Re: Orthodoxy (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

--- Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
(SNIP)
> Here's a grenade or two. If Jesus was fully human
> (as I believe) and a male
> of the species, then where did he get his "Y"
> chromosomes?

I'm with Bruno LaTour (and I am sure many others -- I
suspect including Bob) at least as far as saying such
questions are category mistakes. If one asks where
does the "Y" chromosome come from, how exactly did
Mary conceive in biological terms, what gender was the
angel Gabriel, etc. you are asking the wrong questions
about the narratives for several reasons. Even
assuming that it is literally true in the way a modern
would conceive of it, why do the mechanisms of how
Mary became pregnant or the formation of Jesus' Y
chromosome matter? If they don't, why do we ask the
questions about them as if they do? IMHO, they only
matter to the extent one wants to ask different
questions than the narrative is addressing and that
seems to me a fundamental error in addressing the text
that entirely misses its point.

> Since both
> Matthew and Luke provide stories of the virginal
> conception of Jesus, are we
> to attribute them to a miracle by the Holy Spirit?
> Or are the stories of
> virginal conception to be taken as theological ways
> of conveying the notion
> of the Incarnation, to be taken seriously but not
> literally?

Again, I would ask whether it matters. I would assert
that to ask the questions above of the text does not
take the text seriously, because they ask things that
are not important to the text, or to the world in
which the text was written, but questions that we, in
a different mode of thought and with a different body
of knowledge re genetics, etc. impose on the text.
 
> If Joseph is, as the genealogies in both gospels
> attest (necessarily with
> the stories of virginal conception prominent), the
> putative (i.e., not the
> real) father of Jesus, then of what biological
> purpose would they serve?

Ah, well, if you mean the descent from David, NT
Wright suggests the importance of the Septuagint
translation of a text regarding the son of David (as
an apocalyptic figure) that refers to the Son of David
being resurrected. IIRC, the Septuagint meaning is
different than the meaning in the same text in
non-Septuagint derived Hebrew scriptures. The obvious
implication is that by the resurrection, Jesus was
demonstrated to be the messianic Son of David referred
to who was resurrected by God. Either the genealogy
independently confirms it or emphasizes that Jesus is
that messianic figure as demonstrated by His
resurrection. Of course, asking what biological
purpose it services, again is likely a category
mistake question.

Of course, genealogies are important in many cultures
for reasons other than theological or biological. I
have no idea what the law was in 1st century AD
regarding how one traces descent or what the law was
regarding when and how someone was considered a son
(biological paternity, for example, is not always a
preqrequisite for legal or otherwise recognized
paternity in many cultures, including our own). So,
it may be important in other than in a biological or
theological sesne as well.

> I
> raise the latter, because one of my YEC student
> argued, on the basis of
> Luke's genealogy, that if there was no historical
> Adam, then Jesus didn't
> exist. I ignored the faulty logic, and instead
> suggested that they serve
> rather a theological purpose than the purposes of a
> biological geneology;
> but he just shook his head.

(SNIP)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Received on Tue Dec 23 21:11:50 2003