B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by this author are the alternate designations corresponding to B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.


The Talmud is a collection of Jewish law and teachings, consisting of the Palestinian Talmud (compiled in the fifth century C.E.) and the Babylonian Talmud (compiled in the sixth century C.E.).


Midrashim (singular: midrash) are rabbinic homilies and commentaries on specific books of the Bible.


A baraitha is a rabbinic teaching that was not incorporated in the Mishnah, a component of the Talmud.


In addition the midrash collection Leviticus Rabbah (14.9) comments on Leviticus 12:2: “It [namely, the determination of the embryo’s sex] may be likened to two artists, each of whom executes the likeness of the other; thus it is always that the female is formed from [the seed of the] man and the male from [the seed of the] woman. This is indicated by what is written … (Leviticus 12:2 and Genesis 46:15).”



See also the King James Version, the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, etc.


This same solution is adopted by the Good News Bible. See also Bruce Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament (New York-London: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 672–673; Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd. ed. (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967) pp. 87–88. Black here refers to K. Beyer’s discussion of the Zustandssätze in his Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), esp. 117ff. The authors of the Translator’s Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews also opt for this solution, albeit not without hesitation. P. Ellingworth and E. A Nida, Translator’s Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews (London, New York, and Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), p. 261.


Ceslaus Spicq, L’épitre aux Hébreux (Paris: Gabalda, 1977), p. 188; L’épitre aux Hébreux (Paris: Gabalda, 1953) 2.348f. He refers to Henry J. Cadbury, “The Ancient Physiological Notions Underlying John I 13 and Hebrews XI 11, ” The Expositor, series 9, vol. 2 (1924), pp. 430–439.


The Eumenides by Aeschylus: A Translation and Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970) transl. H. Lloyd-Jones (slightly adapted) 657ff; pp. 51–52. Cf. also Euripides Orestes 552–553.


See L. Edelstein, “The History of Anatomy in Antiquity” (1932), reprinted in his Ancient Medicine (ed. O. Temkin and C. L. Temkin; Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1967; repr. 1987), pp. 247–301; see also H. von Staden, Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).


For the details, see J. Needham and A Hughes, A History of Embryology, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959).


Needham and Hughes, History of Embryology.


Censorinus, De die natali 5.4. N. Sallman (Censorini de die natali liber [Leipzig: Teubner, 1983] 8 ad loc.) gives the pertinent references to the fragments of the authors mentioned, as does R. Rocca-Serra, in Censorinus: Le jour natal (Paris: Vrin, 1980), p. 45 (his French translation is on p. 8). In 6.5 and 6.8 Censorinus discusses Parmenides’ and Anaxagoras’ ideas on the role of female semen.


Censorinus, De die natali 6.4.


De generatione animalium 4.1.764a6-11 (= frag.68A143 D.-K.).


See especially Galen’s extensive treatise De semine.


Lucretrius, De rerum natura 4.1208–17.


See, for example, Baruch Levine’s recent Commentary on Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1989).


See, for example, Leviticus Rabbah 14.6.


See, for example, Berakhot 54a and Niddah 70b–71a.


Almost identical passages can be found in Qiddushin 30b, Qohlet Rabba 5.10.2, Midrash Yetsirat ha-Walad vol. 1, p. 156, 18ff. in Jellinek’s Beth ha-Midrasch.


For another example in the field of embryology, see Pieter Willem van der Horst, “Seven Months’ Children in Jewish and Christian Literature from Antiquity,” Ephemerides Theological Lovanienses 54 (1978), pp. 346–360; now reprinted in his Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 14 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), pp. 233–247.


Cf. Cadbury, “Ancient Physiological Notions,” p. 439.