medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Interesting issue. The author of the Gospel of Luke and the author of the
Gospel of Matthew have different theological axes to grind: for the
Hellenistic L, Jesus is a figure of universal salvation (and so the
genealogy's human origin is Adam), for M, Jesus is a messianic fulfillment
of Jewish prophecy (and so the genealogy's origin is Abraham). But when did
textual inconsistencies ever stop believers from accepting each? There are
always/all ways to harmonize them creatively, for example allegorical
interpretations.
What I don't know (scholars in patristics, please enlighten me), how early
and in what formulations did the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus
occur?
//tl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Landes [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [M-R] Bill East's comment on Mary
>
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
> At 06:56 AM 5/15/01 -0700, Bill East wrote:
>
> > > >There is certainly a tradition that Mary, as well
> > > as Joseph, was descended from David, but it is not based on any
> > > information in the New Testament.
>
> but their very existence attests to the need to deal with the problems
> created by the NT genealogies for claims of virgin birth.
>
> > >The two genealogies, in Matthew and Luke, set out to show
> > > >that Joseph was the descendant of David. They also
> > > deny that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, but biological
> > > parenthood was not the main issue. As Plummer says in the
> > > International Critical Commentary on Luke (available in the theology
> > > section of any good library), "In the eyes of the law Jesus was the
> > > heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph's descent which is of
> > > importance." His whole discussion of Luke's genealogy (pages 101-105)
> is
> > > of interest.
>
> i'm sorry, but this strikes me as wanting to eat your cake and have it
> too. jesus' genealogy is of interest only to those who are interested in
> the messianic claims. for jews, who do not consider him the only begotten
> son of god, his lineage may be thru joseph, but hardly of any
> importance. for xns who do consider him so, then joseph is irrelevant (as
> is the jewish attitude). to invoke a law that jesus as supposedly annuled
> in order to make a messianic claim for jesus seems a bit odd.
>
> somebody help me here. this reading strikes me as apologetics, and
> deserves to be treated as such, no? in which case, what were these early
> gospel writers thinking about jesus' parentage? they sure left xns with a
> messy claim, at least insofar as they might also want to maintain a virgin
> birth.
>
> rlandes
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|