Does the female discharge semen as the male does, which
would mean that the object formed is a single mixture produced from two semens,
or is there no discharge of semen from the female? And if there is none, then
does the female contribute nothing whatever to generation, merely providing a
place where generation may happen, or does it contribute something else, and if
so, how and in what manner does it do so? . . . This much then is evident: the
menstrual fluid is a residue, and it is the analogous thing in females to the
semen in males. . . . [T]he residue which goes to produce those characteristics
in males is in females discharged together with the menstrual fluid. . . . Now
it is impossible that any creature should produce two seminal secretions at
once, and so as the secretion in females which answers to semen in males is the
menstrual fluid, it obviously follows that the female does not contribute any
semen to generation (Aristotle Generation of Animals 1.19.726a.30-35; 727a.1
4, 15-20, 25-30).
Since the woman contributes no “semen,” the male
represents, according to Aristotle, the true human author of life. This
conviction also underlies many classical Greek myths that describe
parthenogenetic birth to males. Moreover, from the thirteenth century onwards,
the Aristotelian view greatly impacted the western understanding of human generation,
in large degree because of Aquinas’s espousal of this Aristotelian teaching.
All of this suggests that the view of paternity
delineated by Delaney exercised tremendous influence for several centuries.
Even so, it remains to establish the relevance of this longstanding
interpretation of the roles of the female and male in procreation in the
present investigation of the identity of the Johannine brothers of Jesus.
In First Corinthians, Paul twice mentions that women
originate from men: γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός (1 Cor 11:8) and γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός (1 Cor 11:12).
He also states (1 Cor 11:8) that men do not originate from women (οῦ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ
ἐκ γυναικὸς) but are διὰ τῆς γυναικὸς. Critics maintain that Paul is alluding
to the creation of humanity, particularly to the second chapter of Genesis,
which describes how God creates the woman through the man. While this is highly
probable, implicit in Paul’s argument is the belief that in procreation the
male is the creative agent that begets female (and male). Paul does state that
the male comes through the female (1Cor 11:8), but this is simply a reference
to the process of childbirth. The preposition διά does not denote creative
causality on the part of the woman.
The belief that the male represents the sole causative agent in the formation of a child naturally leads to the conclusion that children represent the offspring of their fathers and only of their fathers. This notion is expressed by Abraham as he explains to King Abimelech why he earlier claimed that his wife Sarah was his sister: “She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife” (Gen 20:12). According to the biblical writer, Sarah is Abraham’s sister because they have the same father. Whether or not they were born of the same mother is irrelevant. The implication is that the male is the essential agent in parenthood.
In a similar fashion, the Hebrew Scriptures describe
brothers as males who have the same father, but not necessarily the same
mother. The sons of Jacob, for example, are repeatedly referred to as brothers
(Gen 37:4-5, 9-14, 16, 26-27) even though Jacob has two wives—Leah and Rachel—as
well as two concubines—Zilpah and Bilhah. Solomon, the son of Bathsheba, is
referred to as the brother of Adonijah, the son of Haggith (1 Kgs 1:10; 2:15, 21-22)
as well as the brother of Absalom (1 Kgs 2:7), the son of Maacah (2 Sam 3:3).
All three men are thought to have the same father, David, but different
mothers. Again, the point is that sisters and brothers are identified as such
because they are believed to have the same biological father. (Joan Cecelia
Campbell, Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John [The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series 42; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association
of America, 2007], 53-54)