Re: Matthew's Infancy account
- Stephen wrote:
"The risk of scandal in the infancy accounts is so unnecessary
that I'm having difficulty understanding why one, much less two
independent evangelists, would invent it. After all, lemonade
is good evidence of the lemon.
Even if you explanation helps in understanding how lightning could
strike once, it does not explain, however, why two independent
evangelists would coincidentally risk branding their savior as a
mamzer. Back to my previous point, this means that we cannot
avoid the issue of some direct or indirect intertextuality in
these infancy accounts."
Good point, Stephen. I'm far from convinced that the issue of bastardy can be so easily swept away as Gordon would, even at the time he stipulates. Bastardy was a problem to Gentiles as well as Jews. But I'm not convinced about the "intertextuality" bit either. This evidence could point to a knowledge that there *was* something "dodgy" about Jesus' death (otherwise why Matthew's emphasis in the genealogies on ladies of doubtful repute)which the church could not cover up. This is what Raymond Brown argues very persuasively in "Birth of the Messiah".
JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
Penistone, Sheffield UK