Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s take a central Christian doctrine: the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ. Suppose that after being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, Mary subsequently had intimate marital relations with Joseph and bore the child Jesus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vistesd,
You are now saying that Joseph did ...[text shortened]... b] did[/b] know her."
Eventually we each have to put our trust in someone. Don't we?[/b]
Jaywill,
This is going to be my last post (or at least I will be posting infrequently) for awhile—not because I don’t value the discussion and debate (I do), but because I need a break.
(1) Yes, I am speculating—speculating about how an oral story can develop and change by the time it is written down.
(2) Matthew was, in my view, a midrashist, weaving his own version of the story for theological, not historical/biographical, purposes. I do not view that as being illegitimate. I think nearly all scholars are agreed, for example, that his genealogy is a construct—which, among other things, is notable for including three women with interesting backgrounds (Tamar, Ruth and Bathsheeba), and for the play on the number 14.
Midrashic writings, and midrashic readings (which are aimed at opening up even remote possibilities in the text) are a traditional Jewish form that predates the 1st Century C.E.
(3) I am not a Biblical literalist/inerrantist. I actually think such an approach diminishes the profundity of the texts, as well as being totally outside traditional exegesis at the time the texts were composed—as well as being outside the traditional concepts of composing such texts themselves.
(4) Luke is not as specific about “marital relations” as is Matthew. Nor does he specify that they were not living together while betrothed—which was not, I believe an uncommon practice.
Further, there may be a clue in Matthew 1:24, where it says he took (or received:
paralaben) her as his wife. That ordinarily meant having marital relations; hence 1:25 could mean that he had no further relations with her until after she gave birth.
There seems to be nothing in the text that prohibits the possibility that Joseph and Mary had relations while betrothed (but not living together). Matthew may well have been midrashically covering such a possible scandal—which may not have been a scandal if such relations were permitted during the betrothal period (I am not certain of that, but we ought not to reach back and impose our own cultural mores). That is certainly not the only possibility.
More likely, in my view, is that he was midrashically weaving a text from disparate oral traditions—as well as expanding them. Hence the genealogy going to Joseph, which has no bearing at all in a Jewish context (or early Jewish-Christian context) if Joseph was not the father. Hence, perhaps, Paul’s reference in Romans (written circa 58 C.E.) to Jesus’ being “made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” (Matthew is generally dated circa 80-90 C.E.)
[Although Paul says “born of a woman” in Galatians 4:4, subsequent context—especially 4:29—indicates that this not does mean without a human father. See also Job 14:1, 15:14 and 25:4.]
Yes, again, I am speculating about possibilities—that’s all; I am not making a claim. And, as I said, I was not ruling out divine intervention in my speculations.
(5) The quote from Isaiah 7:14 (in Matthew 1:23) is from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Greek word translated as virgin is
parthenos, which can mean maid, maiden, virgin or just unmarried girl. Alternative Greek words are—
The word in the Hebrew Scriptures is
almah, which means maiden, young woman or young marriageable woman. The alternatives are
b’tulah, which can mean a chaste maiden, a virgin or a bride; and
na’ara, which means girl or maid (apparently younger than
almah).
____________________________________
Be well.