καὶ ἐμβρύου (Soranus, Gynecology 1.43.7).

[25] συνῆψε γὰρ ἡ φύσις ὑπερέχουσαν ἐπιθυμίαν τε ἅμα καὶ ἡδονὴν τῇ τε προέσει καὶ τῇ συλλήψει τοῦ σπέρματος (Galen 7.127).

[26] συλλαβοῦσα μὲν ἡ μήτρα τὸ σπέρμα (Galen 8.446).

[27] δέξασθαι καὶ κατασχεῖν σπέρμα … θρέψαι καὶ τελειῶσαι τὸ κυούμενον (Galen 4.163-64).

[28] συλλαμβάνουσιν αἱ μῆτραι τὴν γονήν (Galen 4.516).

[29] τὰ δὲ σπέρματα καὶ τὰς γονὰς ἔξωθεν ἀρδομένας καταλαμβάνουσαι (Philo, On the Preliminary Studies 130).

[30] LSJ s.v. καταλαμβάνω I.3.

[31] λαμβάνουσαν τὴν σπορὰν καὶ τὴν γονήν (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 3.180).

[32] μητέρα…λαμβάνουσαν τὰς γονὰς παρὰ μηδενὸς θνητοῦ (Philo, On the Change of Names 142).

[33] ἡ δὲ παραδεξαμένη τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρματα (Philo, On Drunkenness 30).

[34] Philo, On Drunkenness 30. For similar parturition imagery and language in Philo, see M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 41.

[35] γυναικὸς δ’ ὑποδεχομένης τὰ σπέρματα (Philo, On the Eternity of the World 69).

[36] cf. “she took in her womb and gave birth” (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔλαβεν καὶ ἔτεκεν) Exodus 2:2; “the women took in her womb and birthed a son” (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔλαβεν ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν) 4 Kingdoms 4:17.

[37] Delling, συλλαμβάνω,7:760 notes that the locution “is a fixed phrase in the biblical and Jewish world.”

[38] σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν (Judges 13:5).

[39] αἱ μῆτραι…κατέχωσι τὴν γονήν (Hippocrates Female Diseases 243; cf. Hippocrates Female Diseases 11, 12, 241).

[40] τὸ σπέρμα βεβαίως κατέχεται παρατεθέν, ὅτε παρακμάζουσιν αἱ καθάρσεις (Soranus, Gynecology 1.36.8-9).

[41] ἡ τῶν ὑστερῶν φύσις…δέξασθαι καὶ κατασχεῖν σπέρμα καὶ θρέψαι καὶ τελειῶσαι τὸ κυούμενον (Galen 4.163; cf. Galen 4.515, 8.424).

[42] Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum vol. 11.2, page 166, lines 24-25. Carlo O. Zuretti, ed., Codices Hispanienses, Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 11.2; (Brussels: Lamertin, 1934).

[43] συνέλαβεν πόνον καὶ ἔτεκεν ἀνομίαν (Psalm 7:17).

[44] Thus also Litwa, Iesus Deus, 58 who notes that Luke avoids “hinting at perceived theologically crass features such as … penetration by a divine penis, and the ejaculation of divine seed into the womb.”