Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Matthew's Infancy account

Expand Messages
  • John E Staton
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , May 27, 2006
      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".

      Best Wishes

      JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)

      Penistone, Sheffield UK

      www.christianreflection.org.uk
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.