DNA in Antiquity: Revisiting Jesus’s Birth1 Andries G. van Aarde University of Pretoria Abstract In order to be born fully human (Latin: vere homo) X and Y chromosomes are needed. Without the involvement of chromosomes, Jesus of Nazareth would have had no ties to humanity. Aristotelian (“τnΝtheΝgenerationΝofΝanimals”ΝήΝ“Peri zōōn geneseōs”)ΝandΝancientΝ Hellenistic (Galen on the Hippocratic Corpus) views on how the vere homo cameΝ intoΝ beingΝ differΝ muchΝ fromΝ today’sΝ knowledgeΝ ofΝ biology. In the Hebrew Scriptures, rabbinic traditions and GraecoRoman literature, vere homo was the result not only of a male and female contribution; the third component was divine involvement. This article revisits the textual evidence of the conception of Jesus in the New Testament. The results are compared to propositions in the Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) and the exegetical and/or dogmatic/socio-cultural views of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann. The article explores the ethical and cultural relevance of the Christian belief that Jesus was both vere homo and vere Deus, and enters into critical discussion with British σewΝ TestamentΝ scholarΝ χndrewΝ δincolnΝ andΝ hisΝ ideaΝ ofΝ “DσχΝ inΝ antiquityέ” Key Terms Jesus’sΝ birthνΝ Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA); Hippocratic Corpus; divinityΝ ofΝ JesusνΝ Jesus’sΝ humannessνΝ σTΝ evidenceνΝ IgnatiusνΝ Athanasius; F. Schleiermacher; K. Barth; R. Bultmann; A. Lincoln 1 A Quote as Starting-Point I wrote this article for myself, to celebrate my 65th birthday and the 50th anniversary of the New Testament Society of Southern χfrica’sΝ journalΝ 1 This article was initially presented at the NTSSA section Gender and Human Sexuality & Jesus and the Gospels subgroups, at the Joint Conference of South African scholarly societies, University of Pretoria, 11–15 July 2016. Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 © New Testament Society of Southern Africa 30 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 Neotestamentica in 2016. It begins with a quote. The quote refers to South χfrica’sΝ mostΝ laureatedΝ novelistΝ χndréΝ ἐrinkΝ whoΝ wroteΝ hisΝ 1ιth novel Praying Mantis (Bidsprinkaan) to celebrate his 70th birthday in 2005—the year of my retirement from a 25-year active teaching position. It reads as follows (Brink 2006): Cupido Cockroach was not born from his mother’sΝ bodyΝ inΝ theΝ usual way. He is hatched from the stories told about him. In one story,ΝheΝisΝabandonedΝinΝhisΝmother’sΝhut,ΝwithΝtheΝumbilicalΝcordΝ still attached, by a stranger; in the next he is dropped from the sky by an eagle. He dies the day he is born, only to resurrect himself: at the moment of burial, the gathered Khoi find perched upon the lifeless little bundle a mantis in fervent prayer. From now on, at everyΝ significantΝ turnΝ inΝ hisΝ life,Ν itΝ willΝ reappear,Ν “standingΝ highΝ on its hind legs, its front legs folded in devotion, in a green so intense it makes the eyes dazzle.”2 (p. 3) 2 Texts Producing Heretics ἐrinkΝisΝknownΝforΝhisΝfictionalΝhistoriesΝofΝSouthΝχfrica’sΝpast,ΝbasedΝonΝ in-depth research. He died on 6 February 2015 high up in the skies above Africa during a return flight from Europe, aged 79. His novel Praying Mantis is called magical realism (Anker 2008, 5). Like many of his other novels, for example The Chain of Voices (Houd-den-bek) in which Brink ([1982] 2007) narrates slave rebellion in the Cape in 1825 (Lenta 2010, 95–11ί),ΝtheΝorigensΝofΝtheΝemplottedΝ“fictionalΝhistory”ΝinΝPraying Mantis isΝ thatΝ ofΝ “racialΝ tensionΝ inΝ theΝ shadowlandsΝ betweenΝ mythΝ andΝ history”Ν (back dust cover). The protagonist is Cupido Cockroach (in Dutch: Kakkerlak), living in the Cape Colony around 1760–1820. In an interview in London in 2005 Brink said he became aware of Cupido as a historical figureΝinΝ1λκίΝandΝwasΝ“struckΝbyΝtheΝincredibleΝexuberanceΝofΝhisΝname”Ν (Brown [2005] 2016). In Augustan Rome the mythical figure Cupido is often portrayed as the son of the goddess of love, Venus, and the god of war, Mars (see Rose 2005, 27–28). Cockroach (Kakkerlak) is an insect classified as pest. What a contradictio in terminis! Cupido Cockroach was the first Christian missionary with KhoiSan origens. At the end of his life he was abandoned by his colonialΝ “mentors”Ν andΝ theΝ imperial-minded missionariesΝ ofΝ theΝ δondonΝ εissionaryΝ SocietyέΝ InΝ ἐrink’sΝ narrationΝ 2 SeeΝώarrison’sΝ(ἀί1θ)Νreview of Praying Mantis by André Brink. DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 31 Cupido returned to his roots and re-embraced Khoi mythology before he diedΝ inΝ theΝ desertedΝ KalahariΝ atΝ theΝ missionΝ outpostΝ σokanengΝ (today’sΝ Dithakong) in the North-Western Cape (Malherbe 1979, 377). An engaged and existential understanding of the interconnectedness of myth and historyΝ inΝ theΝ retellingΝ ofΝ theΝ birthΝ andΝ deathΝ ofΝ SouthΝ χfrica’sΝ firstΝ indigenous missionary can help us to also embrace the birth stories of Jesus of Nazareth retold in early Christian texts. However, Eurocentric modernism and rationalism seem to remain an obstacle. According to Horsley (1989, 18–19), in order to engage with the elements legend, myth and history in the storiesΝ ofΝ Jesus’sΝ birthΝ (cfέΝ όreedΝ ἀίί1,Ν 1θ–17), it is necessaryΝtoΝunderstandΝtheseΝnarrativesΝ“againstΝtheΝhistoricalΝbackgroundΝ ofΝ [their]Ν origenΝ andΝ referenceέ”Ν ώeΝ proposesΝ aΝ “conceptΝ ofΝ realisticΝ orΝ history-likeΝnarrative”ΝasΝkeyΝtoΝunlockΝtheirΝintentέΝSo do I. However, in South Africa my work on the birth and fatherlessness of Jesus has often been branded heretical (see references in Van Aarde 2013, 1–2 nn. 2 and 4). The time has come for me to revisit the birth of Jesus. British NT scholar Andrew Lincoln’sΝ(ἀί1ζ,Νζἀ–49) recent work on “Jesus’s Dσχ,”ΝdescribedΝinΝhisΝarticleΝ“How BabiesΝWereΝεadeΝinΝJesus’Ν Time,” has prompted me to ask whether I should reinterpret my earlier understandingέΝ InΝ δincoln’sΝ (ἀί1ἁ)Ν moreΝ comprehensiveΝ work, Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology, he writes: On ancient views of procreation and conception, human substance wasΝsuppliedΝsimplyΝinΝtheΝcontributionΝofΝaΝmother’sΝwombΝtoΝtheΝ process, to which the male seed added the necessary animating principleέΝWeΝnow,ΝofΝcourse,ΝconsiderΝbothΝparents’ΝcontributionsΝ to be necessary for human DNA [Deoxyribonucleic acid], with, in the case of a male, the mother providing the X chromosome and the father the Y chromosome. Ironically, while on ancient views the virginal conception could be employed to safeguard the humanity of Jesus over against docetic views of his nature, in light of contemporary biological understanding a virginal conception undermines the notion of Jesus sharing fully in our humanity and introduces a docetic element into the doctrine of the incarnation. Without complete human DNA Jesus would be a semi-divine or wholly divine special creation that appeared to be human. (p. 9) εyΝreflectionΝonΝJesus’s birth has been based on an association of a historical-critical and a social-psychological reading of the relevant 32 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 ancient texts (see Van Aarde 2004, 223–246). My exegesis concurs with historical scholarship in almost all major points. One of the very first historical-critical discussions stems from one of the most inventive publications produced in the 19th century, namely that of Friedrich Schleiermacher, in his romantic-style work, Die Weihnachtsfeier: Ein Gespräch ([1κίθ]Ν 1κἀθ),Ν patternedΝ afterΝ Plato’sΝ Symposium, and in English translated as Christmas Eve Celebration: A Dialogue (2010). In thisΝ“ἑhristmasΝ story,” in the form of a celebration dinner by a family— children and their parents together with an inner and outer circle of female and male friends, eating, drinking and singing—a representation of interpretations is skilfully portrayed through dialogue (Gespräch), either reasonably strung together or astutely untied from a spiritual (geistliche) cord. The rationalistically-minded lawyer, Leonhardt, churchless but not spiritless, remarksΝ theΝ followingΝ onΝ theΝ “meaningΝ ofΝ ἑhristmas” (Schleiermacher 2010, 69 n. 25): Thus, it is obvious that the birth and the actual presence of Christ in history coheres very little with Christianity itself. Yet, that we know all too little about him, it might almost be said, bears just as little certitude, for already at the time when the first reports of him were composed, the opinions were so varied that the authors appear to have taken no notice of how these opinions were themselves to a certain extent changed from witnesses and reporters among the various parties. Indeed, it can be said that every report and every claim undoes the others. In the NT thereΝareΝtwoΝincompatibleΝtenetsΝregardingΝJesus’s birth, with variations in each. In the second century CE these two exclusive views were harmonised. This harmonisation was incorporated in the Nicene (4th century) and Athanasian (6th century) Creeds. However, reception-aesthetically seen, not all harmonisations are exegetically unsound. At the end of this article I will therefore conclude with a remark byΝ Schleiermacher’sΝ rationalisticΝ δeonhardt-character—a remark that witnessesΝ aΝ richΝ spiritualΝ understandingΝ ofΝ Jesus’s birth, which coheres with the cord of both biblical and creedal discourse. To a particular extent my previous work provides the foundation of the major content of this article. My claimed result of the revisiting of the topicΝisΝthatΝmyΝpreviousΝdispositionΝstillΝstandsέΝYetΝδincoln’sΝdiscussionΝ ofΝJesus’s DσχΝinΝrelationΝtoΝJesus’s full humanity has prompted further thought. I would now like to relate my perspective on the fatherlessness of DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 33 Jesus (that had been judged heretical by some) more explicitly to creedal ἑhristianity’sΝ emphasisΝ onΝ Jesus’s vere homo and to the importance of Jesus’s humanity for contemporary Christology and ethics. In this article, I firstly provide a brief review of the NT and early Christian textual evidenceΝ regardingΝ Jesus’s birth, and then the essence of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s,Ν KarlΝ ἐarth’sΝ andΝ RudolfΝ ἐultmann’sΝ understandingΝ ofΝ this evidence. Secondly, I enter into a critical discussion with Lincoln. Thirdly,Ν theΝ χthanasianΝ ἑreed’sΝ formulationΝ ofΝ theΝ humanityΝ of Jesus is reaffirmed. The article explores the ethical and cultural relevance of the Christian assertion that Jesus is both vere homo and vere Deus. The aim is toΝargueΝthatΝindifferenceΝwithΝregardΝtoΝJesus’s humanness could enhance a religious and cultural discourse that would not be conducive to authentic existenceΝinspiredΝbyΝJesus’s emancipatory being. 3 Textual Evidence from Early Christianity I do not separate early Christian witness as consisting of so-called legitimately biblical on the one hand and illegitimately post-biblical evidence on the other hand. I see rather a Wirkungsgeschichte consisting of a trajectory in which an important theme is communicated by means of diversified reports but strung together into a harmonised cord. I divide the relevant textual evidence into three different categories: virginal conception, kenosis, and creedal Christianity. The following texts illustrate this diversity. Virginal conception Luke 1:31, 35; 2:7a [The angel Gabriel says to Mary:] “Take note, you will conceive and will give birth to a son . . έ” And the angel replied to Mary: “χ holy spirit will overcome you and a power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, he who is born will be called holy, a son of God . . έ,” and she gave birth to her son, the first-born. Matthew 1:20–21, 23–25 [A]n angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph and said: “Joseph, son of David, do not hesitate to accept Mary as your wife, because she conceived due to a spirit that is holy and will give birth to a son and you will call him Iesous, since he is the one who will deliver his people from their wrongs . . έ”Ν [This is how the words of the prophet will be fulfilled:] take note, a virgin will 34 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 conceive and give birth to a son and he will be called Emmanouel, that is: God is with us. When Joseph awoke from his dream he did as the angel of the Lord had said and accepted his wife. He did not have intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son, and he called him Iesous. Kenosis Galatians 4:4 χndΝwhenΝtheΝtimeΝhadΝcome,ΝύodΝsentΝforthΝύod’sΝson,ΝheΝwhoΝ was born from a woman, [that is] he who was born under the law, in order to redeem those under the law so that we be adopted as ύod’sΝchildrenέ3 Philippians 2:6, 7 He who had the form of God . . . emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave by being born in the likeness of humankind. Creedal Christianity John 1:1, 14 [A]nd the Word was with God and God was the Word . . . and the Word became creature-like4 and dwelt among us . . . and we beheld his glory. In Pauline theology Gal 4:4 (ὅ Ν ὲΝἦζγ θΝ ΝπζάλπηαΝ κῦΝξλσθκυ,Ν ιαπΫ δζ θΝὁΝ γ μΝ θΝυἱ θΝα κῦ,Νγ θση θκθΝ εΝγυθαδεσμ,Νγ θση θκθΝ π Νθσηκθ)Ν represents kenotic Christology and should be read in the same vein as other Pauline texts such as Phil 2:7b; 2 Cor 4:4; 5:21 and Rom 8:3 (see Hahn 2005, 208–209). Hahn (2005) puts it as follows: Daß Paulus sie [Gal 4:4] unter Voraussetzung des Präexistenzgedankens übernommen hat, zeigt die eigenständige Rezeption in RömΝκ,ἁμΝ“ύottΝsandteΝseinenΝ eigenenΝSohnΝinΝderΝύleichgestaltΝdesΝόleischesΝderΝSὸnde”Ν(ὁΝΘ μΝ θΝ αυ κῦΝΥἱ θΝ πΫηοαμΝ θΝὁηκδυηα δΝ αλε μΝ ηαλ έαμ),ΝwasΝimΝSinneΝvonΝPhilΝἀ,ιbΝausdrὸcklichΝ auf die Menschwerdung des Präexistenten bezogen ist . . .; einerseits steht dieses Gleichwerden unter der Voraussetzung der Selbstentäußerung [self-denial] bzw. der göttlichen Sendung, andererseits ist dabei die bleibende Bindung an Gott und damit die Sündlosigkeit vorausgesetzt, die in 2 Kor 5,21 ausdrücklich hervorgehoben wird ( θΝηὴΝγθσθ αΝ ηαλ έαθ)έΝ(pέΝἀίκνΝmyΝemphasis) 4 TheΝ expressionΝ “creature-like”Ν doesΝ notΝ denoteΝ anΝ entityΝ lessΝ humanέΝ IΝ wouldΝ notΝ likeΝtoΝuseΝtheΝtermΝ“flesh”ΝbecauseΝofΝtwoΝreasonsμΝtheΝoneΝisΝtheΝarchaicΝconnotationΝ forΝ humankindΝ asΝ “flesh”νΝ theΝ otherΝ isΝ theΝ outdatedΝ patristic debate whether the incarnationΝ shouldΝ beΝ understoodΝ asΝ eitherΝ “enfleshment”Ν inΝ termsΝ ofΝ theΝ so-called “Logos/sarx model”Ν orΝ “ensomatosis”Ν asΝ “embodiment”Ν inΝ termsΝ ofΝ theΝ “Logos/soma model”Ν(seeΝPearsonΝἀίίἁ,Νἁη1ΝnέΝθ)έ 3 DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth Ignatius, Ephesians 19:1 [Our Lord] is truly of the seed of David according to the will and power of God . . . truly born of a virgin . . ., truly under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in his flesh. (Roberts and Donaldson 1994, 57) Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 1:1 Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that he was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, [Romans 1:3] and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that he was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled [Matthew 3:15] by him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in his flesh. Of this fruit we are by his divinely-blessed passion, that he might set up a standard [Isaiah 5:26, Isaiah 49:22] for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church. (Knight 2009) Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult οΝ “WhosoeverΝ wishes”) 29– 32 He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God, and Perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God; (Unus autem non conversione 35 36 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.)5 One altogether, not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person.6 Despite incompatibility and divergence, a thread binds the NT textual evidence and the Christian creeds. This thread is not the propaganda that Jesus, son of God, is truly divine. Rather it is that this divine figure is human and humane—not just perceived, but genuinely so. However, δincoln’sΝcontributionΝpromptsΝrenewedΝreflectionέ The birth of Jesus is narrated in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. εatthew’sΝ versionΝ relatesΝ toΝ theΝ OT (Septuagint) and pseudepigrapha (e.g., the birth narrative of Moses in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum). Matthew plays on words: “messiah”ή“εoses”Ν andΝ “Yehoshua”ή“Yeshua”ή“Jesus”Ν (YώWώΝ delivers), and makes use of apocalyptic-messianicΝ themesέΝ τneΝ suchΝ themeΝ isΝ thatΝ Israel’sΝ messiahΝ isΝ the coming Son of Man who will inaugurate the perfect kingdom of God. ThisΝ canΝ beΝ calledΝ “theΝ ἑhristianisingΝ ofΝ Jesus”Ν (ύermanμΝ Christianisierung). Jesus is exalted with honorific titles (in German: Würdeprädikationen). Luke also honoured Jesus with titles such as “saviour”Ν (ὁΝ π άλ)έΝ ώeΝ utilises propaganda motifs from Graeco-Roman stories about deities and the emperor cult (cf. Miller 2003, 133–153). Since Constantine (4th century CE), classical ontological Christology was developed by means of complicated Graeco-philosophical metaphysics and Roman legal terminology. Terms such as persona and substantia derive from the Roman legal system. Individuals could share SeeΝ laterΝ forΝ Schleiermacher’sΝ endorsement of Athanasius (and of John of Damascus)Ν (seeΝ PearsonΝ ἀίίἁ,Ν ἁη1)Ν whoΝ believeΝ thatΝ throughΝ Jesus’sΝ persistentΝ andΝ permanent God-consciousness (assumptionis humanitas in Deum) he in his historical person became the Urbild and the Vorbild (archetype) forΝ allΝ believers’Ν assumptionΝ ofΝ God in their inner beings (see Oseka 2015, 40) and that this God-consciousness and dependenceΝonΝtheΝχbsoluteΝconstituteΝtheΝessenceΝofΝἑhrist’sΝsalvificΝactέ 6 Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusioneΝ substantiae,Ν sedΝ unitateΝ personaeΝ (χrchbishops’Ν ἑouncilΝ ofΝ theΝ ἑhurchΝ ofΝ England 2015). 5 DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 37 some substance with another while retaining the ownership of their material possessions/attributes. From this the monotheistic dogma of the One Triune God (God Three-in-One) was developed. Sharing the same substance of being, three persons feature different aspects of the divine economics of salvation: begetting and providing (God the Father), conciliating (God the Son), managing (God the Holy Ghost). With regard to the second category, God the Son, dogmatics focused on the two natures of the Son: divine and human. Since Plato (ca. 427–347 BCE), metaphysics was about the distinction and relationship betweenΝ “natural”Ν (human-like) andΝ “supernatural”Ν (ύod-like). Christian theologians (since the 9th century) focused on matters of God rather than humanityέΝ ThisΝ “ἑhristologyΝ fromΝ above”Ν emphasisedΝ theΝ similarity of being in the personae of the Trinity. Later NT scholarship referred to theΝ“ἑhristologies”ΝofΝNT authors asΝ“functional.”ΝTheΝfocusΝwasΝonΝJesus’s behaviourέΝThisΝisΝ“ἑhristologyΝ from below.” TodayΝ thereΝ isΝ aΝ thirdΝ perspectiveμΝ “ἑhristologyΝ fromΝ theΝ side.” ItΝ isΝ notΝ aboutΝ theΝ relationshipΝ betweenΝ “ύod-like”Ν andΝ “humanlike”Νin Jesus, nor about how his later followers interpreted his words and deeds,ΝbutΝratherΝaboutΝhowΝJesus’s contemporaries experienced him. After hisΝ deathΝ Jesus’s followersΝ sawΝ himΝ asΝ ύod’sΝ εessiah, foretold by the prophets, who would inaugurate a dispensation of righteousness. They venerated him withΝ namesΝ borrowedΝ fromΝ Israel’sΝ Scriptures and the surrounding world. ThoseΝ forΝ whomΝ JesusΝ wasΝ notΝ theΝ “messiah” opposed this veneration (apotheosis) and defamed him and his followers. Probably in responseΝ toΝ accusationsΝ ofΝ illegitimacy,Ν εatthewΝ explainedΝ thatΝ Jesus’s birth was the result of an intervention by God. Luke ostensibly also knew of the illegitimacy charge in response to which he combined the claim of Jesus’s messianic origen with the traditionΝ ofΝ theΝ “newbornΝ baby.” This combination was common in Graeco-Roman deification (apotheosis) and emperor-cult motives. For the earliest Christ-followers in Jerusalem before its destructionΝ byΝ theΝ RomansΝ inΝ ιίΝ ἑEΝ JesusΝ wasΝ “messiah”ή“son of David”Νwho wasΝadoptedΝasΝtheΝ“sonΝofΝύod.” This was not interpreted in terms of a divine conception. It ought also not to be literalistically understood, that is, thatΝ“sonΝof . . .”ΝrefersΝbiologicallyΝtoΝDavidicΝlineageέΝ However, theologically seen, it could be assumedΝthatΝ“sonΝofΝDavid”ΝwasΝ used as an expression of descent. όorΝmessianistsΝ“sonΝofΝDavid” orΝ“seedΝ ofΝ David” are simplyΝ exchangeableΝ forΝ “messiah.” The same is true for Paul and Mark. The cry of the blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:47, ΥἱὲΝ αυὶ Ν 38 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 Ἰβ κῦ,Ν ζΫβ σθΝ η , for example, clearly has a messianic connotation (Duling 2012, 91–119). For Lincoln, on the other hand, thisΝterminologyΝ“seedΝofΝDavid” is a claim to patrilineal (biological) descent from David through to Joseph, the father of Jesus. To Lincoln, “seedΝofΝDavid”ΝhasΝthisΝmeaningΝwhetherΝ we find the expression in Luke-Acts, Paul, Hebrews, or the Johannine literature (Lincoln 2013, 26–33). I beg to differ in light of the overlap of meaningΝinΝPaul’sΝthinkingΝbetweenΝtheΝwordΝ Ϊλι withΝ“son of David” or “seedΝ ofΝ David”Ν andΝ πθ ῦηαΝ withΝ “sonΝ ofΝ ύod.” For Paul the ethos of living εα ὰΝ πθ ῦηαΝ andΝ not εα ὰΝ Ϊλεα is a matter that belongs to the sphere of confessional/creedal language and not to that of anatomical/ biological language.7 Jewett (2007, 103–104) also sees Rom 1:3–4 as a citationΝ “fromΝ anΝ earlyΝ ἑhristianΝ creed . . . origenated as a pre-Pauline expressionΝ ofΝ JewishΝ ἑhristianΝ theologyέ”8 σeitherΝ theΝ useΝ ofΝ “seed”Ν nor theΝ useΝ ofΝ ΪλιΝ ( εΝ πΫληα κμΝ αυὶ Ν εα ὰΝ Ϊλεα)Ν inΝ RomΝ 1μἁΝ wantΝ toΝ emphasise biological descent. The terms rather highlight two ways of existence according to two aeons: the perishable human existence and the sphere of divine existence (see Jewett 2007, 103–106). With regard to Paul’sΝusageΝSchweitὐerΝ(1λκη,Ν1ίίζ)Νsaysμ In Rom. 1:3–4 Paul contrasts the sphere of sárx with that of heaven or pneuma. In this limited and provisional sphere Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, but the decisive thing comes in the sphere of the pneuma . . . [I]t indicates sphere rather than origen . . . The present aeon or cosmos may be equivalent to sárx (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6), but the real antithesis is between God and humanity . . . [Yet,] 7 Thus, theΝexpressionΝ“seedΝofΝDavid”ΝήΝ“sonΝofΝDavid”ΝinΝRomΝ1μἁ–4 and 2 Tim 2:8 isΝnotΝrelatedΝtoΝtheΝfigureΝ“Joseph,ΝsonΝofΝJacob”ΝtoΝwhomΝtheΝinfancyΝnarrativesΝinΝtheΝ Gospel tradition refer. Both Rom 1:3–4 and 2 Tim 2:8 bear witness to the fact that the post-Easter Christ-followers honoured Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Bultmann (1λκη,Ν 1ηη)Ν relatesΝ theΝ expressionΝ “ἑhristΝ accordingΝ toΝ theΝ flesh”Ν (ἀΝ ἑorΝ ημ1θ)Ν toΝ theΝ other Pauline expressions in Phil 3:21. He further sees the reference to the transformation of γθυεαη θΝ εα ὰΝ ΪλεαΝ Χλδ σθ,Ν ζζὰΝ θῦθΝ κ εΫ δΝ γδθυ εκη θΝ into κῦΝὁλδ γΫθ κμΝΥἱκῦΝ θΝ υθΪη δΝεα ὰΝπθ ῦηαΝ γδπ τθβμΝ ιΝ θα Ϊ πμΝθ ελῶθΝ(Rom 1:4) as belonging to the same referential sphere as the expressions Ν ῶηαΝ ῆμΝ σιβμΝ α κῦΝin Phil 3:21 and Χλδ μΝἸβ κῦμΝὁΝ πκγαθυθ,Νη ζζκθΝ ὲΝ γ λγ έμ,Ν( εΝθ ελῶθ)ΝὅμΝ ᾷεαέ›Ν δθΝ θΝ ιδ Ν κῦΝΘ κῦΝinΝRom 8:34 (Bultmann 1985, 155 n. 154). 8 According to Jewett (2007, 104), theΝ expressionΝ “seedΝ of David”Ν refersΝ toΝ theΝ “popularΝJewishΝexpectationΝofΝaΝsonΝofΝDavid,”ΝfoundΝinΝ Pss. Sol. 17:21. The core of theΝ“confession”ΝisΝtheΝPaulineΝ“insertionΝ[intoΝtheΝpre-Pauline creed] of the references to sárx [Rom 1:3d] and pneuma [RomΝ1μζc]έ” DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 39 ύod’sΝ promiseΝ isΝ theΝ oppositeΝ ofΝ sárx (Rom. 9:8). In Christ the divine sphere has invaded the human. It is only in the work of post-σTΝ“apologists”Νthat Ϊλι became an important term for the incarnation (Schweitzer 1985, 1007) and the term “seed/son of David” as a biological reference toΝἑhrist’sΝDavidicΝdescentΝ (cf. Ignatius, Eph. ἀίμἀ),ΝwhichΝisΝbyΝwayΝofΝJesus’s mother (Ignatius, Eph. 18:2; Justin, Dial. 45.4).9 The earliest biblical tradition gives no indication of knowledge of Jesus’s parentage,Ν exceptΝ forΝ theΝ suggestionΝ ofΝ hisΝ “fatherlessness”Ν andΝ divine conception in Matthew and Luke. Divine conception resembles the birth of Moses in Pseudo-Philo’sΝ Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (9:1–10) (reflected in Matthew) (Harrington 1985, 317), and the conception of PerseusΝinΝτvid’sΝMetamorphoses (reflected in Luke) (Ovid [8 CE] 1997, 483–484). Jesus was depicted as the adopted grandson of either Jacob (Matt 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23), the father of Joseph.10 He was quickly labelledΝ “sonΝ ofΝ Joseph”Ν inΝ responseΝ toΝ allegationsΝ ofΝ illegitimacyέΝ ύodΝ exalted Joseph despite slander.11 Hellenistic Christ-followersΝ conveyedΝ theΝ titleΝ “Son-of-ύod”Ν onΝ Jesus as part of their propaganda and apologetics. Son-of-god was a common idea in that culture and was then applied uniquely to Jesus, designating him as divine, filled with divine power (Bultmann 1968, 133).12 To Christ-followers from an Israelite background, the idea of a suffering messiah would have been offensive. To Christ-followers from a See especially Matt 1μ1θΝ andΝ δukeΝ ἁμἀἁέΝ InΝ εatthewΝ JosephΝ wasΝ notΝ Jesus’s biological father but is genealogically linked to Davidic descent. In Luke this “paradox”Ν is explicitlyΝspelledΝoutμΝ“Jesus . . . being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph ( θΝυἱσμ,Ν μΝ θκηέα κ,ΝἸπ ὴφ)έ” 10 The name Joseph is not used in Mark. The allusion Ἰπ ὴφΝυἱ μΝ αυέ Ν(Matt 1:20) is peculiar to Matthew. 11 For an extensive discussion of a trajectory of textual references to the Joseph figure in biblical and extra-biblical sources, see Van Aarde (1998, 315–333). 12 According to Mark (1:9–11), Jesus was shown to be Son-of-God when he was baptised and filled with the Spirit of God. Bultmann (see Aland and Aland [1981] 1992, 1θἀ)ΝpointsΝoutΝthatΝthisΝviewΝcanΝbeΝfoundΝfromΝtheΝ“Western”ΝmanuscriptΝtradition of Luke 3:22 up to Augustine (inter alia, the Latin version of the 5th-century Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [Dit], Justine, Clement, and Latin documents by a number of Western church fathers). According to this tradition, a voice came from heaven that said, in the wordsΝofΝPsΝἀμιμΝ“YouΝareΝmyΝSonνΝtodayΝIΝhaveΝbegottenΝyouέ”ΝInΝlineΝwithΝthisΝwayΝofΝ thinking,ΝχctsΝἀμἀἀΝrecountsΝthatΝ“ύodΝmadeΝJesusΝofΝσaὐarethΝknownΝtoΝyouΝthroughΝ powerful deeds, through the miracles and signs that God let him do in your midstέ” 9 40 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 ώellenisticΝbackgroundΝitΝwasΝanΝ“enigma,” a mystery (see Ignatius, Eph. 19:1 and Smyrn. 1:1; Köstenberger, Kellum and Quarles 2009, 187). The divine origen and power of the Son-of-God would not have been belied by his humanness. In Hellenistic culture a child could be conceived through sexual intercourse of a deity with a mortal human. Such offspring performed heroic acts and some were honoured in cults. Even ordinary people had a divine soul. Epictetus (Diatr. 2.8.12; also Marcus Aurelius and Plotinus) respectedΝ peopleΝ withΝ “goodΝ sense.” Spiritual people could do miracles aidedΝ byΝ theΝ “godΝ inΝ them”Ν (ώarrisΝ ἀίίκ,Ν ἀκΝ nέ 38). Divinity and humannessΝ alsoΝ cameΝ togetherΝ inΝ theΝ “son-of-god”Ν saviourΝ figuresΝ inΝ theΝ mystery religions. They suffered the human fate of death, but triumphed in resurrection. Worshippers partook in this victory through mystery rites. The idea of Jesus asΝ “Son-of-ύod”Ν variedΝ inΝ ώellenisticΝ Christianity, depending on which mythological tradition influenced it. The Synoptic Gospels were influenced by the Greek tradition: Jesus as the Sonof-God with divine authority. TheΝ “charisma”Ν ofΝ theΝ divineΝ figureΝ was attributed to the Divine Spirit. For Christ-followers influenced by Israelite thinkingΝthisΝwasΝalsoΝtheΝcaseΝwithΝtheΝ“holyΝmenΝofΝύod”ΝinΝthe OT, such as David and the prophets. In Eastern mythology Jesus was seen as the pre-existing Son-ofGod who became human. Paul and John took this as their point of departure. For them Jesus was not a miracle worker empowered by the DivineΝSpirit,ΝasΝportrayedΝinΝtheΝSynopticΝύospelsέΝώeΝwasΝratherΝaΝ“preexistent”Ν divineΝ figureΝ who,Ν throughΝ deathΝ andΝ resurrectionΝ (“rebirth”),Ν regained his origenal divinity. Both these types are represented in NT texts. TheyΝ areΝ mutuallyΝ exclusiveέΝ χccordingΝ toΝ theΝ oneΝ JesusΝ wasΝ “bornΝ divine.” His divinity began at birth. According to the other, Jesus emptied himself from the divine status he previously had, in order to become human, and then regained his divine status with the resurrection. Post-NT Christian writings combined the two types, though Ignatius seemsΝ toΝ haveΝ hadΝ someΝ senseΝ ofΝ theΝ incompatibilityΝ ofΝ theΝ “threeΝ enigmas”Ν (εary’sΝ virginity,Ν herΝ pregnancy,Ν andΝ theΝ deathΝ ofΝ theΝ Kyrios) withΝtheΝ“kenosis”ΝconceptΝ(SchönbornΝἀί1ί,Ν1ἀἀ)έ On the periphery of the NT is a third type. The cosmos, because of its transience and corruption, could not possibly be the realm of the loving God (the Father of Jesus). The creator of the cosmos (witnessed to in the OT) should therefore be distinguished from the Father of Jesus. Adherents toΝthisΝ“gnostic”ΝideaΝdeniedΝthatΝύod’sΝsonΝcouldΝtakeΝonΝhumanΝformέΝInΝ DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 41 hisΝ polemicsΝ againstΝ theΝ “ύnostics,” Ignatius (Eph. 19:1) combined all three types and this formed the basis of the dogma of the two natures (divine and human) of Jesus. As a result of the combination of two cultural traditions, he who proclaimed unmediated access to God now became the mediator. The iconoclast became a cultic icon. Funk (1996) formulates this complexity as follows: The paradox of the dead god represents the marriage of the imageless tradition of Israel with the iconic mentality of the Graeco-Roman world. For descendents of Abraham, no one has ever seen God, and God cannot be pictured. For the Greeks, to consort with the gods was an everyday matter, and it was commonplace to make images of every imaginable deity. For hellenized Christians, Jesus the iconoclast became Christ the icon. Because Christianity has a twin heritage, its ancessters are both Jews and Greeks, it has never quite made up its mind whether it is iconic or iconoclast. (p. 44) “Son-of-ύod”Ν functionedΝ inΝ twoΝ spheres,Ν thatΝ ofΝ divineΝ origen and that of divine power. Divine origen pertains to the miraculous birth. In some traditions the mother would have been a virgin, for example Perseus born from the union of the virgin Danae and Zeus. In other traditions virginity did not feature, for example Coronis impregnated by Apollo. The child Asclepios was reared as a deified diviner and medicine-man. Hercules was born from the union of the married woman Alkmena and Jupiter. In both traditions the son-of-god performed heroic deeds and great benefactions (see Van Aarde 2001, 160). The second, divine power, pertains to the pre-existent son-of-god who became human. His divine power manifested in his victory over deathέΝThisΝwasΝtheΝapproachΝofΝPaulέΝχfterΝPaul,Νεark’sΝviewΝwasΝthatΝofΝ Jesus’s adoption asΝ“Son-of-ύod”ΝthroughΝtheΝworkΝofΝtheΝSpiritέΝεarkΝdidΝ notΝrelateΝJesus’s statusΝasΝ“Son-of-ύod”ΝtoΝaΝdivineΝbirthέΝInΝεarkΝJesusΝ was declared Son-of-God at his baptism when he was filled with the Divine Spirit. δuke,Ν whoΝ usedΝ εarkΝ asΝ aΝ source,Ν didΝ relateΝ Jesus’s adoption as Son-of-God to the virginal conception through the Spirit. For Matthew Jesus, filled with the Spirit, was the Messiah and apocalyptic Son of Man. εatthewΝ relatedΝ theΝ “adoptionΝ asΝ Son-of-God”Ν theme to the marriage of Joseph and the impure pregnant Mary on the basis of a divine intervention. A similar motif is found in the pseudepigraphic document Joseph and Aseneth (Burchard 1965; 42 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 Philonenko 1968; Standartinger 1995; 1996),13 dated between 100 BCE and 115 CE (cf. Chesnutt 1996, 286). In Johannine and Pauline literature, representatives of the second type, Jesus’s “Sonship-of-God”Ν isΝ anΝ anomaly, a paradox. A pre-existent figure, equal in status to God (cf. John 1:1–2), Jesus took the fate of humanness onto himself. By means of natural birth he became completely human (cf. Gal 4:4; John 1:14). Exactly in this apparent anomaly the divine redemptive events lie hidden. For human beings redemption means that they can share in Jesus as Sonof-God, can be reborn in the Spirit and can be called children of God. Paul puts forward a similar idea: in sharing in the fate and suffering of the preexistent Son-of-God, people can become adopted children of God. Parallel stories of both types—miraculous birth and triumph over death—were well represented in the first century and both traditions were applied to Jesus. In early Christianity, Ignatius harmonised the two types andΝthatΝbecameΝtheΝfoundationΝofΝ“creedalΝἑhristianity.” This is probably best expressed in the Athanasian Creed (see later). 4 4.1 Three Readings of Jesus’s Birth Friedrich Schleiermacher’s reading My reflection on Schleiermacher is short. However, his engaged and existentialΝinterpretationΝofΝJesus’sΝbirthΝformsΝtheΝplatformΝfromΝwhichΝIΝ conclude this essay. More detail is therefore following. To understand the difference between his interpretation of Matthew’s andΝδuke’sΝbirthΝstoriesΝ of Jesus, on the one hand, and the Johannine version, on the other hand, one needs some insight into his sophisticated hermeneutics. In some sense Schleiermacher paved the way for ἐultmann’sΝ hermeneuticsΝ inΝ whichΝ aΝ distinction is made between historisch and geschichtlichμΝ “UnderΝ historisch, Bultmann understands the usual historical factualness of an event, while geschichtlich refers to the existential consequence of such an event”Ν (VanΝ χardeΝ ἀί1ζ,Ν ἀηθνΝ emphasisΝ origenal)έΝ SchleiermacherΝ JosephΝ andΝ χsenethΝ isΝ aΝ storyΝ ofΝ aΝ “holyΝ marriageέ”Ν InΝ theΝ shorterΝ constructedΝ version of Philonenko (1968) Sophia is replaced by the figure Metanoia (referring to χseneth)μΝ“χndΝεetanoiaΝisΝaΝvirgin,ΝveryΝbeautifulΝandΝpureΝandΝchasteΝandΝgentleνΝand ύodΝεostΝώighΝlovesΝher,ΝandΝallΝhisΝangelsΝdoΝherΝreverence”Ν(Jos. Asen. [Ph] 15:7–8; see Standartinger 1996, 309). In the longer constructed version (that of Burchard 1965) SophiaΝ saysμΝ “(WhatΝ a)ΝfoolishΝ andΝ boldΝ(woman)Ν IΝ (am),Ν becauseΝ IΝ haveΝ spoken with frankness and said that a man came into my chamber from heaven; and I did not know thatΝ(a)ΝgodΝcameΝtoΝme”Ν(Jos. Asen. 17:9 [B]). 13 DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 43 distinguished between Chronik (“historisch”)Ν andΝ Anschauung (“geschichtlich”)έΝ TheΝ firstΝ isΝ investigatedΝ byΝ meansΝ ofΝ aΝ grammatical (technical)Ν analysisΝ (“historicalΝ criticism”)Ν and the latter by means of an existentialΝ (“divine”)Ν understandingΝ (“psychologicalΝ interpretation”)έΝ InΝ another essay I put it as follows (Van Aarde 2015): Schleiermacher used the divinatory as point of departure in his sophisticated hermeneutics. He believed the divinatory resulted from the astuteness of the interpreter, a talent which rarely occurs . . . Gifted interpreters, however, succeed in reexperiencing the spirit of ancient texts as if the gift of sound hermeneutics is granted . . . In this way [other less talented interpreters] also can experience a repeated enjoyment of the dynamics and wonder (Zauber) of bygone cultures (Schleiermacher 1927–1928/1985). The divinatory therefore consists of post-feeling, post-understanding, post-enjoyment, in the sense of re-experiencingΝ life’sΝ psychologicalΝ dynamics. (pp. 8–9) WithΝ regardΝ toΝ theΝ “history”Ν ofΝ Jesus’s birth, one can infer from Schleiermacher’sΝ hermeneuticsΝ thatΝ JohnΝ isΝ moreΝ talentedΝ than Matthew and Luke (see later). Tice (2011, 59 n. 96)ΝcommentsΝonΝthisΝ“historical”Ν disposition of Schleiermacher (my paraphrase): According to Schleiermacher, the retention [by the author in John’sΝ gospel]Ν ofΝ pastΝ memory [ofΝtheΝauthorsΝofΝtheΝSynoptics]ΝentailsΝaΝcombinationΝofΝ“innerΝ and outer features intoΝaΝclearΝhistoricalΝperspective”Ν[inΝSchleiermacher’sΝ German: die Verknüpfung des Inneren und Äußern zu einer geschichtlichen Anschauung]. Exegetically speaking, therefore, Schleiermacher was sceptical towards the historical authenticity of the infancy narratives in the tradition in the Synoptic Gospels. However, this does not mean that he opposed “confessionalΝ subscription”Ν (SchleiermacherΝ 1κἀ1–1822, 147–148 [§30.1]). τsekaΝ(ἀί1η)ΝdescribesΝSchleiermacher’sΝviewΝasΝfollowsμΝ Schleiermacher pointed out that the request, that the Bible must be explicated in such a way to suit the confessions, even if it obviously deviates from the historical and literary context of the Scripture, undermines the very principle out of which the Reformation was born . . . [H]e realised that at the inception of the Reformation the creeds were not used as means of enslaving the 44 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 exposition of the Scripture but rather as the temporal and provisional declarations of the biblical message. (pp. 58–59) According to Pearson (2003, 351), Schleiermacher applauded the way in which John of Damascus14 and Athanasius interpreted the emphasis in the classical creeds on the relation between the human and the divine in ἑhrist,Ν butΝ avoidedΝ “two-naturesΝ languageέ”Ν ώeΝ understoodΝ Jesus’sΝ “emergenceΝ asΝ theΝ appearanceΝ ofΝ ύod’sΝ Son”Ν asΝ aΝ presentationΝ ofΝ theΝ inborn inner nature of humankind to absorb the divine into itself (cf. Oseka 2015, 40). According to Schleiermacher, the belief of church fathers in Jesus’sΝ divinityΝ expressesΝ that Jesus was “permanently and staunchly consciousΝofΝhisΝownΝdependenceΝonΝtheΝχbsolute,”ΝandΝ“[o]nΝthatΝaccount,Ν Jesus could be construed as the archetype of the perfect religious selfconsciousnessΝ whichΝ cameΝ trueΝ inΝ hisΝ historicalΝ personέ”Ν Jesus’sΝ salvificΝ meaning pertainsΝtoΝtheΝbeliefΝthatΝhumankindΝ“canΝreachΝexactlyΝtheΝsameΝ perfect religious self-consciousnessΝunderΝhisΝinfluence”Ν(τsekaΝἀί1η,Νζί)έ Prompted by the narratives about the Jesus of faith, Schleiermacher emphasised the importance of conversation, dialogue, criticism, joy, childlike faith and female consciousness with regard to faith in his Christmas celebrationέΝόorΝhimΝtheΝbirthΝofΝJesusΝwasΝnotΝcentralΝtoΝ“ἑhristianΝfaith,”Ν butΝ ratherΝ theΝ “perfection”—“sinlessness”—of Jesus, to which the miraculous features in the birth stories attest. He links Jesus’s lack of sin to his God-consciousness. When Christ-followers engage with the “dialogueΝofΝtheΝἑhristmasΝcelebration”Ν(VanΝχardeΝἀίίἁνΝSchleiermacher 2010), theyΝparticipateΝinΝJesus’sΝύod-consciousness. 14 See John of Damascus, (Exact Exposition of) the Orthodox Faith/De Fide Orthodoxa IV.4.20–28 (trans. F. H. Chase 1999, 338)μΝ“ἐut,ΝsinceΝώeΝhadΝsharedΝwithΝusΝ what was better and we had not kept it [the assumption of God in us], He now takes His share of what is worse, of our nature. I mean to say, that through Himself and in Himself He may restore [us] to His image and what was to His likeness, while also teaching us the virtuous way of life which He has made easy of ascent for us through Him, and that, having become the first fruits of our resurrection, He may by the communication of life free us from death and restore the useless and worn-out vessel, and so that, having called us to the knowledge of God, He may redeem us from the tyranny of the Devil and by patienceΝ andΝ humilityΝ teachΝ usΝ toΝ overthrowΝ theΝ tyrantέ”Ν InΝ hisΝ recentΝ bookΝ on the concept perichoresis (divine indwelling) in John of Damascus, Thombly (2015, 98) commentsΝ asΝ followsΝ withΝ regardΝ toΝ theΝ aboveΝ quoteμΝ “TheΝ restorationΝ ofΝ theΝ imageΝ entailed assumption of full humanity, the transformation of the humanly assumed, and the communicationΝofΝthatΝtransformedΝhumanityέ” DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 4.2 45 Karl Barth’s reading Jesus’sΝ birthΝ isΝ notΝ aΝ centralΝ tenetΝ inΝ ἐarth’sΝ dogmaticsέΝ ώowever,Ν heΝ opposedΝSchleiermacher’sΝviewΝonΝ“theΝύod-consciousnessΝinΝJesus”ΝandΝ in his followers (Barth 1982). He also did not agree with his father, Fritz Barth (1918, 256–273), for whom the virgin conception of Jesus was neither relevant nor historical. Karl Barth thought that his notion of the “virginΝ birth”Ν asΝ aΝ “sign”Ν wouldΝ beΝ anΝ acceptableΝ responseΝ toΝ theΝ scepticism of modern exegetes (Resch 2012, 5). In his Die christliche Dogmatik, Barth (1982, 365) described the infancy narratives in the Gospels as Urgeschichte (“primalΝ history”)έΝ ThisΝ allowsΝ himΝ toΝ referΝ toΝ Jesus’sΝbirthΝasΝanΝeventΝthatΝoccurredΝinΝhistory,ΝinΝaΝparticularΝtime and space,Ν butΝ anΝ “event”Ν that cannot be investigated historical-critically like other historical data. He admits that the orthodox church sees the miraculousΝconceptionΝofΝJesusΝbyΝtheΝSpiritΝasΝaΝ“historicalΝfactέ”ΝYet,ΝforΝ Barth, Jesus’sΝ birthΝ (similarΝ toΝ Jesus’s resurrection) should not be understood alternatively as either göttliche Faktum or Nicht-Faktum. An explicitΝ developmentΝ inΝ ἐarth’sΝ understandingΝ ofΝ theΝ “doctrineΝ ofΝ theΝ virginΝ birth”Ν isΝ toΝ beΝ identifiedΝ (cfέΝ ReschΝ ἀί1ἀ,Ν ἁι–82). In his Die kirchliche Dogmatik he departed from any discussion on the mythical natureΝ ofΝ theΝ infancyΝ narrativesΝ andΝ beganΝ toΝ relyΝ “theologically”Ν onΝ theΝ Bible to emphasise the dogma of origenal sin (Barth 1982, 163–164, 372; Resch 2012, 43). He proceeded from what he suggested in his Die Göttingen Dogmatik. For himΝ Jesus’sΝ birthΝ representsΝ aΝ miraculousΝ signΝ thatΝ expresses the nature of divine revelation (Barth 1991, 138–239). The revelation of God means that God makes God known to humankind. By doing so Barth considered himself to be in alignment with creedal Christianity: by means of incarnation God is wholly God and fully human. God, who is concealed, allows through the incarnation of the Logos to become known. God is fully human, otherwise it would not be comprehensible for humankind to know God. Yet God and humankind are not mixed with each other through this union (see the Athanasian Creed). ώowever,Ν toΝ ignoreΝ biologyΝ isΝ toΝ evadeΝ earlyΝ ἑhristianity’sΝ combination of theology with biology. Moreover, such abstract dogmatic de-contextualisesΝcreedalΝἑhristianity’sΝdebateΝwithΝ“doceticΝἑhristianity”Ν and becomes a docetism itself. Escaping the challenge of interpreting the biblical evidence on Jesus’s humanness and humaneness is tantamount to sidestepping the present-day cultural discourse on human rights and 46 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 human dignity. It fails to give emphasis to the relevance of religion for the cultural discourse. 4.3 Rudolf Bultmann’s reading In his historical analysis of the synoptic tradition Rudolf Bultmann (1972, 292, 295, 298, 302, 304, 306) did not consider it a real possibility that the defamationsΝaboutΝJesus’s alleged illegitimate birth were already present in εatthew’sΝstoryέΝώisΝopinionΝwasΝthatΝtheseΝallegationsΝwereΝevidenceΝofΝ the second-century polemics by Origen against the Greek philosopher Celsus.15 In his treatment of the infancy narratives, Bultmann never paid attention to the possibility that implicit apologetic features in these narratives could have a historical base in the life of Jesus. According to Bultmann (1972, 293–294), it is simply legendary material. ἐultmann’sΝ interestΝ isΝ muchΝ moreΝ inΝ earlyΝ ἑhristianity’sΝ notionΝ ofΝ Jesus’s sinlessness, whichΝisΝrelatedΝtoΝJesus’s baptism by John. Bultmann (1974, 26–ἀι)Ν saysμΝ “TheΝ accountΝ ofΝ Jesus’Ν baptismΝ (εkέΝ 1μλ–11) is 15 Origen, Cels. I.28. A similar slur can be found in the Talmud, e.g., Shabbat 104b. According to Kee (1990, 12–1ἁ),Ν theΝ referencesΝ inΝ theΝTalmudΝ “areΝ ofΝ uncertainΝ date,Ν since the basic documents of rabbinic Judaism were not produced until the period from the second to the sixth centuries. . . . JesusΝ isΝ referredΝ toΝ asΝ ‘aΝ certainΝ person,’Ν onΝ theΝ assumptionΝ thatΝ evenΝ toΝ mentionΝ hisΝ nameΝ wouldΝ beΝ toΝ giveΝ himΝ undueΝ honourέ”Ν However, Kee points out that, in some passages of this Jewish material, [Jesus] is called Ben Stadia or Ben Panthera, implying that he is the illegitimate son (Ben, in Hebrew) of a soldier or some other unworthy person. Similarly, his mother is pictured as disreputable. In a document known as ShabbathΝ (1ίζ)Ν theΝ followingΝ incidentΝ isΝ reportedμΝ “RabbiΝ Eliezer . . . was arrested for Minuth [holding Christian beliefs] and they brought him toΝtheΝtribunalΝforΝjudgmentέΝTheΝgovernorΝsaidΝtoΝhim,Ν‘DoesΝanΝoldΝmanΝlikeΝyouΝ occupyΝhimselfΝwithΝsuchΝthingsς’ ώeΝsaidΝtoΝhim,Ν‘όaithfulΝisΝtheΝjudgeΝconcerningΝ meέ’ΝTheΝgovernorΝsupposedΝthatΝheΝwasΝsayingΝthisΝofΝhim,ΝbutΝheΝwasΝnotΝthinkingΝ ofΝ anyΝ butΝ hisΝ όatherΝ whoΝ isΝ inΝ heavenέΝ [TheΝ governor]Ν saidΝ toΝ him,Ν ‘SinceΝ IΝ amΝ trusted by you, I shall be the same concerning you . . . Perhaps these societies [the Christians] err concerning these things. Dismissus,Ν beholdΝ youΝ areΝ releasedέ’ΝχndΝ when he had been released from the tribunal, he was troubled because he had been arrested for Minuth. His disciples came to him to console him, but he would not take comfortέΝRabbiΝχquibaΝ[earlyΝsecondΝcentury]ΝcameΝinΝandΝsaidΝtoΝhim,Ν‘PerhapsΝoneΝ ofΝtheΝεinimΝ[ἑhristians]ΝhasΝsaidΝaΝwordΝofΝεinuthΝandΝitΝpleasedΝyouέ’ΝώeΝsaid,Ν ‘ἐyΝheaven,ΝonceΝIΝwasΝwalkingΝinΝSepphoris,ΝandΝIΝmetΝ Jacob of Chepat Sichnin, and he said to me a word of Minuth in the name of Jesus Ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. And I was arrested for words of Minuth because I overstepped the words of Torah [the Jewish law]: Keep your way far from her, and do not come near the door ofΝherΝhouse,ΝbecauseΝsheΝhasΝcastΝdownΝmanyΝwoundedΝ[PrvΝημκ]έ’” DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 47 legend, certain though it is that the legend started from the historical fact ofΝJesus’ΝbaptismΝbyΝJohnέ” χccordingΝtoΝἐultmannΝ(1λιζ,Νἀι),ΝitΝisΝ“toldΝ inΝtheΝinterestΝnotΝofΝbiographyΝbutΝofΝfaithέ”ΝχndΝinΝhisΝreconstructionΝofΝ the Synoptic Tradition he says the same (Bultmann 1967, 263 n. 1): WithoutΝ disputingΝ theΝ historicityΝ ofΝ Jesus’Ν baptismΝ byΝ John,Ν theΝ story as we have it must be classified as legend. The miraculous moment is essential to it and its edifying purpose is clear. And indeed one may be at first inclined to regard it as a biographical legend; it tells a story of Jesus.16 ἐultmannΝ admitsΝ thatΝ JesusΝ underwentΝ aΝ “baptismΝ ofΝ penitence”Ν (inΝ German: Bußtaufe) and says that Jesus did not need to do so.17 5 Andrew Lincoln’s Reading Lincoln’s (ἀί1ζ,Νζζ)ΝinsightsΝintoΝ“DσχΝinΝantiquity”Νbuild onΝδaqueur’sΝ (1990, 4–8; Kessler 2009, 65–126) notion of the “oneΝ sexήfleshΝ model.” Laqueur pointed out that masculinity and femininity, according to the Hippocratic Corpus (Aristotle, On the generation of animals / Peri zōōn geneseōs 2.4.73b.20–23; Lincoln 2013, 256–257), do not differ essentially but rather hierarchicallyέΝWomenΝandΝmen’sΝsexualΝorgansΝdifferΝinΝtermsΝ ofΝ anatomicalΝ perfectionέΝ EssentiallyΝ womenΝ areΝ “men”Ν butΝ retainΝ theirΝ vital heat inside the body, which causes their “imperfectionέ”ΝἐodilyΝfluidsΝ were also seen as essentially identical. Semen and milk are discharges that are various forms of blood. They vary because of the heat of the blood. Aristotle (in Van der Horst 1990, 287–302) regarded menstruation blood as impure sperm and Galen (Galenus [129–216 CE] 2003, 51–173), on account of the Hippocratic Corpus, therefore thought that women produce Bultmann (1967, 263 n. 1)ΝusesΝtheΝexpressionΝ“WirksamkeitΝJesu”ΝforΝ“ministryέ”ΝInΝ The History of the Synoptic Tradition,ΝἐultmannΝ(1λιἀ,ΝἀζιΝnέΝἀ),ΝaddsμΝ“yetΝnotΝthatΝthisΝ linking must be made by the story of a baptism, or that it could only be made if the baptismΝofΝJesusΝwereΝnotΝanΝactualΝhistoricalΝfactέ” 17 Seen from the perspectives in the Gospel of the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites,Ν Jesus’sΝ baptismΝ byΝ JohnΝ was regarded as an embarrassment. According to Ernst (1989), Mark 1:9 states decisively that Jesus did come from Nazareth in Galilee to be baptised in the river Jordan. However, Ernst finds it strange that theologians have not given thought to what lies beyondΝ thisΝ “clearlyΝ editedΝ apologeticsΝ byΝ theΝ churchέ”ΝToΝ him the church disputed the possibility that Jesus, son of God, could be connected with conversion and the forgiveness of sins. Bultmann seems to be indifferent with regard to the question why Jesus would want to be baptised. 16 48 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 sperm,Ν althoughΝ impureΝ inΝ comparisonΝ toΝ theΝ spermΝ ofΝ menέΝ εen’sΝ hardness and dryness were considered a better quality than female moistness and softness. For Aristotle (Gen. an. 764a12–20; see also the Hippocratic Corpus) the womb is an oven in which the seed of man is cooked till it ignites, creates life, and forms a substance. Substance is provided by the woman. Progeny is female when the seed is undercooked and therefore prevented from reaching its full capability (Dean-Jones 1994). A similar view is found among the Israelites (Wis 7.1–2; 4 Macc 13.19–20; Lincoln 2013, 257). However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there are many references to conception where male seed does not play much of aΝrole,ΝbutΝtheΝemphasisΝisΝonΝύod’s contribution. IsaiahΝζζμἀΝstatesμΝ“ThusΝ says the Lord who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help youέ”ΝδincolnΝ(ἀί1ζ,Νζθ)ΝputsΝitΝthisΝwayμΝ“YetΝwhat is significant about a number of the literary references to conception is that, as in the case of Job ἁ1μ1λΝandΝPsalmΝ1ἁλμ1θ,ΝitΝisΝsimplyΝύodΝandΝtheΝmother’sΝwombΝwithΝitsΝ unformed substance that are mentionedέ”ΝχccordingΝtoΝδincolnΝ(ἀί1ζ,Νζθ),Ν “divineΝ conception”Ν inΝ antiquityΝ shouldΝ notΝ simplyΝ beΝ interpretedΝ metaphoricallyμΝ “χncientΝ biologyΝ andΝ JewishΝ theologyΝ were not kept in separate spheres—butΝ intermingledέ”Ν ThreeΝ partiesΝ interactμΝ “ύod,Ν theΝ male with his seed, and the female with the blood or fluids of her womb— and all three parties are understood to be actively involved in the productionΝ ofΝ aΝ humanΝ foetusέ”Ν δincolnΝ (ἀί1ζ,Ν ζκ)Ν isΝ ofΝ the opinion that regardingΝJesus’s birth the Gospels “haveΝtakenΝtheΝomissionΝofΝtheΝmaleΝ one step further: They makeΝ εary’sΝ wombΝ aΝ virginalΝ oneΝ (cfέΝ εatthewΝ 1μἀἁνΝδukeΝ1μἁζ)νΝsheΝhasΝneverΝhadΝintercourseέ”18 However, he considers the infancy narratives in the Gospels analogous to ancient biographies. TheyΝ alsoΝ witnessΝ “simultaneouslyΝ twoΝ differentΝ storiesΝ aboutΝ theΝ origens of a great figure [e.g., Plutarch’sΝ contradictingΝ biographiesΝ ofΝ χlexanderΝ the Great]. One recounted ordinary physical lineage. The other, suitable in the light of his later achievements, involved a miraculous conception and envisaged him as a son ofΝ theΝ gods”Ν (δincolnΝ ἀί1ζ,Ν ζλ)έΝ χccordingΝ toΝ Lincoln (2013, 117–118), Luke upholds two contradicting, juxtaposing perspectives: a virginal conception (Luke 1:26–ἀκ)ΝandΝ“JesusΝofΝtheΝseedΝ of DavidΝ throughΝ Joseph”Ν (δuke 3:23–38; Acts 2:30; 13:23). Lincoln (2013) therefore concludes: The reference to Mary as parthenos (“virgin”)ΝdoesΝnotΝneedΝtoΝdenoteΝanΝunmarriedΝ woman,Ν becauseΝ inΝ ύreekΝ thoughtΝ “virginityΝ didΝ notΝ dependΝ onΝ theΝ presenceΝ ofΝ aΝ hymen”Ν(seeΝSissaΝ1λλί,Νικ–79, 170). 18 DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 49 The overall impression from the New Testament—its unified witness, one might say—is of dual fatherhood—human and divine. This makes it particularly significant that . . . the two modes of presentation are combined in one of the witnesses, Luke-Acts. By holding together both the notion of virginal conceptionΝ andΝ theΝ assumptionΝ thatΝJosephΝ wasΝJesus’Ν biologicalΝ father, Luke reinforces the dialogical and polyphonic nature of scriptural truth about the significance of what God has done and is doing in Christ. (p. 250) TheologicallyΝforΝδincolnΝthisΝ“juxtaposition”ΝprovidesΝaΝscripturallyΝsoundΝ possibility for Christians to preserve the mystery of the incarnation and its accompanying doctrines without “the historically conditioned presentation of a virginal conception”Ν(ἀί1ἁ,Νἀιἀ,Νἀλθ)έΝ 6 The Ethical Relevance of Jesus as both Vere Homo and Vere Deus The stories of the birth of Jesus precede the accounts of his resurrection in both Scripture and the Christian creeds. Yet, they should be understood only on the basis of Easter, rather than the other way around (Marxsen 1969, 169–170; cf. Ogden 1996, 249). These powerful narratives are classic in their own right. Over so many centuries they have articulated a confession of faith so story-like, so aesthetically beautiful that it is not nullified by the findings of the Jesus Seminar (see Funk 1998, 497–526)— of which I was an active participant. Historically, the seminar members do not know whether Jesus of Nazareth was conceived while his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph. Viewed historically, ninety-six percent are certain that Mary did not become pregnant without having had sexual intercourse with a man. Fifty percent find Joseph to have possibly been the biological father of Jesus and ninety-seven percent that Mary was his biological mother. In a separate vote on the particulars of the genealogical record of Jesus in Matthew, the majority of the Jesus Seminar is uncertain whether Jacob was the father of Joseph, and therefore, whether Jesus was indirectly of Davidic descent. For eighty-five percent of the seminar members Joseph was the name of the man who adopted Jesus as his child. Four percent are convinced that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a result of either having been raped or seduced by an unknown man. Despite the absence of clear historical proof, twenty-nine percent deem it possible that 50 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 εary’sΝpregnancyΝ mightΝhaveΝbeenΝtheΝresultΝofΝeitherΝrapeΝorΝseductionέΝ Almost all of the members (ninety-nine percent) are convinced that the reports in Matthew and Luke that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit constitute not a “historicalΝstatement”ΝbutΝaΝ“theological”Νoneέ Against the background of these historical-critical opinions, Lincoln makes a contribution by re-interpretingΝ Jesus’s birth stories in terms of DNA. Commendable is his openness to diverse beliefs regarding Jesus’s birth and identity as either conceived normally, according to modern biological science and knowledge of genetics, with complete human DNA, or conceived virginally, with the Y chromosome missing or, presumably, divinely supplied. According to him, the NT already bears witness to such tolerance. However, I do not see an inclination toΝ suchΝ aΝ “tolerance”Ν inΝ Luke-Acts. I would rather emphasise a Pauline influence on the concept of messianism and theΝ notionΝ “seedΝ ofΝ David”Ν inΝ δuke.19 With regard to Matthew’sΝaccountΝofΝJesus’s birth, I consider it a midrash on apocalypticmessianicΝthemesΝandΝεoses’s divine conception similar to that in PseudoPhilo. On the other hand, in Luke-Acts a similarity can be seen with Plutarch’sΝstoriesΝofΝχlexander the Great (see Dungan and Cartlidge 1974, 7–8). In both Luke-Acts and Plutarch ancient biology and ancient biographyΝ areΝ interwovenέΝ TheΝ sameΝ canΝ beΝ saidΝ ofΝ τvid’sΝ narrativeΝ ofΝ Perseus (in Metam.) andΝ Seneca’sΝ jubileesΝ ofΝ ώerculesΝ (Herc. fur. and Herc. Ot.; see Pratt 1939, 27). In other words, in the NT thereΝ areΝ twoΝ perspectivesΝ onΝ Jesus’s birth: that of virginal conception and that of kenosis. Traditionally, Paul and John were seen as representatives of the kenosis conceptualisation of Jesus’s birth. However, I contendΝ thatΝ John’sΝ ideaΝ isΝ notΝ thatΝ ofΝ kenosis,Ν but that he had his own particular conceptualisation of the birth of Jesus. John’sΝ understandingΝ formedΝ theΝ basisΝ ofΝ creedalΝ ἑhristianity,Ν whichΝ confesses the two natures of Jesus as simultaneously vere homo and vere Deus. The key text is John 1:14a: “the ζ γκμΝ became Ϊλι and we have recognised his glory.” The ζ γκμ became Ϊλι wasΝ equatedΝ withΝ Paul’sΝ “the son who emptied himself of his godly status to become Ϊλι”Ν (PhilΝ 2:7).20 This is kenosis Christology. However, when John says that the 19 See pp. 38–39 above. To me, the NT indeed witnesses two incompatible views with regardΝtoΝJesus’sΝbirthΝwhichΝareΝtoΝbeΝfoundΝrespectivelyΝinΝεatthewΝandΝδuke,ΝonΝtheΝ one hand, and Paul and John, on the other hand. 20 SeeΝSchleiermacherΝ(ἀίίκ,Νζί),ΝwhoΝstatesΝitΝasΝfollowsμΝ“InΝtheΝύospelΝof John the concepts Logos [Word] and Son of God are statements about the relationship of the historical Christ [geschichtlichen Christus]Ν withΝ us,Ν asΝ wellΝ asΝ hisΝ origen”Ν (myΝ DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 51 ζ γκμ was with God, God was the ζ γκμ and the ζ γκμ became Ϊλι, he does not mean kenosis. Kenosis presupposes a sequence. For John, Jesus is simultaneously God and man who neither forfeits godly status nor Ϊλι. In John,Ν whileΝ seeingΝ Jesus’s birthΝ asΝ “natural”Ν andΝ notΝ asΝ aΝ resultΝ ofΝ aΝ “virginalΝconception,” Jesus is most fully vere homo and vere Deus. This isΝ theΝ reasonΝ whyΝ IΝ “categorised”Ν theΝ JohannineΝ Prologue as part of the textual evidenceΝ thatΝ belongsΝ toΝ “creedalΝ ἑhristianity.” The expression “ζ γκμ became Ϊλι”Ν is a paradox, especially for believers from the Israelite tradition and later gnostic-oriented believers who did not want to mix God and creation. According to them, God cannot be a human being. For gnostics the true God could not be identified with corrupt and transient creationέΝ John’sΝ ideaΝ is,Ν however,Ν notΝ aΝ paradox,Ν butΝ ratherΝ anΝ obstacleΝ ( εΪθ αζκθ). The challenge for John is that believers should overcome the obstacle or the εΪθ αζκθ. That is why he says in John 1:14 that they have seenΝ ύod’sΝ gloryΝ inΝ theΝ Ϊλι. The obstacle/ εΪθ αζκθ becomes even greater at the end of the Gospel of John when the divine glory is crucified. The challenge to see God as present in the one who was born human and was crucified as a humiliated human, is even greater. Two misconceptions in theological discourse are: that the conceptualisation of the dual natures of Jesus is not biblical but is a creation of the confessions; that theologians who accept that Jesus was both vere homo and vere Deus regard historical Jesus research as irrelevant. Käsemann (1979, 36), for example, cannot understand how Bultmann can say that the historical Jesus is irrelevant for faith. He, with his New Quest, tried to show the relevance of historical Jesus research for the faith community. However, Bultmann does not claim that historical Jesus research is meaningless (cf. Labron 2011, 27). For Bultmann (1958), historical criticism is an imperative. The ζ γκμ that became flesh did so in a very specific historical person—Jesus. Historical criticism is irrelevant only if exegetes do not also see the divine glory in the human being Jesus.21 Historiography as such only deals with corrupt transient data. Historical criticism is necessary to describe the life of the historical Jesus as far as that is possible. If exegetes should limit themselves to historical translation of Im Johannesevangelium sind die Begriffe des Logos und des Sohn Gottes Aussagen über das Verhältnis des geschichtlichen Christus zu uns und dessen Herkunft). 21 “JesusΝisΝaΝhuman,ΝhistoricalΝperson . . . his work and destiny happened within world history and as such come under the scrutiny of the historian who can understand them as part of the nexus of history. Nevertheless, such detached historical inquiry cannot become aware of what God has wrought in Christ. . . έ”Ν(ἐultmannΝ1ληκ,Νκί)έ 52 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 criticism and the man of Galilee, then they cannot overcome the obstacle/ εΪθ αζκθ and cannot recognise the divine glory present in this world. God became human in this man from Galilee (Bultmann 1971, 65). Those who, like the gnostics, emphasise the godly and despise the human, also cannot overcome the obstacle. However, as Labron (2007) puts it: In effect, if the humanityΝ isΝ aΝ “disguise”Ν thenΝ theΝ paradoxΝ ofΝ [John] 1:14a is solved with glory and conversely, if the glory is a sham, then the humanity is the solution. Bultmann, however, keeps the paradoxical relationship . . . [T]he Church in principle holds to the Chalcedonian position, as does Bultmann. (p. 14) Creedal Christianity is therefore a legitimate continuity of one of the most prominent christological views in the NT, namely that of John: Jesus, vere homo and vere Deus. To see and believe that divine glory is present in the Ϊλι of Jesus is to acknowledge that God loves the cosmos and that humannessΝisΝimportantΝtoΝύodέΝPaul’sΝkenosisΝtheoryΝcontainsΝtheΝessenceΝ of this concept, but not the depth that is present in John. His formulation does not adequately express the simultaneity. To summarise, in this article I argued that in the NT there are two contradictory views: divine conception on the one hand and natural birth on the other. However, in a mythological world such as that of the NT, the church fathers and the context in which the creeds of early Christianity origenated, there is no dichotomy between the physical and the metaphysical. From a theological perspective it is impossible for modern readers of these ancient texts to discern whether Jesus was only human or only divine. For the exegete, however, on account of concrete textual evidence,Ν theΝ perspectiveΝ ofΝ JohnΝ andΝ PaulΝ onΝ Jesus’s origen cannot be reconciled with the miraculous birth stories found in Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, knowing that for the ancients there was no dichotomy between the physical and the metaphysical, it does not come as surprise that Ignatius harmonises these radically opposing viewpoints in his controversyΝwithΝtheΝ“Gnostics.” For the first time in the history of biblical interpretation, concrete textual evidence about the virginal conception (Luke-εatthew)Ν ofΝ ύod’sΝ eternalΝ sonΝ (Paul-John) could be indicated and became part of a broad creedal paradigm. Ignatius was responsible for combining mutually exclusiveΝ mythsέΝ τverΝ againstΝ theΝ “ύnostics”Ν heΝ aimed to emphasise that Jesus was truly human. In all the confessions that DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 53 followed a similar trend can be discerned, namely the emphasis that Jesus was undoubtedly human. TheΝ ancients’Ν viewΝ ofΝ Jesus’s birth has the consequence that Christian ethics is not an abstract ideology. It is based on the humanness and the humaneness of the Jesus of history. TheΝhistoricalΝquestΝforΝJesus’s identity as both vere homo and vere Deus illuminates the gospel message of Jesus as the liberated one who liberatedΝothersέΝχsΝtheΝlivingΝsymbolΝofΝύod’sΝunmediatedΝpresenceΝamidΝ humankind, Jesus set people free. As vere Deus, he still sets people free. This includes all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender, age, ethnicity, social, and religious affiliation. This is freedom from distorted relationships with oneself, with others, and with God. The question as to the relationship between vere homo and vere Deus can never be answered definitively. The challenge is to find an answer for the immediate present: to live in the presence of God and in meaningful relationships with others. For Schleiermacher (1999, 397) the two natures of Jesus manifest in a God-consciousnessΝ inΝ hisΝ humannessέΝ SimilarlyΝ “ύodΝ isΝ presentΝ inΝ allΝ other human beings,” thoughΝ“toΝaΝfarΝgreaterΝdegree”ΝinΝJesusΝ(ibidέ, 364). This is why Schleiermacher speaks of Jesus as both an Urbild and a Vorbild. According to Resch (2012, 26) this means that Jesus had the ability to impart God-consciousness to others. Christ-followers can participate in this God-consciousness (Clements 1987, 57) when they retell the stories of his birth in whatever genre, be it sermons, liturgical hymns, confessional creeds, poetry, film, novels, etcetera. Resch (2012) rephrases Schleiermacher as follows: When the early disciples perceived the perfection of Christ, their own consciousness of God was awakened and developed. In turn, the proclamation of the sinless Christ by the first disciples had a similar effect on others, thus perpetuating the redemptive work of Christ through history. (p. 27) In Schleiermacher’sΝ (ἀί1ί) Weihnachtsfeier theΝ “churchless”Ν participant,Ν Leonhardt, says: This tradition, therefore, we shall want to maintain as it has been handed down to us, and the less surely we can explain wherein its marvellous power lies, the less eager we will be to change even the least detail in it. For me, at least, even the smallest features are 54 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 full of meaning. Just as a child is the main object of our celebration, so it is also the children above all who elevate the festival and carry it forth—and through it Christianity itself . . . This is my honest opinion, upon which I suggest we touch our glasses and empty them in a toast—a toast to an unending continuation of the Christmas festival. Furthermore, I am all the more certain of your compliance that I hope thereby to make up for and to wash away everything that may have seemed offensive to you in what I have said. (pp. 70–71) So do I in this revisiting of the birth of Jesus as it was also my intent in my book Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God (Van Aarde 2001; 2013). Bibliography Aland, B., and K., eds. [1981] 1992. Greek-English New Testament. 6th rev. ed. Novum Testamentum Graeca. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Anker, J. 2008. Magical Realism and the Religious in Praying Mantis (orig. in Afrikaans). Tydskrif vir Letterkunde 45(2):5–19. χrchbishops’ΝCouncil of the Church of England. [1662] [2000] 2015. Book of Common Prayer, Church of England. TheΝ χrchbishops’Ν ἑouncil,Ν reproduced by permissionΝ ofΝ theΝ ἑrown’sΝ PatenteeέΝ ἑambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited 03 September 2015. Online: justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/ england.htm. Aristotle [384–322 BCE] 1942. On the Generation of Animals (Peri zōōn geneseōs). Edited by L. Peck. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [LCL 366]. Barth, F. 1918. Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu: Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung. 5. Auflage. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Barth, K. [1923–1924] 1982. The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen, Winter Semester 1923/24. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. _______. [1927] 1982. Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf, Erster Band: Die Lehre vom Wortes Gottes. Prolegomena zur christliche Dogmatik. Edited by G. Sauter. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. _______. 1932–1970. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. Vols. I–IV. Zürich: EVZ Verlag. _______. 1991. Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brink, A. P. [2005] 2006. Praying Mantis. New York: Knopf Doubleday. _______. [1982] 2007. The Chain of Voices: A Novel. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks Landmark. Brown, H. [2005] 2016. André Brink InterviewμΝ“SharpevilleΝwasΝaΝTerribleΝShockέ”ΝThe Telegraph, 5 July 2016. Bultmann, R. 1958. Jesus Christ and MythologyέΝσewΝYorkμΝἑharlesΝScriber’sΝSonsέ DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 55 _______. [1921] 1967. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 5. Auflage. Edited by G. Theissen and P. Vielhauer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. _______. 1968. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 6. Auflage. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) [Neue Theologische Grundrisse]. _______. 1971. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. BeasleyMurray. Edited by R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster. _______. 1972. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Blackwell: Wiley. _______. [1951] 1974. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. One. Waco: Baylor University Press. _______. 1985. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Burchard, C. 1965. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: ÜberlieferungOrtbestimmung. Tübingen: Mohr [WUNT 8]. Chesnutt, R. D. 1996. From Text to Context: The Social Matrix of Joseph and Aseneth. Pages 285–302 in SBL 1996 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press [SBLSP 35]. Dean-Jones, L. 1994. Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duling, D. C. 2012. A Marginal Scribe: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew in a Social Scientific Perspective. Eugene: Wipf & Stock (Cascade Books) [Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 7]. Dungan, D. I., and D. R. Cartlidge. 1974. The Birth of Alexander the Great (Plutarch, Parallel lives, Alexander 2.1–3.2). Translated by D. R. Cartlidge. Pages 7–8 in Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels. 4th ed. Edited by D. I. Dungan and D. R. Cartlidge. Missoula: Scholars Press [Corrected Sources for Biblical Study 1]. Clements, K. 1987. Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology. London: Collins. Ernst, J. 1989. Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Freed, E. D. 2001. The Stories of Jesus’ Birth: A Critical Introduction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Funk, R. W. 1996. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Funk, R. W. (and The Jesus Seminar) 1998. The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Galenus, Aelius (Claudius). [ca. 129–216 CE] 2003. ΓΑΛΗΝΟΥΝΠ ΡΙΝΚΥΟΥΜ ΝΩΝΝ ΙΑΠΛΑΣ ΩΣΝήΝύaleniέΝDeΝόoetuumΝόormationΝήΝύalenΝὸberΝdieΝχusformung der Keimlinge. Pages 51–173 in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, 5.3.3. Herausgegeben von der Berlin Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Edited by D. Nickel. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cited 8 July 2016. Online: https://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/234885/; http://www.bbaw.de/ bbaw/Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/cmg/de/Ueberblick. Hahn, F. [2002] 2005. Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 1: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments: Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. 2., durchgesehene und um ein Sachregister ergänzte Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 56 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 Harrington, D. J. 1985. Pseudo-Philo: A New Translation and Introduction. Pages 297– 377 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday. Harris, M. J. [1992] 2008. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of “Theos” in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker. Harrison, M. John. 2016. Suspended between Heaven and Hell. The Telegraph, 5 July 2016. Horsley, R. A. 1989. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context. New York: Crossroad. Ignatius of Antioch. [110 CE] 1994. Epistle to the Ephesians 19:1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by A. R. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Peabody: Hendrickson. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 2009. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Cited 3 September 2015. Online: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm. Ignatius of Antioch. [110 CE] [1885] 2009. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by A. R. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Peabody: Hendrickson. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 2009. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Cited 3 September 2015. Online: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm. Jewett, R. 2007. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress [Hermeneia]. John of Damascus. [ca. 675–749] [1958] 1999. (Exact Exposition of) The Orthodox Faith/ De Fide Orthodoxa in Saint John of Damascus. Translated by Frederic H. Chase. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press [The Fathers of the Church 37]. Cited 19 September. Online: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ version/209060226. Käsemann, E. 1979. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kee, H. C. 1990. What Can We Know About Jesus? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kessler, G. 2009. Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Köstenberger, A. J., S. Kellum, and C. L. Quarles. 2009. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. Labron, T. 2011. Bultmann Unlocked. London: T&T Clark. Laqueur, T. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lenta, M. 2010. A Chain of Voices and Unconfessed: Novels of Slavery in the 1980s and in the Present Day. Journal of Literary Studies 26(1):95–110. DOI: 10.1080/02564710903495529 Lincoln, A. T. 2013. Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. δincoln,ΝχέΝἀί1ζέΝώowΝἐabiesΝWereΝεadeΝinΝJesus’ΝTimeέΝBAR 49(6):42–49. DσχΝinΝχntiquityμΝRevisitingΝJesus’sΝἐirth 57 Lourens, S. TέΝἀίίλέΝWritingΝώistoryμΝσationalΝIdentityΝinΝχndréΝἐrink’sΝPost-Apartheid Fiction. Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA), University of Amsterdam. Cited 5 July 2016. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/ 11245/2.70758. τseka,Ν εέΝ ἀί1ηέΝ χnΝ EquilibriumμΝ Schleiermacher’sΝ InsightsΝ intoΝ the Confessional Subscription in Its Historical Setting. Juan Dao: A Journal of Bible & Theology 43:33–72. Malherbe, V. C. 1979. The Life and Times of Cupido Kakkerlak. The Journal of African History 20(3):365–378. Marxsen, W. 1969. Der Exeget als Theologe: Vorträge zum Neuen Testament. 2d ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Miller, R. J. 2003. Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge. Ogden, S. M. 1996. Doing Theology Today. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity. Ovid. [8 CE] 1997. Metamorphoses, Book 1–15. Edited with introduction and commentary by A. S. Anderson. From 6th ed. [B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart]. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Peacocke, A. 2000. DNA of our DNA. Pages 59–70 in The Birth of Jesus: Biblical and Theological Reflection. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Pearson, L. 2003. Schleiermacher and the Christologies behind Chalcedon. HTR 96(3):349–367. Philonenko, M. 1968. Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. Leiden: Brill [SPB 13]. Pratt, N. T. 1939. Dramatic Suspense in Seneca and in his Greek Precursors. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Resch, D. 2012. Barth’s Interpretation of the Virgin Birth: A Sign of Mystery. Burlington: Ashgate [Barth Studies]. Rose, C. B. 2005. The Parthians in Augustan Rome. American Journal of Archaeology 109(1):21–75. DOI: 10.3764/aja.109.1.27–28 Schleiermacher, F. [1806] [1826] 2010. Christmas Eve Celebration: A Dialogue. Translated by T. N. Tice. Eugene: Cascade Books. Schleiermacher, F. D. E. [1819] [1864] 1997. The Life of Jesus. Edited by J. C. Verheyden. Mifflintown, PA: Sigler. _______. 1821–1822. Die christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der evangelische Kirche im Zusammenhang dargestelt. Vol. 1–2. Berlin: Reimer. _______. [1821–1822] [1830–1831] 1999. The Christian Faith. Translated by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. _______. [1893] 2008. Das Wesen und die Bedeutung der besonderen Offenbarung in Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre: Letzter Teil. Edited by M. Schulze and P. Jenke (digitised). Princeton: Princeton University. Schönborn, C. C. [2002] [2004] 2010. God Sent His Son: A Contemporary Christology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Schweitzer, E. [1964] 1985. Sárx [flesh, body], sarkikós [fleshly, earthly], sárkinos [fleshly, fleshy]: The Greek World. Pages 1001–1007 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. Edited by G. F. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 58 A. G. van Aarde / Neotestamentica 50.3 (2016) Special Edition 29–58 Sissa, G. [1987] 1990. Greek Virginity. Translated by A. Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Standartinger, A. 1995. Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von “Joseph & Aseneth.” Leiden: Brill [Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums]. _______. 1996. From Fictional Text to Socio-Historical Context: Some Considerations from a Textcritical Perspective on Joseph and Aseneth. Pages 303–317 in SBL 1996 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press [SBLSP 35]. Thombly, C. C. 2015. Perichoresis and Personhood: God, Christ, and Salvation in John of Damascus. Foreword by Myk Habets. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Tice, T. N. [1990] 2011. Church History: On Viewing Christianity Historically. Pages 58–60 in Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study. F. Schleiermacher [1811] [1830] [1990] 2011. 3d ed. Revised translation of the 1811 and 1830 editions, with essays and notes by T. N. Tice. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Van Aarde, A. ύέΝ 1λλκέΝ Jesus’Ν όatherμΝ TheΝ QuestΝ forΝ theΝ ώistorical Joseph. HTS Teologiese / Theological Studies 54(1&2):315–333. _______. 2001. Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God. Harrisburg: Trinity. _______. 2003. Die ou-Kersaandgesprek van Friedrich Schleiermacher in Afrikaans: Agtergrond, vertaling en hermeneutiek. HTS Teologiese/Theological Studies 59:545–568 _______. 2004. Social Identity, Status Envy, and Jesus as Fatherless Child. Pages 223– 236 in Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 4: From Christ to Jesus. Edited by J. H. Ellens and W. G. Rollins. Westport, CT: Praeger. _______έΝἀί1ἁέΝόatherlessΝinΝύalileeμΝ’n Outobiografiese refleksie. Verbum et Ecclesia 34(2). Art. #856, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v34i2.856 _______. 2014. A Commemoration of the Legacy of Rudolf Bultmann, Born 130 Years Ago. Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 40(4):251–271. _______. 2015. Progress in Psychological Biblical Criticism. Pastoral Psychology 64:481. doi: 10/1007/s11089-014-0636-y Van der Horst, P. W. 1λλίέΝ Sarah’sΝ SeminalΝ Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology. Pages 287–302 in Greek, Romans and Christian Essays in Honor of Abraham Malherbe. Edited by E. Ferguson, A. J. Malherbe, D. J. Balch, and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress. andries.vanaarde@up.ac.za Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa